is the current peace in the EU not a result of the ideological destruction of its member states?

The EU is lucky if it lasts another 20 years

and what about traditions like, idk, binding hats and shirts from plant fabric and dancing in the flowers

btw whether the eu lasts is not the question

I don’t think that all the member states have destroyed their identities yet

Like you can have peace without having a giant bureaucracy over all of your countries

Idk if I’m explaining myself right

The EU is also creating nationalism by bringing in middle eastern migrants who create trouble and by being generally inept

As for traditions I was talking was mostly like the old religious laws etc that they followed back then but now we find that there’s a scientific reason for it like how homosexual intercourse was banned by the Abrahamic religions but they didn’t have an intuitive reason for it

Now we know all the disadvantages of homosexuality in general

Not all traditions are like this

But a number of them have a certain truth to it

Or like another one is that you should marry a virgin now we know that the more sexual partners a woman had before marriage the more likely she is to divorce

@Fighting Gold idk if I explained my views well

you did but theyre not what i was inquiring about

Ok

On the nationalism question:
-you can’t destroy nationalism because it is natural to be nationalistic because you need to support your own group over others to make sure your genes survive so in short it’s foolish to try to destroy nationalism because it can’t ever be destroyed
-the USSR tried to destroy nationalism of its member groups but they still got into a number of conflicts and funded and allied with a number of groups that were at war
-in the EU they are trying to destroy nationalism to prevent war but many of the member stated have been involved in conflicts while in the EU with a number getting involved with the middle eastern conflicts

Did that do a better job with the nationalist question

thats more like it

Ok good

but i disagree about the feasability of destroying nationalism, in germany for example 90 percent of votes are given to not nationalistic parties. you can largely dictate opinions to the populus

That’s just because Germany has been guilted and traumatized by the Second World War and also have been propagandize about their part of the war and I would also tie it in with dr Dutton and dr woodley’s theory of spiteful mutants who support things that aren’t ethnocentric

but isnt france very similar

theyre very progressive

blacks are just as french as the natives, etc

I’d say with France that’s were it’s more of the spiteful mutant idea comes in rather than straight up ww2 propaganda although they are also under propaganda as well. I mean Mao’s government in China made an attempt to destroy Chinese culture and identity and look at them now they are virtually a fascist state

if mao wanted to destroy chinese nationalism he used the wrong strategy.
Can you elaborate the spiteful mutant thing? are the french mutants?

War or empire is the natural state of man
It's true the nation state is kind of artificial but the natural thing isn't what we're doing right now

Traditions are usually based on underlying truths

Why ban sodomy? Because it has consequences someone wouldn't understand without germ theory and whatnot

The spiteful mutant theory is the theory that because humans have been under less Darwinian stress it has allowed people to exist who in the past would have died off

Not to mention they distinguish people from one another or tie them together

There could not be Pax Romana without Roman traditions, culture and peculiarities

So like for example because of modern medicine now less people died at birth in the past infant mortality would have been at about 50% but now it is very low at like 1% iirc and the general likelihood of dying before you get older was also higher thus those people were also weeded out of the population in the past people were more nationalist and religious whereas today because of the lack of Darwinian selection there is much more openness to foreign groups, more support for atheism or a lack of religion in general and thus many of the people who would have died if they were alive in the past are alive today and promote things that aren’t evolutionary beneficial

I hope I explained that well

There's still selection, just for r type behaviour

People who have a lot of children in a setting of abundance will become dominant over time

Questionis when we'll return to Malthusian conditions which are less forgiving

@Fighting Gold Globalism's aim is a global neo-liberal tyranny. That's worse than occasional wars. Besides, major wars like WWII are impossible now due to nuclear weapons. The trade off is worse. Also, I agree with Jonathan Bowden that multiculturalism has only moved the conflicts from being between nations to within nations. So interstate wars are less likely, but civil wars are far more likely.

Tradition is life affirming for people. It provides them with a higher meaning. The nation is part of that. It creates a more fulfilling life. Plus, tradition has proven a very effective way of running society. It might be motivated by something irrational, but it does yield empirically good results.

But most people that make these arguments are classic liberals of the Mill variety. They too have an irrational belief in a tradition of egalitarianism (as I described in my new video). It's just as religious as any other belief. The difference is that rather than truth, goodness, and beauty, liberalism creates nihilism, atomization, and ugliness.

I acknowledge that both liberalism and neo-reaction required irrational religiosity. The difference is that man's nature isn't liberal. Reactionary rule is more in line with the natural order and creates a more fulfilling life for people.

@Endeavour Appeal to tradition is often thrown in the category of a logical fallacy, or at least I’ve been told this in academia. Would explaining that tradition yields good results in the long run be a good way of advocating for it?

@ItzMidrex The question should be, does it work? If tradition works than it should be used. That's usually just a disingenuous way to discredit an argument without actually proving it wrong.