Message from @Arthur Konrad
Discord ID: 432685774706704394
ALl these people had their names, and still have them even despite all repression - They were called Wu, Manchu, Yue, Tibetans, or whatever else they were
Japan was pretty much founded on the exact same principle, and different peoples and clans in Japan all had their name, and constituted a single Japanese race
Newsflash ethnonationalists: Japan means land of the rising sun, and Japanese is merely a denonym
In the same way "Deutsche" means "people who speak the language of the folk" and German is merely an exonym for the "Deutsche" people
The Great German Empire, and all following iterations of it, were more or less also well - *Empires* and included not only "Deutsche" people, but also other Germanic peoples, such as Valoons, Flandrians, Dutch, Swiss, Lombardians, and others
The reason these dimwits today so fancy China is probably because they are on the same intellectual level as these Chinese cronies in their burning desire to make everything on this sorry planet a "nation" - ONE UNDER GOD presumed !
To have nations 1.0, one must beforehand destroy everything that truly is *natio*, that truly is of *birth*, authentic and non-fabricated
Does the humor of your position elude you? Think of it: You made Negroes into a nation! I rest my case!
@Arthur Konrad I THINK MOST CONFUSE NATION-STATES WITH NATIONS, YES
THEY CANNOT THINK OUTSIDE THE PARADIGM OF GOVERNMENT
IT IS AMAZING TO SEE HOW MODERNIZED THEY HAVE BECOME
THE SOLUTION IS TO ARTICULATE THIS CLEARLY THROUGH LINK BETWEEN GENETICS, CULTURE, AND TRIBAL IDENTITY
PAN-NATIONALISM IS GOOD; RACIAL NATIONALISM IS CONFUSED
NATIONALISM WAS NEVER RACIAL, ONLY ETHNIC
THERE IS A BIT OF AN EXCEPTION FOR SIMILAR TRIBES THAT LIKE TO COEXIST, AS IN THE GERMANS AND THE U.K. (TO A DEGREE... NO IRISH!)
racial nationalism sounds even less sane than the concept of "ethno-nationalism as an ideology"
I do not know what is so difficult to comprehend about the simple principle of subsidiarity
Race is a widder and more *complex* concept than nation
Racial concept has more implications, that is, it *implies* more meanings, and quite incidentally, is *more exclusive* but also more elusive
The European amazement that there are "1.2 billion Chinese". "oh moofuggah, how did onen ation manage to multiply to such a number?!!?!"
Well, simply by the virtue of the fact that *many nations got included in the Chinese STATE by the virtue of its expansion*
The exact same principle led to formation of other entities, such as certain European nation-states as well. And in fact, that is no problem whatsoever in itself on the plane of mere matter-of-fact state
It becomes a problem though when this matter-of-fact state is converted into ideology *and then preached as a moral paradigm of the universe, or worse, as something GOOD IN ITSELF, or yet even worse, AS SOMETHING THAT PRODUCES GOOD RESULTS*
"watch, as a European spotted in the wild is in awe and amazement at the sight of a large state formation"
The concept of a
Nation hasn't any use
Before the 19th
Century and involved
Bringing together disparate
Ancestral dynasties which
Are called races and yet
These familial lines had
Historically very little
Opposition to unification of
Diverse regional races or
Intermixing royal blood to
Secure material possessions
Frankly, conservatism is,
unbearably,
myopic.
"NATION" MEANS TRIBE
IT SHOWS UP IN TRANSLATION LONG BEFORE THE 19TH CENTURY
BOTH INTERESTING
why?
There is no purpose in "denialism" concerning nations. You cannot prevent anybody to consider himself allied to a national body, in fact, it is pretty much a mundane task alltogether. We speak about political, philosophical and *historical-materialist principles*. Much in the same way that "ethno-nationalists" insist that nation is only organic, they also have to realize that formations larger than a "tribal" state are also perfectly organic. Remember this core principle - *states expand faster than nations and other groups*
Furthermore, all large state formations tend to, quite opposite of what ethno-nationalists claim, to *allow smaller groups to live in more or less self-determined communities*. The problem is, as Nietzsche has quite correctly observed, that Europeans, having once lost their large state formations, like Holy Roman Empire, Roman Empire, Frankish Empire, etc, started to proclaim their lacking of such formations into a virtue, and in the same fashion, declare such large state formations as inherently immoral
All large state formations were therefore a prior declared as deficient *in principle*. Naturally, the only remaining large state formation in Europe, Russian Empire, was a chief scare in Europe on that account alone. Needless to say, it was the only state that acted in a military and expansionist fashion *unapologetically* and chose as its chief target the Ottoman Empire, that other European powers always approached with consideration.
Again, Nietzsche has *once more* correctly pointed out - large state formations are nothing but manifestations of the vital principle *that simply has to express itself in conquest*. If it does not, decadence and decay ensues, manifested in *civilian* mentality and social "struggles". He lamented the fact that The West did not have such a state *in order for Europe to start expanding outside its geographic borders* and he saw Russian Empire as the only state in Europe in his time to be seen in favourable light.
SECOND FRONT OPENS: http://www.deathmetal.org/news/soymetal-dies-as-true-metal-rises/