go ahead

oh someone responded

thought this was a dead server

okay

Nationalism is bourgeousie and is quasi-post-enlightenment and modernist and is not in congruence with patriotism and since history nationalism has not existed because a society has always consisted of a fatherland, ethnos, nation, sophia and community

a nation-state is consisted of wealth and a fabrication of nation

gonna go take a piss right quick, hope you respond

Sorry, Fatherland, Ethnos, Nation, Sophia, Rex and Community

DRUMPF IS FINISHED

The only reason the "nation-state" didn't exist before the post-enlightenment was that society hadn't modernized at a level to allow a civic identity to even develop beyond the regional level.

The national identity was always tied into the monarch or religion.

The latter of which was infinitely more important than national identity before the 19th century, even between countries like England and France that already had a proto-national identity.

And it's silly to suggest that nationalism didn't exist before that.

For example Rome, that did have a civic identity (although it didn't extend much outside of Italy) or Greek city-states which had their own localized identities and considered themselves as diverse as early modern Europe.

@aymem Your move virgin

Okay my move, incel

@εïз irma εïз religion is more important bc it's conceptual creative origin rather than mere static measure

@aymem It's a new server, so it's a little slow at times, but in my opinion it's not dead

Where did river go?

messages in general

for today

Religion can be as important as national identity depending on the respective country, but before modern informational technology (19th century) language was not standardized and this was almost impossible.

Duh to develop religious conversation

It was necessary

I don't think resorgimento nationalism was religious in nature.

>The only reason the "nation-state" didn't exist before the post-enlightenment was that society hadn't modernized at a level to allow a civic identity to even develop beyond the regional level.

First you're going to need to define modernisation and by what you mean.

And yes I would agree that society wasn't able to reach the level to allow "civic" (define this) identity to develop beyond small regional lines, but I don't think this is an argument against what i'm saying moreso of an explanation of something which is true and natural

btw let me finish

>The national identity was always tied into the monarch or religion.

Yes. I agree

Just bc there is a time gap doesn't indicate harm also @εïз irma εïз
...

Everybody gets paradise is my definition for the modernism I believe is

>The latter of which was infinitely more important than national identity before the 19th century, even between countries like England and France that already had a proto-national identity

Yes, there was always an importance, a huge one in fact, however this was at a time when these nation-states who were led also by religion began realising how much an adverse effect religion had on their control which slowly began creating the idea of "secularism" much like how you secularise the yolk of an egg, the center, the same occurred with religion and nation-states

Romantic (and by extension risorgimento) nationalism of the 19th century was inherently secular.

^ yup

It was only reactionary movements such as that in France that was religious.

>And it's silly to suggest that nationalism didn't exist before that.

Before when fam?

Before the 19th century.

Someone in TRC tried to argue that with me once

The proliferation of the press, transportation technology (the train), and the telegraph all allowed language to become standardized.

You both agree with me. Let's not flog this section too much

That it didn't truly exist until the French Revolution gave it a definition