Sovreign Ethno-States vs. the New World Order

[Thomas777]

Why is the former preferable to the latter? Why is it important to support the maintenance and preservation of nation-states based upon linear natality?



Discuss please.

[Jimbo Gomez]

Did you ever see a wigger trying to be Tupac Shakur in Brussels? If you ever did, you know the answer to that question.

[Thomas777]

Did you ever see a wigger trying to be Tupac Shakur in Brussels? If you ever did, you know the answer to that question.

I understand, Charles...but I was hoping we could flesh out a cohesive, philisophical/ideological objection to the New World Order in this thread.

[Fade the Butcher]

Why is the former preferable to the latter? Why is it important to support the maintenance and preservation of nation-states based upon linear natality? Discuss please.The sovereign nation-state is preferable to the cosmopolitan open society because the former is more than a contractual association of autonomous individuals pursuing material gain. It is a community of people who coexist together throughout history. The citizens of a cosmpolitan state are vicious, licentious, and acquisitive. It makes me sick to see them at fast food restaurants feeding like animals in their anonymity. Diane Alden had a really good article about this recently.

The New GOP Betrays America (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/8/10/201400.shtml).

"At the heart of the New GOP belief system is a post-Cold War philosophy wherein borders are meaningless, and trade and commerce are the religion that replaced Christianity. The end game for both trade treaties and unrestricted migration from most of the Third World, particularly Mexico and Central America, is to further the day they will claim a regional trading state where citizenship will mean zip.

Your place in the world will be almost totally economic and utilitarian. America will evolve from a constitutional republic to a commercial republic, where trade and commerce are the reason we exist, placing them above all else."

[jcs]

It is a community of people who coexist together throughout history.
Correct. A global state is either devoid of all community-feeling, or creates pseudo-community-feelings, 'simulacra.' Human psychology doesn't really function well on the global level, as we have evolved the ability to care such that we can care for those around us. A global state is meaningless; nations are more meaningful, but local communities should always come first.
All that is achieved by creating large, soulless societies is a feeling of helplessness and/or uselessness amongst the populace.

[Kodos]

The sovereign nation-state is preferable to the cosmopolitan open society because the former is more than a contractual association of autonomous individuals pursuing material gain.

A "global democracy" will be nothing of the kind. The few productive people will be robbed blind even more then they already are.

[raven]

To be honest I believe we are pretty much doomed in North America (and western Europe is close to the same boat). I am pretty much giving up caring because its inevitable. :rofl:

[Thomas777]

To be honest I believe we are pretty much doomed in North America (and western Europe is close to the same boat). I am pretty much giving up caring because its inevitable. :rofl:
Pessimism is not an admirable trait of character.

[jcs]

To be honest I believe we are pretty much doomed in North America (and western Europe is close to the same boat). I am pretty much giving up caring because its inevitable.
The ultimate test of conviction: assume that you will fail. Can you still stand for what is right in the face of inevitable failure? Is your conviction strong enough to withstand this?
If not, you don't value your values at all.

[Péter]

The ultimate test of conviction: assume that you will fail. Can you still stand for what is right in the face of inevitable failure? Is your conviction strong enough to withstand this?
If not, you don't value your values at all.

Now there's a good boy who read his Madách.

LOL I KNOW YOU HATE ME FOR THIS :p

[Jonathan]

The ultimate test of conviction: assume that you will fail. Can you still stand for what is right in the face of inevitable failure? Is your conviction strong enough to withstand this?
If not, you don't value your values at all.

There was a article posted up on the Phora before about people who got involved in a movement, not because they necessarily wanted to see it succeed, but because it satisfied their ego to know that they were "involved in the struggle". Can anyone remember that article?

[Jimbo Gomez]

Well, as everyone here knowns, I'm not the philosophical type, but here are my 2 cents:

People are social creatures. Not all of our identity is genetically programmed in us (the old nature-nurture thing). The nurtured part comes from 2 sources: family and 'others', others being every outside influence from friends, schools, culture and what not. This 'others' of course influenced the family too, and is different wherever you go. In other words, that 'others', which everyone sees is a reference to the local culture of the individual, is more than a random factor which produces aesthetically appealing customs and interesting curiosities, it is an integral part of the identity of every single person on the planet. The ethno-states were and still are the manifesations of the cultural identity of local groups of people. As such, they are the prime defenders of this culture.

Apart from the rare lunatic, virtually everyone agrees that humans are the highest and most complex lifeform on the planet, even the NWO folks will agree there. It is only logical that you can only maintain this point of view if you value that what makes people so complex and high, namely the countless different cultural influences in everyone's identity. To exchange those with the lowest common denominator, as the NWO-crowd (unwillingly???) does would impoverish that rich influence to the point of non-existence.

In other words, the NWO-crowd which thinks making all people on the planet is uniform are violating that what makes those people human in the first place, their cultural identity.

[Felix the Cat]

A more interesting question is how to keep the leaders of a sovereign ethnostate from gradually, over time, adopting aristocratic and cosmopolitian values