I'm Touring The United States! Starting in June, I'm conducting private events in 23 American cities. Click here for full details.

Post Reply 
Is the Nation-State a Problem?
Author Message
mr_ks Offline
Sparrow

Posts: 94
Joined: Jun 2019
Reputation: 0
Post: #1
Is the Nation-State a Problem?
The number of nation states has remained steady over the last 100 years or while the population has exploded and continues to do so. At the same time, nation states have become ever more powerful.

So, the way I see it today, the biggest threat to us, free men, is an overly powerful nation state and all large, 'elite' institutions (media, finance, fashion etc) that make decisions at a similar level to the nation state.

It is clear that the direction we are heading will only make things worse.

It is not natural for democracy to work in these circumstance, very large and centralised units move too slowly and become a vehicle for the social and economic dominance of the many by the few. In England, for instance, this elite would be the Eton educated UMC and their Jewish associates.

I have noticed that Nationalism, most often misplaced, and often taken as a proxy for Race or Cultural identities is the main weapon by which the Nation state gains it's psychologically hold over it's citizens. Most people identify too closely with their nation. Though, as this is a global phenomenon that affects all peoples, of all races, religions, economic strategies etc we rarely see this being questioned, as it seems the most natural thing to most people.

It is important to remember, that what is often cited the home of Democracy, Athens, was actually a city state with far fewer inhabitants that cities of today. Perhaps more a town-state. Now classical Greece had many different city-states, each with their own independant governance structure, but will loosely, sharing a common idea of Hellenic Greece due to shared history, language, myths and customs.

It makes sense for a Nation state to have borders and certain uniform laws possibly. But modern nation states do not make sense as it is inefficient to attempt to force fit a monoculture over such large populations.

And this is the main problem. The nation-state is supposed to somehow house all of a persons cultural identity. But in a necessarily multicultural and globalised world, it is impossible for one state to satisfy the contradicting cultural identities of its many citizens. Conflict is inevitable.

Therefore, is a world of city-states within nations, where greater power is devolved to the smaller states, the future of the West?
10-02-2019 07:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like mr_ks's post:
Emperor Constantine, BlueMark
Emperor Constantine Offline
Sparrow

Posts: 78
Joined: May 2019
Reputation: 0
Post: #2
RE: Is the Nation-State a Problem?
Jack Donovan has written extensively about this. It was the main subject of Becoming a Barbarian. Despite the cheesy title, the book was about the struggle between tribalism and more inclusive identities like globalism and nationalism.

Basically, humans are incapable of caring equally about everyone, and we need to belong to a tribe - a relatively small group of people who live near us and share our values, who we can mutually rely on for support.

Although I don't think Jack Donovan saw a need for any kind of official government status for a tribe, I can definitely see the appeal of a city-state system. As an Alaskan, it bothers me that city-dwellers from lower 48 are able to elect officials who make policy that I have to follow. Someone from a place like San Francisco has absolutely no clue what life is like here: I don't want to associate with them, much less have them be able to affect my day to day life. Nor should I be able to impose my will on their way of life.

But what's a city-state going to do in a war against a large nation?
10-02-2019 07:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 3 users Like Emperor Constantine's post:
mr_ks, Renzy, Solitaire
Simeon_Strangelight Offline
Hawk
*******
Gold Member

Posts: 18,269
Joined: Feb 2014
Reputation: 216
Post: #3
RE: Is the Nation-State a Problem?
There is nothing wrong with nation-states. The ones that will survive by 2200 will be China, Japan, South Korea, Israel and a few others which are dominated by one ethnicity. Nation comes from a common ancestry and shared culture. If you don't have that and have different people living in your state, then it becomes nto a nation, but a nebolous civ-nat-state like Brazil that will remain forever disfunctional. The West should have never agreed to mass migration beyond a tiny amount - it would have survived for another 1000 years.

And in 3000 years you will see one ethnicity dominate their place. A nation can sometimes mean being a minority as in some gulf states. Those Arabs can be 15% of the people in the nation and some Greek states in the past were the same. But - THE MOST IMPORTANT PART IS that those 15% have full power and control over everything and the other 85% can be kicked out at any time even if they are there for generations. The West should have separated between citizens and non-citizens or be super-restrictive. China and Japan does this too with citizenships being given mainly to ethnic Chinese or Japanese. You can be born in the US and your family can be living in the US for 130 years, but if you move to China then as an ethnic Chinese man you can become a Chinese citizen again.

Sure nationhood was abused as well since we are even closer in our tribal allegiences, but it's similar and stable enough.
10-03-2019 10:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 6 users Like Simeon_Strangelight's post:
Pinkman, amity, MichaelWitcoff, JiggyLordJr, Polniy_Sostav, NoMoreTO
Oberrheiner Offline
Kingfisher
***

Posts: 638
Joined: Dec 2018
Reputation: 5
Post: #4
RE: Is the Nation-State a Problem?
(10-03-2019 10:10 AM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  There is nothing wrong with nation-states.

Not with the concept but with many of them, of course there is.

Germany with balls would have 0 non-europeans and look like this :

[Image: Holy_Roman_Empire_at_its_territorial_ape...sus%29.svg]
10-03-2019 02:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like Oberrheiner's post:
BBinger, kruger41
Yeah Right Offline
Pigeon

Posts: 33
Joined: Dec 2016
Reputation: 0
Post: #5
RE: Is the Nation-State a Problem?
Something that I seriously wondered was this. In history Germany became very powerful after Otto von Bismark united the nation -- followed by the later establishment (and collapse) of the 2nd reich -- then succeeded by the third reich after Hitler ruled the nation and it's loss after the second world war.

After NATO was established the founding secretary general once said "the goal of NATO is to keep the American in, the Soviets out, and the Germans down."

Today Germany is the largest economy in Europe and they basically control the EU and ECB.

Does this seriously mean that aside from the times they were taken down, Germany could easily be one of the richest and most powerful nations on Earth? Is Germany a case study of what happens after the elite destroy a top notch country and because of various factors they're still around but directly controlled by the western elite?
10-04-2019 04:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
ilostabet Offline
Kingfisher
***

Posts: 623
Joined: Jun 2017
Reputation: 19
Post: #6
RE: Is the Nation-State a Problem?
Yes.

Don't call it a grave, it's the future you chose.
10-04-2019 04:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like ilostabet's post:
Kid Twist, Bienvenuto
Bienvenuto Offline
Pelican
****
Gold Member

Posts: 1,081
Joined: Mar 2017
Reputation: 24
Post: #7
RE: Is the Nation-State a Problem?
(10-04-2019 04:06 PM)Yeah Right Wrote:  Something that I seriously wondered was this. In history Germany became very powerful after Otto von Bismark united the nation -- followed by the later establishment (and collapse) of the 2nd reich -- then succeeded by the third reich after Hitler ruled the nation and it's loss after the second world war.

After NATO was established the founding secretary general once said "the goal of NATO is to keep the American in, the Soviets out, and the Germans down."

Today Germany is the largest economy in Europe and they basically control the EU and ECB.

Does this seriously mean that aside from the times they were taken down, Germany could easily be one of the richest and most powerful nations on Earth? Is Germany a case study of what happens after the elite destroy a top notch country and because of various factors they're still around but directly controlled by the western elite?

Its in the Germans nature to take over and dominate.

But, the problem is, the Germans are great at tactics, terrible at strategy.

its like if you put them in prison they will form a prisoners' committee and come to you with all these cost-saving and efficiency measures, pointing out the holes in the fence, the blindsides of the guard tower or the gaps in the guard rota..
you wanna put them in charge of their own security, perhaps - but not in charge of the whole prison..
They will declare war on all other prisons and everyone else long before they are ready to actually wage it.

They started WWI without a strong enough Navy and doomed their people to the poverty and humiliation of defeat. the battle of Dogger Bank they outperformed the British by a mile but they still remained 'jailed' -and starving.

Then they started WWII without a strong enough Navy and doomed their country to firestorm and destruction. Their corporals were suicidally brave and they had probably the best land army of recent history, if not all time.
But if someone wants to tell me that Hitler was a good Commander in Chief then Im all ears, because the guy was a strategic fool..

Now they have hegemony in Europe ..but everyone hates them.. they are destroying Europe (AGAIN) with their SJW bullshit, the EU is teetering and about to fall, complete with their beloved Euro.

Hence the quote attributed to Churchill: "The Germans are okay.. you just have to bomb them every 50 years"
(apparently he never said it)

I just think that they've got the wrong elites in charge of them at the moment. Given the right leadership a "Greater Germany" could be a force for good and stability whilst it accidentally ends up dominating much of the modern world.
10-05-2019 01:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
66Scorpio Offline
Woodpecker
**

Posts: 455
Joined: Aug 2015
Reputation: 2
Post: #8
RE: Is the Nation-State a Problem?
TL;DR:

Canada and the USA (in no particular order) are probably the best example of nation states.

The strength of European countries – homogeneity and ethnic, language and historical nationalism – has eroded in the era of mass third world immigration.

The EU is falling apart.

The constitutional structures of the USA and Canada (although different) were designed to deal with geographic and demographic expansion in a way that the Old World was not prepared for.

The challenge for America (and Canada in a different context) is to resist “Democrat” changes to their constitutional order as well as addressing the issue of judicial supremacy (and both issues are connected).


To Follow:
a) City States vs. . . .STATES! (or provinces).
b) China’s Model and why we should Fear It.

Not all nation states can be looked at in the same light. Canada and the USA (and perhaps Australia, but I don't know as much about the politics and government) are probably the best examples of modern nation states due to their history and constitutional structure.

The strength of European countries was their homogeneity and a form of nationalism based on ethnicity, language and a common history. That is all losing steam with the onset of mass, third world immigration. The European Union is on its way to being a failed experiment given the Brexit debacle and with Germany - to a lesser extent France - financially bailing out other nominally sovereign nation states who are given enough rope to hang themselves up to that point.

The constitutions of the USA and Canada were established roughly 250 and 150 years ago, respectively, with the purpose of a) uniting a number of regions with differing interests and sensibilities b) creating a blueprint for additional regions (states or provinces) to enter the federation and c) a balance between federal and local powers. (The European Parliament has only been holding elections for 40 years.) Canada and America have always been nations of immigrants whereas that was something of a sideshow in Europe until relatively recently.

America's problems stem largely due to the progressive deviation (no pun intended) from the Constitution as written and understood at its inception. As a for instance, Canada's constitution gives all residual powers - those not specifically enumerated - to the federal government while the US constitution gives residual powers to the states or the people. However, the US federal government accounts for 60% of all government spending with the remaining 40% being the state governments; in Canada the reverse is true. That can largely be attributed to differences in defense spending and health care but that imbalance will only worsen given that "medicare for all" is largely a federal initiative in the USA rather than state/provincial as dictated by Canada's constitution (maintenance of "hospitals" has been interpreted as such).

As the 2020 Democrat presidential primary is underway there is a lot more unravelling. Abandoning the electoral college and having open borders combined with amnesty and whatever else gives up on the intrinsic regional differences of an otherwise united people to play to global and cosmopolitan undercurrents regarding race and class (or rather, economic accomplishment) and now climate nonsense – which in many ways runs at cross purposes to the former.

The real challenge for America, or any constitutional, federal nation is dealing with what has become de facto judicial supremacy. Who needs a (lower house) legislature when the executive nominates and the senate rubber stamps some humpty dumpty with a law degree who can re-interpret the constitution to mean whatever they want? Americans can be forgiven for passing 10 well-intentioned amendments (AKA “This Bill of Rights”) in 1791 only to see them become political footballs – along with, for instance, the 14th Amendment – (much) later on. Canadians have no such excuse. The changes to British North America Act to become the Constitution Act are a dumpster fire of multiculturalism and group rights (I would say “minority” but women are 51% of the population). The Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn’t just throw fuel on the dumpster fire but it is more like thermite dust.

I could go on at length but the point taken here is the politicization of the judiciary without sufficient legislative oversight (ie. by elected people. . remember them, and the electorate?) It took SCOTUS over a hundred years to find emanations from the penumbra to OK abortion based on the 14th Amendment but the SCC only 6 years to toss out all laws based on “security of the person”.

(I will pause to say that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was, IMHO, a specific attempt to “correct” the Bill of Rights, and do it “properly”: no protection of property, no right to self defense or to bear arms, an equality provision that basically says that some are more equal than others and with an open-ended provision to add to the special classes – this was gay rights, an everybody knew it.)

This is just getting too long so I topped the post with a TL;DL
10-05-2019 08:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
mr_ks Offline
Sparrow

Posts: 94
Joined: Jun 2019
Reputation: 0
Post: #9
RE: Is the Nation-State a Problem?
(10-02-2019 07:44 PM)Emperor Constantine Wrote:  But what's a city-state going to do in a war against a large nation?

This is an important point. Ofcourse city-states can be part of a larger Nation State which holds the military power and foreign relations.

More importantly, do we really see any appetite from THE PEOPLE for any kind of war between countries. The easy access to media with the internet means people are less likely to buy to Nationalistic propaganda to make war for the interests of the elite. Also, symmetrical warfare is feared by everyone due to the ability to cause mass destruction with nuclear weapons and such.

War was a big reason for the formation of the nation state. However, the modern world does not desire war, so the hold of the centralised state over it's population will wane over time.

Nation states and Nationalism will only weaken in the coming decades, as people begin learning for themselves what is right and what is wrong.

Why should the British government outlaw Cannabis use?
Why cannot a sick elderly person commit Euthanasia?
Why does a McDonalds have to exist in every town. What if 50,000 people want to live in a MCDonalds free town, or a carfree town? Can the Nation-state provide? I dont think so.

The Nation state is just a block, one size fits all, "we will dictate from the top" structure that is now going to become an increasing problem as large, centralised, political, beaurocratic structures fail to keep up with a fast changing world.
(This post was last modified: 10-05-2019 09:07 AM by mr_ks.)
10-05-2019 09:04 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes mr_ks's post:
kruger41
CorvusGuardXIX Offline
Pigeon

Posts: 8
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation: 0
Post: #10
RE: Is the Nation-State a Problem?
Read The Virtues of Nationalism by Yokam Hazony
10-06-2019 11:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Rotten Offline
Robin
*

Posts: 155
Joined: Dec 2016
Reputation: 2
Post: #11
RE: Is the Nation-State a Problem?
Diversity plus proximity equals war.

Nation states equal peace, by eliminating the diversity plus proximity equation. Of course, over time, nation states do grow at different rates and then engage in border conflicts, but this is still preferred to chaotic free for alls.

Anyways, talking about nation-states makes little sense in 2019, unless you are talking about Israel, China, or Japan. Everywhere else, the nation concept is being eroded by propaganda and/or open borders.
10-07-2019 09:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like Rotten's post:
Simeon_Strangelight, kruger41
mr_ks Offline
Sparrow

Posts: 94
Joined: Jun 2019
Reputation: 0
Post: #12
RE: Is the Nation-State a Problem?
Open borders like in the US and UK exist due to relationships between nation-states and national/multinational corporations.

Nation-states concentrate too much power in one place, especially in the modern world. The average guy is too far away from this concentration of power and thus is not able to compete with National Corporate Capitalism for influence over the government.

Nation States are now a vehicle for Corporate Capitalism in the West.

No reason why devolution and greater local independance will result in more open borders, that doesnt even make sense on any level.

Nation states are not being eroded. They are a bedrock for modern day Capitalism, Media and Culture. These things all use the homogenity of the Nation state to assert themselves over large populations where smaller, more locally connected organisations cannot compete.

People buy crap and follow crap culture because they believe the ad that is shown all over the country is equally valid for them as the guy living in another city. Nationalism is simply economic, social and cultural indoctrination to serve the purposes to the wealthy few.
10-07-2019 10:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
ilostabet Offline
Kingfisher
***

Posts: 623
Joined: Jun 2017
Reputation: 19
Post: #13
RE: Is the Nation-State a Problem?
the idea that a nation requires a state or can be contained in one is historically and philosophically inaccurate and detrimental (to the nation). the idea of a nation-state is just another modern aberration. so many posts on the jq thread and yet this isn't clear.

Don't call it a grave, it's the future you chose.
10-07-2019 03:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
NoMoreTO Offline
Kingfisher
***

Posts: 769
Joined: Jan 2018
Reputation: 12
Post: #14
RE: Is the Nation-State a Problem?
Large Nation States suck. There is too much federal control, and this seems to be ever increasing.

The Papal States, The holy Roman Empire, Pre Civil war US seem like the ideal.

These are basically small independent states which could be round up and united in case of war, and were able to trade well within their boundaries.

“Where the danger is, so grows the saving element.” ~ German poet Hoelderlin
10-08-2019 12:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 3 users Like NoMoreTO's post:
Leonard D Neubache, mr_ks, kruger41
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Can a race, religion, nation or political structure be inclusive AND survivable? Leonard D Neubache 122 23,646 03-19-2018 09:19 PM
Last Post: Paracelsus
  Good riddance to the European nation state? mensch 110 32,672 10-30-2017 03:13 PM
Last Post: budoslavic
  A Separate Nation for Car Haters puckerman 43 17,868 09-18-2016 10:40 PM
Last Post: Blaster

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | RooshV.com | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication