Jump to content

Should the UK leave the EU?


Recommended Posts

 

No, different people and cultures emerge organically and express themselves differently through languages, art and traditions, hierarchies of what is sacred and form societies based on such. That is reality and should be accepted as such. If you have no vested interest in preserving, or on the contrary, actively celebrating the destruction of such with the creation of artifical constructs like the EU

The EU's existence came about as organically as any other political institution, nation-states included.

By the looks of it, this discussion is starting now to sound way too personal for me to continue as you seem to have your own demons named 'conservative' to fight with. I leave you to it to find out yourself.

Lol, please. You've supported an obviously controversial position and you don't even have the balls to defend it?

 

 

The common market, yes. EU in its current form, no. It's an abomination based in abstract ideas instead of voluntary cooperation.

 

With such colorful language and accusations thrown all over the place, i cannot help to notice that i struck some nerve leading to nothing more than ****-slinging. If i am wrong, then my bad.

  • Like 1

"Some men see things as they are and say why?"
"I dream things that never were and say why not?"
- George Bernard Shaw

"Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man."
- Friedrich Nietzsche

 

"The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."

- Some guy 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Consider yourself lucky if it becomes a EUSSR which collapses on its own weight within a short period of time, or worse because of cohesion mandated from the top, a new empire is forged with a new Caesar and you can kiss all those precious "european values" goodbye in favour of a "roman hardness 2.0". Power must always be decentralized as much as possible or we will continue to see wars worse than those before.

 

Organical development of ethnic groups, languages and traditions are inevitable. But superficial creations like the EU are a perversion based on a lofty idea of peace as its standing will only demoralize the general public.

I can only assume that you're not from planet Earth, as the "EU" you talk about has nothing to do with the one we have here.

 

The EU is just as natural and "organical" as the nation state.

Europe has a long history of close contact between peoples, constant migrations, cultural exchange, cosmopolitanism, common values, coexistence of ethnic groups, religions, and traditions.

It has also a long history of the negations of all those things, and the bloodiest and most destructive times were those where disunity and nationalistic fervour were at their height.

The EU is the attempt to draw on the former and further cooperation and coexistence under a common roof. It is a common project of the peoples involved, not the bogeyman of centralisation some people put forward. The EU is a step in consolidating the common European heritage in a world where it becomes increasingly difficult for small states to stand on their own, and where these positive aspects of European history are still under threat - not in the least from those within Europe who thrive on antagonism, factionalism, and conflict.

 

P.S. As someone who usually votes conservative in Europe, I would very much appreciate it if Meshugger's position were not called "conservative". One of the core beliefs of European conservativism, as I see it and has been in my country for the last 60 years, is exactly the support for European integration and unity. :)

 

 

Nope, the EU is destructive by design like well-intending parents demanding children to hug because it looks cute. It will implode back into a common market if we are lucky.

"Some men see things as they are and say why?"
"I dream things that never were and say why not?"
- George Bernard Shaw

"Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man."
- Friedrich Nietzsche

 

"The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."

- Some guy 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Consider yourself lucky if it becomes a EUSSR which collapses on its own weight within a short period of time, or worse because of cohesion mandated from the top, a new empire is forged with a new Caesar and you can kiss all those precious "european values" goodbye in favour of a "roman hardness 2.0". Power must always be decentralized as much as possible or we will continue to see wars worse than those before.

 

Organical development of ethnic groups, languages and traditions are inevitable. But superficial creations like the EU are a perversion based on a lofty idea of peace as its standing will only demoralize the general public.

I can only assume that you're not from planet Earth, as the "EU" you talk about has nothing to do with the one we have here.

 

The EU is just as natural and "organical" as the nation state.

Europe has a long history of close contact between peoples, constant migrations, cultural exchange, cosmopolitanism, common values, coexistence of ethnic groups, religions, and traditions.

It has also a long history of the negations of all those things, and the bloodiest and most destructive times were those where disunity and nationalistic fervour were at their height.

The EU is the attempt to draw on the former and further cooperation and coexistence under a common roof. It is a common project of the peoples involved, not the bogeyman of centralisation some people put forward. The EU is a step in consolidating the common European heritage in a world where it becomes increasingly difficult for small states to stand on their own, and where these positive aspects of European history are still under threat - not in the least from those within Europe who thrive on antagonism, factionalism, and conflict.

 

P.S. As someone who usually votes conservative in Europe, I would very much appreciate it if Meshugger's position were not called "conservative". One of the core beliefs of European conservativism, as I see it and has been in my country for the last 60 years, is exactly the support for European integration and unity. :)

 

Varana you lecture histiory in RL? I always find your  posts very informative  :thumbsup:

 

If Meshugger is not  Conservative what would you classify his views as?

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The common market, yes. EU in its current form, no. It's an abomination based in abstract ideas instead of voluntary cooperation.

Generally there are no voluntary top down structures, they're enforced.

Nonetheless this doesn't answer any of my questions on the supposed value of a diversity of cultures, ethnicities and so on.

With such colorful language and accusations thrown all over the place, i cannot help to notice that i struck some nerve leading to nothing more than ****-slinging. If i am wrong, then my bad.

Outside of an academic setting I always write with colourful language. All I'm trying to do is make you up-front with what you're advocating. Edited by Barothmuk
Link to post
Share on other sites

So there are a few news reports that some of the big Swiss banks are trying to form an alliance with the banking in London, Singapore and Hong Kong to offset some of what the European banks are doing.  But I haven't seen any specific details about it, just that general mention.

"Cuius testiculos habeas, habeas cardia et cerebellum."

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No, different people and cultures emerge organically and express themselves differently through languages, art and traditions, hierarchies of what is sacred and form societies based on such. That is reality and should be accepted as such. If you have no vested interest in preserving, or on the contrary, actively celebrating the destruction of such with the creation of artifical constructs like the EU

The EU's existence came about as organically as any other political institution, nation-states included.

 

Isn't that a bit of a stretch?

IIRC EU was always pushed on by the elites.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The common market, yes. EU in its current form, no. It's an abomination based in abstract ideas instead of voluntary cooperation.

Generally there are no voluntary top down structures, they're enforced.

Nonetheless this doesn't answer any of my questions on the supposed value of a diversity of cultures, ethnicities and so on.

With such colorful language and accusations thrown all over the place, i cannot help to notice that i struck some nerve leading to nothing more than ****-slinging. If i am wrong, then my bad.

Outside of an academic setting I always write with colourful language. All I'm trying to do is make you up-front with what you're advocating.

 

 

You make it sound like "structures" are created and enforced just for the sake of it and not from a higher principle which gives it legitimacy for its foundation. But anyhow, you ask for an inherit value of cultures, ethnicites etc? They are an essential part of the human condition in how we express ourselves directly, indirectly and how we find meaning. Taking a materialistic approach and try to add metrical values is missing the point entirely. They cannot be switched, repackaged or optimized into one super one fitting for all, they have to grow, expand and die naturally, just like our lives.

 

Let me illustrate in another way: If they are valueless, what are their use? What use do we have for love, friendship, beauty? Nothing at all, but we still need them to fulfill ourselves, to transcend beyond ourselves, to become whole. Those things are manifested in ethnical groups, cultures, nations on people and nations on ideal (the last one is still in testing-phase, we shall see yet). To be against that is an inheritly destructive force at worst or an empty one at best.

 

The point of using colorful language went a bit over my head, sorry. 

"Some men see things as they are and say why?"
"I dream things that never were and say why not?"
- George Bernard Shaw

"Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man."
- Friedrich Nietzsche

 

"The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."

- Some guy 

Link to post
Share on other sites

But anyhow, you ask for an inherit value of cultures, ethnicites etc? They are an essential part of the human condition in how we express ourselves directly, indirectly and how we find meaning. Taking a materialistic approach and try to add metrical values is missing the point entirely. They cannot be switched, repackaged or optimized into one super one fitting for all, they have to grow, expand and die naturally

 

Yet you seem to be quite dismayed at the thought of a unified European culture growing, expanding and subsuming national identities. Why can't we just let national identity die in peace naturally?

 

 

Let me illustrate in another way: If they are valueless, what are their use? What use do we have for love, friendship, beauty? Nothing at all

That's beyond stupid. The health, productivity and general quality-of-life benefits of love, friendship and "beauty" are very tangible and measurable.

  • Like 1

"Lulz is not the highest aspiration of art and mankind, no matter what the Encyclopedia Dramatica says."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate is more useful for motivation I find, than love.

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a very dutch opinion. Having won your independence hundreds of years ago, surrounded by the relative buffer of countries such as France and Germany you completely fail to recognize how instrumental nationalism was in freeing people all over the world during the 19th and 20th centuries, some indeed, from your own colonial rule.

 

Also, without nationalism, specifically Russian nationalism, everything east of the Oder would today be either a bunch of slaves or dead. 

 

Nationalism is simultaneously one of the most progressive and most deadly ideologies ever devised, but it is ironic that all its worst manifestations were, as a rule, in "civilized" Europe.

Edited by Drowsy Emperor

И погибе Српски кнез Лазаре,
И његова сва изгибе војска, 
Седамдесет и седам иљада;
Све је свето и честито било
И миломе Богу приступачно.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chinese, Japanese, Cambodian, Rwandan, etc. nationalist movements have shown that you don't necessary need to be "civilized" European to bastardize said ideology to do justify awful things. Nationalism as ideology has good and bad elements, like all other ideologies known to man kind, which is why extreme nationalism (or extreme in any other ideology) can lead to awful things. So people should try seek balance of ideologies where positives of said ideologies over weight negatives and then seek ways to reduce amount of those negative things even more. But of course such idealism is much easier to say than practice in reality.

Edited by Elerond
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nations, whether they've existed for thousands of years like Britain or Greece, a few centuries like the USA, or a few decades like the European superstate, can hardly be condemned as good or bad on a whim. One could condemn all of humanity for industrialisation (or just Britain for introducing it,) and the toll that has taken on our planet, and yet it has brought so many advances and benefits to mankind. At the end of the day condemning or immodestly proclaiming one nation or another as the greatest or the worst is in my opinion a little silly.

 

Britain as part of this new European superstate is no better or worse than Britain apart from Europe, it demeans neither and frankly being a drama queen about it is very silly.

 

Edit: Personally I think the world is big enough for almost every culture, religion, people and nation to coexist and cooperate peacefully and reflect real diversity, rather than mimic the robot like conformity which is now touted as diversity.

Edited by Nonek
  • Like 2

Quite an experience to live in misery isn't it? That's what it is to be married with children.

I've seen things you people can't even imagine. Pearly Kings glittering on the Elephant and Castle, Morris Men dancing 'til the last light of midsummer. I watched Druid fires burning in the ruins of Stonehenge, and Yorkshiremen gurning for prizes. All these things will be lost in time, like alopecia on a skinhead. Time for tiffin.

 

Tea for the teapot!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But anyhow, you ask for an inherit value of cultures, ethnicites etc? They are an essential part of the human condition in how we express ourselves directly, indirectly and how we find meaning. Taking a materialistic approach and try to add metrical values is missing the point entirely. They cannot be switched, repackaged or optimized into one super one fitting for all, they have to grow, expand and die naturally

 

Yet you seem to be quite dismayed at the thought of a unified European culture growing, expanding and subsuming national identities. Why can't we just let national identity die in peace naturally?

 

 

Let me illustrate in another way: If they are valueless, what are their use? What use do we have for love, friendship, beauty? Nothing at all

That's beyond stupid. The health, productivity and general quality-of-life benefits of love, friendship and "beauty" are very tangible and measurable.

 

 

Two reasons: 

 

1) It's being replaced by something lower in principle, of which no one is willing defend to the death. It will not satisfy anyone and give rise to real marching right/left-wing parties and another war, which is what i want to avoid for the next generation.

 

2) The power is centralised if national governments shift their power to Brussels, which will end with continental size warfare unlike anything seen before. Don't fool yourself just because we currently live in relatively peaceful times that it will continue forever if you give up on nations.

 

Both are destructive in the design and i wish to move away from it for a better future. Nation states might erode, but power has to shift to locally with their own laws, hierarchies and armies. That kind of "death" we can all get behind; I would even call it rebirth.

 

As for your quantification of love, friendship and beauty. Oh boy, i pity that mindset.

Edited by Meshugger

"Some men see things as they are and say why?"
"I dream things that never were and say why not?"
- George Bernard Shaw

"Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man."
- Friedrich Nietzsche

 

"The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."

- Some guy 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

But anyhow, you ask for an inherit value of cultures, ethnicites etc? They are an essential part of the human condition in how we express ourselves directly, indirectly and how we find meaning. Taking a materialistic approach and try to add metrical values is missing the point entirely. They cannot be switched, repackaged or optimized into one super one fitting for all, they have to grow, expand and die naturally

 

Yet you seem to be quite dismayed at the thought of a unified European culture growing, expanding and subsuming national identities. Why can't we just let national identity die in peace naturally?

 

 

Let me illustrate in another way: If they are valueless, what are their use? What use do we have for love, friendship, beauty? Nothing at all

That's beyond stupid. The health, productivity and general quality-of-life benefits of love, friendship and "beauty" are very tangible and measurable.

 

 

Two reasons: 

 

1) It's being replaced by something lower in principle, of which no one is willing defend to the death. It will not satisfy anyone and give rise to real marching right/left-wing parties and another war, which is what i want to avoid for the next generation.

 

2) The power is centralised if national governments shift their power to Brussels, which will end with continental size warfare unlike anything seen before. Don't fool yourself just because we currently live in relatively peaceful times that it will continue forever if you give up on nations.

 

Both are destructive in the design and i wish to move away from it for a better future. Nation states might erode, but power has to shift to locally with their own laws, hierarchies and armies. That kind of "death" we can all get behind; I would even call it rebirth.

 

As for your quantification of love, friendship and beauty. Oh boy, i pity that mindset.

 

It seems to me that you think their is some kind of spiritual benefit of a nation state.

"Good thing I don't heal my characters or they'd be really hurt." Is not something I should ever be thinking.

 

I use blue text when I'm being sarcastic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

But anyhow, you ask for an inherit value of cultures, ethnicites etc? They are an essential part of the human condition in how we express ourselves directly, indirectly and how we find meaning. Taking a materialistic approach and try to add metrical values is missing the point entirely. They cannot be switched, repackaged or optimized into one super one fitting for all, they have to grow, expand and die naturally

 

Yet you seem to be quite dismayed at the thought of a unified European culture growing, expanding and subsuming national identities. Why can't we just let national identity die in peace naturally?

 

 

Let me illustrate in another way: If they are valueless, what are their use? What use do we have for love, friendship, beauty? Nothing at all

That's beyond stupid. The health, productivity and general quality-of-life benefits of love, friendship and "beauty" are very tangible and measurable.

 

 

Two reasons: 

 

1) It's being replaced by something lower in principle, of which no one is willing defend to the death. It will not satisfy anyone and give rise to real marching right/left-wing parties and another war, which is what i want to avoid for the next generation.

 

2) The power is centralised if national governments shift their power to Brussels, which will end with continental size warfare unlike anything seen before. Don't fool yourself just because we currently live in relatively peaceful times that it will continue forever if you give up on nations.

 

Both are destructive in the design and i wish to move away from it for a better future. Nation states might erode, but power has to shift to locally with their own laws, hierarchies and armies. That kind of "death" we can all get behind; I would even call it rebirth.

 

As for your quantification of love, friendship and beauty. Oh boy, i pity that mindset.

 

It seems to me that you think their is some kind of spiritual benefit of a nation state.

 

Namutree whats your ideal system of government in 2016, lets so you can implement anything. What would you go for ?

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

But anyhow, you ask for an inherit value of cultures, ethnicites etc? They are an essential part of the human condition in how we express ourselves directly, indirectly and how we find meaning. Taking a materialistic approach and try to add metrical values is missing the point entirely. They cannot be switched, repackaged or optimized into one super one fitting for all, they have to grow, expand and die naturally

 

Yet you seem to be quite dismayed at the thought of a unified European culture growing, expanding and subsuming national identities. Why can't we just let national identity die in peace naturally?

 

 

Let me illustrate in another way: If they are valueless, what are their use? What use do we have for love, friendship, beauty? Nothing at all

That's beyond stupid. The health, productivity and general quality-of-life benefits of love, friendship and "beauty" are very tangible and measurable.

 

 

Two reasons: 

 

1) It's being replaced by something lower in principle, of which no one is willing defend to the death. It will not satisfy anyone and give rise to real marching right/left-wing parties and another war, which is what i want to avoid for the next generation.

 

2) The power is centralised if national governments shift their power to Brussels, which will end with continental size warfare unlike anything seen before. Don't fool yourself just because we currently live in relatively peaceful times that it will continue forever if you give up on nations.

 

Both are destructive in the design and i wish to move away from it for a better future. Nation states might erode, but power has to shift to locally with their own laws, hierarchies and armies. That kind of "death" we can all get behind; I would even call it rebirth.

 

As for your quantification of love, friendship and beauty. Oh boy, i pity that mindset.

 

It seems to me that you think their is some kind of spiritual benefit of a nation state.

 

The spiritual benefit is the culture, the history, the language, the ancestry, the sense of belonging, of community. The EU is destroying most of those things.

  • Like 4

I hate Unity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Namutree whats your ideal system of government in 2016, lets so you can implement anything. What would you go for ?

 

 

 

My ideal system of government is the same in 2016 as it is in any year.

 

My ideal system of government varies based a geographical location so that's kinda hard to answer.

 

My approach to issues like immigration and gun control would be very different in an Island nation than in a landlocked state, and how I'd structure the government would reflect that.

"Good thing I don't heal my characters or they'd be really hurt." Is not something I should ever be thinking.

 

I use blue text when I'm being sarcastic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most nation states in Europe did evolve organically. At, say, the end of the 19th century almost all the states in existence had a long history of being in existence. Even today there are only a handful of European states with little to no history of being independent going back centuries- Latvia, Estonia, Kosovo (if you support arbitrarily seizing land off another country via military force at least), Slovenia, Bosnia and Macedonia/ FYROM. Plus a couple of arguable ones like Italy ~ Rome, Belgium/ Luxemburg or Greece which were never formally countries prior to the 1830s; but even then it's nearly 200 years ago. They all show a progression to where they are now. Personally, I dislike nation states in theory; but there has to be a better alternative and powerful supra national entities tend to be either ineffective (UN; deliberately neutered also systemically biased) or just another layer of power atop or replacing the countries' like the EU.

 

Reality is that you could scarcely get a more top down development of something than the EU. It's tended to use manufactured consensus tactics to increase it's own power via parliamentary (or equivalent) votes rather than referenda; when it tries popular approval such via referenda it tends to lose rather too much so, as with the EU constitution, it cancels everything after some embarrassment from Frenchies and Dutchies then fiats everything in via amendments with only parliamentary approval (which get rejected by the Irish in a referendum, so solution is to... re-run the referendum until you get approval, of course). EU is a case study on railroading tactics.

 

Having said that the EU certainly is bottom up, in a sense- the 'bend over and take it from your betters' sense.

 

Whereas nationalism is a religion-like idiocy created by those in power to keep the weak below them. :)

 

OTOH, Nationalism in the 'Springtime of Nations' sense was about as spontaneous and bottom up as you could get at the time: not particularly so, but far more than the existing situation. Nationalism can of course easily be used for bad purposes as can religion or any other belief, but that's just human nature. People kill each other over even more trivial guff all the time.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

But anyhow, you ask for an inherit value of cultures, ethnicites etc? They are an essential part of the human condition in how we express ourselves directly, indirectly and how we find meaning. Taking a materialistic approach and try to add metrical values is missing the point entirely. They cannot be switched, repackaged or optimized into one super one fitting for all, they have to grow, expand and die naturally

 

Yet you seem to be quite dismayed at the thought of a unified European culture growing, expanding and subsuming national identities. Why can't we just let national identity die in peace naturally?

 

 

Let me illustrate in another way: If they are valueless, what are their use? What use do we have for love, friendship, beauty? Nothing at all

That's beyond stupid. The health, productivity and general quality-of-life benefits of love, friendship and "beauty" are very tangible and measurable.

 

 

Two reasons: 

 

1) It's being replaced by something lower in principle, of which no one is willing defend to the death. It will not satisfy anyone and give rise to real marching right/left-wing parties and another war, which is what i want to avoid for the next generation.

 

2) The power is centralised if national governments shift their power to Brussels, which will end with continental size warfare unlike anything seen before. Don't fool yourself just because we currently live in relatively peaceful times that it will continue forever if you give up on nations.

 

Both are destructive in the design and i wish to move away from it for a better future. Nation states might erode, but power has to shift to locally with their own laws, hierarchies and armies. That kind of "death" we can all get behind; I would even call it rebirth.

 

As for your quantification of love, friendship and beauty. Oh boy, i pity that mindset.

 

It seems to me that you think their is some kind of spiritual benefit of a nation state.

 

Namutree whats your ideal system of government in 2016, lets so you can implement anything. What would you go for ?

 

I know its not my question to answer, but I like Canada's constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary representative democracy. I do wish we had our own monarch in residence though. I just like the pomp and ceremony of a monarchy, the culture it brings, the continuous representation of the nation, etc. And with constitutionally limited powers, you avoid the pitfalls of an unelected monarch as well. Mostly a figurehead, but I would like to grant a budget for pet projects, so the monarch can put their personal mark on the nation without really interfering in the day to day lives of people. I like fancy monuments and such, so granting the monarch a budget for building civic buildings to their taste, setting up monuments, etc. Most of the most beloved historical landmarks were just the vanity projects of kings, so I would like to enable that a bit.

 

I would just change the electoral system to something more proportional, so that people can vote for who they support, rather than the one that has the best chance of beating the guy you hate.

  • Like 1
The area between the balls and the butt is a hotbed of terrorist activity.

Devastatorsig.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most nation states in Europe did evolve organically. 

 

Isn't that pretty much the nature of nation states? Meaning that they are single government states that are formed by people who share same history, traditions, or language (usually you can check off multiple options) that live in a particular area. Meaning that nation states have aspect/s that organically unify people to seek live under single government. Although in unification of Germany there were also outside ideologies (like liberal ideology of Free Trade, because German Customs Union [Zollverein] helped German nationalist to sell their idea of unified nation state, which lead eventually to formation of German Empire) that played their part addition to people feeling to be part of same nation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Meaning that they are single government states that are formed by people who share same history, traditions, or language (usually you can check off multiple options) that live in a particular area. Meaning that nation states have aspect/s that organically unify people to seek live under single government.

The single most ubiquitous "aspect that organically unifies people to seek live under single government" is force. Those who don't want to live under whatever single government you are thinking tend to get crushed rather promptly and become a footnote in some history book. Or they win, and get to establish their own "single government" complete with independence days, official language and symbols, curated glorious victor's history and so on, which ipso facto are pushed to the population as their new "national identity". Fun fact: in 1789, 50% of people in France couldn't speak French.

 

So yeah, organic in the sense that it wasn't aliens that came and drew lines on a map. Generally not a spontaneous, bloodless, bottom-up process, though.

- When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The erosion of nation states is exactly the thing we need. We need not forget that the nation state was a much bigger destroyer of languages, customs, traditions and ethnic groups. The construct of a unified French, German, British, Polish, Italian, etc. nation is nothing "natural", it is an effect of the 19th century nationalistic movement. Modern society with large-scale mobility (even within one country), unprecedented means of communication, very influential mass media, and so on is a much bigger factor of levelling differences between regions and classes, than government ever is. Most governments today explicitly support regional traditions, minority languages, and specialist economies. That is a new development; a few decades ago, national governments did the exact opposite and actively tried to suppress minorities (look at the Welsh language, for example). It is an example where we have overcome the destructive effects of the ideology of unified nations and found a better solution. And that is what we need in Europe.

 

You knowledge and/or understanding of history is grossly lacking....

 

While I'm not going to spend much time schooling you, you should at least look up the history of the nations which you mention before you write about them. It wouldn't take you long to realize that more than half of the nations you specifically mention effectively existed prior to the 19th century, some by number of centuries. Oh, and Poland didn't exist in the 19th century, but it did prior to....  and then again after it largely essentially during the in between 'world wars' period as a vassal state of the British Empire.... which played no small part of the reason that 'WW2' even happened.

 

And that's less than 1% of what I could tell you which would thoroughly crush that idea you have....

 

That idea being that you think 'nationalism' is all bad and stuff. It generally isn't (that is unless one is an anarchist and thinks all forms are governance are illegitimate (which is a legitimate philosophical at least argument, if arguably not a pragmatic one), but that isn't you). You're buying into the modern popular propaganda of some blue blood 'globalist' minded folks that wish to squash the sovereignty of folks everywhere in order to further enrich themselves and consolidate more power for themselves. Or, buying into similar propaganda from those that would see the world ruled via Marxist ideals. Effectively both of those general schools of evil, insane, or deluded thought go down the same road, strange as that may seem to some, and hard as it unfortunately seems to be for many to grasp.

 

One could say that the last laugh down this road is on the Marxists, if one didn't realize that this road will see the world burn....

Edited by Valsuelm
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

because I'm 99% sure that Roger Waters would vote Remain.

 

Agreeing 100% with your idols is never healthy.

 

Neverminding that one should not make intellectual idols of musicians or artists (or very arguably anyone at all), agreed that it is never healthy to agree with anyone 100%.

 

That said, I'd wager a medium sum that Waters was pro 'Brexit'. He's actually a relatively politically conscience person, and is more awake than most of his contemporaries. He also has a history of criticism of consolidated power and corruption (The EU is the modern 'poster boy' for consolidating power and corruption). There's more than a few songs penned by him on the subject. One of the best albums ever made in my opinion being essentially one big song on the subject:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TKuG1GlwPs

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...