Nationalism

From all our differences Capel Dodger the one I find the most insufferable is your liking "The Simpsons". :nope:

It makes me want to scream.

We must have this thread about Eugenics,maybe after July 8 when we hope that the new rules will keep the trolls away.

I didn't know that you have read about that although I am no surprized. I have read many things since the day I was with my twin sister at the hospital (we are identical twins we participate in an Israeli programe that studies identical twins) and a silly doctor mentioned the experiments of Dr. Mengele on twins.Since I avoid to read about the details of the Holocaust because I am getting stressed I didn't know those things, it took me some time to get over the shock of what I have found out but I am thinking now that if we were not afraid to talk about those things ( about Eugenics I mean) in open air life would be better.

There is another thread in the forum where people wonder if blood type affects personality and it seems that there is no answer to that. I bet that this happens because such matters are a taboo and you know how I feel about taboos.

I will be back to the essence of your posts later.

Interesting dialogue gentlemen.Thank you.
 
Originally posted by CapelDodger
Mycroft: You edited a quote from me, replacing "nation" with "city-state", without making it clear that you had done so. Perhaps you could have bolded the changes and pointed them out .
Click to expand...

My mistake. At the time I wrote it, I thought what I was doing was obvious and didn't need explanation. Now that I look again I see that I should have made it more clear.

Originally posted by CapelDodger [B
The US is a super-state, with some associated problems. All in all it's done a good job. If the guaranteeing authority (Humanistan? Perhaps not ...) is designed correctly, and protected from corruption by good people not doing nothing, there should be fewer problems than there are in the world now. There will also be absolutely humungous new resources available with military spending all but eliminated, which should see a lot of problems solved. [/B]
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that this super-nation you imagine is something you feel will happen naturally and will not be imposed, is this correct?
 
Originally posted by CapelDodger:
Until the accession of Ireland to the EU it was a priest-ridden pit. You may not have noticed it yourself, but these things are often more obvious to an outside observer. Ireland's current attempts to enter the modern world are remarkable, but have been achieved within the trans-national EU.
Click to expand...

Ireland remained a priest-ridden pit for two decades after accession to the EU. Laws governing availabilty of contraceptives weren't liberalised until 1992, divorce didn't become available until 1997. Ireland negotiated a clause in the Maastricht treaty ensuring the abortion was not imposed on Ireland from the EU level. The EU couldn't care less whether we remained a priest ridden pit. You're not the astute observer of Irish affairs you might have thought you were.

Prior to that they were an adjunct to the British and US economies, suppliers of cheap labour and fleet-footed talent. Now the flow is the other way, but the change occurred in the 90's.
Click to expand...

The 1990's being two decades after Ireland joined the EU. And the Irish economy is still arguably an adjunct to the British and American economies.

Gimme a break. You're peddling pie-in-the-past.
Click to expand...

Gimme a break. Open a book on recent Irish history.
 
from Mycroft:
I'm guessing that this super-nation you imagine is something you feel will happen naturally and will not be imposed, is this correct?
Click to expand...
Imposing it will be half the fun.

It's hard(!) to see a path from here to there, but I can't see imposition working. There'd be resentment by those imposed upon, and the whole thing would be poisoned at birth. Some sort of movement would have to be started, perhaps a trans-national political party. The idea would have to be explained and promoted. Flexibility and creative thinking will be called for. Getting everybody on-board at the same time is unlikely, so relations with those outside would have to be defined, as well as a joining process.

A lot of hard work. To hell with it, imposition sounds good. Benevolent Dictatorship is the answer.
 
from Shane Costello:
Ireland remained a priest-ridden pit for two decades after accession to the EU.
Click to expand...
It seems to me the generation that grew up during those decades has had a lot to do with the changes of the 90's. I read Gemma Hussey's Ireland Today (that would be Ireland '93) a few years ago, and she identified the increase in home-grown entrepreneurs as central. That seems to have continued after '93, with the "tiger economy". A cultural lack of entrepreneurism has often been blamed for Ireland's slow growth, and the change happened after accession to the EU. It seems to have opened the Irish up to a wider world and different expectations. It's tempting to point to the change of constitutional status of the Catholic Church at accession as important, but I doubt if it was more than symbolic. Whatever, Ireland's recent progress has happened in the context of the EU, and the importance of that was amply argued during the Maastricht referendum. It would be nice if someone in the UK government would make the same case, but they're all too scarified.

As priest-ridden pits go, Ireland's a damn fine place. Any culture that appreciates bards and wordsmiths so much can't be bad.
 
Hi Cleopatra:

I am a slave to the Simpsons. Sorry, but there it is. All of human life is there. I identify with Lisa, for my sins.
We must have this thread about Eugenics ...
Click to expand...
Isn't that going to bring down a serious sheetstorm? Assuming anyone would argue in favour.

Mengele's crimes were vivisection, not eugenics. My mother (who is very sensitive about these subjects) tells of her doctor who felt that the worst aspect of that whole program - which he would never condone - was that it learnt nothing. Done in the name of science, it was simply an exercise in sadism by sickos. I'm still not able to get my head around the idea of SS members being imprisoned after WW2. If they were found in uniform, why waste food, space or time on them? If they're found later and proven to be SS, kill them. The Russians had the right idea; they regularly sent captured SS back where they came from, out of a plane.
I bet that this happens because such matters are a taboo and you know how I feel about taboos.
Click to expand...
I, too, have a problem with taboos. But one has to treat them delicately when in company.
I will be back to the essence of your posts later.
Click to expand...
That banishes any thought of sleep tonight. I can feel my essence draining away already.:eek:
 
Originally posted by CapelDodger
It's hard(!) to see a path from here to there...
Click to expand...

I can't see a path to the city-states you're so fond of, but a one world government isn't hard to imagine. You've already cited the example of the United States, and if the European Union keeps expanding, it's easy to extrapolate that in another century or two national borders would become unimportant.
 
Capel Dodger, I am sleepy right now so I will resist the temptation to compose a psychograme of the smarties and the overeducated ( in the pure Classical Greek sense which is not very positive) who like Simpsons and those who create them...

Lucky hedgehog.
 
DanishDynamite said:
Skeptic:What is so utopian about a One World Government? If you think it is utopian, presumably you agree that it is a worthy goal?
Ghandi had a goal. The goal was freeing the people of his nation-state from being governed by force by another nation-state. His "operational plan", so to speak, was civil disobedience. Not much of a plan, but it worked.
Click to expand...

Pol Pot had a goal too.... :(
 
from Mycroft:
You've already cited the example of the United States, and if the European Union keeps expanding, it's easy to extrapolate that in another century or two national borders would become unimportant.
Click to expand...
That's a good point. The EU has already seen the voluntary surrender by sovereign leaders of some of that sovereignty. A "European model" could become an alternative to the nation-state model in other regions, and eventually various blocks could merge. This would require the definition of the "European model", which we don't really have yet - it's still rather ad hoc, but a constitution would help.

The embryonic EU was created by people who had just come through a war and were not, by and large, nationalists (who hadn't come out of the war well). Nowadays, sadly, the emphasis is all on "defending national interests", in the leadership and the populace in general. (In the UK at least, the media have a lot to do with that.) But a huge amount has happened - Maastricht, the Euro, recent expansion - so patience is called for. None of this is happening tomorrow.

If the EU performs well in the next world crisis it would be in a position to push itself as a model. I don't think we'll be waiting terribly long to find out.
 
from rikzilla:
Pol Pot had a goal too....
Click to expand...
Do you see any other parallels between Ghandi and Pol Pot? Would you have difficulty telling them apart if they were described to you without prior knowledge? And their goals - would you find them difficult to distinguish? I'm not trying to pry, I'd like to know what your point might be. I could take it to mean "Pol Pot had a goal, so anyone with a goal is a bad person and goals are not desirable", but perhaps you're just being cryptic so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
 
CD,

What I was trying to illustrate for you is that all forward looking efforts to change the world for the better come with consequences,...sometimes dire even when unintentional.

Ronald Reagan fought Communism in Central America...he won...CA remains free yet the cost in lives was considerable. Consequences that were unintended, yet unavoidable. His dream of American continents free of Communism was realised, yet many died in the upheaval of even this very limited reform.

What you advocate; One World Government...is a very big dream indeed. It's a lofty, and perhaps even worthy goal...how many are you willing to kill to see it realised?

Radical reform means radical upheaval. Theodore Kacinski, aka "The Unabomber" wanted a return to nature. Sounds good doesn't it? Yet he was willing to murder random people just to get publicity for his great manifesto of ideas. I remember reading the Unabomber's Manifesto...had it been followed technology would have been outlawed. Can you imagine how many million would die just from lack of modern medical care? He also advocated a simple agrarian life like the Amish....how many millions or even billions would starve if modern agriculture ceased? Old Ted had a great and romantic idea,...problem is he was willing to see billions die in order to reach his wild utopia.

CD, I wasn't comparing Ghandi to Pol Pot,...I was comparing the sweeping reformation called OWG to Pol Pot, and Hitler, and Mao, and Jim Jones of Guyana, and Osama Bin Laden.... Ghandi was a man who had limited goals and saw them through as best he could...just as Martin Luther King did. Your OWG would not be limited. It's scope would be that of Mao's Cultural Revolution....and it's cost would be even greater.

So, how many CD? How many people have to be sacrificed on the altar of your idea of heaven on earth? For Reagan, the limited goal of anti-communism in CA cost a couple hundred thousand lives. Yet to him the goal was reachable and worth the cost...depending on where you stand he was right, or he was wrong. But his goal was limited in scope, and thus was reasonably assured of success. The same is true in Iraq right now. But your idea of a OWG?? Why, that's Iraq allover again, only writ large. Very large. Why do you think it's even possible? Why do you think it's worth the cost?

-z
 
Originally posted by CapelDodger:
It seems to me the generation that grew up during those decades has had a lot to do with the changes of the 90's.
Click to expand...

Yes, but most important was the fact that generation (of which I am part)didn't emigrate en masse.

I read Gemma Hussey's Ireland Today (that would be Ireland '93) a few years ago, and she identified the increase in home-grown entrepreneurs as central. That seems to have continued after '93, with the "tiger economy".
Click to expand...

One important thing that happened around 1993 was the collapse of the ERM. By many accounts this proved the catalyst for economic growth in the UK and probably in Ireland. Nor am I sure that Gemma Hussey, a former education minister, is the best commentator on economics.

A cultural lack of entrepreneurism has often been blamed for Ireland's slow growth, and the change happened after accession to the EU. It seems to have opened the Irish up to a wider world and different expectations.
Click to expand...

The brightest and best of the population continued to leave in droves for two decades after EU accession. It's a mtter of causation or correlation. You could also argue that greater EU integration seems to have translated into economic decline in much of the continent.

Whatever, Ireland's recent progress has happened in the context of the EU, and the importance of that was amply argued during the Maastricht referendum.
Click to expand...

Your forgetting that at the time of the Maastricht Treaty absolutely no one foresaw the advebnt of the Celtic Tiger. As I remember the argument in favour of Maastricht was that Ireland was going to get a big ole handout. And I'll repeat that Germany's malodorous decline has also happened in context of the EU.

It would be nice if someone in the UK government would make the same case, but they're all too scarified.
Click to expand...

Umm, haven't the likes of Ken Clarke, Michael Heseltine and a sizeable chunk of New Labour being doing just that?

If the EU performs well in the next world crisis it would be in a position to push itself as a model. I don't think we'll be waiting terribly long to find out.
Click to expand...

It's impending domestic crises the EU has to worry about.
 
So, how many CD? How many people have to be sacrificed on the altar of your idea of heaven on earth?

Oh, who cares! It's the IDEA that counts! And besides, it's not going to be anybody he knows who will die for the wonderful ideal of a OWG...
 
And their goals (Pol Pot's and Ghandi's) - would you find them difficult to distinguish?

I sure would.

Pol Pot's goals were a LOT better than Ghandi's. Ghandi, openly, merely wanted one nation to be ruled by other people than those currently ruling it. He not only admitted that this will not created heaven on earth, but that the change in rulers would not even create heaven in that nation. He readily admitted that India without England would still be poor, still have suffering millions, still will have lots of problems... "but", as he said, "they would then be OUR problems".

Compare that pathetic goal--merely a change of rulers in a country with lots of problems--to the wonderful, WONDERFUL ideals of Pol Pot. Pol Pot's ideals were a world revolution! A new heaven of the proletariat, with equality and freedom for all! The end for capitalist (and all) opression! The free people of the world living in peace! (And so on and so forth). If only Pol Pot was given a chance, he would create not another country with problems, like Ghandi, but a heaven on earth.

Yes, Pol Pot had the better, universal, one-world-(marxist)-government goals, unlike that annoying, cynical nationalist (and even patriot), Ghandi. Which is why the racist, nationalist Ghandi is reviled the world over, while Pol Pot is considered a symbol for all. It's all about having the right ideals. Pol pot could say, like "Danish Dynamite" did in this thread, "regardless of how they will be put into practice, don't you agree that my ideals themselves are good?".
 
Originally posted by rikzilla
Radical reform means radical upheaval...
Click to expand...

Does it have to?

We have a tendency to write our history in terms of conflicts that mark turning points and it's easy to get the impression that change must be paid for in blood, but aren't there also reforms that happen quietly, without war?
 
rikzilla:
What I was trying to illustrate for you is that all forward looking efforts to change the world for the better come with consequences,...sometimes dire even when unintentional.
Click to expand...
OK. I'm afraid that thought didn't come across. My interpretation was more along the lines:

DD: "State built highways are a good idea."
Rik: "Hitler had state built highways."
Ronald Reagan fought Communism in Central America...he won...CA remains free yet the cost in lives was considerable. Consequences that were unintended, yet unavoidable.
Click to expand...
How could they be unintended if they were unavoidable?
What you advocate; One World Government...is a very big dream indeed. It's a lofty, and perhaps even worthy goal...how many are you willing to kill to see it realised?
Click to expand...
Why would you think anyone would need to be killed? How many were killed when 10 countries recently willingly joined the EU?
Radical reform means radical upheaval. Theodore Kacinski, aka "The Unabomber" wanted a return to nature. Sounds good doesn't it? Yet he was willing to murder random people just to get publicity for his great manifesto of ideas. I remember reading the Unabomber's Manifesto...had it been followed technology would have been outlawed. Can you imagine how many million would die just from lack of modern medical care? He also advocated a simple agrarian life like the Amish....how many millions or even billions would starve if modern agriculture ceased? Old Ted had a great and romantic idea,...problem is he was willing to see billions die in order to reach his wild utopia.
Click to expand...
I fail to see the relevance of a lone terrorist's thoughts to that of a OWG.
CD, I wasn't comparing Ghandi to Pol Pot,...I was comparing the sweeping reformation called OWG to Pol Pot, and Hitler, and Mao, and Jim Jones of Guyana, and Osama Bin Laden.... Ghandi was a man who had limited goals and saw them through as best he could...just as Martin Luther King did. Your OWG would not be limited. It's scope would be that of Mao's Cultural Revolution....and it's cost would be even greater.
Click to expand...
Rik, an organization exists today called the World Trade Organization. Most of the world's nation-states are members. All joined willingly. Not a single shot was fired.

All members of the EU joined willingly. They all gave up parts of their sovereignty in doing so.

Why do you continue to put the the willing loss of sovereignty into terms of war and death? Are those the only terms you understand?
So, how many CD? How many people have to be sacrificed on the altar of your idea of heaven on earth? For Reagan, the limited goal of anti-communism in CA cost a couple hundred thousand lives. Yet to him the goal was reachable and worth the cost...depending on where you stand he was right, or he was wrong. But his goal was limited in scope, and thus was reasonably assured of success. The same is true in Iraq right now. But your idea of a OWG?? Why, that's Iraq allover again, only writ large. Very large. Why do you think it's even possible? Why do you think it's worth the cost?
Click to expand...
Once again, why would even one person need to die?

[Edited to add: BTW, Rik, your valueable input is needed on the SkepticalCommunity board. :) ]
 
Just wanted to respond to this part of Skeptic's usual hysteria:

Skeptic:
Pol pot could say, like "Danish Dynamite" did in this thread, "regardless of how they will be put into practice, don't you agree that my ideals themselves are good?".
Click to expand...
As you know, that is not what I said or what I meant. I said that although "I don't have an operational plan, do you agree with the basic goal?"

See the difference?
 
from rikzilla:
Ronald Reagan fought Communism in Central America ...
Click to expand...
Ah, the famous Nicaraguan threat. They nearly had you guys, didn't they? Another few years and, well, California would just be the start. Ronnie never did get up the courage to fight the gangster governments of Central America, did he? Maybe the fix was in - those Colombians aren't short of a dollar, after all, and even a Republican needs funding.
... how many are you willing to kill to see it realised?
Click to expand...
How many should the US have been prepared to kill to keep the Somozistas in power in Nicaragua? Having missed that trick (a lot were killed, but clearly not enough), how many did they kill to bring down the Sandinistas? How many were killed to keep the sickos in power in El Salvador and Honduras? Where it comes to killing, I won't be doing it to achieve One World Government, it'll be to prevent regimes like that ruling the future. The problem I'll have is that they'll have plenty of US weaponry - I guess I'd be more likely to be dying than killing.
Radical reform means radical upheaval. Theodore Kacinski, aka "The Unabomber" wanted a return to nature. Sounds good doesn't it? Yet he was willing to murder random people just to get publicity for his great manifesto of ideas.
Click to expand...
He was not normal. Several cards short of a deck. Not the full picnic. Mainifestly weird, Insane. "Back to nature" might sound good to a conservative, but I like my simple comforts, and I've spent most of the day compromising with nature in my garden, not getting back to it. I'm sure there are others like me, and others who also think "Back to nature" sounds good. It takes all sorts - including the Unabomber sort, sadly.
I was comparing the sweeping reformation called OWG to Pol Pot, and Hitler, and Mao, and Jim Jones of Guyana, and Osama Bin Laden....
Click to expand...
Well thank you very much. At least in one person's eyes I'm up there with the big guys.
Your OWG would not be limited.
Click to expand...
Not if TillEulenspiegel takes me up on the Secretary for Interplanetary Affairs position, otherwise there are certain practical limitations.
How many people have to be sacrificed on the altar of your idea of heaven on earth?
Click to expand...
Your concept of heaven is rather paltry.
Why do you think it's even possible? Why do you think it's worth the cost?
Click to expand...
Not having your belief in psychic powers, I really don't know. I'm just trying to get some ideas bouncing around, it amuses me and, I hope, some others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom