Internationalism based Liberalism VS Nationalism based Liberalism. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Modern liberalism. Civil rights and liberties, State responsibility to the people (welfare).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15016115
This is a more philosophical topic. I wish it could be discussed without the left and right bias although it will probably creep in pretty fast.

First watch this from 17.27 till the end of the question 20.45 or better the whole clip (30 minutes but it is not boring)



Its pretty hard to define internationalism based liberalism but in general it would be something like an individual holding a notion that he owns loyalty to a collection of people that transcends statehood.(Loyalty to the EU, World, any other larger than state entities). Friedman considers this a fantasy because he defines internationalism with the same lines as nationalism. That this loyalty to a group, tribe, family,nation grows out of your local community, culture, language for example. So in a sense nationalism is a pre-requisite of a proper working democracy that lets the said group, tribe, family, nation have similar goals, needs and move forward as a group in 1 direction. So since our cultures, languages, communities are different even within Europe then that means that we probably will have diverging directions that we would want to move so basically it is not a functioning system.

The problem with that interpretation in my opinion is that it misses one key factor: internationalism based liberalism actually exists. And a lot of people actually practice it in Europe and also in the US. So it must bring something to those people so it wouldn't exist in the first place. Even if you consider it to be on the same level as Religion for example then religion also brings something to people lives, for example, morals. So in a sense there must be a rational line of thought behind it.

So my idea on this is that he is missing a key factor that actually defines our loyalty to something. I would say it would still be the same things as language, culture, community but I would also add technology here. In a sense technology defines our behaviour as much as the other mentioned categories. As an example we can bring Farming/Agriculture. Once it was discovered people started moving from a nomadic lifestyle to a settled one. And i don't see how other technologies can't have similar impacts. If we take the internet, mass media, social media etc in account especially for the people born after 2000s than it compromises a significant part of their lives compared to the pre-2000s. So the sense of culture, community have definitely been expanded to include much more than just our local cultures and our local communities. Language is a tougher question though. In Europe most people are speak multiple languages (Well basically their own + English).

So perhaps internationalism based liberalism is just the same nationalism based liberalism that is going a metamorphosis due to technological advancement. I don't really think its a fully formed ideology or system as of yet but it seems to be heading that way. For example, the question of intolerance of the "Wrong way". (For example Italians electing the alt-right/left coalition and "OMG" cries of the EU or polish and hungarian situations). In a sense we try to judge those countries using our local community/cultural standards while being a citizen of a larger entity than your local country state.

May be even the whole dispute of globalism vs alt-right is a by product of this process. Alt-right/right see the intolerance factor for their ideological world view since they are closer to nationalism based liberalism while the SJW/left are more internationalism based and can't really properly tolerate a divergence from the "Correct" path. So in a sense this dispute is a process that arose in liberalism because of technological development. Its a process that is ingrained in to us due to how we live our daily lives and it is inescapable even perhaps.

Pretty hard to define everything here. Please don't do copy/paste from insert X philosopher/statesmen here and write your own thoughts.
#15022533
I think we are going in the direction of a global culture, but also is a fact that a global liberalism or even in one region like Europe or america it's almost impossible at least with democratic governments, because one of the troubles with democracies is the short term thinking of the masses that reflect in the governor's, we don't think in long term solutions, just in the tomorrow, and with this I am not defending any kind of dictatorship I am just saying that the masses need a more education and long term vision, by the fact we need something like culture, language, nationality, I think that if we get sense that all of us got the same ADN we could play in the same team, going in the same way
#15022570
He does push some drivel, that guy, I'm amazed by how many people buy into his cool aid.

By his definition Canada, Belgium and Switzerland were not nations and hence should have been prone to civil war. America should have had a civil war but it should have been between British and German speakers. I find it difficult to believe he really believes what he's saying. A united Europe may be a pipe dream, but so is a unified national consciousness.

The old national cohesion that Britain and the US experienced in WWII and Korea is gone. National cohesion may flicker into existence as say it did in Britain after the fall of Baghdad in 2003, but it falls apart as soon as difficulties appear. But even prior to this nationalism was never as tough as imagined, look at the collapse of French nationalism after the German victory in 1940. And Hitler was particularly inept in alienating occupied populations and fostering internal divisions. All the signs from the Channel Islands and Attu and Kiska are that British and American nationalism would have proved equally hollow under German occupation.

He is pushing a fantasy world, as pathetic as the one the Cultural Marxists push. He whines that Nazi Germany is an alien outlier of nationalism, but in fact it is very representative of nationalist reaction. Nazism had to be so extreme, because national cohesion was so weak under Weimar. the totalitarian dominance of the Nazi State was necessary to hold the nation together. In November 1937 nearly 17% of the voters effectively voted to be ruled by Moscow, to make a Russified Georgian their Fuhrer. This is why the pathological Jew hatred was ideologically indispensable to the Nazis, they had to explain away why tens of millions of Germans were according to their standards, totally degenerate.

Its very difficult to fight a war when a substantial majority don't believe in it. Hence why fascism was necessary for the European land powers after WWI to fight effectively. France would almost certainly have defeated Germany in 1940 if it had gone fascist. Italy might have been unimpressive in WWII, but they would have been even more pathetic if they had tried to fight it as a democracy. the only reason that Britain and the US weren't rolled up after the fall of France was because they had the English Channel and the Atlantic Ocean to protect them.
#15022844
"Nationalism" is a basic coding way of telling who someone is. Since humans are different, different kinds of people tend to belong to certain "nationalities." Those "nationalities" were and are used to help classify who one is.

For instance: Prussians, Italians, Somalians, and Yankees are all different from each other on a social collective scale. Individually, there are all kinds of people: Italians acting Americanized, Prussians acting Americanized, Yankees acting like they are African American, etc. But collectively, many people usually fit into their nationality's "stereotypes." This can be proven with basic wisdom of many people, various internet sources that have psychological graphs and maps of various nationalities, or general cultures such as food, architecture, folk music, or fashions, both in traditional and in contemporary times.

Here is a simple example of an English texted psychological map/graph that shows social individualism versus social collectivism on one axis, and religiousness versus secularism on another axis:

Image

Here is another map that shows the general characteristics of introverted leaning people, and extroverted leaning people:

Image

Internationalism is incorrect for various reasons:

Internationalism Is Potentially Self Destructive: If the average Danes lived around the average Somalian dominated area, the Danes would all get heart attacks for how loud and talkative many Somalians are. If the average Somalians are around the average Danish dominated area, many of the Somalians would get beaten up for being viewed as annoying, obnoxious, and sloppy. The two sides go against each other. Both sides use politics to defend themselves. And the internationalist side usually loses.

Internationalism Denies Sociological Differences - Sociological standards are very different in Norway or in Switzerland than they are in the Honduras or in Nigeria.

Internationalism Denies Social Liberalism - This is because some "nationalities" are against social liberalism. Saudi Arabia and ISIS are mostly against social liberalism. While the Netherlands, Britain, France, and the United States are very socially liberal. It is very dangerous for a non liberal nationality to attempt to dominate a liberal dominated area because the liberals in the liberal dominated area are going to be oppressed. An example of this is Sharia laws in Britain. A gay British man who is not a Muslim cannot be himself in a Sharia dominated area in Britain.

Internationalism That Accepts Religion Is Self Destructive - Reformed Christian areas that are more socially liberal will have lots of conflicts culturally with people who are reactionary muslims from Saudi Arabia or Iran.

Pure internationalism cannot work unless if religion is banned on a massive scale. And liberals are against banning religion. Thus showing how self destructive this internationalist liberal aim is.

Liberalism is also different in different parts of the world - Partially determined by dominating religions, cultural standards, the views on the oppressive family institution, and political history.

For instance: Liberalism is different in Britain than it is in Iraq. Britain is a reformed Christian society, while Iraq is an Islamic leaning society. Islam and reformed Christian values are very different from each other. So the liberalism that evolves in Iraq may be viewed as "Conservative" in Britain. While the conservativism in Iraq may be viewed as "Reactionarism" in Britain. Cultural standards in Iraq are more conservative than they are in Britain. Family institution is also more valued in Iraq because of how more extroverted most Iraqis are, and also how less socialized their economies are, so they use family psychologically to cope with that. And Iraq's political history is much less progressive than Britain's political history.

National liberalism is more achievable than international liberalism, due to different nationalities having different definitions of liberalism.

But liberalism defends the capitalist economy, in a corrupt reformed manner. So the "liberalism" part of this nationalist versus internationalist topic is no manner to myself.
#15022849
SSDR wrote:"Nationalism" is a basic coding way of telling who someone is. Since humans are different, different kinds of people tend to belong to certain "nationalities." Those "nationalities" were and are used to help classify who one is.

For instance: Prussians, Italians, Somalians, and Yankees are all different from each other on a social collective scale. Individually, there are all kinds of people: Italians acting Americanized, Prussians acting Americanized, Yankees acting like they are African American, etc. But collectively, many people usually fit into their nationality's "stereotypes." This can be proven with basic wisdom of many people, various internet sources that have psychological graphs and maps of various nationalities, or general cultures such as food, architecture, folk music, or fashions, both in traditional and in contemporary times.

Here is a simple example of an English texted psychological map/graph that shows social individualism versus social collectivism on one axis, and religiousness versus secularism on another axis:

Image

Here is another map that shows the general characteristics of introverted leaning people, and extroverted leaning people:

Image

Internationalism is incorrect for various reasons:

Internationalism Is Potentially Self Destructive: If the average Danes lived around the average Somalian dominated area, the Danes would all get heart attacks for how loud and talkative many Somalians are. If the average Somalians are around the average Danish dominated area, many of the Somalians would get beaten up for being viewed as annoying, obnoxious, and sloppy. The two sides go against each other. Both sides use politics to defend themselves. And the internationalist side usually loses.

Internationalism Denies Sociological Differences - Sociological standards are very different in Norway or in Switzerland than they are in the Honduras or in Nigeria.

Internationalism Denies Social Liberalism - This is because some "nationalities" are against social liberalism. Saudi Arabia and ISIS are mostly against social liberalism. While the Netherlands, Britain, France, and the United States are very socially liberal. It is very dangerous for a non liberal nationality to attempt to dominate a liberal dominated area because the liberals in the liberal dominated area are going to be oppressed. An example of this is Sharia laws in Britain. A gay British man who is not a Muslim cannot be himself in a Sharia dominated area in Britain.

Internationalism That Accepts Religion Is Self Destructive - Reformed Christian areas that are more socially liberal will have lots of conflicts culturally with people who are reactionary muslims from Saudi Arabia or Iran.

Pure internationalism cannot work unless if religion is banned on a massive scale. And liberals are against banning religion. Thus showing how self destructive this internationalist liberal aim is.

Liberalism is also different in different parts of the world - Partially determined by dominating religions, cultural standards, the views on the oppressive family institution, and political history.

For instance: Liberalism is different in Britain than it is in Iraq. Britain is a reformed Christian society, while Iraq is an Islamic leaning society. Islam and reformed Christian values are very different from each other. So the liberalism that evolves in Iraq may be viewed as "Conservative" in Britain. While the conservativism in Iraq may be viewed as "Reactionarism" in Britain. Cultural standards in Iraq are more conservative than they are in Britain. Family institution is also more valued in Iraq because of how more extroverted most Iraqis are, and also how less socialized their economies are, so they use family psychologically to cope with that. And Iraq's political history is much less progressive than Britain's political history.

National liberalism is more achievable than international liberalism, due to different nationalities having different definitions of liberalism.

But liberalism defends the capitalist economy, in a corrupt reformed manner. So the "liberalism" part of this nationalist versus internationalist topic is no manner to myself.


So much wrong in here that i don't know where to even start. But its funny that you consider individualism a sign of introvert/extrovert :knife:
#15022925
SSDR wrote:Individualistic societies are more introverted while socially collective societies are more extroverted. How is this incorrect?


There is no direct correlation between individualism/collectivism and introvertidness/extrovertidness. By this logic US is highly individualistic but by estimates the amount of extroverts in the US is an overwhelming majority so they should be collectivists which they are not. On the other hand if you look at your map English are very loud while Irish a pretty quite but they have almost the same individualistic levels.

Your map shows the Russians as collectivist but in reality, from the standpoint of culture, they are very quite and unfriendly to strangers.

Basically you are spreading pseudo-science.
#15023026
JohnRawls wrote:There is no direct correlation between individualism/collectivism and introvertidness/extrovertidness. By this logic US is highly individualistic but by estimates the amount of extroverts in the US is an overwhelming majority so they should be collectivists which they are not.

That is why American tourists are so loud and annoying. They seem to be over expressive as well.
On the other hand if you look at your map English are very loud while Irish a pretty quite but they have almost the same individualistic levels.

Irish people seem pretty extroverted.
Your map shows the Russians as collectivist but in reality, from the standpoint of culture, they are very quite and unfriendly to strangers.

Russians, and many Slavic people are socially collective. Just because a nationality is not "friendly" to strangers does not mean they are socially collective. Some Russians only collectivize with themselves, similar to how Albanians are. Albanians are the most socially collective people in all of Europe, yet many of them are "unfriendly to strangers" because of their social nationalistic views that they always had to preserve their ethnicity and culture.
#15023039
SSDR wrote:That is why American tourists are so loud and annoying. They seem to be over expressive as well.

Irish people seem pretty extroverted.

Russians, and many Slavic people are socially collective. Just because a nationality is not "friendly" to strangers does not mean they are socially collective. Some Russians only collectivize with themselves, similar to how Albanians are. Albanians are the most socially collective people in all of Europe, yet many of them are "unfriendly to strangers" because of their social nationalistic views that they always had to preserve their ethnicity and culture.


Still, you are spreading pseudo science that doesn't make sense. Americans are extremely individualistic which should make them extroverted by your sense but they aren't. Come on, just stop.
#15023179
SSDR wrote:I did not make a claim that Americans being individualistic should make them extroverted.


You posted a map of individualism and claimed its a map of extroverts/introverts. So i provided examples where this logic fails. This is exactly what you claimed when you posted a map of individualism and said its a map to extroverts/introverts. Since that is pseudo science i provided examples where that logic failed.
#15023202
JohnRawls wrote:So in a sense nationalism is a pre-requisite of a proper working democracy that lets the said group, tribe, family, nation have similar goals, needs and move forward as a group in 1 direction.

Generally, literacy is a pre-requisite of a proper working democracy. You can set up a democracy and hand it over to illiterates and it will collapse almost immediately. Law is written. If you are illiterate, abiding by complex laws is not possible.

JohnRawls wrote:In a sense technology defines our behaviour as much as the other mentioned categories.

Studies have shown that people adopt technological change far more rapidly than they do social change.

JohnRawls wrote:And i don't see how other technologies can't have similar impacts.

Well they already have. 90%+ of the population used to be rural before the industrial revolution. After the industrial revolution 90%+ of people live in cities and suburbs. 90%+ of people used to be involved in farming. Now it's like 1%. The same thing is happening to manufacturing with automation.

I was fond of the current Tory House of Commons leader's father's work; notably, Lord William Rees-Mogg's "Sovereign Individual." I wished I had a copy of it around to re-read it, as we're starting to see some significant strains of that now; for example, Google refusing to work with the US military while helping China build a social capital system to oppress its non-compliant citizens; or Facebook selling deep analytic information about individuals to foreign corporations. I'm very deeply involved in the technological aspect of these changes. There are some ironic aspects to it.
#15023208
JohnRawls wrote:You posted a map of individualism and claimed its a map of extroverts/introverts. So i provided examples where this logic fails. This is exactly what you claimed when you posted a map of individualism and said its a map to extroverts/introverts. Since that is pseudo science i provided examples where that logic failed.

You did not prove anything. You just opinionated that the sources I provided are "pseudo science."

Do you have sources to back up your views? They may be "pseudo science?"
#15023209
blackjack21 wrote:Generally, literacy is a pre-requisite of a proper working democracy. You can set up a democracy and hand it over to illiterates and it will collapse almost immediately. Law is written. If you are illiterate, abiding by complex laws is not possible.

This is correct. Illiterates usually lack enough intelligence that can be used to coordinate production in infrastructures. Lesser intelligent people tend to destroy what they have access to, and use International liberal politics out of political correctness to get more stuff given to them, so they can destroy that.
Studies have shown that people adopt technological change far more rapidly than they do social change.

This is correct. Social projections are usually determined by nationalities. For instance, the way Swedes are socially are different than the way many Americans are socially. Technological advancement helps humans survive more than social advancement.
#15023265
SSDR wrote:You did not prove anything. You just opinionated that the sources I provided are "pseudo science."

Do you have sources to back up your views? They may be "pseudo science?"


Source this, source that.... For the billionth time...(Mostly not you but lately this has been a trend) You do not source a negative because usually sources are for positives. You can source that the earth is round but not that earth is NOT flat. In rare cases there are studies to disprove things but usually those are regarding major issues or real stupid stuff that has been going on.

Basically, i showed you examples where your ideas fell apart. Since you are the one providing the information and the argument then please provide a study with weak evidence against the null hypothesis of at least p>0.10 but preferably p>0.05 on the subject at hand. That would show that what you are describing is perhaps not a pseudo science. If you want me to believe for 100% it is not pseudo science then p>0.001.
The Next UK PM everybody...

I find anti-establishment Jews interesting genera[…]

UK votes for Boris...

It's simply amazing that people were convinced tha[…]

I didn't read your post and nobody cares what you[…]

Macron: Nato is brain-dead

NATO shouldn't even exist. It's a cold war relic w[…]