Ultra Nationalism

[Mihalik]

So, if I treat religious people unfairly or unequally in peoples eyes, I'm a nationalist?

Non sequitur. Unless you tie specific religion or religious group to a national identity. If not, then you are just a bigot or an asshole. Or both.

[Deleted]

No. It's a defining feature of it. There isn't a single example of ultra-nationalist group that wouldn't have racist aspects.
Or are you trying to play the whole Nu-KKK bullshit, where the KKK is not about racism but about "preserving diversity in segregation".

I thought it comes from the very wording itself.
So then what would you call ultranationalism wtihout racism? Ultra Patriotism?

[Anonymous1038853]

My take on this might be a bit unconventional: I believe that ideological extremes are needed, since they tend to reveal the core of the ideological issues related to the subject, and, as hilarious and bigoted as they are, they still trigger relevant and healthy discussion in the society.

I can't say I agree. For me, ideological extremism in this context is tantamount to the parable of the broken window. Having to repeatedly argue the basic fundamentals of reality to extremists is just a waste of time. It's not really generating discussion, as far as I'm concerned. It just impedes discussion from moving on beyond that initial point. Sure, it might inform those who are ignorant, but if their ignorance never manifests as harmful dogmatism, then it's kind of moot, isn't it? (And if it does, there you have extremism)

[Mihalik]

I thought it comes from the very wording itself.
So then what would you call ultranationalism wtihout racism? Ultra Patriotism?

There are things that don't need superlatives. If you add a superlative you take it beyond it's logical and reasonable limit into the realm of stupid.

Patriotism is what it is. It doesn't require "ultra" patriotism. Add ultra and it inherently means it was taken beyond an acceptable limit.

[Independent voter]

You have a lot of nationalism at the world cup.

Ultra nationalism or fascism has to have a historical backing as well as genetic evidence that your people are superior, the Third Reich was such a thing with the supposed superiority of Arian peoples. The First Reich was Rome.

[Damajin]

There's absolutely no historical precedent that they would. Before industrialism which would have actually required nation states for a variety of reasons people always prioritized immediate community or self interest over nebulous concepts of "identity". But again nations are neither a logical evolution of tribes and neither are they by any means necessary.

There are plenty of examples of nations that developed in absence of a national identity, United States, Canada, pretty much the entire Americas, Australia, mostly the post colonial successor states. And there are examples of nations that still lack one or now are actually shedding those national identities.

Belgium, Switzerland, and increasingly Spain and the UK are good examples of this.

Except you're wrong, or there wouldn't be nations at all before Industrialization. Specific tribes holding sway within predetermined borders goes back forever, and it's an A to B to C relationship to go from Tribalism to Regionalism to Nationalism, as the tribe expands. People prioritized their individual communities due to the fact that transportation wasn't readily available so you had the 'born and die in the same town' types as more prevalent. Yet they still saw themselves as part of a larger national community. We wouldn't have countless tales of wars otherwise, as wars of the past were marshaled on the idea of X tribe(s) fighting Y tribe(s) we'd have local skirmishes not the onslaughts that history brings us.

The fact that you think nations aren't a logical evolution of tribes is frankly illogical. That mindset and outlook makes nationhood a construct no different than a company or corporation and there are far too many pages of history that show distinct peoples establishing nations for it to be so.

You're wrong about the Americas, especially the US. What it lacked was a homogenous ETHNIC identity, not a national identity. It was revolutionary in the context of it being formed on ideals that could be accepted, advanced and implemented by anyone. This of course highlights that national identity was more or less tied directly to ethnic identity before, give and take some conquests and assimilations that have happened but until far ranging transportation was readily accessible what you had was nations made up of a majority of one ethnicity, living and maintaining a specific national culture that embodied their traditions going as far back as that people had resided there.

Belgium, Switzerland, Spain and the UK are countries to whom ethnicity and national identity have been replaced by commercial and political multinationalism. Their culture is no culture but one of power and money at the top, and the hodgepodge of clashing viewpoints stacked on and interfering with each other at the bottom. Not exactly what'd you call a success unless your goal is the dissolution of sovereignty and the highlight of consumerism over tribalism.

[Deleted]

Non sequitur. Unless you tie specific religion or religious group to a national identity. If not, then you are just a bigot or an asshole. Or both.

But you said arbitrarily defined group. Now it's suddenly not nationalism to do that?

[May90]

I can't say I agree. For me, ideological extremism in this context is tantamount to the parable of the broken window. Having to repeatedly argue the basic fundamentals of reality to extremists is just a waste of time. It's not really generating discussion, as far as I'm concerned. It just impedes discussion from moving on beyond that initial point. Sure, it might inform those who are ignorant, but if their ignorance never manifests as harmful dogmatism, then it's kind of moot, isn't it? (And if it does, there you have extremism)

Well, the way I see it, it starts as an argument with extremists, which is, indeed, not very productive and leads to more annoyance than actual reasoning. But people having participated in this unproductive discussion will then think about the matter and share their thoughts with their friends. News agencies will deliver extremists' statements to the public, and the public will be aware of the issues, even if the way they were raised was bigoted and overblown. Without extremists, same will happen, but the outrage of the public by the points made by extremists tends to be more effective in defeating extremists' ideas than conventional reasoning.

Also, any extremism also forms a lot of groups in between. If there are ultra-nationalists, then there will be simple nationalists, "mini-nationalists", "anti-nationalists", "ultra-anti-nationalists", as responses to those extremists by people who want to do something about the problem, but having a different perspective.

[Orlong]

I think its great. People should always think of their country first and screw everyone else

- - - Updated - - -

Nationalism is bad enough. Ultra nationalism...let's call it what it is. Nazis.

Not true at all. Nazis wanted to kill their own citizens if they werent white. If they were ultra-nationalist they wouldve been looking out for their pcitizens first and wouldnt give a shit about everyone else

[May90]

I think its great. People should always think of their country first and screw everyone else

Ultra-nationalism is more about hating other nations than liking yours though...