Other forms of unity, or, revolutionary religious socialism

TheocWulf wrote:Well ill disagre with there the abrahamic faiths are not relly intrested in any folkish issue they are universalist in nature.

True, though the univeralist aspect is no good reason to say everything about the religion is wrong.

If you take Islam as an example there is no aspect of dieing for the folk just for Islam itself Infact many populations in the middle east and asia have ancient folkish tribal codes that are still observed that to an extent condtradict Islam for example the Pashtunwalii code of hounour of the Pahtuns in Afghanistan was/is a major thorn in the side of the Taliban as it is impossible to iradicate and contadicts radical Islam on issues such as womens dress and women working in the fields as youngsters and older married ladies .

It may be for Islam rather than their folk but I think that is good in its own way. The struggle for a spiritual idea is the ultimate rebellion against materialism and nihilism which has been ever so present since the bourgeois revolutions beginning in France. In my opinion there is nothing more noble than a man who pledges himself to pursuits greater than those of the material world and it is precisely this idea which as made European civilization so great in the past.

I also wish our people today had steadfast determination in fighting for something rather than just being apathetic consumers, I believe we can wake them up, but this level of apathy is disgraceful.

“Nobody who dies and finds good from God would wish to come back to this world even if he were given the whole world and everything in it, except the martyr, who – seeing the superiority of martyrdom – would wish to come back to the world to be killed again.” – Mohammed

This quote from the Prophet Mohammed reveals what I admire about the Islamic religion the most.

As for the missionaries I take no joy in Europeans going to places Africa and destroying the local populations folk religions no matter how humanitarian they belived it was.I see no diffrence between that and the conversion of those Europeans by the Romans and later by there own kin in the name of humanity but in reality in the name of power.

True, we see how destructive that was in the present time. There is no doubt it stemmed from the European will to do good in the world though.

Judaism is a strange example of a Folk religion its good in the sense that its restricted in most traditional sects to those of its peoples blood but other sects allow non Jews to take part in Kibbutz and other activites but never really let them be one of the Tribe.

I think it is good that Judaism is restricted to mostly a tribal religion though I still think it speaks volumes about our good will that we were more concerned with than just whats beyond our own noses. This has been our weakness in the past though as it is today.

True, we see how destructive that was in the present time. There is no doubt it stemmed from the European will to do good in the world though.

More like the churches will be be very very very very very rich and powerfull.

TheocWulf wrote:True, we see how destructive that was in the present time. There is no doubt it stemmed from the European will to do good in the world though.

More like the churches will be be very very very very very rich and powerfull.

No doubt that some of it stemmed from the desire to gain riches and wealth, however reducing everything to economic motives is too much like the Marxian interpretation of history and too materialistic. There is not always economic motivations for actions, especially on behalf of Europeans.

Pantheon Rising wrote:No doubt that some of it stemmed from the desire to gain riches and wealth, however reducing everything to economic motives is too much like the Marxian interpretation of history and too materialistic. There is not always economic motivations for actions, especially on behalf of Europeans.

True but the same can be said of people from all over good people are good people,However our colonial history economic,Religious,humanitarian or otherwise was not our finest hour.

TheocWulf wrote:True but the same can be said of people from all over good people are good people,However our colonial history economic,Religious,humanitarian or otherwise was not our finest hour.

Definitely not our finest hour, but, I don't think complete isolation would have been good either. There was a definite healthy tendency for the urge to spread European civilization which was and still is the light of the world. We are simply dealing with the mess today and it is time we withdrew completely from the world scene and focus solely on the advancement of our own kind.

Pantheon Rising wrote:Definitely not our finest hour, but, I don't think complete isolation would have been good either. There was a definite healthy tendency for the urge to spread European civilization which was and still is the light of the world. We are simply dealing with the mess today and it is time we withdrew completely from the world scene and focus solely on the advancement of our own kind.

So you dont think Isolationalism was a good idea then but you think its time for Isolationalism now?

TheocWulf wrote:So you dont think Isolationalism was a good idea then but you think its time for Isolationalism now?

Well, it is complicated. No one could have seen where those imperialistic endeavors would leave us today. I am saying that it was perfectly healthy and natural for Europeans to want to expand their civilization, and I make no apologies for these pages of European civilization, but we see where it got us and it is time to shake them off and let other peoples do their own thing. I think we should be more worried about colonizing space at this point to be honest. Expansion is a good thing.

My nationalism stems from my love of European civilization and my desire to see it expand and grow rather than stagnate. However I agree with Strasser as he says in my quote, we should nowadays work on this without the tendency to dominate others.

Pantheon Rising wrote:So you dont think Isolationalism was a good idea then but you think its time for Isolationalism now?

Well, it is complicated. No one could have seen where those imperialistic endeavors would leave us today. I am saying that it was perfectly healthy and natural for Europeans to want to expand their civilization, and I make no apologies for these pages of European civilization, but we see where it got us and it is time to shake them off and let other peoples do their own thing. I think we should be more worried about colonizing space at this point to be honest. Expansion is a good thing.

My nationalism stems from my love of European civilization and my desire to see it expand and grow rather than stagnate. However I agree with Strasser as he says in my quote, we should nowadays work on this without the tendency to dominate others.[/quote]

Clarify expand? Even in that quote Strasser says "Germany" he says nothing anywhere about exporting European civilisation.

TheocWulf wrote:Clarify expand? Even in that quote Strasser says "Germany" he says nothing anywhere about exporting European civilisation.

Indeed he didn't, but I have my own opinions on issues as well. What Strasser did do was glorify and stress the importance of European civilization though. I, simply don't think it is desirable at all for European civilization to stagnate in Europe until it grows old and humans are wiped out from natural causes. It is the same thing as a kid who never leaves his room; it isn't healthy. Given that it is wrong to dominate those of other peoples through imperial aggression, our only other option is to expand and export European civilization to the stars. Nationalism really highlights futurism and space expansion. For example, during the space race there was competition between two great Nations, the USA and the USSR both reaching for the stars. The accomplishments made by each of these nations in their competition are astounding.

Pantheon Rising wrote:Indeed he didn't, but I have my own opinions on issues as well. What Strasser did do was glorify and stress the importance of European civilization though. I, simply don't think it is desirable at all for European civilization to stagnate in Europe until it grows old and humans are wiped out from natural causes. It is the same thing as a kid who never leaves his room; it isn't healthy. Given that it is wrong to dominate those of other peoples through imperial aggression, our only other option is to expand and export European civilization to the stars. Nationalism really highlights futurism and space expansion. For example, during the space race there was competition between two great Nations, the USA and the USSR both reaching for the stars. The accomplishments made by each of these nations in their competition are astounding.

European Culture has never stagnated in Europe its constantly developed and grown among our people in our own part of this world.As for space I think we will have seen the Ragnorak long before we can even have an actual settlemnt in space and im not that botherd once this cycle of the world is done a new one will rise.This is our realm here on Earth in Europe on the soil our Ancestors have treaded for at least 40,000 years.

TheocWulf wrote:European Culture has never stagnated in Europe its constantly developed and grown among our people in our own part of this world.As for space I think we will have seen the Ragnorak long before we can even have an actual settlemnt in space and im not that botherd once this cycle of the world is done a new one will rise.This is our realm here on Earth in Europe on the soil our Ancestors have treaded for at least 40,000 years.

By stagnate I mean lose the desire to expand. Even though the kid never leaves his room, he still grows and develops albeit in an unhealthy manner. I believe this principle is applicable to civilization as well. We may see the end of times before then but seeing as how end times are inevitable anyway there is no use in being apathetic about anything.

Pantheon Rising wrote:By stagnate I mean lose the desire to expand. Even though the kid never leaves his room, he still grows and develops albeit in an unhealthy manner. I believe this principle is applicable to civilization as well. We may see the end of times before then but seeing as how end times are inevitable anyway there is no use in being apathetic about anything.

Short of this magic space trip we cannot expand anywhere without causeing harm to other folk groups though can we.

TheocWulf wrote:Short of this magic space trip we cannot expand anywhere without causeing harm to other folk groups though can we.

Not particularly, except maybe Antartica but from what I hear Hitler escaped there after the Red Army took Berlin and is hiding out with the Aryans from the center of the earth so it is probably already occupied.

Pantheon Rising wrote:No doubt that some of it stemmed from the desire to gain riches and wealth, however reducing everything to economic motives is too much like the Marxian interpretation of history and too materialistic. There is not always economic motivations for actions, especially on behalf of Europeans.

It's not a question of if people act for reasons which transcend their economic interests. It's about what helps shape the major decisions a nation undertakes. Emperors and monarchs didn't invest time and resources in foreign voyages just because they were eager to map the world, or what have you. They intended on enriching and empowering their dominion via imperialism and they simply used individuals who were more interested in other activities (exploration, evangelism, etc.) to facilitate the process.

Moreover, it's a straw man to accuse Marxism of being economically reductionist. Anyone who understands the dialectical method knows that it's the exact opposite of reductionist thinking.

There was a definite healthy tendency for the urge to spread European civilization which was and still is the light of the world.

That's a contentious claim. First, it begs the question of which "European civilization" you're referring to. Greek, Roman, Kelt? Second, why were these cultures worthy of being spread, which necessarily implies the displacement or complete annihilation of other cultures?

Expansion is a good thing.

Why? Why isn't sustainability superior?

Nationalism really highlights futurism and space expansion.

I disagree. I view space exploration as a triumph of the human species, not a petty competition between nations.

Celtiberian wrote:It's not a question of if people act for reasons which transcend their economic interests. It's about what helps shape the major decisions a nation undertakes. Emperors and monarchs didn't invest time and resources in foreign voyages just because they were eager to map the world, or what have you. They intended on enriching and empowering their dominion via imperialism and they simply used individuals who were more interested in other activities (exploration, evangelism, etc.) to facilitate the process.

Moreover, it's a straw man to accuse Marxism of being economically reductionist. Anyone who understands the dialectical method knows that it's the exact opposite of reductionist thinking.

My main problem is the thinking that ALL monarchs were simply power hungry imperialists. Can we not say some might simply have been motivated and well meaning? Not to mention all the financiers, explorers, soldiers, and settlers who may as well have had noble reasons for wanting to explore and map the world. Exploration was good, unfortunately it took a downward path in the pages of history. If Europeans didn't map out the world, than who would have?

That's a contentious claim. First, it begs the question of which "European civilization" you're referring to. Greek, Roman, Kelt? Second, why were these cultures worthy of being spread, which necessarily implies the displacement or complete annihilation of other cultures?

All of them really. In my opinion someone needed to map the world and explore, it is a shame where it got us (globalization and liberalism) but what would the world be like today if Europeans hadn't set a single foot outside of Europe?

Why? Why isn't sustainability superior?

In my opinion, for the same reason a kid never leaving his room is inferior.

I disagree. I view space exploration as a triumph of the human species, not a petty competition between nations.

Surely it is a triumph of the human species but competition between two nations helped to produce it. That shouldn't be ignored.

Pantheon Rising wrote:My main problem is the thinking that ALL monarchs were simply power hungry imperialists. Can we not say some might simply have been motivated and well meaning?

I don't doubt that certain monarchs may have been fascinated with exploration, just as some were religious zealots obsessed with spreading their faith. However, monarchs and emperors were operating within an institutional framework not very different from that experienced by capitalists. Kingdoms were in competition with one another, and the monarch best capable of quickly acquiring resources would be in a relatively better position to secure and expand his or her dominion. Falling behind meant increasing your kingdom's vulnerability. Thus, the major impetuous behind imperialism was economic in nature, because wealth conferred power.

Not to mention all the financiers, explorers, soldiers, and settlers who may as well have had noble reasons for wanting to explore and map the world.

I had already conceded to that when I wrote, "[monarchs] used individuals who were more interested in other activities (exploration, evangelism, etc.) to facilitate the process."

Exploration was good, unfortunately it took a downward path in the pages of history.

In your subjective opinion it was. The countless people who were negatively affected by the process would surely have disagreed.

If Europeans didn't map out the world, than who would have?

The mapping of the world wasn't the problematic aspect of European imperialism. Warfare, genocide, conquest, and slavery were. No one can say how maps would have been drawn had imperialism never occurred. Perhaps purely educational explorations could have been organized at some point, who knows? My disagreement with you on this issue has to do with your stance that the "spreading of European civilization" was inherently "good." My position is that there were several positive developments which occurred as an indirect consequence of imperialism, but there were also horrific events which transpired that shouldn't be marginalized. And even if there were progressive aspects of certain instances of imperialism, the act itself is something which cannot be justified. It is rooted in a "might is right" ethic which is appalling and destructive.

All of them really.

You may consider them equally important, but the Europeans themselves certainly didn't. The history of intra-European imperialism is just as abominable as any other.

what would the world be like today if Europeans hadn't set a single foot outside of Europe?

I'm not suggesting that every nation should have practiced strict isolationism. Exploration and trade are perfectly reasonable, imperialism is not.

In my opinion, for the same reason a kid never leaving his room is inferior.

I think that's a rather poor metaphor. A more apt one would be between a peaceful neighbor who minds his own business, and a belligerent one who breaks into your home, rapes your wife, and proceeds to steal your property.

Surely it is a triumph of the human species but competition between two nations helped to produce it. That shouldn't be ignored.

Competition may have aided in securing resources for the projects and accelerated their development, but it was ultimately the scientists' intrinsic desire to achieve space exploration that brought humanity to outer space.

Celtiberian wrote:Competition may have aided in securing resources for the projects and accelerated their development, but it was ultimately the scientists' intrinsic desire to achieve space exploration that brought humanity to outer space.

Not to mention that the aforementioned competition as a motivator, to whatever extent, is immaterial. We are entirely capable of sponsoring programs for the progress of humanity without mindless barbarity. There is such a phenomenon called "cooperation" (a rather alien concept in these times) which is perfectly suited for this purpose.

Rev Scare wrote:Not to mention that the aforementioned competition as a motivator, to whatever extent, is immaterial. We are entirely capable of sponsoring programs for the progress of humanity without mindless barbarity. There is such a phenomenon called "cooperation" (a rather alien concept in these times) which is perfectly suited for this purpose.

Indeed.

Celtiberian wrote:I don't doubt that certain monarchs may have been fascinated with exploration, just as some were religious zealots obsessed with spreading their faith. However, monarchs and emperors were operating within an institutional framework not very different from that experienced by capitalists. Kingdoms were in competition with one another, and the monarch best capable of quickly acquiring resources would be in a relatively better position to secure and expand his or her dominion. Falling behind meant increasing your kingdom's vulnerability. Thus, the major impetuous behind imperialism was economic in nature, because wealth conferred power.

Yes, however the crux of the issue is that there was indeed a knack for exploration and in my opinion the knack for exploration was only a healthy tendency. I think you conceded to the point that not all monarchs were guided by the simple thought of domination when you said some may have been fascinated by exploration.

In your subjective opinion it was. The countless people who were negatively affected by the process would surely have disagreed.

Such is the story of life. In our subjective opinion socialism is good, but the ruling stratum of big properties owners surely do disagree.

The mapping of the world wasn't the problematic aspect of European imperialism. Warfare, genocide, conquest, and slavery were.

Surely there were downsides and upsides, but people concentrate on the negative sides enough through their liberal bourgeois schooling. I like to point out the positives of every situation.

No one can say how maps would have been drawn had imperialism never occurred. Perhaps purely educational explorations could have been organized at some point, who knows? My disagreement with you on this issue has to do with your stance that the "spreading of European civilization" was inherently "good." My position is that there were several positive developments which occurred as an indirect consequence of imperialism, but there were also horrific events which transpired that shouldn't be marginalized. And even if there were progressive aspects of certain instances of imperialism, the act itself is something which cannot be justified. It is rooted in a "might is right" ethic which is appalling and destructive.

Like I said, I do not think the negative or positive aspects need to be marginalized. We need to look at history honestly.

You may consider them equally important, but the Europeans themselves certainly didn't. The history of intra-European imperialism is just as abominable as any other.

I agree, which is why we must build a new system based on European ethnic cooperation.

I think that's a rather poor metaphor. A more apt one would be between a peaceful neighbor who minds his own business, and a belligerent one who breaks into your home, rapes your wife, and proceeds to steal your property.

Aye, but there is other areas to traverse besides your neighbors house.

Competition may have aided in securing resources for the projects and accelerated their development, but it was ultimately the scientists' intrinsic desire to achieve space exploration that brought humanity to outer space.

It was, but it was also a national effort and each people were putting all their faith, effort, and resources in their nation's advancement, nations being natural human constructs. Therefore the natural vehicle for the advancement of mankind being the nation.

Pantheon Rising wrote:Yes, however the crux of the issue is that there was indeed a knack for exploration and in my opinion the knack for exploration was only a healthy tendency. I think you conceded to the point that not all monarchs were guided by the simple thought of domination when you said some may have been fascinated by exploration.

As I explained in my previous post, exploration isn't the issue I have with the history of imperialism. To repeat, "[w]arfare, genocide, conquest, and slavery" are.

Such is the story of life.

Are you suggesting that imperialism was (or is) inevitable? Feudalism and monarchism provided the institutional pressures which led to imperialism, but humanity isn't condemned to labor under feudalism (or capitalism, for that matter).

In our subjective opinion socialism is good, but the ruling stratum of big properties owners surely do disagree.

Obviously. But I would argue that socialism is the most logical and ethical way to organize production and distribution conceivable. One need only juxtapose socialism with capitalism or feudalism, analyze the philosophical arguments which have been established in defense of each, and—provided he or she is semi-intelligent and unbiased—the investigator will likely agree. Furthermore, the internal contradictions of capitalism itself, coupled with humanity's innate disdain for bourgeois social relations, conspire to make the emergence of socialism probable—thereby placing socialists on the right side of history, as it were.

Surely there were downsides and upsides, but people concentrate on the negative sides enough through their liberal bourgeois schooling. I like to point out the positives of every situation.

The raison d'etre of imperialism was exploitation (of land, resources, and people). Anything positive which also emerged therefrom was purely incidental.

Like I said, I do not think the negative or positive aspects need to be marginalized. We need to look at history honestly.

Of course, and I think it's dishonest to suggest that imperialism was, in anyway, excusable simply because you can point to instances wherein something beneficial (e.g., exploration) also occurred.

I agree, which is why we must build a new system based on European ethnic cooperation.

I would extend that to encompass all of humanity. There's absolutely no reason why all the nations and peoples of the world cannot cooperate and coexist peacefully with one another.

Aye, but there is other areas to traverse besides your neighbors house.

Indeed, but it would be remiss to omit mention of the dreadful fact that people were wronged in profound ways.

It was, but it was also a national effort and each people were putting all their faith, effort, and resources in their nation's advancement, nations being natural human constructs. Therefore the natural vehicle for the advancement of mankind being the nation.

The nation was undoubtedly instrumental, but it was also an international effort. Recall that much of the research and technology which was utilized in the space program was developed by non-American and non-Soviet scientists. Where one chooses to place emphasis (the individual, nation, or international scientific community) is subjective and largely irrelevant.

Celtiberian wrote:As I explained in my previous post, exploration isn't the issue I have with the history of imperialism. To repeat, "[w]arfare, genocide, conquest, and slavery" are.

I wasn't advocating repeating it, I was simply pointing out the positives.

Are you suggesting that imperialism was (or is) inevitable? Feudalism and monarchism provided the institutional pressures which led to imperialism, but humanity isn't condemned to labor under feudalism (or capitalism, for that matter).

You said that the people suffering under imperial expansion would disagree that it was good. Life is full of conflicts and disagreements is what I was saying. I pointed to the example of socialists VS those who own capital.

Obviously. But I would argue that socialism is the most logical and ethical way to organize production and distribution conceivable. One need only juxtapose socialism with capitalism or feudalism, analyze the philosophical arguments which have been established in defense of each, and—provided he or she is semi-intelligent and unbiased—the investigator will likely agree. Furthermore, the internal contradictions of capitalism itself, coupled with humanity's innate disdain for bourgeois social relations, conspire to make the emergence of socialism probable—thereby placing socialists on the right side of history, as it were.

Yes, but that is your subjective argument. Right now (although brainwashed by the school and media) most Americans don't even know what socialism is or think it is desirable.

European monarchs could easily be giving me justified reasons for imperialist endeavors such as trying to civilize savage people and save souls. Sure we could say they are lying and all their actions are motivated by economics, but then again so are yours by advocating socialism.

The raison d'etre of imperialism was exploitation (of land, resources, and people). Anything positive which also emerged therefrom was purely incidental.

Purely irrelevant whether it was incidental or not. If a man discovers a new species of animal while on the way to rape his neighbor's wife he still deserves credit for the discovery.

Of course, and I think it's dishonest to suggest that imperialism was, in anyway, excusable simply because you can point to instances wherein something beneficial (e.g., exploration) also occurred.

It isn't a matter of it being excusable or not, it is a matter of being whether we need to harp on how horrible European expansion was. Like I said, Europeans hear enough of that shit throughout their 12 years of schooling.

I would extend that to encompass all of humanity. There's absolutely no reason why all the nations and peoples of the world cannot cooperate and coexist peacefully with one another.

I disagree, I support European autarky. That way they can't blame us, and we can't blame them for problems. There we go all solved, this crap can't happen again unless someone sticks their nose outside where they do not belong.

The nation was undoubtedly instrumental, but it was also an international effort. Recall that much of the research and technology which was utilized in the space program was developed by non-American and non-Soviet scientists. Where one chooses to place emphasis (the individual, nation, or international scientific community) is subjective and largely irrelevant.

Yes, but they were still working under those respective governments. You yourself admitted that the nation was instrumental. There may have been Europeans from all over the world working on putting men into space but to strip it of the national element is to strip the common man of pride in his nation, and socialism is supposed to work for the pride of the common man; not against it.

Pantheon Rising wrote:I wasn't advocating repeating it, I was simply pointing out the positives.

Fine, but any impartial observer would acknowledge that the human costs far exceed whatever benefits emerged from imperialism. Only a sociopath could suggest that the enslavement and death of millions of people was justifiable because those sacrifices also facilitated valuable explorations.

Yes, but that is your subjective argument.

My argument logically follows from the premise I outlined in my previous post, i.e., that capitalism will not be capable of perpetually reproducing itself due to insurmountable contradictions and mankind's innate disdain for the alienation it engenders—such is the scientific socialist position. These deleterious contradictions, I contend, are objectively true.

Right now (although brainwashed by the school and media) most Americans don't even know what socialism is or think it is desirable.

They don't think it's desirable because they don't know what it is. The material conditions conducive to the establishment of widespread class consciousness are not currently present, so the American people's ignorance is understandable.

European monarchs could easily be giving me justified reasons for imperialist endeavors such as trying to civilize savage people and save souls. Sure we could say they are lying and all their actions are motivated by economics, but then again so are yours by advocating socialism.

Only part of my argument for socialism rests on ethical considerations, as what I wrote above indicates.

Purely irrelevant whether it was incidental or not. If a man discovers a new species of animal while on the way to rape his neighbor's wife he still deserves credit for the discovery.

And who, pray tell, is failing to credit Europeans for mapping and industrializing much of the world?

It isn't a matter of it being excusable or not, it is a matter of being whether we need to harp on how horrible European expansion was. Like I said, Europeans hear enough of that shit throughout their 12 years of schooling.

Horrific events warrant being stressed. Moreover, most of the textbooks I've read have been quite balanced with respect to the history of European imperialism.

I disagree, I support European autarky. That way they can't blame us, and we can't blame them for problems. There we go all solved, this crap can't happen again unless someone sticks their nose outside where they do not belong.

Autarky would necessarily lead to a decline in living standards for much of the European continent. It's also completely unnecessary, as trade can easily be reorganized so as to be non-exploitative.

but to strip it of the national element is to strip the common man of pride in his nation, and socialism is supposed to work for the pride of the common man; not against it.

Why would it "strip the common man of pride in his nation"? One could be proud of the fact his or her nation succeeded in establishing a space program whilst not ignoring the fact that it couldn't have occurred without the work countless scientists from around the world also contributed over the years.

Celtiberian wrote:Fine, but any impartial observer would acknowledge that the human costs far exceed whatever benefits emerged from imperialism. Only a sociopath could suggest that the enslavement and death of millions of people was justifiable because those sacrifices also facilitated valuable explorations.

I personally don't think it is justified to concentrate only on the enslavement and death part. It is an ethno-masochist point of view. Sure, we can admit it is wrong and vow not to do it again but this sounds like typical high school teacher crap. "Those damn European males they ran around the globe and oppressed everyone!"

Only part of my argument for socialism rests on ethical considerations, as what I wrote above indicates.

When they're talking about saving souls; so does theirs.

And who, pray tell, is failing to credit Europeans for mapping and industrializing much of the world?

Well, most cosmopolitans do and the establishment seems to like to dwell on the more negative aspects as you are doing now.

Horrific events warrant being stressed. Moreover, most of the textbooks I've read have been quite balanced with respect to the history of European imperialism.

Sure, but most high schools don't even use textbooks in high school anymore. I haven't used one once this year in history and the schools around me are all the same. We, do however, learn from a state curriculum and teachers that go through years of liberal artsy courses to become teachers. Alls I hear is whiny nonsense about how white males ruled over everything.

Autarky would necessarily lead to a decline in living standards for much of the European continent. It's also completely unnecessary, as trade can easily be reorganized so as to be non-exploitative.

I disagree that it would. I could see the need for importing some commodities and slowly phasing out the need for them with developing domestic alternatives (which could be quite a lengthy period of time) but I am absolutely opposed to manufacturing centers being outside of our nations. We have enough imported cheap junk from China. Autarky and national independence go hand in hand.

Why would it "strip the common man of pride in his nation"? One could be proud of the fact his or her nation succeeded in establishing a space program whilst not ignoring the fact that it couldn't have occurred without the work countless scientists from around the world also contributed over the years.

You're right it wouldn't but what we were debating is the importance of the nation specifically in the space program.

Pantheon Rising wrote:I personally don't think it is justified to concentrate only on the enslavement and death part.

I never suggested that we should only focus on the slavery and genocide imperialism was responsible for. It is, however, entirely justifiable to emphasize it. The history of imperialism should serve as a lesson to humanity regarding the horrors which can be unleashed when competition is allowed to eclipse reason; political decisions are made by an unaccountable elite, as opposed to the people themselves; and national self-determination isn't respected.

It is an ethno-masochist point of view.

Absolutely not. I've never suggested that people be ashamed of their ethnicity or culture. However, self-deception isn't advisable either. All nations have engaged in dishonorable behavior at some point in their history. This history should be approached honestly and learned from.

Sure, we can admit it is wrong and vow not to do it again but this sounds like typical high school teacher crap. "Those damn European males they ran around the globe and oppressed everyone!"

It's obviously inaccurate to claim that it was their being European or male which led to imperialism. I realize that's somewhat of a popular claim amongst Afrocentric historians, but I've yet to encounter a high school teacher propounding such a view.

Well, most cosmopolitans do

I've not experienced such a denial, even from cosmopolitans.

and the establishment seems to like to dwell on the more negative aspects as you are doing now.

If by "establishment" you're referring to academia, that's because the process of peer review and interdisciplinary collaboration tends to bring the truth to the fore—though I'd never deny the role the political climate, bias, and incomplete information can have in the writing of history.

Sure, but most high schools don't even use textbooks in high school anymore. I haven't used one once this year in history and the schools around me are all the same.

That's a separate issue.

We, do however, learn from a state curriculum and teachers that go through years of liberal artsy courses to become teachers. Alls I hear is whiny nonsense about how white males ruled over everything.

I've taken many of these "liberal artsy" courses myself and very rarely have I witnessed anti-Caucasian sentiment.

Autarky and national independence go hand in hand.

Modern economies are heavily interdependent, and while this can be scaled back to an extent under socialism, I see no reason why a policy of fair trade cannot be implemented. Many nations simply do not possess the natural resources required to sustain their populations, let alone provide them with a humane existence.

Acknowledging the fact that Caucasian males "ruled over everything" (I figure this is an exaggeration on your part, PR) is not being anti-White...it's being fairly precise.