The EU is an empire, and empires mean war

[xchrom]

http://www.presseurop.eu/en/content/article/2300601-eu-empire-and-empires-mean-war

Partisans of the European project invariably argue that nationalism leads to war and while the development of Europe will safeguard peace – a noble objective that is more than sufficient compensation for any loss in democracy, sovereignty and transparency caused by Brussels. However, this theory is fundamentally flawed.

Nationalism does not lead to war. Attempts to build European empires lead to war. The urge to impose a straitjacket on the will of peoples will leads to war. In short, the European project will lead to war.

Fascism and Nazism were both focused on the creation of Europe. As early as 1933, Mussolini declared that Europe could once again exert its power in the world if it succeeded in establishing a certain political unity.

Mussolini’s new Roman Empire

The Norwegian collaborationist Vidkun Quisling argued that we should create a Europe that does not waste its blood in murderous conflict, but one that is solidly united. And on 11 September 1940, Joseph Goebbels affirmed: I am certain that 50 years from now, we will no longer reason in terms of countries.

On 28 November 1941, in the course of a conversation with the Finnish minister of foreign affairs, Adolf Hitler remarked that the countries of Europe should obviously be together, like the members of a big family. In his authoritative study, Nations and States (1977), historian Hugh Seton-Watson, of the University of Oxford, concludes that Hitler’s intentions were not confined to what could be described as German nationalism.

[choie]

1. I'd worry more

about the U.S. empire.

[bemildred]

2. They both suck (nationalism and imperialism), and are closely related.

If this clown was not trying to defend nationalism, I would be OK with his argument.

It is the desire to rule over others and steal their stuff that leads to war.

[xchrom]

3. I couldn't quite figure if he was arguin nationalism or

Making an argument for decentralization.

Which - I guess - could be argued as an antidote for war.

Though the longer I live - it just seems humans love their wars - big or small.

[bemildred]

4. Yep, that's the problem.

You cannot eliminate war, people have a deep and wide asshole streak, and you are not going to just wish it away, and jingo nationalism, of all things, is not an antidote for war in any sense.

I think he favors collapse of the EU, and is throwing all the turds that are ready to hand at it.

[xchrom]

5. yeah he's against the EU -- i'm not on board

with his thinking there at all.

i really want{ed} a socialized democracy in the global mix.

but that may be an idea that needs to RIP.

[bemildred]

6. I've thought about that a lot, it's a thorny problem.

You have to keep power and public accountability tightly coupled, and anybody that wants to run things in the first place also wants a free hand, and the public generally wants to get on with life.

So the bigger they are, the more completely they have to be hobbled. The old checks and balances argument.

I quite agree that this guy is not the one I want running the new utopian Europe, even though I agree with some of his idea.

[Igel]

7. I hate nationalism.

And also rather like it.

Depends on the operative definition.

If you're in Barcelona, Catalonian nationalism is still the rage. Speak Catalan, have local autonomy, assert one's pride as a natio (sic) distinct from the Castilians, Galicians, Leonese. As long as it's voluntary, great!

I even balk at having much trouble with Latvia's and Ukraine's kind of nationalism, when there's pushback against the consequences of centuries of forced Russification and population transfers, so that those most indigenous to the area are swamped and all but compelled to assimilate. It's the same with First Nation's language policies in Canada: Nunavut has its language policy: Public and private sector service providers are to provide services in at least one Inuit language (with Ottawa objecting--it's okay to require federal employees to pass a test in French in Vancouver BC, but not in Inuktitut in Nunavut).

This is pure nationalism. In the end, it's rather atomistic: The result of this kind of nationalism can be a kind of regional diversity (the result I personally like) or a welter of patchwork jurisdictions (a result I think is foolish), none of which has authority over the other. As soon as you have a bunch of petty little jurisdictions, it's not that hard for a supranational framework to push them around--it's easy to get a majority behind you to subjugate the minority on a lot of issues, and the result is something that the overwhelming majority would despise but by then are stuck with.

If you're a Mexican-American student, you may belong to MEChA, and assert your pride in your ethnicity and historical ties to Central America. Eh. But when suddenly they assert their Aztec-Spanish-African ties to the SW US because of an Aztec myth about Aztlan, then it goes into jingoism. For some MEChistas I've met, they just view themselves better, having some sort of intrinsic right to force others to bow to their race's supremacy. A lot of (D) have no trouble with MEChista jingoism. It's harmless--or useful.

It's still pure nationalism, but a different kind. The kind I can't stand.

Polysemy can be a bear, but we're stuck with it.

[bemildred]

8. Meaning cannot really be separated from context anyway.

Absolute meaning is no more realisitic than absolute velocity, so any word has an arbitrarily large number of meanings, if you want to get picky, one for each usage.

In this particular case, I consider it's a question of measure, I think people ought to think well of themselves, we all have the right to be here, ipso facto, but not to the point of looking down on anybody else. Thus it's OK to be proud to be X as long as you don't decide that makes you categorically better than Y.

[T_i_B]

9. Reads like a UKIP screed

The central claim that "Nationalism does not lead to war" is pure baloney.

Doesn't mean that giving more powers to the EU is right however as there is a lot wrong with the EU.

I consider myself a Euro-sceptic, but that doesn't mean that I have much time for the likes of UKIP either.