Let's stop the blut and soil BS right here. I am all for european panationalism but don't pretend that Europe is "your house" where "your ancestors" were. You come from a very specific culture inside it which has its own specific language and traditions and that has spent most its history warring with its neighbours, sometimes people in the next village speaking a different version of your lanuage. My ancestors and your ancestor probably scarified each other, the land didn't

Turns out unifying a lot of different countries that have different languages and interest is a hard problem and in order to satisfy everyone a little bureaucracy is the price to pay. You may find it too bloated, too slow or even too corrupt but burning it to the ground is a lunacy for people who entertain clean slate delusions: Whenever it happens, it is a catastrophy for everyone but a few opportunists.

Europe is imperfect but it has rejected the idea of war outside of itself. I don't think any European citizen would go to war with their neighbour. Just that is an amazing achievement. Now it can stay an economic union and big powers can pick and choose how to manipulate each one of us for their own purposes or it can strive to be a political union and have a standing on the international stage. We're not there yet but we will, eventually, we just need to hang tight. Things take time.

▲

logicchains 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>Europe is imperfect but it has rejected the idea of war outside of itself. I don't think any European citizen would go to war with their neighbour. Just that is an amazing achievement.

Not really. South American countries don't go to war with each other and they don't have a union. Nor do central American countries.

	▲	triceratops 6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> South American countries don't go to war with each other No? Here are some examples I found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Pacific https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peruvian%E2%80%93Bolivian_War_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peruvian%E2%80%93Bolivian_War_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraguayan_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguayan_War You may argue these were all in the 19th century, and that is true. It's possible South America learned their lesson from the world wars. An alternative explanation is the presence of the US. It was never going to let another regional power roll up smaller states in the Western hemisphere so there was no point in being expansionist.
	▲	cassepipe 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paquisha_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cenepa_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beagle_conflict And that's not counting the Falklands war because Britain doesn't feel like it belong in the neighborhood but it's still an invasion of sovereign territory out of nationalistic motives I'll grant none of those was a major conflict and that it's an interesting case but still. Maybe the fact that apart from Brazil, they have a language in common makes it harder to sell the neighbour as a foreigner ? What else could it be ? I am genuinely curious
	▲	skylurk 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It does get tense sometimes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_War

▲

joe_mamba 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>Let's stop the blut and soil BS right here

Would you also tell that to native American Indians? Or to the Japanese? Or to the Indians?

It's no BS unless you've been brainwashed and make massive efforts to ignore reality. Blood based belonging to a place is hardwired in every culture and society on the planet, from Asia to the Americas. NA, UK, AU, NZ, and the EU just have added a lot of PR paint on top to pretend it doesn't exist in their liberal societies, but it does, except it's much more under the table and subversive.

>a little bureaucracy is the price to pay.

Taking away people's privacy and freedom of speech is a little more problematic than just "a little bureaucracy".

>Europe is imperfect but it has rejected the idea of war outside of itself. I don't think any European citizen would go to war with their neighbour. Just that is an amazing achievement.

That WAS an achievement in the past, but if you dissolve the EU institution tomorrow, no former EU member state will suddenly got to war with their neighbour just because the EU doesn't exist anymore. So the myth that the EU is somehow preventing war in EU today is bogus. That was history, this is today.

▲

cassepipe 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Would you also tell that to native American Indians? Or to the Japanese? Or to the Indians?

If they were saying to me what you wrote that $big_chunk_of_land "is the land that housed, fed and scarified my ancestors, is my house, not this supra-governmental corrupt bureaucratic institution called" $state_institution, I would laugh them off, yes

▲

cassepipe 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Taking away people's privacy and freedom of speech is a little more problematic than just "a little bureaucracy"

I mean yes but it is ultimately your framing. It's concerning and worth being fought against but no worse that what US was, is or has tried to do, and despite the corrupt buffoon at its head right now, it is not a dictatorship yet. What we need is a good balance of powers and well-designed institutions, and not as you suggested, to destroy it.

> That WAS an achievement in the past, but if you dissolve the EU institution tomorrow, no former EU member state will suddenly got to war with their neighbour just because the EU doesn't exist anymore. So the myth that the EU is preventing war in EU is bogus. That was history, this is today.

Fair enough but that does not warrant the use of the past, it IS an achievement. Also, give it time and history will do its thing. Remove the EU and, sooner or later, war will come back. The same way that if you remove the counter-powers, tyranny will come back

EDIT: You added this part about in response to my blood and soil line afterwards:

> It's no BS unless you've been brainwashed and make massive efforts to ignore reality. Blood based tribalism and ingroup preference is hardwired in every culture and society on the planet, from Asia to the Americas. NA, UK, AU, NZ, and the EU just have added a lot of PR paint on top to pretend it doesn't exist in their liberal societies, but it does except it's much more under the table and subversive.

Interesting how people seem to think reality is on their side and people who think otherwise must have been brainwashed.

Anyways, is it hardwired or is it "soft" wired ? Are we only responding to our wiring or did we manage to create cultures around it or are we condemned to an endless loop of prewired behaviours ?

Sexual desire is also "hardwired" in us and yet we finally managed to no rape each other based on dominance hierarchies. Is that the kind of society you are looking forward to ? One based on some kind of supposedly natural order ?

Yes tribalism does exist, we know what kind of world it produces. It's utter shit. Poverty and misery for everyone but the people at the top.

I swear you people are so bored that you cannot appreciate the sheer amount of material wealth you are effing bathing in. You dream of an heroic past that never existed where you get to be the hero.

Ha the times where being a man with no other skills than violence could get you riches ! Let's conveniently forget about most people, living under the boot in a life of injustice and life-threatening poverty.

▲

joe_mamba 4 hours ago | parent [-]

>I mean yes

QED. End of story. Rest is just meaningless ranting that doesn't disprove anything I said before.

	▲	cassepipe 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Amazing, you even support autarky in debating

▲

vlian2088 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>Let's stop the blut and soil BS

do you feel the same way when Africans speak of Africa?

▲

cassepipe 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I think less because I am not an african myself but yes, I guess it could ?

Can you provide me with some example of something that you think I would not disapprove of and that amounts the exactly the same thing ?

Or maybe can you try to defend the blood and soil rethoric (call it the way you want) instead of a drive-by comment ?

▲

vlian2088 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm just noticing that only European people seem to be disallowed from calling their land "their land" and outsiders "outsiders". it's "blut and soil", as if the men who fought Nazis fought Nazis for some high-minded ideals rather than their land and their people.

	▲	cassepipe 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Oh, you're just noticing are you ? Who are those people who are "disallowing" you from calling your land your land ? How do you handle living under such oppression ? Just come out of the woods will you It turns out people don't like to be invaded, yes, simple as. Of course you would very much like to convince everyone that immigration is just the same as an invasion and thus, the same way to deal with it is justified. So just say so instead of dancing around and posing as the victim.