Thread: How to obtain world peace?

Originally Posted by Galvatron

How to obtain world peace?
Would this help to bring strong change across the world?
---------------
THE L.A.S.E.R.S. MANIFESTO
To Every Man, Woman & Child...
1. We Want An End To The Glamorization Of Negativity In The Media.
2. We Want An End To Status Symbols Dictating Our Worth As Individuals.
3. We Want A Meaningful And Universal Education System.
4. We Want Substance In The Place Of Popularity.
5. We Will Not Compromise Who We Are To Be Accepted By The Crowd.
6. We Want The Invisible Walls That Separate By Wealth, Race & Class To Be Torn Down.
7. We Want To Think Our Own Thoughts.
8. We Will Be Responsible For Our Environment.
9. We Want Clarity & Truth From Our Elected Officials Or They Should Move Aside.
10. We Want Love Not Lies.
11. We Want An End To All Wars. Foreign & Domestic (Violence).
12. We Want An End To The Processed Culture Of Exploitation, Over-Consumption & Waste.
13. We Want Knowledge, Understanding & Peace.
14. WE WILL NOT LOSE BECAUSE WE ARE NOT LOSERS, WE ARE LASERS!!!
------------

Yeah! You win.!

That requires a WHOLE lot of responsibility. Most people aren't willing to put in the effort... SOME, many, are. But unfortunately with dwindling resources and sustainability failures... we probably won't get there.

Sad thoughts make me sad.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

That requires a WHOLE lot of responsibility. Most people aren't willing to put in the effort... SOME, many, are. But unfortunately with dwindling resources and sustainability failures... we probably won't get there.

Sad thoughts make me sad.

Yeah, well that's why its our job to spread awareness, more people aware of the problems we face and the solutions that are needed, then the more people who will actually act.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Why would a nationalist government invade another country? It would be a waste of money that could be used to improve their own nation. Plus it would be against the principle of interfering with other nations affairs.

Lebensraum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't know about you people, but I would not want to live under one government. Hell, I don't even recognize myself as true European even though we are in EU. I recognize myself by my nationality first, a part of northern countries as second and maybe, just maybe an European as third. It would be practically impossible to make people accept one government. I'd never want that.

Originally Posted by Unelias

I don't know about you people, but I would not want to live under one government. Hell, I don't even recognize myself as true European even though we are in EU. I recognize myself by my nationality first, a part of northern countries as second and maybe, just maybe an European as third. It would be practically impossible to make people accept one government. I'd never want that.

That's why we should adapt my model of government. Consensus based democracy starting in the community and working up the ranks through municipality, district, state/province and nation/federation. The law works progressively so we would agree to no global laws that can't be reached by consensus. All levels of government would be accountable to a small constituency which is accountable to their constituency, etc...

You can read about it here http://www.dreamviews.com/f36/balanc...-stage-121572/

can people make their own arguments without jsut posting wikipedia links. Germany during that perdiod was NATIONAL SOCIALT, not nationalist. The ideas were not based on upon German nationalism, but german supremacism. There is a massive world of difference.

Bringing up National Socialist Germany as a response to anything slightly nationalist would be like me brining up the myriad of communist atrocities when anyone mentions equality. Some ideologies of the part have been labeled as Nationalist, or Socialist when in reality, neither were.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

can people make their own arguments without jsut posting wikipedia links. Germany during that perdiod was NATIONAL SOCIALT, not nationalist. The ideas were not based on upon German nationalism, but german supremacism. There is a massive world of difference.

Bringing up National Socialist Germany as a response to anything slightly nationalist would be like me brining up the myriad of communist atrocities when anyone mentions equality. Some ideologies of the part have been labeled as Nationalist, or Socialist when in reality, neither were.

A natural outcome of nationalism is the expansion of the nation and destruction of weaker or smaller neighbors. It may feel liberating to the isolationists but it breeds ignorant pride over generations.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Bringing up National Socialist Germany as a response to anything slightly nationalist would be like me brining up the myriad of communist atrocities when anyone mentions equality. Some ideologies of the part have been labeled as Nationalist, or Socialist when in reality, neither were.

My opinion is mine without any reference whatsoever. Since you are very adamant at protecting your idea of nationalism, could you shed some light what do you mean by it? I see nothing good as nationalism as political idea. It is fine to be proud from your country and heritage, believe me, I am. But history has proven that when you extent that far enough you'll be looking into the barrel soon enough. While not all states were "nationalistic" by definition, they all used values of nationalism to ignite the people to their ideas. We do not have to stay in Nazi Germany, there are countless of other examples as well. You can start by opening a history book and poking blindly at almost any page.

Also I find it quite relevant to know your nationality?

I wasn't talking about your comment unelias, i was reffering to the comments bringing up lebensraum and the holocaust

There are two ideologies that are named nationalism, they are Civic Nationalism, and Ethnic Nationalism. they are quite seperate, the common element in both is that they aim to work in the interest of their own nation. Specifically I am an ethnic nationalist. The belief that the nation state should be based upon the ethnic group. Nationalism (both forms) aims to put their own nation first, which usually means an abolition of foreign aid, and in europe, reduction and a complete stop to immigration. Nationalism is also based upon the principle that each nation has the right to self determintation.

My issue was that people will often respond to nationalism with claims that any form of nationalism will inevitably lead to mass murder. This is ridiculous, because anytime someone suggests a policy left of centre such as minimum wage, I could also bring up mass murder, but that would be ridiculous.

Anyway, seeing as you asked my nationality is British.

What do you think the "nationalism" in "nazi" is doing there, just hitching a ride to add bling?

You asked what reason a nationalist country would have for invading others, I gave you one.

I dont actually see the word 'nationalism' contained within 'nazi'.

The National Socialist German Workers Party was based on a form of socialism with some nationalist and some supremacist ideas.

Naziism, Socialism and Nationalism are three different ideologies.

If everyone had their own territory, and was in mutual agreement to 'live and let live' then that would lead to world peace, nationalists tend to have this world view.

Nazism -> Nationalsozialismus -> National Socialism

National (in this context) -> adjective of nationalism

I think it's obvious that German nationalism and racial philosophy were the cornerstone of Nazi ideology and practises. If anything it's the "socialism" part that's a misnomer.

Wars are rarely caused by conflicting ethnicities; they're about resources, land, power, politics, etc. What ethnicity does is create one HELL of a compelling rallying point for a country's citizens. If your government is teaching you that your race is the best and that everyone else is subhuman scum that doesn't deserve to be within 10 feet of you, it just makes it that much easier for you to not give a shit when they invade Mahmoud for his oil or shut down Bernstein's business. And that's why nationalism leads to violence, because it breeds indifference, a false sense of superiority and lack of compassion.

You mentioned the website Stormfront shaped your ideas, would you call that place a peaceful gathering of people?

Originally Posted by Thatperson

I wasn't talking about your comment unelias, i was reffering to the comments bringing up lebensraum and the holocaust

There are two ideologies that are named nationalism, they are Civic Nationalism, and Ethnic Nationalism. they are quite seperate, the common element in both is that they aim to work in the interest of their own nation. Specifically I am an ethnic nationalist. The belief that the nation state should be based upon the ethnic group. Nationalism (both forms) aims to put their own nation first, which usually means an abolition of foreign aid, and in europe, reduction and a complete stop to immigration. Nationalism is also based upon the principle that each nation has the right to self determintation.

My apologies, I thought you meant me.

Thank you for elaboration, it is a lot easier to understand what you are saying now. I do understand your point of view about immigration, but the present world isn't much about ethnic purity. But how I see it, if you take nationalism as main ideology, it is just egoism in a larger playground. Not to say that egoism is necessarily a bad thing, but there are also lot of suffering people escaping wars in other countries and also international laws and protocols. There are lot of immigrants here and we have our own problems with the notion.

I have a hard time of thinking any country that does not try to act for its own interests. Everything that is done in politics is basically protection of own interests although it may not seem directly like it. Yes, foreign aid is given, war torn countries are supported. Am I right suspecting that some of your attitude comes with the current crisis in Europe? With Greece and all that?

Also, I do not see that there is any major political party that does not want nation to have a self-determination.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

My issue was that people will often respond to nationalism with claims that any form of nationalism will inevitably lead to mass murder. This is ridiculous, because anytime someone suggests a policy left of centre such as minimum wage, I could also bring up mass murder, but that would be ridiculous.

Anyway, seeing as you asked my nationality is British.

Well it is not about that all forms necessarily do. It is more than most of forms in history have done. The reason is very simple, it ignites hate and discrimination against other people. And it has always been taken to the extreme.

So, what I am trying to say is that values that nationalism embrace are fine in broad sense, but they are also values that ( at least here ) almost all major parties more or less agree upon. Only difference makes the strictness of foreign immigration. Also, when considering that the orignal topic was about world peace, I do not believe that it can be achieved by that. We can talk that we respect sovereignity of other countries, but it certainly won't stop war. You don't give very peaceful response with the attitude that says : "deal with your own shit, we won't help you."

If your government is teaching you that your race is the best and that everyone else is subhuman scum that doesn't deserve to be within 10 feet of you...

Well that is supramacist ideology, not nationalist ideology.

Am I right suspecting that some of your attitude comes with the current crisis in Europe? With Greece and all that?

No actually, I've been opposed to foreign aid since at least early 2009, maybe even earlier. Although the greece thing is turning a lot of people onto that same mindset. When things were booming it wasn't that much of a concern, but now people are coming home from school 2 hours early on a friday, and peoples street lights are being turned off, this is causing a lot of concern about how governments are sending this desperately needed money elswhere.

Stormfront is a peaceful gathering of people from what I've seen of it. In fact Since i've become a nationalist and since visiting stormfront I have become more accepting of non-whites and other groups than before.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Well that is supramacist ideology, not nationalist ideology.

No actually, I've been opposed to foreign aid since at least early 2009, maybe even earlier. Although the greece thing is turning a lot of people onto that same mindset. When things were booming it wasn't that much of a concern, but now people are coming home from school 2 hours early on a friday, and peoples street lights are being turned off, this is causing a lot of concern about how governments are sending this desperately needed money elswhere.

Stormfront is a peaceful gathering of people from what I've seen of it. In fact Since i've become a nationalist and since visiting stormfront I have become more accepting of non-whites and other groups than before.

Let me explain my specific problem with nationalism as you define it. It promotes isolationism and ignorance between culture. I don't look at government moralistically, but on the level of sustainability. Isolationism and ignorance are simply not sustainable. While I like the idea of not invading other people and ruining their culture, people do it. Life changes, things evolve. The Incas were able to dominate Andean society because they used scouts to learn from the surrounding cultures and acquire vast amounts of knowledge from the entire Continent. People with fundamentally incredible cultures succumbed to pride throughout our entire bloody history. And that's what nationalism boils down to, pride. Attachment to who you are and where you come from. It's about joining an identity greater than yourself. This is a good value but only if its balanced with understanding of other society. China invaded Tibet and approached Tibetan values from a disrespectful, stubborn point of view with a Secularist assumption that their religious traditions had no value. Europeans, lacking understanding in Native Americans, justified their slaughter and displacement by dehumanizing them.

While identifying with something greater than yourself can be beneficial, you should pick the right team. Right now continuing a race war or culture war by further dividing what is already globalizing would be a step backwards rather than forwards. Rather than associate with people by race, associate with people by values and philosophy and promote those traditions.

Nationalism doesn't promote isolationism to the fullest extent (in a north korea kind of way), but does promote self sufficiency as much as possible, which leads to more isolationism than globalism, but full isolationism is neither desirable nor sustainble.

You say that I should associate by those who share my values and traditions rather than who share my race, well by virtue of the fact my values are White Nationalism/British Nationalism then those people will happen to be white , but yeah I understand this point, I do get on well with Black Nationalists/Seperatists as we share a common goal.

I think we have deviated from the original point with regards to world peace. Would you agree that if all peoples of the world had their own space, with mutual agreement of the right to self determination and soverignity, that this would lead to world peace?

Originally Posted by Thatperson

I think we have deviated from the original point with regards to world peace. Would you agree that if all peoples of the world had their own space, with mutual agreement of the right to self determination and soverignity, that this would lead to world peace?

While that would be an honourable cause, as I said before it will not last. Among other things natural resources are not even in this world, so sooner or later there will be involvement. There will be unexpected natural disasters, inner turmoil that will cause unrest in the country and people might try to flee. Also, as you count in world trade there are financical and political interests that affect other countries.

You can zoom back to the cold war and see for yourself. While it was much explained and excused by ideology differences, it was basically USA vs Soviets. Nation vs nation and they both thought their system and nation is the greatest. Recruiting smaller countries, forcing them to co-operate etc etc. You all know our history, so I won't babble more.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Nationalism doesn't promote isolationism to the fullest extent (in a north korea kind of way), but does promote self sufficiency as much as possible, which leads to more isolationism than globalism, but full isolationism is neither desirable nor sustainble.

You say that I should associate by those who share my values and traditions rather than who share my race, well by virtue of the fact my values are White Nationalism/British Nationalism then those people will happen to be white , but yeah I understand this point, I do get on well with Black Nationalists/Seperatists as we share a common goal.

I think we have deviated from the original point with regards to world peace. Would you agree that if all peoples of the world had their own space, with mutual agreement of the right to self determination and soverignity, that this would lead to world peace?

Kind of reiterating what Unelias was saying, you have to look at nature and see what would be sustainable in the natural world. I love the idea of making every nation self-sufficient to an extent. I think cities should be more self-sufficient, honestly. Cuba is a fine example of a country that turned in and became completely self-reliant as a means to cope with the circumstances they had.

But nature finds any weakspot, any opportunity, any single hole. By putting societies up against each other in a competitive atmosphere, we can observe which ones prosper and which dont and ascertain the best method of survival as a society. By nature, societies evolve to fill every empty inch. People hold something over their national identity, and that's their survival and their family's survival. If they're in poverty, they'll move to somewhere with better conditions, giving up their identity in the process. It doesn't matter if it's legal or not. If the entire country gets proud enough, they will start invading their neighbors. People will get suspicious and start building up their armies. People will want to know if their armies are good enough to defend their nation and will put them in real conflict. If you do not constantly test yourself, you are just waiting to be defeated. Time beats all forms of truth and power eventually.

So I would even go as far as to say in my opinion world-peace is not preferable to sustainability.

I think the idea of every single nation in the world existing as a Nationalist state with that mutual respect of soverignity and self determination is possible, although it is a very long way off, in europe it might be possible within 30-40 years.
but there will be an extremely high level of inter-community tension. At least now the conflict is only at the borders.

Multiculturalist and even Multiracialist societies will never be peacful. In Europe the problems are getting worse year by year. Even in asia and africa there are frequent tribal conflicts.

I'd say a world of nationalist states is the only way to world peace, although how to achieve that is another matter. I just don't see any other path to world peace but i'm open to other ideas.

Edit: people often say that ignorance of other cultures and peoples causes problems, well indeed it does, but that does not stop the fact that cultural, ethnic and racial tensions will always exist until the end of time. So I see mutual respect and seperatism to be the best path to domestic and world peace.

Over time groups become larger and more complex, they do not remain the same. These tensions are the battleground through which the strongest culture survives. As weaker cultures become assimilated into stronger cultures groups move toward larger and larger social movements.

Look at gangs for an example. Many gangs start out unique to their neighborhood but expand if they're strong enough. They've got to because if they do not, some day some other gang that did expand will want their neighborhood and will have the resources to take it. This unconscious factor alone is the driving force behind war. Even religious wars waged in the name of god are just about one self-sustainable collection of traditions testing itself against another in order to become stronger so some foreign collection of traditions can't dominate later.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

I think the idea of every single nation in the world existing as a Nationalist state with that mutual respect of soverignity and self determination is possible, although it is a very long way off, in europe it might be possible within 30-40 years.
but there will be an extremely high level of inter-community tension. At least now the conflict is only at the borders.

Multiculturalist and even Multiracialist societies will never be peacful. In Europe the problems are getting worse year by year. Even in asia and africa there are frequent tribal conflicts.

I'd say a world of nationalist states is the only way to world peace, although how to achieve that is another matter. I just don't see any other path to world peace but i'm open to other ideas.

Edit: people often say that ignorance of other cultures and peoples causes problems, well indeed it does, but that does not stop the fact that cultural, ethnic and racial tensions will always exist until the end of time. So I see mutual respect and seperatism to be the best path to domestic and world peace.

All i have to say is that you need to look at your history textbooks. It may start out in a positive way, but it won't last.

World peace will always be an impossible illusion. Life as we've always known has been constantly shaped on competition. With that said, I don't think there is a possible way for world peace. Our minds, hopes, and intentions are all too different to think on one accord.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

A common goal or enemy.

Also, one race and one language.
I've been saying this for a long time, but nobody seems to get it.