Ideological Precedence

[Martin Hash]

Anarchy - no ideological preference
Nationalism - nation over individual
Socialism - group over individual
Communism - equality over individual
Oligopoly - business over individual
Fascism - government over business over individual
Nazism - race over individual
Identity Politics - identity group over individual
Monarchy - inherited king over individual
Dictator - unique person over individual
Aristocracy - elites over individual
Theocracy - church over individual
Liberty - individual over all
Libertarian - most liberty to most powerful
Libertyist - most liberty to most people

[DBTrek]

Still think your definition of Nationalism is wack, compared to its actual definition.

[Martin Hash]

Still think your definition of Nationalism is wack, compared to its actual definition.

Don’t you think a Nationalist expects individuals to subservient themselves for the good of the nation?

[DBTrek]

Still think your definition of Nationalism is wack, compared to its actual definition.

Don’t you think a Nationalist expects individuals to subservient themselves for the good of the nation?

No. I think they expect national leadership to fight for the best interests of their nation. For instance, most people on the “BUILD THE WALL” side of the political spectrum would consider themselves nationalists, but if you told those same people to turn their guns into the Federal government you’d quickly discover they don’t consider themselves national chattel.

[Speaker to Animals]

It's the imposition of "individual" upon everything as oppositional to everything else that is the problem. You choose to look at it that way because you operate from a neoliberal worldview where you see the individual as some separate entity and the personal pursuit therein the supreme good. That's the essence of the Enlightenment. But lots of us don't frame it in that fashion at all, and do not see the individual as something separate from society or the nation.

You would never have been able to pursue your dreams as an "individual" unless you belonged to the strongest nation in the history of Mankind, with a national government that looked out for those ends. The reason the Enlightenment has died is that the national governments no longer look out for the interests of the nations, and the nations themselves are essentially destroyed by mass migration.

[Martin Hash]

The ridiculous supposition that someone like me could have succeeded like I did without The Enlightenment is breathtaking. If I had lived past puberty, I would have been executed for insubordination in the military, or some mutterfukkers would have burned me alive as a rebel or a witch.

[Speaker to Animals]

The ridiculous supposition that someone like me could have succeeded like I did without The Enlightenment is breathtaking. If I had lived past puberty, I would have been executed for insubordination in the military, or some mutterfukkers would have burned me alive as a rebel or a witch.

Of course not.

The point being that your individuality is not inseparable from the nation that allowed you to do those things. Men suffered and died in a sacrifice to that nation so that you could pursue your individual dreams. Individual and Nation are interrelated concepts, not oppositional at all.

[Martin Hash]

We make an alliance with others; we expect our allies to fulfill their pre-specified obligations as we fulfill ours; that is our “nation.” There are no enforced morals, values or ethics, and no allegiances. Other people are not our unasked for partners, and there is no higher order.

[Speaker to Animals]

We make an alliance with others; we expect our allies to fulfill their pre-specified obligations as we fulfill ours; that is our “nation.” There are no enforced morals, values or ethics, and no allegiances. Other people are not our unasked for partners, and there is no higher order.

In an aristocracy, that disabled marine dying in the woods might be rewarded for his sacrifice to the nation, and the business man who sacrifices nothing perhaps not so much.

It just depends on your perspective, but I'd suggest to you that the men who carry the water, who compose only a small percentage of the population, deserve more for what they sacrifice or the day really will come when they decide to impose (which is an historical reality and the common end to all forms of democracy). Neoliberalism worked out for you, but not for most, and certainly not for people sacrificed their health and futures for the nation.

America was conceived as a democracy limited to the warriors.

[Martin Hash]

You always focus on the implements of violence, namely men, but how many “wars” have been won by clever manipulation, by assassination, by alliances, by genocide, by paying of tribute, by sheer oratory. One man has often defeated armies. The sword is the last device available to the less intellectually capable.