6 ms·

Man. What is it with this wave of nationalistic zealotry that seems to be sweeping most of the world? Has it just been long enough since World War 2 that it's a

by _bxg1 7y ago

Man. What is it with this wave of nationalistic zealotry that seems to be sweeping most of the world? Has it just been long enough since World War 2 that it's already time to re-learn these lessons?

DefeatFascists 7y ago
And HN moves any such thread out of frontpage and buries it as soon as possible. I saw this with Australia's demotion of democracy thread. Btw, India's democracy status has been demoted already to 'repressed' before this Act became active. u/dang , I respectfully enquire why this thread and any other thread discussing about democracy, opression, freedom of speech gets demoted quickly? I understand that there could be heated debates in such thread; but I don't see these threads itself as a violation of HN rules.
whoopdedo 7y ago
A response to the threat of global warming. Historically major climate events have been a strong indicator of wars. Researchers have been predicting this for a while.
anovikov 7y ago
But well, these are mostly really illegal aliens. What's the problem with this? A nation must protect it's borders. I also don't understand the fuss about Trump's wall - only people who could be against it are those who are making money on illegal foreign labor - what can be wrong about border protection? If a nation isn't securing it's borders (and yes shooting on sight those trying to illegally cross is 100% OK), it effectively doesn't exist. This statement may be in doubt about a monoethnic nation-state like say Poland, but for the U.S. which is not just polyethnic, but derives it's main competitive advantage in being so, i can't see any counter-argument. Effectively, this is how U.S. works: by picking best people and letting them in.
- a_t48 7y ago
  One can be for border security but still against wasteful use of money towards it.
- vijaybritto 7y ago
  In india nearly 50% of the population is illiterate and even more are incredibly poor. If these people are expected to produce certificates of birth and others its just impossible for them. This NAA law is not about immigration its about stripping voting rights from a huge chunk of muslims and reducing their population from 200Million
- pjc50 7y ago
  > yes shooting on sight those trying to illegally cross is 100% OK I'm old enough to remember the Berlin Wall and its extension across Eastern Europe, where the willingness to murder civilians who tried to cross it was regarded as an indicator of how totalitarian Communism was.
  - anovikov 7y ago
    Big difference. They shot those trying to leave, not enter. And yes, it was of equally paramount importance for them as for the U.S. to control who can enter: this is how Communism works. If you let people leave, they vote Communism out of existence, with their feet.
  - zajio1am 7y ago
    While i do not want to defend the position of anovikov, i have to note there is a big difference in border protection against entering a country and leaving a country. This is e.g. explicitly stated in UDHR, which recongizes a human right to leave any country, and only right to enter a country of citizenship. The border situation with communist countries was significant not only it proves intent of these countries to shoot on those trying to cross borders, but mainly it proves that situation there was so bad that people trying to leave even if that means risking death in border crossing.
King-Aaron 7y ago
Only a (maybe tongue-in-cheek) theory, but perhaps the ruling classes see the writing on the wall in terms of economic/ecological/social collapse, and are starting to make preparations for large scale social unrest?
hindsightbias 7y ago
We won the Cold War. Now everyone doesn’t have to pick a side for survival. Plenty of spare time for navel gazing and wondering who is keeping you down. While the arrow of progress is forward, the blips can last for a millenia. Unknown how long the War of Capitalisms will be.
roenxi 7y ago
If you look to the past (1945-1980) the general situation was improving at an unbelievable pace by an absurd magnitude. Resources were abundant and there was a lot that needed to be done, life got better very quickly. It is very hard to be antagonistic in such circumstances - what is there to fight over, really? It is possible that resources are getting scarce again and old battle lines are rediscovered as nations, classes and tribes restart old squabbles. There is less cheap oil per capita, cities are getting cramped and the radical change technology bought in the 90s and 2000s is slowing down so it isn't obvious that there are easy opportunities still opening up on that front.
pavlov 7y ago
Even more recently, we saw the utter destruction brought by nationalists after the break-up of Yugoslavia no more than 25 years ago. In Bosnia, nationalist zealots killed civilians and committed genocide. If you've forgotten, look up Sarajevo and Srebrenica. There were murder camps put up by "Make Serbia Great Again" type nationalists. Their stated goal: "to contain the spread of Islam in Europe." Only 25 years ago... And today the President of the United States is a man who sounds just like Milosevic. This rehabilitation of nationalism is the greatest disappointment of my lifetime.
- throwaway_0007 7y ago
  > If you've forgotten, look up Sarajevo and Srebrenica. OK I did, and what I see is a lot of innocent people killed in another episode of crybully tactic of Islamic expansionism. Attack and then cry foul and claim the victim status when you face retaliation. In Sarajevo Muslims started killing Serbs months before the war even started. In Srebrenica Muslims were indiscriminately killing Serbs in that area for years before the Serbs lashed out. > here were murder camps put up by "Make Serbia Great Again" type nationalists. Their stated goal: "to contain the spread of Islam in Europe." If that was their stated goal why did they offer the presidency of Yugoslavia to Muslims in attempt to avoid the war? It looks to me Serbs preferred staying in Yugoslavia because that made them a slight majority and the Bosnian Muslims proffered breaking up Yugoslavia hoping that would made them a slight majority in Bosnia. Wartime Muslim leader Isetbegovich was working on it since the 1970s. Publishing Muslim Declaration and musing about Islamic country, war, visiting Middle East to garner support from radical Muslims, etc. > And today the President of the United States is a man who sounds just like Milosevic. Baseless hyperbole. > This rehabilitation of nationalism is the greatest disappointment of my lifetime. As opposed to continuous rehabilitation of vile medieval ideology also known as Islam? The pot calling the kettle black.

by _bxg1 7y ago

Man. What is it with this wave of nationalistic zealotry that seems to be sweeping most of the world? Has it just been long enough since World War 2 that it's already time to re-learn these lessons?

DefeatFascists 7y ago

And HN moves any such thread out of frontpage and buries it as soon as possible. I saw this with Australia's demotion of democracy thread. Btw, India's democracy status has been demoted already to 'repressed' before this Act became active. u/dang , I respectfully enquire why this thread and any other thread discussing about democracy, opression, freedom of speech gets demoted quickly? I understand that there could be heated debates in such thread; but I don't see these threads itself as a violation of HN rules.

whoopdedo 7y ago

A response to the threat of global warming. Historically major climate events have been a strong indicator of wars. Researchers have been predicting this for a while.

anovikov 7y ago

But well, these are mostly really illegal aliens. What's the problem with this? A nation must protect it's borders. I also don't understand the fuss about Trump's wall - only people who could be against it are those who are making money on illegal foreign labor - what can be wrong about border protection? If a nation isn't securing it's borders (and yes shooting on sight those trying to illegally cross is 100% OK), it effectively doesn't exist. This statement may be in doubt about a monoethnic nation-state like say Poland, but for the U.S. which is not just polyethnic, but derives it's main competitive advantage in being so, i can't see any counter-argument. Effectively, this is how U.S. works: by picking best people and letting them in.

a_t48 7y ago
One can be for border security but still against wasteful use of money towards it.
vijaybritto 7y ago
In india nearly 50% of the population is illiterate and even more are incredibly poor. If these people are expected to produce certificates of birth and others its just impossible for them. This NAA law is not about immigration its about stripping voting rights from a huge chunk of muslims and reducing their population from 200Million
pjc50 7y ago
> yes shooting on sight those trying to illegally cross is 100% OK I'm old enough to remember the Berlin Wall and its extension across Eastern Europe, where the willingness to murder civilians who tried to cross it was regarded as an indicator of how totalitarian Communism was.
- anovikov 7y ago
  Big difference. They shot those trying to leave, not enter. And yes, it was of equally paramount importance for them as for the U.S. to control who can enter: this is how Communism works. If you let people leave, they vote Communism out of existence, with their feet.
- zajio1am 7y ago
  While i do not want to defend the position of anovikov, i have to note there is a big difference in border protection against entering a country and leaving a country. This is e.g. explicitly stated in UDHR, which recongizes a human right to leave any country, and only right to enter a country of citizenship. The border situation with communist countries was significant not only it proves intent of these countries to shoot on those trying to cross borders, but mainly it proves that situation there was so bad that people trying to leave even if that means risking death in border crossing.

King-Aaron 7y ago

Only a (maybe tongue-in-cheek) theory, but perhaps the ruling classes see the writing on the wall in terms of economic/ecological/social collapse, and are starting to make preparations for large scale social unrest?

hindsightbias 7y ago

We won the Cold War. Now everyone doesn’t have to pick a side for survival. Plenty of spare time for navel gazing and wondering who is keeping you down. While the arrow of progress is forward, the blips can last for a millenia. Unknown how long the War of Capitalisms will be.

roenxi 7y ago

If you look to the past (1945-1980) the general situation was improving at an unbelievable pace by an absurd magnitude. Resources were abundant and there was a lot that needed to be done, life got better very quickly. It is very hard to be antagonistic in such circumstances - what is there to fight over, really? It is possible that resources are getting scarce again and old battle lines are rediscovered as nations, classes and tribes restart old squabbles. There is less cheap oil per capita, cities are getting cramped and the radical change technology bought in the 90s and 2000s is slowing down so it isn't obvious that there are easy opportunities still opening up on that front.

pavlov 7y ago

Even more recently, we saw the utter destruction brought by nationalists after the break-up of Yugoslavia no more than 25 years ago. In Bosnia, nationalist zealots killed civilians and committed genocide. If you've forgotten, look up Sarajevo and Srebrenica. There were murder camps put up by "Make Serbia Great Again" type nationalists. Their stated goal: "to contain the spread of Islam in Europe." Only 25 years ago... And today the President of the United States is a man who sounds just like Milosevic. This rehabilitation of nationalism is the greatest disappointment of my lifetime.

throwaway_0007 7y ago
> If you've forgotten, look up Sarajevo and Srebrenica. OK I did, and what I see is a lot of innocent people killed in another episode of crybully tactic of Islamic expansionism. Attack and then cry foul and claim the victim status when you face retaliation. In Sarajevo Muslims started killing Serbs months before the war even started. In Srebrenica Muslims were indiscriminately killing Serbs in that area for years before the Serbs lashed out. > here were murder camps put up by "Make Serbia Great Again" type nationalists. Their stated goal: "to contain the spread of Islam in Europe." If that was their stated goal why did they offer the presidency of Yugoslavia to Muslims in attempt to avoid the war? It looks to me Serbs preferred staying in Yugoslavia because that made them a slight majority and the Bosnian Muslims proffered breaking up Yugoslavia hoping that would made them a slight majority in Bosnia. Wartime Muslim leader Isetbegovich was working on it since the 1970s. Publishing Muslim Declaration and musing about Islamic country, war, visiting Middle East to garner support from radical Muslims, etc. > And today the President of the United States is a man who sounds just like Milosevic. Baseless hyperbole. > This rehabilitation of nationalism is the greatest disappointment of my lifetime. As opposed to continuous rehabilitation of vile medieval ideology also known as Islam? The pot calling the kettle black.