why don't nationalists realise that real independence requires a union?

[strategist.com]

@fkizz

The right-wing does like to exaggerate don't you guys?

[fkizz]

@fkizz

The right-wing does like to exaggerate don't you guys?

1) I'm neither left-wing nor right-wing. Both of them have been subverted by globalism. I vote in whatever is not subverted by globalism.

Opening a History book, societal colapse is as common as candy, and admiting/reporting such is necessary to pass any history test. Because the year timespan is fairly large, there are countless amounts of societal declines and colapses, and they all have things in common.

You could say Sir John Glubb was exagerating when in the 20s he predicted the Fall of the British Empire by seeing the amount of analogies with the fall of other societies. But he was exactly correct, as the massive de-colonization a few decades later would prove.

I know that people, specially those in ruling class, like to pretend that on a macro society level wealth and influence falls like mana from heaven, but history will prove such a thing wrong as many times necessary.

[strategist.com]

You could say Sir John Glubb was exagerating when in the 20s he predicted the Fall of the British Empire by seeing the amount of analogies with the fall of other societies. But he was exactly correct, as the massive de-colonization a few decades later would prove.

Quick google shows he wrote the piece about the rise and fall of empires in the 70's.

And the decline of the British empire was good and is not something to be gloomy about. Though I admit that my home country suffered under colonialism so I am biased when I made the statement.

I had a quick read and research of Glubb's essay, it does sound like what a conservative would say.

[fkizz]

Quick google shows he wrote the piece about the rise and fall of empires in the 70's.
I had a quick read and research of Glubb's essay, it does sound like what a conservative would say.

Well a person doesn't suddenly write a whole book and has it printed everywhere, process is very slow.

Fine if old is your thing, try Edward Gibbons on Fall of the Roman Empire, albeit skewed towards blaming christianism, he got the concept of rise and fall of potencies. It's from 1776, so should do the job.
Is Edward Gibbons a conservative in your opinion? He follows the same tune of being aware of the rise and fall of societies, and we're speaking of someone writing an anti-christianism piece in the XVIII century.

[Iskar]

If you refuse to see your national imperialism can you explain us why Germany is asking for a permanent place in UN Security Concil, as Germany and not as European Union?
.. and may you be so kind to explain us why Italy, Japan and many others (China? UK?) nations are trying to prevent (until now, with some success) this wretched event with all their strenghts?
.. and could you explain us also why your country, Germany, is spending 48.022.000.000 USD, being at the sixth place worldwide, in military expenditure, as Germany and not as UE?

My last and only other curiosity at this point would be knowing from where it comes to you, young people, this crazy fixation about conspiracy theories .. but nevermind, probably I already know the answer and actually my interest in teen fashions is limited, to say at least.

Security Council Seat: As of now, the EU is not a monolothic bloc with common and uniform foreign and defense policy. As such it cannot reasonably seek a seat on the SC. Germany as one of the economically most powerful countries on earth, however, can, and in increasing the share of European countries of the SC would do all of Europe a favour as well as paving the way for future EU seats, if/when a common defense and foreign policy has been established.

SC seat opposition: Your account on who opposes a German SC seat is false. Japan shares the position with Germany and seeks a seat of its own and several other countries support Germany's bid as well:

Its bid is supported by Japan, India, Brazil, France, the United Kingdom and Russia, among other countries.

Italy and China seem to be the only prominent opponents to the move, Italy as it fears marginalisation if Germany, France and Britain team up in the UN and because it wants a common EU seat, which is however not feasible for the time being. China naturally opposes Japan's bid and due to the similarity of the situations (pacifist, economically powerful ex-Axis power seeking seat on the SC) it has to oppose Germany's, too, lest a precedent be established that Japan could profit from.

Military Expenditure: The EU still does not have a common military so of course we are not spending our military budget via the EU, because we can't. The budget itself is not of too notable relative size, as Germany is still well behind Nato's 2%-of-GDP goal. That the absolute value is relatively large is due to Germany's large GDP - much of it goes into non-aggressive expensive tech-stuff, though, such as AWACS reconnaissance airplanes. Germany also recently merged one of its chief arms manufacturers, KMW, with its French counterpart Nexter, and is already sharing the EADS with France. A truly imperialistic country would certainly not share production of its fighter jets and Leopard-II-tanks with a rival, would it?

As for conspiracy theories, it is not an obsession, for the term can have a very precise application: Opinions and Assertions that are construed in such a way that they undermine falsifiability - such as claiming that the "mainstream media" are all in on it, so that counter-evidence brought can be dismissed as intentional cover-ups, or claiming that people disagreeing with the proponent of the theory are brainwashed, manipulated or just haven't "seen the light".
Let me search for an example. Ah, here we go:

I don't want to remind here, or worse: explaining, Hegel to any German guy, but believe me Iskar, German imperialism (= European Union) is so well hidden under a huge amount of 70 years of lies, national shame for what Germans did during WW2, hypocritical half-truths, organized disinformation, collective brainwashing and similar amenities, that only using the picklock of some old fashioned dialectic, you may hope to see again its real face in all its obscene splendor.

[Diocle]

Security Council Seat: As of now ..

Ok, I see, here the key is "as for now" and it's enough for me. Thanks.

SC seat opposition: Your account on who opposes a German SC seat is false. Japan shares the position with Germany and seeks a seat of its own and several other countries support Germany's bid as well:
Italy and China seem to be the only prominent opponents to the move ..

Well, Japan is not part of any wannabe supernational state, Japan is a damn real nation and Japan is perfectly entitled to do what he want, instead, you are not. You're Europeans, aren't you?

So, you can't ask for a seat for yourselves forgetting about us, your beloved little European minions! Dammit! As you said: we share water, we share air! Don't we? So, why?

Why can't we put our asses on the same seat with you Germans? You share air and food with us and don't you want to share a seat? Just a seat? Just a common ****ing seat? C'mon, why not?

Italian allies: well China is bigger than you, stronger than you and China is in the council, and believe me, if I've understood something about European history: Germany will never be there.

About UK: wait, wait for them .. maybe .. eventually .. one day .. perhaps .. who knows ..

Military Expenditure: The EU still does not ..

Well, also here the key lies in that "still does not" and, also in this case, it's enough for me.

But remember just this: you and your French allies you're not Europe, you're just 'you and your French allies', that is, just two .. two .. nothing sorry, forgive me.

As for conspiracy theories,..

This last part is dismissible as youthful attempt of rhetorical artifice, of doubtful taste and of even lesser interest. Sorry but, no answer is necessary.

[strategist.com]

Fine if old is your thing, try Edward Gibbons on Fall of the Roman Empire, albeit skewed towards blaming christianism, he got the concept of rise and fall of potencies. It's from 1776, so should do the job.
Is Edward Gibbons a conservative in your opinion? He follows the same tune of being aware of the rise and fall of societies, and we're speaking of someone writing an anti-christianism piece in the XVIII century.

So that's why Glubb's main arguments sounds familiar.

Do you realise that Gibbons' arguments are now mostly discredited by academics because of over-simplistic analysis and neglecting the fact that the fall of the Roman Empire is largely due to internal corruption and power-grabbing by greedy individuals?

[Iskar]

Ok, I see, here the key is "as for now" and it's enough for me. Thanks.

Well, Japan is not part of any wannabe supernational state, Japan is a damn real nation and Japan is perfectly entitled to do what he want, instead, you are not. You're Europeans, aren't you?

So, you can't ask for a seat for yourselves forgetting about us, your beloved little European minions! Dammit! As you said: we share water, we share air! Don't we? So, why?

Why can't we put our asses on the same seat with you Germans? You share air and food with us and don't you want to share a seat? Just a seat? Just a common ****ing seat? C'mon, why not?

Italian allies: well China is bigger than you, stronger than you and China is in the council, and believe me, if I've understood something about European history: Germany will never be there.

About UK: wait, wait for them .. maybe .. eventually .. one day .. perhaps .. who knows ..

Well, also here the key lies in that "still does not" and, also in this case, it's enough for me.

But remember just this: you and your French allies you're not Europe, you're just 'you and your French allies', that is, just two .. two .. nothing sorry, forgive me.

I explained above that the EU cannot reasonably have a seat of its own, as it lacks a uniform outward policy. A seat for Germany would strengthen the case for an EU seat in the future, as there would be definitely one EU country (Germany) willing to give up its eat for the EU (as German politicians have consistently said, they'd be willing to support an EU seat, but will pursue our own until the latter becomes feasible.)

This last part is dismissible as youthful attempt of rhetorical artifice, of doubtful taste and of even lesser interest. Sorry but, no answer is necessary.

If you fail to acknowledge the concept of falsifiability, that's sad, but ultimately not my problem.

[fkizz]

So that's why Glubb's main arguments sounds familiar.

Do you realise that Gibbons' arguments are now mostly discredited by academics because of over-simplistic analysis and neglecting the fact that the fall of the Roman Empire is largely due to internal corruption and power-grabbing by greedy individuals?

Well Gibbons had an over-ambitious task for a single person describing and linking events from ~2 millenia ago, obviously it will have flaws.

Regardless Gibbons left marks on how Historians should organize and present their work. And still, Gibbons main statement that Roman Empire fell is correct. Do you see Roman Empire alive today?

[Diocle]

I explained above that the EU cannot reasonably have a seat of its own, as it lacks a uniform outward policy. A seat for Germany would strengthen the case for an EU seat in the future, as there would be definitely one EU country (Germany) willing to give up its eat for the EU..

Also in this case the only part of interest is that .. "in the future". Once again: thanks, it's enough for me.

To add a short comment on the unrealistic content (acrobatic euphemism) of your post, just an old Italian saying:
"Si, e se mia nonna avesse i baffi, sarebbe mio nonno.", which can be roughly translated into: "Yeah, and if my grandma had mustaches, she would be my grandad."

If you fail to acknowledge the concept of falsifiability, that's sad, but ultimately not my problem.

Sorry but also in this case, no comment is needed, this was just a new and naively youthful attempt of rhetorical artifice, this time, even more doubtful in taste and even lesser interesting in content.

[Ludicus]

So that's why Glubb's main arguments sounds familiar.
Do you realise that Gibbons' arguments are now mostly discredited by academics because of over-simplistic analysis and neglecting the fact that the fall of the Roman Empire is largely due to internal corruption and power-grabbing by greedy individuals?

and/or under pressure from the Huns.We don't have a clear answer.Read Peter Heather.

Do you see Roman Empire alive today?

World System and Long Cycle Theories - University of Sussex
Check page 192, Rosenau and the forces associated with globalization. But it's just one of several theories.

[strategist.com]

Do you see Roman Empire alive today?

I admit I am not well verse on the Roman history but I am fairly sure that internal corruption and inefficient bureaucracy is more to blame, not multiculturalism since the Romans are proud of their multiethnic empire and very efficient in assimilating peoples of different backgrounds.

Besides, when one thinks of the fall of the Roman empire, they neglect the Eastern portion which lasted for another one thousand years. Hence, the Roman empire actually survived for many more years than people would have thought. Same as the original Roman empire, it was also multiethnic and retained much of the old Roman culture.

Anyway, I am not favouring a centralised culture operating under a single "world empire" that you are leading me to in our discussion. I prefer something loose where people still has some level of autonomy and self-determination, but at the same time all are "on the same page" and working together in a universal society. So on that note, the neo-medieval model is the one which I subscribe to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-medievalism

[fkizz]

Gibbons work include until the Fall of Byzantium, Eastern portion.

On Fall of Roman Empire as Ludicus said, we don't have a clear answer. Western part absorved more Germanics than Eastern, and Western part had more pressure from the Hun than East, but too many variables.

Blaming corruption is a too easy way out (mainly given meaning of corruption in a literal empire is different from meaning of corruption in a democracy). Roman Empire was strong and long lasting enough to endure corruption until it the corrupt ones got literally wiped out or dead of old age. Some political affairs were solved with assassinations often, and in such a Militaristic society you need enough troops on your side if you are on a high power structure, just juggling with bureocracy won't work.

Anyway, I am not favouring a centralised culture operating under a single "world empire" that you are leading me to in our discussion. I prefer something loose where people still has some level of autonomy and self-determination, but at the same time all are "on the same page" and working together in a universal society. So on that note, the neo-medieval model is the one which I subscribe to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-medievalism

This worked fine until Pope Alexander VI and the Borgias in the ~1500s. From them on, it became Inquisition sponsored to burn alive new christian converts which is a non-sense on all levels of any christian theology (even "heretical" ones). Of course Calvinism and Lutheranism and Reformed movements flourished under such schizophrenic commands from Papal States. Add 30 years war to that. And thus European culture was divided in two.

Before that you had kingdoms with clearly distinct cultures, but Christianism and Papal States giving them some reason to have some sense of comradship in their rivalry, rather than simply hating each other. Heck, in until 3rd Crusade you had English and French volunteering to fight under same Flag, Kings included.
Afraid this type of European society was already lost during the Borgias.

Being realistic, on a cultural sense Europe never recovered from 30 years war, even centuries after.

[RangerGxi]

Is it fair to blame Germanics for the fall of western Rome? I'd say that it was Germanic generals, soldiers and auxiliaries that kept Rome chugging along despite incredible amounts of corruption, inefficiency and degradation.

Roman citizens didn't want to dedicate their lives to war, the entire economy depended on a dwindling population of slaves and governors/magistrates were trying to turn provinces into their own Kingdoms. Sure it was Germanic tribes that carved up the west but it was strongman Germanic leaders that kept the empire going for as long as it did.

[fkizz]

Roman citizens didn't want to dedicate their lives to war, the entire economy depended on a dwindling population of slaves and governors/magistrates were trying to turn provinces into their own Kingdoms. Sure it was Germanic tribes that carved up the west but it was strongman Germanic leaders that kept the empire going for as long as it did.

Kinda unfair yes. Before the reforms that led to military being made of foreigners, the citizens born inside the empire did dedicate their lives to war. You can say the blame is that progressively the people inside the Empire just wanted to have comfortable lives and leave the rough military campaigning to germanics (who were the outsiders). In a militaristic society majority of citizens lost their sense of having to contribute for defense, and it became seen as a thing for "outsiders who want citizenship" rather than a life honor.

You can say this had some effect, for Eastern Rome did not put outsiders in charge of fighting in the magnitude Western did, and lasted 1000 years plus. But it's a heck lot of variables that led to the colapses.. Eastern Rome would in the 1000s start begging for military help from Medieval Europe, by appealing to Papal States.

[Ludicus]

Is it fair to blame Germanics for the fall of western Rome? I'd say that it was Germanic generals, soldiers and auxiliaries that kept Rome chugging along despite incredible amounts of corruption, inefficiency and degradation.
Sure it was Germanic tribes that carved up the west but it was strongman Germanic leaders that kept the empire going for as long as it did.

But you see, the later Roman empire was a bankrupt militarized state, with a parasitic aristocracy, a hostile peasantry (the burden of taxes fall on the agricultural poor)and an ineffective army, and the so-called "barrack emperors", mercenary German armies, and last but not less important, successive usurpations by rival generals.
As Ammianus put it: "What fury of foreign peoples, what barbarian cruelty, can be compared with the harm done by civil wars?"
Someone once said that Rome was victim of his own success.
Quoting Goldsworthy, in the last chapter of his book " The Fall of the West",

The Roman experience suggests that imperial decline likely to start at top.In the their case the fatal decline of the empire came from internal problems...
...Like Gibbon, it is difficult not to become somewhat pessimistic in tracing this story. My last words come from a comment made by an American student at a seminar during my days as graduate student in Oxford. After a paper discussing schisms within the Church in the fifth and sixth centuries, this rather urbane individual affected a rural accent to sum up the debate up: "You know", he said, "people are kinda stoopid"

I swear I'm not thinking about Trump.

[Diocle]

As with the Roman Empire, whose crisis started well before the fatal V century, today Western crisis must be seen in a wider perspective than focusing the attention just on evil Trump and his policies. But I understand that going after Attila the Hun and Trump the Orange, it's easier, is funnier and absolutely more comfortable, for people used to talk of politics watching the last football match on TV.

[Ludicus]

As with the Roman Empire, whose crisis started well before the fatal V century, today Western crisis must be seen in a wider perspective than focusing the attention just on evil Trump and his policies.

If someone did not fully understand that I was joking, that's not my fault. Avoid reading forums while watching Juventus/Rome last football match on TV

Each empire has a life cycle.
Check: World System and Long Cycle Theories - University of Sussex
Long Cycles in Global Politics

---
That said...*cough*...let's keep in mind that near the end of the Western Roman Empire's American decline,Odoacer Trump (believed to be a Goth an idiot) became emperor. President of the US of A.

I couldn't resist.

[DaVinci]

Is it fair to blame Germanics for the fall of western Rome? I'd say that it was Germanic generals, soldiers and auxiliaries that kept Rome chugging along despite incredible amounts of corruption, inefficiency and degradation.

Roman citizens didn't want to dedicate their lives to war, the entire economy depended on a dwindling population of slaves and governors/magistrates were trying to turn provinces into their own Kingdoms. Sure it was Germanic tribes that carved up the west but it was strongman Germanic leaders that kept the empire going for as long as it did.

Just a heads up (or kinda historical correction/complement): The Roman Empire ended at 29 May 1453, when Mehmed the Conqueror conquered Constantinople.

"Byzantines" or "Byzanz" or "Byzantium" whatsoever, especially were terms "added" by iirc. German historians in the 19th c., and even also term "East-Rome" or "East Roman Empire" were iirc. late (modern) history terms.

Thus, as the Roman Empire lasted until 1453, with largely (Roman-)Greek cultural background, one cannot say Germanic leaders kept up the Roman Empire without to differentiate properly, imo..


But, may i ask what all that has to do with the thread title theme? Do people really believe, the ancient and late antique/medieval circumstances are directly comparable and applicable with our time todays, the 21st century?

[Diocle]

Just a heads up (or kinda historical correction/complement): The Roman Empire ended at 29 May 1453, when Mehmed the Conqueror conquered Constantinople.

"Byzantines" or "Byzanz" or "Byzantium" whatsoever, especially were terms "added" by iirc. German historians in the 19th c., and even also term "East-Rome" or "East Roman Empire" were iirc. late (modern) history terms.

Thus, as the Roman Empire lasted until 1453, with largely (Roman-)Greek cultural background, one cannot say Germanic leaders kept up the Roman Empire without to differentiate properly, imo..


But, may i ask what all that has to do with the thread title theme? Do people really believe, the ancient and late antique/medieval circumstances are directly comparable and applicable with our time todays, the 21st century?

Yes, it may look not immediate as link, but if you don't mind to make a slight effort streaching your brain cells, to sligthly exceed the narrow limits of the OP (Death to the Nazi dictatorship of Mr. OP!), you'll discover an interesting new world in which nobody thinks, as he did Gian Battista Vico, that history has a cyclic course, but in which an interesting comparative discussion about the historical mechanics which led to the fall of the Western Part, may be of some interest, openeing new windows over our a pretty depressive modern political scenery. All in all, Ancient Romans used to say: "Historia magistra vitae".
In any case, at least this is what he thinks an American (Maybe Canadian?) psycologist and philosopher, tracing an interesting comparative similitude between two Empires: the modern American Empire and the ancient Roman Empire seen in their crisis, which is not only a military crisis, but also a deep social, political and economic crisis in which even private and public cultural systems are involved.
Of course it's just an intellectual exercize without any pretence of historical scientificity, nobody thinks that Rome during the III, IV and V century has anything to do with USA today, but .. it may add some dispalcing new historical perspective to the gray political landscape of this thread. So, just because the West must be saved:

"The Truth About The Fall of Rome: Modern Parallels" by Stefan Molyneux:



About Byzantium: sorry but here nobody was talking of the Fall of the Eastern Part, the part fallen in the Late Antiquity has been the Western Part, and this detail makes the story of the Fall of the West pretty interesting for us (at least for me), without taking away anything from the monumental Greek-Byzantine tragedy of 1453, we all venerate its memory as one of the darkest hours of our history, the only consolation I find, it's thinking that at least few Italians (Genoeses and Venetians) and a bunch of Spanish guys, were there, until the darkness came.