History

Even Misplaced Nationalism Can Be Good For A Country’s Morale

113 Comments

I much prefer to be in a country that has a strong sense of nationalism than one which does not. One tends to respect those who respect themselves. One also tends not to respect those who have no sense of tradition, heritage, or pride in their nation’s past. Societies infected with the globalist ethic have a few things in common: excessive deference to English, obsequious worship of Americanism, and mindless parroting of liberal talking points. You get the idea. Even if the nationalism happens on occasion to make mistakes, it is still better to have that than the alternative.

The other day I visited a new museum in Rio called the “Museum of Tomorrow.” It appears to have been built to accommodate the anticipated Olympic crowds. The building itself is one of those over-engineered monstrosities that could have used some cost-cutting advice, and the displays were mostly superficial and shallow. But I did learn something of value. There was an extensive display about the Brazilian aviation pioneer Alberto Santos-Dumont.

c. 1909. Alberto Santos-Dumont, the renowned aeronaut and first person to fly outside the United States, sits in his Demoiselle monoplane. Credit: Archive Photos.

Santos-Dumont (1873-1932) was a unique individual. Born the scion of a family of wealthy coffee growers, he used his family’s fortune to conduct researches into heavier-than-air flight. Because his father was French, he spent much of his time in France, and did pioneering work in balloons and dirigibles. It is difficult for us to appreciate it now, but at the end of the nineteenth century, flight was a subject that fascinated the entire civilized world. Many engineers and experimenters around the world were working frantically to be the first to achieve a breakthrough.

He achieved fame in October 1901 by becoming the first to make a dirigible trip around the Eiffel Tower within a certain time frame. For this feat he was awarded the Deutsch de la Meurthe prize. It was an incredible achievement for someone with no formal scientific training or background in engineering. He seemed to have an intuitive feel for machines and how best to construct them. Parisians did not quite know what to make of this exotic, energetic Brazilian man, who would fly his machines up and down the boulevards of the city.

His true moment of glory came in 1906, when he managed to pilot an actual airplane he had designed. This contraption, called the “14-bis” was flown near Paris for a distance of about 60 meters in front of a large crowd of witnesses. It was the first flight to be certified by the Aéro Club de France and the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI).

At the Museum of Tomorrow display, there is not a word of mention about the Wright brothers or their Kitty Hawk flight which took place in 1903. Santos-Dumont is held to be inventor of flight. It would have been impolite of me to engage in a historical debate on who was first. But it is nearly universally agreed today that the secretive Wrights made the first confirmed airplane flight.

But the Wrights tended to avoid publicity, and their inventions did not seem to captivate the public imagination in the same way that European aviators did. It does not seem that Santos-Dumont had any contact with the Wrights; he likely made his own discoveries completely independent of theirs.  He was without question the first man to fly outside the United States.

santos3

Does it really matter who was first? Let us give both of these great inventors and visionaries their due, and extend our gratitude in advancing the progress of mankind. There is a nationalistic element that comes into play here. The debate as to who was “first” reminded me of the old debate as to who was the first to invent calculus. It is now generally agreed that Newton was first, but he failed to publish his findings. Leibnitz was the first to publish his results. But does it really matter?

There was one interesting thing I noticed with the museum display. It seems that Santos-Dumont was directly involved in the invention of the wrist-watch. After one of his flights in 1904, he had asked the watchmaker Cartier to design something he could use that would free him from having to use his pocket-watch. The result was the world’s first wrist-watch. This is significant because I had previously (and erroneously) read that the wrist-watch was a product of the First World War naval service. Not so.

His later years were tragic. He was eventually diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, and had to give up flying. He was also dogged by episodes of depression and melancholy. He lived to see the widespread use of airplanes as destructive engines of war, and this fact caused him to leave the field of aviation entirely. Returning to Brazil, he eventually ended his own life in 1932.

santos4

It was interesting for me to hear some overly enthusiastic Santos-Dumont partisans try to dethrone the Wright brothers from their perch. I heard claims that their flight was “unverified” or relied on a “catapult,” or was due to “excessive wind.” It is not important. We smile at these controversies, and move on.

What matters for us is a national spirit. It elevates and dignifies the struggles of great men.  Far too many countries today are suffering from a deficit of such pride. And it is good that a country takes pride in its great figures, even if such enthusiasm may burst the boundaries of verified historicity.

Read More: 8 Tactics Of The Occult War

113 thoughts on “Even Misplaced Nationalism Can Be Good For A Country’s Morale”

  1. It’s all self belief. Even a total fuck up with GENUINE self belief will eventually find his way.

  2. All nations need to have these figures taught to the youth. This seperates us into nations, and fights against globalism. The fact that many people do not know their countries’ best and brightest from history is the result of globalism.
    Good job with the article Quintus!

      1. Quintus, are you Brazilian, or are you an expat who’s fallen in love with the culture?

      2. Thanks. Excellent article on General Vo Nguyen: How I Won the Viet nam War.

  4. Nationalism isn’t a social construct, it’s human nature, it’s in our bones. Which is why Nationalism will always win in the end. Globalists don’t realise it, but they’re not actually trying to fight Nationalism, their trying to fight human nature, and that will always be a losing battle.

    1. Wrong. Nationalism was invented with the rise of the modern nation-state.
      See my comment below.

  5. Nationalism is a new idea. In Europe, it arose in the early part of the nineteenth century. Before that, people identified only with their principality or city-state (“I am Genoese”).
    Today we have many identity options. You can identify as a member of a specific tribe, of a neighborhood, of a city, of a county, of a state, of a nation, of a hemisphere, or of the world. Choose your identity.

    1. That is extremely true, and a point I’ve tried to nail home among peers. War was once the hobby of kings. The Napoleonic Wars made it into a national endeavor, with the French marching to “vive la France” and England “expects every man shall do his duty.”

    2. “Before that, people identified only with their principality or city-state” Maybe in Italy, but in say, Sweden, France, England, or Scotland, people would identify with Sweden, France, England, or Scotland.

      1. I am of Scots-Irish descent. As far as family history is true the Scots were much more loyal to the clan (same thing as family/tribe) than they were to the Scottish nation (a relatively new idea).

  6. I choose the United States under Theodore Roosevelt and Victorian Era (1838-1901) Great Britain as my nations.
    Obama, Bush, Trump, Sanders and Clinton can suck it. Vote Disraeli/Bismarck 2016! They’re both dead, but they’ll still do a hell of a lot better job than any of these idiots on the ballot.

    1. I’m all for it. Leave the whitehouse empty and at least no further damage can be done until the next round of clowns.

      1. I think the key would be to reform congress so one house passes laws with a 2/3 majority required and the other house annuls those laws with a simple majority. Oh, and definitely do away with the presidency; which has become more imperial and more a threat to our liberty with every year.

        1. I’m with you, that actually sounds like a really good way to control the urges of the political class while keeping the road open if a unifying need arises.
          Very good, I will take the freedom to borrow your ideas when suitable.

    2. I preferred Silent Cal in the WH, but generally yeah, I like the era you picked for GB.

    3. Otto von Bismarck provoked unnecessary wars with three of his neighbors (Austria, Denmark, and France) and falsified telegrams from Napoleon III to make it look like the French leader had insulted him. He hated Catholics and did everything he could to repress them. He also built the first welfare state. He’s not a role model.

      1. That welfare state worked great because there weren’t any Pakis over using it.

    5. Unfortunately, almost any dead person would do a better job as president than the past 4.

    1. I think a State in any form is a protection racket.
      “A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth from its mouth: “I, the state, am the people.”
      It is a lie! Creators were they who created peoples, and hung a faith and a love over them: thus they served life.
      Destroyers, are they who lay snares for many, and call it the state: they hang a sword and a hundred cravings over them.
      Where there is still a people, there the state is not understood, but hated as the evil eye, and as sin against laws and customs.”–Nietzsche.

  8. “Who flied first : Wright or Dumont ? ”
    It’s like the debate of who really conquered the South Pole. The Norwegians and the English competed. The Norwegians were first and actually survived, but both sides are celebrated as conquering the South Pole anyway. Both Amundsen and Scott.

  9. I kind of lean toward the Doug Stanhope view on Nationalism. It teaches you to hate people you never met and have done nothing to you; it teaches you to take pride in other people’s accomplishments without achievement for yourself; and it teaches you to blindly follow a group of people who are for all intents and purpose, a bunch of psychopaths. Nationalism is an ideology for sheeple.

    1. I would take the position that there is a night and day difference between organic and institutional nationalism, and you are referring to the latter of the two.
      Organic nationalism is more like pride in ones heritage, culture and language, and a sense of oneself in relation to the group and the world.

      1. I see what your are saying. You are referring to the voluntary, organic associations of like-minded people, and not coercive indoctrination of people based on a geographical area.

        1. Yes, not sure if I would use the word indoctrination though. That said combinations are the most common where aspects of both are present. Like Japan is a great example of this, they have a lot of both. A organic love for the language, culture etc, but also institutional aspects like schoolbooks being written omitting many negative things in the past like Nanking etc. They definitely have a very strong sense of belonging, something like 90% of them want to stay and live in Japan and feel very strongly about this. Likewise even women who in general are more open to different cultures, only one in five would consider a foreign partner for instance.
          I’m all for the good aspects of this, but not so much the institutional parts like denying or trivializing historical events.

      1. I like how people agree with nazis when you don’t call it nazism.
        George Lincoln Rockwell said it best : ” You gotta be a nazi if you think long enough “

    3. Then why don’t you go set ur nutz on fire, you preening Globophile anus worshipper?

        1. K bro I just fucked myself, time to pay the piper. Do you need some kerosene?

    4. As if Doug Stanhope is some kind of highly enlightened political and historical scholar.
      Stanhope’s views on Nationalism are about as astute as his musings on quantum foam.

    5. “It teaches you to hate people you never met and have done nothing to you”
      It certainly shouldn’t. Not even the Nazis believed that (well, except for Communists and Jews maybe). Nationalism should be a pro-your people philosophy, not an anti-their people one. As the author alluded to, it’s much easier to get along with another group of people when they have the same respect for themselves as your people do.

  10. Nationalism is the only thing that can save civilization as we know it.
    Imagine an iceberg. The part you see protruding from the water is the battle between Liberals and Conservatives. The issues you see on TV: gay marriage, abortion, transexuals in bathrooms, prayer in schools. It’s a dog and pony show designed to keep the plebians distracted. Below the water, out of sight, are the real struggles: Libertarians versus Statists and Internationalists versus Nationalists.
    Internationalism hurts everyone. 1st worlders are hurt by having to compete with some guy earning 5 bucks a day. Now, thanks to the internet, even White collar jobs can be outsourced easily. 3rd worlders are hurt by all the imports and aid from White Knights. They’ll never be able to develop their economies organically. Imagine you were an African businessman who wanted to manufacture computers, for instance. There’s no way you could possibly compete with an East Asian manufacturer who has been in the business for decades and can buy materials in bulk.
    The really sick thing is that the Globalists aren’t even trying to justify this shit anymore. Their attitude is basically “Yeah, it sucks that the Middle Class is in a nosedive but it’s too late to go back to how things were now”.

    1. I’d say patriarchy is the only thing that can save civilization. The nation has been corrupted and perverted. They are working on doing that to the man, as well, but there are still a few good, strong men left…

  11. I would settle for a country that doesn’t have leaders and a national party who actively hate this country. I would prefer indifference to the open hatred that comes from the Left and academia.

  12. Before the Flag Desecration Amendment got torpedoed in the Senate in 2006, some senators were going to show their support for this controversial bill by proudly reciting the Pledge of Allegiance together. Most of them couldn’t finish it because they forgot the words. That, to me, was the real shame.

  13. “Regurgitated liberal talking points”.
    Oh god, do I have a lot to say about this.
    I grew up in Eastern Europe and I have a feel for the situation up there.
    Russia is hardly the bastion people think it is. Liberal talking points are taken at face value.
    Have a taste. A dude talking about how calling women “hoes” and the like is demeaning. Notice his style as well.

    Here is making fun religion
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z19C3yzHai8
    Here he is arguing that banning homos from “displaying affection in public” is illogical since they can’t infect straight people with a “homo-virus”

    If you think he is the only one, there is another dude, basically saying, patriotism is stupid, it’s just a piece of land you are born on, not something you should take pride in since it is not a personal achievement (5:12 – being pro-military is stupid, should we start another crusade ? 8: 03 – why do people need faith ? 8: 05 – what is it about patriotism, Russia is just a place like any other. Just a geographic region, nothing more)

    If you though Russia is immune, forget about it. It’s turning more liberal by the day. It still has a section of society that is patriotic and traditional, but it is shrinking. Cosmpolitanism and globalism abound.

    1. I have a female Russian teacher. 29 years old, doesn’t want children, drink, smoke, atheist, and believe that “there would be no more wars if women had power”.
      Eddit : probably very slutty too.

      1. Exactly. There are plenty of these type of people in Russia.
        Russia in certain ways is more degenerate than the West. Prostitution and alcoholism is one thing. The cosmpoplitanism of the people in Moscow and Petersburg is another. Plus hooking up is all the rage there now as well. Not to mention degenerate like these.
        https://lurkmore.so/images/a/a1/206b862d407f.jpg
        If people knew the extent of the degeneracy in Russia, they would be scared.
        There is a small section of traditionally minded people, and they hold some degree of influence thanks to Putin. But don’t make the mistake thinking that tradition and orthodoxy is Russia’s only face.

        1. I have a friend in Russia right now.
          Told me that the average Russian is still much more traditional than the French. For example, you can see people doing cross signs in front of icons and churches in the street. This doesn’t exist in France. He told me that Putin is still very popular too.
          He also told me about the cosmopolitanized-urbanized Russians who embrace materialism, consumerism… well… westernism, but it appears to be limited to big cities.
          I’ll be in Petersburg for a month in August, by the way. Я изучаю твой язык.
          Please post a trigger warning before the picture next time. I’m very cautious about what I put into my brain.

        2. Yes, I agree. Russia is still on average less POZ’ed then the West by a large margin.

        3. A bit off topic but do you know where I can buy Dugin’s books in Russian ?

        4. It seems to be hard to do, even in Russia.
          There is a topic bout it on this page
          https://vk.com/topic-2789767_14987393
          They talk about places in Moscow one can find them.
          As for buying in online stores, I am not sure if there are those that deliver internationally. They all recommend this site :
          https://www.ozon.ru/
          I would rather look for pdf’s in russian. But that is not that easy as well.
          Some good books are hard to find, whether it’s Evola, Gauillame Faye, Dugin and others many works are often untranslated or hard to find.

        5. Thank you for the infos.
          True that, they’re hard to get. But thanks to the internet, easier to find than ever.

    2. Perhaps Nietzche was wrong that the rise of slave morality was the result of Christianity.
      Perhaps the rise in slave morality is simply the result of something else.
      I bet as soon as a real war breaks out, or as soon as a natural disaster occurs, women will get right back in the kitchen and gay folk will fall back as the men get to work.

      1. In regards to Christianity. I was baffled by the paradox, until I realized what is up.
        American low-church protestantism is messed up.
        Christianity succeeded during the Middle ages becuase it was germanized, infused by an european warrior spirit.
        European christianity emphasized order, tradition, masculinity, honor and so on. Warrior christianity.
        European christianity has abandoned the semitic roots of Christianity. American Christianity has brought those roots back.
        An emphasis on egalitarianism, a disregard for the tribe you have and “leaving wordly posession”. Anti-scientism.
        Eseentially american Christianity postulates that one must leave his family and tribe, as well as material goods to pray in a church, where everyone is equal, regardless of race. One must also ignore science and reality in the process, as well as abandoning action in the real world in favor of praying and waiting for the end times. And the biggest crime of all is anti-egalitarianism, like racism. Since Jesus loves all equally.
        Nietzsche was right, but only about the semitisized, anti-European version of Christianity.
        For better or worse, Germanized Christianity helped Roland fend off muslims during the Reconquista, lead successful crusades and stop ottomans from reaching Vienna.
        We must infuse Christianity with european warrior spirit, as well as bring back belief in science(not liberal “science” though). Bring back belief in action in the real world rather than eschatism. Bring back race and gender realism, nationalism, hierarchical high church tradition.

        We must do this or abandon Christianity forever. Christianity has been infiltrated and is being used against the West.

        http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/scalefit_630_noupscale/56f45f2b150000ad000b325f.jpeg?cache=kirqt3sogb
        There was a good article on this topic:
        http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/04/the-de-germanization-of-late-american-christianity/

        1. If we give up Christianity we’re as good as dead. You don’t make a Tradition out of anything and it doesn’t happen overnight.
          The Church has a cancer but there still is a fierce resistance in it;
          As for the infiltritation, under Vichy the French bishop had to give the names of the French Free-masons priest. Already 50% were infiltrated Freemasons. I wonder how many they are now.

        2. Yes, the problem is we can’t just create a new belief or “BRING BACK PAGANISM !” As many nazis out there would like it.
          We need to try and save Christianity. But if we don’t manage to do it we will end just like South African christians as William Luther Pierce said.
          If think Greg Hood said best in the article.
          All of us, Christians, pagans, atheist have an interest in saving Christianity.

        3. “Christianity succeeded during the Middle ages becuase it was germanized, infused by an european warrior spirit.
          “European christianity emphasized order, tradition, masculinity, honor and so on. Warrior christianity.”
          Orthodox Christianity did just fine without any Germanic influence that infected the western Latin half of the Church. The “masculinity” of that the Frankish (Germanic) influence had, especially after Charlemagne, led to an ever more aggressive, yet effeminate, “masculinity;” which went hand in hand with an increasing feminism (and thus desire for absolute centralized power). Fruits produced included mostly useless Crusades and the Inquisitions, celibate priests who shave their beards off, the infallible Pope, hiding the Bible away from the lay people, etc. Eventually the abuses became so bad that groups of protesting Roman Catholics tried to reform their church by going back to the Bible (rather than the Church of the Bible: Orthodoxy), resulting in tens of thousands of flavors of Protestantism.
          “European christianity has abandoned the semitic roots of Christianity. American Christianity has brought those roots back.”
          …
          “Nietzsche was right, but only about the semitisized, anti-European version of Christianity.”
          Nietzsche was an insane man, probably a sodomite, and thus everything he ever wrote can be summarized as “I want to practice sodomy with a clean conscience and without social costs.”
          Anyway, most of what you consider “American Christianity” is really just Heterodox Christianity in general (Roman Catholic and Protestant break offs from it) and thus all of “Germanic infused” Christianity. However, some of what you’re complaining about such as “church, where everyone is equal, regardless of race” is a feature of Christianity across time, not a bug. A women being “equal” before God doesn’t mean they can be priests or not under the authority of men, and male Christian slaves were “equal” before God and full members of the Church but still slaves.

    3. I’ve just noticed the high number of “likes” on these videos. Really depressing.

    4. The difference is it is still accepted and supported by the majority and the state institutions in Russia that people like that are degenerate and should be treated the way the Cossacks treated Pussy Riot. In the west, the most you can do to disagree with those kind of opinions is keep your mouth shut.
      Also, while I see benefits of nationalism, I generally hold the view that one should only be PROUD of something he EARNS. I am very happy to be a man. But I did nothing to earn it, so I cannot be proud of it, the way I can be proud of an education, a paid-for house, a stable family, etc. So pride in one’s country to me is a little silly. I can honor and love my gender (being male) or my country, but I can’t be proud of it.

  14. Nationalism is a mean not an end.
    There can very much be and there are some leftist nationalisms (north Corea…) and one of my fear is the the creation of a liberal nationalism to channel the European Right into the system, meaning by that : you’ll have to choose between feminism, abortion and gay rights, or sharia.
    It’s already happening, the more a “national” party gets close from power, the more liberal becomes .

    1. Shit, that’s true and happening all over Europe as we speak.
      This is why I don’t vote, if I did and the motherfucker would turncoat on me, I’d go bust his shit up. I would feel obliged to do it, as to me that would reflect negatively on me as a person by association and more by support.

      1. I’m with yang on that. I don’t vote either. I will not be responsible by proxy for the actions of an extortion organization.

  15. The best argument for nationalism ever.
    Liberal : ” Nationalism and group pride is irrational ! ”
    Me : ” You have 2 groups. A group of rationally self-doubtful intellectuals, and irrationally confident muslims who believe blowing themselves up will bring them 72 virgins. Who wins ? ”
    Chateau Heartise’s maxim : Irrational confidence > Rational self-doubt
    Liberal : “But muh right wing SJW. Muh individualism. Muh one human race. Muh Sargon of Akkad. Muh horse-shoe theory. Muh pride only in PERSONAL achievement. Muh enlightment. Muh anti-racism. Muh equality. “That’s not nice !. You know like, it’s not the 50’s anymore, It’s 2016 !” Muh John Oliver. Drumpf LOL ! Feel the bern ! ”
    Me : ” Let’s see how well that will work when muslims immigrate and breed quickly and will overwhelm you”
    Liberal : “Racist. That’s just a small minority. We will be one human race under global socialist utopia ! SMDH, these Rethuglican nazis ! I bet you like fascists like Putin and UKIP. “

    1. National “pride” is derided by the left yet “pride” in homosexuality is promoted throughout the world with all their degenerate parades. How did it come to pass that sticking a cock up a hairy man ass has become a “proud” way to live???

      1. I wonder why “alcoholic pride”, “heroin addict pride” or “poop-eating pride” are not a thing yet.

        1. Pedosexual pride parades incoming.
          Get ready to celebrate the destruction of ageism.

        2. Ages are a social construct. If your son is convinced to be 30 years old when he’s 11, then let him be, and let him have a sex life with 30+ years old men too.
          Yes I can see that one coming too, just before the sharia.

        5. Alcoholics have been oppressed by the healthy sober class for centuries ! Alcoholics of the world, be proud and unite !!!

        8. Giving DUIs is oppression! We should hold a pride march so drunk we can barely stand up wearing liquor bottles as hats and figure out a way to make mankinis out of recycled beer crates or something like that.
          Hahaha I actually think this exists, it’s called Oktoberfest lol! Just swap mankinis for lederhosen.

        10. True! Can you believe these Sobrienazis!?! They take away the rights of alcoholics. I mean basic rights! If you even try to drive a car they will put you in jail!

        13. The “cocaine chic” is a classic “must” in the fashion industry…

        14. Sobrienazis? That sounds like a Polish surname.
          “Nice to meet you, my name is Krzysztof Sobrienazi”.
          …Though it’s hard to imagine a Pole being a ‘sobrienazi’ in the sense you meant it.

      2. Good point.
        I am proud to stick dicks in my ass. Cheers.
        I am proud to a trans-nigger otherkin. Cheers.
        I am proud to be black muslim, celebrating black panthers, MalcolmX and Mandela who murders boers.
        I am going kill yo whitey ass’. Roots and all. Me be fighting the system and listening to Public Enemy and NWA. Man, we gonna kill some crackers and fight da racist PO-LEECE system, you know what I’m sayin
        Wow, so empowering, good for taking pride in that.
        I am proud to be a straight white male. OMG, Nazi !

        1. Reminds me of the norm McDonald bit on Gay pride when he is like one guy telling another “oh, my son, we are so proud of him, he just graduated Harvard medical school and now he is going to be a great successful Doctor. So proud of my son.”
          And the guy replies “oh that’s nothing. My son sucks cock! He really jams it in his mouth and his ass too. He loves cock. Here! Here is a picture of him sucking cocks. We are so proud”

    2. That is some insane strawmanning you’re pulling off there but yeah the argument is accurate.
      I’ve said it before but that is why libertarianism is a failed ideology in today’s corrupt multicultural America. A “live and let live” philosophy with Mexicans who refuse to speak English and forego their old customs, or with Muslims who are taught from birth that murdering infidels will bring them salvation, or with BLM activists who are taught by the media that white people are responsible for all of their hardships in life, will result in an America that is no longer America.

    3. “You have 2 groups. A group of rationally self-doubtful intellectuals, and irrationally confident muslims who believe blowing themselves up will bring them 72 virgins. Who wins?”
      Wins what? The contest of building an advanced society in which it is reasonably comfortable to live, and where a majority of children make it to see their first birthday? The self-doubting intellectuals, of course!
      Antibiotics, electricity, combustion engines, nuclear power, space flight — you name it — behind every big discovery stands a scientist who takes pride in critical discussion, loves uncertainty, and is humbly aware of his own limitations. Certainly a healthy society needs more than only intellectuals, and more than only self-doubt, but without them it will never become great.
      The question of pride and sense of belonging is not directly connected to this. It is perfectly possible to be aware of the flaws in your society and/or critical to its leaders, while at the same time being proud of its good sides and identifying with its people, culture and history. And for me personally, one of my greatest sources of pride in European culture is its capacity (pretty much unprecedented in history) of critical thinking, self-reflection and discussion.

  16. Nationalism gives the people pride, self respect, and identity. Each nation has a unique history and culture defines a person who lives in it. This soil you stand upon is not simple dirt, but your birthright that you must defend and cultivate.

    1. For nations with a strong set of customs and traditions you’re 100% correct.
      For a mega state, not so much.
      I live in Ohio. I have about as much in common with somebody from California as a Frenchman has in common with a German. We’re entirely different people and have almost 180 degree opposite views on everything. I’ve more in common with somebody from Wyoming or Nebraska than I do a Cali. And somebody from Massachusetts has about as much in common with me as I do with somebody from Cali. We’re too big and our culture(s) are divided and growing apart at a rapid pace. The human brain doesn’t seem to be wired to readily accept mega-state “nationalism” of this nature. But organic “regionalism”, yes, absolutely, which is basically what nationalism was before the modern era.

      1. Mega state is different story. The US was envision and still is collection of multiple states on same land mass in regards to organic “regionalism” envision by the founding fathers. Our national identity was and should be that extended family. We all do our own thing, but fuck with one of us and you are in world of hurt. This is one of the issue with our political system in the US that destroying the cohesiveness of the country as the federal government impose customs and values of certain regions of the US to entire country. Each states has unique culture and people, its should be respected.

      2. Very insightful and very true. Yet paradoxically America is very nationalistic as least in terms of military or maybe outwardly but so much internally if that makes sense ?? I am not disagreeing with you either if it seems that way. I just think there is another aspect that goes counter to intuitive to the point you raised.

  17. I’m usually the most pro-American Brazilian ever, but in this case I have to side with my countrymen: Santos Dumont invented the airplane first, period. The first PUBLIC flight of the Wright brothers was in 1908, 2 years after Dumont’s flight in Paris and with a different engine in their plane. The alleged flight of 1903 had as witness only friends and acquaintances (and they only told people about it AFTER Dumont’s flight). But, most important, NO REPLICA of their first plane was able to fly EVER. The ones that did had to use a stronger engine (so it doesn’t count). Let me repeat this: the airplane of the alleged flight DOES NOT FLY, it cannot fly. So, if they did fly in 1903 (which I think it’s unlikely) it wasn’t with the airplane engine, it wasn’t really heavier-than-air flight, it was just sky gliding with the help of a catapult and strong winds. The Wright brother were indeed genius inventors and later they improved their airplanes to a point where they really dominated the field. But if we are playing the “who was the first” game, I think the case for them is very weak.

    1. Interesting stuff, didn’t know this. I’ve always been skeptical of the wright brothers but just from studying airplane design and building models. It simply doesn’t look to be airworthy from a common sense perspective but on paper much less so. With the claimed spec that is. But with a big enough engine anything almost can fly.
      This kind of near simultaneous but separate invention event has happened many times, my theory is that when the science and culture reaches the point where something is relevant and realistic it will be invented by more than one person provided enough educated people are populating earth.

    1. I tried reading through the article. This is similar stuff colleges are trying to shove down the throats of its students nowadays.

    2. My litmus – test if anyone is GENUINELY opposed to rape, or is merely doing it to virtue signal.
      What do they think of the muslims who have pedo gangs in Britain. To they make excuses for them. Do they call you racist if you point it out, or are they genuinely concerned.
      If not, FUCK OFF.
      Lol at liberals being afraid of cis white male rapists.
      Meanwhile statistics show a different picture.
      One third of South Africans admit to having commited rape at some point.
      http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/more-than-one-third-of-south-african-men-admit-to-rape-study-440423

      1. I’m only really opposed to non domestic rape. My boyfriend rapped me etc is bullshit. Unless he wore a balaclava and you have defensive wounds that is.

    3. There’s having an unpopular opinion in a shitlib zone. Then there’s ejaculating on a hornets nest while doing the helicopter dick and singing we are the champions. Bravo.

      1. Ha. Thanks. I’d be pretty surprised if they don’t delete that comment before tomorrow.

      2. My favorite is king zog who told me I can’t even count to 100%
        Not even kidding! I can’t count to 100 percent. It’s like playing keep away with a retard.

        1. You have to admit, on a certain level, it’s kind of fun to do that. We won’t admit it in public, but it does make one chuckle.
          And yes, I’m an asshole. Heh.

        2. Taking a huge dump on a bunch of SJW’s or, as Bischa put it, ejaculating onto a hornets nest while doing a helicopter dick and singing we are the champions? Damn straight it’s fun. Admit it in public? I might get Bischa’s comment made into a t-shirt

        3. I meant playing keep away with a retard. But the others work too.

        4. Oh yeah, well naturally. I still have the special Olympics on my dvr. Who is the bigger asshole, me for finding it fucking hilarious or ESPN for thinking putting 8 days of retards playing sports on prime time was a good idea.

      3. You deserve a prize for that comment, I’m laughing so hard and I’m on the balcony so all the neighbors can hear me howling…

    4. Hahhaa…you bastard! I purposely DIDN’T click on that shit article so I would give them the traffic, and yard tricked me! I was CrackedProgtard-rolled!

      1. Nah, just looked. It’s still there but is burriednpretty far downz

        1. I see, it just doesn’t show up under ‘your postings’ link. I really like how the default avatar for that site looks strikingly like a rapist.

  19. Sometimes I wonder how many kids today know of Johnny Appleseed, Wyatt Earp, Paul Bunyan(ok he’s fictional but still), John Henry, Ethan Allen… you get the point. More likely to know who “Master Chief” or some animu character than John Chapman.

  20. The only other thing people take pride in is in their region. Regionalism must be going strong these days.

    1. Regionalism more closely matches the traditional “nationalism” that people would feel for their city-states or communities. It’s far more organic and natural than giant-state nationalism.

  21. Nationalism can be a good thing to a point. But we even here in ‘Murica we are not told the whole story about our leaders. Some people get glossed over like Lysander Spooner; can’t have peons following his example and thinking for themselves. Instead we are told how great tyrants are like corporate scumbag and racist Abe Lincoln and the commie jackass FDR who got the ball rolling with the progressive trash.

  22. I’ve done a lot of thinking about nationalism. I live in the US, and always held fairly strong anti-nationalist views. But when I travel abroad, I do appreciate the pride and honor that others have for their nation. I have finally decided my opposition to this at home is because the US is simply too large. If the US were a smaller nation, I would feel very strong nationalistic views. But the way it is now, the US is basically a mini-UN.
    What if the US expanded and took over all of north America? Would you still hold pro-US views? What if it absorbed north and south? Would you still hold pro-US views? The US is already basically a world government. It dictates what people can do, where, and punishes them, financially or militarily, should they disagree. So to me, supporting the US is actually anti-nationalistic. Because the US is a large globalist force. It took me a couple of years to come to that understanding, because it was an internal dichotomy I felt.

    1. Interesting and valid point, and indeed the US is not comparable to the historical nations of Europe in the sense of having a cohesive culture and origin.

    2. Very well said. I’m far more into “regionalism”. I share an identity with my fellow central and north central Ohioans due to my habits, speech/dialect of English, customs, traditions and regional quirks (“O-H!”….”I-O!” and Buckeye games in the fall, Oktoberfest, Applebutter fairs, dealing with old school Amish, etc). This is part of my identity because I participate in it with so many others. Somebody from Massachusetts on the other hand has no connection here and many of their customs and traditions are known only to them, as ours are known only to us. We are in many ways almost entirely different people, fused together under “one nation”.
      I’m very comfortable with regionalism. I can even get behind a bit of meta scale nationalism but only on major points where all agree (or should) such as the Constitution. But the “my country right or wrong” thing has always stuck in my craw and doesn’t seem right to me when dealing with a nation as huge and as much of a bully as the modern U.S. has become. The only time I think that notion EVER applies is if we’re being attacked by another nation here, on our own soil, or are in a world war.

    3. There was a good youtube video from some Norwegian guy about that. Since Norway has drank the SJW kool-aid and imported Somalians, Arabs, Indians, etc en masse, he argues that he has closer national ties to your average man or woman from Poland, Hungary, or Denmark than your average Norwegian with brown skin and non-European customs. In that sense nationalism can be argued to be a dead concept, or at least its definition needs to be revised.
      Edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rprBLT8SPjg

      1. That’s why I think we need to worship something other than the state. It doesn’t even have to be something we can all wholeheartedly believe in, it just has to be something universal and timeless. The church served this purpose for centuries. I see 3 choices for building a strong society. We either need to rebuild this faith in church, modify religion to incorporate modern beliefs (much of it is too anti-science, though interestingly enough the Catholics are much better than Protestants here), or find a new foundation.

        1. I have never considered nationalism the worship of the state. It is the worship of your people,your culture and your heritage. I am extremely nationalistic and couldn’t possibly think less of the state i live in. In fact i regard it as my enemy.

  23. Does it really matter who was first? Let us give both of these great inventors and visionaries their due…

    Yes, yes it does.
    This suicidal Brazilian expat was second…and Americans were first 😉

    1. Back in the cold war Pravda reported on a two car race between the USSR and the USA. The headline was, “USSR Finishes Second, USA Finishes Second to Last”.

  24. I’d say it’s a sliding scale. We’ve been inundated with so much mass media influenced self hate (the entity of self being the nation state concept) in recent times that good old fashioned Nationalism starts to look fresh again.
    These ideas don’t exist in a vacuum though. There is a yin-yang push pull Goldilocks sweet spot there somewhere. Between the current Globalism & traditional Nationalism. Necessary for being aligned with reality.

  25. Right now and here (Islamic Republic of Germanistan) many people start to understand that nationalism is not national socialism. Voters start swinging to the right wing and the leftists howl.
    It is a shame that we have to learn the hard way, though.

  26. If nationalism occurs naturally then there’s nothing wrong with it. When it’s artificially enforced for the benefit of the ruling elite, it’s invariably accompanied by racism and xenophobia, which is an odious thing to endure.
    I’m speaking from experience here – Thailand. It’s an ultra-nationalist ultra-royalist fascist military dictatorship. It’s not a nice place for a foreigner to live once they’re smart enough to understand what’s going on. Nationalism here is also a problem for many natives. When the country was Siam, it was a very diverse, multi-cultural place. This was simply because it naturally contains 5 separate major races. Nationalism began when those 5 races were mushed into 1 and renamed Thai. Siam – the great nation that people should truly be proud of – and its people’s true identities and histories were simply destroyed… in the name of nationalism.

    1. Interesting, didn’t know. Japan has its issues but by the sound of it a lot less serious. It’s virtually completely homogeneous but the issues are around things like automatic suspicion of all foreigners, and a fair bit of intolerance etc. Don’t get me started on the police and bureaucratic stuff they have going, most people would not believe it. Renting a place on your own as a foreigner can be all but impossible if you don’t have any access to anything other than private landlords.
      I still love the place, but it’s not all as rosy as many seem to think. Get used to getting berated loudly in ultra fast slang Japanese lol.

      1. You should tell that to all those annoying weaboos who think Japan is one long never-ending manga. God, those people are some of the most annoying fools in the universe.

        1. I sometimes do, but it doesn’t seem to stick, most of these idiots haven’t been there. One thing I find just plain unreasonable is that in Kyoto they have decided half the town is no smoking on the street. No visible signs in some areas either. I decided to finally go there on vacation with my wife and I get my ass fined 20min after arrival.
          But yeah I am not a great fan of the weaboos either, and for the most part neither are Japanese people. I showed some of the madness to locals and they were like “really?? They are crazy!!!” Which is not uncommon as a response to weird shit in the west by them I would say hehehe.

  27. Highly nationalistic countries tend to be homogeneous, have a common religion, and compulsory military service. Its impossible to be nationalistic when your country has none of those things and has huge immigrant opportunist populations whose true allegiances lie with their homeland and would prefer to create enclave communities reflective of their native cultures and send half their money back home in remittances than invest in their host country’s infrastructure and assimilate. We are fucked and just keep importing more foreigners and further diluting whatever national identity and pride that is left.

  28. Traian Vuia is the first man to fly, before even Santos, every kid in Romania knows this, he was unjustly disqualified because the French claimed his plane only “hopped” – the plane raised one meter from the ground and flew 12 meters…

  29. North American brothers were not the real inventors of the airplane, the simple fact that they created did not fly on their own, needed to be catapulted . The 14bis the contrary had engine. Flew by own account, flew kilometers , while the plane of americamos brothers only flew the length of a basketball court . This is not fly if they are many other created things that gave short ground jumps. Beyond what the flight of Santos Dumont was documented . American brothers only claim their ” flight “, jump, as prior to Dumont .

  30. Being as it is that this article encourages me to take pride in my nation, and given the theme of aviation, on behalf of the nation of New Zealand I would like to mention the name ‘Richard Pearse’.
    Some farmer from bloody Timaru was up there with the Wright brothers,
    but because he was shy and lived right down here on arse-end of the
    planet, he didn’t seek or gain much recognition.
    From Wiki… “Richard William Pearse (3 December 1877 – 29 July 1953) was a New Zealand farmer and inventor who performed pioneering experiments in aviation.
    It is claimed Pearse flew and landed a powered heavier-than-air machine on 31 March 1903, some nine months before the Wright brothers flew their aircraft.
    The documentary evidence to support such a claim remains open to
    interpretation, and Pearse did not develop his aircraft to the same
    degree as the Wright brothers, who achieved sustained controlled flight.
    Pearse himself never made such claims, and in an interview he gave to
    the Timaru Post in 1909 only claimed he did not “attempt anything
    practical … until 1904″.
    Pearse himself was not a publicity-seeker and also occasionally made
    contradictory statements, which for many years led some of the few who
    knew of his feats to offer 1904 as the date of his first flight. The
    lack of any chance of industrial development, such as spurred the
    Wrights to develop their machine, seems to have suppressed any
    recognition of Pearse’s achievements”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pearse
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Pearse.gif
    http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraft/Pearse-FlyingMachine/IMAGES/pearse-plane.jpg

Comments are closed.