If people didn't buy in to nationalism, there could be no world war. ( conspiracy )

submitted by magnora

World wars are government vs government fights, generally speaking. Why do these governments have millions of followers, instead of being ignored like they should when they start wars?

Because of the ideology of nationalism (or patriotism, as it's called in the US and UK).

We've been told we're part of this "team", so if the team wants to go to war, you'd better support it! That's why calling someone "anti-American" is such a tremendous threat socially, because everyone is tripping over each other to see who can support the state the most.

We even have it in our language. We say "The US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq". But in reality, it was not "The US". The land itself did nothing. The people who live in the US generally had nothing to do with the initiation of those wars. It's the government, and the people who support the government even when it's irrational and immoral.

If the government didn't have legions of supporters, there would be no wars, or at least the wars would be much smaller scale.

We're tricked in to thinking identifying ourselves with our nation is our truest identity. People say "I am an American" before they say "I am a Kansan" or "I am a Christian" or whatever identity they have. In modern society, nationalistic identity takes priority. This best serves the existing power structure. It gives them the power to conduct wars and commit crimes in the open. They are above reproach due to nationalism.

This is further compounded by people who submit to the groupthink of a political ideology, be it right or left. They won't scrutinize the wrongdoings of their own team, and they act as though the other teams are causing all the problems. We do this on a scale of nationalism, and on a scale of party politics. And on many other scales too.

Detaching from this web of ideologies is how we unplug from the matrix, how we regain our freedom and stop giving away our power to those who want to control us. People are all too happy to outsource their thinking to an ideology without realizing the full consequences. The less you subscribe to any ideology, the more powerful and aware you are as an individual.

dontwatchtv

It starts with the Pledge of Allegiance.

I don't know any other country that indoctrinate their children every morning with the Pledge of Allegiance.

forgetmyname

Nations, borders, control, thinking are abstract principles. What these things give us is an abundance and without war there is no limit on over-consumption. The world war interrupts the economy, market, and many lives. Allegiance to the nation-state is often the best chance for immediate survival, security, and post war benefit should you live to see your country win. The threat of invasion, occupation, looting, rape, and destruction tends to make people of the same state put aside their left/right national politics to stop an outsider from crashing the party.

magnora

But the reason there are offensive things to defend against in the first place is also because of nationalism. It's a problem and solution, and it's means by which we are controlled.

FacelessOne

Not to detract any of your points, but thought I might bring up the question of what would work in its place?

People will always fight to defend themselves or their family from danger, even if it is an offensive attack they will go, at least you get paid to go war. You may need to enlist in order to feed 6 family members back home who are not physically/mentally capable for war. This applies to many facets of how humans have lived throughout history.

And so once you are capable of raising an army you can force your sphere of influence to expand. Life comes down to the basics, anyone is capable of seizing the opportunity to get paid and become a "soldier," regardless of the leaders motivation for raising the army.

Motivations are easy, for most Americans it goes:

God Family Country Self

These 4 motivators are easily played off one another to morally justify the decision. Tricky part is how country replaced community, Nationalism. The cornerstone of the USA. In less than 240 years of existence no other form of government had ever succeeded at complete global military dominance. Proving that when sufficiently motivated, a single nation of people could increase their sphere of control over the entire globe.

magnora

Ideally, humanism would replace it. The idea that we're all humans together, trapped on this rock looking for answers and trying to better the lives of everyone when possible. That should be our unifying theme.

It's hard to make such a motto in to an organizational social structure that can have power to implement and defend itself. Or perhaps such humanism will naturally arise as people grow weary of wars thanks to exposure of new information via the internet. That's my pipe dream, I suppose.

llegendary

War isn't about borders, it's about resources and how those resources are distributed. Limited resources with increasing populations will always mean there will be conflict, with or without borders.

Those with weapons will always be at the top of the world order and those without will be at the bottom.

Your thinking is along the same lines as the gun control issue. It would be nice if everybody would give up their guns, but, some are going to keep them and will use them to influence the world around them in their favor.

People will always form groups to influence their power. Asking them not to or thinking that people will do so is magical thinking.

magnora

The borders are the mechanism by which we think wars are justified. They don't matter except as a moral construct to goad people in to supporting certain warmongering behaviors.

This defeatist attitude of "oh it doesn't matter, we might as well not even try to look at what are the big causes of war" is the reason they can keep getting away with wars. Seriously.

llegendary

Borders are what they use now. If it isn't borders, then it would be something else. This group vs that group. This union vs that union. People will form groups to increase their resources and influence. That has always been and always will be human nature. Asking everybody to be neutral is like expecting a snake to agree not to bite you.

magnora

Yes it may be human nature, but we should be discouraging this groupthink instead of encouraging it, as our culture does. People don't realize that nationalism is like a trick being played on them, and they should.

llegendary

Nobody is ever going to play by those rules.....and I like being American. I personally hate the idea of open borders and a global society. People will always be different. If I excape this country, I want to be able to go to another. One world rule would lead to an iron fist of inescapable rule. Who knows who would set the rules, well....the ones with the guns would set the rules and be privileged and would be part of their own little group. No...your idea would never ever ever work.

pitenius

Bully for you, /u/magnora , for looking at the linguistic edge of public programming!

I'm not sure I agree though. I think the problem may be the definition of "world war". I could totes see endless waves of mass delusions and panic that manifest in violence without nations. But if the "world war" is defined as nations/identities making teams, perhaps the more likely conclusion is that they'll reconfigure until they hit optimum efficiency -- probably either world peace or eternal managed war.

wellendowedduckling

so which do we want ? a bunch of nation states or one world government? it seems like there is evil/conspiracy in both

HexTq

A World Government is inevitable for the survival of humanity on the long run.

pitenius

Oh, gee! Since you said it, that must be true! There's even a few big science type words in there.

HexTq

Oh,gee! Since you made fun of it, you must be the coolest guy in existence

pitenius

In my experience, people get most defensive when they know they're wrong.

HexTq

Sure, its possible to have an adult argument with someone who writes "Oh, gee! Since you said it, that must be true! There's even a few big science type words in there." Make your point.

pitenius

My point is that showing up in a conspiracy sub advocating the inevitability of a one world government is the equivalent of arguing for body positivity in FPH. That might have been defensible because conspiritards are not shitlords, but you gave no reasons. Everyone else already knew that point. You're disingenuous.

HexTq

Kek. Sorry, i did not know the One World Government and a wOrld Government is the same, mate.There is a big difference in my understanding, but i can see your point,yeah.

pitenius

A big factor of what people hate about a unified government is that there would be no competition. In my opinion, a government without challenges will devolve into China -- a remote authority on which all local governance depends with no possibility of independence or dissent. It might be soft power; it might be fascism: both suck. Frankly, at some level, we need conflict. But that stands against what people are taught: war is bad, peace is good. (China knows this, too, but they'll try to manage both sides of an internal conflict, which has all the authenticity of a Coke vs. Pepsi stand-off.)

It's a rough sell: The candidate who claims "I promise you endless border conflicts, regional disruptions, shifting borders and nationalities" will lose to "We are all one! We have the same rights!". Mostly, because people are stupid. There's some hippy center in America: The Center for Peace and Justice. No one questions whether there can be "justice" and "peace" at the same time. What should the aggrieved do? Endlessly forgive the aggressor? I suppose, if you're Angela Merkel.

I'll spare you my thoughts on the misuse of the term "peace".

HexTq

Nah, i just cant find a better translation of the native word than world government. Breaking it down i mean something like a global unity in terms that matter for humans(like resource distribution,space exploration etc,not a real government. I use the word hatalom wich means just power(authority,empire,potency,ascendancy xD) in english,but so much more in its native meaning.) Im not in favor for the One World Government, at all :) In the end i believe united we stand,divided we fall.Not in the sense that all of humanity needs to be in one mind and purpose.

pitenius

Hatalom? Magyar?

HexTq

Yes

Stavon

Nations have got less influence in the last 100 years. Now it's the religions again, just now it's not the jews who are being hunted but muslims.

magnora

Nations have got less influence in the last 100 years.

Really? Why do you say that? I see the opposite. The religions have been steadily losing power over the last 300 years and the belief in the nation-state has been taking its place, as well as filling the king-worship that went completely out of fashion about 500 years ago.

Stavon

Britain, France, even the Netherlands were world nations 100 years ago. Now they're merely pawns in the global game. And religions still have a backing in most western and near eastern countries. And among the others I don't know, probably as well.

magnora

They're pawns only because the banking sectors have gotten so good at manipulating governments. That's a different issue than the bulk of the people's motivation to fight in wars coming from their belief system, nationalism.

Gerplunckamo

But OP, don't you want to die for your country like a good little sheep?