Right of speech and democracy in holland

[spanky4ever]

I think there are many factors that affect whether hate and distrust live on for generations, and why some quickly lessens and disappear almost entirely in 2 generations:
- how you came out of the "conflict" at hand? Are you living in a society that are autonomous and self-sufficient economically and legally?
- does it occur instances on a regular basis, that reminds you and your ppl of the violence and terror of the past?
- how similar are you with former enemy when it comes to: culture, politics, values, religion etc. etc.??
This is only some factors I could come up with. There must be many others.
To say its just clear cut, and that you should "get over it" and move on - while stating that the only reason why you cannot, is that your stupid or brainwashed, are serious understatements

[deleted_user0]

yes, there is undoubtedly a biological element that draws us to this sort of enlarged tribalism, but other than that, its not really an understatement. Nationalism is a cancer that should be eliminated from this world in order to improve it. All it does is create and prolong petty grudges between people who are otherwise not at odds with each other. This thread is a perfect example of it.

[Mr_Bramboy]

Nationalism is necessary for a functioning country. Kill the enemy, defend the homeland. Glory to Willem.

[Dolan]

This Lazarus'd nationalism happens in a certain context, when most people lost a hard/metaphysical principle to live by. This is especially the case in the Western world, where society has been laicised, economics discredited, which eventually led to a crisis of political paradigm. What is the social principle around which people will band in this century?

Facing the prospect of demographic extinction or welfare enslavement (by getting taxed to death to support an ageing population and a growing migrant population looking for benefits), the West (or at least a significant part of it) is taking refuge in citizenship tribalism. It's not even ethnic nationalism, because nobody seriously raises the issue of ethnic purity or of expelling integrated ethnic groups. It's a kind of tribalism that rejects newcomers from cultures which are seen as difficult or even impossible to fully integrate.

It's tempting to think that this is a retro- ideology, that it's history repeating itself, that it's part of a cultural tendency to look for authenticity in the past. The original form of nationalism, though, happened in a different context. It was about the people revolting against monarchic regimes, it was about creating a new political subject -- the nation -- in some cases, even about colonies or occupied territories seeking emancipation from an occupying force. That's not the case with the 21st century new breed of nationalism. It's a different beast, that reared its head for different reasons.

[Mr_Bramboy]

This Lazarus'd nationalism happens in a certain context, when most people lost a hard/metaphysical principle to live by. This is especially the case in the Western world, where society has been laicised, economics discredited, which eventually led to a crisis of political paradigm. What is the social principle around which people will band in this century?

Facing the prospect of demographic extinction or welfare enslavement (by getting taxed to death to support an ageing population and a growing migrant population looking for benefits), the West (or at least a significant part of it) is taking refuge in citizenship tribalism. It's not even ethnic nationalism, because nobody seriously raises the issue of ethnic purity or of expelling integrated ethnic groups. It's a kind of tribalism that rejects newcomers from cultures which are seen as difficult or even impossible to fully integrate.

It's tempting to think that this is a retro- ideology, that it's history repeating itself, that it's part of a cultural tendency to look for authenticity in the past. The original form of nationalism, though, happened in a different context. It was about the people revolting against monarchic regimes, it was about creating a new political subject -- the nation -- in some cases, even about colonies or occupied territories seeking emancipation from an occupying force. That's not the case with the 21st century new breed of nationalism. It's a different beast, that reared its head for different reasons.

So what you're saying is that I should start a revolution against my Moroccan neighbours? Got it.

[Dolan]

Yeah.., nah.

[Dolan]

Erdogan urges Turks in Europe to have 5 children
By Associated Press March 17 at 9:54 AM

ANKARA, Turkey — Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has called on Turks living in Europe to have at least five children, saying it would be the best response to Europe’s “injustices.”

Erdogan made the comments Friday while campaigning in the city of Eskisehir for a referendum that would usher in a presidential system and enhance his powers.

The Turkish leader has unleashed scathing rhetoric toward European nations — especially the Netherlands — after Turkish ministers were prevented from carrying out campaign meetings there.

On Friday, Erdogan told Turks in Europe: “Go live in better neighborhoods. Drive the best cars. Live in the best houses. Make not three, but five children. Because you are the future of Europe. That will be the best response to the injustices against you.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/eu ... story.html

So the future of Europe is another Erdogan state...