The Necessity of Nationalism | George Friedman at Brain Bar

SUBSCRIBE to our channel for more brainy bits: goo.gl/mLdVrF
What if we get nationalism all wrong? Geopolitical analyst George Friedman goes back in history to prove that this misunderstood idea is inherently connected with liberalism. Skeptical? Let Friedman convince you in this video.
---
About George Friedman
Founder and Chairman of the publication Geopolitical Futures. One of the globe's best known intelligence experts and geopolitical forecasters who has correctly predicted world-changing events - including the EU crisis, the Ukraine conflict, and the US-Iranian truce. He is the author of six best-selling books, including "The Next Decade", "The Next 100 Years" and "Flashpoints: The Emerging Crisis in Europe".
---
About Brain Bar
Brain Bar, the biggest European festival on the future brings together the world’s most exciting visions. Lively, ambitious and unique, Brain Bar creates the stage for top trendsetters, decision-makers and challengers to exchange ideas in unusual and unrestrained conversation.
Follow us:
Official website: brainbar.com
Facebook: / brainbarofficial
Instagram: / brainbar
Twitter: / brainbarcom
LinkedIn: / brainbar

[@joshuah5655]

19:27 "...And from my point of view, a life without duty, a life without a willingness to sacrifice, is defective." Beautiful

[@ottokard1243]

Anyone from brain4breakfast

[@fergal2424]

Yep

[@ottoleois9323]

Aye.

[@crossthekxng943]

Not alone

[@SilverKing96]

Yeah

[@POCLEE]

＋１

[@rejvaik00]

Nationalism is NOT imperialism. Imperialism is the idea to dominate another nation, nationalism is the idea of acknowledging the existence of a nation.

[@TheHydra-qt5ug]

Ahhh, a bit of imperialism can't hurt.

[@065Tim]

You are describing Patriotism. Patriotism = I love my country. Nationalism = My country is better than any other. Imperialism = My country needs to ground.

[@rejvaik00]

@@065Tim no its not. The Palestinians have a nationalist dream of their own nation existing despite it not yet existing. Therefore nationalism is the belief that your nation, whichever one you have pledged yourself, to exists and has that right to exist

[@niceguy2527]

@@065Tim you're a bit silly m8, you're buying into the anti nationalist moral framework and you don't even know it

[@mustanaamiotto3812]

@@065Tim You are wrong.

[@ivandate9972]

where have you been Mr Friedman we have been waiting for you for sooooo long

[@4183Johnny]

It's like the people taking part in the Q&A didn't listen to a word that was said.

[@Drumsgoon]

Nation states are the best way to protect individual rights, but nationalism can also mean the collectivism of the nation over the individual, and that is not liberal. To pretend that the solution is the technocratic farce of the EU is of course laughable.

[@maverikmiller6746]

Best comment snek friend.

[@maverikmiller6746]

@Dj Nichols Protec the snek !

[@ebrelus7687]

Who said liberal means anything good?

[@Drumsgoon]

@@ebrelus7687 Mr. Friedman himself, maybe listen to the speech before you start to get triggered or try to troll.

[@spiderkitty7643]

Liberal, from the root word _liber,_ meaning FREE. We should *not* allow this word to be co-opted by a bunch of illiberal authoritarians who have apparently confused freedom with lack of consequences.

[@nelsano3]

Fantastic lecture.

[@everythingisfine9988]

Global citizen? Who do you run to for protection? Who do you vote for in leadership? Just a bunch of hot air

[@quedtion_marks_kirby_modding]

UN :v

[@meganh9460]

@@quedtion_marks_kirby_modding UN has no army, no one listens to them.

[@quedtion_marks_kirby_modding]

@@meganh9460 the UN actualy haves an army.

[@creativeplanet5016]

@@quedtion_marks_kirby_modding I wouldn't call the UN Peacekeeping Brigade an Army

[@quedtion_marks_kirby_modding]

@@creativeplanet5016 true, but at least they have a participation star.

[@theknight4317]

I waited for it. :D. Great speech.

[@rejvaik00]

This is an amazing video and very deep and thought provoking. And is great for introducing anyone who is interested in learning political science

[@alexgoslar4057]

Once again a brilliant presentation George.

[@olenaksovreli1406]

One of the greatest contemporary thinkers👏🇬🇪❤️🇺🇸

[@mc-lb9dk]

more a modern Nazi

[@zackp5294]

Olena Ksovreli you idiot

[@Egello]

I Am from Ethiopia. We have 82 distict languages on a 1.1 M km square area. Your concept of "nation" is primarily based on languages. People with your type of idea started a political system 28 years ago and divided the country into its various language groups for the supposed purpose of national self determination. Now we find ourselves in a terrible situation where hundreds of thousand are being evicted from their homes because the majority language groups want them out. I think you should consider the consequences of such language and tribe based nationalism in your research. I think the respect of human righ is all we need. The nationalism you are proposing is very dangerous, even for Europe. Learn from history sir.

[@Joker-yw9hl]

Respect to Ethiopia from the UK

[@RollyBalondo]

Probably the reason why Tigray wants out.

[@srebrenicakr4255]

My country consists of 718 different languages and ethnicity, 5 different religions. now we are enjoying 78 years independent from the european invader, and we united in 1 national languages that we just created 80 years ago. So sir your country have to be creative to create 1 new national language to unite your country. And you have to choose major ethnic group for your leader because impossible for minority to lead, it just the reality and facts you just have to face it.

[@Dostav]

If you have so many different languages in your country, then how does it exist? There should be something that unites country's people. It's hard to imagine people knowing different languages to cooperate. Is your constitution written on 82 languages? Are your laws written on 82 languages? Are courts supposed to have 82 judges or translators so that a court can work? Do you have 82 different national TV chanels? It's all unimaginable. There is supposed to one language that everyone can speak or there is no nation, what means there is need for people to go their own ways.

[@Egello]

@@Dostav Good question. I am 55 years old and lived through 4 distinctly different governments in Ethiopia. I am also a relatively well read person. I also live in Ethiopia. Ethiopian Nationalism has been well established since the 12th century. Our Nationalism is based on a common understanding of different language groups (82) considering themselves to be the same people, Ethiopians. The national language is Amharic and English. Almost all people speak 2-3 languages and we are intermixed to the point where one can not distinguish between tribes and ethnicities , except at some of the border areas. Ethnic politics is a recent phenomenon that started with the TPLF coming to power, following the western sanctioned war that ended with the downfall of the Derg in 1987 that coincided with the demise of the Global Socialist Block. The following EPRDF government, organized and headed by the TPLF, changed the Constitution and organized the administrations along Ethnic lines. This enabled a small minority, Tigrian speaking people, to exercise absolute power with the age-old scheme of divide-and-rule, until they were deposed by a massive popular apprising involving all language groups. The TPLF organized and Western supported government ruled for 27 years with absolute brutality and phenomenal corruption until 2019. The TPLF realizing that they can no longer exert their will on the people fled to Tigai Administration region, which they consider as their power base, encouraged by the West for their own Geopolitical objectives. Soon after, TPLF incited a war with the rest of Ethiopia and Eritrea, with the aim of not coming back to power but destabilize the Nations. There are also a few other groups who try to do the same in the name of Ethnic Independence. Despite all this, the unity of the people towards one Ethiopia is very strong. The TPLF group is close to coming to justice for their crimes. If you want to know more, the best is to visit the country and talk to ordinary people. I used to worship CNN, BBC and the rest of the Western Media but until I saw their true colors. I appreciate your discussion.

[@TheGreatTimSheridan]

it finally loaded.. thought provoking. nations do not need to fight and die to protect their nationhood. they can just fight. of not, then they will do both.

[@dtoften]

Just because there is nationalism does not mean it is fascist. You have to have an authoritarian government. That is the key. Without control, they are a paper tiger. Be more concern about control than nationalism. Socialism and communism gives this severe control to an elite group that do not have your best interests. They will control the economy, religion, human rights, and you.

[@dende890]

plz, do not say a word about something you just learn from your brainwashing government, listen to the most intelligent brain kzbin.info/www/bejne/opDNg5drbtasZqM

[@DJRYGAR1]

fascism is symbiosis between government and corporations. It has nothing to do with nationalism

[@ArchesBro]

@@dende890 Is that Noam Chomsky? The guy who praised Venezuela as the shining beacon on a hill, where now they eat food off the ground like animals because their new dictator abuses them? Yeah... Im gonna listen to that fool!

[@user-tm4br8pf3n]

@@DJRYGAR1 fascim is national socialism you stupid fuck

[@dende890]

Have you read "The Intelligent Woman's Guide to Socialism and Capitalism" is a non-fiction book written by Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw. I did. Have you read "The Capital by K. Marx"? I did. Have you read the Communist Manifesto by K. Marx and F. Engels? I did. How many of Vladimir Lenin books did you read? I read the most important of them. Have you read any works of Josef Stalin? I did. Have you studied the Marx - Engels- Lenin theory of Socialism? I did in the former USSR in a College. Have you lived in the former USSR for 37 years? I did. I emigrated in 1988, the USSR fall apart in 1991. So, if we were boxing in the ring, how many times would you be KO-d? I guess eight times! @First Last

[@derkguez8590]

Excellent. Yoram Hazony has made a strong point in claiming classical liberalism to be unsustainable and inevitably giving way to some kind of progressive universalism (ie. Imperialism) but Friedman makes a good point here as well. Classical Liberal thinkers suck as Locke always stressed the necessity of national self determination. Whether they laid a sustainable ground work or not will be the question of the coming decades.

[@user-vr6io5xb9e]

Do you think Jews are nationalists? Because as far as I know their interpretation of ethnicity or nationality is different than rest of the world

[@butchcoolidge8031]

Surely the nations right to self-determination and their own course of policies, lead to increasing different peoples. Does this not then lead to increased fragile tensions between different nations and therefore hostility to those that aren't your nation, your people?

[@jenniferlawrence2701]

It can, but with good statecraft it doesn't have to. Groups even within nations fight sometimes, too. Empires also fight other empires or consume weaker states. All the options we have for ordering the world will inevitably come with some conflict, so it's about choosing the least-worst.

[@temporaneo617]

The thing is, there are actually 2 different nationalisms: the first one is the desire for a population to have their own national state, the second one manifests in an already existing national state, and is the belief that one's nation is superior to others, and the desire to impose one's nation through conflict with rivals, both violent and non violent conflict that is. Now, both have their positive and negative sides, but the simple fact that there are 2 types of nationalism makes any debate about it much more difficult. This video focuses on the good sides of the first nationalism

[@Animakozak]

Well, the "first type" as you describe it, is what nationalism at it's core. The "second type" sounds more like fascism. If so, then the later is, of course, the extension of the former into the farther extreme. But I don't think it's correct to say that these terms are two types of the same thing. It's like comparing a root and a branch.

[@temporaneo617]

@@Animakozak well obviously aggressive nationalism (the second one) was a key aspect of fascism and nazism, but its roots are actually in the belle epoque with rising tensions and colonial conflicts between european powers. Your analogy about roots and branches is pretty good tbh, I really like it! They are branches and roots of the same plant. Now that I think about it, I agree that me calling them "types" is a little imprecise, it's probably better to talk about a concept that has evolved over the course of time but still exists in many different forms nowadays

[@pfeilspitze]

@@temporaneo617 Does not everyone consider some nations superior to others? Friedman certainly considers the US superior to most, but so do the migrants from Honduras trying to get there. Similarly, many Algerians clearly consider Italy to be superior to their own country. And many Hong Kong residents no longer consider it to be as superior as it once was -- and are will to fight, not just talk, to try to prevent its slide.

[@jenniferlawrence2701]

The second one you describe is more correctly called Chauvinism (or national chauvinism, if you prefer). A person doesn't have to be a chauvinist to be a nationalist. People of the political Left often tend to conflate the two for their own (anti-nationalist) aims. In the 1930s, countries like Switzerland and Sweden were nationalist, in that they liked having their nation-states and saw no reason to have anything else. Germany, on the other hand, came to be ruled by belligerent chauvinists who sought to create an empire. Somehow since then it is German Imperialism that has come to represent nationalism in political discourse, and not the benign nation-states like the others mentioned. In my view this is a mistake.

[@cbskwkdnslwhanznamdm2849]

Excellent

[@thezebraherd8275]

7:34 my grandpa who is Serbian American speaks Hungarian, I think at least he knows almost all eastern European languages

[@fisherking7798]

He is an exception I have never met anyone who speaks Hungarian who isn't Hungarian

[@skjain608]

How to define nationalism in a country of multiple languages/

[@jineshgomai217]

Common cultural Heritage. ( Assuming you r indian ), a monk from Kerala can travel the whole of India debating the kings of areas speaking different languages and unite the nation

[@nikolaoskastellanos6110]

@@jineshgomai217 thats not the case though with the rest of the world..

[@fullmetaltheorist]

Well I live in a multi ethnic /racial and linguistically diverse country. People here are toed together by a sense of shared national identity and culture.

[@martinjohnson5498]

Or, to summarize, the opposite of nationalism is imperialism.

[@chrisaugerpare]

And yet people keep confusing these two.

[@Zarrov]

Ditto

[@MrJethroha]

Nonsense. Would you say that at their height the British and French Empires had a proportional lack of nationalism? Not at all - they were arguably near the height of their national identity as well. France lacks an empire today, but is more multicultural than ever. In addition, China has been expanding its Imperialist ambitions as of late, but it has arguably become more nationalistic other the same course of time. They have sought to assimilate the Uighur and Tibetans for many years now, which is to say force Han culture and Socialist ideology onto them. That is both nationalistic and imperialistic. The two are totally independent phenomena. Surely some Empires in history lacked a nationalist component, especially those preceding the emergence of nationalism in the 19th century: the Ottoman and Hapsburg Empires, Russia through most of its history, Poland Lithuania, and so on. But most of the major European Empires of the 19th and 20th centuries were exceptionally nationalistic, and it was their national unity that gave them the power to dominate other people with weaker national unity. The German Empire was for ages the greatest dream of German Nationalists, and following it's creation the same nationalists immediately sought to imitate Britain and France in acquiring oversea's possessions. We call it by a different term today, but is Fascism not Nationalism AND Imperialism taken to the nth degree? That is not to say that they are synonymous. Nationalism is a fantastic safe guard against the Imperialism of an enemy nation, but it does not preclude imperialism in the nation which practices it. Nations today all practice nationalism to some degree, and it is usually beneficial, but you shouldn't make categorical claims like "the opposite of nationalism is imperialism" because it's not true. The opposite of nationalism is ambivalence toward the nation. The opposite of Imperialism is when a state possesses only lands in which the residents wish to be part of the state. It's fine to criticize the EU or other international organizations for weakening national identity and national sovereignty, because they definitely do, but so long as member states are permitted to run Democratically and exit unilaterally, you can't truly call it an Empire by any stretch of the imagination.

[@AnonymousAnonymous-yq5ox]

Yes. WW1 was about nationalism vs imperialism. WW1 came about because of Imperialism attempt to stop nationalism. Nationalism at one point was seen as the peaceful middle path between Empire and Stateless Communism (before the Sovet Union came to be what it became during Stalinism.) Nationalism got radicalized in the interwar period though due to the failures of the WW1 peace process to settle questions left unanswered. Even though Empire lost, Nationalism wasn't defended or protected and became more extremist. I was so angry when Macron blamed nationalism for WW1, while advocating for a EU superstate and EU army. Like dude! This is the perfect example of double speak!

[@patrickmccormack4318]

Ferris Bueller - Isms kzbin.info/www/bejne/anbTZ4yMpshpgdU

[@elias_xp95]

Nationalism - Belief in the success of your nation state. Everyone should be a nationalist. Nationalism is not the same as Ethno-nationalism. One is a nation state. One is an ethnic nation state.

[@mahmir]

So true, the stupid cluster of self-declared-intelletilusionals have so far had the idea of global-citizen, which is like a puff in the air. Respect the differences, respect yourself and you will respect others. This is not bad, this is the fact, we as humans have differences, we should not ignore that as globalist says, and we should not intensify that as fascist believe. Moderation is the best way forward, and it pass through recognizing and respecting the differences.

[@Aeros802]

Nationalism comes from the old French of Nacion, which means root people. Nationalism and Ethno state go hand in hand. Civic nationalism is the garbage notions that anyone from any part of the world can be just as part of the Nationhood as the native that stretches back to the beginning of the nation. By that silly notion, a Somali can be just as and equally American as an Anglo-saxon whos ancestors stretches back from 1776 to present day.

[@elias_xp95]

@@Aeros802 Citizenship is a right afforded to the people of your nation and a privilege earned by immigrants. Without a clear difference between citizen and non citizen a nation has no purpose.

[@mattbenz99]

Not even the success of the "nation state" but the success of the nation. Canada is an example of a state with multiple nations within it. The Canadian constitution is founded under the idea that you can have multiple nations within a state.

[@mickmickymick6927]

I want everyone to succeed

[@joebonsaipoland]

@9:20 I started dreaming in Polish when I moved to Poland 🇵🇱

[@fisherking7798]

That's normal you dream in the language you speak daily so it has nothing to do with nationalism it's just what you're used to I think he used that metaphor in a more poetic way

[@richardalvarado-ik9br]

He also wrote a book about a war with Japan around the first gulf war in the early 90's.

[@focusedthought3348]

Cause Japan has never attacked in the past right? Great that it didn't happen but its more probable then most think.

[@richardalvarado-ik9br]

@@focusedthought3348 No country will be able to attack us for the near foreseeable future. Germany didn't do it because they didnt have a Navy to do so. Patton made the assertion that Japan was going to invade from Mexico ( in theory it would work for a short while, but they wouldn't get very far ) Germany would've had to do the same from Canada, but again wouldn't get very far. Germany or even the former USSR would only be able to do what Japan did and do a Pearl Harbor style aerial attack without a intention to invade and occupy.

[@iankaranja9058]

You can't have liberalism without nationalism...there is something about this statement that makes me uneasy . I'm not sure what.

[@Hannah-jb5xj]

But nationalism Isn’t really about having a country for a certain people anymore it’s about the belief that a country and it’s people are just “better” then others. This idea of liberalism and nationalism is outdated. I understand and agree with him but I don’t think it applies to nationalism anymore

[@jenniferlawrence2701]

_" it’s about the belief that a country and it’s people are just “better” then others"_ That's called Chauvinism.

[@WorldIsWierd]

The fact we know exactly where you’re from is very nationalist 😂

[@EmceeLorder]

This was a great talk. Wow. Came here from the channel "brain for breakfast".

[@koendove7777]

....When the tanks come and eventually they do.... what are you loyal to? Let s be loyal and wait for the tanks. Yippee!

[@skeletonkeysproductionskp]

Really excellent video, learned a great deal from it, and love the format too!

[@kit888]

Great talk but the bangs between questions are annoyingly loud.

[@schutzi2282]

The applause seems to die out as people realise that George has no respect for cowards and traitors, no matter how wonderfully agreeable they may be.

[@Gallstonehaverandcruncher1974]

@be racist or perish say that again slowly

[@tonuka6257]

@be racist or perish lol shut up

[@mahmir]

Great talk, every second of this video worth thinking, Thank you so much Dr. Friedman, Respect and cheers from Iran.

[@QuaaludeCharlie]

I Watched your Brain Bar Is There a Global War Coming? | George Friedman at Brain Bar , Liked it , So I Subbed , Thumbs Up and Shared .. Thank You :) QC

[@mikekopelyan3995]

Well, precisely such ideas mostly led to the conflict in eastern Ukraine in 2014 since 2008. And, concerning the statement of the speaker on a Chicago Conference of global affairs in 2015 , it seems somehow like the step in the direction of the destabilisation of EU. 👏 And there is an alternative, but it’s so much dissed in the modern Paradigm, that no one wants to hear about it without any second to think about it, and it’s called “socialism”. Like it had already been mostly successful in USSR in the 60th, when every of the more than 190 nations felt like one for the higher hopes and targets. The three most known Secretaries of the USSR were also not russian: Stalin - Georgia; Chrushew-Ukraine; Brezhnev- Moldavia, and you know, nobody cared.🤷🏻‍♂️

[@danwkirk]

Why is George talking to this young group of students about pre WW2? Since WW2 (1945-2018), 36 years of Democrat Presidents and 38 years of Republican Presidents. Since 1900 to WW2, 20 years of Democrats and 28 years of Republicans. Seems close to me. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

[@cpyburnify]

Damn. Is trump correct when he says he is a nationalist? 😳

[@mc-lb9dk]

remember: trump is never right, only right winger

[@aann3692]

Trump is a nationalist of someplace in Europe.

[@tyronekim3506]

There is a contradiction that this guy is not addressing. Trump is not only a nationalist but also a patriot and right leaning, a conservative, and he wants border wall. On the other side, the Democrats(liberals?) are for open borders and frown nationalist. This is the contradiction that I'm talking about. I wish I was at the lecture to ask him the question about the liberals and open borders and the disdain for nationalist.

[@mc-lb9dk]

@@tyronekim3506 well, ithas never been so easy for latinos to enter the states as now. I know so many that come in legally now, and couldnt before. I know many illegals too, but more and more legals, because its so easy.

[@tyronekim3506]

@@mc-lb9dk I don't understand you. Trump is trying hard to prevent illegals from crossing the southern border by wanting to build a wall. Why do you oppose that? Why do you say Trump is right winger?

[@spacecatboy2962]

sure does walk back and forth a lot

[@jesuscastanares4968]

LEARN THE LANGUAGE THAT CAN HELP YOU, BECAUSE IT IS COMMON AMONG OTHER NATIONS, WHICH THEY CAN UNDERSTAND YOU WHEN YOU TALK THAT WAY, NOT EXACTLY THE DIALECT YOU SPEAK IN YOUR LOCALITY, WHICH DIFFERS FROM OTHER NEIGHBORING LOCALITIES. THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IS THE COMMON ONE TODAY. THE DIFFERENT DIALECTS AMONG YOUR NEIGHBORHOODS YOU CAN UNDERSTAND BY SOME SIMILARITIES.

[@gianlucabrundu]

I totally agree that self-determination must be the core of the development of every single entity. Nobody else than the people themselves can decide what they are. However, I don't believe that fight and war are the only solution to achieve that. Catalonia demonstrated it! Catalonia and Catalans want to be a sovereign state within the EU. The EU and the current member states decided that no, Catalonia can't be a state! But Catalans decided to do it in democracy. They wanted a referendum, and they have been beaten! Really do we believe that violence is the only route? We must give the solution in democracy for everyone who want self-determination. Current EU, in democracy, grew and developed always adding member states, but we can change it,too. We can grow in number even within the same amount of EU citizens, not only expanding the borders. EU, since is still based on Nations formed with the XVIII century mentality, is more advanced in Democracy, but it has to grow on this direction. Self determination without fight and wars. And about citizenship we will remain French, Italians, Sardinians and Catalans, not Europeans, but everybody under the same umbrella. I can understand that Friedman will never get this point since is not European, but American. USA based his history on a very deep national feeling, but often this brought to defend it even on other countries. They decided if Kurdistan must exist or not, Israel, Ukraine, Kosovo, too. He said that he does not have to decide on Kurds, but his country, the one for he fights and he's loyal, did it.

[@xoferwalken]

"However, I don't believe that fight and war are the only solution to achieve that." He didn't say that and that wasn't his point. Also, while he is American, Friedman was born in Europe to Hungarian Jews who survived the Holocaust, he's quite familiar with the European mindset I think. Not sure why you implied that the USA is the first country in history to "bring itself on other countries", it literally exists because Europe was already doing that.

[@wolfwinter2024]

@@xoferwalken But the typical Nationalist prefer fight and war, cause the find themselfs weak if they didn't.

[@gurugoguzhanson]

When we were kids we were all one and we all tried our best to be altruistic. I felt at home in that world. I think kids got it right. Friedman even claims we are not human before a certain age. That is something like a 007 movie villain would say.

[@larsyoutube6837]

26:52 There is centralization, The so called neoliberal free market ideology dominant economic policies everywhere. In EU its institutionalized in the “constitution” and in practice impossible to change. To be able to operate internationally you must adhere to this. In the business world financialization have created an enormous centralization, some research says some hundred mainly financial institutions control 85% of global business. A large part of global import and export are inside large corporations, maybe all the subsidiaries are not directly owned but is in a serfdom position to the big company. Locally people can decide on small things, but that’s in the narrow framework the above mentioned are giving them. But there are a possibility that EU will decentralize because of its deeply flawed construction and the present elites incompetence.

[@thegowerboy]

social media is changing the world for ever.

[@KenBowd]

Social media will be controlled by the same technology that bore it. Artificial Intelligence will be the police , and the witness. Unless guarded, human rights diminish.

[@MothMizzle]

Sounds a lot like the lessons of History and Moral Philosophy in Starship Troopers.

[@user-vr6io5xb9e]

I wonder if he considers himself a Hungarian or an American or an Israeli or .. something else? It’s confusing.

[@chavdarnaidenov2661]

Curious, that a man, coming from an immigrant country should be explaining a nativist or tribal definition of nationality. Without the illusion of a nation, based on universal human values, the US would settle down into ethnic layers, like in South America. On the other hand, if it keeps that necessary illusion, the US would have to phase out it's recent ideology of imperial exceptionalism. Human values are INclusive, not EXclusive. Democracies cannot be subordinate to one another. If you bomb a child in Nagazaki, it's just like killing a child in Memphis, Tennessee.

[@FloridatedH2O]

I would have asked him whether he thinks nationalism is deligimized when the ruling minority can use nationalist sentiment to go against the will of the people. Many nationalist regimes destroyed liberal and democratic systems and institutions after using those systems to get to power

[@thinkcat01]

Will the liberal defend their country when another country invaded it, or let someone else do it to defend your country.

[@dannyseo5111]

i think that deligimized when the ruling minority is not the result of nationalism but more of racism just thinking

[@dannyseo5111]

Just another thing i can connect when you said the "nationalist regimes destoryed liberal and democratic systems is like demonizing and pointing fingers at the religions, like what we do, for all the famine wars and conflict." i debated this idea and one of my friend asked me if there wasn't a religions do i think all the wars and invasion that happen by under christians wouldn't happen? we will never know but if i have to make a bet i'll bet my life saving which comes to about 500$, it would be the same or little worse or little less, thus no difference in a big outcome. (i'm not saying it could be different but in a whole history of humankind it won't make a damn thing, if anything i say it was the money(greed) that cause all of the conflict not just accusation towards religions, but all the ideas like nationalism, marxism, fascism and so forth) because we always points a finger to whats caused by multiple wrongs, mistake routes, and even unknowing reasons, but we tend to point the finger at one symbolic (most time most hatred and most dominant figure) for all the wrongs, even frames them. because that's easiest way to solve the complex conflicts, some or most of the time something that's not solvable. (sorry for my broken english im kinda high :D)

[@nxibba]

examples?

[@niceguy2527]

Democracy is already rule by minority...who do you think funds the politicians?

[@csbened16]

Not true, we could have elections on each group of 200 people (tribe) , then of a city, district ( x minutes transport from the city) , and free association of those distrticts (which would be equivalent of countries) and then free association of those, and so on, untill we get the whole word an elected representative. On the other hand anybody managing something (like a minister) should be elected only by those who know that domain (via online tests). And autonomy and centralization could be decided by scientific experiments.

[@boleslawpetroski9681]

I mean, I like distinguishing myself (Nationalism), but I don't practice worship for Poland or anything.

[@rejvaik00]

"To worship my country as a God would bring ruin upon it" - Rabindranath Tagore

[@jenniferlawrence2701]

I don't think anyone asked you to. But if the Germans or Russians invade again you might be asked to fight for Poland.

[@babyelephant4103]

Bros whole talk was about that nationalism is determined by the people that make up the nation, and that its their decision in the framework of a democracy. And a lot of these people keep asking "what about bad nationalism" like damn didnt know bro was preaching about the goodness of nationalism, he was just saying that based on the predetermined setting of a citizen, they belong to a nation. Shit man.

[@virgilcaine3291]

"Anybody from Texas?" This guy is alright!

[@ewen3246]

Texasists!

[@thomasredxjackson6906]

Yes...Tejas❎

[@fisherking7798]

If it is the language that forms a nation then countries like Belgium Luxembourg an Switzerland aren't nations

[@jenniferlawrence2701]

Speaking two languages still means there are hundreds of others they don't speak. So there is still exclusiveness, just a little less than in a mono-lingual nation.

[@ThisNinjaSays_]

Friedman believes in small divided European states that have to depend on the US. And can be pitted against each other. He would never preach identity Nationalism in the US. He only preaches it in Central and Eastern Europe.

[@icemorewaterless]

tough crowd

[@Tynos5ives]

The fact that international migration and immigration exists is in total contrast to what he tries to suggest. If he is Hungarian, there would be absolutely 0 reason for him to move to the US. He has the natural obligation to serve Hungary and do nothing else...

[@anutaNYC]

That's the beauty and exceptionalizim of America, people come here, accept it's values, work here birth next generation of Americans and fight for it!! See the difference?

[@KittredgeRitter]

What do you mean you can't say mother and father?

[@nowhereman6019]

Some stupid comment about gay marriage I think. Or single parents.

[@wolfwinter2024]

For me, Nationalism is an Absolutism. So I wouldn't do "all" for my nation. Because, there would be some things I wouldn't will stand for, like genocide, if "my nation" would command it. Or in other words, I wouldn't taint myself and my nation with. So total Nationalism isn't well. You identify your nation with values, you want to stand for. This could change. If you leave "your nation", you keep the language and culture, but not the nation. One day, some ppl form european nations decided, to be americans from now on. So what their Nationalism depends on? FR, GB, DE etc, european? Or american, Texas, California, etc.? Nationalism isn't carved in stone, it's a kind of total sozialization I wouldn't share. My "Nationalism" is an agreement, might be broken one day. My Identity and Loyalty belongs not to a flag or state, it belongs to ppl of my language (in favour) and to ppl who shares culture, values and way of life I like. This depends not only on borders.

[@stefanhajdu1032]

Wow! What a word salad! It seems that Hungarians are doing it better than others. The salad I mean. The result is one third of the old country, and a hungry one.

[@alvarogines6788]

Looks like someone is pulling strings from both of his arms Up and down

[@dawnandy7777]

Good talk. Nationalism is on the spectrum of tribalism. We evolved depending upon the tribe, the affinity of belonging to a tribe is deep in our psyche. We need to understand this within ourselves, and recognize when this normal characteristic is working for our betterment or against us. Forget the fact that psychopaths exist as well. The majority feel compassion for other people. Sigmund Freud identified MGM, a.k.a., circumcision as the root cause of anti-Semitism in Europe, leading up to the holocaust. publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=kt4k4019nm&chunk.id=ch04&toc.id=&brand=ucpress I'm amazed at how this topic is never brought up. It should be. ALL religions, cultures are preoccupied with such practices. We need to talk about it.

[@user-ni7tb6um4e]

I hope you find the inner peace some day to accept, and perhaps even live with, the existence of others in life, without lables like alien or a third life. The only necessity lies in calculating what's best for our soul for eternity after we die, during the Accounting Day, for that day is harsh, brutal and honest except to those who will enjoy Almighty's unconditional Mercy and Love. We humans are NOTHING without each other, without dialogue and compassion, because Absoluteness belongs to Creator by the very definition of us having a start date and an end date.

[@angelg3986]

I like him. He is cynic but he likes to tell the truth, well, the US truth (he's loyal). I cannot accuse him for being loyal to his country. He truly believes in war as something we, the humans live in. The bottom line: He tells us: Fight/die for what you believe is yours or accept that somebody will take it.... If he didn't say he was Hungarian I'd swear he's US American. Well he lost his Hungarian national identity and became American - he's father decided that's cheaper to survive than to fight...

[@meganh9460]

Hungary and other Nations will continue to be pawns between the East and the West. Take for example churchhills naughty document. Two men, without consulting their people or the nations they were talking about, decided the fate of nations. His father may have just wanted something better than that for his kids.

[@claudebuysse7482]

Hungary was one of the allies of Hitler in the invasion of Ussr. When the soviets arrived in Hungary ,, they treated them as enemy. Like Slovakia , Romania ,Italians and Spanish legion...his father was not in the good place whatever who win the war. He knows as my parents that every 30 years ,a war begin somewhere in this continent.He made the good choice.

[@jamesforbes4996]

I don't disagree with him, but I don't find this to be one of his better presentations.

[@phanupongasvakiat337]

Nationalism not tribalism, liberalism not freedom: that’s transient Human race, not an immortal species that creates problems for other species and themselves for Growth. When is it going to stop and have consideration, not ambivalence.

[@Xaverious23]

i dont know who thought the buzzer will be a great idea, but its just annoying.

[@tonda01]

Yep make uprising to settle your internal issues and when Croatia and Serbia did it, US intervened. Uninvited.

[@elang3366]

1

[@Hannodb1961]

For most of the 19th Century, Nationalism was a good and just cause against the Imperialist powers of Europe. The two stood directly opposed to one another. In 1918, Nationalism won a great victory in Europe when Europe's borders were completely redrawn to reflect its ethnic reality. Then the Imperialist NAZI's came along, called themselves "Nationalists" in order to make them look good (Similar to how dictators nowadays call themselves "Presidents") and 12 years later suddenly everyone believed Nationalism is Nazism and therefore bad. Because, you know, when it comes to definitions, the Nazi's have the last word.

[@johnweber4577]

I feel like saying the Nazis weren't really nationalists is like when people on the left say that they weren't really socialists. They were nationalists, socialists, and imperialists. None of those concepts are mutually exclusive. I think Localism is the term people like Friedman and Yoram Hazony are actually looking for in this conversation. That term refers to pushing political powers down to the most local level feasible so that immediate communities can make decisions over how they live without interfering with how those outside of them do so.

[@Hannodb1961]

@@johnweber4577 And I feel, considering the 19th century roots of the Nationalist movement - to say someone can both be a Nationalist and an Imperialist, is like saying someone can both be a Capitalist and a Communist. You either believe in the right of nations to self determination, or you believe in a hierarchy of nations where its ok for strong nations to dominate weak nations. I do not see how those things can *not* be mutually exclusive. The Nazi's perverted the meaning of the word "Nationalist", just like the Communists perverted the meaning of the word "Democratic". In both cases, it was nothing more than a play on words in order to give themselves the illusion of legitimacy. The Nazi's were Imperialists claiming to be Nationalists, and the Communists were dictatorships claiming to be democracies.

[@johnweber4577]

@@Hannodb1961 Imperialism is not an ideology in of itself, it is a mode of foreign policy that I'd argue many different political orientations whether they be theocratic, monarchist, nationalist, or internationalist can adopt that sees a society seek to increase its holdings or influence on the world stage by force. The actual opposite of that would be isolationism wherein a society completely cuts off interaction with the rest of the world and only tends to itself. Which again, is something many different kinds of government can adopt. I guess the problem here is that like everybody else in the world, we're working on two different definitions of nationalism. As said before I think the idea you're talking about would be better labeled as localism. And I don't deny that nationalism started out as a revolutionary force at all. It, individualism and internationalism all did. But they are also things that can take different forms, some more virulent than others. At least to my understanding nationalism is about having a society oriented towards looking out for the interests of the people within a shared cultural fabric and facilitating their national self-determination. Which I agree doesn't intrinsically need to involve expansionism. However, might it still might be possible that in the pursuit of their own nation's self-interest it is entirely possible that they will impede on another's if they argue it as necessary? Whether it be for land, resources, national glory, or whatever else? I don't think it could be suddenly classified as something completely different when it crosses that line. When they're invading another countries they don't suddenly become internationalist say, as they are still fundamentally thinking about the interests of their own society/culture. The other variation would be them perhaps trying to spread it to other people's as was the case with guys like Napoleon Bonaparte or Woodrow Wilson. I'd still argue they were nationalists given that they said it was their duty to spread what they felt were fundamentally values forged by their respective nations that needed to be exported to better the world rather than trying to transcend all national lines and abandon the majority of tradition in an attempt to forge some type of new internationalist consciousness. But naturally there's a debate to be had about it. Though naturally I think that's the case with almost any orientation towards politics. They can manifest themselves in better and worse ways. Individualism and internationalism can also be expressed in markedly different fashions, but that doesn't mean that they are then classified as something else entirely. I feel like trying to detach the dark side of something from its better aspects is kind of disingenuous. For instance individualism doesn't need to be egoistically selfish but that doesn't mean that that's not a potential pitfall that individualists, which I would count myself among, need to be weary of. Or at least that's how I see all this. Lol

[@Hannodb1961]

@@johnweber4577 _I guess the problem here is that like everybody else in the world, we're working on two different definitions of nationalism._ With this, I can agree. Sadly, it appears that the historic consciousness of most people start with WW2, and therefore they have a very negative view of what Nationalism is. This is sad, because Nationalism used to be viewed as a morally superior position, and a lot of evil is happening in the world today because nationalism is being demonized as a bad thing. I believe that to have a correct understanding of what nationalism is, you have to look at the historical context in which it first existed. During the 19th century, the world - including Europe - was ruled by European empires. It was quite normal for these empires to go to war with one another to expand their own sphere of influence, and the power and prestige of its home nations. Nationalism started in Europe as the idea that Imperialism is wrong, and that nations should have the right to rule themselves. Nations was understood to be homogeneous ethnic - linguistic and cultural entities. It was an anti-imperialistic movement by definition, and it was an idea first spread by the Napoleonic wars. The Congress of Vienna in 1815 was intended to undo the Nationalist influence of the Napoleonic wars and restore the Imperial balance of power. However, Nationalist sentiment continue to grow. In 1848 there was a massive Nationalist uprising throughout Europe, which forced the Austrians to share power with the Hungarians. Under the banner of Nationalism, the Italians fought to unite the Italian peoples and free them from Austrian influence. In Germany, a similar movement was created by Bismarck. One of the great German questions of that time was whether a greater German empire should include Austria or not, but Austria was finally excluded, because of its multi ethnic empire, which was not compatible with German nationalism. Similarly, the Turkish Empire was falling apart through various nationalist movements, the first being Greece, supported by British romantics. The culmination of the Nationalist march towards self determination was the Peace of Versailles. Never before did the borders of Europe so closely reflect the ethnic realities of Europe than after this treaty. About 100 years has lapsed, and up to this point, there is not one single example where Nationalism was not opposed to Imperialism, because they were mutually exclusive. The reason why the Nazi's were tolerated by the West, is precisely because they painted themselves as Nationalists. When Hitler militarized the Rhine land and retook the Saarland, the Allies could rationalize this as being a justifiable, nationalistic move. When Hitler annexed Austria, the Allies could rationalize this as a justifiable, nationalistic move - as both nations were actually German - and since Austria no longer had an empire, there is no reason why they cannot join Germany. When Hitler took the Sudetenland, the Allies could still rationalize it as a justifiable, nationalistic move, since this area had a German majority. BUT... When Hitler took Bohemia and Moravia, this could no longer be justified as a Nationalist action, as these territories were not German. This was the trigger that caused the allies to draw a line in the sand, as German expansionism was clearly not restricted to German lands, and therefore was Imperialist in nature, not Nationalist. This was the first time that a "Nationalist" movement would seek to aquire land that where they did not have a majority. For this reason, I think I'm perfectly justified to say that Nazi's perverted Nationalism as a cover to practice Imperialism. To view Nazism as a legitimate expression of Nationalism, is to ignore a 100 years of history of what Nationalism was actually about, and it allows the internationalists to justify self destructive policies such as open borders and mass immigration, because to resist such movements would be Nationalistic (read: racist, bigoted, white supremacist, Nazi, hateful, backwards, etc etc etc) when in truth Nationalism is something perfectly natural and healthy for a nation as it promotes social cohesion and stability, as well as peaceful coexistence with neighbors.

[@jenniferlawrence2701]

@@johnweber4577 If we want to be specific the German government in the 1930s were Chauvinists. A Nationalist can be a chauvinist but they don't have to be, and most often aren't. In the 1930s nation-states like Switzerland and Sweden (to name only a few) were technically nationalist - in that they had, and wished to uphold, their own nation-states - but they weren't belligerent national-chauvinists, like the German government at the time. Much confusion has come from people using the term 'nationalism' when they mean a "Nazi-like" belligerent national-chauvinism. My impression is this word-usage became more common in the latter half of the 20th century, spearheaded by Leftist Internationalists who oppose nationalism in all its forms. It was allowed to go unchallenged for far-too long.

[@thraceevros5336]

"Friedman was born in Budapest, Hungary to Jewish parents" ..this guy want a world government (Marx was ethnically Jewish) for this they want to come more illegal immigrants ..I want Greece to do the same as do Hungary no more illegal immigrants .. 2 millions in Athens right now and almost all of them Muslims

[@daniyalk713]

he is wrong severely wrong a recent example is what nationalism is doing to india these days it has become so radical and no one can speak freely here whenever someone tries to speak about wrongs thing in this country people labels them anti nationalist or call them pakistani (which basically means calling them foreign agent and anti india) when in fact those people just the country to improve and not become radical communal and dividing

[@ericjohnson7234]

that is the problem of civic nationalism. IF there are many tribes that can dictate the direction of the actions of a state, then there will be conflict. Which is why homogeneity is so important.

[@jenniferlawrence2701]

India exists due to Nationalism (as does Pakistan).

[@theoriginalt-paine3776]

I firmly disagree with this as a general position, whether or not nationalism is necessary, or desirable is determined by the individual situation, and the degree of that nationalism. In terms of Hungary, the problem in Europe is that Europe is essentially made up of Ethno-States, so too much nationalism tends to go very, very badly. In Europe, the people should have national consciousness, and they certainly shouldn't be willing to surrender to the EU exercising tyranny over them. However, they shouldn't be expelling non-hungarian without legitimate reasons, or trying to expand, and capture Hungarian-speaking areas of nearby nations. Notice I specifically rebuke EU tyranny, and that is a good way to move onto the Migrant Crisis. In terms of the Migrant Crisis, Hungary has every right to remove, and deport any migrant who cannot offer genuine proof of being an actual refugee from Syria, and Hungary has every right to go as far as refusing to take even genuine refugees if it so chooses. Hungary doesn't share a bored with Syria, the don't share a common cultural heritage because there was no contact between Syrian, and Hungarian culture until very recently, and it has no real obligations to Syria. However, if Hungarian nationalism chooses to make an enemy of specific European nation states, not just the EU administration, rather than trying to work with every other European nation state, and reach agreements that benefit the national interests of both. I would prefer, and I think most Hungarians would rather be on good terms with Europe, and trade with Europe, rather than having the Russians expand their sphere back into Hungary. So I think that in the case of Hungary their nationalism probably is more good, than bad. However, I am biased because I believe the EU has shown itself to be a broken, corrupt, undemocratic farce, and it needs to be broken up, and replaced with a coalition on the international stage, in which an attack on one, is an attack on all, and which maintains an apparatus to arbitrate trade disputes between Coalition states so that they don't start wars, but apart from that, every state should have its own government, it's own currency, it's own institutions, it's own laws, and it's own military. So in terms of Hungary, and most of Europe, I would agree, and say yes, nationalism is necessary. The US however, is more of a mixed bag. In the last 50-60 years, the US has become more authoritarian than ever before, so blind loyalty to our state is a bad thing, until our state changes, and restores to us our full rights, freedoms, and civil liberties as laid out in the constitution, and dissolves the police state which has been shaped in order to maximize the use, and abuse of the unconstitutional authorities granted to that police state, and begins to live up to its ideals. Once the US government actually changes, and we heal the perverse damage that has been done to it, and this becomes a nation based not upon ethnicity, nor religion, nor language, but ideas, and specifically a commitment to expanding the individual's freedom, and a commitment to the common defense, as well as self-defense, and we should have a large military that operates abroad, and a society in which most Americans are armed, and prepared to defend themselves, and their ideas, as well as those of their neighbors. If this is what we were, then we should all be virulent nationalists, because our nation would be the most precious nation of all, a nation in which any peoples who shared our commitment to freedom, and the rights of the individual should be welcomed into the fold as Americans, and those who would see that freedom destroyed in order to gain a false sense of security, they should be shunned, because they are the ones who are unamerican. Right now, we aren't there yet, our government has become authoritarian, and in the last 60 years they have robbed us of many rights, freedoms, protections, and opportunities, so loyalty to, and support for them is not good, they need to learn that we will not see our nation's dream of freedom be destroyed, and they will change, we will make them if necessary. Is nationalism necessary in the US right now? Well, yes, to a degree. We need nationalism as a people, we need to stop seeing ourselves as black, white, Christian, whatever, and start realizing that we are a nation, we may not be like other nations, but we are a nation, and we have a common culture at this stage, different ethnic, and socioeconomic groups may dominate different subcultures, but you generally have to go to a university, or a police station to find someone who genuinely thinks freedom is bad, and needs to be curtailed. We became a nation because we wanted freedom, and we need to become a nation once again to restore that freedom before it slips away from us entirely, and we find ourselves in an authoritarian hellscape in which we don't even have arms with which to fight. We need nationalism, but as friends, neighbors, countrymen with a shared fate, an intense legal, and political battle to restore freedom, or the bootheel of an authoritarian state, or, god forbid, violent revolution to restore freedom. Whatever we do, we need to start now, we need to start finding, and electing pro-freedom politicians, we need to arm ourselves well while we still can, we need to peacefully organize, and protest, and we need some bad guys on our side who will become violent, and riot, so that our peaceful movement is always backed by a thinly veiled threat of force, but after all, we're a new political movement, we can't control what everyone does, so we can't be held responsible for the fact that some people got violent, and we very seriously condemn them for doing so, we do not support violence at all, we are a peaceful movement. We need to see ourselves as a nation once again, ethnicity, and religion don't matter, the bootheel will come to all in time we don't stop the direction our government is heading. When you sacrifice freedom for security, and the illusion of safety, you end up with neither, that is part of our foundational philosophy, our national identity as Americans, and it is time we unite around that ideal, and work together to get our nation back on track before we were so wildly diverted by Vietnam, and administration, after administration slowly chipping away at our rights, our freedoms, and our prosperity, and now we are here. It is a shame the Yellow Vest protests haven't spread to the US, an American version that is less socialistic, and just wants a more prosperous free-market with only limited benefit increases, and which is also massive pro-freedom, anti-police state madness, and which demands the repeal of the patriot act, and all the precedents which enabled the government to begin mass surveillance of us, and a completely house-keeping action, and restructuring of the government, streamlining it, reducing us down to 4 intelligence agencies, a CIA for international operation, and operations requiring the cooperation of all 4. An FBI for domestic organized crime, a DIA for military intelligence, and ATA -- Anti-Terror Agency -- responsible for stopping terrorism foreign, and domestic, they all need to be updated, and equipped to handle modern tactics. However, in order to conduct any surveillance on a US citizen they have to get a warrant, and in order to do that they have to have some degree of evidence that person is involved in some form of illegal activity, or else they have to have reasonable suspicion, and in the absence of evidence, a hearing would have to be held in which the person who would be surveilled would be called in to make the case for their innocence. In addition to this return of liberty on the home front, and restructuring it is important to note that the borders should be secured, we should have complete control over who enters our country, and how they do it. We should obviously allow immigration into our nation, but, we should be extremely selective, so much so that it doesn't matter whether someone is fleeing famine, and war, if they are not going to be completely dedicated to freedom, even freedom that makes it permissible to do things they find wrong, or offensive, then we shouldn't take them. However, anyone who has a necessary skill, or is committed to freedom, and has never committed any violent crimes, shouldn't have too much trouble getting in, unless we've reached our max for the year, because there should be a yearly limit, and it should be flexible, being raised in time of rapid growth, and prosperity, and lowered when times are tougher and we have to look out for our own first. In America, nationalism has real potential if it's done right, but it isn't being done right at the moment, not at all, it is more to the state than the idea, or the people, but that can change. The center, and the left need to adopt nationalism in order to moderate all the crazy racist, and authoritarian nonsense that comes with right wing nationalism. Nationalism right now is still doing as much harm as good. However, I am optimistic.

[@don_chanGD]

k

[@Joker-yw9hl]

Man, paragraphs would have made that a lot more readable but fair enough

[@frankySR21]

Gave up trying to read when I realized it was all one big wall of text. Format it better next time.

[@nato6648]

To divide and rule

[@tadcermak4707]

Those Hungarian women are beautiful.

[@focusedthought3348]

Very perceptive lol

[@jamiengo2343]

@@focusedthought3348 Sherlock Holmesesque observation lol

[@focusedthought3348]

@@jamiengo2343 😁

[@rareword]

The strongest is always right.

[@danhoser481]

If we look at historical examples such as the unification of england, france, spain, germany, italy etc we can see many smaller kingdoms coming together for form a larger nation. These smaller kingdoms would have had language and all sorts of other differences yet by becoming a nation they rid themselves of these, and identified with the larger group instead. Is it really unrealistic to assume that this same thing can eventually happen to a continent (already has if you count australia as a continent) or maybe the earth? I don't see why not. It is true that there are cultural, racial, linguistic and other differences between two groups of people but when they live side by side, with free passage and reproduction in between the two for a long time these differences start to disappear. That's why nobody in Yorkshire is calling themselves a Mercian anymore. They're English now. Why can't they be European? Why can't they be from Earth?

[@idontknowhowtonamethings.6905]

Seryan but in those examples you gave the people mostly spoke the same language, and had similar culture.

[@w8stral]

Are you utterly ignorant of history? How many Millions were killed to create the UK, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, etc etc etc??? They did not just "appear".

[@danhoser481]

w8stral probably not very many, considering the world population when these countries were formed. In the case of England, it was mainly defending against the vikings and a bit of infighting that created it. Pretty sure Spain was a peaceful unification between Aragon and Castile, although both were fighting against the moors so I guess it wasn’t that peaceful.

[@martinmortyry7444]

To create a nation, the people must have a common interest, culture and history. Including England or France here with Italy or Germany is not really fair - the first two united in medieval times, when the idea of a nation state didn't exist. The unification of both Germany and Italy is quite a controversial issue even to this day: there are still separatist movements in both those countries. Bavarians speak an almost unintelligible language to the Saxons; many Northern Italians think that the south shouldn't have become a part of united Italy, that it should've stayed independent. Even in countries united for centuries, like Spain, there is a tension between different groups. If we see this issue in those three already relatively big European nation states, how would it work with Europe? Aside their differences, what we call Germans today had a very long common history, and their cultures, though quite diverse, have a lot of common grounds. What do they have in common with Lithuanians? The Spanish? The Greeks? It might be a common interest for a short time but, in the end, there are just too many differences to set aside all of them in the name of... what exactly? United Europe would eventually aim to make everyone "European" - such creation wouldn't most likely speak in 30 different languages, one would have to become the main European language - the dominant. Creation of the European citizen would require some cultures to die, or at least become insignificant - is it possible to find a peaceful solution for this problem? Not nowadays, I'm afraid - the idea of national self determination is too deeply rooted in us, Europeans. In a sense, a full integration into a European superstate would mean enslavement of the people opposing the ideas of the dominant group if they weren't to leave. For better or for worse, I think that Europe will stay as it is - it will most likely change its borders in future, but if history has taught us anything, a European hegemonic empires don't last too long - mainly because people ruled by them don't feel like they belong there.

[@danhoser481]

@@martinmortyry7444 You make a fair point, but one could also say that the dwindling separatist movements we see in Italy and Germany are simply a remnant of what used to be. More than one culture merging into one. America's a good example of this, and although cultures haven't fully integrated there you can very easily see the mix. What I'm trying to say is that the idea of the nation state has been around forever, and while initially met with great opposition from different parts of each country (germany used to be like 30 different nations wtf) this opposition slowly drifted away as a larger national identity formed. Countries like the USA and Canada are way too big for one culture, which is why people have state identities too. Texans are proud to be Texan. People who live in LA are (sometimes) proud to be Californian but above all they are proud to be American. There are different sub-cultures, cuisines, customs, accents and even laws but they still live in one nation and only recently have separatist movements started to pop up, but nobody really takes them seriously. Each country in Europe could be like its' own state. Sure there are lots of languages but they will merge together, as they have throughout history. The Norman invasion of England turned the Saxon language into English (albeit old english). The Romans added their language to the UK. The french is a clusterfuck of different languages to be honest and Switzerland has 4 or 5 languages and doesn't even try to hide it! My point is that languages will mix, cultures will fuse, no singular culture has to dominate as they can all come together to create something larger and better. Empires don't last long, that is true; Unions quite often do though.

[@KommentarSpaltenKrieger]

I have to disagree with this. Mr. Friedman uses a definition of nationalism which is very unrealistic. It doesn't play out that way. What Friedman calls "nationalism" to me is "nation-ism", the belief that having a nation state is an important framework for democracy and liberal rights. I agree. But this is not what nationalism is about in reality. I can be a "nation-ist" and still be very skeptical about nationalism. Especially in Europe nationalism is pretty, pretty dangerous. This is a small continent filled with an absurd amount of different nations, language groups and cultures. They either cooperate or they fight each other. Following Mr. Friedman's geopolitical analysis of a post-EU Europe I wonder why he endorses nationalism. The most likely thing happening in a nationalist Europe is this: Germany rises up and wants to establish a cooperation with Russia (the old resources for devices deal). The US finds allies in GB, Poland and generally in the Eastern Bloc (as anti-Russian cordon sanitaire). Especially the Polish anti-Russian sentiment is pretty overblown. They'd allow the US to station nuclear bombs in order to deter Putin, even though I don't see Russia invading Poland, let alone the Baltic states (Ukraine is a different topic, but I don't see this either.) But you know, even Kaczynski engages in anti-Russian conspiracy theories (the airplane crash). Poland will find allies in Romania and Hungary, because they all are post-Soviet states which don't like Russia very much and still have the occupation in their bones. The same is more or less true for their view of Germany. This shit doesn't fly. The cooperation within EU and NATO is a necessity at this point. All the old conflicts are still existent, yet frozen at this point. Europe is a continent where a power balance is very unlikely, yet absolutely needed. Germany is not powerful enough to lead the continent, yet too powerful to be a nation among others. France has a strong military but other than that it is a power of yesteryear. There is no "natural hegemon", only "Mittelmächte". This is the German question and it usually causes unrest. PS: In the end this is not about embracing anybody's nationalism but promoting US isolationism. "Do what you want, be nationalist, get a nation, don't get a nation, just do it for yourself." Oh and fuck this "War is out there, LIBRUL, here are some truth bombs DESROYING your naive worldview." Everybody knows war is out there. What does he think why some people try to establish international frameworks of cooperation? Ah, I don't like what he is embracing here.

[@Synochra]

Here's the thing. While I appreciate Mr.Friedman's perspective as a professional and can say that it has profoundly improved my understanding of the world around me, he isn't lecturing people in this video; no, what we're seeing here is essentially lobbying-in-work. He is lobbying the countries between Germany and the Russian sphere to orient themselves away from Brussels, at least to some degree. He knows his audience and he probably knows that framing 'nationalism' as the driving force of geopolitics throughout history is highly revisionistic and won't hold up under academic scrutiny. With that in mind, the fact that he kinda misuses the term 'nationalism' becomes less important. I agree that 'nationism' is a more apt term for what he describes.

[@KommentarSpaltenKrieger]

@@Synochra So he follows what I described above: Prepare for the collapse of the EU, find allies in the East agaisnt Russia, hook them with whatever works ? I can't really assess if this guy is an honest representator of American foreign policy or just a loose canon, tbh.

[@Synochra]

@@KommentarSpaltenKrieger I don't know either. I've been asking myself the same thing the more his stuff I watch!

[@jenniferlawrence2701]

No, Freedman is using the term correctly. It is people in recent decades who have conflated 1930s German Chauvinism with Nationalism who are using the term incorrectly, which is why there is now this common misconception about nationalism. The correct term for what they're describing is (and has long been) 'Chauvinism.' (or 'national chauvinism' if you want to be extra specific).

[@KommentarSpaltenKrieger]

@@jenniferlawrence2701 Well, I think nationalism is a bad phenomenon, not just in Germany, as it usually entails chauvinism. If you can point me to a counterexample, you are very welcome to do so. Nevertheless, thanks for redirecting me to my geopolitical "analysis" of years ago. I think I got half of it wrong, but it could be worse.

[@martinjohnson5498]

And the EU is attempting to become not a liberal confederation, but an empire in the most classical definition.

[@Apophis40K]

Is germany and Empire to you? No? Yes? Todays germans where Sachsons, Bavarians, Westfalian and more and they still are I belong to my family, my Clan, my City, my State, to Germany, to the EU, to Europe, to Humanity in this order and one does not take away from the other. Just because I love my Parents does not mean I dislike or do not belong to my Aunts and oncles same as beeing a North german does not take away from me belonging to Germany. I am a German citizen and and EU citizen

[@andrewphoenix3609]

So George are you Hungarian or American, if they were in conflict with each other which side would you chose. Additionally as a hundarian jew, do you identify as an Israelis jew as well as a hungarian jew or American jew. I don't care either way, it's just a question of how you identify yourself, all having influenced your sense of self. My point is that what we are referring to are fields of empathy which is not the same as compassion, from yourself as an individual, to a family member, to a member of 1 or more national identities with a religious family and a political family to a Facebook group or a corporate group to a human being. In times of conflict you make a conscious decision to identify as any one of those groups or by association you may take a side with a group because you empathise with their struggle. But would you slaughter, degrade or enslave another because you belonged to an ideological family, like nation state in order to remain a member of that group. Tribalism within 7 billion people all living on top of each other will only lead to conflict as nation states seek power in numbers and land, trying to expand territory or remove opposing nationalities from the land that they stole. Israel is a perfect example of how nationalism has turned into a toxic reality and regime of apartheid. With no compassion for the right of all men to self determination. Even within nation states, people break themselves down into smaller groups, so while I am British, I will identify myself completely differently to all members who identify themselves as British. Hence the sovereignty of the individual in a Liberal democracy. Just because the majority of British opted to brexit, doesn't mean I now have to agree with it, I can't change it and I don't identify myself with it. My point is that nationalism isn't static, it's constantly on the move and changing, redefining itself and now with technology abstracting us from geography, nation states are becoming less fixed. Which is clearly sending some into a state of panic as they see their power base dissolve. The young are not burdened by these associations and more able to identify as global citizens and fear being pushed into an identity they don't want, which also why there is a rise in identity politics as the young redefine themselves. As our populations increase, this will become more relevant and land based national identity will be eroded further.

[@albertbrennaman5605]

You know its bad, when a Jew is arguing for the necessity of nationalism in OTHER countries...

[@danielsteel5251]

A mass-influx of Muslims likely carries more salience for a Jew than for a Gentile.

[@rolandomarinhdez8262]

😂😂😂 because the Chinese has won in the game of globalization, now it is good nationalism.

[@Idalych]

“Nationhood is not something that’s given to you”... unless you’re israel.

[@rejvaik00]

Not at all Israel had to fight immediately upon trying to make the founding of its nation from being absorbed by its neighbours and it won.

[@rejvaik00]

@@Idalych I'm suggesting neither. You said Israel was given a nation. It was not, it had to fight to gain it. Was it justified? I don't know and I don't care, but I do know immediately upon the recognition of Israel by the US it was under attack

[@Idalych]

rejvaik did the israelis take the land, or was it owned by another nation who gave the Jews permission to settle there? US colonialists were also attacked by the indigenous people of the region. But no one thinks the war for the American nation was against the native Americans.

[@Idalych]

rejvaik America took its independence from the British. Israel was given to the Jews by the British. They were given the nation. I’m not justifying it, I’m just saying. The nation was literally given to them.

[@rejvaik00]

@@Idalych nah again they had to fight for it to keep the nation it wasn't given too them Britian abandoned British Palestine bc it was more trouble than it was worth. And as soon as Israel tried to announce its nation the Arab world attacked, Israel had to take it's nation from Arabia

[@jonathanevans4133]

Brexit 2018 - European 1848 “You never actually own the country: You merely look after it for the next generation”. 1918 - Swiss General Strike, Spanish Flu, German Humiliation at Versailles? It's a pity the people have come to believe they are better without a "homeland" country and would rather give allegiance to an unknown, unelected autocracy. The Brexit situation is incompetence beyond belief but ignorance and arrogance is never the best mix of skills to deploy. It certainly was not a negotiation. The idea a Nation State cannot recover its sovereignty from a collective agreement with a group of other Nation States accepts the EU is, in fact, a take-over. This Brexit capitulation could be considered analogous to the one-sided negotiation of the Treaty of Versailles and will likely have similar ramifications to the UK competitiveness, economy and independence. In or out, it is the “EU State” that must be realigned with the realities of the global economy and European societal stability. Ask what the EU provides the nationals of each Nation State? - Success in the societal and financial security for each Nation or just a seemingly totalitarian bureaucracy serving only its own existence? Ask the mass of young people of the southern States of Europe who are unable to find a career if the EU has been a success. Ask if they see the legacy of the socialisation of a generation of debt caused by fictional growth, the burden of student debt, of unobtainable homes, is a success. Ask if they believe they still have the ability to change government at the 'whim' of the people; if they still have democracy. Ask if they believe the can elect intelligent, experienced, socially motivated representatives. The EU bureaucracy must be culled to a minimum for an exchange for innovation, knowledge transfer and collaboration in trade and social stability. No European Flag of State. No pictures of the unelected governors. It must act under the Nation States for the people of each European Country; people who remain Nationals of their founding homeland; these are not European citizens but the peoples of Europe. Great Britain must play its leading part in this realignment: If not we risk a return to the unrest of 1848 and 1918. Is this the centenary of European salvation remembered? On the 11/11th did the world need to listen to the improper use of a day of reverence of two world wars, the affront by a globalist corporate stooge who has usurped a once proud French Nation? Nationalism, they say, is the enemy of patriotism; an odd view of an antonym? Not so long ago, in the fields, in the towns, the clouds, and on the beaches, the intelligence of young blood flowed. Why sacrifice the culture of a thousand years, of innovation, of societal stability, of wealth, the future generation, only to surrender to a corporatocracy takeover. The corporate cause of steel and wheat has become the Nations’ defeat. What Frankenstein did the Nations States’ create? An “EU State”; with its pictures of flag and emperor, EU run military and rule of law supreme? Suffrage is lost under such yoke: no longer the freedom of dissent, no more freedom to vote, no more the whim of the people to decide their fate. When did we desire to surrender to this unelected autocracy? No, this Brexit has not been a negotiation. It's a capitulation designed to forever stymie the UK competitiveness, personal freedoms, and a centre for future foreign direct investment in business and innovation. Any negotiation commences on the basis of both parties want an agreement. It requires clarity of the criteria you want to be met and an understanding of what one expects the corresponding party wants. It accepts there must be the basis for a mutually beneficial outcome. What did the EU want? On whose behalf was the EU negotiating? Which of the Nation States and for what benefit? What benefit does the EU provide the UK? Is this Free Trade? Really? Of course, mutually beneficial trade exchange between UK and European markets is critical. This is true between all countries around the world; we all need competitive trading and one that benefits from innovation and efficiency in cross-border logistics and security. The "UK Plc" depends upon the innovation, competitiveness and efficiency of UK's businesses. But, this demands control on the economy and societal stability; control the EU seeks to subvert. So, Brexit is not about insurmountable problems in logistics or the Irish border; ports operate in other parts of the world without being in the EU single market, visit Switzerland's many crossings with EU, assess the minimal value of trade transported across Ireland. Why has the UK been, “…trying very hard, with many hours, trying very hard”, as Ms May says? Has the EU been, “Trying very hard”? Will the German tax-payers be happy to pick up the lost of UK payments to the EU? Why has the UK “negotiated” with this "Representative" Body, an institution we fund, from a position of weakness? Why does anyone believe that the UK, France, Spain, Italy, Germany etc cannot survive as an independent Nation State? Is the UK so unique it cannot act as many Nations do and who trade under WTO or under mutually better terms agreed with the European States? Why does anyone accept there is an “EU State” with which we need to be subservient if we are to be able to trade? Why pay €40bn++ for the pleasure of the humiliating destruction of UK’s competitiveness and loss of sovereignty? One can only wonder if the Government’s ‘negotiating’ team were, in fact, working for the EU. Of course, the UK is an integral community of the people of Europe. But Europe is not a 'country'. And, it is not that the EU should be blamed for Brexit. It is that as the "EU State" is being extended under an autocratic, unelected, and unaccountable rule. Moreover, the EU State does not deliver wealth and stability to all the people of Europe, especially in the southern Countries (e.g. Italy, Spain, Greece). A stable society is founded on the people's will and their belief that their needs at a local level are properly represented by the governing body they elect; a body they can call-out if it does not enact what the people want and one they can remove at their whim. The EU, as it is being deployed, is no longer fit for this purpose. Governing 300m+ people with differing societal, economic and cultural traits cannot be sustainable without proper representation for all the people and this has never proved a viable democratic model. Indeed, it turns into a totalitarian rule focused on its own existence. The real concern with the aim of the people's vote for Brexit is that UK politicians are not acting under some intelligent Machiavellian strategy to remain in the EU under the worse terms of any other Nation State (inc. USA, Canada, Switzerland, Norway, or India and China..). No, it is the reality that all our ‘professional’ inexperienced politicians are so incompetent and duplicitous that the un-elected EU bureaucrats needn’t get out of bed to get their way; we can only be embarrassed. ...Dancing in the dark has a new meaning… Italians should take note

[@ajsfa]

These questions are hilarious. If I was not a first hand observers to American public discourse on politics I'd say Europeans take the cake as the most delusional. Alas, they are in second again but doing a bang up job at it.

[@Schlabbeflicker]

Europe has had two or three generations now of people who haven't had to fight for anything. Wait for the Americans to stop defending oil tanker routes for free and suddenly Europeans will rediscover the importance of national sovereignty.

[@victoriameyers5870]

George Friedman got the first question wrong. She's not asking about black people She's asking about the White Nationalists who support Trump and Trumpism.

[@allstarmark12345]

Love his theories. Hate that he’s a China basher.

[@hyperrealitytv3557]

People should stop using normative words like bad or good ,they don't mean much in this context.

[@topuno4148]

Anybody from America?? The question should be: anybody from US? America is a continent. By the way, may be nationalism is not bad itself, but nationalism leads to protectionism and socialism... and entails some ideas that can be dangerous.

[@duotordos1133]

In this case US still a capitalist country with a strong nationalist culture..

[@topuno4148]

@@duotordos1133 True, I would call it patriotism rather than nationalism.. but yes.

[@cuatorcuatro8280]

just as you were pointing out... America or US? sometimes nationalism leads to ignorance. Im a US citizen raised in NY, I call myself as American since theres no better demonym... but I was born in Mexico. My culture and my family are hispanic, but I feel "american" from the US. I love my country (US) and I will always do, without forgetting my past and my heritage. The US was made up by immigrants, not only by the UK... but by polish, swedish, spanish, italians etc... 1 flag, many cultures creating a new one.

[@terner1234]

there is no problem in socialism

[@MarcinMoka1]

Brilliant!! How many people would die for the EU? 😂

[@KittredgeRitter]

No this is the good kind of nationalism. Really you would prefer the 1930's with military dictatorships? No thank you. I like what we have now

[@KittredgeRitter]

@Daniel Natal Yeah but it was still nationalism. You can expand your nation state ya know ;) there's different kinds of nationalism. Look into nuance and you'll know what I mean. Civic nationalism and ethnonationalism are clearly different but they're both still nationalist positions.

[@elisabethertl2292]

I do not agree with George Friedman. He mixes up the different levels of society life which are culture, economy and politics. On the cultural level we are all different, we differ as members of different religions (atheists underestimate the function of Christianity for our european identity!) as members of different nations, and we differ as individuals. Unfortunately we avoid to talk about our national identities on the level of the European Union, because this is seen as bad nationalism. What a pity! In fact we would gain more integration by more often talking about our cultural identities, especially about the role which the single nation could offer for the sake of the whole continent ! Bad nationalism means that national identity has left the level of culture and invaded the field of politics where it has the effect of poison, because the duty of politics is to make treaties, to make rules which will be obeyed by any person independently on his/her religious, national and personal identity. In the field of politics all people are equal. Only a policy that lookes at all persons as equal can make peace, and this was the idea behind European Union. And there is the level of economy, which has to be socialistic, because economy means that one person workes for the other. Not policy has to be socialistic, but economy has to be. It is not the duty of the state to undertake economy, because in this way it poisons the economic life. Policy just has to make accepted rules that make sure that private economy serves social welfare. unfortunaltely this is not the case in European Union. George Friedman follows the interest of America, which is not the interest of Europe. I understand his wish that Europe may do her own military duty. But we must not get divided in the name of our national identities to get weak for the sake of the USA.

[@zubstep]

"And there is the level of economy, which has to be socialistic, because economy means that one person workes for the other." What? Without socialism, the baker bakes bread for his customer. One person works for another; both exchange value voluntarily. With socialism, that relationship is mutated into something else.

[@nathanbruce1992]

You have given me something to think about (being proud of culture while remaining blind and equal in politics). Thank you

[@danielmubima2991]

George Freidman is truly amazing, eloquent and very truthful. Plus I love the fact that he is an ardent defender of the US.

[@till-ulrichhepp8113]

If nationalism is defined as self-determination of a liberal democratic nation that is based on an open society that keeps tradition and history alive but also opens up to the world, accepts migration and refugees as well as engages in international trade, diplomacy and organizations then this is the kind of state that is a key building block of the desired "perfect world order" - all nation states are liberal democracies, all open societies, all mutually interconnected - world peace without world government but lots of cooperation.

[@jenniferlawrence2701]

They don't have to be too-open to migration. A little bit can be fine. Too-much can cause divisions in the nation. I see nothing at all wrong with a nation deciding they would like to somewhat limit immigration to maintain their own unique national character.

[@t24money]

How many of you are a PC ? How many of you are a Mac ?

[@keysemerson3771]

"It should not be either or. No dichotomous thinking will do. I can love and be loyal to myself, my family, my community, my province, my nation state and my planetary home, Earth and the People of Earth. Think Russian dolls....holistically. We are one people, one human family with one planetary home, so now work the other direction back to yourself reading this, while snacking on your favorite local treat, clothed in your national costume if you like, and you got it! 'All together now'. If we think well and enough and become aware of the potential in each other and our collective becoming, there is no need for bloodshed and using destruction as a tool to gain ends. No need to willfully harm others in any way, except to protect ourselves from those who haven't gotten it yet. It will take time, but will lead to the survival of our species. Love and peace, with true human understanding and increasing knowledge of our place in the cosmos appears to be the only sane answer."- Keys Earthman

[@jenniferlawrence2701]

No one said you didn't have to love the planet.

[@houshangacademy4211]

I'm loyal to the future of our Home, this PLANET. I believe Peace and Prosperity for the PEOPLE OF THIS PLANET will be achievable if we UNITE UNDER A FEDERAL SYSTEM BY THE END OF THIS CENTURY. I've translated the Federalist Papers into Farsi and have read it slowly for non-native speakers on my channel. These PAPERS are the Alphabet of the language of Federalism. We should study the American History and avoid the mistakes Americans have made....

[@riccardopusceddu6232]

The best tradition to teach new generations is never to accept them uncritically and always question them by proposing better alternatives. That's why Europeans have a better culture (and outcomes) than Muslims. That's our tradition: to keep traditions only if they are founded on reality hence useful for progress.

[@terner1234]

in the middle ages islam was more advanced

[@ravindertalwar553]

LONG LIVE AMERICA AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

[@Sokrates1985]

12:50 your candidate is a respresentative of the industry, not of the people who vote. Therefore it is called representative democracy. It is not up to the voters. By the way remember how jews and muslims living peacefully together in Palestine before Israel has been established? Ever wonder why basks have no national state and still keep their language and culture? Nationalism is conglomerated egoism on group level

[@igorbogdanoff4517]

155 downvotes from self haters

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

when you don't want war, you fight against the pseudo philosophical systems of social organiation(economics and politics) which thrive on all types of wars (class wars, civil wars, global wars).

[@tomwright9904]

1:00 "Nationalism is about drawing distinctions between human beings" Well not exactly, nationalism is about drawing distinctions between human beings *based on the criteria of citizenship*. Also the distinctions extend to what rights you give people. I do not think it is reasonable to go from "categorization is necessary" to "nationalism is necessary". 3:08 His definition of identity is a way of viewing the words that is given to you by your parents. Of course this is changed as you learn more things. # You require a nation for self-determination That's a complicated idea. You have some people - you have fundamental conflict people the people. You resolve some of these conflicts with laws that are in some way determined by the people. The idea is that you need somehow define which people get to determine their laws. But what is his argument for what the nation would be. I might try to define it based on economic self-interest. I.e. this area is natural self-governing because the interests align. Alternatively you might define that the nation should be the world. The category he uses is the "language". I'm not sure that is particularly meaningful. 11:53 You cannot be liberal without believing in the state Yeah.. that sounds a bit far fetched to me. The argument here is kind of like... you have some individuals. They have a will - and you want to allow this will to exert itself *collectively* as well as individual (i.e. the right of association). This is sort of the argument for devolution in a way. Is it an argument against nationalism. The question again becomes: what is the correct unit for governance - to trade off common interests and the will of the people. All he seems to be saying is that "the country" should be the unit of nationalism. But why - he gives little reason other than that a common language influences thought. I don't find that particularly compelling. No least because it argues for things like "unification of the German speaking people"

[@nxibba]

its literal gibberish coming from a hungarian

[@RollyBalondo]

Did the Hunger games originate from Hungary? "-)