An inevitable outcome of separate competing nation states is the rise and fall of each in accordance with their success. When one nation declines, culturally, biologically (population growth), militarily it allows states with successful culture/biology/military to overtake and conquer them. In this way different nations will have periods of dominance, so that the overall European sphere is generally strong and successful. When a nation fails it fails in isolation. Internally this process is repeated with movements through out history, of cultures/peoples who rise to political dominance. Bavarian Farmers, with a healthy culture and high birthrates many start organizing politically and over a period of 20 years many come to regional power in politics. A Swiss militia, built from untrained citizens, many have military success which eventually propels them into an elite unit that spans the continent.While the focus on migration is correct it would not be an issue;If the culture promoted fertility and loyalty there would be to many strongly minded people to have migration. If the biology was healthy and expanding the numerous youth would physically fight migrants and chase them off. If the military was sentient they would coup the government or remove foreigners from the nation.If the politics was strong and forward thinking they wouldn't have mass immigration to being with, or would start mass deportation.Any one of these can be in play within these separate nations. When these states subsume autonomy to a greater governmental union, like the European Union, they lose this competitive edge. The same forces that oppose migration would oppose a greater Union. In this empire, the administrations focus is turned inward against the type of people who would raise up the culture and population of their nation. A cultural/biological suppression, the result is a general decline with no rebirth.
Yes but the problem with nationalism is that is another inorganic creation by atheists, to replace monarchies with nations.Nations existed before atheists took power, but nations as a basis for a political system is a leftist invention only to subvert the previous system. Like anything made up by leftists, it turned to shit quickly and leftists killed each other over this lol. Nationalism is so devoid of any substance that you have right wing atheists defending nationalism, just like you have left wing atheists defending it lol, and this since the first day of the revolutions. LOL.Here is the cope of the nationalists: people who said nationalism existed said it was the language who unified people. The truth is that languages were so numerous that basically only a tiny group of people spoke the same language. The paucity of languages nowadays stem from the revolutionists who killed people who didnt want to speak the unified language. During monarchies, there was a humongous quantity of languages and the kings didnt give a shit about unifying people thru languages. and they were proud to speak differently form the peasants, whereas they lived in the same tiny area.After being BTFO, they move on to saying nationalism existed due to folklore. folklore is by definition very local. folklore at the north of a ''nation'' is completely different than the one at the south, same with counties, boroughs whatever.Then they seethe and their last cope is ethnicity which is a very vague idea. If there were mass migrations, then ethnicity is meaningless and if people didnt migrate a lot, then ethnicity just means ''my tiny shitty village'' which has nothing to do with nationalism.Don't forget it's the french leftists who created nationalism. And, just like today, the only way they did it is by killing anybody who shitted on their dogmas, ie being pro pro democratic republics, ie pro mercantilism.
THERE ARE NO SUCH THINGS AS «EUROPEAN CULTURE», AND «EUROPEAN EMPIRE».
>>16886084If I see European culture there is European culture.As for empire, its not a empire, there is no emperor etc, although it functions with the same issues a multi-cultural multi-ethnic empire does.
>>16886091>If I see European culture there is European culture. [SIC]THAT IS CALLED «DELUSION».>As for empire, its not a empire, there is no emperor etc, although it functions with the same issues a multi-cultural multi-ethnic empire does. [SIC]THERE IS AN EUROPEISTIC SUPRANATIONAL APPARATVS, WHICH IS AN ECONOMICAL FEDERATION, WHICH IS, IN TURN, A VASSAL TO UNITEDSTATES VIA «N A T O».THERE IS NO EUROPE AS A POLITICAL ENTITY.YOUR DIAGNOSIS IS FACTUAL, BUT YOUR PROGNOSIS IS FALLACIOUS.
>>16886072>An inevitable outcome of separate competing nation states is the rise and fall of each in accordance with their success. The problem is history had largely shown that NOT to be the case. Part of the major issue with Europe is that shared class interests vastly triumphed any kind of nationalist sentiment. Everybody talked a big game, and I'm sure they did hate each other, but when the going got tough they all still supported each other against a actual outside danger to their power. It's why you got historical relics and dying states like Austria Hungary and the Ottoman Empire being kept on life support.
>>16886110caps lock broken?
>>16886129NO.IS YOURS BROKEN?
>>16886117>they all still supported each other against a actual outside danger to their power.Yeah that's the advantage of them being Christian. (Catholic)>. Part of the major issue with Europe is that shared class interests vastly triumphed any kind of nationalist sentiment.Yes, this is an issue with banking/capitalist influence within the political structure. >Ottoman EmpireThe British were crazy though. They just didn't want the Russians retaking Orthodox land. Even though it would not have affected their global empire much at all.
>>16886084>>16886110>>16886133Why are mentally ill faggots like this guy allowed to vandalise threads and derail discussions? Do the jannies just sit around with their thumbs up their asses all day?
