The Imaginary: Nations, Culture, and a Common Destiny

Well, we might refrain from merging your faux-Skin dual with your main account on TK.

In answer to your question, in a sense, yes -- IF you're defining Nazi to be German as a whole. Music and art tends to bleed across cultural boundaries; French composers were very fond of using the German model for symphonies. Wagner particularly admired Berlioz's orchestration of the winds in the Symphonie Funebre et Triomphale (in which the strings and choir are optional; the wind orchestra medium wouldn't really take off until the early 20th century under the hands of Vaughn Williams, Holst and Grainger).

But as to your point, there is enough cultural differences that German culture /= French culture, even today where the lines blur even further through the EU.

You're nowhere near on target with that one, cupcake. Have another try.

By the way, the reason Skin points out that cupcake is lying through her keys about having no opinion on nationalism is because she stated that opinion right in the thread title. Which she apparently forgot having done.

Would you mind sharing your foundation for this opinion?

Who is making those claims? Well, aside from you having a go at nationalism.


Now that I think about it, I could go for a slice of pie.

...You meant "country" by "destiny?" Well alrighty then.

Either way, I still disagree with both statements. One doesn't follow the other in either case.

I don't agree with your premise. The actual root of Nationalism is the simple sentiment "We are better than they are." All else flows from that.

Since cupcake doesn't believe in culture or nation, she must be an anarchist, not a libertarian.

If on the other hand she believes in only one culture for the entirety of humanity and only one nation, she's a globalist, and globalism is nearly the antithesis of libertarianism.

Just more reasons why she's a pathological liar and a coward.

What, by calling them imaginary?

It's basic anthropological theory.

Political destiny, I thought it would've been obvious by the context in the thread. Clearly this wasn't a religion thread.

Obviously they aren't cause-effect statements; they're imperatives. Do you consider yourself a member of the American nation; believe in America for the Americans?

Group identity and the Other predate anything that could be considered nationalism (they even predate our current form); for it to come into effect on a political level we're considering 18th century-modern nationalism, the idea of a nation-state. If you don't combine group mentality with one of my statements, the nation state does not logically follow.

Who says I don't "believe" in culture?

I do not believe there is any nation. As for one culture, that's complicated and I'm not going to go into it with you.

Postnational [anarcho-]libertarian would be a more accurate description.

Same thing, originally. Capitalists have stolen the word.

Yeah, I'm still going with "pretentious bullshitter."

You do, when you label it as "imaginary."

Quoting.

Without context.

Fun.

Then you're so fundamentally incorrect as to be considered delusional. The existence of a thing does not hinge upon your belief or approval.

No doubt because if you did, you would be forced to concede Skin's assertion, as follows:

No, it would be a more verbose description. You're a globalist. And because globalism requires the largest government possible, it's the antithesis of libertarianism, which means that you are not a libertarian, as you claim to be.

You're thinking of libertine, not libertarian.

Imaginary means that it exists only in the minds of people. This is true for nations; this is true for culture. It does not mean I don't "believe" in culture; obviously we all have it whether or not we subscribe to it; that's totally nonsensical. I won't go into it with you because the way we use culture scholastically differs drastically from its colloquial usage.
And just because I don't believe in the validity of nations does not mean that they don't exist, in your minds. Hence the imaginary. That just means that there is no external, objective existence.

Ya, except that I don't accept any government, and so your thesis fails.

No, I'm thinking of "libertarian". Educate yourself - you need to.

Which renders your use of the word "imaginary" to describe it redundant, which you would have known before you used the word. Try selling Skin a different bridge.

That would, again, make you an anarchist, not a libertarian.

Why don't you stick to the 20th through 21st century definition, huckster. Don't know if you happen to have noticed, but that's the viewpoint that's in use today.

What's the difference? Libertarians are generally pacifists (obviously that's not the case with WF "libertarians") while anarchists are associated with violent means, but beyond that the core philosophies are nearly identical.

Let a libertarian tell you, so you can fake it more convincingly. Elsewhere.

Libertarians see the limited value of government, and accordingly will tolerate or even encourage a severely limited government. Anarchists fail to see the value of limited government and therefore advocate for no government at all.

I do see the value of a very limited government. Not one that restricts free movement or collects excessive taxation. My ideal government would exist as a skeletal police force for civil defense (not drug prosecutions, not rounding up immigrants) and a skeletal court system to deal with breaches of contracts and violent offenders. And in lieu of a better alternative, government seems the best option for basic infrastructure (roads).

As has been cited and shown repeatedly, screening prospective immigrants, barring those with records of violent crime and strictly eliminating entry for those who would bypass that screening process is a legitimate function of civil defense.

And yet you flip-flop. You don't recognize the existence of distinct cultures -- until pressed, in which case you invalidate your negative value judgment of the concept as "imaginary" by placing "imaginary" in a context in which nothing human applies.

You claim constantly to be "post-nationalist", then backpedal and say that you believe in a minimal government. A minimal government of what? Not of the entire planet, surely. The government required for that would be anything but minimal. Six billion plus human beings can't be effectively governed by anything but small, minimalist and very local representative governments, where each representative member of each small, minimal government is directly affected by the decisions to which those they serve are subject. The larger a government is permitted to grow and the farther from the people it's permitted to reach, the less it actually represents the people who entrust it with responsibility.

So make up your mind -- are you a libertarian, a globalist or an anarchist? Because, really, the soft-shoe you're trying to do from one to the other is playing more for comedy than anything else and has been for awhile now.

I don't want to be governed.

I am an anthropology major. We talk about culture in ways that you wouldn't. Culture is a resource. There are no firm lines of demarcation between one "culture" and another; it's a fluid spectrum. So no, we don't talk about "American culture" or "Mexican culture;" we talk about cultures of power, cultures of repression, cultures of consumption.

Why not?

Postnational libertarian.

This thread reeks of fantasy-land academic wankery.

Well, you are. :bigboypants:

Well, since it isn't likely that anyone else here is, stop trying to make your education worth something in a place where it isn't.

Then you're just talking at people. :youfail:

And according to you, then, that's the concept of culture you think is "imaginary." You were using an "anthropology major" definition for the word. Were you, in your tiny little peanut of a mind, asking a board full of anthropology majors? Or were you asking about the concept you knew we all relate to? Because once again, that would just be more proof that you're a lying cocksheath.

Skin explained exactly why not immediately following the statement you quoted, cupcake.

That's an oxymoron. You, on the other hand, are just a plain moron.

I wasn't talking about myself. I was asking you, employing your definitions. An American culture is real to you, and that's what matters. Is it that hard to understand?

You weren't an anthropology major your entire life. Odds are you weren't even a lying idiot for most of it. Someone had to train you to be cowardly and ignorant. Think back to when you had ethics and see what answer you come up with for yourself.