Poland warns Brussels it will DESTROY the EU if it tries to punish Britain for leavin

B) when we leave the EU our economy will be ~20% theirs.*

Being imperialistic, or having religious motives does not mean nationalism is inapplicable. If anything, certain writers consider them synonymous.

As a word, it is modern, of course. As a concept, not at all.



Yes, which originated from the alliance of the nationalist parties (and from which members were recruited from). You've outdone yourself here.

History does not necessitate a degree. If you're doing history, I'm getting ready to laugh further. But you haven't yet answered how that is relevant...? Have you ran out of silly things to say so you're swaying entirely off-topic?

As expected, of course.

Not much else to say. You said that religious nationalism does not exist. You said that the wars you yourself quoted had nothing to do with nationalism. You've added more stuff which is even more incorrect. The thing speaks for itself.

You can't reply to "Why were the Viet Minh fighting?" with "yes". It had nothing to do with nationalism.

Or, you're a pseduo-historian, making massive generalised claims based on ignorance, as proven by your woeful lack of knowledge of the causes of the Vietnam war.

What's more likely - every single war for thousands of years, most of which you've never studied, were caused by the same thing, or you're wrong?

More knee-jerk reactions. Got more?

Where did I reply with a yes? The fact that you perceive it as such to evade the point is not my fault. But, it having nothing to do with nationalism when the certain parties had nationalism in their name is quite funny. Or perhaps you didn't know that. You certainly didn't.

Here we go again. You keep naming me crap yet haven't even refuted your own points. You just keep throwing names thinking they prove your point, and which I have repeatedly destroyed. Nice argumentative skills!

Give me a specific name and refute that nationalism was not causal and we'll discuss about it. But, given you mentioned the Crusades, where nationalism was central, you're just gonna reply with more knee-jerking.

Keep it coming - I know it's the best you can do so won't argue on this point



Posted from TSR Mobile

"Go look up why the Viet Minh were fighting - hint: it wasn't nationalism."

"Yes, which originated from the alliance of the nationalist parties (and from which members were recruited from). You've outdone yourself here."

When you can't keep up to date with what you've said, that's pretty laughable.

Also try again - the cause of the Vietnam war wasn't nationalism.

At least you're naturally non-smart - I thought you were trolling.

You said I only gave a yes as an answer. Evidently, as you quote above, I didn't. Can't be that difficult now, can it?

So, what was its cause? Are you going to tell me what your expertise deems as the cause or causes? Or are you going to repeat unsubstantiated claims yet again?

I'm "non-smart", yet you think you can boil down every war in that has occurred to one factor. Hah. Again, I feel compelled to bring you back to the fact you're clearly compensating for something

Also, telling you about the social divides in Vietnam would be highly off topic. So do what I first suggested, and go pick up a history book

If you bothered to read me replies, I said cause isn't an absolutist concept. It's funny you're ignoring my direct answers to your idiotic claims, only to repeat later on that I did not give such answers.

I already told you about that, and explained how it links to nationalism. As above, doing the usual picking up parts and ignoring others. So, look who needs to history book after all (especially for the Crusades, lol).

Still waiting for something to back up your original claim. I gave sources and whatnot after all, so it's only fair. Gimmo.

I've already made it clear that I'm not here to give you a history lesson.

Here are the two options:
a) Every single war ever to have occurred has one cause, a claim made by someone with no expertise in the field.
or
b) Someone who is not an expert in the causes of war has made a mistake.

There is literally nothing you can say that will make me think a) is the right option over b). Occam's Razor innit.

Ok but it's a former prime minister so I don't think he really speaks for poland.

If Tony Blair popped up right now saying we should go to war with Mexico, he's clearly not speaking for Britain is he.

If you ever want to know what pushed nationalism forward it was you people. Liberalism is becoming ever more hated. Liberalism and Fascism share a core ideal and that is political correctness. Your efforts to create a liberal utopia has pushed people to nationalism. I am a remain voter but just know, what ever problems occur in the EU, it's the fault of people like you. Liberalism is poison

You're not qualified to give any lessons re history. Seriously. The moment you said the Crusades were not caused by nationalism, you lost any credibility you could have had. All this from that point is knee-jerk reaction taking, as I said before.

Still nothing to refute your point, other than baseless points. As I said, I didn't expect differently when you mentioned the Crusades. Just lol.

You can keep going though however long you like.

No interest in weighing in on the actual argunent

but do you realise that you dismiss everything anyone says as a knee-jerk response or reaction? Do you actually look at your own posts and manage somehow to see something superior, more considered and well-phrased?

I think your answer is right there.

Perhaps you should before going on about this. I mean really.



Do I now? Because I actually backed up what I said with sources in the beginning. The other poster replied saying I'm wrong. Having asked him how and why, he just kept repeating that I am wrong.

I'm not sure about your own argumentative skills, but repeating someone is wrong is not particularly strong without actually supporting it.



Thanks for your contribution.

You're not qualified to give any lessons re history. Seriously. The moment you said the Crusades were not caused by nationalism, you lost any credibility you could have had. All this from that point is knee-jerk reaction taking, as I said before.

Still nothing to refute your point, other than baseless points. As I said, I didn't expect differently when you mentioned the Crusades. Just lol.

You can keep going though however long you like.

I'm not trying to say that he is arguing better than you. I'm just drawing your attention to your tendency to dismiss everying as knee-jerk.

You're not the only person on TSR who has a stock tactic for dismissing someone else's arguments, valid or otherwise. Perhaps I do too, but either way I just thought you might like to be aware of how heavily you use that phrase.

I think it could rightly be said to be your knee-jerk response

Here are the two options:
a) Every single war ever to have occurred has one cause, a claim made by someone with no expertise in the field.
or
b) Someone who is not an expert in the causes of war has made a mistake.

How on earth can you think option 'a' is the right one? Delusions of grandeur.

People are sick of being told what to think, no freedom of debate, and feeling like they are being thought and speech-policed, by a quietly, sneeringly threatening mob. You are right in that they have so much in common with totalitarians, that's why we couldn't have any frank debates without the shrill sanctimony and left wing mobs for so long. I genuinely believe in another era, another political climate and a different orthodoxy, they could have been the people most enthusiastically propagandizing for totalitarian regimes. They say things like authoritarian means( on freedom of speech and the like, like you see with some younger generation mods here) justify liberal ends. No, the means show the person, the ends show what is the current status quo in debate.