As I said a moment ago in another post, nationalism ultimately does -- and successfully did -- homogenize us. Pre-modern France or Germany were fundamentally different things than modern France or Germany. The way they measured things changed. The language they spoke change. The stories they told to their children changed. Control was centralized, and local culture was replaced with the capitol. It embraces group distinction insofar as there is another thing, but in practice flattens it within the thing "we" are.
Internationalism then just takes this to a different scale. Instead of standardizing based on the in-group being national to a region, it expands it to the planet. If we met aliens, the internationalist might still see them the way the nationalist French saw the nationalist Germans, as an other to be opposed.
Internationalism then just takes this to a different scale. Instead of standardizing based on the in-group being national to a region, it expands it to the planet. If we met aliens, the internationalist might still see them the way the nationalist French saw the nationalist Germans, as an other to be opposed.
The international globalist is still a sort of nationalist, because he still imagines the people can be standardized and controlled so you can bring anyone into your physical region and still maintain control. If you're wrong and to change the people is to relinquish control over them because they are a different thing you cannot standardize, then to change the people is to change your relationship to power, and ultimately to remove it. The only difference is that instead of France being controlled from Paris, the world is controlled from Brussels, or New York, or Davos, and instead of the people being the french, the people are humanity.
Sorry, I'm trying to compress ideas that I've now spent two full books going into into a post on the internet, and because I think it's quite a different way of thinking, it needs room to stretch its legs.
What you are talking about in the initial post doesn't necessarily have to involve nationalism, but nationalism revolves about the standardization and centralization of control, and that directly relates to what you're talking about -- a standardization of the people requires a standardization of what is considered to be the good.
As I have previously written, nationalism is not the existence of the nation state. It is about the centralization of the conception of the people as Central to the nation state. The nationalist revolutions that we saw in the modern era came about because the peoples in various regions felt like they ought to have self-determination as Nations rather than their previous status as parts of larger empires. A consequence of this idea is that a lot of the previous relationships that were fuzzier and thicker were sanded off to justify the concept. After all, if the people weren't a leligible thing, how could the people be a central justification for central office seizing power?
As an example, after the French revolution, one of the first things that revolutionary France did was start standardizing France. The metric system came about because different regions had their own individual measurement systems before that, and even the language people spoke was standardized, so even though a region might have spoken a regional dialect for centuries, those people would be pushed towards speaking the same language that they spoke in the capital.
Pre-modern Nations were a lot fuzzier, you might have loyalty to your village, to your region, to your lord, to your church, to your family, and to your guild all at the same time, in a big part of pre-modern life was juggling all of these competing loyalties. The standardization of modernization in revolutionary France and elsewhere was in part intended to eliminate the need to be embedded in all of these different relationships and to replace them all with loyalty and identification with the state.
From there, it becomes clear why I brought it up because it represents this sort of centralized picking of what is good, and an attempt at setting a universal form of what is good that everyone has to follow.
That's been one of the tragedies of this historical moment. People don't realize how thoroughly modernism succeeded, and so even people who think that they are rejecting modernism are often just part of a different revolutionary faction espousing the same fundamental ideological framework and epistemology. Even people who believe that they are being traditionalist and had their traditions so badly wiped out that they still believe in this centralization and standardization of the people.
What you are talking about in the initial post doesn't necessarily have to involve nationalism, but nationalism revolves about the standardization and centralization of control, and that directly relates to what you're talking about -- a standardization of the people requires a standardization of what is considered to be the good.
As I have previously written, nationalism is not the existence of the nation state. It is about the centralization of the conception of the people as Central to the nation state. The nationalist revolutions that we saw in the modern era came about because the peoples in various regions felt like they ought to have self-determination as Nations rather than their previous status as parts of larger empires. A consequence of this idea is that a lot of the previous relationships that were fuzzier and thicker were sanded off to justify the concept. After all, if the people weren't a leligible thing, how could the people be a central justification for central office seizing power?
As an example, after the French revolution, one of the first things that revolutionary France did was start standardizing France. The metric system came about because different regions had their own individual measurement systems before that, and even the language people spoke was standardized, so even though a region might have spoken a regional dialect for centuries, those people would be pushed towards speaking the same language that they spoke in the capital.
Pre-modern Nations were a lot fuzzier, you might have loyalty to your village, to your region, to your lord, to your church, to your family, and to your guild all at the same time, in a big part of pre-modern life was juggling all of these competing loyalties. The standardization of modernization in revolutionary France and elsewhere was in part intended to eliminate the need to be embedded in all of these different relationships and to replace them all with loyalty and identification with the state.
From there, it becomes clear why I brought it up because it represents this sort of centralized picking of what is good, and an attempt at setting a universal form of what is good that everyone has to follow.
That's been one of the tragedies of this historical moment. People don't realize how thoroughly modernism succeeded, and so even people who think that they are rejecting modernism are often just part of a different revolutionary faction espousing the same fundamental ideological framework and epistemology. Even people who believe that they are being traditionalist and had their traditions so badly wiped out that they still believe in this centralization and standardization of the people.
And part of the reason of that is any attempt to coordinate what being good means will necessarily end up with bad actors who want to inject their little things, and suddenly what it is to be good has a bunch of little strings attached that bad actors can use to justify evil.
The solution probably isn't scalable, it's that people just need to be trying to do what they think is best without letting themselves get too caught up in the hubbub of trying to standardize it all. Historically, the best that anyone could do would be coming up with a set of common standards for the people immediately around you that were the ones that mattered. Universal standardization is ultimately an invention of modern nationalism. People didn't used to have to be that standardized, even stuff that you would think of as standardized like religion would be somewhat relational, and depending on your local church.
That didn't mean that those local decisions would necessarily be even better than the universalized ones, but at least people could choose where they wanted to be, whereas under the more nationalist view, everywhere has to be the same thing.
The solution probably isn't scalable, it's that people just need to be trying to do what they think is best without letting themselves get too caught up in the hubbub of trying to standardize it all. Historically, the best that anyone could do would be coming up with a set of common standards for the people immediately around you that were the ones that mattered. Universal standardization is ultimately an invention of modern nationalism. People didn't used to have to be that standardized, even stuff that you would think of as standardized like religion would be somewhat relational, and depending on your local church.
That didn't mean that those local decisions would necessarily be even better than the universalized ones, but at least people could choose where they wanted to be, whereas under the more nationalist view, everywhere has to be the same thing.
I don't know what exactly happened with ChatGPT 5.2, but it has gotten significantly dumber with this last update.
I made a post a little while ago alluding to it, but it's been challenging me with a lot of corrections to things I never said. For example, I was explaining that there was a humidifier in the corner of my room and I expected the mist to turn into vapor and for the vapor to act like an ideal gas and so ultimately the relative humidity of the entire room would become more or less the same over time. It explicitly tried to correct me by saying that water doesn't vaporize due to ideal gas law, which really wasn't a statement I ever said or even implied.
That's just one example, but it does seem like there's something not quite working right. Hi there they started cutting corners to spend less money, or maybe it finally got so pickled by Reddit then it has no choice statistically but to use the short of shitty argumentation redditors would appreciate.
I made a post a little while ago alluding to it, but it's been challenging me with a lot of corrections to things I never said. For example, I was explaining that there was a humidifier in the corner of my room and I expected the mist to turn into vapor and for the vapor to act like an ideal gas and so ultimately the relative humidity of the entire room would become more or less the same over time. It explicitly tried to correct me by saying that water doesn't vaporize due to ideal gas law, which really wasn't a statement I ever said or even implied.
That's just one example, but it does seem like there's something not quite working right. Hi there they started cutting corners to spend less money, or maybe it finally got so pickled by Reddit then it has no choice statistically but to use the short of shitty argumentation redditors would appreciate.
I'm not sure these spaniards remember the history of Spain, or why what they're doing is colossally stupid on a historical epic scale.
With respect, the people from Norway have a long and proud history of fighting. That's why half the continent is run by descendants of normen.
That's all, no comments on anything else you've said. Just that the sort of people who make up the Norwegians were people who were really really good at fighting.
That's all, no comments on anything else you've said. Just that the sort of people who make up the Norwegians were people who were really really good at fighting.
I know a guy who lives in ottawa, he tells me that there are protests every week for things that have nothing to do with Canada, like Palestine or Ukraine.
Sometimes, people point to the rainbow logo FBXL has and they wonder if it has something to do with contemporary identity politics.
Unequivocally, no.
Rainbows existed before contemporary politics, and they'll continue to exist afterwards.
Rainbows were a major aesthetic element of many early personal computers such as the TRS-80 CoCo and the Commodore 64, because unlike the earlier models like the original TRS-80 or Commodore Pet, they supported color out of the box. The Apple logo from that era is a rainbow apple icon. The Coco logo was separated rainbow lines.
Rainbows on black are also a major 70s/80s modernist design. Famous album covers use rainbow bars, as well as some contemporary TV shows which made use of animated rainbow lines.
When I designed the original FBXL.NET website back in 2006, I borrowed this rainbow on black aesthetic. It let me keep my preferred dark website aesthetic with a splash of color. That's also why the rainbow is somewhat desaturated -- it's intended to be a quiet graphical decoration, not to blow your eyeballs out while reading text on a black background.
Back in 2006, lgbt stuff existed, but wasn't as central as it is today. There was a war on terror that had been going on for 5 years, a war in Iraq, a war in Afghanistan, and it looked like things were in an economic boom that was on its way to becoming the greatest recession since the great depression.
Unequivocally, no.
Rainbows existed before contemporary politics, and they'll continue to exist afterwards.
Rainbows were a major aesthetic element of many early personal computers such as the TRS-80 CoCo and the Commodore 64, because unlike the earlier models like the original TRS-80 or Commodore Pet, they supported color out of the box. The Apple logo from that era is a rainbow apple icon. The Coco logo was separated rainbow lines.
Rainbows on black are also a major 70s/80s modernist design. Famous album covers use rainbow bars, as well as some contemporary TV shows which made use of animated rainbow lines.
When I designed the original FBXL.NET website back in 2006, I borrowed this rainbow on black aesthetic. It let me keep my preferred dark website aesthetic with a splash of color. That's also why the rainbow is somewhat desaturated -- it's intended to be a quiet graphical decoration, not to blow your eyeballs out while reading text on a black background.
Back in 2006, lgbt stuff existed, but wasn't as central as it is today. There was a war on terror that had been going on for 5 years, a war in Iraq, a war in Afghanistan, and it looked like things were in an economic boom that was on its way to becoming the greatest recession since the great depression.
Sort of funny since it's like name rank and serial number "I have a boat I'm sailing to cannes" would you like this underage girl? "I have a boat I'm sailing to cannes" want to engage in some cannibalism? "I have a boat I'm sailing to cannes"
Ironically, the noble savage archetype is itself a racist stereotype that never existed. There was this idea that just before written history, just outside of the range of any of us being able to verify it, all the things that social reformers hate didn't exist, and they are only the outcome of capitalism or patriarchy or whatever they want to get rid of.
Myself, I end up looking to other primates to test that theory, and it just doesn't come out true. There are pre hominid primates with essentially a nuclear family structure. There are pre hominid primates that engage in war for territory. There are tons of pre hominid primates that engage in a sort of patriarchy. So unless all of these pre hominid primates inherited their ways of living from humans on another continent, it seems very unlikely that these we're human inventions that only showed up the moment that we were able to write down what we were doing.
Myself, I end up looking to other primates to test that theory, and it just doesn't come out true. There are pre hominid primates with essentially a nuclear family structure. There are pre hominid primates that engage in war for territory. There are tons of pre hominid primates that engage in a sort of patriarchy. So unless all of these pre hominid primates inherited their ways of living from humans on another continent, it seems very unlikely that these we're human inventions that only showed up the moment that we were able to write down what we were doing.
But it's only the first part of the documentary. The second part is the pseudo intellectual elitists who think it makes them fit to rule.
At least the chad retards don't pretend they're smart by saying smart people words.
At least the chad retards don't pretend they're smart by saying smart people words.
Peak music, but it seems like every decade before that had some iconic music. Not so much today.