Why is everybody complaining about pool when leftist got a person promoting his rpg while supporting primitivism?

those are post-christianity values.
if he was for "Muh european values" he would shill for christfaggotry.

You do realize that nationalism was born from the fires of the French Revolution?

Cosmopolitanism is the realm of monarchies, aristocratic elites, and capitalists. Multiculturalism was practiced only by sprawling empires, not free republics.

Republicanism, nationalism, civic virtue, and equal distribution of property are the values of Western civilization, which have been drowned out by sandnigger, slave morality Christianity and the aristocratic/autocratic fun of the Roman Empire. The Renaissance, Enlightenment, and even the revolutions of the 19th and early 20th centuries were attempts at returning to those fundamental Western values, but we lost out to cosmopolitan liberals, who are now destroying the core of the dangerous Western working class by importing classcuck orientals, religious middle easterners, and Global South savages to our civilization. Meanwhile, they erase our history, pretending that those revolutions were fought to establish the capitalist world order.

ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING

Oh reactionary guy that pretends not to be fascist, I think you're posing on the wrong board.

Most of us have actually read and studied a bit of history, so this flagrant bullshit isn't going to work on us.

Arguably, both liberalism and the enlightenment values surrounding it and Christianity and its associated ethics and morality constitute "Western values".

Most nationalists don't support either. "Muh national values" are just an excuse for what they're really after: a bit of nihilistic hedonism and obscene pleasure.

Hmmmm…let's see.

Athen's citizenship was very exclusive and specifically wasn't granted to immigrants. The same was true for Rome. Both republics initially started with a relatively egalitarian distribution of land compared to the monarchies of the Middle East. (Plebeian actually referred to small landholders.) A good contrast would be Persia, a multicultural empire that gave minorities equal power to the majority cultural group. Generally, democratic republics were considered only proper for homogeneous, small polities. Of course, this isn't proper nationalism, but instead a city-based patriotism. Non-citizens, often foreigners or conquered peoples, were excluded from politics all together. Militarism was promoted, and every citizen was conscripted to fight for the republic.

This continued into the Middle Ages. The first "national" republic can be said to be the Swiss, who formed a confederation based on a common Alpine identity against the surrounding monarchies, despite differing languages. The same happened to the Dutch, to a lesser extent due to Orangists also playing into patriotic sentiments. Of course, all of those republics often invoked Classical imagery and coincided with the Renaissance.

National sovereignty as a modern concept was invented by the French Revolutions, and to a much lesser extent, the American revolutionaries. Both of those revolutions were based on the Enlightenment and ultimately the classical Western tradition. The American revolutionaries had sort of patriotism for both their state and nation against the British, whilst the French essentially created the modern nation-state. The idea of national sovereignty/popular sovereignty finally came into full fruition during this time. (Switzerland had a form of it earlier, but the IDEOLOGY behind it was formed by Rousseau.) Hence, NATIONAL Assembly, NATIONAL Convention, "Citizens to arms", the first real national anthem, the tricolor, first national conscription, the NATIONAL razor, and so on and so on. The French revolutionaries implemented mass conscription, spoke of a "republic of virtue", wanted to expand France's borders, and wanted to mobilize all of society for the nation. Meanwhile, all the monarchies were allied by cosmopolitan dynastic politics which ignored national borders. The Austrians didn't fight for Austria, they fought for the King whose relative got her head chopped off. This is why ONE COUNTRY managed to destroy the rest of Europe.

The American revolutionaries meanwhile invented the modern concept of national liberation and had similar ideals of a virtous citizenry mobilized into militias, though more localized and confederal than the centralized French model.

Both revolutions idealized small landholders. The French idealized urban artisans, whilst the Americans idealized yeoman farmers. Both revolutionaries ultimately had the aim of establishing a society based on those groups.

And, this line of thought, where every citizen has a right to own property, lends itself naturally to socialist politics in the face of individual property ownership becoming more impractical for most people due to industrialization. You can say that the worker's movement ultimately is the industrial form of republicanism, and hence you have the tendencies towards nationalism. The Parisian Communards also were the most fervent Boulangists.

I would go into more detail, but seriously read ANYTHING on the French Revolution to see how it basically spawned nationalism. It's hardly flagrant bullshit.

Also, been here longer than you. And, what kind of "reactionary" advocates for eliminating monarchy, establishing a direct democracy, and having equal ownership of the means of production?

Maybe you should lay off your buzzwords.

(Also, Fascism is fundamentally a reformist movement, not reactionary. It seeks to reform capitalism, not eliminate it and return to a feudal/monarchist order.)

One, in classical slave societies, very few people were actual "citizens", even amid the freeborn population.

I'm aware the French Revolution was nationalist. It was also capitalist and bourgeois. It was incredibly flawed, but revolutionary for the time. Of course they needed nationalism. You need a reason to bind the proles to the state, and they had just torn up the old feudal ties that served that purpose, and, the French Republic hardly being a workers' state, the normal French workers were hardly going to start fighting for them out of natural self-interest, except for maybe the Jacobins.

The flagrant bullshit was how cosmopolitanism wasn't largely a European value and all that other shit you said. I'm aware there were nationalism in Revolutionary France.

Nigger, I remember when you first introduced yourself and tried to explain that you were trying to bring the Gadsden Flag back for "classical republicanism" instead of lolbertarianism, because apparently the lolberts just aren't reactionary enough.

Actually caring about the last vestigial remnants of monarchy in this day and age reeks of reactionary LARP, and it's common ownership of the means of production, not equal ownership.

You seem to have a very skewed idea of what this vague notion of "cosmopolitanism" actually is. It too is a tradition that arose from Enlightenment ideals, not the monarchies of old as you suggest. Those old monarchies were not by any stretch egalitarian when it came to cultural background; they often permitted various cultural identities to exist as unabsorbed subject classes and sometimes granted technical legal muh privileges to those people, but the core ruling class (barring that ruling class being at one point or another completely overturned) was almost always dominated by a core cultural group. In Rome, while one could become a formal citizen regardless of background, your actual status and social mobility was severely limited if you weren't of Italian or Greek descent. In China, Han culture was at the heart of the Empire's administration and operation, with other cultures being considered more-so subject class than not. In Spain, both in Iberia and in its colonial holdings, ethnic/racial hierarchies were written into law dictating the status of the individual. You may have instances where, for example, a Dutch noble might ascend to be King of Spain, but while in the courts of Spain they were still expected to speak the language of the court in question and adhere to the cultural customs of that court's elite. It was still very much a case of cultural hegemony.

Nationalism was not the preservation and triumph of popular identity and culture, it was its destruction. The natural and organic cultural developments of centuries prior were cast aside to instead be replaced with the enforcement of ruling class identity on all subject people, with all manner of rituals and myths to help solidify a false notion that the new "national identity" had always been there uniting the people.

Now on to your historical examples.

Citizenship in Athens was usually a sign that you were essentially a member of the upper classes (though not always). That citizenship and governance policy worked at that time only because the backbone of the society and labor was still supported by slave and non-citizen labor. It was an elitist republic at heart.
Again, a society whose ability to partake in notions of (limited) land reform, (limited) political participation, and (occasional) economic prosperity was contingent on there being slave labor, subject classes, and constant conquest to support such policy. Hardly a standard to look towards.
Ironically, while still permitting slavery, it never served as a backbone for the economic structure of the Empire. Also the ethnic tolerance of the state was only in the most abstract legal sense: the highest positions of actual authority anywhere except the frontiers (ie not vassal kings) was almost always reserved for whatever Iranian group happened to be the Empire's elite at the time.
The "democratic" societies of ancient times had little to no liberatory elements to them: for the average subject of those early states, they were just as exploitative and oppressive (if not often more so) than the "despotism" that lied beyond their borders.

That's wrong though. The idea of a united Swiss identity as we know it today did not emerge until the Napoleonic era. Until then, the cantons of the Old Confederacy were founded primarily on securing regional trade and gradually securing new inclusions to the confederacy from feudal power that had always waned in that region. It was not a cultural union: it was very much an association based on the material interests of the bourgeoisie that had come to power in the aforementioned vacuum of feudalism in that part of the Alps.
Once again, it was more aligned with what the Swiss had done; the Federated state only took on truly national character long after the foundation (again, primarily after Napoleon rolled through). Most of the sentiments in the state formation were not built on patriotism so much as they were opposition to Spanish control (especially among the emerging Protestant constituents that suffered suppression under Spanish rule).

Was a cobbled together mess that, once again, only took on national character much later in its life. The American Revolution itself was not a great patriotic act: that was a narrative largely introduced decades later during the larger nationalization project. The origins of the conflict first and foremost was the overthrow of a foreign ruling class by a domestic ruling class. There was not some fundamental essence among the American people that made them feel like they were intrinsically separate from the British, it was merely a matter of economic self-interest among the landed classes who actually held regional power.
Additionally, the original USA was envisioned very much in the Confederate tradition of earlier European republics of the early modern era (infused in part with some of the new traditions of the enlightenment), because most of the colonies saw themselves as distinct political entities. The project of introducing nationalism to the American psyche wouldn't fully take hold probably as late as the Civil War, and even then most people still saw themselves through the lens of state identity first and foremost. It was a conscious post-foundation effort to get Americans to start seeing themselves as a united culture and people, and this effort can be seen in the kinds of policies that the government instated to foster those beliefs.
Jefferson and his camp did, but that was not the opinion held by all of the American people nor those within the chambers of government at the time. In most ways that mattered, Jefferson's agrarian ideal actually lost out in terms of how the new American government was formed and shaped, with those ideals only really coming back into vogue when Manifest Destiny became a guiding principle of policy (with accompanying laws like the Homestead act and such). Even then, it was mostly just a front to justify expansion and exploitation at the expense of both slave (prior to abolition) and Native populations.
The French Revolution saw itself as the beginning of what they saw as a universal republic. When speaking of National matters, it was not explicitly a matter of French identity, but as an embodiment of the republic itself. Its expansion was seen not as an effort to expand borders for better loot and land, but to expand the revolutionary ideals. In this form, cosmopolitanism and nationalism were not inherently at odds.
The nationalism we know today however did not come directly from the French Revolution: it was born out of the conquests of Napoleon, who used those original ideas of nationalism (as embodying the ideals of the revolutionary state) and using this as a casus beli to expand a reactionary dynasty of monarchs across the European continent. It was in this reaction that we saw the beginning of the rise of nationalism through the rest of the world, as the existing ruling class latched onto those ideas as a means of solidifying their rule through the fostering of artificial identities among people. This is the type of nationalism that we see embodied in almost every state that has clung to the term since Napoleon's time, a return of cultural hegemony of old.

Where to start with this. For one, Boulanger was explicitly the one who smashed the Commune and was explicitly against almost everything the Commune stood for. Secondly, the question of nationalism within the Commune was by no means one sided: it was among the most pressing dilemmas of the movement between those who held to ideals of French Revolutionary republican nationalism / early Proletarian internationalism and those who clung to post-Napoleon notions of nationalism.

This is why nationalism is rejected by much of the left: its modern understanding is and always was the justification presented by the forces of the existing ruling class as a means of legitimizing the extent of their rule.

Actually, most of the freeborn population of the city-state proper were citizens. The freemen who were not citizens were foreigners or "metics". In the early days of those republics, most people were citizen. It was only through conquest and immigration that the number of citizens dwindled.

There was no working-class during the French Revolution as we know it. The Sans-Culottes were small artisans and shopkeepers, not wage workers. And, they actually had a lot of influence during the actual revolutionary period, during the National Convention. The liberal capitalists ultimately cracked down on the revolutionaries in the Thermoidor reaction.

And, no, cosmopolitanism isn't necessarily European. Hell, you can even consider Islam to be cosmopolitan in the sense of seeking to unify the world under a caliphate.

I made several posts about my flag, which shows how repetitive you folks tend to be. Also, that is not what "reactionary" means in the political context. (Unless I call you reactionary for wanting to revive a dead political movement.) Also, most people here are LARPing dead ideologies by your standard.

Not exactly nationalism you're describing there. Even in globalism/cosmopolitanism, there is a cultural hegemony. Also, nationalism =/= racial hierarchies or religious hierarchies. In fact, nationalism is often secular and in opposition to clerical power. Additionally, cosmopolitanism/globalism need not to be egalitarian.

Nationalism was formed out of the revolutions themselves and popular myths about said revolutions.

Actually, most citizens in Athens weren't upper class, and class differences were actually minimum. Even the metics were essentially citizens of their home cities. And, most slaveowners owned only 1 slave. Additionally, this was only the case during the height of Athenian imperialism. The number of slaves and foreigners was far, far smaller when the Athenian republic first started. And even then, 30% of the male population were citizens. (Most of the rest were metics who were citizens of the cities they came from and slaves.)

Rome in 400 BC is vastly different from Rome in 100 BC. Slavery wasn't prevalent at the origin of the Roman Republic or even in the first few hundred years of it's existence. It was only through later constant warfare that slaves and subjects were added to the republic. In Rome's case, slavery actually lead directly to the disenfranchisement of the Plebeians due to the Patricians taking all of their land during the wars. Early Rome was a republic of plebeians with the patricians mainly earning power from muh muh privileges. The late republic was a complete mess.

(I don't know much about the Persians, but they used actually the language of Aramaic as opposed to an Iranian language. And, they occasionally used the common languages of the border regions.)

Hence, the quotes around "national". The Old Confederacy wasn't founded by the bourgeoisie in any modern sense of the word. (The medieval burghers were more like Sans Culottes and wealthy merchants than employers and capitalists.) Half of the cantons were city-cantons, which were more oligarchic and closest to "bourgeoisie" states, and the other half were rural cantons, which were run by the peasants in popular assemblies. But yes, it was formed out of material interest, but in that way, the nationalism and common culture form out of collective self interest. A people, united against a foreign enemy, unite to protect their liberty. (Blood and soil nationalism is something else, though even that has a democratic history considering that many romantics were 1848 revolutionaries and the ideal of the Germanic volk is in part based on the ancient Germanic thing.) The ideals of confederation and Eidgenossenschaft are compatible or even reinforce this sort of civic nationalism. Initially, the Swiss were of different languages, but centuries of being in a confederation united them culturally, whilst maintain their cantonal identities. Honestly, I find the Swiss experiment to far more effective than the French. (Also, the idea of a common Swiss culture grew before the French rolled through. The confederation itself became a common culture for Swiss citizens of the cantons.)

Again, the same for the Dutch. Nationalism/patriotism is formed uniting against a foe just as much as common culture.

Again, I know that the American Revolution was to establish a confederation of colonies. In fact, I am all for the Articles of Confederation as opposed to the Constitution. However, you are ignoring that most Americans actually owned land during the revolution. Hence, my mention of yeoman farmers. The American Revolution, at the grassroots, was at first a war for independence, then a revolt by the yeomanry against the city merchants and plantation elites, which was cracked down by the Constitution. The same happened to the French sans culottes. There was a sort of patriotism amongst the revolutionaries, defined by republican values against British imperialism, as well as state identities. Confederation doesn't necessarily imply the lack of patriotism/nationalism.

And, that is most tragic. The same happened to the radical sans culottes, who had their aspirations for direct democracy crushed by the elites. Though, on another note, most of the land in the West was unsuited for slave plantations. So, Western expansion had little to do with slavery. Additionally, natives weren't exploited, they were removed and sent to reservations. (And they don't matter anyways since they numbered in the thousands compared to hundreds of thousands of settlers.)

And, NOW, you're believing the "propaganda". The French republicans legitimately believe that France's natural borders needed to be expanded. Additionally, they didn't want a universal republic. (At most, they wanted a "Europe of Nations", which is something that most "right-wing" nationalists want now a days.) Not to mention that the revolutionaries were the reason why French is not just spoken in Paris exclusively. This was all before Napoleon took power. The Directory, National Convention, and even the National Assembly were conquering land and fighting against all of Europe, to both establish new nation-states like the French and to expand France's borders. Hell, on that note, the Parisian Sans Culottes even wanted to form a classical-style republic in the sense of the Paris Commune ruling over the rest of France and only Sans Culottes having the right to vote.

And yet, he still got the votes and support of Parisian workers who were Communard revolutionaries. And yes, there was that divide. But guess what, rejecting nationalism led to Boulanger getting those votes. The demos wanted nationalism, worker's self-management, and direct democracy, but the intellectuals and politicians usually want only one or two of those things.

sdfgsdfg