White Nationalism: Continued debate from BBQ

[Liberal]

Sionnach

I apologize for David’s behavior. There have been times he has acted like a grown-up, honest. (Like when people agree with him, for example.)

Okay, so you don’t hate me. You don’t hate Jews. You don’t hate Blacks. Why, then, do you use words like “negro”? I’m not talking about political correctness here. I’m talking about civility and simple decent manners.

It’s not like you don’t know where you are. If I were at your place, I would avoid the term “redneck”, for example, since it might offend you or some of your friends and guests.

I do realize that it is impossible for you to answer all the posts, but there are two open questions that I have, and I hope that I’ve demonstrated that I at least deserve respect since I have extended respect to you.

Therefore, it would be fine for you to ignore the taunting posts. They stand for posterity as what they are: irrelevant. Instead, if you wouldn’t mind answering the honest questions, I would appreciate it very much.

Here are my two once more for your convenience:

(1) Why should we treat you as an individual among the White Nationalists when you are unwilling to treat others as individuals among the Jews?

Let me refresh your memory about what you said: “Why should I sit around and inspect every single individual tree instead of seeing what damage the entire forest causes?”

So, indeed, why should I sit around and inspect every single individual tree (including you) among the White Nationalists?

(2) Why does homosexuality being a deviation from the norm amount to a brain defect?

Once again, let me remind you of what you said. You answered: “Homosexuality is a sexual deviation,” in response to my noting that “The kindest thing anyone said there was that homosexuality is a genetic defect.” That was when you had attempted to provide a link to show that the White Nationalists were not the Borg, and that there were some people who had kind words for gays.

Frankly, “genetic defect” is not really what I meant when I said “kind”.

Nevertheless, if you have determined that deviation from the norm equates to a defect, then why aren’t you yourself defective? You are not average in every way, are you?

[tomndebb]

America itself wouldn’t be as big of a deal if Europe wasn’t being swamped with multiculturalism too.

This is simply silly. The multi-cultural U.S. steadily came to prominence throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (with enormous input from people of many races and cultures–although most non-white contributions were carefully not reported) while the carefully segregated European countries tore themselves to shreds in various wars. It has only been since WWII that Europe actually ended its constant warfare (and coincidentally began opening itself to more immigration) and now has begun to band together in a multicultural environment while the EU begins to challenge the U.S. economically.

As to

Something to do with making up the majority of the population and being responsible for developing most of the country has something to do with it.

As I noted earlier, it was a black who saved Southern agriculture. The idea that the whites were “responsible for developing most of the country” is simply an exercise in denial that so many other people made so many contributions.

[ruadh]

*Originally posted by jjimm *
**I live in a street in an impoverished area. I have to lock my doors. If I didn’t, I’d be robbed blind. I’ve been burgled 5 times in the last 7 years, and my car has been vandalised dozens of times (19 times in 12 months, for instance).

Thing is, my street is 100% white; the area I live in is almost 100% white; the city I live in is almost 100% white; the country I live in is almost 100% white.

It’s not race: it’s economic. **

Thank you for pointing this out, jjimm, I’d been thinking the same thing.

The worst neighbourhoods in this city - the Summerhills, Ballyboughs, many of the Dublin Corporation flats - are probably at least as frightening as any place Sionnach has visited. And I doubt the nonwhite population in those places is anything more than negligible, if that.

[Sionnach]

Sionnach, do you have any credible cites as to Zionists seeking to undermine our government? All I have seen is merely lobbying. Citizens banding together to petition the government to take an action. How is this any different than what countless other lobbies do?

Read the book I linked to as a start. It goes far beyond “mere lobbying”.

So what you are saying is that if in 30 years, the Chinese build up a powerful enough military that they can come in and conquer the United States, kill off a goodly portion of the population, and force the survivors to live in reservations, that it would be perfectly OK? In essence, this is a might makes right theory.

Moral rights and wrongs would have nothing to do with it. It’s just the way the world works.

Why are we running out of it? I wasn’t aware that there was a shortage of “living space”. This country has less population density than much of Europe.

There is plenty of “living space”. There is a shortage of living space where the leaders of the nation promote the interests of the native white citizens. In the future, there will be a shortage of living space in which a white person will not be a minority in their own country.

The fact is that not all immigration is of the illegal kind that comes in to take all of our menial jobs. Some of the immigrants that have arrived are people with college degrees who have come to fill technical jobs where there weren’t enought Americans to fill them. And a goodly portion of those immigrants were from India or East Asia.

This is bad for both white and non-white countries. In our countries, our jobs are lost. There is no real shortage of workers (unless someone wants to tell me that hundreds of thousands of layoffs in the tech sector don’t happen). Our education system SHOULD be teaching people skills needed to enter these job markets. Companies should be offering job training. But, I digress… I’m a bit tired.

For non-white countries, this is bad because they spend money to educate their people, then their people leave. How are non-white countries every going to improve if their people can just immigrate to our country as soon as they get enough money or education?.

You’e yet to answer qestions of why and how white culture is under attack.

Read Death of the West and look at trends and demographics. A culture is what it is because of the people that are in a certain area. Ponder the culture of Scotland. Import thousands of Somalis and breed out the Scots. Scottish culture disappears off the face of the earth besides in history books and artifacts. Take California. All whites move out and Mexicans move in. How much do you want to bet that the state becomes just a North Mexico, with almost no resemblance to what it used to be, but very much alike the current Mexico?

Flood all the European countries in this way. Non-whites breed out the natives, slowly change the cultural landscape, suddenly you get the third world in Europe.

Given that you’re not going to get it, what’s your back-up plan?

The fat lady hasn’t sung yet.

Okay, so you don’t hate me. You don’t hate Jews. You don’t hate Blacks. Why, then, do you use words like “negro”? I’m not talking about political correctness here. I’m talking about civility and simple decent manners.

I don’t hate you at all. I strongly dislike most Jews (besides Naturei Karta and Finkelstien types). I pity many blacks, are annoyed at most, and even like a few, such as Walter Williams. I don’t know what is wrong with the word “negro”. Even MLK used the word. It just means black. I think it would be more demeaning if I used one of the 70’s term for them, which was “Afro-Americans”. I think people need to get over the titles. They change every decade. Soon they’ll think it’s demeaning to call them “black”, if they don’t already.

It’s not like you don’t know where you are. If I were at your place, I would avoid the term “redneck”, for example, since it might offend you or some of your friends and guests.

Go ahead, but I assure you that if you were at my house, you would find it very hard to call me a redneck. Redneck is a slur for an American Southerner or Cowboy type.

So, indeed, why should I sit around and inspect every single individual tree (including you) among the White Nationalists?

You don’t. But you can at least read the FAQ and seriously read things by various WN or WN-related material to get the gist of what we’re about. You misrepresent us when you use the word “Supremacist”. The situation now is supremacist, not what WN’s want. Businessmen without an ounce of care for their own country or nation want to import non-whites to exploit for their labor. They don’t care about those non-whites. They don’t care about the “diversity”. They just want the labor. The current US government wants to dictate it’s way to the entire world. Isn’t that supremacy? I don’t want to bomb other countries into submission, and I don’t want to rule over non-whites and exploit them for labor. I want them to have their own sovereign nation free from the meddling of foreigners, too.

Even liberals want the entire world to conform to their morals. They want the world to be free of “racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.” They would like to use organizations like the UN and government pressure to make other countries conform to their standards. Isn’t that supremacist? I don’t want that. I want to leave other countries alone except for peaceful trade. What goes on inside their nation is their business unless they attack me.

Nevertheless, if you have determined that deviation from the norm equates to a defect, then why aren’t you yourself defective? You are not average in every way, are you?

There is nothing in the world more natural than the instinct for self-preservation and securing a future for your offspring. My views would have been boringly mainstream years ago. A few decades of liberalism changes a lot.

Anyway, good night.

[tomndebb]

They change every decade. Soon they’ll think it’s demeaning to call them “black”, if they don’t already.

Exaggerate much? The majority of blacks asked to be known as “black” in the 1960s (to correspond to “white”). A majority still use that term to identify themselves. (A significant minority have recently asked to be called “African American.”) That means that “black” has been in use for over 35 years–hardly a “change every decade.”

The word Negro is not, of itself, insulting. The insistence on using a word that they have asked be “retired” is clearly an effort to ignore their wishes and impose your own. That is insulting.

[Liberal]

Sionnach

I’m afraid you haven’t made a good case as to why you should be treated differently from the way you treat others. If it is your practice not to bother getting to know individuals, then you ought not to be surprised when you become the object of your own judgment system.

Likewise, you have not explained adequately why the deviations of other people indicate brain damage, while your own deviations do not.

Frankly, what you seem to be saying, when your irrelevant references to liberals and whatnot are discarded, is that you hold others to a standard that you do not apply to yourself.

I probably dislike liberalism as much as you do. (I think it is dangerous, in fact). But I don’t blame liberalism when I myself do something wrong.

[Sparc]

Good afternoon all,

A little scary thread this. I think that you’re all firing way over Sionnach’s head. You see Sionnach and IzzyR are arguing pretty much the same thing minus the conspiracy crap about Zionism and other such hogwash and idiocy. In other word; as far as I can judge Sionnach is nothing else than a reactionary conservative sprinkled with some Nazi delusions (Jewish world conspiracy, Bolshevism sprung out of Jewry, Lebensraum for the ‘White Race’ will grow scarce if we don’t fight back etc. etc.). While IzzR (being a rational and far more moderate gentleman) will understand to debate and even shift his opinions, since they are opinions, Sionnach will never do that in debate, hers are not opinion but lifestyle - a lifestyle of fear.

I think I know what I am talking about after spending about a year on the inside of the White Nationalist and Skinhead movement studying them back in the mid eighties. Much of the literature on the subject, including the studies I contributed to, confirm what I here say. First of all she is not a WN for rational reasons, it is all about fear and having the misfortune of growing up and being at the wrong place at the ‘right time’. More than anything it has to with whom she has ended up associating with as friends.

For instance; the majority of the Whie National or Skinhead girls disappear from the movement if their relationship to the guy that usually brought them into it ends. Almost all WN of both sexes become significantly more moderate and even ‘convert’ partially if removed from their circle of friends who help them perpetuate their illusion of an us and them reality. Nothing you say, no rational argument, no facts will hence change or influence her views since they are her only anchor in a reality that she has a very hard time to grasp and deal with.

In a way it is a social neurosis that she medicates by clinging to a fabricated culture that breaks reality down into simple, well-delimitated rules of engagement. They need to do this simply because of their inability to deal with feelings of loneliness and fear of alienation that many humans experience and most of us can deal with, but some fail miserably to, probably due to their unfortunate background and social environment.

All that being said Sionnach is very scary – it is her type of ‘rational WNs’ that help the movement retain the less psychotic elements and keeps them so close to being kosher that we must tolerate them, when in fact their doctrine is at its core an evil teaching of intolerance, violence and oppression that needs to be combated for the greater good of society and the security of the individual rights of every human being - no matter how many times Sionnach tries to whitewash it with her statements of purported tolerance within segregation.

Sionnach; you seem to be a rational woman with some thinking capacity, and although I know that nothing I say will be able to change you I can’t help but give you some advice. I would recommend you to seek out more company outside the WN movement. It will be hellfire and damnation in the beginning. Your friends will try to stop you - especially if one of them is your significant other. But I can tell you after following the development of some of your brothers and sisters, whom I got to know almost 20 years ago in Sweden, that those who didn’t manage to break the bond ended up very miserable indeed, while those that broke out are today much happier, safer and prosperous than they ever dreamt they could be. Your chances to prosperity and happiness are much greater if you can break of the shackles that your circle of friends is inflicting on you, simply for the reason that the world doesn’t work the way you guys think it does – hence you are in constant opposition and struggle for values that you can never attain, since they do not exist.

Respectfully

Sparc

[minty_green]

Sionnach: Everyone thinks it’s perfectly natural for people in Japan to think that Japan should be a Japanese country ruled by the Japanese people for the Japanese people.

Me: Bullshit. I don’t think that at all. I hate exclusion and racism wherever it is.

Sionnach: Who the hell are you to tell the Japanese how to run their country?

Me again: Try to stay on subject, sweetie. I know that’s hard because you’re busy ignoring every post that falsifies your assumptions, but you just got told that, in fact, not everybody thinks like you said they do. Your response to that revelation is simply a non sequitur.

And oh yeah, by your own stunning logic . . . who the hell are you to tell Americans how to run their country? You’re welcome to this one, Canada.

[IzzyR]

*Originally posted by Sionnach *

As for Sionnach, you’ve left some matters hanging.

Repeat what “matters” you want clarified.

See my post of 10/20 8:22 EST (near the bottom of page 2).

*Originally posted by Sparc *
You see Sionnach and IzzyR are arguing pretty much the same thing minus the conspiracy crap about Zionism and other such hogwash and idiocy.

I beg to differ here. Beyond the fact that the differences with regards to the “hogwash and idiocy” are rather significant, I believe the differences with regards to other areas are fundamental. Which are, whether you are fighting to preserve a pure “White” culture free of the influence of those who have been defined as non-White, or whether you accept the influence and intermingling of other cultures but are concerned about the possible development of two separate and distinct cultures within the same country. It would seem to me that there is widespread agreement that the latter possibility is not a positive one, and disagreements are rather about the likelihood of this happening as a result of current policy and attitudes.

[minty_green]

By the way:

Third world is places like Africa, the East Indies and central/south America that resemble a cesspool.

Russia and Eastern Europe were destroyed by communism. It will take a while for them to get back on track, but I think they can do it.

I can tell you from personal experience that Russia is a cesspool. And of course, communism was a European invention. (Yeah, yeah, I know, you think the Jews were behind communism. That’s a whole other thread, I’m afraid.) But anyway, the point is that, like the other terms I’ve asked you to define in this thread, all this one boils down to is “places Sionnach doesn’t like.” Third world has always been a term based on economic criteria, not a racial criteria. Nice job trying to co-opt the language to disguise your agenda, though.

[Halogen]

Seems to me like StraightDopers just endlessly demand definition after definition in an effort to trip someone up with an inconsistency. Once this is accomplished, the StraightDoper proudly concludes that he was right all along. E.g. mintygreen and Libertarian.

As far as the “you don’t treat others as individuals so why should we treat you as an individual” juvenile silliness, I would add this on behalf of Sionnach and other WNs: we don’t want anything from you except intellectual honesty. Until you honestly analyze the facts on both sides, you will not be prepared to make responsible decisions about racial policy.

[jjimm]

How do, though, WNs who relate race to things like high crime explain all-white countries like Ireland with exactly the same problems, but only white people to blame?

[robertliguori]

I would posit that knowing someone’s religious preference, ethnicity, and sexual preference tells you only a bit about their family background, geographic area of origin, and, um, who they are sexually attracted to. Drawing conclusions about someone based on these factors is silly. There are too many variations in the pools of Jewish people, black people, gay people, etc.
The same courtesy should be applied to the WNers. Just as we know that due to his frequent postings in ATGG1-4, Esprix is sexually attracted to men, we know that you and yours believe a series of easily proven false, foolish, hurtful statements. That’s enough for me.

[Sparc]

IzzyR
beg to differ here. Beyond the fact that the differences with regards to the “hogwash and idiocy” are rather significant, I believe the differences with regards to other areas are fundamental.

I was in fact attempting to show in what way Sionnach’s weltanschauung is skewed and offensive in significant ways but still supports the same non offensive basic values as Izzy’s (although I disgree with them even in the non-offensive falvor).

IzzzyR contd.

Which are, whether you are fighting to preserve a pure “White” culture free of the influence of those who have been defined as non-White, or whether you accept the influence and intermingling of other cultures but are concerned about the possible development of two separate and distinct cultures within the same country.

Hairsplitting! Just different choices of the definition on what culture is. One focuses on skin color and perceived ethnicity, the other focuses on other perceived values. In fact the cultural diversity of most countries is so diverse that speaking of ‘one culture’ is pretty useless. Take a farming family from rural Oregon that has been living on existential minimum for a few generations and invite them to cocktails and dinner at Mr. and Ms. Liberalbrodwayproducerandlawyer in the Hamptons. Same culture? Or how about Izzy in a street-ball game in Crenshaw or east LA? Would you even understand what they were talking about – sure you’ll get the words, they’d be mostly English, but as for the content?

IzzyR contd.

It would seem to me that there is widespread agreement that the latter possibility [two distinct cultures in one country] is not a positive one, and disagreements are rather about the likelihood of this happening as a result of current policy and attitudes.

Hardly. First off it is not a widespread agreement, rather the other way around. The more current view on all sides except in reactionary circles and some ultra radical groups is that diversity is an absolute must for effectively evolving and competing in the modern world. For reasons outlined in my previous paragraph I makes no sense to try and cut this into ‘distinct cultures’. Cultural differences run deep and resist transformation. Hence even when language and basic moral/ethical values of society are shared, other cultural differences will remain. Maybe you mean that linguistic and moral/ethical unity as a necessity for stability is in wide agreement? I’d agree as for the last part while I think that demanding language homogeneity is just a cosmetic issue that satisfies your needs to live with the illusion that you live in a distinct culture.

The practical sides of lingual homogeneity are increasingly obsolete due to technological and social development. It might be an issue for individual well being amongst immigrants on the other hand. I look to my own family (scattered across four continents) and see that my parent’s generation suffer emotionally and socially from being somewhat disconnected to the linguistic cultures they live in while me, my brother and my cousins have it a lot easier since we have native or near-native fluency in the various languages we need to use in order to achieve flexible social interaction. That being said there are some issues if you need to interact with the law or fiscal authorities for instance, a whole lot of that has to do with education in the legal and fiscal system you live in though, which brings me back to the point that it is basic moral/ethical unity we need to promote rather than curtail or force through homogeneity on cultural/linguistic levels.

In the end as I said, whether you believe in protecting “national culture” based on perceived existence of such or “white culture” based on perceived existence of real races the argument remains the same, and is flawed in similar ways.

Sparc

[minty_green]

*Originally posted by Halogen *
Seems to me like StraightDopers just endlessly demand definition after definition in an effort to trip someone up with an inconsistency.

When somebody spouts off a bunch of undefined words and phrases and declares they prove her case, it is more than reasonable to ask that person to define those words and phrases. It is a simple method for determining the basis for the speaker’s beliefs. Sionnach, by and large, has been unwilling or unable to provide adequate definitions of her key terms. I am thus far from convinced that there is any merit whatsoever to her case–merely a bunch of hollow words and phrases likely intended to obscure a bankrupt philosophy.

And consistency, my dear lamp bulb, is the hallmark of rational thinking. Try it sometime, see where it takes you.

Until you honestly analyze the facts on both sides, you will not be prepared to make responsible decisions about racial policy.

Sorry, I thought that was exactly what we were doing with the limited “facts” presented in this thread. We have repeatedly demonstrated that the facts are incomplete, irrelevant, or simply do not support the assertion for which they are offered. (Have you managed yet to find a cite on the Carr brothers that actually proves your claim that their victims were targeted because they were white, Sionnach? No?)

When a poster’s asserted facts are rebutted, it is encumbent upon that poster to either show why the rebuttal is false or to provide additional authority that the proposition is in fact true. Sionnach has done nothing resembling that. She has chosen to ignore nearly every one of our rebuttals and instead move on to different claims (most of which are not even supported with any authority at all for the last page or two).

On the whole, I’m not impressed.

[Sparc]

Halogen

on behalf of Sionnach and other WNs: we don’t want anything from you except intellectual honesty. Until you honestly analyze the facts on both sides, you will not be prepared to make responsible decisions about racial policy.

Which is disingenuous to say the least. You’ve stumbled on a crowd of people that celebrate cold facts and rational analysis even to the point of being able to freely admit when they step out of that into their belief world with some frequency. You (Halogen and Sionnach et al.) on the other hand will never admit that a large portion of what you pass off as fact is actually nothing other than emotional beliefs based on religious-like, almost mysterious fundaments. As long as that is your shtick you wont be able to play along very well on this board.

Sparc

[Liberal]

Halogen wrote:

Seems to me like StraightDopers just endlessly demand definition after definition in an effort to trip someone up with an inconsistency. Once this is accomplished, the StraightDoper proudly concludes that he was right all along. E.g. mintygreen and Libertarian.

The only thing I asked her to define (way back in the Pit) was “jewspeak”. She still hasn’t.

I asked her to explain why she applies her standards to others and not herself. She said she didn’t want to bother examining every Jew separately, and yet she wants herself examined separately from the other White Nationalists.

I also asked her to explain why behavior that deviates from the norm indicates genetic defects in homosexuals, but her own behavior that deviates from the norm does not.

[IzzyR]

*Originally posted by Sparc *
Hairsplitting! Just different choices of the definition on what culture is. One focuses on skin color and perceived ethnicity, the other focuses on other perceived values.

In the end as I said, whether you believe in protecting “national culture” based on perceived existence of such or “white culture” based on perceived existence of real races the argument remains the same, and is flawed in similar ways.

Not at all. One focuses on keeping things as they are (or, more accurately, as you believe they should be) free of outside influences, and the other allows for the for change and the influence of others, but focuses on ultimately coming to some sort of common ground.

In fact the cultural diversity of most countries is so diverse that speaking of ‘one culture’ is pretty useless. Take a farming family from rural Oregon that has been living on existential minimum for a few generations and invite them to cocktails and dinner at Mr. and Ms. Liberalbrodwayproducerandlawyer in the Hamptons. Same culture? Or how about Izzy in a street-ball game in Crenshaw or east LA? Would you even understand what they were talking about – sure you’ll get the words, they’d be mostly English, but as for the content?

Hardly. First off it is not a widespread agreement, rather the other way around. The more current view on all sides except in reactionary circles and some ultra radical groups is that diversity is an absolute must for effectively evolving and competing in the modern world. For reasons outlined in my previous paragraph I makes no sense to try and cut this into ‘distinct cultures’. Cultural differences run deep and resist transformation. Hence even when language and basic moral/ethical values of society are shared, other cultural differences will remain.

I wouldn’t say everyone has to be exactly the same. But I would say that everyone has to be similar enough, and to interact enough, so as to regard themselves as one people with the other group. If you have a country where there are all sorts of individuals doing their own thing, that’s great. If you have a country sharply divided into Group A and Group B, that’s not great.

Maybe you mean that linguistic and moral/ethical unity as a necessity for stability is in wide agreement? I’d agree as for the last part while I think that demanding language homogeneity is just a cosmetic issue that satisfies your needs to live with the illusion that you live in a distinct culture.

The practical sides of lingual homogeneity are increasingly obsolete due to technological and social development.

I would say that the language issue is of special significance because if you speak a common language you can interact with one another, both individually and in group form through a common media. By speaking different languages you are cut apart, which will inevitably increase the feeling that members of the other group are “Them” and not “Us”. Which is the problem.

[Sparc]

[quote]
IzzyR

Not at all. One focuses on keeping things as they are (or, more accurately, as you believe they should be) free of outside influences, and the other allows for the for change and the influence of others, but focuses on ultimately coming to some sort of common ground.

[quote]
Color me the culturally confused stateless white skinned stupid, but despite this socially successful guy if you like, but I fail to see the significant difference. Especially when you later say:

But I would say that everyone has to be similar enough, and to interact enough, so as to regard themselves as one people with the other group.

I’ll repeat my statement that the White Nationalist view is offensive, dangerous and stupid while yours is neither of those, it’s just wrong. This is why:

If you have a country sharply divided into Group A and Group B, that’s not great.

This presumes that the country/nation/entity/union you are talking about could ever be effectively described as being A or B. In fact it is, when properly scrutinized from a socio-cultural perspective, clear that any larger population will fall into such a wide array of cultural divisions that it is more proper to say that the culture could arguably be divided into distinct cultures A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, A1, B1, C1, etc, etc. Therefore it is a moot point to fear that a division will arise along a bipolar level, the multitude of cultures that exist between 285 or 400 million people forbids this through the sheer numbers and the fact that cultural identity is much more transformation resistant than we usually think. Further I think you’re having the same problem with this as with the “Biological Race or Not” debate, you’re failing to see that when you get real close to the perceived divisions it isn’t a set of distinct letters anymore, the borders between different cultures are so vague and hazy that they often enough defy clear divisions, and yet they are on an obvious level observably different.

Cultural unity is apparent only and mostly due to shared cosmetics such as language (still a heavy part of culture I’ll grant, but in no means the most important). Real unity is by shared values that transcend culture. That is the brilliance of the constructs that are today the US and the EU; the fundamental declarations of unity that can be adopted across wide variety of cultural value and identity because they are in many ways universal. I would posit that this very fact is what enabled the success of America through allowing diversity while promoting unity in the past century and it is what is holding Europe together this very day despite a huge lack of cosmetics that unify the thousands of cultures that thrive in 15 country states in one union.

I would say that the language issue is of special significance because if you speak a common language you can interact with one another, both individually and in group form through a common media. By speaking different languages you are cut apart, which will inevitably increase the feeling that members of the other group are “Them” and not “Us”. Which is the problem.

It’s a whole other thread Izzy, but I think you are underestimating the technological capacity we have to amend linguistic differences, overestimating the feeling of unity that a monolingual society promotes, forgetting that promoting multilingualism is an alternative solution and completely ignoring the global segregation distinct national languages entails. That being said I do see the socio psychological downsides of being linguistically isolated on an individual level. I have, as said, witnessed that up close and experienced it myself… it’s nasty - on the other hand there are as I just stated other solutions than enforcing one language across a nation.

Sparc

[Sparc]

For the sake of clarity here is the first part of my previous post with the correct code:

IzzyR

Not at all. One focuses on keeping things as they are (or, more accurately, as you believe they should be) free of outside influences, and the other allows for the for change and the influence of others, but focuses on ultimately coming to some sort of common ground.

Color me the culturally confused stateless white skinned stupid, but despite this socially successful guy if you like, but I fail to see the significant difference. Especially when you later say:

But I would say that everyone has to be similar enough, and to interact enough, so as to regard themselves as one people with the other group.

the rest as previously posted.