Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old November 21st, 2013 #21
Mr Murray
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,284
Mr Murray
Default

^^^^^

I have noted that you changed your original overly simplistic comment Henry.

LOL.
 
Old November 21st, 2013 #22
Henry.
Senior Member
 
Henry.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,351
Henry.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Murray View Post
^^^^^

I have noted that you changed your original overly simplistic comment Henry.

LOL.
Actually I'm having a lot of trouble using quotes (that's why Gordon Green's details are missing) formatting and editing. Sometimes it's ok then it goes tits up. I have mentioned it to Bev on open forum a few times....Don't tell me an astute lad like yourself hasn't noticed.

I tried to edit the original but it disappeared. The thread I started on the UK thread also had to be deleted and re-done as it was impossible to edit.

I suspect it's a browser issue.
 
Old November 21st, 2013 #23
Henry.
Senior Member
 
Henry.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,351
Henry.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Murray View Post
^^^^^

I have noted that you changed your original overly simplistic comment Henry.

LOL.
Here you go. Here's the post as far as I can recall.
Quote:
International trade has mainly been based on barter
Just a passing comment like six million others on VNN and certainly not meant as an exposition, 'overly simplistic' or otherwise.

Now have another LOL...I know it makes you happy.
 
Old November 25th, 2013 #24
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[this is the heart of what i wanted to post/discuss, pp 90-129; a very nice contrast of nationalism and internationalism.]

CHAPTER III

INTERNATIONALISM AND THE MAXIMUM GOOD

Discussions of good and evil presuppose a desire to secure in every case the greater good. It would be absurd to discuss a problem in order to devise means to secure the greater evil. Certainly one who should do this would be regarded as a moral degenerate. Hence has arisen the ethical postulate or moral axiom that the moral individual must always wish the greater good. As a corollary it follows that the maximum good must be the desire of the moral individual. There is little said i this axiom regarding the distribution of the good. Since, however, we are to wish always the greater good, it follows that we cannot prefer our lesser good to the greater good of others. This deduction is usually made and is clearly and unhesitatingly stated by many moralists.

This moral axiom, as pointed out above, lacks the obviousness that is supposed to be characteristic of axioms. It is not apparent that I should wish the lesser good of my friends in order that the stranger may have a greater good. Nor is it obvious that we should prefer the maximum good if it is to be possessed by a very few, granting this to be possible, at the expense of the many. As a matter of fact, moralists insist that there must be a wide distribution. They do this for two reasons. In the first place, they hold that a narrow distribution would be unjust, no matter how great the total amount. In the second place, they realize that a wide distribution is necessary to realize the greatest possible amount.

The feeling that it would be unjust to secure the maximum good of mankind by allowing a comparatively small number to possess it is not well-founded. if we should always wish the greater good, we should not cease desiring it merely because we find a limited distribution necessary to secure it. Our ideas of justice should follow this discovery; for practices and social adjustments should be considered just in the degree that they make for the maximum good. Obviously, then, there is no reason to regard a limited distribution as unjust if the greater good of man can be secured by such a distribution.

The second objection, however, to a very limited distribution is more valid. It is rightly held that the maximum good of mankind can be secured only when there is a wide distribution. Our knowledge of the nature of man convinces us of this. The capacity of a human being for any good is strictly limited. An enumeration of goods will show this clearly. When we speak of securing the maximum good of mankind, we have in mind the securing in as large amounts and in as perfect a form as possible such things or states as health, wealth, strength, love friendship, loyalty, appreciation of beauty, music, poetry, art, philosophy, mental vigor of all kinds, artistic and creative fruitfulness, well-developed personalities, pleasure, joy, and happiness. The capacity for the possession of any of these is clearly limited. Even the possession of wealth may be regarded as limited to the amount which can be used. More clearly are our capacities to receive the other goods, or to develop them limited. A man's personal relationships, mastery and appreciation of literature and art, as well as his traits of character, are strictly limited. Man is in every respect a finite being. We cannot hope to secure the maximum good mankind is capable of by a narrow distribution.

The recognition of this truth, however, often leads to an extreme position. Since the good any man can possess is very limited, and since the amount of good naturally increases as the number of the possessors of the good increase, it is held that the way to secure the maximum good of mankind is to develop fully the capacities of every man for good. Logically this is perfectly sound. It is apparent that if the capacities for good of all are fully developed, the amount of good will be greater than if only some are so developed. Hence arises the ideal of complete development for every one. The difficulties involved in the realization of this ideal are little considered. The fact that the maximum good of mankind will be served by every one enjoying good to the limit does not make this possible. in fact, a number of the goods listed seem to be incompatible with a universal extension. Leisure, opportunity for development, artistic appreciation, and creative fruitfulness, for instance, seem possible for some because others are deprived of them. In order to secure many of the goods we prize, some form of exploitation seems necessary. If this is true, it follows that instead of holding the ideal of maximum development for all, we should hold the ideal of securing the greatest amount of good possible for society as a whole. We must recognize that it is not possible for all to reach their full development, or to enjoy all the good they are capable of. This would not be possible with limitless wealth available. The full development of some means the sacrifice of the full development of others. There are large numbers of dull, stupid folks, who can develop hardly at all unless the development and capacity for enjoying the goods of life, is thwarted. Nor can we expect the goods of a rich and complex society without differences in social functions. This diversification will of necessity favor some at the expense of others. It may be unfortunate that discrimination of this sort is necessary. But without it, it is hard to see how the full development of any one can be effected. It may be possible to abolish it. Yet if we do, we may be sure that many of the goods, which at present make life full and satisfying, will be destroyed. And so it may result that in our efforts to bring about the full development of all, we make impossible the full development of any one.

Our optimism and current idealism prevent us from viewing social problems in this way. We are too convinced of the possibility of securing the full development of every one to think of making a selection of those who are to enter fully into the goods which society offers. We are confirmed in this attitude by the observation that in highly developed cultural centres the general level of intelligence, artistic appreciation, and creative fruitfulness is considerably raised. From this we infer that if every one could be interested in art, philosophy, and science, the creativeness of every one would be increased. Thus we reach the conclusion that the capacities of every one must be developed to the limit. In order to accomplish this, we set intelligent men and women, who are capable of full and rich lives, to the task of developing to the limit the capacities of the feeble-minded and others to whom life at its best can mean but little. We little realize that our blind resolution to the ideal of maximum development for all causes us to penalize the superior in order to help those not so well qualified to secure the good. If we are really anxious to secure the maximum good of man, rather than be true to certain of our pet ideals, we must recognize individual differences and stop penalizing the fit and capable in order to help the unfit. We must recognize that some individuals can receive the good much more easily than others. Above all, we must realize that many of the goods, as we conceive them, are possible only in a highly complex and diversified society, and that in such a society there must be favored and unfavored members. It should be our task to make conditions such that the ones shall be favored who seem best able to profit from the favor. It is in this way that we can hope to bring about a general uplife of society and the maximum good. These cannot be secured by favoring the inferior, no matter how much this course may be dictated by an uncritical idealism and sentimentalism.

Last edited by Alex Linder; November 25th, 2013 at 05:28 PM.
 
Old November 25th, 2013 #25
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[ch 3 cont'd]

The foregoing criticism of the ideal of maximum development for all has reference tot his ideal when applied to the members of any particular group. It is equally applicable, however, to the assumption that the maximum good of man demands the full development of each race and nation. Certainly we know as a matter of mathematics that if each race were to develop its capacities for good to the limit, the sum of good would be greater than it would be should a race fail to do this. But is it possible that all races can do this? Is it not likely that the full development of some is possible only at the expense of others? Certainly we cannot uncritically assume that the way to secure the maximum good of mankind is to attempt to develop to the limit the capacities of each race and nation. This may or may not be true. On the race of it, it is reasonable to hold that it is not true. Just as the maximum good of the group is possible only when there are favored and unfavored members, it seems likely that the maximum good of thew world is possible only when there are favored and unfavored races and nations. This would probably be true if all men were equal. Social needs are such that all men cannot be given a good life. Individual and race differences seem well designed to answer social needs. The maximum good of mankind as a whole may quite possibly be served by using certain races and groups of men as a means to support the rich and complex cultures of other races or groups.

Suggestions of this sort are violently opposed by the internationalist. Internationalism is opposed to all forms of exploitation of the weak by the strong. It is opposed to all restrictions on peoples based on race or nation. This opposition is based on a lofty conception of the inviolability of human rights. No man should be used a means. No man should hinder in any way the full development of another.

This, however, is often done, with a show of moral elation, when the full development of the capable is prevented by the sacrifices demanded of them in caring for the weak. Try as we may, the development of some must be sacrificed. This necessity lies int he nature of man and society. The opposition to the exploitation of others in an economic way is sometimes given a practical or selfish justification. it is often pointed out that the good of all is served by those things which make for the good off any individual. Hence, in order to secure the maximum amount of economic good of the world, it is held, there must be no exploitation of the weak. All must be helped to become as productive as possible. In this way the wealth of the world will increase, and as a result there will be more wealth for each nation and individual.

One aspect of these considerations has already been considered. It has been pointed out that we have no reason to believe that our wealth will increase because the wealth of thew world increases. This, however, does not greatly concern the thoroughgoing internationalist. What if our wealth does not increase? Will not the wealth of the world increase when the ideals of internationalism have done away with all artificial barriers to trade and commerce? Considered from the point of view of pure economics, with the psychological factors left out, this is a strong argument. But economists no longer attempt to separate their subject from psychology. Before one can say that an application of the ideals of internationalism will increase the wealth of the world, he must make a careful investigation of the influence of nationalism and group loyalty on productivity. There are many reasons for believing that nations serve as centres of creativeness and productivity in literature, science, philosophy, and the arts. Is it not possible that they serve also as centres for the production of wealth? Does not a comparison of the wealth of Europe with that of the rest of the world seem to indicate that nationalism is an incentive to the production of wealth? Can we be sure that with the decay of nationalism the industrial efficiency of the Western world will be maintained? Can we be sure that the same incentives for production will be present? Can we be sure that supply of energy necessary for productivity will remain constant?

These questions will be answered indirectly in the discussion of the effect of internationalism on character. For, after all, productivity is in a great measure dependent on character. A discussion of the effect of internationalism on the formation of character will also enable us to determine whether it can rightly invoke to its support the inviolability of personality. For if it can be shown that the ideals of internationalism do not favor the development of character of the type we admire, they cannot be justified on the ground that they safeguard the inviolability of the rights of the individual. We can be pardoned for wishing less inviolability and more character of a creative and high type. What, then, is the effect of internationalism on the development of character? What the effect of nationalism and strong race consciousness?

Internationalism stands for brotherly love between all peoples. It aims to break down group consciousness based on nation and race. All men are children of God, and they should live together in peace, love, and mutual understanding. This ideal has powerfully gripped the imagination of man, and is almost universally regarded as an ideal, which, if realized, would make for a higher type of character and personality than we now have. But is this expectancy well founded? If so, the case of internationalism is won; for of all goods, character of a high type is the best man is capable of attaining. Whether internationalism favors the development of character of a high type can best be determined from a consideration of the traits of character we admire, and the conditions most favorable for the production of these traits.

A character of a high type must possess a considerable degree of confidence, assurance, ambition, and sympathy. Such a character must also possess a keen appreciation of his personal worth and highly developed feelings of individuality. These traits are essential. Without confidence, ambition, and assurance a person cannot make the adjustments or undertake the creative projects we commonly idealize and associate with a highly developed personality. Without sympathy one cannot get the insights, appreciations, and strength that come from social contacts. Without these the richness of personality would suffer immeasurably. Without feelings of personal worth and of individuality one is deprived of a great source of strength, power, and ambition, and life loses much of its tang. Indeed, it is not too much to say that these feelings provide the very core of personality. If they were removed, much of the significance and joy of life would be destroyed.

By pointing out the essential elements in a character of a high type, we have made it possible to examine the influence of internationalism on the development of character in the light of dynamic psychology. Our problems may now be stated as follows:

Will internationalism tend to increase the confidence, ambition, and assurance of men deficient in these traits? Will it tend to increase the strength of the sympathetic drives in man and the sensitiveness of man for man? Will it be conducive to the development of the feelings of individuality? We have here a number of questions on which psychology can turn much light.

Let us consider the first question. Our answer must be based on our knowledge of the means which serve to increase the ambition, confidence, and assurance of a person lacking in self-assertion. A great many men of genuine ability are unsuccessful because in them these traits are weak. Because they lack these traits, they are unable to become the creative personalities and leaders they are capable of. What are the methods by which this defect in their character may be remedied?

We have been told frequently enough that man is a gregarious animal. Yet the significance of this statement is seldom fully realized. It is commonly taken to mean that man likes to live with his fellows in crowds, just as cattle like to live in herds. It is understood that the great influence of the crowd over the individual is possible on account of the gregariousness of man. The dependence of man on his group for intellectual vigor and for the complexity of his mental life is recognized at times. Yet the contributions of psychic energy and force, the contributions made by the group to the ambition, assurance, and courage of its members are not so frequently appreciated. Indeed, we are often inclined to think that the role of gregariousness is exhausted when we say that a man acts bravely in a crowd because he fears the ridicule of his fellows. Yet this explanation is only partly true. This is a negative aspect of the influence of the group. It says merely that man is prevented from acting as a coward by the presence of his fellows. It says nothing regarding the stores of power and courage which are often created by group contacts. Gregariousness is not so much a trait in man which makes him let loose certain forces, or restrain others, when in contact with his fellows, as it is that trait in virtue of which new forces and a new courage are born when men are united in a common purpose, or when they feel the strength and influence of the group supporting them.

It is because man possesses this trait that it is possible for him to draw new stores of energy and assurance from without. It is in virtue of this capacity that the man in the mob, the soldier who fights for his colors and his country, and the religious devotee are filled with a power that cannot be regarded as wholly their own. In less heroic ways we find the same true among college men, when they are filled with college spirit. This is also true of the timid man who acquires confidence and assurance from his absolute faith in the corporation for which he works.

Last edited by Alex Linder; November 25th, 2013 at 06:15 PM.
 
Old November 25th, 2013 #26
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[ch 3 cont'd]

Courage, ambition, power and strength are under certain conditions received from without. These come when the individual is in sympathetic contact with his fellows. This may involved physical contact or contacts through common purposes, ideals, or faith. Thus the members of a crowd, animated by a common purpose, seem lifted up and ennobled by a power that is not purely their own. At such moments the narrow and selfish feel a broadening of their ego; their interests are expanded to include that of the group; often at such times they are induced to make real sacrifices for the group. At such moments cowards may act heroically. At such moments each one feels a new confidence and assurance. As a result, the timid individual acts more positively and forcefully than is his custom. To account for this new accession of strength and power, we are led to assume the breaking down of the narrow ego and its blending with that of the group as a whole. As a result, the power and force of the group take their abode within the members of the crowd to inspire and ennoble. The expanded ego acts as if the power of the group were within it, as in a sense it is; for the individual so expanded feels new forces hitherto unknown, which enable him to overcome obstacles that would have been insurmountable otherwise.

The presence of others is not necessary in order to receive from without new power and courage. The well disciplined soldier does this, even though his comrades are not present. the habits of discipline, the ideals and honor of the company, the sanctity of group loyalty, and confidence in his comrades are sufficient to make heroes out of timid men. The colors are sufficient to make one act as if they imparted something of the power and strength of the regiment to the individual soldier. The colors thus take the place of the actual presence of one's comrades. The same process is probably involved when the worshipper of an idol finds that contemplation and reverence directed towards a wooden image fill him with comfort, new hope, and courage.

Examples of how new supplies of confidence, ambition, and assurance may be won by identifying oneself with a larger group could be multiplied indefinitely. We have before our eyes constantly illustrations of the effect on this behavior. We find it in the world of business and commerce. The man deficient in self-assertion and assurance identifies himself with his corporation, in which he has utmost faith. As a result, in dealing with outsiders he gets an assurance and confidence which not only enable him to overcome his own timidity but to present his views with an earnestness and assurance that carry conviction.

We see the same in college life. To what extent are the interclass jealousies responsible for the class spirit that fills the members of the various classes with something of the heroic, as they carry on their class struggles? To what extent can the usual victory of the sophomores over the freshmen be so regarded? When the college student has had time to get the college spirit and the class spirit, he acts not as an individual but as a member of a class with the class feelings, prejudices, and strength. Or if we take the intercollegiate activities we find that the individual is even less dependent on his own strength. He acts as a representative and defender of the honor of his college. With such ideals and responsibilities come new power and courage, which make a player, inclined to be timorous, throw himself into the game with an abandon that proves irresistible.

Whenever, then, we get the individual to identify himself with his group, or with an ideal, we find that his confidence and assurance are increased. his ambition also becomes greater. he no longer measures his attempts in the light of his own narrow abilities and powers, but by the power and courage he is able to receive from without. He is thus led to creative enterprises that would otherwise have been beyond his dreams. This influence is often seen in the lives of men who belong to families of which they are proud. It should not be regarded as an attempt to minimize the value of heredity to point out that one of the powerful factors making for a large number of superior members of a given family is family pride and consciousness. The individual who feels himself a member of a superior or noble family has a source of energy and ambition not available to the man who possesses no such feelings. The behavior of the former is not regulated wholly by feelings of personal worth founded on innate superiority. It is in a great part regulated by the acknowledged worth and ability of his family. He feels that it is the duty of each member to live up to the family standard and to maintain the family honor. Thus an ambition and assurance are created which make possible achievements felt to be in keeping with one's estimate of his family's worth.

With nations and races it is the same. Take Greece at her zenith. To be a Greek meant something. The young Greek did not gauge his ambition by his degree of personal self-confidence and assurance. It was Greek and barbarian. The young Greek felt that because he was a Greek he was superior. As a result of this feeling and his strong race consciousness, he undertook and carried to completion feats that would have been beyond his ambition otherwise. And so it was with the Romans. The youth of conquering Rome felt they were made of different stuff from the rest of mankind. As they subjected the world, they had no misgivings regarding their right to conquer and to rule. They felt themselves to be a race of superior men, and they acted as superior men. When, however, the Greeks and Romans lost their group consciousness, when their sympathies became so broad that all men were regarded as belonging to one brotherhood, the glory and grandeur of these peoples suffered a steady decline.

It may be maintained, with a good deal of weight, that these people were superior in virtue of certain innate traits, and that their decline was due to the killing or dying off of the superior. There is little room to doubt that there is a large measure of truth in this. Yet it should likewise be emphasized that the effect of an innate superiority must have been greatly enhanced by a strong race consciousness and pride. Innate superiority combined with race pride, race consciousness, and race loyalty resulted in the artistic fruitfulness of one and the world domination of the other.

The same factors are largely responsible for the position of the white races today. Possessing certain innate superiorities,* we have, owing to our successes, developed a strong race pride and consciousness, which have accentuated our innate superiorities. As a result we have been able to lead the world in science, art, industry and politics. The consciousness of superiority that gave the Roman the courage to dominate the world has been a powerful factor in the success of our conquests. Feelings of the same sort are beginning to stir the Turanian world. A knowledge recently acquired from Europe of their rather remarkable political and military history is arousing in these peoples the ambition to repeat the glories of their ancestors. When the Mongol, Turk, Magyar, and Turkoman realize their kinship and the past glories of their race there will undoubtedly be born a new spiritual force which may restore something of their ancient glory. Knowledge of the same sort is a powerful factor in the nationalistic movement in India. The discovery of the Vedas, knowledge of the ancient glory of India, and the appreciation of Indian wisdom and occultism by the outside world have had a great influence in breaking down the indifference of the Indians and arousing them to hostility toward British rule.

* For discussion of these, see below.

The influence of knowledge of the achievements of one's ancestors in keeping alive race consciousness and pride, and the power of these to affect seriously the behavior of groups finds an excellent illustration in the history of the rise of nationalism among the Bohemians. According to Gooch,* the study of the history of Bohemia, made possible by the liberal policies of Joseph II of Austria, created in the Bohemians a revival of national feeling. Palacky, convinced that the apathy of the Bohemians was due in part to ignorance of their history, set about in 1828 to correct this defect. In 1836 he idealized the culture of the Czechs in The History of the Bohemian People. Gooch writes as follows regarding the effect of this history: "The volumes of the heroic era of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, with the resplendent figure of Hus in the foreground, burst on his countrymen like a revelation, and aroused corresponding resentment in Vienna." "His work was not only a landmark in scholarship but a political event, a trumpet call to an oppressed nationality to raise its head and prove itself worthy of its illustrious past." His work, with the efforts of other scholars, was able to arouse the Bohemians and rekindle the fires of nationalism. As a result there was created a new assertiveness and determination to regulate to a greater extent their affairs.

* Gooch, G. P., Nationalism, 31 ff.

Thus we see, then, that in all of man's activities, his supply of strength, courage, ambition, self-assertion, and assurance can be increased by getting him to identify himself with his group through strong group consciousness and pride. There can be no doubt regarding group consciousness and pride as sources of energy. The internationalist would probably agree with this, but he might urge that instead of identifying oneself with a restricted group, determined by race and culture, one should identify himself with mankind as a whole. If men get new supplies of strength by identifying themselves with a narrow group, could they not get a greater supply of energy by identifying themselves with all men? The history of man is more wonderful than that of any race. Why, then, may men not be taught to act as men, rather than as white men, yellow men, or black men? Why can they not draw from the feeling that they are men the stores of energy they seem able to draw when they identify themselves with one of the groups of mankind? Certainly very profound and powerful emotions can be aroused by appeals of this sort. The pleas of humanity, brotherly love, the desire to live as men, no matter what the cost, deeply move us and exert a profound influence.

We cannot question the power of appeals to humanity to awaken a high-mindedness and a nobility of purpose that are commendable. It is doubtful, however, if such appeals can create the courage, efficiency, ambition, and confidence that the highly developed group consciousness of a limited group creates.

The reason for this becomes apparent from a consideration of the range of the applicability of these virtues in so far as they are drawn from without. The students of the same college can get little from their college spirit to aid them in their struggle with each other. Only when they are competing with students from other colleges can their college spirit be sources of new energy. The members of ag great family do not get confidence ans assurance from their family pride in their relations with each other. Under such conditions each man stands for himself. With the outsider, however, this is different. Family pride and assurance born of generations of success enable them to meet the outsider with a confidence and assurance that go a long way toward success. So it is with all groups. The members of an organization get no advantage over each other from their membership. Whatever advantage there may be is mutual. As a result, each man is thrown on his own resources. It is only when dealing with outsiders that membership may add assurance and confidence. With nations and races it is the same. One does not feel new sources of energy coming from race consciousness when dealing with t members of the same race. This is experienced only when members of different races are brought into contact.

A consideration of the nature of force would show equally well that there must be different groups if we are to receive from the group force and power for personal relationships. All force is the result of differences or of tensions. It is a relation between what may be termed poles of tension. These poles may be material objects in the physical world, or beliefs, ideals, and other complexes in the psychical world. A homogeneous world, it has been rightly said, would be a static world. There could be only inertia. This is as true of the psychical world as it is of the physical. To identify oneself with a self-conscious group that is opposed to similar self-conscious groups serves to create tension, and thus energy and force. If all such groups should disappear, a great source of energy would be removed. We should get more homogeneity, to be sure, but we must remember that homogeneity means inertia.

In the psychical world, however, this is somewhat complicated by the influence of beliefs, fictions, and interpretations. These, as well as objective truths, affect behavior. Indeed, we must remember that in the psychical world fictions are realities which exert a profound influence over us. The influence of various superstitions is sufficient evidence of this. Hence, it may well be that even in the absence of a satisfactory basis for classifying men into various races, if a classification were accepted, it would become a powerful influence in the behavior of men. On the other hand, in spite of the evident differences between races of men, it is quite possible that a belief in their similarity might become a powerful factor in influencing man's behavior. The truth or falsity of a belief has little to do with its efficiency or power.

Belief in race differences, feelings of race superiority, and group pride make for tensions and new supplies of psychic force. Belief in similarity would destroy these sources of energy. The group as a source of energy and power would be eliminated. Hence, the individual could no longer get courage and inspiration from the feeling that he belonged to a race of superior men. In this way the supply of creativeness, assertion, and ambition would be limited to the innate endowment of the individual. The individual would be compelled to rest content with his own store of psychic energy, assurance and ambition. We should thus get, through our efforts to broaden our group to include all men, the same effect that is gotten when one embraces a narrow individualism; namely, each man would be made to bear his own burdens unsupported by his fellows. Internationalism and individualism have this in common: they set each man to achieve his salvation alone.

How this works out may be seen by reference to Greece and Rome. When these states became introspective and began to regard themselves as mere men, like all other men; when they extended their feelings of sympathy to include all men; when they began to question their superiority and right to dominate, their creativeness and power suffered a severe blow. The individualism of the Epicurean did no more than the internationalism of the Stoic to break down the morale of these people. In both cases the individual was thrown back on himself. No more could he, through his race pride, loyalty, and consciousness draw on his group for courage and inspiration to carry through his creative projects. A great source of energy had been dissipated.

In the light of the foregoing it seems unquestionable that strong group consciousness is a condition favorable to the development of strong, forceful personalities. One big or all-inclusive group does not seem to meet the needs.

Last edited by Alex Linder; December 3rd, 2013 at 03:47 PM.
 
Old December 3rd, 2013 #27
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[ch. 3 cont'd, picking up on page 111]

This can be shown in another way. In order that there may be a highly developed group consciousness, it is necessary that there be more than one group. This is as true as it is that in order that we have a keen sense of green, it is necessary that we have seen other colors. If green were the color of all objects, we should have no color sensations or judgments. Color would attract no more attention than atmospheric pressure. It is because we have seen other colors that we have a keen appreciation of green. Full appreciation of our group, a well-devleoped group consciosness, is possible because there are other similar groups. Historically speaking, we know that the existence of other groups has had a great deal to do with the development of strong group consciousness. Psychologically speaking, we know that teh existence of other groups is a necessary condition for the development of strong group consciousness. If there were only one college, there would be little college spirit. If there were only one nation, there would be little nationalism. If there were only one group, there would be little group consciousness. Just as the individual gets a sense of self by contact with others, so a group develops a consciousness of itself by contact with others.

If, then, we are concerned with the production of the maximum good, or perfection, or happiness, and if perfection is rightly defined as the satisfying and creative functioning of a well-integrated personality, the great value of highly developed group feelings must be recognized; for they serve to supply men with the assertion, courage, ambition, and confidence which are essential for the highest type of personality.

It is probable that there is a greater readiness to recognize the value of strong group consciousness for creative enterprises and for domination than there is to recognize its value as a source of sympathy. Indeed, one of the beautiful aspects of the Utopia promised by the internationalists when their ideals are realized is the growth and general spread of sympathy between all men. Nationalism, strong race feeling and loyalty, and group consciousness are regarded as bars to growth and spread of the sympathetic impulses of man. Yet it is not difficult to show that groups taht have a highly developed group consciousness have also more fully developed sympathetic impulses than the groups which are lacking in group feeling. Nor is it hard to understand why this should be so. If much of the psychic energy of the individuals of a self-conscious group comes from the group, it is natural to suppose that this common source of much of their energy should cause them to feel drawn toward each other in bonds of sympathy and understanding. An excellent illustration of this is afforded in a mob. It is when the psychic force that controls the crowd is common that the ego breaks down, and all feel themselves united in the closest bonds of sympathy and mutual interest.

[more wednesday - think about what this guy is saying. Think about what we lose when we move from a white environment to a mixed one. We concentrate on the violence, but he's pointing out the positive stuff, as opposed to the avoidance of negative stuff. the white MAN can only flourish in a WHITE context, is how i like to put it]

Last edited by Alex Linder; December 3rd, 2013 at 03:59 PM.
 
Old April 23rd, 2014 #28
RickHolland
Bread and Circuses
 
RickHolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Jewed Faggot States of ApemuriKa
Posts: 6,666
Blog Entries: 1
RickHolland
Default

The majority of the people ignore what Nationalism and Internationalism really are.

The Politically educated elites like it that way and prefer to mix the two opposing world views in the same political spectrum as far-left and far-right.

The Political Spectrum designed according to the European Social-Economic values.










In the United States the Far-Right and Far-Left parties are put together because they have different Social-Economic values.






__________________
Only force rules. Force is the first law - Adolf H. http://erectuswalksamongst.us/ http://tinyurl.com/cglnpdj Man has become great through struggle - Adolf H. http://tinyurl.com/mo92r4z Strength lies not in defense but in attack - Adolf H.
 
Old April 23rd, 2014 #29
RickHolland
Bread and Circuses
 
RickHolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Jewed Faggot States of ApemuriKa
Posts: 6,666
Blog Entries: 1
RickHolland
Default

In the US Political spectrum according to their biggest Social value «Freedom».
















All of these graphs are a blatant distortion of reality regarding Nationalism Vs Internationalism and Nationalism is non-existent in the US Political Spectrum or it is labeled as «Fascism».




__________________
Only force rules. Force is the first law - Adolf H. http://erectuswalksamongst.us/ http://tinyurl.com/cglnpdj Man has become great through struggle - Adolf H. http://tinyurl.com/mo92r4z Strength lies not in defense but in attack - Adolf H.
 
Old April 23rd, 2014 #30
RickHolland
Bread and Circuses
 
RickHolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Jewed Faggot States of ApemuriKa
Posts: 6,666
Blog Entries: 1
RickHolland
Default

You can read some comments and discussions among nationalist circles about who is and who isn't a true nationalist.

But this discussion is pointless.

The truth is there are many different types of nationalists.

The far-right term describes the place where the Fascist party in Italy took the seats inside the Italian Parliament it isn't a definition of their political ideology.





You can have a far-left, a center and a far-right inside Nationalism.

Like you can have a far-left, a center and a far-right inside Internationalism.





The Chetniks (Serb nationalist and monarchist paramilitary organizations from the first half of the 20th century, formed as a resistance against the Ottoman Empire in 1904) were a far-right Nationalist group.

While the Yugoslav Partizans (the National Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments of Yugoslavia, was Europe's most effective anti-Nazi resistance movement. It was led by the Communist Party of Yugoslavia during World War II. Its commander was Marshal Josip Broz Tito.) were a far-left Nationalist group.

These two nationalist groups were enemies and fought each others during the WW2 for political reasons.

The Chetniks were formed to fight the Ottoman invader, the Partizans were formed to fight the Fascist invader. Both were defensive nationalists.





Quote:
We study and take as an example the Soviet system, but we are developing socialism in our country in somewhat different forms. (...) No matter how much each of us loves the land of socialism, the USSR, he can in no case love his own country less.

—Josip Broz Tito

Many Nationalists today are anti-fascist and i am not only talking about the Socialist types like the IRA or the ETA or the Zionists even the patriots, anti-communists, traditionalists, monarchists, conservatives and Christians with nationalist tendencies aren’t big fans of Fascism/Nazism/Racism/Skinheads/Violence/Anti-Christ because it goes against their world view.

Regarding Anarchism is different because they are against the existence of a State so they are against Political Parties so the debate about Anarcho-Communism (Left-Wing Marxism) and Anarcho-Capitalism (Right-Wing Libertarianism), etc ... is a fake and useless one because they contradict the basic principles of Anarchy.
__________________
Only force rules. Force is the first law - Adolf H. http://erectuswalksamongst.us/ http://tinyurl.com/cglnpdj Man has become great through struggle - Adolf H. http://tinyurl.com/mo92r4z Strength lies not in defense but in attack - Adolf H.

Last edited by RickHolland; April 23rd, 2014 at 10:34 AM.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:15 AM.
Page generated in 0.14204 seconds.