Shadow Minister,

The topic of every culture and its own nation is one that
Canem Malum brought up and has done so regularly.
I was merely trying to continue the discussion. It's an
interesting topic - I'm sure you'll agree. A good issue
to debate.

We can see some of the many issues that do arise.
And the problems that exist.

I said that "Every culture needs their own nation."

Because a culture ceases to maintain it's integrity when they don't have they own territory. This is my view as a traditionalist. There needs to be a balance between conservation and change- what is the correct balance is related to the dynamics of the community. There will be a surprise push or threat or attack (a thesis) in a direction usually because of an implicit or explicit power dynamic- followed by a protective reaction from the long standing system of principles (an anti-thesis). This conflict will lead to a negotiated compromise (a Hegelian synthesis). Enough compromises and a culture will lose it's structural integrity. As in genetics a mutation to culture is more likely probabilisticly to be disadvantageous than advantageous. In social systems such as economics there are leading and trailing indicators.

Competing tribes and nations will try to undermine your culture to increase their own power- often a fifth column/ beachhead will be used. The impact of competing tribes on the community will be influenced by how closely related they are. Some cultures are different in one point only- such as the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism. Some cultures are very divergent such as between European and Chinese culture which have been almost completely isolated from each other during their development.

Some power brokers will use a third party proxy culture or cultures as a grinder to degrade your culture for their own interest- against that of the culture- effectively enslaving your culture.

I said that "Every culture needs their own nation" because I see this as a more succinct and accurate version of the US Declaration "government of the people, by the people, for the people".

Law, food, economics, education, politics, religion, philosophy, etc, etc are forms of cultural expression.

Whether they "deserve their own nation" is another thing- but no culture deserves to be wiped out- even if certain behavior and belief's of certain cultures may be hostile to others

Clausewitz paraphrased "conflict doesn't end with the end of war".

Machiavelli said that it was easier to undermine European than Middle Eastern power structures. The Middle East (and China) never allow sub-power structures to develop within the super-power structure of the nation. Officials were rotated through different positions so that they didn't develop personal armies.

In a nation such as France the alliance of one or two lords with a foreign nation can destroy the crown.

European nations see the development of sub-power structures as a strength and necessary to adapt to new threats and opportunities.

In military strategy and tactics there is discussion of "process verses adaptability". It seems that the military favours process but tests the process in a broad range of scenarios- and then uses the resulting process adaption to feed back into process.

In a sense the "process verses adaptability" argument is the same as Machiavelli's comment on Middle Eastern and European power structures.

It's interesting that Hebrew culture was originally a Middle Eastern nation in Judea- potentially a beach head community in Europe and the West. Despite the seeming conflict between Hebrew's and other Middle Eastern nations.

Perhaps the reason for Western sub-power structures is related to the northern genetic and physical traits of Western peoples in ancient times- Western peoples were probably isolated tribes in the cold north without large scale governing structures- but requiring the proficient use of technologically advanced tools for survival through the winter.

As I understand when massive migratory invasion of slavic (slave) tribes from the Middle East occurred during the Greek Empire they displaced many European's to the north.

Every culture needs their own nation.

The Traditionalist view is different to the view of John Locke's Liberalism and Liberal Democracy.

Traditionalism is related to the political structures of Rome and the Medieval period- but Industrialism developed during the 1700's through multiple stages- as Theodore Kaczynski said "technology enslaves" and this resulted in the rise of socialism and other social movements. It seems to be the rise of technocratic industrialism and the paradox of the potential for enslavement and freedom that has caused tectonic shifts in world culture. Technocratic industrialism has mirrored the rise of the influence of university technocrats over culture.

The industrial revolution is still displacing Traditional governing principles of societies worldwide but technology isn't sufficient for life. Traditionalism is viewed as inferior to the new techno-ideologies of capitalism and socialism.

At some stage we will realize that technology isn't life. Technology is a tool.

We can't let technology displace everything else of value to us.

Some believe that Technocratic Locke Universal Liberalism is anti-life anti-self determination

Foxy,

Gay culture?
Trans culture?
Greek Culture?
Islamic culture?

If one wants a nation for each, we are looking at mass deportations.