WA Delegate: The Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus (elected )
Embassies: The New Warsaw Pact, Wintreath, The Allied States, The Allied Republics, Spiritus, Glass Gallows, Global Right Alliance, Antarctic Alliance, Africa, United Empire of Islam, Valhalla, the West Pacific, Antarctic Oasis, Confederacy of Allied States, Starways Congress, The Great Conservative Alliance, and 4 others.Osiris, United Kingdom, Libertas, and NWO.
Regional Power: Very High
Today's World Census Report
The Most Subsidized Industry in New Warsaw Pact
Nations ranked highly spend the most on developing and supporting industry, a practice known as 'corporate welfare.'
As a region, New Warsaw Pact is ranked 4,866th in the world for Most Subsidized Industry.
|11.||The United Socialist States of Helvia Recina||New York Times Democracy||“What is rational is actual; what is actual is rational”|
|12.||The High House of Kartofian||Liberal Democratic Socialists||“Everybody do the dinosaur”|
|13.||The Democratic Republic of The Clarion||Left-wing Utopia||“Success comes after hard work”|
|14.||The Empire of Latine||Inoffensive Centrist Democracy||“Let your hopes, not your hurts, shape your future.”|
|15.||The United Provinces of Vunayr||Inoffensive Centrist Democracy||“Aequalitas Ius Datum.”|
|16.||The People's Socialist Republic of Fahrenin||Corrupt Dictatorship||“People are our Nation”|
|17.||The Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus||Democratic Socialists||“Ad astra per aspera”|
|18.||The Republic of Heroica||Democratic Socialists||“Salus populi suprema lex esto”|
|19.||The Free Land of The Eastern Conclave||Left-Leaning College State||“Each endeavouring, all achieving”|
|20.||The National People's Union of Sordica||Inoffensive Centrist Democracy||“We Shall Sacrifice our lives for this Land!”|
Last poll: “An age-old battle.”
- : The Empire of Dosiostan arrived from The South Pacific.
- : The Republic of Calvades departed this region for The Fascist State.
- : Koviet ceased to exist.
- : Czyansk ceased to exist.
- : Lamasov ceased to exist.
- : Proviet ceased to exist.
- : Moskovalkia ceased to exist.
- : Embassy cancelled between The second warsaw pact and New Warsaw Pact.
- : The Free Land of Huskos arrived from The Pacific.
- : The Republic of United Americanss arrived from The South Pacific.
New Warsaw Pact Regional Message Board
Because of two reasons.
1) "Civic Nationalism" doesn't mean anything anymore. It could be because of the centre-left using the term while simultaneously considering themselves "citizens of the world", or it could be something else. I dunno, but "civic nationalism" in much of the west is a pretty useless thing, except maybe in the USA which has horrible race relations anyway.
2) in many cases foreign mass immigration for the purpose of expanding the labour pool is actually a direct threat to various Western national identities, especially in Europe where the EU has actually remarked that it wants to use immigration to blend everything together and create one "European" identity.
Modi's cracking down on corruption quite well, so you have that going for you.
India does have a lot of untapped potential for economic growth right now too, and it needs governments both able and willing to spur that growth.
Are you from India?
That's a complicated issue. Firstly patriotism and nationalism are different beasts. Patriotism is simply pride in one's nation. Nationalism is often described as extreme patriotism with an added us vs them mentality. Depending on the location/definition nationalism may also include a certain blindness with regards their country, where the patriot only supports their nation to the extent that it represents their values. Ex: Country represses a peaceful protest violently. The Patriot is critical and may take action to try and improve the nation to match their values (petition, protest, etc) while the nationalist who would condemn this action in another country nonetheless supports their government's action (maybe tries to justify with excuses such as it was necessary for whatever reason).
Trying to google a concise definition wasn't easy, I've done my best to use common elements from sources to provide a common definition. The oxford dictionary was one of them though. That's way I included the depending on definition/location line. Either way nationalism seems like a rather primitive way of thinking especially with the race/religious/nation of origin divides it is more often than not tied to. We don't need this tribal mentality in modern society if all it does is create generalizations that alienate parts of the population instead of treating people on an individual basis. Seems really hypocritical in nations like the US that were built on immigration, which is where the pushback comes from.
Any nations who have pending claims on the map, please verify that you are still around. And if you're on the map and haven't been active in a while, please do have a little activity. I know the holiday season is coming up, but winter (northern hemi) is always a good time for the region as we're all cooped up inside with nothing to do but think.
I would like to declare Haasia is a very active country, that has conquered many nations
Hmmm. Probably because the Europeans are, well Europeans (Whether they're German or British), and are more used to be homogeneous than heterogeneous, they're more inclined to be nationalistic by ethnicity. While Javanese (like me, for example) are the largest ethnic here, the ratio are far, far smaller between each ethnicity than between Europeans. [Plz don't call me racist. I don't mean to]
You don't sound racist at all to me, even some of the more social justice-happy among us won't find that racist.
I think you definitely have a point. It is also interesting to note that historically, where European populations have been heterogeneous, there has often been quite a lot of conflict (although with exceptions such as Switzerland of course). Look at Transylvania, the Polish Corridor and the Balkans for instance.
I wonder why? (Seriously. Ancient grudges or things like that?)
We can't assume correlation equals causation. There are plenty of examples of countries with different groups living together without killing each other such as my own which also makes it a fairly weak correlation.
The way I see it is that the strife comes from a irrational sense of fear of people who are different. In addition, no population is homogeneous. Individuals vary from one another on virtually everything, political opinion, genetics, religious beliefs. Nationalism makes the assumption that people fit into these perfect homogeneous categorical boxes and that the region/country/whatever is better off if the most common box retains political power (or that one is superior to the other). Input from the others causes instability. This is what promotes a us versus them mentality. The problem with that way of thinking is it's never satisfied. You can find frequent examples of throughout history, like war time allies becoming enemies once their common enemy has become irrelevant. A near example being the immediate onset of the cold war after WW2. The Balkans as you mentioned, many of these people were united in their cause to be free of the Ottoman empire. It collapses and the Balkans get independence. Many of those post Ottoman states then fractured further along regional, religious, or cultural lines. Every time a common group succeeds against a common enemy it seems to turn inwards looking for that new divisive population line. Lets not forget that despite breaking off from ever small populations some people thought genocides were necessary against this new "enemy" inside their borders.
Different types of people share space. That alone does cause strife, what does with when a subset decides that an arbitrary difference in people makes them a threat. It's the uptake of a nationalist cause that causes strife. I thinks it's a flaw in our human nature, our skill of pattern recognition is being misplaced. It wasn't that long ago that the Protestant reform caused horrible wars, genocides, and other cruel behaviors. Their are many nations now that have both Catholics and Protestants in significant populations and yet they have learned how irrelevant their differences are, you don't hear about that kind of conflict anymore. Now it seems society has decided Islam be the one of the next lines to fight over. What's in store in the next century, Abrahamist populations claiming buddists are a threat to nation security?