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, Osiris, and 3 others.United Kingdom, NWO, and Libertas Nova.
Regional Power: Very High
Today's World Census Report
The Largest Trout Fishing Sector in New Warsaw Pact
The World Census conducted frenzied haggling with fishmongers in order to determine which nations have the largest fishing industries.
As a region, New Warsaw Pact is ranked 6,555th in the world for Largest Trout Fishing Sector.
|11.||The Jingoistic States of Violetnam||Inoffensive Centrist Democracy||“Aut inveniam viam aut faciam”|
|12.||The Federation of West Saltar||Iron Fist Consumerists||“Trust in the State, Trust in The Chairman”|
|13.||The United Socialist States of The Hex Empire||Inoffensive Centrist Democracy||“Vigilant and unyielding to enemies of the Empire”|
|14.||The Citizenship of Zepther||Inoffensive Centrist Democracy||“Protection, Production, Persona”|
|15.||The Federal Republic of Rawmania||Inoffensive Centrist Democracy||“More Freedom, Less Government”|
|16.||The Kingdom of Torrolarial||Iron Fist Consumerists||“We Will Endure”|
|17.||The Protectorate of Althainia||Democratic Socialists||“Work hard and stay on the path of the Holy Squid.”|
|18.||The Empire of GLEX NATION||Inoffensive Centrist Democracy||“Gay is okay!”|
|19.||The Allied States of Eastern Varistan||Left-Leaning College State||“Libertas Nilum Sine Populus Ducere”|
|20.||The United States of Soaporia||Left-Leaning College State||“Freedom is the ultimate goal”|
- : The Kingdom of Moskovalkia arrived from Lazarus.
- : Goldapia ceased to exist.
- : East vancouver ceased to exist.
- : The United Kingdom of Iysa arrived from Balder.
- : The United Socialist States of Radziecka Polska arrived from The South Pacific.
- : The Confederacy of Loutori arrived from The Pacific.
- : Paikreen ceased to exist.
- : Valonqar ceased to exist.
- : Blithee ceased to exist.
- : The Commonwealth of Lauma departed this region for Europeia.
New Warsaw Pact Regional Message Board
*Clears throat* Time to play devil's advocate again :P
My response this time ended up being longer than I was expecting so I put it in a spoiler. Maybe we should have a thread on the offsite forum since it comes up fairly often. Anyways here it is:
The answer to that question will vary depending on your definition of the word, as other have said it is difficult to pin down. It would probably be wise for every to define what they believe it to mean before stating their opinion. I do see some common themes from goggling definitions and have been able to break it down to two definitions:
State Nationalism: Described as extreme patriotism, specifically really strong national pride. This one is distinguished from patriotism by being an excessive version, to the point of blindly supporting their government regardless of its actions.
As far as this definition goes, I am strongly against it. While I am proud and thankful to be part of my country I am not blind to its flaws. Criticism is important to a healthy democracy, and I feel by not being critical you are denying your countryís ability to reach its full potential. This kind of Nationalism leads to stagnation, and I couldnít advocate locking the status quo where it is, there is always work to be done.
Tribal Nationalism: Strong pride in being part of a specific group. To distinguish from the former definition, this one applies to things that do not make up a government. Examples on different scales: Common region, religion, language, physical appearance, gender, sports team, family, etc. This is often used as political devise to distinguish one group of people from everyone else ďthe other group(s)Ē.
This definition is also incredibly problematic and I am firmly against it as well. The three main objections I have are that: 1. itís an artificial division in which the lines of the divide are arbitrary, 2. it operates on a lot of assumptions about the group in question specifically related to homogeneity and 3. this mentality is never satisfied, should one achieve their goals against the other group a new division becomes the battleground. These all tie into each other but I will do my best to tackle them separately.
To elaborate on the first, it seems to exist solely for the political convenience. Letís take a fairly common one, political affiliation. People identify as conservative, liberal, socialist, what have you. These terms are used to describe groups of people depending on their view on specific issues. The problem is political views run along several spectrums (just like everything else), many of which arenít mutually exclusive. Where does one stop being a conservative and become a liberal? That depends on the W5, who, what, when, where, why. For instance where itís asked, Liberal means something different in Canada than it does in the US. Same for what issues youíre talking about, economic versus social conservatives define very different people. This works for all the other forms of Nationalism, such as the common ancestry. You go far back enough and everyone shares a common ancestry, how can you justify that people are significantly different after a vague divide in the population? What makes people after this specific point in time so different from each other? It just makes it easier to lay blame in politics, for instance: the liberal vote is largely responsible for X result. Problem is youíre lumping people who may not agree on that very issue together. This leads to the second:
People who fall under a broad category, letís use religion for this one, are far from a homogeneous mass. Not all Christians are creationists for instance. Certain denominations donít think Evolution is mutually exclusive with their belief in their god. There are different spectrums here too, homogeneity is an illusion which is why itís futile to try and unite people along these nonexistent lines. You wonít find a border anywhere where all people make up a homogeneous group. People are divided along so many different lines that in the end you get a community of individuals.
Finally, due to the last two points, the last inevitably happens. When the threat of the ďotherĒ group is removed, a new line is aggravated. A classic example is when a war is decisively ended. WW2 ends, the Axis is defeated and the Allies immediately turn on each other and start the cold war. You think being war time allies they would learn to work together at least a little better but the rampant nationalism of the time had everyone paranoid of each other. Look at any region that has Balkanized, infighting breaking once large nations into smaller ones, a process that has divided many populations over the course of history. See Germany, the Balkans, Italy, and for something a little different religious denominations. They all broke off and distinguished themselves from the original group.
To summarize, people donít fit into homogeneous Nationalistic categories. I see humanity more as a community of individuals. When people use Nationalism in politics it can lead to some pretty horrible things, and seems to be the enemy of world peace. Even on small scales, feuding families have killed each other just for belonging to the ďotherĒ. What about riots after sporting events, at what point do you decide this mentality is a problem? Itís a toxic mentality, Einstein described it as the measles of mankind and I have to say I agree. Tribal Nationalism means being proud of something youíre born into (or something you align with) which doesnít make sense. Itís not like its some great achievement, why start conflicts over this pride, or having pride in something like that altogether? No good can come from lumping people into an "other" category, it is dehumanizing in the sense that it makes it harder to see things from the other person's perspective, and it makes it easier to clash with them.
On a slight sidenote(I don't have a lot of time atm so I can't really adequately state my opinion on the topic), it's rather strange how the NWP has evolved over time. I can remember the last time nationalism got bought up that this was far from the contentious opinion, in fact the opinion that would've contradicted the majority would've been to support nationalism...
idk why but I just find that sorta change really intriguing...
I think many of those people have become inactive, it's possible the same could be said for people who supported it back then. Though it is possible some people in the middle have gone back in forth. We could do a poll if you want rough stats on it...
I mean, I'm all for nationalism, and yeah I'm new to the NWP, I judt think its a heavily controvercial subjecy with all the political correctness in the world today
hi I'm American and I googled polish words that I used to do my motto and name
When the browser on your phone crashes before you finish the post...
To summarise its previous form.
-Pollwould be an idea although incognito or middle of the road would be best(peer pressure)
-Appears region has done complete reversal in regards to sentiment, would imo probably due to different factors in regards to the shaping of this new generations views/outlooks. My guesses to those would be as follows
- Reaction against globalism and the sense of us vs them that has popped up within the Western world in regards to it(focus on the negative as opposed to the positive previously and in countries just getting on the bandwagon) (Basically Nationalism vs the much less popular and well known Cosmopolotanism(globalism)(think species nationalism,one humanity and so forth))
- A feeling of social dissolving and the seeking of nationalism as a socially unifying force.
- Feeling of a loss of tradition(only value indirectly(value cause other people find it valuable) so know less about this) and the view of national pride/heritage as apart of this tradition.
- Quite simply the Cold War has ended and the War on Terror haas begun. In one it had a unifying effect with the west uniting to fight the red threat, one of purer ideology than the current. If they were in your country, if they came to your country it was framed as them being a potential ally fleeing from the enemy rather than potentially being the enemy themselves. A more iffy hypothesis but It seems intriguing to me at least.
- A feeling of national stagnation(in some cases views of regression, again different debate. Their was a Munk Debate on it but 'twas poorly done imo. Sorta covering my bases with this as ultimately I'd guess this lies at the heart of the shift.
Finally fixed my cancer problem, now, whenever someone is showing defects physically, mentally, or politically, they get thrown into the clone vats for recycling 🙃
Can Poland go into space?
So new American show called Hunted where teams of two go "on the run" from law enforcement. If you avoid being captured for 28 days, you get $250,000. Thus far, I've noticed the following "dramatic handicaps":
-Limit of $500, only accessible $100 at a time and it MUST be withdrawn from an ATM.
-Limited to an area in the US consisting of Georgia, South Carolina, the Florida Panhandle and a sliver of Alabama.
-The people hunting you are everything from local cops to former Special Forces and Intelligence officials.
More to follow.
Greetings I am. Emperor Moskovo proud leader of Moskovalkia. How do you do.