So you think that being fans of sport teams can replace the nation state? — ssu

Yes, in terms of bringing people together. A certain psychological need for togetherness and belonging is fulfilled. Obviously I'm not suggesting that Manchester United raises taxes or invades Poland.

To view the nation states as inherently evil and worthless simply doesn't at all think about how our societies are and have been formed and takes every positive aspect as simply given. — ssu

I mentioned previously how nation states have historically brought about much "good" - though it is a mixed bag of course. But are they not really as parochial as modern tribes and an impediment to attaining fairness for all regardless of where you are born?

Would you assume the World would be better if basically the Han Chinese and Indians and their politicians, if only they could get together, would decide how much taxes you have to pay to them? — ssu

I don't get where you are coming from here with respect to nations not existing.

How do you approach democracy then? — ssu

You mean in a "united world?". I guess there would be levels of increasing geographic scales of government with voters choosing. (Not unlike the USA, which in some ways is not a typical nation state becasue it was a huge space sparsely populated and then filled with people from all round the world.)

Why is that? Do Nordic countries use the Merit system? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Not actually. There can be some specialized professions that applying for a work permit might be easier. Here it goes so that before a residence permit can be granted to you, you must find a job in Finland. When you have found a job, you can apply for a residence permit. You must apply for a residence permit before you come to Finland in the US.

Is there a limit to how many immigrants are allowed in annually? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

If you can just prove that you have a job in Finland, I think there's no quotas. The country has agreed to accept quota refugees a whopping 750 people (and people are frightened!) Now in 2015-2016 some 30 000 came here and basically fifth of them likely will get a residence permit. All other Nordic countries have taken in more refugees and immigrants. Sweden naturally the most.

What happens when someone does enter a Nordic country without permission? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Well, if it would be an American that would mean that you come here without a passport (as naturally tourists from many countries can come here). Likely they'll put you back on a plane where you came from or contact your embassy to solve the issue. If it's someone from Eritrea, Afghanistan or other Third World countries who seeks asylum, they likely put you somewhere to wait for your application to be handled. That might take a time.

The states themselves offer up a diversity in religion, food and traditions native to their state. The greeting you would get from Hanover in Georgia would be VERY different than the greeting you would receive at our ranch here in the Desert Southwest. From attire to manners, dialect to burying traditions, our state are very different cultures. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Surely someone from Arizona and some New Yorker have differences. But your are still Americans. That's the point. I think few multiethnic countries have succeeded successfully in inventing an identity that consolidates over older identities. Good example is the UK with the "new" identity of being British. A Scotsman can be British, but he will be offended if you refer him as being English. Just like Hannover, if he's from Georgia, might find it strange if someone refers him as being a yankee (which can happen as some people think yankees refer to all Americans).

I am not sure of what the size differential is between the Nordic countries and United States of America, which leads me to wonder if it wouldn't be a fair correlation between the two as far as mobility within the defined borders. Maybe Nordic countries collectively are what the States are of the Union represent? Would that be accurate? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Oh no.

By population size here are some US states that by population are the same size as the Nordic countries:

Sweden = Michigan
Denmark = Wisconsin
Finland = Minnesota
Norway = South Carolina
Iceland = Wyoming (minus 200 000 persons)

So we are talking about the smaller states. Hence only Sweden has more people than Arizona and all put together they equal the population of Texas, but are smaller to the population of California. By landmass the countries are similar in size to Alaska, Texas, California, New Mexico and Arizona all added together.

Yes, in terms of bringing people together. A certain psychological need for togetherness and belonging is fulfilled. Obviously I'm not suggesting that Manchester United raises taxes or invades Poland. — Kippo

Even if people can be quite fanatic in their support of their team, it's still a hobby, past-time. And of course if the team loses all it's games there won't be so many fans. If the club goes bankrupt and is dissolved, what happens to the fans? Well, they just turn to some other team or sport. It's in the end just leisure time.

Yet the issue isn't just about bringing people together. It's about that they accept the laws, accept the authority that taxes them, that people accept civic duties and participate in the state for example by voting in elections and basically feel that the state serves them.

I mentioned previously how nation states have historically brought about much "good" - though it is a mixed bag of course. But are they not really as parochial as modern tribes and an impediment to attaining fairness for all regardless of where you are born? — Kippo

Mixed bag, of course, but how are they an impediment to fairness?

You might be familiar to minorities in the terms of race or sexual identity, which are focused upon with modern identity politics in the US. Yet when the differences between a minority and majority are that the people talk a different language, have a different culture, a different religion and above all, don't even live together, what do they have in common? They have no interaction, don't know each other, so what on Earth bonds them together so well, that the minority would accept to be dominated by the majority living somewhere else?

You mean in a "united world?". I guess there would be levels of increasing geographic scales of government with voters choosing. (Not unlike the USA, which in some ways is not a typical nation state becasue it was a huge space sparsely populated and then filled with people from all round the world.) — Kippo

Voters choosing what? And what increasing geographic scales?

In democracies it's typically one citizen one vote, hence in the "United World" the biggest minority would be the 1,3 billion Han Chinese. Asia would basically dominate the political scene:

Just look at the populations in (2018):

1 Asia 4,436,224,000 (including Australia & Oceania)
2 Africa 1,216,130,000
3 Europe 738,849,000
4 North America 579,024,000
5 South America 422,535,000

Hence if Asians, China and India, can get together, they rule the "United World". If you live in North America, you would be a smal minority.

Mixed bag, of course, but how are they an impediment to fairness? — ssu

Because the nation state tends to promote itself as a competitor with other nations. With competition there are winners and losers, and in the case of adherence to nation states, winners don't care if the playing fields are not level (Within a nation state however, there is usually much more effort made to make things egalitarian between geographic areas). A person born into a wealthy nation state has a much better chance of a bter life than a person born into a poor one.

They have no interaction, don't know each other, so what on Earth bonds them together so well, that the minority would accept to be dominated by the majority living somewhere else? — ssu

People who make up "minorities" and " majorities" require a cultural context to be given to them in order for them to accept the classification. In order to accept belonging to some groups even. They have to be told that they are group X because of Y. This is not true of language, admittedly, whereby you automatically identify with those who speak your language. It is partially true though even for appearance - it is others who may make a big deal of how you appear - you wouldn't even know how you look without a mirror! Also a shared language is no guarantee of all speakers belonging to a single block of interest - think civil war; N Korean inoctrination....

Because the nation state tends to promote itself as a competitor with other nations. — Kippo

Yet you disregard the fact that most countries do have good relations with each other and conflicts are quite rare these days. If you argue that countries are competitors at the economic level because of capitalism, well, that's part of capitalism. And then you disregard the fact that countries prosper for mutual trade. Those countries that have closed their borders and think they don't need the outside World are dirt poor with huge problems. And that there are poorer nations and wealthier nations surely isn't a fault because nation states are formed based on nationationality. How a society works, how prosperous it is, how strong it's institutions are and how much social cohesion there is a result of a multitude of factors.

People who make up "minorities" and " majorities" require a cultural context to be given to them in order for them to accept the classification. In order to accept belonging to some groups even. They have to be told that they are group X because of Y. This is not true of language, admittedly, whereby you automatically identify with those who speak your language. It is partially true though even for appearance — Kippo

Partially? I think a racial minority that is discriminated wouldn't see it so lamely as you do. Or if you are dirt poor and I'm extremely rich, that class difference between us doesn't require a 'cultural context' given by somebody for us to notice the difference. That difference is evident in our everyday lives.

Awareness of your identity is seldom something you seek or you invent, but something that your surroundings give you.

If you argue that countries are competitors at the economic level because of capitalism, well, that's part of capitalism. — ssu

No I'm not saying that countries operate like capitalist concerns. If you think about it they clearly don't. Capitalism is supposed to be about competing for business and winning because you can sell the most. In theory everyone benefits because the best product wins. And capitalist concerns prefer to do away with national borders as much as possible.

Awareness of your identity is seldom something you seek or you invent, but something that your surroundings give you. — ssu

"National identity" has to be culturally imparted - history, myths, hurts, triumphs, strengths, and so forth. I can understand your confusion though because we tend to think that we as individuals have the national mythology embedded in us intrinsically - this is what gives rise to the sense of superiority and entitlement that nationalist leaning people have.

And capitalist concerns prefer to do away with national borders as much as possible. — Kippo

Only when it's beneficial for the capitalist. And countries aren't irrelevant of their national companies. Just look how many corporations are nationalized. The emergence of Sovereign Wealth Funds also shows this too.

"National identity" has to be culturally imparted - history, myths, hurts, triumphs, strengths, and so forth. I can understand your confusion though because we tend to think that we as individuals have the national mythology embedded in us intrinsically — Kippo

WHO thinks so?

Where you seem to be confused and many others are also is when we talk of a national identity as a social construct, something that people have invented, that this means there's nothing "real" in it, as if it is just an imaginary construct and hence unimportant or easily changeable. However you mentioned history and to history there exists an objective reality of what has taken place (and not only subjective stories about it). And people do remember what has happened to them. That collective memory isn't just something invented out of thin air.

Perhaps it's simply that in our time we take nearly everything as given and don't see how entitled we are especially in the West where we do have functioning democratic nation states. Then it's easy to question the whole meaning of it. And of course, a dispute between two countries make news, not a long term mutually beneficial relationship between two or more countries. Perhaps you have to be a Kurd or a Palestinian today to understand just how important an own nation state is.

And people do remember what has happened to them. — ssu

Do they remember what they did to others?

Do they remember what they did to others? — Kippo

I'm sure people remember what they did personally.

And on the rare occasion people can experience even collective guilt as the Germans do even now.

So it is rare that they remember "nationally" what "they did to others", you agree?

I am not sure our borders should be open to everyone. Our liberty depends very much on a shared culture, and while others may enter the US temporarily they are required to take a test for citizenship if they want to stay. While anyone educated in our school system should be able to pass the test for citizenship, and that education would make the children, who have been educated, citizens regardless of where their parents came from. What makes a person a desirable citizen is an education for citizenship. Until a person has this education, a person's stay needs to be limited.

However, humanitarian needs must be met by civilizations capable of doing so. The US has a legal process for this, and those who want to enter the country and whose lives are threatened in the country of origin, should be cared for in refugee camps until the process is completed.

The Germans make sure their regrettable history is not forgotten by putting up markers where Jews were forced out of the homes, and in the classroom where every child learns of the history. I would like to see the US adopt this humanitarian effort by putting up markers to remember those who lived on the land before Europeans came, and also where those who lived on this land but came from Mexico before the US took control of the land through war. Our schools should teach our history and its effect on others. If the whole world acknowledged their wrongs and how their wrongs affected others, we might have a better human experience on this planet and change our consciousness in an important way.

Our liberty depends very much on a shared culture, — Athena

Not sure about this. Actually not really sure what you mean by this.

What makes a person a desirable citizen is an education for citizenship. — Athena

Same here - not exactly sure the point you are making.

However, humanitarian needs must be met by civilizations capable of doing so. The US has a legal process for this, and those who want to enter the country and whose lives are threatened in the country of origin, should be cared for in refugee camps until the process is completed. — Athena

Not sure there is a need for "camps" for those individuals with the means or relationships to not need them.

You are obviously a wise person. What a nice change from what I have been dealing with somewhere else. Wisdom begins with "I do not know." Now I will boldly state what I think I know and hopefully not make a fool of myself.

First question: meaning of ."Our liberty depends very much on a shared culture," There are two ways to have social order, culture or authority over the people. Culture with education for good moral judgment gives us liberty. Authority over the people takes away our liberty and a lack of good moral judgment is totally disastrous making authority over the people essential for the same reason we keep our loved on dogs on a leash to protect them unless they are well behaved and responsive to our spoken commands.

Second question of meaning "What makes a person a desirable citizen is an education for citizenship." We are not born with good reasoning, but only the potential for developing good reasoning. Without education for good moral judgment, we are not well prepared for civilization. When our potential for good reasoning is not developed we tend to be ruled by our emotions. People ruled by their emotions may or may not be the kind of people we want to be around, and even if they are very nice people, they are poorly fit for self-government. Self-government requires highly developed thinking skills.

Refugees do not always "come with the means or relationships to not need them (refugee camp?). If I interpret you correctly you are speaking of people who meet the criteria for entering the US. While some meet these criteria they seem to be coming faster then we can process them, and others who do not meet these criteria may need our help most. Fleeing refugees do not come with many benefits. There are language barriers and financial barriers and even cultural barriers. We are failing miserably to meet the needs of our own disadvantaged citizens, and this is a situation that cannot absorb an unlimited number of people for an indefinite period of time. Desperate people do desperate things and it is foolish to throw open our doors with no thought of the consequences. I work with the homeless and I know horror stories such as a woman with children taking refuge with a man, who turns out to be a child molester. A huge free-for-all with no thought of the consequences is not a good idea. And using our military to keep people out, and ignoring humanitarian needs is not right either.

Thanks - I think there are many examples around the world of multi-cultural, non authoritarian countries that have no unusual issues with social order. So I would respectfully disagree with that point.

Second question of meaning "What makes a person a desirable citizen is an education for citizenship." We are not born with good reasoning, but only the potential for developing good reasoning. Without education for good moral judgment, we are not well prepared for civilization. When our potential for good reasoning is not developed we tend to be ruled by our emotions. People ruled by their emotions may or may not be the kind of people we want to be around, and even if they are very nice people, they are poorly fit for self-government. Self-government requires highly developed thinking skills. — Athena

While in some nirvana - we would all live in nations of well educated rational beings - can't make my self get to a point where there is some kind of intelligence or rationality test for citizenship. After the last 2 years however I am 100% behind such a test for president.

On the last point - just fyi, currently it is legal for people to enter the US and seek asylum. The current process allows for these people to enter, and if they have the means or ability to live in the states while they await processing they can do so, on a promise that they return for their hearing. My only point was this works fine, and we should not have a need to detain these people while they await the decision on their applications.

and for any who are interested -

https://ignatiansolidarity.net/campaignforhospitality/asylum-pledge/?utm_source=igsol.net&utm_medium=urlshortener&utm_campaign=social-media-share

The German is handling of their own history is extremely rare. Self criticism is usually very rare. This is not because they lost the war, just as in WW1, but because they were utterly devastated and ruined in WW2 with the nazi regime finally turning on it's own people. This was a total defeat, physical and ideological, which you can notice from the fact that there wasn't any kind of nazi resistance afterwards. This lead to a total reformation on ideas and values especially in free West Germany, whereas East Germany under socialist tyranny simply brushed aside the past as had nothing to do with the past. It lead in West Germany to look at history in a totally different light, as you gave examples of, and created an effort to avoid the mistakes of the past. For example when the new Germand Bundeswehr was formed, a lot of effort was put to create new army based on citizen soldiers, whereas you can say that the East German army was the direct continuation of the old Wehrmacht.

Our schools should teach our history and its effect on others. If the whole world acknowledged their wrongs and how their wrongs affected others, we might have a better human experience on this planet and change our consciousness in an important way. — Athena

Well, that's what university history departments do. Not perhaps primary schools, but the highest learning does this. The focus on others and the negative impacts is so popular among historians that one should really put an effort on the bright side also, really. True objective history isn't pushing a political agenda, it's telling the past how it is and showing what was bad, but also what was good. Criticism is needed, but don't forget all the positive effects on others too! Perhaps the problem is that view too easily historians as pushing some agenda just with the topic they study.

I think our understanding of education is different. Education for citizenship began around the first camp fire. All groups of humans have a mythology about their existence that is passed on from generation to generation. The purpose of mythology is uniting people and preparing the young for adulthood.

I do not know what you mean by many multicultural non authoritarian cultures? However I do know of a people's who live on a island that is being covered by the ocean and they have to move. From what I saw in a TV show, these people had a paradise on their little island and they are very gentle and pleasant people. They are united by culture and there is concern of about what will happen to them when they are moved and must live with different people in a different environment. My point is culture is all that is needed when there are few people and every thing can be handled on a personal level. Also terrible things happen to people when all they know of life is their isolated culture and industrialist come in and change their way of life and destroy their culture. Where are the many non authoritarian multicultural people of which you speak? What is the size of their populations?

To become a citizen of the US an immigrant must take a citizenship test, right?

Education for logic and good moral judgment is very different from the original transmission of a groups mythology. That difference is what makes the West different from the East. Western cultures can trace their roots back to Athens and linear logic. The East has wholistic logic. During the Dark Ages, Western civilizations were consumed by Christianity and for a period of time, Christianity destroyed all that was not Christian and that included pagan temples that were places of learning, so linear logic had to be reintroduced to the West and democracy was not possible until this happened. However, a test of citizenship is more about our laws and mythology than about logic and moral judgment. And our education stopped being about good moral judgment and moral training was left to the church in 1958.

A problem with that explanation of logic and democracy is, small groups of people, such as those living on the island, are by nature democratic. Oh dear, now we are really in a logical mess aren't we? I hope others help us untie this logic knot. The God of Abraham religions are about a God's chosen people, including this God choosing who will be masters and who will be slaves and the religions are not exactly compatible with democracy, nor do they lead to the technological development that we pride ourselves in, but this might be a completely different subject? However, it is very relevant to the subject. I totally appreciate your style and that you have expanded my awareness of the logical problem. A huge thank you!

According to Trump and Trump supporters allowing people to enter the US and apply for sanctuary was not working. First Trump repeatedly tells these people are criminals and second he tells us once they are inside our country they do not return for their trials but become hidden in the US where they do terrible things. I am not agreeing with this reasoning, only repeating it as the reasoning for using the military to keep these people out. Oh, it is must be said, we began moving in this direction because of 9/11 and a fear of outsiders that is greater than it has ever been. 9/11 lead to major changes in our country, as well as the computer and ability to store much more information. This is something we need to speak of when speaking of how the US is changing, along with discussing what war has to to with education and the ramifications of the National Defense Education Act,

The children are waking so I have to close, but first I want to say, I have a very different understanding of Germany than you do. The book "The Anglo-German Problem" by Charles Sarolea is on line. It was written when Germany was mobilizing for the first world war. I consider this book to be one of the most important books ever written. We are on the same path Germany followed and there are parallels with the rise of Hitler and the rise of Trump that we to be aware of. This is directly related to the OP and the change in the US.

It is far, far more important to educate the children for citizenship and good moral judgment than education the handful of citizens who go to the college. When we mobilized for the first world war, Industry attempted to the close the schools claiming the war caused a labor shortage and that they were not getting their monies worth from education because they still had to train their new employees for their jobs. Teachers argued, it was those who understood our democracy and why it must be defended who were the first to sign up for the war, and that even if we won the war, our nation would be devastated if we did not continue educating the young to replace all those who die in the war. I got this information from the 1917 National Education Association Conference book.

The 1917 National Education Association Conference book is a record of ever speech made at the convention. One of the speakers was a military man who explained why our education must imitate Germany's education and for the first time in the US, education for technology was added to grade school education. This was vital to us winning the war. However, it was not until 1958 that we stopped transmitting our culture, and ramifications of this change in education, brings us to the OP,. Instead of seeing me criticizing what is so, would you please interpret what I am saying as saying what is so and saying there are consequences to the change in education? There are many benefits to the change. It is not either/or, this is good and this is bad. However, the social, economic and political ramifications need to be in our awareness.

The children are waking so I have to close — Athena

My have to go soon to sleep.

I have a very different understanding of Germany than you do. The book "The Anglo-German Problem" by Charles Sarolea is on line. It was written when Germany was mobilizing for the first world war. — Athena

That is in a way a totally different time and not only in Germany. Europeans hadn't seen a major war since the Napoleonic times nearly a century and the fact how lethal modern warfare had become wasn't understood.

In a way there is some resemblance to our time,yet we aren't so oblivious to the perils of a World War as the people in 1914 were. When Hitler rose to power everything was different than in 1914.

Instead of seeing me criticizing what is so, would you please interpret what I am saying as saying what is so and saying there are consequences to the change in education? — Athena

Sorry Athena, I'm not sure what you imply here. Could you say it in another way?

P2: All human beings have inherent rights award or assign certain 'rights' to one another, among them... — Rank Amateur

[ Highlighting shows my changes to the quoted text.]

Whatever else is the case, the freedoms and rights you refer to are created, defined and enforced by humans. They have no existence in the scientific physical universe other than as human-created concepts/ideas. So it's really just a matter of us all agreeing on these 'rights'. And if we can't, well, I'm not sure what happens then. These 'rights' only exist because we invented them. We discuss rights and freedoms as though they are gifts from the Universe, or God, or something. They're not. They're expressions of things we wish were true. And they are true, but only to the extent that we enforce them upon each other and (sometimes) on other parts of the Universe.

So my conclusion is that this argument's one and only purpose is to discuss or define the freedoms and rights which we will then enforce upon one another, and the world. Right?

Rereading what I said, I am displeased with my wording. To clarify, it is not my intention to criticize but to be factual. I don't see things as black or white, good or bad, but a mix of good and bad. My thinking tends to be complex. I believe it was the Prussians who militarized Germany and that the US has adopted the Prussian models of bureaucracy and education and is now what the US defended its democracy against. There is much good in this, but obviously some bad. What the OP said is the bads resulting from imitating Prussia in every significant way and dropping the transmission of our culture.

Instead of me arguing my points, I am very curious why you believe what you believe? I have gotten my information from books and I named two of the books that I think are the most important. Where did you get your information? LOL often when I disagree with someone, it is because the person lives in a different country, and then I feel foolish for speaking as though what I believe is unquestioned fact. I do not know the world from the point of view of those outside the US. I do not think I know everything that is important, but I do know somethings that might be important.

I must take issue with these words.....
"Whatever else is the case, the freedoms and rights you refer to are created, defined and enforced by humans. They have no existence in the scientific physical universe other than as human-created concepts/ideas."

I think understanding our animal nature and our evolution to huge civilizations, is important to our understanding of reality. What you said appears true today, but our reality today does not come from nature. Our reality today is man-made. Not even a god with chosen people can be held responsible for this reality.

Humans are social animals like the apes and we have a very limited ability to actually know each other. Our large civilizations are the result of violating the laws of nature. If we were not violating the laws of nature, our largest groups would be around 600 people and we not be sharing our territory with others. We would not have laws and law enforces but all matters would be personally resolved. However, we began violating the laws of nature about the time we developed religions/mythologies. Then being "one of us" meant sharing the same belief and explanation of life and our groups could become much larger. Only relatively recently did national and political ideas determine who we are and what it means to be one of us. This is an evolved, man-made reality, not exactly one created by a god or nature, and we need to be aware that we violating the laws of nature if we are going to manage this rationally.

I believe it was the Prussians who militarized Germany and that the US has adopted the Prussian models of bureaucracy and education and is now what the US defended its democracy against. — Athena

Well, Preussia unified Germany and had a long military tradition, however just to put this to be a Preussian issue doesn't tell the truth of pre-WW1 Europe. France and other countries were also far more militaristic or jingoist as simply the horrors of the Great War hadn't yet happened.

Perhaps in some way this post-WW2 guilt that German identity has is closest to that Americans have with the issue of slavery and the discrimination of blacks. The difference is of course that the Germans lost the war, were occupied and everything collapsed. For example the Soviet totalitarian dictatorship killed masses of Russians and the system collapsed in the end, however the Soviet Union didn't fall with American tanks on the Red Square in Moscow. Hence there isn't an unavoidable need to confront the past and make a separation from the past, which can be seen starting from the views of the present ruler of Russia Vladimir Putin. Russians can allways be proud of the Soviet Union defeating Hitler and putting the first man into space.

Where did you get your information? — Athena

About Germans? Reading a lot, studying hisotry in the university, following the German media discourse and talking to Germans themselves. Have been there a couple of times.

I do not know the world from the point of view of those outside the US. — Athena

Never underestimate the effects of globalization, modern media (including the social media) and the Western lifestyle we share. Viewpoints are quite similar in Europe as in the States. The differences are actually small.

Frankly, one world is VERY dangerous due to the risk of global tyranny. No exit options!

Exit options are absolutely crucial since that way people who don't like just how they are governed could move somewhere better. I don't believe that everyone should automatically be able to move to their desired country, but I do believe that everyone should be able to move *somewhere* else.

I think that categorically excluding all non-Jewish immigrants without close Jewish relatives or family members is too restrictive. I also think that it's too restrictive to deny prospective immigrants to Israel the opportunity to convert to Judaism, even if they only want to immigrate to Israel for economic reasons.

I think that non-Jews who want to move to Israel should be forced to go through a process where they can prove that they are willing to integrate--either by serving in the Israeli military, by formally converting to Judaism, or by going through a new process which should be created which would function like a quasi-conversion and include a lot of the elements of conversion (Torah study, et cetera) but with them becoming an honorary Jew at the end. This would differ from a formal conversion to Judaism because this would allow them to keep their existing religion as opposed to adopt Judaism, but otherwise they would go through much of the same process as formal converts to Judaism would.

Of course, this would require Jewish law to be changed, since there's either a Torah passage or an ancient rabbinical ruling that states that non-Jews who study the Torah should be given the death penalty. Now, obviously few people in Israel nowadays would actually agree with the death penalty part, but still, good luck convincing Ultra-Orthodox Israeli Jews that non-Jews should be able to study the Torah unless they actually want to convert to Judaism--and I mean genuinely convert as opposed to converting only for economic reasons or whatever.

Libertarians distinguish between nation-states and private property, but ironically their argument against nation-states (as in, that they were built and founded on coercion) could also often apply to private property as well. Yet if there are normative arguments in favor of private property in spite of this (even in the view of libertarians), then there can also be normative arguments in favor of nation-states.

One such normative argument is that different groups should have their own nation-state in order to protect and look after their own interests and also the interests of their Diaspora as well as to provide a safe haven for members of their Diaspora in the event that things will ever go seriously south for them. This argument does have some merit--for instance, different groups--such as Jews and Soviet Germans--did in fact historically experience persecution. And of course if there would have been a Jewish state in the 1930s, then more Jews could have escaped the impending Holocaust had they actually been able to foresee it. And of course such a Jewish state could have also pursued efforts on the international stage and elsewhere against Nazi Germany--for instance, trying to put pressure on Nazi Germany by assassinating top Nazi German officials or whatever.

For what it's worth, this argument isn't necessarily an argument in favor of total exclusion, but it does suggest that immigrants who move to particular nation-states should sometimes or even often assimilate to a meaningful extent in order to become a part of the broader body politic of this nation-state. Interestingly enough, pre-Hitler, some German nationalist groups actually were willing to accept assimilated German Jews as members. So, group membership does not necessarily need to have an ethnic criteria to it. For that matter, even South Africa had an "honorary whites" category.

Thanks for informing me about this book, Athena! I'll go look it up! :)

BTW, are you the same Athena as from Historum?

Interestingly enough, Africa and Asia could achieve either population parity or at least close to this by 2100 thanks to Africa's population explosion right now.

Yes, but someone in the Historium forum makes it extremely unpleasant for me so I rarely go there unless for some strange reason I have nothing better to do. Along that line, I think Charles Sarolea's book The Anglo-German Problem is one of the most important books ever written. It is directly related to what I say about independent thinking and groupthink. American leaders were strong individualists and destroying our national heroes has huge social, economic, and political implications. We are now organized by Prussian military bureaucracy applied to citizens and educated for groupthink not the independent thinking of our past.

All the political stuff involved with the world wars is unimportant to the point I make about Prussian military bureaucracy applied to citizens.

Thanks to this forum, I am getting the Beast is consuming all of us in Europe and the US. The New World Order is not the family order of old and this is both good and bad. The New World Order and the Military Industrial Order are the same thing. Hitler and Bush called it the New World Order. Eisenhower called it the Military-Industrial Complex and I think his term is more descriptive. Whatever we call it it is a social/econmic/political order and I think our awareness of it and how it is different from family order, is vitally important.

Unlike kings of old, bureaucracies run by policy never die. Prussian military bureaucracy is designed to maintain a war effort even if all the generals die. Once the policy is established, it no longer needs thinking humans to keep it going. Compared to rule by a king or president where there is abrupt change when they die or are replaced. Because the US adopted the German model of bureaucracy and the German model of education that goes with it, the US is now what it defended its democracy against. We have reactionary politics as Germany did and we have our own Hitler and thugs.