No you aren't. You're using the terms "right-wing" and "left-wing" in their modern sense, not their historical one. As your second paragraph immediately shows:
No I’m clearly not also my second paragraph shows that I’m not.
You start talking about "right wing ultranationalism". If you are talking about right-wing in the sense of the people who supported the monarchy during the French Revolution, then why are you suddenly talking about right-wingers in the modern sense, since modern right-wingers are the ones that were ultranationalist not the historical ones?
THATS WHAT IVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE ENTIRE TIME THATS THE CONTEXT IVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF THE LEFT AND RIGHT DICHOTOMY. Also yes that’s my point that the modern right wing takes a lot of views from liberalism that was and is left wing. That is my point
Worst of all, this is where your hypocrisy is stunningly clear. You attack me for mentioning how some basic elements of nationalism were found as far back as ancient Rome because I'm applying a "modern definition that didn't exist" onto the Romans (even though I never stated the Romans were right-wing nationalists but that those concepts and ideas existed well before the French Revolution), and then you go on and start mentioning how some basic elements of right-wing ultranationalism were rooted in the French Revolution as if they didn't belong into two entirely different time periods as well. Why can you apply modern definitions to the past but I can't?
the basic elements of nationalism sure they were found in Ancient Rome im not talking about the basic elements im talking about the concept as a whole. You can apply this logic with a lot of different different political concepts, ideologies, etc. The concepts and ideas that make up nationalism did exist prior yes ofc it had to come from somewhere, however we’re talking about nationalism as a whole the philosophy as a whole. This is what I’m referring the philosophy of nationalism as a broad large concept not the elements that make it up. Also just because a lot of us put more twists into the concept of ultra nationalism doesn’t change the fact that the intrinsic concept originates from the enlightenment.
Even if we set this aside you don't provide any historical proof for this, you just state it an accept us to believe it, and I am absolutely not believing the idea that right-wing ultranationalism is just a variant of classical liberalism JFL. Not to mention that this is only looking at Europe and not the rest of the world despite the fact that there are nationalists outside of the west.
I’m not saying it’s a variant I’m saying that ultra nationalism has its root in classical liberalism when we just look at nationalism. It wasn’t necessarily important for nationalism to coincide with tradition and religion.
Also you don't even define nationalism properly. How can you put a "nation-state" above tradition or religion? Nations are people united by tradition and religion amongst other things. If you don't have those common elements of a community then you don't have a nation to begin with. That's why the vast majority of nationalists do support religion and tradition.
That is quite literally what nationalism puts itself above. Also the tradition you’re referring to yes I’m getting to semantics because when I refer to tradition I’m referring to something political as well as cultural. Tradition isn’t inherent to nationalism it just compliments it yes there is a shared history which is culture and there is tradition as in customs passed down. However you can still believe these customs are important and also be socially progressive. Also the fact although religion compliments it at the end of the day ultranationalist puts dogma to the state over religion a lot of the time.
No you aren't, as shown above. Even if you were, it should be immediately obvious that everyone else discusses right-wing politics in its modern sense and hence would understandably classify ultranationalism as right-wing. So I fail to see why your comment that it is "kinda weird how nationalism is considered far right" makes any sense.
Oh my fucking god the average person doesn’t understand what the French Revolution is yes in modern day ultranationalist is far right. There are a lot of things considered far right now that weren’t years ago. This isn’t a completely unique take btw this has been said multiple times BY TRADITIONALISTS. Go talk to an actual traditionalist.
Wikipedia....
It doesn't even say otherwise. "The Westphalian system did not create the nation-state, but the nation-state meets the criteria for its component states "
I should’ve been more clear it does directly say it came in the 15th century. ANYWAYS I MADE IT CLEAR TO YOU WITH MY STATEMENT BEFORE HAND “IT DOES NOT DIRECTLY COME FROM THE PEACE OF WESTPHALIA BUT IT IS ASSOCIATED”! It is associated with the peace of Westphalia it doesn’t come from it but it’s associated with it, which is my point.
You can literally find anti-statist political philosophers from all over the political spectrum. I literally don't care what one individual says, because one individual never characterizes entire ideologies.
There are other individuals who claimed this because I’m not using this individual as the earth shattering evidence for this point. I’m bringing up other pieces of evidence, however evola is one of the most influential philosophers in the school of tradition. It makes sense ID bring him up.
Quite honestly, yes. You literally just referenced a Wikipedia article to support your position, which the average random person can do. Calling that "studying history and political philosophy" is a bit of a stretch. People on many "online political discord servers", even if they shouldn't be taken very seriously, are pretty clearly on a level above you (as I've had discussions with many of them), so I wouldn't belittle them as "LARPers" if I were you.
no they aren’t cut it out with this belittling bullshit as if you’re the authoritative figure in every single topic. Also I don’t understand why you people get so mad over wikipedia there is some bias but it overall is made sure to be accurate (outside of the casss of left wing bias) . Wikipedia literally has sources all over these articles and makes sure to fight against vandalism
