Asoori
The sane person in a world full of insane people will be called insane.
2 months ago#1000817
And it always been proven to work when everything else fail.
>Example for this is the US
in the 30's the depression hit, people had to live very poorly live, and in 15 years a sudden shift happen, and in 1955 the golden age started, you avarege boomer used to afford a car, house, boat, hot wife and all on a wagi pay check.
>Start to slowly take the wealth from him
Suddenly his nationalist views will be gone, his entire life will revolve around money.
He wouldn't mind having people who hate him live in his nation and ruin it
>I am sorry that your son been killed by a Nigger
But you don't see the bigger picture here!
Those Niggers work for less which is why my stocks are up in value, those Niggers are the only one to accept living in my roach infested apartment in the no where.
>Once you take everything from him and then shower him in wealth
The sense of nationalism will die in a man, his entire views of the world will revolve around money, he'll be selfish.
This isn't just the Muttland, Europe, Japan, Korea and every single 1st world nation.
>The Japanese used to be the most nationalist people on earth
Even in 2000 they had no immigrants, 99.80% ethno-state and they used to live in feudalism-alike system until the defeat of the war, the US showers them with money and they changed their entire society in a single generation
But now as their economy started to get fucked they don't mind having Jeets who'll work for less, even if there is a shit in the streets it doesn't matter as long as the stock market and the GDP is okay.
>Example for this is the US
in the 30's the depression hit, people had to live very poorly live, and in 15 years a sudden shift happen, and in 1955 the golden age started, you avarege boomer used to afford a car, house, boat, hot wife and all on a wagi pay check.
>Start to slowly take the wealth from him
Suddenly his nationalist views will be gone, his entire life will revolve around money.
He wouldn't mind having people who hate him live in his nation and ruin it
>I am sorry that your son been killed by a Nigger
But you don't see the bigger picture here!
Those Niggers work for less which is why my stocks are up in value, those Niggers are the only one to accept living in my roach infested apartment in the no where.
>Once you take everything from him and then shower him in wealth
The sense of nationalism will die in a man, his entire views of the world will revolve around money, he'll be selfish.
This isn't just the Muttland, Europe, Japan, Korea and every single 1st world nation.
>The Japanese used to be the most nationalist people on earth
Even in 2000 they had no immigrants, 99.80% ethno-state and they used to live in feudalism-alike system until the defeat of the war, the US showers them with money and they changed their entire society in a single generation
But now as their economy started to get fucked they don't mind having Jeets who'll work for less, even if there is a shit in the streets it doesn't matter as long as the stock market and the GDP is okay.
Aryanchud
Gaslight, Gatekeep,Gigaquote
2 months ago#1000840
This thread is making a highly ideological argument and mixing some real historical trends with oversimplifications, racial prejudice, and unsupported conclusions.
A few important points:
Economic prosperity does often change societies. When people become wealthier, they may focus more on individual goals, careers, consumerism, or personal freedom rather than collective struggle or nationalism. Sociologists and political scientists have studied this for decades.
But that does not mean “wealth destroys nations.” Many wealthy countries remain stable, patriotic, culturally distinct, and highly functional. For example, Japan, Norway, and South Korea all became wealthy while still maintaining strong national identities.
The post–World War II American boom happened for many reasons besides “wealth was given to people.” The United States benefited from industrial expansion, wartime production, high productivity, unionized labor, cheap housing, infrastructure investment, and being one of the few major economies left largely undamaged after the war.
Immigration and economic change are complicated topics. Some people argue immigration can lower wages in certain sectors; others point out immigrants also start businesses, fill labor shortages, and contribute taxes and innovation. Reducing all social problems to race or ethnicity is not supported by evidence.
The idea that nationalism disappears once people become comfortable is also too simplistic. Historically, nationalism has existed in both poor and rich societies. Sometimes economic hardship actually weakens national unity instead of strengthening it.
The argument also relies heavily on emotional language and racial slurs rather than evidence. That usually signals propaganda or polemics more than serious analysis.
A more accurate conclusion would be:
> Economic conditions influence social values and political attitudes, but wealth alone does not “destroy nations.” Culture, institutions, demographics, education, governance, and historical events all play major roles.
A few important points:
Economic prosperity does often change societies. When people become wealthier, they may focus more on individual goals, careers, consumerism, or personal freedom rather than collective struggle or nationalism. Sociologists and political scientists have studied this for decades.
But that does not mean “wealth destroys nations.” Many wealthy countries remain stable, patriotic, culturally distinct, and highly functional. For example, Japan, Norway, and South Korea all became wealthy while still maintaining strong national identities.
The post–World War II American boom happened for many reasons besides “wealth was given to people.” The United States benefited from industrial expansion, wartime production, high productivity, unionized labor, cheap housing, infrastructure investment, and being one of the few major economies left largely undamaged after the war.
Immigration and economic change are complicated topics. Some people argue immigration can lower wages in certain sectors; others point out immigrants also start businesses, fill labor shortages, and contribute taxes and innovation. Reducing all social problems to race or ethnicity is not supported by evidence.
The idea that nationalism disappears once people become comfortable is also too simplistic. Historically, nationalism has existed in both poor and rich societies. Sometimes economic hardship actually weakens national unity instead of strengthening it.
The argument also relies heavily on emotional language and racial slurs rather than evidence. That usually signals propaganda or polemics more than serious analysis.
A more accurate conclusion would be:
> Economic conditions influence social values and political attitudes, but wealth alone does not “destroy nations.” Culture, institutions, demographics, education, governance, and historical events all play major roles.
Asoori
The sane person in a world full of insane people will be called insane.
2 months ago#1000856
Don't you ever get tired of taking my posts and run it through AI?> Economic conditions influence social values and political attitudes, but wealth alone does not “destroy nations.” Culture, institutions, demographics, education, governance, and historical events all play major roles.
Aryanchud
Gaslight, Gatekeep,Gigaquote
2 months ago#1000859
Proof?Don't you ever get tired of taking my posts and run it through AI?Show quoted text
> Economic conditions influence social values and political attitudes, but wealth alone does not “destroy nations.” Culture, institutions, demographics, education, governance, and historical events all play major roles.
Aryanchud
Gaslight, Gatekeep,Gigaquote
Log in to reply to this thread.