huh?
basically zero nationalists of any color put the needs of their government before their own needs and the needs of their family.
Discussion
Are you sure? What about soldiers that die for their country and leave their families fatherless?
No one actually dies for their country. They die to grow the wealth of the ruling class. Believing that they are dying for their country doesn't actually mean they have died for the benefit of anyone in that country. No pleb in America benefited from a single soldier's death in Iraq or Afghanistan.
There seems to be confusion between the actual definition of a nationalist and what people think nationalists are.
Afghanistan and Iraq are cherry picked though. I don't think you can say the same for every war throughout history. Yeah maybe I have a more idealised version of nationalism.
Every war since America's "independence," has been a bankers war as far as I understand. Certainly every war since WW1 has been to serve the interests of the ruling class and to harm the citizens.
I agree with that. But still a small section of history. And some people, like the Palestinians, are justly fighting back. Deaths in resistance to the bankers are for the people
They're fighting back for their homes and land. Not necessarily for a flag. Sure their cultural roots are similar and so they take pride in a shared identity. It's human nature to be tribalistic. But nationalism is a relatively new phenomena. People didn't always have national pride in the past.
I don't think whether or not the wars were organized and instigated by bankers it means the people that fought and died in them weren't nationalists.
"I read your responses but I don't actually have the courage to respond to you directly" 😂
