Went to uzbekistan on a business trip once.
Was sames, except people were browner and spoke funny.
Proportion of assholes to decent people was the same as here.>>82155
But that's the thing, nationalism only makes sense if you appeal to some transcendental entity. It stops working when you take a non-sentimental approach.
Otherwise, why feel patriotic about one nation over the other? Why this exact socio-political formation rather than the one that existed on the same territory, under a different name, but with the same ethnic makeup? Why must a semi-arbitrary delineation of people be more legitimate than any other way of grouping or dividing people?
Simple practical test: does your love for "the people" extend to the guy who pisses in your commieblock elevator? The alcoholic next door? The corrupt policeman? The murderer who's serving life in prison? Career criminals? Putin himself? After all, they're all still Russians. And if not, then you're no longer talking about concretely "your people", but some abstract, idealized notion of the "people" that doesn't include people you don't like.
And there's nothing per se wrong with that, except that one must then admit that their identification with "their people" is not any more "legitimate" than any other group identity, be it in religion, physiological features, hobbies, pop culture interests, etc.
To me, nationality is simply a thing invented to replace god as a source of legitimacy. And I don't mean in a le tips fedora "ideas don't exist" sense, but in a quite literal sense, in that nation statehood was invented to replace the monarchy, but with "the people" rather than "divinity" as the source of legitimacy.
I choose not to be a hypocrite and adopt the following thesis:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90ThWDQqQhg
There's people I like and there's people I don't like, simple as
t. enlightened despookified ubermensch