Baby Daddy

As a profession medieval historian, I'm afraid I have to call nonsense on this. Old Norse society was deeply concerned with identifying the proper paternity of children, and having sex with a woman who was not your wife was a crime. The right to prosecute this crime belonged to either her husband or, if unmarried, her father and other male relatives. It's true that the Norse did not distinguish between premarital and extramarital sex (so fornication and adultery were essentially the same offense), but it's clear that illicit sex by a woman was a crime. Far from celebrating the survival of every child, Norse society was concerned to make sure that too many children were not being produced because it was recognized that not all children could be supported (given the climate and generally poor food resources). Infanticide of unwanted children was pretty widespread.

If you want to know more about this, take a look at Jenny Jochens' Women in Old Norse Society, especially the sections on marriage and paternity.

@Bohemond Thank you for weighing in on that. That level of nonchalance about the genetic fraternity struck me as fishy. (American slang for "suspicious", nothing to do with Norwegians.)

@Bohemond looks like this comic is just pushing someone's agenda here

@atreju I'd say that the information in this comic is partially true but it isn't all of the truth. There's probably some missing information here. But I don't really know, I'm just speculating.

The comics here are still nice. This possible minor "error" is no big deal.

@atreju I doubt it's pushing an agenda so much as just repeating 'internet lore' about things.

@Bohemond

Thank you for offering a source for your claim - not very common online, unfortunately.

While I haven't read the book in question I did some search online and found Jochens seems to be a credible academic.
However, an article I did find reviewing her writings seem to directly contradict what you wrote here.
That article can be found here: http://medievalbaltimore.net/jenny-jochens-historian-of-medieval-women/

It's not as detailed as your description, but especially this section sounds to counter what you say:

"Although there were some laws restricting sexual promiscuity and harshly punishing the practice of incest and bigamy, the old traditions did persist for a long period of time, even during the process of conversion of these populations to Christianity."

The crux seems to be what you define as "Old Norse society".
Are you talking about pre-Christianity or post - because Humon is clearly referencing pre-Christianity in her comic as I understand her while the Vikings of course straddle the introduction of Christianity.
So you and Jochens, it seems to me, may very well be talking about a society based on the later and foreign influence of Christianity, while Humon description might be true for the earlier pagan society?

@Nisse_Hult I'd like to thank both you and Bohemond for the insight and sources you have provided. It's refreshing to see people still have the ability to research and reason in this day and age.

Myself, I don't have the knowledge yet to sort out the fact from the fiction regarding the vikings. I have, however, been curious for a long while, about how scandinavia would have developed if christianity had never taken a hold in this part of the world.

'@Hawkwing' Nisse's "research" is just using the one of the first links in google. Meanwhile, relevant parts of the original text are available in "google books" preview: https://books.google.ru/books?id=3h-lkgBWercC&pg=PA81
Page 81, "Paternity".
Notable part is on page 83: "Already during the pagan period general poverty and man's economic responsibility for the child (regardless of the marital relationship between the parents) made the identification of the father an utmost concern. Ancient society allowed infanticide, however, and many children lacking fathers were exposed. The prohibition against this ancient custom came with Christianity. The identification of the man who had impregnated an unmarried woman now became even more important to her relatives, lest they become liable for the child's upkeep. Rules designed to elicit paternal information from unmarried women antedated Christianity, but the prohibition against infanticide combined with high illegitimacy rates assured their continued enforcement in law. In Iceland a woman was obliged to identify the father of her unborn child if asked by her guardian to do so. If she refused, the guardian was entitled to return with five neighbors and together they were to "torture her", but without leaving wounds or blue marks, until she revealed the name."

Read the whole chapter for more context, more interesting stuff in chapter "Infanticide" starting on page 85.

Comic starts looking grim at this point.

@Hawkwing

Thank you for your kind comment! :-)

In all fairness I think @Bohemond deserves the most praise here as he actually brought the fresh perspective to light.

@comrade_Comrade has been bitching at everything I write since a discussion between us about the Winter War ended with him claiming that we should trust Josef Stalins claim that he never intended to conquer all of Finland - which of course is an absurd statement that's rejected by every reputable historian in the world - but I guess he didn't like me telling him so... ;-)

Anyway, in this instance his comment is actually useful as he provided a link to the actual book in question.

Now all he cites from page 83 is about cases where the mother was unmarried - which is not at all what the comic is about.

In cases of a married women - which is what the comic is actually about - the book is more succinct as the procedure seems to have been much more straight forward:

Page 82:

"Most husbands accepted all children produced by their wives, although gossip might indicate otherwise."

I.E. it would seem that Humons comic is quite right.

'@Hawkwing'' @Nisse'_Hult

Also on page 83:
"the father (or his relatives) of an illegitimate child was responsible for his maintenance until age sixteen, although the law sought to protect paternal and maternal relatives against the reproductive excesses of a sexually active young man by making them responsible for supporting only the first two of his illegitimate offspring"

But ok, maybe it only counts if he had an unmarried woman.

Page 85:
"In pagan society all fathers had the right to refuse the infants presented to them by their wives or mistresses. Although a wife might stand a better chance of having her child approved than would a mistress, considerations of the child's sex, health, looks, the number and composition of father's present offspring, and even his feelings toward the mother could influence his decision. If rejected, the child was exposed out of doors, a fate calculated to be fatal..."

Ouch.

Yeah, Christianity was so much worse.

@comrade_Comrade So.....Then the comic is more or less accurate? He did seem happy about the kid so not accepting it is a non issue in this case. CASE CLOSED!

'@Grine' as long as that baby looks good, father's good mood holds and term "illegitimate" is read narrowly, as in "born out of wedlock". Nothing is closed until there is a signature on a dotted line.

@comrade_Comrade @Hawkwing

Nothing of what you just quoted changes the quote I posted in my last comment:

"Most husbands accepted all children produced by their wives, although gossip might indicate otherwise."

Humons comic is about a married Viking that just like most other married Vikings apparently accepted all children produced by their wives.
That a father had the right to refuse an infant isn't really the point - if that rarely happened it's not a correct depiction of Viking customs to focus on that.
Then Humons depiction is obviously the more correct one - as I've already concluded in my last post.

'@Nisse'_Hult' @Hawkwing' "The crux seems to be what you define as "Old Norse society".
Are you talking about pre-Christianity or post - because Humon is clearly referencing pre-Christianity in her comic as I understand her while the Vikings of course straddle the introduction of Christianity.
So you and Jochens, it seems to me, may very well be talking about a society based on the later and foreign influence of Christianity, while Humon description might be true for the earlier pagan society? "

"Humons comic is about a married Viking that just like most other married Vikings apparently accepted all children produced by their wives."

Note that "most" doesn't mean "all", and previous quotes show that for unmarried man probability of accepting a child was even lower, while rate of illegitimacy was high even under paganism.

And then it turns out that Christianity actually prohibited the practice of infanticide.

Nisse is so autistic that he can't comprehend the whole argument, only google searches an opinion on specific statement.

@comrade_Comrade

"Note that "most" doesn't mean "all", and previous quotes show that for unmarried man probability of accepting a child was even lower, while rate of illegitimacy was high even under paganism."

Note that Humons comic never claimed to speak about absolutely ALL married Viking men ever - like you're pretending now.
Also, unmarried men once again isn't even an issue here - no matter how desperately you try to claim otherwise.

And further the issue of Christianity vs. paganism was something I raised with Bohemond but it's interesting to see that you're trying to talk about that now, when your last post fell flat on it's face.

The practice of infanticide have, as I've written elsewhere, been practiced by every single culture throughout history when dealing with crippled children and is a complete non-issue here.
The point isn't that the Vikings - like all other cultures throughout history - used infanticide to deal with children born crippled or deformed in some way - the point is that they where surprising liberal when it came to dealing with healthy babies born as a result of infidelity.

So yet again, what you write about have no bearing what so ever on the actual comic.
It's just you desperately adding up non related arguments in an attempt to distract from the fact that you were just proven wrong by the link you yourself provided.

And lastly of course - please all note that only a complete asshole of a person uses "autistic" as an insult.
Now @comrade_Comrade will probably run and hide between the predictable excuse that he didn't meant it to be an insult - but we all know it was.
Assholes today always does this - spew their contempt and disrespect for anyone else and then run and hide when they are called out for it, complaining about "political correctness".

But there is nothing "political" about not using "autistic" as a slur - it's just decent and correct.
Which decent people know, but assholes like @comrade_Comrade ignores.

And before he tries pulling that one - no, calling @comrade_Comrade an asshole isn't an insult since he actually is one metaphorically.
If anything it's an insult to actual assholes. They at least have a purpose in life, while he's just an angry little loser bitching online, wasting valuable oxygen.

'@Nisse'_Hult "And further the issue of Christianity vs. paganism was something I raised with Bohemond but it's interesting to see that you're trying to talk about that now, when your last post fell flat on it's face."
It's interesting how you've actually didn't understand my reply.

"And lastly of course - please all note that only a complete asshole of a person uses "autistic" as an insult."
By now it should be obvious that it was an accurate description, not an insult.
Making a wall of text reply to a single line of comment made more than a week before is something very indicative of being on the spectrum. Fact that said wall of text contained nothing more than "REEEEEEEEEE" doesn't help your case either.

@comrade_Comrade

"It's interesting how you've actually didn't understand my reply."

Your reply wasn't a reply at all. You just kept stacking arguments that has nothing to do with the comic in a desperate attempt to divert attention from the fact that your original argument was completely wrong.
You can't present a coherent argument so you're just throwing anything out there in the hope that no one notices that what you say have no relevance to the question.

You're just grasping at straws at this point and it shows.

"By now it should be obvious that it was an accurate description, not an insult.
Making a wall of text reply to a single line of comment made more than a week before is something very indicative of being on the spectrum. Fact that said wall of text contained nothing more than "REEEEEEEEEE" doesn't help your case either. "

No, it's obvious you use "autistic" as an insult - it's not the first time you've done so either.
But the funny thing is that many actual autists are way, way smarter then you'll ever be.

Talking vaguely about a comment "made more then a week ago" doesn't even make sense as this comic was posted just yesterday.
You'll probably claim you meant something else but if you can't express what you actually mean without people being forced to guess what you mean, it just mean you're crap at communicating.

If you're talking about your assertion that we should all trust Josef Stalins word I understand you'd want everyone to forget about that - but I won't.

I'm sure it's really annoying for you when people remember the crap you've been spewing - bullshiters never like to be reminded of the bullshit they've said before.
But again - that's on you.

Stop spewing bullshit and you won't have to be reminded of the things you've said that now embarrasses you.

And the last sentence makes even less sense.

"Fact that said wall of text contained nothing more than "REEEEEEEEEE" doesn't help your case either."

What are you even trying to say - you're basically just talking to yourself at this point as no one can understand what you mean. It's just sad really.

'@Nisse'_Hult "Your reply wasn't a reply at all."
You reach down and flip the tortoise over on its back, Leon.

@comrade_Comrade

And there you gave up even pretending to keep to the subject.

'@Nisse'_Hult The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over. But it can't. Not with out your help. But you're not helping.

@Bohemond Well that really depended on the father/mother. If it was a workwoman or just a house karl then yes, their baby would very likely be born out. If it was the child of a chief/chiefest, you know the people who actually got to go out and raid for some real money? Then the baby would very likely be kept on, since more sons or daughters meant more likely hood of some actually surviving.
About the infidelity, well that really depended on the man. If he loved his wife then there was a big chance that he wouldn't mention it, even if he would be annoyed by it. Another thing that could happen is that yes he would accept the child as his own, this happened mostly if they had been trying for a child without success and he was looking at the end of his legacy.
If the father did not however accept the child and felt slighted he might well break up with his wife, but not kill her child. Because chiefs mostly married daughters of other chiefs and killing someones grandchild could start a huge blood-feud that might last generations.

@TralliE You're speculating about what a very different people may have thought based largely on what makes sense to us today. As a historian, I try to not indulge in that sort of speculation without a lot of analysis of surviving documents to provide a basis for support. Yes, logically, a man's feelings about his wife would probably shape how he responded to evidence of adultery. But early medieval Norse men probably had very different ideas about what adultery meant than we do. Remember that this is a culture in which a man's reputation for masculinity is extremely important. And we know for a fact that infanticide was quite common in this culture, so I think it's quite likely that a man would in fact expose a child that wasn't his, if only because he didn't want to be responsible for expending the resources to raise another man's child. Your 21st century mindset is distorting your ability to think like a Viking.

@Bohemond I'm actually basing this on the amount of killing and manhunts following scandals that happened here in Iceland. (One of the reliable facts from the Sagas being who killed whom for what.)

So in other words... the vikings were cuckolds?

No wonder about modern Sweden then

Jk, despite what this comic would tell you, vikings weren't actually cucks, unlike many but not all modern swedes.

@Finn123 the famine is strong in this one my brother.

@Finn123 At least they had an excuse back then. Now, not so much.

@Scanian_dreng
Nationalism is about your people and national identity based on ethnicity and culture and usually the will to preserve those things. Doesn't require pride to the actions of your country, or its governing body.

Socialists often have a problem with one thing about that, the fact that nationalists want to preserve their national identity, culture and ethnicity. This doesn't go well with their plans to open all borders and get rid of national identities via mass immigration into European nations, so they conflate the terms nationalism and patriotism (patriotism means love/pride towards your country without concerning preserving national identity like nationalism does) and claim that nationalism is somehow a more evul one of those, and offer patriotism as an acceptable way to love your country. Then they claim to be patriotic themselves while supporting things that are detrimental to the country, like mass immigration from third world shitholes.

@Finn123 That's what I originally thought and I still think that supporting your country and kinsmen is a good thing, but as far as the definition of "nationalism" goes I currently don't have enough information about the subject to form an unbiased opinion.

But I have heard that nationalism is often confused with patriotism . But I also think that nationalism is often confused with national socialism.

Edit: I did see @Nisse_Hult say that nationalistic is a code word for "I hate dark skinned people (and possibly jews)". I have to disagree.

According to Merriam Webster the definition of nationalism is

"loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially: a sense of national consciousness) exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups. Intense nationalism is one of the causes of war"

What he's describing would be closer to national socialism than nationalism.


But it would probably be better if we dropped this discussion now. Conversations such as these are pointless when debating over the internet. I'm pretty sure we all got other things to prioritize.

@Scanian_dreng The term "code word" is used in order to ignore what someone actually said, so you can then attack them on the basis of what ever it is you want to accuse them of saying instead.

@Newnetherlander Thanks for the tip, but I think it would be wise to not continue arguing and instead lay off the political debates for now.

I don't have much else to say. So, have a good day sir.

@Scanian_dreng

I called it a code word because that's what it is today.

Before 1945 in Europe and the success of the civil rights movement in the 60's in the US, racists in the western world didn't mind admitting they where racists.
Then their world order came crashing down and it started to become problematic for them to express their racism openly.
Society no longer accepted racism as just another acceptable opinion, but saw it as abhorrent and people freely expressing it started to have to pay a social prize for doing so as non-racist people started to shun them.
So racists hid their racist views by not expressing them openly - or if they did express them - hid them behind more palatable code words.

"Nationalist" is one of those.

Every single far-right movement calls itself nationalist. Some also call themselves conservative or socially conservative, but every single one of them define themselves as nationalist - and every single one of them want to stop non-white immigration. Some also hates Jews, homosexuals and assorted other groups that they define as enemies of their nation.
That's true for every country in Europe and the US.
The neo-Nazis marching in Charlottesville a few weeks ago chanting "Jews will not replace us!" all call themselves nationalists.
Because that sounds better then saying you're a Nazi.

Note that I'm not saying everyone who calls themselves a nationalist is a Nazi - but the people marching in Charlottesville where.

So yes - if you look at the use of the term today it's clearly a code word used by the far-right to hide their open racism behind.
Just to give it a more palatable face in public.

I saw you didn't want to discuss this further but since Newnetherlander ignored you I just wanted to give the counter-argument.
I hope we can leave it at this, to respect your wishes.

You seem fully capable of researching this further on your own if you want, citing Merriam Webster as you did. :-)

@Nisse_Hult I'm just glad that we can put this aside. Discussions that are directly or indirectly related to politics tend to get people really overheated, often no matter their stance on the subject.

Hursomhelst, ha en bra dag. Det var rart att snacka med dig

@Scanian_dreng På Svenska: "Nationalism (från fr. nationalisme, av "nation", ursprungligen från latinets nascor, "jag föds" är en världsåskådning som tar sin utgångspunkt i gemenskapen inom nationernas gränser. Nationalismen hyllar nationen, kulturen, historien och slår vakt om nationalstaten och dess intressen. Den som bekänner sig till nationalismen benämns nationalist."

Kort och gott skulle jag säga att nationalism är stödet till ditt folk, att sätta folkets intressen och behov i första rummet likt du först och främst bryr dig om din familj, för vad är ett folk om inte en extrem förlängning av en familj?

Engländare och deras avkomlingar inom den anglosaxiska världen brukar ha en tendens att blanda ihop nationalism och patriotism och ser ofta nationalism som en extremform av patriotism. Den uppfattning jag har är att de tenderar att se det såsom "nation = rike" istället för "nation = folk".

"Nationalism" skulle jag se som ett samlingsnamn för politiska strävanden för nationens väl, dess intressen och behov. Alltså att sträva efter folkets intressen.

Nationalsocialism sett till ordets egentliga betydelse är inget annat än en förening av nationalistiska och socialistiska idéer och har inte nödvändigtsvis något med rasism, eller fascism att göra. Folkhemsossarna i Sverige under Per Albin Hansson och Tage Erlander skulle kunna beskrivas som en form av nationalsocialister då deras ideologi blandade socialistiska och nationalistiska idéer. Hitlers ideologi är ju dock ganska cementerat som den enda definitionen av nationalsocialism.

@Svenskefan

Det är nog snarare så att du inte själv har ordning på skillnaden mellan patriotism och nationalism.
Istället för att påstå att andra blandar ihop saker skulle jag råda dig på att läsa på mer själv.

http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-nationalism-and-patriotism/

Och nationalsocialism har absolut ingenting alls att göra med socialism - det är totalt felaktigt på alla sätt och vis.

Nationalsocialism är ingenting annat än fascism förenat med extrem antisemitism och olika rasteorier.
Hitler - som var den enskilda person som skapade nationalsocialismen - tog fascism som fanns före honom och tillförde sina egna idéer.
Rörelsen var uppenbart extremnationalistisk men tillsatsen -socialism i namnet nationalsocialism tillkom enbart av marknadsföringsskäl.

Socialdemokratin hade varit den största politiska rörelsen i Tyskland (som ju var Karl Marx hemland) sen slutet av 1800-talet och som populist var Hitler beredd att säga vad som helst till vem som helst för att vinna röster.
Han hade gladeligen kallat sitt parti "Gratis glass till alla!-partiet" om det hade säkrat honom makten.

Men socialdemokrater och kommunister - hela vänstern - var alltid nazisternas främsta fiender och när Hitler väl tagit makten (med hjälp av den traditionella högern i Tyskland) var också de de första att fängslas i koncentrationslägren som uppfördes för att husera just dem.
Först senare kom judar och andra icke-önskvärda att skickas till koncentrationsläger.

Hitlers ideologi ÄR nationalsocialism = Nazism - det var han som uppfann den och Nazi-Tyskland är den enda regim som praktiserat den.
Fascistiska regimer finns det flera av i historien men nationalsocialism finns det bara en enda version av.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

@Nisse_Hult No the nazi's were both nationalists and socialists, the two are not mutually exclusive.
You deny the dictionary definition of nationalism and replace it with your own preferred definition?
As you did with "right-wing" "leftist" "nazi" and every other word you'd used to argue.
You're building straw-men and keep insisting that other people acknowledge that you know their thoughts and opinions better then them self, all the while showing a complete ignorance of politics, history and the definition of words.
Fascism was also socialistic, so the one thing you are correct about, is that fascism and Hitler's national socialism were pretty much the same.
They were also both left leaning politically speaking, so people's branding of Nazis as "right-wingers" does nothing but show their complete ignorance on either the definitions of political left/right, the actual politics of national socialism or both.
Nice of you to go straight to Godwin's law by the way, normally people wait until a few comments in when they realize they are wrong, but don't want to loose the argument.
You just go straight of the bat, attacking people's character rather then their argument, a character you made up.

Nationalism:
Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
n.
The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
n.
Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.

Socialism:
n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
n.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.





National Socialism
n
(Historical Terms) German history the doctrines and practices of the Nazis, involving the supremacy of Hitler as Führer, anti-Semitism, state control of the economy, and national expansion. Also called: Nazism or Naziism

@mrengen

"No the nazi's were both nationalists and socialists, the two are not mutually exclusive.
You deny the dictionary definition of nationalism and replace it with your own preferred definition?
As you did with "right-wing" "leftist" "nazi" and every other word you'd used to argue.
You're building straw-men and keep insisting that other people acknowledge that you know their thoughts and opinions better then them self, all the while showing a complete ignorance of politics, history and the definition of words."

No they were not, as I wrote in Swedish above and as every reputable historian will tell you - Hitler used the term "socialist" in the party name only in an attempt to attract voters.
Just like Trump promised any- and everything to the US voters before the election. Because that's what populists do.

Far from denying the dictionary definition of any word I have repeatedly linked to those very definitions, while people like you have repeatedly denied those very definitions and without any proof what so ever instead tried to present completely different definitions and claimed that those are correct.
But as I said, the crucial point here is that you can never prove any of this - you just repeat the same empty claims over and over in the belief that that is somehow proof.
I'm sure YOU believe what you say is true - but there is simply nothing to support your claim.

You get to live believing in any lie you want - but you don't get to claim that the lies you believe in are true just because you believe in them. For that you need to produce actual proof from reputable sources.

It's the same problem that far-right rhetoric has always had from the Nazis to today's Trump - they just repeat the same lies over and over, without ever being able to prove anything, and instead accuse everybody who question them of lying.
A minority of any people will fall for that for a range of different reasons, but fortunately the majority of people have so far at least always been smarter then to fall for it.

So let's do this again then:

Nationalism is:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationalism

Socialism is:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

National socialism is:
https://www.britannica.com/event/National-Socialism

and Wikipedia redirects "National Socialism" to "Nazism":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Now the definition you cited above (but didn't produce a source for) doesn't in any way prove that National Socialism was socialist. It states the Nazis CALLED themselves that - a fact not disputed by anyone.

But if you claim that anyone calling themselves anything is proof that they actually are, then you have to prove to me that the old East German state was actually a democracy, as that was actually in it's name.
Or to take a current example - prove that North Korea (which is officially named the DPRK or "Democratic People's Republic of Korea") is actually a democracy.
Good luck with that.

@Scanian_dreng The FInnish word for nationalism, kansallismielisyys, has a negative connotation. Since the original writer is a Finn, he must be thinking of the Finnish word instead of the English word. Hence the confusion.

@Finnik Well then. My apologies. I never thought that Finn123 was wrong regarding the love and protection of his country.

Finland belongs to the Finnlanders and it should always belong to the Finnlanders.

Being proud of your country is perfectly fine,
as long as the love for your own country doesn't evolve into hate for other countries.


But as far as the word "nationalist" goes, I'd say that Nisse_Hult was right when he mentioned that many racists and supremacists use the word "nationalist" as some sort of cloaking device to hide the fact that they're bigoted assholes. (Not the original quote but I think that's what he was trying to indicate. Which might also have lead to some confusion regarding the definition of "nationalist" and "nationalism") and he's not wrong. Many 'actual' racists do switch out the label racist and replace it with nationalist in order to be more accepted by society.

None of that changes the fact that I would prefer Finland to be Finnish tho. Finns have many things to be proud of and it would be a shame if they lost their badassness and pride because they were told that they would be racist otherwise.


Suomi!


I hope everything is cleared up now. Because this is starting to get silly.

I wrote a lengthy post about this some time ago, that Scandinavia has in many respects historically been very liberal and progressive compared to most of the rest of the world.
We where forced to by our physical surroundings.

In a climate as harsh and unforgiving as Scandinavia was back then, every single life was precious for the collective to survive.
Disputes where settled by collective decision by the tribes, punishment meted out in fines, the death penalty or blood feuds almost unheard of.
The social cohesion of the tribe and the larger community was always paramount for survival.

There's a reason George RR Martin depicts the northerners in Games of Thrones like he does - honest, trustworthy, pragmatic - those are common historical northern traits he's describing.
Even if we didn't have White Walkers and undead roaming the land, winter is always coming every year and if you don't have your food stores and house in order when it does you will die.

People down south could waste precious resources on pointless fights amongst themselves - in the north we've always had to pull together to survive.

@Nisse_Hult as a fellow scandinavian i can say rhat this is truth, because when winter comes and you're out of food and stock in a pointless blood feud you would problably die

@Nisse_Hult on the other hand, more kids means more food needed, and it takes time to raise a kid to the age when he or she justifies it – if we're speaking about climate and pragmatism

@latimeria

Yes but if you don't make any kids at all your family and society soon dies out completely, so not having any kids is not an option.
And kids back then started working at about 5 years of age, picking berries or tending goats or some such comparatively light work so it's not like they where just worthless mouths to feed for very long.

@Nisse_Hult Vilket landskap bor du i?

@Scanian_dreng

Södermanlands landskap men det ger kanske mer att säga Stockholms län eftersom jag är Stockholmare?

@Nisse_Hult Jag undrade egentligen mest vad som var söder för dig. I Norrland t.ex så har jag hört att alla lanskap söder om Halland är lika med Danmark.

@Scanian_dreng

Aha. I det här fallet så räknar jag allt söder om Skandinavien som söder, eftersom vikingarna levde och verkade i hela Skandinavien - även om klimatet naturligtvis skiljer inom området.

Men på vikingatiden så var hela Skandinavien väldigt glest befolkat och det är, anser moderna historiker, en av förklaringarna till varför våra samhällen utvecklades annorlunda än våra grannar söderut.

@Nisse_Hult Mkay, tack.

@Nisse_Hult Well George RR Martin also made the "Snows" in the N,and they were treated like crap,so not sure how true he stayed to what you are saying in his story with the N :'D.

@Lostdaydreams

That view on "illegitimate" children as "bastards" came with Christianity - it doesn't belong to Viking culture at all.
So yes - in some aspects Scandinavian society regressed with the introduction of Christianity.
But I'm not trying to say the Vikings where all lovey-dovey hippies - Viking society of course had violence and injustice too, just like every society in history has had.
Just not quite as much and in the same way as further south in Europe.

But as I try to make clear - that's not a consequence of the Vikings necessarily being any more liberal or progressive - it's just a natural response to the harsh physical surroundings and the low population rate this far north.

@Nisse_Hult You can stop the self-praise. Burnt Njal/Njal's Saga is pretty clear about how scando culture settled disputes and bad they were at it.

@extrablue

If you read what I wrote you should realize that it's not self-praise.
I'm not saying Scandinavians where smarter then any other people - I'm saying our physical situation forced us to avoid violence for conflict resolution and taught us to value all individuals more then in parts of the world where resources and people where more abundant.
If your society is short of people it doesn't make any sense in killing the few who are left.

From historical records we can see the same logic play out all over Europe during the plague - executions almost ceased completely because so many people died society couldn't afford to put anyone alive to death.
Also wages increased and taxes where lowered as there was a massive manpower shortage.
With fewer people around each individuals value increases - it's basic economics.

And using a saga to interpret true Viking life is like trying to use The Sopranos to interpret contemporary life in the US.
The sagas contain historical details yes, but they where primarily action filled stories told over the camp fire - they are not true depictions of every day life in Viking society.

@Nisse_Hult Um... Have you read the Saga's? I don't know about Sweden, but over here there were blood-feuds, and lots of them. I'm honestly flabbergasted that there are any of us left, out ancestors fought that much. Men killed each other over the smallest slight; cheating in a horse fight, sitting in the wrong place at a feast, pure pride, you name it. Anything that was considered offensive might lead to a blood-feud.
Sure when assembled people tried, and succeeded in settling these feuds, but they still happened, and because these assembly's were only held once a year they could go on for a while, specially if they weren't willing to settle.

@TralliE

As I wrote in another reply to someone else - the saga's aren't supposed to be taken as a true depiction of everyday Viking life.
They're exciting stories meant to be told over the campfire - they're filled with violence and drama because that makes for better stories.
Just like we today don't make movies or TV-shows about completely ordinary people going about their ordinary dull life - no one would think that was interesting to watch.

We don't know exactly what in the saga's are truth and what is fiction, but we do know they don't give an accurate account of everyday Viking life. Some violence undoubtedly happened as it does in all societies - but ordinary Viking life certainly wasn't as action filled as in the world of the saga's.

@Nisse_Hult, I don’t think feuds in the north were that uncommon, not if The Saga of Burned Njal is any indication.

@4PercentFinn

As I wrote in my reply to TralliE directlu above your comment:

"As I wrote in another reply to someone else - the saga's aren't supposed to be taken as a true depiction of everyday Viking life.
They're exciting stories meant to be told over the campfire - they're filled with violence and drama because that makes for better stories.
Just like we today don't make movies or TV-shows about completely ordinary people going about their ordinary dull life - no one would think that was interesting to watch.

We don't know exactly what in the saga's are truth and what is fiction, but we do know they don't give an accurate account of everyday Viking life. Some violence undoubtedly happened as it does in all societies - but ordinary Viking life certainly wasn't as action filled as in the world of the saga's."

Who else thinks that baby was Finland?

@Bluesamurai I'm picturing a very belligerent and quiet infant with a baby bottle of hooch and a rattle shaped like a knife.

@ArmchairHistorian yes

@Bluesamurai also imagining him with a gotte!

Sounds like a great way to look at things. What a pity this attitude didn't proliferate.

@Quantum_Insanity It sure would be nice if "blood relations" were less of a thing. Even though they mean very little as anything but a social construct, they can be hard to look past for someone who was raised in a society where they're taken for granted so much.

Well, I guess that's the same problem a lot of things have.

@Permutator Did you just call "blood relation" a social construct? You do know what DNA is, right?

@Scanian_dreng I didn't call them *just* a social construct. I just said that they have very little actual meaning as anything else.

I mean, what actually separates a close blood relation from everyone else? You might look kind of similar and will probably have similar genetic conditions and predispositions. You shouldn't have children with them. Anything else? There can't be much, because genetics have a rather narrow effect on most people's lives.

I like families. But genetics don't make a family, and a lack of genetic relations don't make a non-family.

@Permutator Actually, many adopted kids have identity issues and feelings of guilt and anxiety due to lack of connection to their biological parents.


Also, people don't 'choose' who to have a child with or whatever. It happens naturally, sexual selection, like comrade_Comrade Said. Who you mate with is caused by a combination of a matching genetic set, a strong immune system, healthy body and of course personality. If I asked you when the last time you 'choose' to fall in love with someone, would you really be able to answer that? The human mind is programmed by nature to like certain traits in other humans.

The circuit board aka our brain takes most of its shape during the early years of our lives when synapses form in order to process what we learn as children much better in adulthood.

This is also why humans are much better learners as children when synapses are still
making connections between neurons on a larger scale. Then comes the software which is our minds, our software runs best on our hardware of course.

If someone has a hardware (brain) that has been shaped for something completely different than your software then they will have a hard time processing your output of information.

That is also why every religious person believes that their religion is the "right one". Their synapses have made their connections, and your software won't work on their hard ware. Their hardware is only compatible with software that agrees with what they have been taught, its like when you have a resistor with to much ohm in a circuit board except that the electricity in my metaphor was supposed to represent the software in the human brain, which at first doesn't make much sense, but when you think about it you realize that when you, your synapses receive electrical signals and converts them into chemical signals which, now there are calcium ions (most of which have a positive charge) and a voltage in between the neurotransmitter and the receiver of the synapses, which is important because then the axon and the dendrite receive the chemical signal that was converted into an electrical signal which means that

Islam.exe runs on Muslim

Christianity.exe runs on Christian

Ramblingnonsense.exe runs on me right now. I know what I mean.

I've honestly forgotten what we were talking about. I'm really tired.

Mkay

Maybe I just misunderstood what you were saying completely. Either way, this is very subjective and vary a lot depending on the situation and how old the child is when he/she is adopted. But it doesn't just stop for humans. Pets can also be loved and be considered part of the family. But then again, it's better to have non biological parents than no parents at all.


I'm too tired to keep going, have a good night.

'@Permutator' sexual selection is a social construct, really?

@comrade_Comrade Do you really think Darwinian evolution means anything to a species that went from the first practical vacuum tubes to the World Wide Web within a single lifetime?

'@Permutator' do you happen to know a lot of people suffering from Haemophilia?

@comrade_Comrade Even if you think eugenics is the most efficient way of combating hemophilia, I don't see how de-emphasizing the importance of genetic relations would make it more or less likely to be passed on.

'@Permutator' name one option currently available that can eliminate haemophilia instead of treating symptoms. I'll wait.
"Emphasizing the importance of genetic relations" is another way of saying "discouraging cheating in monogamous relationship". Presumably, wife selects husband because he demonstrated a number of desirable traits during courtship and vice versa.
Careful selection of partner isn't something that one-night stands are known for.

@Permutator Evolution applies to all living things no matter their intelligence. It strives to make the perfectly adapted creature, a superior, a master species if you will. Why not help it. Synthetic Biologi and sexual selection are two ways to go.

There are already animals that have what we would consider superpowers like the Axolotl, Mantis shrimp, Tardigrade and of course the Turritopsis Dohrnii also known as the immortal jellyfish. I suggest you look them up, it's quite interesting.

'@Scanian'_dreng not perfectly adapted, just more successful at procreation. Extreme example of highly efficient and directed selection for a narrow set of traits looks like this: https://imgur.com/gallery/YxodC
I'd say this took about 30 to 50 generations. That's anywhere from 600 to 1250 years in human terms, depending on number of circumstances.

@comrade_Comrade Dogs and devolution.
To be honest, they don't seem to be the only species suffering from that (there was a challenge/trend in America where people were deliberately setting themselves on fire). But the dogs are a great example of what happens when mates with non matching genetic setups have a child together.

Caused by humans of course. As it said "the traits that we "love" about some breeds are being enhanced simply for aesthetic pleasure - and that this enhancement might be causing these breeds serious defects and medical health issues".

Humans made this happen kinda how we just made a tiger and a lion mate and we got the liger.

And ligers are ******* huge




As you can see, humans successfully created the largest cat animal in the world. The hybrid can't have any children tho so it doesn't qualify as it's own species.

'@Scanian'_dreng comment about dogs had two points:
1) significant alteration of genetic population can happen within a relatively short timeframe. Even shorter, if you consider that temper of particular breed of dogs can change even faster
2) selection for only a small number of traits doesn't necessarily leads to superior breed or species overall. In case of dogs this effect is just more pronounced since selection is much stricter and sub-standard individuals are removed from breeding almost completely.

If you want an example of "go home, evolution, you're drunk", then take a look at Sacculina. Milder examples are sharks: ancient and ultimate predator that survived at least one extinction event turned out to be dumb as a bag of rocks, especially when compared with killer whales.

@comrade_Comrade I looked up sacculina and read an article about what it is, and to sum it up it's basically a crab parasite that has all of its organs degenerated in adulthood except the reproductive organs, and it also creates trans crabs. Weird.

Still not as weird as the platypus. When Europeans discovered the platypus, they first thought that it was a joke and that someone strapped a duck beak to a rat. The platypus also lays eggs, but it's still considered a mammal.

One of the reasons why Australia and New Zealand got such strange animals compared to the rest of the world might be because their continent was the first to break away from Pangea. It was also more separated by sea to the rest of the earth landmass than the other continents were to each other. Which of course meant that they were very isolated and undisturbed and their flora and fauna evolved in a different way to suit their environment which gave them their unique ecosystem.

'@Scanian'_dreng platypus is not that weird if you consider that birds evolved from giant lizards. Sacculina is an example of how some species simplified to a point where it's only two actions in life are finding a host and reproduction. Even related barnacles are more complicated than that.
Ability to control crabs despite not having developed nervous system is impressive as well. It is unlikely that it has any further adaptation left to do, except maybe moving to a different species. Serves as a great nightmare fuel too.

@Quantum_Insanity Do you want to be cheated on?

Nowadays this wouldn't make as much sense as back then. Please explain.

@atreju
A lot of scandinavian left wing liberals like to spread misinformation about how progressive and liberal and tolerant vikings supposedly were, probably because of the lack of evil christianity at the time. Soon we'll probably hear about gay pride marches in ancient Götaland a thousand years ago.

@Finn123

Ok, we get that you're the resident far-right troll on this site but please try to keep up with modern research.

There isn't some "left wing liberal" conspiracy to claim the Vikings where gay - that's your fevered imagination talking (or possibly one of the hate sites you're getting your world view from).

The Vikings have been misused as a propaganda tool by the far-right since the 19th century and them and their society have been ascribed all manner of characteristics that suited their political agenda.

What we see today is a more scholarly and historically correct description of actual Viking society - written by actual experts and not political propagandists out to use the Vikings to rewrite history in a way that suits them.

I'm sure it's not as exciting to you in the far-right, but then actual facts never are. That's why you guys cling to your "alternative facts" and your alternative world view.

@Nisse_Hult
Okay, I get that you're the resident far left troll and a general misinformist here but please do try to be rational here.

"There isn't some "left wing liberal" conspiracy to claim the Vikings where gay - that's your fevered imagination talking (or possibly one of the hate sites you're getting your world view from)."
Your fevered imagination imagined I ever said such a thing. The whole populus doesnt have to be gay in order for gay pride marches to happen, and if you were a person with above child level reading comprehension you would've also realized that I said it as a humorous exaggeration in order to mock people like you, basically.

Also I do not get any of my world view from any hate site, lmao.

"[Insert quote of the rest of your blablabla]"
-It's only natural that nationalistic people would use their heritage and their national symbolism.
-What a funny thing to say coming from a political propagandist like yourself. The irony is strong. As is the denial of the fact that your kind twistes these things in their own favor just as much as neo-nazis do.
-I'm not far right and unlike some hive minded ideologues like yourself, my worldview is actually driven by actual facts and no twisting of them to suit a political agenda.
No "far righter" adheres to any "alternative facts", just actual facts.

@Finn123
"Alternative facts" is literally a quote from far left ideologues, again like yourself

No. No it isn't. It was coined by that crazy wench Conway.

@Dan
Fair enough, it's a stupid term regardless.

@Finn123

"and if you were a person with above child level reading comprehension you would've also realized that I said it as a humorous exaggeration in order to mock people like you, basically"

Right back at you. Guess your reading comprehension isn't that strong then, hua?

Nationalistic people = far-right. There is NO other people then the far-righters who call themselves "nationalistic" - it's just a code word for "I hate dark skinned people (and possibly Jews)".
So yes - you're most definitely far-right, even if you of course deny it.
Your choice to describe academics doing serious research into ancient Nordic history as "left wing liberal" just because they don't present history as you want it to be just proves that point.

""Alternative facts" is literally a quote from far left ideologues, again like yourself, and no "far righter" adheres to any alternative facts, just actual facts."

No numbskull - "alternative facts" is a quote from one of Donald Trumps lying henchmen who tried to defend the Trumpsters bogus claim about the crowd size at his presidential inauguration being bigger then the crowd size at Obamas inauguration.
It was big news a few months ago. In the real world at least - maybe not so much on the sites you read, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_facts

And congratulation on doing the full Trump and defending Nazis - by claiming that "no "far righter" adheres to any alternative facts, just actual facts" you've just claimed that the Holocaust didn't happen.
Because there are a lot of far-righers who will happily claim that the Holocaust didn't happen - and you just claimed that no one in the far-right aheres to anything but actual facts.

So my question to you is - do you even accept that the Holocaust is an historical fact - or do you claim that's just another lie invented by the "left wing liberals" you see everywhere?

@Nisse_Hult
"Right back at you"
Not really.

"Nationalistic people = far-right. There is NO other people then the far-righters who call themselves "nationalistic""
That's just incorrect, unless you want to specifically define "far right" as nationalistic. In which case it's just intellectually dishonest as there are plenty of nationalistic people who adhere to leftist policies.


"And congratulation on doing the full Trump and defending Nazis - by claiming that "no "far righter" adheres to any alternative facts, just actual facts" you've just claimed that the Holocaust didn't happen."
Kek what is this mental retardation you're spewing? I'm not saying that no "far righter" is ever wrong, I was merely saying that no "far righter" nationalist refers to facts as "alternative facts".

@Finn123

Yes really. Don't be sad you didn't get it - irony is hard for some people.

"That's just incorrect, unless you want to specifically define "far right" as nationalistic. In which case it's just intellectually dishonest as there are plenty of nationalistic people who adhere to leftist policies."

No, it's not incorrect.
People confuse nationalistic with patriotic all the time - best case scenario you're one of them and don't know what you're talking about.
Worst case scenario you do know what you talk about and is nationalistic = far right.

Now go read up on the difference between nationalistic and patriotic - you can start here:

http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-nationalism-and-patriotism/

And leftists are definitely not nationalistic as a core tenant of socialism is internationalism.
Socialism is about class - not nationhood. As Marx famously wrote: "Workers of all nations - unite!"

"Kek what is this mental retardation you're spewing? I'm not saying that no "far righter" is ever wrong, I was merely saying that no "far righter" nationalist refers to facts as "alternative facts"."

Well, we've pretty well established that my reading comprehension is better then your writing skills then - haven't we?
Because what you DID write was that "No "far righter" adheres to any "alternative facts", just actual facts."
Which actually means that you claimed that no one in the far right ever uses anything but actual facts.

It does NOT mean what you now claim that you meant - that they don't use the term "alternative facts".

Now you might not understand what you actually wrote - but that still doesn't change the meaning of what you actually wrote - and you don't get to claim that a clearly written sentence means something completely different then what it actually says.
Your intentions are irrelevant - it's what you actually wrote that matters.

So just to be clear I'd still like you to answer the question I posed:

Do you believe the Holocaust to be a historical fact - yes or no?

@Nisse_Hult
"Socialism is about class - not nationhood. As Marx famously wrote: "Workers of all nations - unite!""
You don't have to be a socialist to be left wing, and you can be nationalistic while being either of them if that's what's in your mind. But I guess everyone right of marx isn't even leftist to you no?

"Do you believe the Holocaust to be a historical fact - yes or no? "
Why yes I do think several jews lost their lifes in the holo, as well as gypsies, poles and probably homos.

@Finn123

Once again, you're wrong.
Socialism is the umbrella ideology for all political movements on the left. They may define themselves as anything from social democratic to communist but they are all socialist in as much that they all trace their roots back to the writings of Karl Marx.

You really need to read up on these things.

And once again no - you can't be nationalistic and a socialist at the same time.
I guess you didn't even read the link I posted or didn't understand the difference between nationalistic and patriotic.

"But I guess everyone right of marx isn't even leftist to you no?"

My guess is you mean liberalism and no - that's not a leftist ideology - it's a centrist ideology.
But people belonging to the far-right usually claims everything to the left of the far-right to be leftist, so I guess that's how you see the world - being on the far-right.

"Why yes I do think several jews lost their lifes in the holo, as well as gypsies, poles and probably homos."

Spoken like a true far-righter feeling forced to say the right thing.
"Several Jews lost their life" my ass - millions where systematically murdered is the truth.

@Finn123
The fact that you're using slurs like "homos" really isn't helping prove you're not bigoted, and referring to 6 million people as "several jews" is dishonest and misleading.

@LiTMac
Who said I was trying to prove that now? Lol.
Homo is a slur now? Wat.
I thought it was funny, a retarded question gets a retarded answer... what kind of a person automatically assumes holocaust denial of a person that is more right than him?

@Finn123

Any person who can read would instantly question a persons acceptance of historical facts like the Holocaust if the person - like you did - claims that:

"No "far righter" adheres to any "alternative facts", just actual facts."

If you don't want to be suspected as being a Nazi apologizer - don't claim that no one in the far right ever adheres to anything but actual facts - that's just a blatant lie as people in the far-right lies CONSTANTLY - amongst other things about the Holocaust never happening.

And if you don't understand what you actually write - go practice your English instead of whining about people correctly understanding what you actually wrote.

Clear enough for you this time?

Oh, and the only more right you are is far-right, buddy

@Finn123
So you aren't trying to prove that you're not a horrible person? Essentially, you're admitting to being bigoted, then.
As for homo being a slur, it always has been.
As for your last comment, I honestly cannot parse what it is you're trying to say. I can't really fault you for that if English is not your native language, but if you would like for me to respond, please try to better express what you mean to say.

@LiTMac
No, I don't need to prove anything because the accusation is retarded.

There's nothing hard to understand about it, try to practice your reading comprehension.
PS: Right as right wing.

@Nisse_Hult

Is this a good enough definition?

And if this is true then that would mean that the communists of the Soviet Union where nationalists. Which would mean that people on the left of the political spectrum can be nationalists. What do you think?

@Scanian_dreng

I guess you could put it that way.

Well the Soviet Union was a dictatorship led by a string of leaders only interested in securing their own power and privilege and ordinary people didn't really have a choice as to what they could think - that was all decided by the regime.
Disagreeing meant either a quick death by a bullet to the back of the head or a slow one in a labor camp.

And dictators always use nationalism as a tool to fool their people into supporting them - just to strengthen their own hold on power.
Dictators portray themselves as being not only one with the state but also the nation so supporting the nation means you must support the leader.

Stalin set the example in the Soviet Union with a cult of personality and in the case of him it's highly questionable if he had any ideological convictions at all - it was all about strengthening his own power.

For instance he perverted the socialist principle of internationalism with the argument that since the Soviet Union according to his perspective was the most important socialist state in the world it should be all socialists mission to support the Soviet Union and thereby him personally - no matter what he decided to do.

But that's not in accordance with actual socialism of course. That was just him creating a twisted argument to demand support from all other socialists to strengthen his own power.
Many socialists at the time saw right through that and never supported Stalin - others unfortunately did.

So looking at Stalin for instance, it's correct to say that he used the rhetoric of nationalism to further his own goals - but he also did a terrible lot of damage to his nation just to strengthen his own power.
So he was neither following a socialist ideology, nor was he actually a nationalist - he just used any ideological argument that suited him at the moment to further his own objectives.
Just like all dictators always do.

People are still people and no matter what ideology they claim to embrace you will always find individuals who will try to twist them to fit their own motives and present rationalizations to defend their actions.
Just as you'll have no problem in finding people calling themselves Christian who at the same time do any number of terrible things.

But being a nationalist is still not actually compatible with the socialist ideology, which is based on the concept of class instead of nation.
To Marx nationalism was just another thing the upper classes used to distract ordinary people from demanding their rights.
That's how all dictators have always used nationalism and that how it's still being used today.

Look at Kim Jong-Un in North Korea for instance.
He can barely feed his own people but keeps them in check with terror, the threat of the hated foreigners and the demand that they must support their nation.

But the ordinary North Korean people of course have much more in common with their South Korean relatives then they ever have with Kim. They have nothing to gain by starving so their dictatorial regime can build nuclear weapons - they only want what all ordinary people want - to live in peace.

Kim is just using nationalism - the claim that all North Koreans must support the state - to further his own personal interest, which is to remain in power.

But ordinary North Koreans would of course be much better of if the state that enslaves them just came crashing down.
The concept of nationalism is just being used by Kim to fool his people into supporting him personally - just like all dictators have always done.

@Nisse_Hult

"Nationalistic people = far-right. There is NO other people then the far-righters who call themselves "nationalistic" - it's just a code word for "I hate dark skinned people (and possibly Jews)"."

Contrary to the world-embracing, fact-ignoring, cherry-picking, hive mind, cult mentality of the left, I love my country even with all its faults, instead of hating it, so... I'm a Nazi?

'@DarkMage7280' to be Nazi you have to be national _socialist_. Far-right socialist, apparently.

@DarkMage7280

"so... I'm a Nazi?"

You tell me. All I know is that you're stupid.

Go read up on the difference between nationalistic and patriotic and you can tell me later:

http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-nationalism-and-patriotism/

@Nisse_Hult

That article is the canard that "patriotism means loving your country, nationalism means hating all other countries". That's just a lie.

Nationalism is an ideology that says that the world's legal and political borders should reflect the sociocultural differences of mankind, embodied in the concept of the nation-state. No, these aren't two words that mean the same thing, nation and State, a nation is a group of people bound by a common history, culture, language, who have a desire to live together and that create a political entity, a State is a legal entity that has sovereignty over a given territory.

A nationalist is thus one who believes that each nation should have its own State, within the limits of the reasonable, so that they can govern itself how it sees fit, according to the nation's values and social norms. And that the State should promote that nation's culture and identity to form a more harmonious and homogeneous society. Nationalism emerged in the 18th and 19th century at the same time as modern democracy, and the two concepts are strongly linked. Democracy says that the people governed by a State should be the ones with the power to control the State, but it's vague on how to determine borders. Nationalism provides a basis for coherent, stable borders, and also shares the idea that the State should be controlled by the people, the two ideas are thus strongly complementary.

Nationalism is opposed to multiculturalism, which is a doctrine that says that not only many cultures can coexist in the same State, but that cultural diversity must be encouraged over the formation of a strong national identity and culture, and which denies nations the right to self-determination, favoring instead ever greater State entities that encompass large areas. In Europe, making the EU a more powerful State (federalism) is a multiculturalist project, whereas nationalists oppose the granting of more power to the EU in order to preserve their nation's sovereignty (the Europe of nations proposal).

Patriotism is just the feeling of attachment to one's State/country. A nationalist can be a patriot, a patriot can be a nationalist, but a nationalist of a nation that doesn't have its own State may not be a patriot towards the current State he live in, and someone can be patriotic towards a multinational, multicultural kingdom without being a nationalist.

For example, I'm a Québec nationalist, I have no patriotic love for Canada, but some Québec nationalists do feel an attachment and pride for Canada, and Canadian multiculturalists (like current PM Trudeau) who oppose nationalism often demonstrate great patriotic love for Canada.

Also, nationalist movements in the world often collaborate with one another, putting the lie that nationalism is about hating everybody else in the ground for good. Québec, Scottish and Catalan nationalist movements often collaborate with one another and support another, morally if not in more direct ways.

@simval

"That article is the canard that "patriotism means loving your country, nationalism means hating all other countries". That's just a lie."

Actually it's not. You just have to look it up in a dictionary to see that. For instance:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationalism

Explaining the difference between patriotism and nationalism Merriam-Webster further writes that:

"Nationalism has a number of near-synonyms, each of which carries its own distinct meaning. Patriotism is similar insofar as it emphasizes strong feelings for one's country, but it does not necessarily imply an attitude of superiority."

That is - nationalism does imply an attitude of superiority.

"Nationalism is opposed to multiculturalism, which is a doctrine that says that not only many cultures can coexist in the same State, but that cultural diversity must be encouraged over the formation of a strong national identity and culture, and which denies nations the right to self-determination, favoring instead ever greater State entities that encompass large areas."

Complete nonsense.

First of all there's not some multiculturalist ideology or doctrine - that's just a bogeyman the far-right have created to define what they see as the enemy.
Multiculturalism is just a name for the natural result of different cultures blending.

It's happened all throughout history where several distinct cultures have shared a small geographical space - like in Europe. Nationalists don't like to admit that, instead pretending that a "pure" nation and culture can be defined (by them of course) - but that's just nonsense.
The Scots didn't invent either the bagpipe or the kilt for instance, but only nationalist sees those facts as some sort of a smear on their perceived notions of what the Scottish culture should be.
It's just a natural fact of history that people move around and cultures blend over time.

As I said it's always happened - it's just that now we have a name for it.

And this blending of cultures is not something anyone tries to force on anyone - there's not some dark conspiracy of evil "globalists" trying to deny anyone self-determination like you claim.

The EU is a neoliberal economical project that seeks to benefit trade and an economic agenda that suits big business. That certainly hurts ordinary workers in some ways, but the goal is to make money - not to destroy nations or mix races or deny anyone self-determination or anything else the far-right believes.

"Also, nationalist movements in the world often collaborate with one another, putting the lie that nationalism is about hating everybody else in the ground for good. Québec, Scottish and Catalan nationalist movements often collaborate with one another and support another, morally if not in more direct ways."

Once again no lie.

Yes - they happily cooperate as long as they have a common enemy, which today are these fabled "multiculturalists" that they claim anyone to be that doesn't see things the way they do.

But without that common enemy and put into a situation where their interests would conflict they'd be at each others throats in no time.

I said during the French elections that it was really lucky for Britain that Le Pen didn't win in France.
Ukip was of course hoping she would - believing she would be an ally to them.

But do you imagine she would be willing to negotiate a Brexit deal, favorable for Britain, at the expense of France?
Of course not!

And regarding Ukips demands that Britain must take back control over it's fishing waters - exactly how smooth do you think any fishing zone disputes between a British Ukip government and a French Le Pen-lead government would be?

They'd both end up sending in the navy before either of them gave away something they believe their nation was entitles to - and nationalist always believe their nation is entitled to anything it once had or now wants.

@Nisse_Hult

" Actually it's not. You just have to look it up in a dictionary to see that. For instance:"

Actually it is. I just told you what nationalism actually is. Unfortunately, the term has been used as a smear by ignorant people or ideologues, imparting a meaning to the word that hide the reality of the ideology behind it.

"That is - nationalism does imply an attitude of superiority."

No, it doesn't. You have a caricature of nationalism in your mind that has no connection to actual nationalists.

"First of all there's not some multiculturalist ideology or doctrine - that's just a bogeyman the far-right have created to define what they see as the enemy.
Multiculturalism is just a name for the natural result of different cultures blending."

Multiculturalism is an ideology, it's even an officially recognized policy in Canada, Pierre Elliott Trudeau shoved it into the constitution when he repatriated it in 1982. It's a bit like secularism applied to culture and identity. Whereas secularism is an ideology that says that the State must be religiously neutral, multiculturalism says the State must be culturally neutral and not promoting any single national identity, to allow the emergence of many identities and achieve greater cultural diversity.

Cultures blending is the exact opposite of multiculturalism. Blending cultures is the melting pot, a model that multiculturalism expressly opposes. In Canada, the go-to formula is "the US is a melting pot, Canada is a cultural mosaic".

There's a confusion in semantics because "multiculturalism" is also used to denote the objective reality of many cultures existing in a single State, a confusion that multiculturalists love to cultivate (it's hard to criticize something if you don't have a word for it). Whether you call it globalism, cosmopolitanism, multiculturalism, it's an ideology, it's real, and it's very influential. It's not a conspiracy or whatnot, it's just like any other ideology, a way of seeing the world and an idea about what society should strive towards, shared by a lot of people. You can easily spot these people because they spout things like "I'm a citizen of the world", "Our country is a country of immigrants", "nobody chooses where they're born, it's stupid to be proud of your country", etc...

"It's happened all throughout history where several distinct cultures have shared a small geographical space - like in Europe. Nationalists don't like to admit that, instead pretending that a "pure" nation and culture can be defined (by them of course) - but that's just nonsense."

It's ironic you claim that multiculturalism is a "bogeyman" when in fact the image you have of nationalists is the REAL bogeyman. What you say may apply to a small minority of nationalists, but not to most.

I note that you talk about "geographic space", a term that denies the important reality of political borders and States. Yes, there were many cultures in Europe, but most had their own States, which is important because it allows cultures to dominate a political space, inspiring the laws and social norms that rule public life in that space, minimizing tensions between different cultures who may have different ideals of living and norms, allowing them to live in separate legal and political spaces even if they are geographically close.

"The EU is a neoliberal economical project that seeks to benefit trade and an economic agenda that suits big business. That certainly hurts ordinary workers in some ways, but the goal is to make money - not to destroy nations or mix races or deny anyone self-determination or anything else the far-right believes."

The leaders of the EU project have been clear that they see borders as the "worst invention in the history of the world", and they also have claimed things like "there can be no democratic choice against European treaties". As to the neoliberal agenda, it's debatable. The harmonization of economic rules to create a federal EU, the "United States of Europe", may look like neoliberalism sometimes, but actual free marketers point out that the EU is far from a free trade entity, it favors free trade internally, but has no qualms about controlling trade with countries outside the EU.

The goal of federalists in Europe is to destroy the nation-State, viewed as the cause of war. It's so blatant that pro-EU people will often parrot the claim that the EU is the only reason there hasn't been a new World War originating in Europe.

"But without that common enemy and put into a situation where their interests would conflict they'd be at each others throats in no time."

They would both defend their own nation's interests foremost, but they would not support dominating the other, and support the other's right to exist. It's the equivalent of defending the freedom of speech of someone else you may disagree with.

Oh, and Québec, Scottish and Catalan nationalist movements have collaborated for decades, way before multiculturalism became so ascendant.

@simval

"Actually it is. I just told you what nationalism actually is. Unfortunately, the term has been used as a smear by ignorant people or ideologues, imparting a meaning to the word that hide the reality of the ideology behind it."

No it's not - as I've shown you and everyone else reading this.
You didn't tell me what "nationalism actually is" - you told me what YOU THINK it is - but you're wrong, as I showed you.

You don't own the right to redefine words any way you like just because that suits your own agenda - the definition of words is what we have dictionaries for and that's why I linked to one and their definition of the word.

You get to hold any opinion you like, but you don't get to keep your own "alternative facts" like inventing completely different meanings for words.

That's why I'll freely admit I was sloppy in my description of multiculturalism last night (I wrote my last comment late last night before I went to bed).
As you rightly say - there is of course a difference between the blending of cultures and multiculturalism.

My point, which I didn't express very articulately, is that the blending of cultures is still the inevitable result as soon as different cultures interact.

It's always baffling to me that people proclaiming to be such staunch supporters of their own cultural identity has so little faith in it's ability to attract others.

I'm Swedish and Sweden has a lot of immigrants.
Our far-right nationalist of course make a big fuss about that, scaremongering about how Swedish culture will be completely swamped by all other cultures.
But all historical records clearly shows that in reality the direct opposite happens.
As long as the majority culture is open to the newcommers, that's what happens.

It's the immigrating culture that fairly quickly fades away under the influence of the dominant majority culture in the country the immigrants come to.

Immigrants kids go to day-care and school, they watch TV and absorbs the majority culture and they want what all the other kids their age want.
If they don't get it from their parents, who may be more conservative and set in the cultural traditions they grew up with, they themselves will give their own kids what they themselves didn't get growing up.

Integration is a generational issue to be sure, but in a historical sense we're talking about very rapid processes. Within a generation or two almost all immigrant groups are almost completely integrated into the majority culture.

What remains are some cultural traces - some of whom may also, over time, be transferred to the majority population if they are popular enough.
Most often this will be things like popular food dishes, some words or expressions, a musical influence or maybe an item of clothing.

So yes - over time all cultures will always blend together, with the dominant one in terms of numbers asserting it's domination.

What multiculturalism is about is to not force this issue, but let it occur naturally.

Letting people - who so chooses - retain old cultural traditions isn't a threat to the majority culture in any way.
That a few immigrant kids goes to some group and learns about their parents culture doesn't change the fact that they are still constantly immersed in the majority culture every other hour they interact with the society they live in.

On the other hand, following a policy of forced assimilation - which is what nationalists often promotes - instead risks leading to a backlash.
If you pressure people they will resent it and often do the exact opposite of what your intentions are, as a result of that pressure.

Furthermore, neither multiculturalism nor secularism are ideologies like you claim, they are policies - just like free speech is a policy.

And like free speech multiculturalism could just as well have been named free culture.

It's not about forcing anyone to do anything - it's about allowing people to express themselves in any way they like.

Regarding culture the end result will still be the same - cultures will always blend naturally.

Unless that is - you try to force people into predefined cultural moulds as nationalists want.
That will inevitably lead to resentment and conflict.

"The leaders of the EU project have been clear that they see borders as the "worst invention in the history of the world", and they also have claimed things like "there can be no democratic choice against European treaties"."

Please provide reputable sources for those quotes or they will be ignored.

"The goal of federalists in Europe is to destroy the nation-State, viewed as the cause of war."

And a reputable source for this claim also, or it can likewise be ignored as non-factual.

It's true many proponents of the EU cites the EU as responsible for keeping the peace in Europe (within the EU that is, of course) since the second world war.

But I've never heard any reputable critic of the EU and it's proponents claim that democratic choices doesn't trump EU treaties (in fact that's precisely what's happening now with Brexit of course), or that anyone wants to "destroy the nation-State".

It sounds like you're getting your "information" on the EU from some very extreme and conspiratorial sources.

"They would both defend their own nation's interests foremost, but they would not support dominating the other, and support the other's right to exist. It's the equivalent of defending the freedom of speech of someone else you may disagree with."

There is nothing in the history of nationalism that support these beliefs of yours.
On the contrary the ideology's short history is filled with people using nationalism as a rallying cry for war.

"Oh, and Québec, Scottish and Catalan nationalist movements have collaborated for decades, way before multiculturalism became so ascendant."

Of course they could. They are conveniently places in three widely disparate geographical areas and their national interests doesn't compete in any way at all.

Now try convincing anyone that the same is true for nationalists in Northern Ireland or in the Middle East - or any other small geographical area with many competing interests.
You can't because nationalists doesn't play nice with anyone neighboring their perceived territory.

@Nisse_Hult

"No it's not - as I've shown you and everyone else reading this.
You didn't tell me what "nationalism actually is" - you told me what YOU THINK it is - but you're wrong, as I showed you."

You didn't show anything of that kind. I'm telling you what nationalism is because as a nationalist, I know better than you what I think. If you refuse to listen, you're choosing convenient ignorance over knowledge.

"I'm Swedish and Sweden has a lot of immigrants.
Our far-right nationalist of course make a big fuss about that, scaremongering about how Swedish culture will be completely swamped by all other cultures.
But all historical records clearly shows that in reality the direct opposite happens."

I'm sorry, but that is completely dishonest. Sweden has never known the kind of immigration it is experimenting now. It is a lie to pretend that this current immigration policy is anything less than unprecedented. Furthermore, the context of immigration is totally different. In the past, native Swedes had a growing population through high fertility, culture was very local, the few migrants were cut off from their homeland and forced into a community of dominant Swedish culture. Today, Swedes have a naturally declining population, modern technology allows migrants to maintain contact with their homeland and their culture. People don't even have to interact with their neighbors unless they want to, while they can chat daily with their family members half a world away.

All of this is quite unprecedented, and fear for Swedish culture is reasonable, because it's a possible outcome of what is occurring. Multiculturalism and mass immigration weaken the host culture, and the case of English-Canadians is a strong example of that. It used to be that English-Canadians had a strong culture and identity as British subjects of North America, today, that culture and identity is almost completely faded away in Ontario, which has a massive migrant population. In multiculturalism, every community has the right to an exclusive identity and culture EXCEPT the majority, which is told to be inclusive to a fault, deprived of the moral right to use "we" or any term to describe themselves that exclude minority communities. Just like a country without borders is no longer a country, a culture that seeks inclusiveness at any cost will soon lose all meaning. For when a culture defines itself, it automatically excludes everyone who doesn't share the elements that define it.

"Furthermore, neither multiculturalism nor secularism are ideologies like you claim, they are policies - just like free speech is a policy."

All policies are based on ideas and values. Multiculturalism is an ideology. Denial of this reality just serves to deny the possibility of discussing it openly and honestly.

"On the other hand, following a policy of forced assimilation - which is what nationalists often promotes - instead risks leading to a backlash.
If you pressure people they will resent it and often do the exact opposite of what your intentions are, as a result of that pressure."

Incorrect. There may be some backlash from some, but such a course has worked in the past. The modern French cultural identity for instance has been the result of strong policies of integration and promotion of that identity on a very regional fragmented country in the 19th century. Japanese identity is also a result of a very strong assimilationist policy, so much so that people often forget that Japan actually had regional peoples: Okinawans, Enishi, Ainu.

With mass immigration, what is often seen is a voluntary segregation of migrant communities that forge their own enclaves, isolating them from the greater society. People attend kindergartens and schools in which people of the majority ethnocultural group are a minority, or in some cases absent altogether. How can people integrate or cultures blend in such a context? The result of multiculturalism is balkanization, it creates fault lines in a society, it may work in good days, but put enough pressure on the society, and CRACK! See for example how Austro-Hungary just blew up in WWI, versus how Germany remained nationally united even in defeat and during great sociopolitical upheavals that followed the defeat.

"Please provide reputable sources for those quotes or they will be ignored."

I like when people tell me to put up sources, it's a tacit agreement that the comments I denounce would be unacceptable if true. Then I show they are true, and I can watch them spin, spin, spin to try to justify them away.

-National borders ‘worst invention ever’: EU chief-
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/23/national-borders-worst-invention-ever-eu-chief.html

-The president of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker said "there can be no democratic choice against the European treaties.-
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31082656

Sure, you can say it's just one guy... who is currently they head of the European Commission and most powerful person in the EU. If he's there, it's not because his opinion is marginal among Eurocrats.

" And a reputable source for this claim also, or it can likewise be ignored as non-factual."

People tend not to be as forthright about this, but there are a few examples.

UN's special representative for migration said that the EU should undermine national homogeneity to transition to multicultural societies
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-18519395

Justin Trudeau boasted that Canada was a "postnational State"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/04/the-canada-experiment-is-this-the-worlds-first-postnational-country

The biggest issue with multiculturalism is that every culture has different values, different norms, different ideas about how life should be lived. Therefore, cultures shape every aspect of a society: laws, norms, rules, policies, etc... When in a State with many coexisting cultures, since there can be only one legal system for all, what culture gets to impose its vision of society on others? It is literally impossible for laws to be objectively neutral, they are always based on values and ideals. That's why multicultural societies are always so fragile, as cultures clash inside the same State to get their way, cultivating solidarity only inside the cultural community rather than with all citizens. That's why nation-States and nationalism make so much sense, it promotes a cultural convergence inside a State and solidarity that encompasses all citizens.

The way I see it, you can either be a nationalist, an imperialist or an anarchist. Multiculturalists tend to be liberal imperialists who believe the entire world must be subject to the same laws and guiding ideology.

@simval

"You didn't show anything of that kind. I'm telling you what nationalism is because as a nationalist, I know better than you what I think. If you refuse to listen, you're choosing convenient ignorance over knowledge."

You're only reinforcing my argument by showing you can't differentiate between what you think and what is factually true.
Yes - you know better what YOU think nationalism is - but that's not relevant to what nationalism ACTUALLY is.
The word has an actual definition - like all words do - and it's the job of dictionaries and academics to give that.
You can speak for yourself, but you can't claim that your opinion trumps the academic community.
That is precisely "choosing convenient ignorance over knowledge" which you accuse me of in your classical example of projection.

You're also completely inconsistent as you go from claiming authority to redefine the definition of the word nationalism based on you being one, to trying to tell me - a Swede - about Sweden.
If your first argument had any bearing at all, surely you would have to accept what I as a Swede tell you about my own country? But oh no - you're not just an expert in nationalism because you are one - you're also an expert on Sweden...because you're Canadian?

How does the mind work that jumps freely from one rationale to a completely opposite one in consecutive sentences? It's not operating on logic, to be sure.

Some of what you write about immigration has merit, most of it has not.
Yes, technology today of course gives people the opportunity to communicate more easily along huge distances - but this haven't been shown to make any practical difference in immigrants assimilation.
Because Sweden has in fact had this very generous immigration policy for many decades now, and we've already seen this play out with an earlier group of immigrants.

Funnily enough a group of immigrants precisely from the Balkans, as you use that talk about "Balkanization" - this popular scaremongering the far-right uses.

The largest flow of immigrants Sweden had ever accepted in modern times (apart from some instances during the second world war) until the large influx that came in 2014-15, was the huge number of immigrants that came during the Balkan wars in the 1990's.

Our neo-fascist party of course told horror stories about these violent Balkans who would surely destroy Sweden, bringing their conflicts with them and yes - this would of course lead to a "balkanization" in Sweden as well.

Well now, two decades later, the results are in and nothing of the sort happened.
Immigrants and second generation immigrants from the Balkans today have the same educational level as the rest of the Swedish population and even slightly higher numbers of employment.
They integrated just fine into Swedish society and as a result our neo-fascist no longer talks about that group at all of course, but have instead turned their hate toward other groups.

So no, your guessing has already been proven wrong by empirical evidence.

Also, on a more general point you obviously don't know Swedish history.
We've almost ALWAYS been a huge immigrant nation. Our fertility wasn't anywhere near enough to grow our population historically when you take high child mortality and constant wars into account.
We've seen mass immigration of all kinds of people throughout our entire history.

German was just as commonly spoken in Stockholm as Swedish during the middle ages (to this day a large part of the Swedish language is very influenced by the north German dialects) and the city council of Stockholm even had special rules in place ensuring that Germans and Swedes got equal representation on the council.

Later on the crown took in any number of foreign noblemen as officers in the army, as well as all manner of skilled workers the country needed.

These groups where given special permissions to continue their customs - and most importantly those that where Catholic where given permission to remain Catholic and keep Catholic services for them and their children in perpetuity. This in a country where Catholicism was otherwise completely outlawed.
But within a generation or two these people basically all converted and inter-married with the native Protestant population, and assimilated Swedish customs and culture.
Not because they where forced too, but because they where welcomed into the Swedish society with open arms.

Because as I wrote previously, successful assimilation is dependent on one very important point:

"As long as the majority culture is open to the newcommers"

If the majority culture is not open to the newcomers but shut then out from ever joining the majority - THAT'S when you get resentment and conflict.

Which is why it's really telling that you name France and Japan as good examples, when they in fact both are terrible examples!

France is a terribly racist nation that's treated it's foreign subjects and later immigrants from those countries like crap. That's the reason they have huge parts of the population with immigrant roots many generations later still living in suburb hellholes that breeds conflict.

Because this segregation is not at all as "voluntary" as you claim. First generation immigrant initially tend to cluster together for comfort in a new and unknown country - that's true.
But very soon people start wanting to move out into the no longer strange country they live in. If not for themselves so definitely for their children, whom they of course wish to see succeed in this new land.
But when they and even more so their children can't break out of these suburbs, when they are held back by poverty and/or racism, denied the possibly to live anywhere else and blend into the majority society, many of them naturally grow resentful as they are treated as second class citizens.

That's the reason France now live under a state of emergency and have the military patrolling their streets after having suffered the largest amount of deadly terror attacks in all of Europe in recent times.

Neither Sweden nor Germany, which have both taken in far more immigrants per capita then France has, has any where near those problems.

Because in Sweden and Germany society doesn't shut the immigrants out but is open to them.

Now that's not to say there aren't racists in either Sweden or Germany - of course there are.
But those societies don't differentiate between citizens based on their birthplace or heritage.
Immigrants in those countries know that when they meet prejudice and racism it's not tacitly sanctioned by the society they live in, but seen as a problem and taken seriously.

Just as there will always be racists in the majority population there will of course also be criminals and trouble makers in the immigrant population. But then we respond to those individuals, we don't scapegoat entire subsets of the population by claiming that "immigrants" in general are responsible for the acts of individuals - because they aren't, of course.

Regarding Japan it's a nation on the way to annihilating itself.
Their birthrate is so low and their average age so high there won't even be a Japan left in a few hundred years if they continue like this.
They're of course even more racist then the French - and even towards white westerners, who aren't used to having to face racism themselves.
Japan is in desperate need of immigration, but racist, nationalist policies are slowly killing them.
So great example you picked there...

An naming the Okinawans, the Emishi and the Ainu peoples of current day Japan as examples of a successful assimilation policy is simply despicable!

These peoples where brutally subjugated by the Japanese and often reduced to mere slaves. They where refused all rights to their cultural heritage and forbidden to speak their own languages and practice their culture.
Since Japan has now controlled these territories for hundreds of years they've almost completely stamped out all traces of these original cultures - and it's VERY telling that this to you is a sign of success!

Even the current day Japan (racist as it still is) has had to publicly apologize for it's brutal mistreatment of these indigenous people - but you still rate this as a success!?

This is in fact precisely the historical record of nationalism. That name wasn't invented when the Japanese started their mistreatment of these people but from the late 1800's and on this was done in the name of Japanese nationalism.

And it's in no way an exception - this forced subjugation of other peoples and cultures are instead a natural consequence of nationalism.

This - the historical records of centuries of mistreatment and abuse - is what nationalism has brought the world, and it bears no resemblance to your fantasy version of happy nation states respecting one another.

And comparing the Austro-Hungarian empire to the German is historical ignorance.
The Germans did comprise one people splintered in many different tiny states - the Austro-Hungarians comprised many different peoples subjugated under the rule of a tiny clique of Austrians initially.
They then had to give more autonomy to the Hungarians, renaming the empire from the Austrian to the Austro-Hungarian empire, but by still trying to subjugate all other different peoples without giving them a way to thrive within the country it was of course doomed to fail sooner or later.

If the Austrians on the other hand had been open to share power between the peoples of their realm, affording them equal rights, they might have been able to form a new amalgamated nation from the different peoples they ruled - just like the US.

But they stuck to nationalist Austrian policies and then it all predictably failed of course.

"I like when people tell me to put up sources, it's a tacit agreement that the comments I denounce would be unacceptable if true. Then I show they are true, and I can watch them spin, spin, spin to try to justify them away."

Actually, if you had been content with just claiming that these individuals had made these comments then that could have been true.
But you couldn't help but to overreach and claim that "the leaders of the EU project" said something and "the goal of federalists in Europe is" and then all you could produce was the words of three individuals - two of which aren't even EU representatives at all.
So you're left with two quotes from one individual person - that's your basis for claiming that you know what "the leaders of the EU project" think and what "the goal of federalists in Europe is".
One person, two quotes.

But let's look closer and see in what context these quotes where actually said.

The first quote:

"Borders are the worst invention ever made by politicians"

Junkers said this in august 2016 in the context of defending solidarity with refugees and their children, according to the article you linked to.
This was immediately contradicted by British PM Theresa May and the article goes on to point out that both Germany and France (and Sweden and other smaller EU members I might add) had taken directly opposite action by enforcing border controls.
The article then goes on to cite the VP at some think-tank:

"He added that the contrast between Juncker's opinions and political leaders' moves to tighten borders demonstrated that power in Europe lay with national politicians rather than EU bureaucrats."

Which is the truth you EU-haters never actually understands (or just ignores?) - the bureaucrats don't decide shit.
Junkers can say what ever he wants - it's still not up to him to set policy.
He works FOR the EU - he doesn't decide EU policy.

So far from that quote showing what "the leaders of the EU project" think, it shows what one of the EU's employees think.

Granted it's the highest employee - but he's still just an employee.

So, on to the next quote then:

"there can be no democratic choice against the European treaties"

Here you cut the actual quote short as the link you posted shows it actually, in it's entirety, reads:

"there can be no democratic choice against the European treaties. One cannot exit the euro without leaving the EU"

Now this was said by Junkers in January 2015 in talking about the Greek debt crisis - that's why the end of the quote talks about exiting the Euro. That Greece was ever allowed to join the common currency the Euro was the reason for the entire debt crisis and there where discussions at the time that letting Greece leave the common currency might be the best option for solving the crisis.
Junkers clearly didn't want that to happen and said that last part as a threat. Greece certainly doesn't want to leave the EU, so claiming an Euro exit must also mean an EU exit was a way to try to put pressure on the Greeks to remain in the Euro.

Now once again Junkers doesn't decide anything and what he said there is blatantly false any way. Several EU members (including Sweden) didn't even join the common currency, so of course Greece could remain in the EU even if it left the Euro. So this is just an empty threat - and a clumsy one at that.

The first part of the quote, the one you elected to use, was a reference to the newly elected Greek government who had recently won the election on the platform of rejecting a debt repayment plan the previous Greek government had accepted.
The newly elected Greek government claimed it's victory showed it was the Greek people democratic choice to reject the agreement the old Greek government had accepted in their name - Junkers in the quote rejects this idea.
Just above that quote in the article you linked to the German minister of finance is quoted as saying the same, only more succinctly:
"Elections change nothing. There are rules"

Now I'm skeptical about a lot the EU does and how it functions and the way EU treated Greece is prime example of that.

But what you did here is to lift a shortened quote out of context and imply that this one quote from Junkers speaks to what "the leaders of the EU project" think in general and that is patently false.

No one is generally claiming that "there can be no democratic choice against the European treaties" like you portrayed it - and as I've already said this is clearly demonstrated by the ongoing British Brexit.

Not one bureaucrat or elected politician in the EU has ever claimed that Britain doesn't have the democratic choice to leave the EU if it so wishes - all people have rightly pointed out is that it's a terrible idea for Britain to do so financially.
Not that that has stopped any number of British Brexiters and the British tabloids from claiming any number of misleading and/or clearly false things about these matters, of course.

But the facts are that unless Britain herself chooses to change her mind again (and the EU accepts her rescinding her decision to leave) she will be leaving the EU the 29 of march 2019 - exactly two years after British PM Theresa May triggered article 50 of the EU's Lisbon Treaty that governs how exiting from the EU is handled.
So clearly the shortened quote you tried to use misleadingly do not in any way prove what you pretended it does.

Regarding what some UN official said he thought the EU should do and Justin Trudeau said about Canada I'm not even going to waste time commenting on that as neither of those can in any way prove your claim that:

"The goal of federalists in Europe is to destroy the nation-State, viewed as the cause of war."

@DarkMage7280
That means you are a patriot, not a nationalist. They are very different things.

so they were cucks even a thousand years ago

@v0ider It was a small gene pool. When all the men who could be the father are closely related it doesn't make much difference and if she managed to get some fresh blood in that's good for everybody. Plus they were busy sowing wild oats all over Europe.

@v0ider In my humble opinion, I really don't think it's "cuck" when the husband knows, is willing for it to happen, there's no societal taboo, no stigma on the woman, etc..
Plus you can't tell me the husband wasn't fooling around on that trip. Siring kids all over the North (sometimes by force). If it's good for the gander, it's good for the goose.

@Arania Don't give me that "stigma" and "taboo" BS. If you have sex with somebody other than your spouse, or deceive them into thinking it's okay, you are a traitor. That is the only correct word I can think to describe it.

@Arania It's definitely cuck when the husband knows. In fact, it's ONLY cuck when the husband knows and doesn't care or maybe even approves. Hence all the cuck porn where the husband is watching and enjoys it. Cuck basically means that you're a pathetic man who is not willing to fight for your relationship. As for societal stigma, as far as HIS culture is concerned, that's not really relevant. It's like saying that when Muslims commit honor killings, that's not murder, simply because HIS culture doesn't deem it so. But that's not relevant to us, or what we call him.

Something that needs remembered: Adoption isn't a new thing, and if you had the chance to adopt a strong and capable individual into your household, it was often a boon for the house as a whole in most societies. Many times adopted sons were considered equal to blood sons, societies that opposed bastards often traced it back to complex political issues, or even inheritance laws. In fact in rome and even early roman Christianity sometimes there seems to be a general rule that it's only bad if a child is born from the union, since that generally complicated legal issues. This is part of the reason why you often saw so many married individual who embraced same sex lovers-marriage was for legal inheritance while your sexuality was more for either pleasure or love.

This naturally evolved over the centuries into the more complex mess we have these days, but back then it was a different beast entirely that changed with each society. Placing absolute reliance on blood was a much more recent thing, since even societies that did place a major thing on it often were ok with talent grabbing whenever they had the chance. That said, even in societies with less than caring things about marriage fidelity, I wouldn't hold my hopes up for the life of an incompetent child born from another man. Generally you would only embrace and adopt capable people-so if you lack both that and blood relation, then unless your biodad and father are good friends I wouldn't hold much hope for first dibs at dinner.

@Soulbourne Actually, only two cultures in world history have ever had the idea of adoption in the sense of the adoptee becoming a full member of the family--ancient Rome (where the adoptee was almost always an adult) and the US and Europe starting in the late 19th century. Other cultures certainly had the idea of raising other people's children, but they weren't regarded as regular members of the family. Fosterage, the sort of adoption early medieval Scandinavia employed, was explicitly not membership in the new family. The foster-child's birth family and ancestry remained a defining part of his social identity.

@Bohemond I seem to remember that Japan had/has a custom of adopting a daughters husband as a legit son of the family. He takes on his wife's family name instead the norm of the wife marrying out and taking up the family name of the husband. It was mostly a way to scout talent or get a male heir if the family only had daughters. So like Soulbourne said it's hardly a new custom to adopt, and it's not just limited to the recent-ish west and Rome. I'm sure other examples could be found if one made the effort to look.

@Mojo Hmm. That bit of info was something I learned from a professor of mine who was a specialist in the history of family law. Perhaps he was saying the only two societies in Western Civilization (which was his area of focus) and I am misremembering.

So..
Scandinavians were cuckolds?
Well, that explains it why they act like that todays.