What would a non liberal european flag look like?

Don't know what you're trying to say here.
Rome was a nation with an empire, not a union of different nations.

i'm talking about post-war liberalism/free market capitalism
so what? why does that make a european project inherently liberal?

Liberalism is opposed to nationalism.
A union of different nations, thus a multi ethic state, is anti nationalistic.

no it isn't. nationalism is a fundamentally liberal ideology about "freedom" for nations subjected to imperialism. read the revolutions of 1848 and the paris peace conference

This isn't the 19th century.
Yes, when Europe was ruled by monarchies the goal was their destruction. But history has shown that nation states also go to war with each other, and the goal of contemporary liberalism (and I'm not even talking about the far left) is to maintain world peace, and to replace ethno nationalism with civic nationalism (which means destroying nations from within).

Republicanism != Nationalism

Also, on a practical not, I don't see how a union of nationalities in a single state could be compatible with nationalism.
What would be the official language or the holydays? Where would the capital be? What about the army and migration policies? And the economic inequality of different nations?

even if liberals today have moved on that doesn't change the fact that nationalism is a liberal ideology at it's core about everyone having their itty bitty happy homelands. most nationalists today are libertarians for god's sake. a europe of nation-states is far more likely to be (and already is) liberal than one based on unity and power
the creation of nation-states is not republicanism
probably english, rome, and modelled off the unification of east and west germany. but that's my suggestion

>nationalism is a liberal ideology
People wanting to have their own nation state predates liberalism, so that's wrong.
>most nationalists today are libertarians
Then they must be civic nationalists, so anti nationalists really.
Or just economically liberal, but not politically.
>a europe of nation-states is far more likely to be (and already is) liberal than one based on unity and power
I disagree and don't know how you came to that conclusion. Was fascist Italy less nationalistic than modern Italy?
>probably english, rome, and modelled off the unification of east and west germany
So Europe should just surrender itself to British cultural rule? No thanks.
And east and west Germany were both majority German, in terms of ethnicity. If that hadn't been the case they wouldn't have united at all.

like you said, nation states prior to liberalism were more like nations with empires, they'd expand endlessly until they met resistance. look at most "american nationalists" or right wing populists in europe, they're big lovers of the free market and small government

i'll grant you that there is a kind of imperialist/fascist nationalism where the ruling nation seeks to homogenise its territory and assimilate other ethnic groups, that's different from the "can you please let me have my happy homeland" nationalism which you're in favour of

how can it be british cultural rule if we'd be a small minority in a european state? can you think of a better lingua franca than english? all states in europe are majority european

Attached: IMPERIUM OF MAN.jpg (728x453, 85.13K)

>nation states prior to liberalism were more like nations with empires
Not necessarily. And that was more due to the unstable international situation, compared to what it is today. Now due to American hegemony and NATO and nukes, nations don't need to expand to assure their security, and they also have greater disincentives to do so.
>they're big lovers of the free market and small government
Yah, which means letting in cheap foreign labour.
>i'll grant you that there is a kind of imperialist/fascist nationalism where the ruling nation seeks to homogenise its territory and assimilate other ethnic groups
And i'm not talking about that. But nation states that just try to preserve their own national identity are not liberal. The difference between these two kinds of nationalisms has more to do with the nation, rather than liberalism -some are more imperialistic and want to assimilate, others more defensive.
>all states in europe are majority european
European is not a nationality. You sound like an American with no understanding of the differences between countries.
Why do you think different nations fought for their independence? Why would they do that if we're all just European?

>Now due to American hegemony and NATO
this is the very reason we need to get away from petty nationalism. small nation states are easily subjugated by larger powers
>nation states that just try to preserve their own national identity are not liberal
perhaps not, but what i'm trying to say is that their origin is in liberalism and a europe broken into these is breeding ground the liberalism in the absence of powerful state bodies
>European is not a nationality
it can be if we make it one. france, italy and spain used to all be different nations until they were unified by a state

>small nation states are easily subjugated by larger powers
But alliances like NATO seem to wok very well in deterring aggression. And the price of a union of nations would be their destruction, culturally.
> their origin is in liberalism
read Locke or Mill and tell me what they have to say about nation states?
Locke (the founder of liberalism) believed the role of the state is to protect the people liberty security and property - not cultural or moral integrity.
> europe broken into these is breeding ground the liberalism in the absence of powerful state bodies
Why would a union of different nations, and thus different interests lead to a more powerful state? This is what you're suggesting right?
>it can be if we make it one
Yes, and I absolutely don't want to make it that.
>france, italy and spain used to all be different nations until they were unified by a state
Those smaller states still had a lot in common. And the consolidation of a unified culture for came at the cost of those other dialects and local culture.
Even if Romania was the hegemon, i would not like to see that, because I quite like the cultural diversity of Europe and I think the competing interest of nations is what makes Europe great.

Attached: Rome.jpg (1280x720, 123.81K)

Hopefully this

Attached: 1200px-Flag_of_Germany_(1935–1945).svg.png (1200x720, 19.92K)

deterring aggression from what? the evil russians who want to take your anal sex and dildos away? do you like being a globohomo vassal state? you can't deny that the modern nation-state is a product of liberalism, even if some liberal intellectuals aren't in favour of them

a bigger state with more wealth and military power would obviously be more powerful
>Yes, and I absolutely don't want to make it that.
so you'd rather have your little country of 20 million get pushed around by judeo-corporate american power than be a part of something great? you don't have to do away with nations entirely, more something like india
>Those smaller states still had a lot in common
they had more differences relatively speaking than people across europe do today. someone from lombardy was more alien to someone from naples in 1860 than someone from ireland is to someone from poland today

>deterring aggression from what
Well, you're the one who said small nation states are easily subjugated by larger powers
>do you like being a globohomo vassal state
I like the security of NATO sure, and I don't pretend like out moral problems come from that.
> you can't deny that the modern nation-state is a product of liberalism
I can and I do, liberals supported nationalism at a time when that was the alternative to paternalistic monarchical rule. But liberalism never cared about the nation especially.
>a bigger state with more wealth and military power would obviously be more powerful
Oh, so you meant military power? But for what purpose?
>so you'd rather have your little country of 20 million get pushed around by judeo-corporate american power than be a part of something great?
Romania is not pushed around by NATO, Romanians love NATO. And yes, being part of a military coalition and maintaining our independence is much better then just surrendering our independence outright and getting pushed around by internationalists in a European union.
>someone from lombardy was more alien to someone from naples in 1860 than someone from ireland is to someone from poland today
Why, cuz they all watch the same netflix shows and play the same video games?
Nationality is much more than that, so i completely disagree with what you wrote.

Attached: FB_IMG_1579076669731.jpg (1080x720, 44.28K)

the modern nation-state is a product of 19th century anti-imperialism therefore a product of liberalism
>Oh, so you meant military power? But for what purpose?
i mean all kinds of power, a larger country with more people means a larger economy which means a more powerful state
>maintaining our independence
your "independence" is bullshit, a country like romania is always gonna be someone's bitch, right now you live under an american hegemony
>Why, cuz they all watch the same netflix shows and play the same video games?
whether you like it or not we're all white men in this globalised world. that's how other nations see you and it's how people are beginning to see themselves, even if it's expressed as "europeanism" by some. ethnic differences are becoming increasingly irrelevant
blue and yellow are gross liberal colours

Le liberal colours and right wing colours

Attached: 67bd1a8s-960.jpg (639x1005, 333.27K)

Based. One of the most aesthetic flags ever.

Attached: 1549573977481.jpg (732x972, 184.16K)

yeah it represents something ugly

>the modern nation-state is a product of 19th century anti-imperialism therefore a product of liberalism
Lol, wrong. Read actual liberal thinkers and show me how they were nationalists.
Yes, liberals were for nation state incidentally, but that does not mean that being for a nation state makes you a liberal. I am in favour of nation states and am definitely not a liberal.
> which means a more powerful state
Well, yes of course, but why do you want a more powerful state? What is the military threat you fear?
>your "independence" is bullshit, a country like romania is always gonna be someone's bitch
That is wrong, Romania is part of a military alliance, not a vassal to the US. And we applied to join.
>whether you like it or not we're all white men in this globalised world
I don't like it, since I am not a globalist but a nationalist, and I don't believe in small government, but a strong government that guides the nation culturally and protects its national character.

look at how china bends the will of international bodies. that can only be done with a powerful state, we can't subjugate corporations with tiny nation states

you live in the shadow of american liberalism, so you're subjugated to soft power rather than hard power, what's the difference

You ever think about how some people are terrified by this image? It makes me happy to look at. Dreaming of a better world. Being among my countrymen.