ITT: Non-nations

What are the most liminal nation-states next to Belgium?

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Scotland
    “Scottishness” is basically a phantom invented by Englishmen. The historical Scotland was more like 3 different countries grafted together and the bit we associate with all things Scotland today (the Highlands) was by far the most irrelevant and foreign to the actual kingdom, to the point it was more considered a spillover of Irishness than the heartland of Scotland (really Lothian historically).
    Imagine if about 200~ all of England started conceiving of themselves as Cornish.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Kosovo, Like belgians "Kosovars" don't exist, they're albanians (or serbians).
      Syria, It's a mishmash of tribes with no "syrian nation" which is probably why they've been in a civil war for the last decade.
      Burma/Myanmar, same as above.
      ALL new-world countries. They are all like the USA, based on some "ideals" or "values" instead of nationhood.

      >if a state doesn't live up to my 200 year old idea of a nationstate it's fake
      What is it like to be moronic?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Belgium is literally just a remnant of a Spanish buffer state between the Netherlands and France. Literally everything is divided between the two. The people living there have no similarities. It's the definition of a liminal non-place, like a shopping mall.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I don't get why the Flemish wanted independence from the Netherlands in the 1830 revolution ... allied with Waloons? Do not get.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Catholicism. The Netherlands was too Protestant to handle.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            belgium is basically the cuckold version of a nation state. the flemish have no identity beyond beyond being servant for french speakers.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It’s the other way around now. Flanders is the rich part and Wallonia is the post-industrial white trash hellscape. Separatism in 21st century Western Europe is only for rich c**ts.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            no it isnt kankermongool.they may be poor now but flanders is literally the lapdog of wallonia. taxes disproportianlly go from flanders to wallonia. their ''''''democracy'''' literally has the 3.5m wallonians have the same voting power as 6.5m flamands.

            >Separatism in 21st century Western Europe is only for rich c**ts.
            what does this even mean? as if flanders is somehow to blame for wallonian troubles. its flanders who is the victim in this story. incredible of you to make it some rich vs poor story when for every age before the collapse of the coal and mining industries wallonia was far richer

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > taxes disproportianlly go from flanders to wallonia.
            Yeah, same thing happens with England and its dependencies. Usually in modern states it is those who can pay who uplift their countrymen that cannot, Walloneanderthal.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            but the entire point is that they are not countrymen

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >no it isnt kankermongool.they may be poor now but flanders is literally the lapdog of wallonia. taxes disproportianlly go from flanders to wallonia.

            so you're saying that richer people are the lapdogs of poorer people. Genius logic

            >their ''''''democracy'''' literally has the 3.5m wallonians have the same voting power as 6.5m flamands.

            That's because regions have equal rights, like in America, where the average voter in Wyoming has three times the voting power of a Californian.

            I've never heard anyone saying that Wyomingian (?) are exploiting Californians.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >so you're saying that richer people are the lapdogs of poorer people
            yes, the idea that poor people are powerless victims is marxist drivel.you can absolutely be the poorer region yet have political power. all the institions have been created by the franco-walloon ruling class. and they very disproportinally favor wallonia
            its particulraly egregious in this context when the richness of Flanders has nothing to do with the poverty of wallonia. and again its laiterlly bun just a few decades flanders has been richer then wallonia. also nice job completly ignoring the centuries of wallonians exploiting flanders. ooh the poor wallonian victims....

            >That's because regions have equal rights, like in America, where the average voter in Wyoming has three times the voting power of a Californian.
            >I've never heard anyone saying that Wyomingian (?) are exploiting Californians.
            an single country with a single dominant language and a unified overarching culture is something very different from a foreign ruling class

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >yes, the idea that poor people are powerless victims is marxist drivel.you can absolutely be the poorer region yet have political power.

            being poorer and still having political power seems to be a problem to you

            > all the institions have been created by the franco-walloon ruling class. and they very disproportinally favor wallonia

            That's not what we observe when we go to Belgium

            >also nice job completly ignoring the centuries of wallonians exploiting flanders. ooh the poor wallonian victims....

            lmao in what movie

            >an single country with a single dominant language and a unified overarching culture is something very different from a foreign ruling class

            wallonians are not foreign to belgium tho, you just hate wallonians

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >you just hate wallonians
            Yes.
            Vlaams Belang 2k24 broeders

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            see it just comes down to that
            flemish nationalism is just good ol' identity politics, one of the oldest one

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            ah ge zijt er zo ene. you will grow out of it eventually

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That became the case after the end of WW2, before it was Wallonia who did most of the heavy lifting economy wise, regardless

            belgium is basically the cuckold version of a nation state. the flemish have no identity beyond beyond being servant for french speakers.

            is right, both Flanders and Wallonia have no precedent as "real" countries, both of their nationalism stems from their hatred of the other and linguistic feuds. Flanders was for most of it's existence a bunch of farmlands feeding the local ports whose only point was to bring money to the French crown meanwhile for most of it's history Wallonia was the industrial center of the HRE/Burgundian circle (up until they went east and industrialised the rhine)
            "Belgium" doesn't exist, and neither does Flanders or Wallonia, they're just English colonial holdings of French land, like Jersey and Guernsey

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            well, no country is real then, it's just a dominant class imposing its rules

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Belgium is literally just a remnant of a Spanish buffer state between the Netherlands and France. Literally everything is divided between the two. The people living there have no similarities. It's the definition of a liminal non-place, like a shopping mall.

          Belgium has too strong local identities, not too little, so the idea that it is a non-place like a shopping mall is ridiculous.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Many such cases in the middle east and africa. They are still nation states, even if you think the people are different.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          i would say what we call current day belgium goes back to the burgundian netherlands

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            because you're moronic

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The Romans already spoke of a region called Belgea. It does have a right to statehood

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            yes true

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            moron take

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            how is that a moron take
            what is the alternative

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            the past = not the present
            your take = moron take
            read some books

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            that was not my take
            all modern nations larp as more ancient nations, Belgium not more than France or Germany

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            it was named after a germanic tribe moron

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        get a job walloondog

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yep
        “Nation statism” is one of the most moronic and LARPy inventions of the last few centuries. Responsible for innumerable evils from bad scholarship to the concerted destruction of cool regional cultures. In this regard Belgium is actually rather based as it’s basically a purely political invention united by religion rather than nationalism.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Founding your country on some political beliefs introduces a plethora of problems
        1. What if a citizen doesn't share those values? When you start figuring out a solution to this problem you will very quickly go down the soviet route.
        2. If some other country is also based on those same values, what is the point of your country in the first place?
        You have to justify your existence in this world. If you just say "freedom" or whatever you should just sign up to be the 51st state of the USA. There's nothing that makes your country unique if you base it on some arbitrary values.
        Basing your country on blood instead of ideas prevents all of this.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >If you just say "freedom" or whatever you should just sign up to be the 51st state of the USA
          Puerto Rico-bros...

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Basing your country on blood instead of ideas prevents all of this.
          Most countries don’t qualify, then.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            maybe the only country that would qualify would be the Basque country if it existed, the only pure people in Europe. Maybe the Finns.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            maybe the only country that would qualify would be the Basque country if it existed, the only pure people in Europe. Maybe the Finns.

            Correct
            Most countries today are globohomosexual states with no right to exist, but it's a a greyscale not a black and white world

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >You have to justify your existence in this world.
          lol no you fricking don't. An identity can simply exist, you're the autist who insists that it MUST have a "justification". Why does it need to do that? Not everything is about painting maps like your favorite Paradox game.
          What justification did various feudal territories have for existing as sperate polities from each other? How do you justify Occitania being French as opposed to Catalan? How do you justify Galicia being Spanish and not Portuguese? All this stuff is completely fricking arbitrary

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >lol no you fricking don't
            Yes you do, you might as well have a nice day in the head RIGHT NOW if you can't justify your existence. Same goes for countries. They exist of course whether they can or not but the point is that they shouldn't.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >All this stuff is completely fricking arbitrary
            military conquest most of the time, rather than cultural affinity.
            Cultural affinity is complicated because in western europe, everything is a gradient.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Nobody said they were fake, just that they are not nation states. You read that into every post you're replying to.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What are the 3 nations that make up scotland you refer to?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Pakistan, Israel and England

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          That's presuming Pakistan is even much of a nation. Literally the only thing holding it together is "Islam good, India bad" (insert joke about their capital's name here)

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Lowlanders (the primary basis for Scottish identity until 19th century LARPs started taking over), Gaels and Norn islanders. It is very easily proven that all 3 of these groups regarded others as utterly foreign.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          regarding others as foreign and being actually foreign are two different things
          here when someone from the next village came over, it was considered like Mars Attack

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Right but when you also speak different languages, dress completely different, originate from different ethnicities, have completely different lifestyles and the culture of these groups overlaps with the culture of actual foreigners like the English, the Irish and the Scandinavians more often than with each other then what exactly in this is not foreign? In shape premodern Scotland was about as united nationally as the Hapsburg Empire, or the wider contemporary Britain itself for that matter.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >here when someone from the next village came over, it was considered like Mars Attack
            kek
            In Cornwall, you're still considered an emmet (outsider) if you're just 2nd generation.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Good
            100% of the people from Cornwall I’ve met under the age of 40 talk with posh London accents and you can see the Norman blood in their face. Actual 21st century English colonialism.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You’re forgetting the Brythonics in Galloway. There’s really four base groups of Scotland when you include them. They lasted as a distinct group at least until the early 1300s. I don’t know much about them after the wars of Robert the Bruce.
          And not that I think about it, if you want to get really autistic, there’s the additional groups of foreign nobles and craftsmen invited into Scotland over many years: most of them being Flemish, French, and Breton.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Lowlands highlands Hebrides

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Scurvy affected hands typed this post

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This. Regular reminder that the """Scots Language""" Wikipedia was just some kid retyping the English article while mimicking the comedy Scottish accent from Shrek/Austin Powers and it was so indistinguishable from """Scots"""" that it took years for someone to notice.

      Scurvy affected hands typed this post

      Ah yes, Scotland. Well known for its high consumption of fruit and vegetables.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        A true English hero that kid

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          He wasn't even English. He was actually a severely autistic person from North Carolina who believed that he had an intuitive understanding of Scots because he had a Scots dictionary at hand and had a Scottish last name. The worst part of it is that he actually gained administrative privileges on Scots Wikipedia and was seen as the go-to person for stuff like creating categories and organizing articles.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He is now. St. George will meet him at the gates of Anglican heaven. Greatest bubble-burst of ScotDOG bullshit since the referendum.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      A good (and growing) chunk of what we think of as Scottishness today is from Glasgow, not the Highlands. You're right that all the cheap tourist symbols of Scottish culture were made up on the spot a few hundred years ago, but you'd be wrong to infer from that a fake nation: Most countries have similarly contrived traditions. Germany is no less a nation for the fact only a small proportion of Germans actually wore Lederhosen. (Or, if you're of a certain inclination, all nations are transparently fake...)

      This. Regular reminder that the """Scots Language""" Wikipedia was just some kid retyping the English article while mimicking the comedy Scottish accent from Shrek/Austin Powers and it was so indistinguishable from """Scots"""" that it took years for someone to notice.

      [...]

      Ah yes, Scotland. Well known for its high consumption of fruit and vegetables.

      Nobody really cares about Scots, Scottish Gaelic is where it's at. (which ties back into the point about "official" / "tourist" Scottish culture being highland focused, since Highlanders are the ones who actually spoke Gaelic.)
      There's a reason that even in lowland areas that never spoke Gaelic they put up Gaelic road signs, not Scots ones. Northern Ireland cares more about Scots than the Scottish government does. (because if the Irish get to have a recognized special language, the Ulstermen must have one too...)

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        What do we think of as Scottishness?
        >Haggis
        Invented in England
        >Kilts
        Invented in Ireland
        >Bagpipes
        Invented by the Romans

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Invented in Ireland
          Not entirely true, the great-plaid was invented in Ireland, and that used to be what was known as a kilt. But the modern kilt that Scots wear at weddings was invented by an English Quaker invited to modernise some lairds lumber industry in the Highlands in the 18th century. It is too new to have been worn on any of the Jacobite risings or in the premodern Highlands at all. It was also intended to be a garment for the lower class workmen who couldn’t afford trews, the traditional identifying apparel of Highland gentlemen.
          Tartan patterns were something peculiar to the Scottish plaid that the Irish didn’t use, probably introduced by the Flemish. But the idea of “clan tartans” is a myth, you had regional variations in fashions but this was purely subject to taste rather than any kind of identifier. Except as a class identifier, as commoners would typically only wearing brownish coloured plaids while noblemen would wear any random colours they liked.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I’m not saying Scotland is fake, I’m saying Scotland is liminal. Premodern Scotland was like super-Belgium where pretty much every North Sea culture met, but to be fair this was quite typical of premodern Europe in general. What distinguishes Scotland is that it was a country like this on the islands, whereas despite predating nation states England, Ireland and Wales just happened to be comparatively homogenous. Scotland is also unusual as it was the culture of a minority that came to predominate the identity of the nationalist era nation-building project. Whereas in cases like France or Spain it was the culture of the capital and the historical ruling class that was taken to define the rest of the country.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Scotland is also unusual as it was the culture of a minority that came to predominate the identity of the nationalist era nation-building project
          that's not so different from modern Flanders then. The actual Flemings are just a tiny portion of the "flemish" population; basically two provinces (out of 5) and the rest lies in northern France. But they are central to the modern nation-building

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I'm English and even I think this post is moronic. Scotland is just as "real and authentic" as Austria or the Netherlands at this point. Just because they were made by mushing together the domains of some king doesn't mean anything, that's exactly how every European state was formed.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Like… Belgium for that matter?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          yes why not, modern states are all made-up but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Kosovo, Like belgians "Kosovars" don't exist, they're albanians (or serbians).
    Syria, It's a mishmash of tribes with no "syrian nation" which is probably why they've been in a civil war for the last decade.
    Burma/Myanmar, same as above.
    ALL new-world countries. They are all like the USA, based on some "ideals" or "values" instead of nationhood.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Anglojeet Canada & Quebec
    Simply can't figure out how a nation like Belgium or Switzerland can be united with two or more separate major languages - many of the citizens can't speak to the other.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >he can't learn more than language

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That is beyond Anglo-Canada. They get the same opportunity to learn French in school as the Quebecers do English but they still cannot be fricked to learn French, even if they literally live in Quebec. Not even a separatist but the feds need to get the finger out and lift these anglophone peasants from their monoglot illiteracy if they want to save Canada.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Tabernac have you seen the demographics of "Anglo" Canada? Who the frick is going to learn French, Ranjit or Laquandious?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          French is a smelly language, no one should learn it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            but dutch isn't a smelly language, right

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        hahaha you have never met a french 'person have you?'

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Trying to speak French in Quebec is like trying to speak German in Germany. If you talk with an accent they immediately respond in English (if they are not a Haitian Black person or a French expat)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Hard to believe but if you say so.. the walloondogs in Belgium literally are proud of the fact that they dont speak any flemish dutch and it isnt even mandatory in schools

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That’s because Wallonia is the historical centre of Belgium, French is the language of Brussels and France is right there with its millions of Francophones and cultural exports. It’s more like the Ontario of Belgium than their counterpart to Quebec and they would not learn Flemish for the same reasons. Cba

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >, French is the language of Brussels
            HOLY SHIT you absolute fricking moron
            dutch was literally the language of broekzele EXCEPT THE RULING FRENCH EXPLOITING CLASS
            They culture erased the dutch from the instituations and cpmpletely replaced brussels

            and now i have to argue with you fricking animals who say that THE WALLONIANS ARE THE VICTIMS BECAUSE THEY ARE LE POOR

            i am actually going insane

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

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            boohoo "the francization of brussels" cry me a river
            you had it coming for Leuven 68

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            And Flemish independence will never undo that plus it would have to join the EU and be ruled from Brussels anyway with free access for Francophones, like Scotland, Catalonia and Bavaria it’s just a middle class ape out.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >be ruled from Brussels anyway with free access for Francophones
            oh my goood that's horrible how can we give francophones free access to anything

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            it's because both Flemish and Quebec French are not mean of communication, but gatekeeping tools.
            It's just a way to gatekeep. You can speak the language but you are still not "part of the club".

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            why would they learn d*tch tho, your language is vocal cancer

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Dutch: a torrent of phlegm interrupted by the occasional consonant and glottal stop.
            Flemish: the same, underlain by Catholic guilt.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Dutch: big wet farts
            Flemish: little dry farts

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >A nation that won its existence and expansion from its own strength and liberty is illegitimate.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >illegitimate
        Read the OP

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I will never understand how Belgium exists. How did it even happen?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It was the catholic part of the netherlands, why is it so hard to understand? and Yes, southern NL should have been part of belgium.

      Why would the protestant part be real but not the catholic part?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >How did it even happen?
      A riot at an opera house. I’m not even joking.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        so it's literally a popular movement then, and not a repressive top-down politics like in Germany with the Kulturkampf or the Jacobins in France?
        Seems more legit than those countries then

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Do you really think 'organic' movements like that actually exist and arent all false flags by state actors

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, of course nothing in this world is genuine, even your current thoughts are just the product of the deep state propaganda you unconsciously consume every day.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What can be said about Belgium can be said about any other euro countries
            Either Nation-states were all psyop, or none were.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Britain invented it to neutralise the threat of it joining France. Basically the first glowBlack person colour revolution.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Catholics, liberals and French-speaking elites united because they were pissed at the Dutch king.
      But motly because the Habsburgs prevented it from becoming independent with the rest of the Netherlands. It could have been reintegrated, but the king fumbled it.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        the dutch and the belgians are too different to unite, dutch are maritime and belgians are continentals

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          A united lowlands is going to be the prototype of a federal EU. It’s already been determined

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >A united lowlands is going to be the prototype of a federal EU. It’s already been determined
            belgians can't even bear each other, how will that work

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Britain liked to split up and balkanize countries on the mainland to avoid them resisting it. Look how it divided germany from austria, and pushed really hard for the austrian empire to break up. If it were up to beitsin, east and west germany would still be different countries. Britain’s dream is for continental europe to be shitty little microstates

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Aka Divide & Conquer
        Divide et Impere
        They even tried it with America (Civil War)

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Look how it divided germany from austria
        I thought it was Bismarck

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Bismark would have taken austria if he could have, but doing so would have destroyed the austrian empire and would cause britain/russia to come dismember the new germany. So it just Wasnt in the cards. Thats why bismark’s final germany was called the “little german solution” as opposed to the “greater german solution”.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Britain liked to split up and balkanize countries on the mainland to avoid them resisting it.
        It was the complete opposite in this case. At the congress of Vienna the UK mashed together the northern and southern Netherlands with no regard to their historical and cultural differences in order to create a strong buffer state against France. The British initially opposed the Belgian revolution, but would quickly cut their losses and insist for Belgian neutrality instead because they feared France would intervene in the war and either conquer or ally the new state

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          They realized a monolingual entity would want to join Netherlands/France eventually

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >They realized a monolingual entity would want to join...
            >Netherlands
            Britain would not have opposed this, it would have been in their interests just like it was at Vienna. The Napoleonic wars were within living memory and France was still seen as Britain's primary rival
            >France
            Obviously they would have opposed this, but they must have not thought it likely, since they supported making Belgium give up Germanic speaking territories (Limburg and Luxembourg) making the francophone speakers more dominant

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What is the problem then? Even Julius Caesar talked about Belgium.

            There is no 'myth'.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I never said there was a problem, I'm arguing against his claim that belgium was some artifical british invention

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you went from
            >flemish moron
            to
            >I never said there was a problem
            real quickly

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            that's not the same anon
            I have no clue who I'm talking to
            what did you say again?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Sure buddy

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm afraid you're confusing me with someone else

            >Britain liked to split up and balkanize countries on the mainland to avoid them resisting it.
            It was the complete opposite in this case. At the congress of Vienna the UK mashed together the northern and southern Netherlands with no regard to their historical and cultural differences in order to create a strong buffer state against France. The British initially opposed the Belgian revolution, but would quickly cut their losses and insist for Belgian neutrality instead because they feared France would intervene in the war and either conquer or ally the new state

            >They realized a monolingual entity would want to join...
            >Netherlands
            Britain would not have opposed this, it would have been in their interests just like it was at Vienna. The Napoleonic wars were within living memory and France was still seen as Britain's primary rival
            >France
            Obviously they would have opposed this, but they must have not thought it likely, since they supported making Belgium give up Germanic speaking territories (Limburg and Luxembourg) making the francophone speakers more dominant

            I never said there was a problem, I'm arguing against his claim that belgium was some artifical british invention

            This is everything I've said

            now it can be argued whether Belgium broke off from the netherlands as a popular movement or as a foreign psyop (destruction of a bigger netherlands that could be too powerful)

            >destruction of a bigger netherlands that could be too powerful
            Who would've wanted that though? I can't see why the Prussians, Austrians or Brits would support it, all wanting a strong buffer state against France. The French sure, but they were hardly in a position to plan and orchistrate such a thing, having just had a revolution of their own a month prior

            [...]
            Nation building is completely arbitrary. We have tiny states like Vatican city and Monaco, and we have large nation states in which some people couldn't even understand each other like the United States or France and Germany; doesn't mean there is some "myth construction" like you claim. This is just manifesting destiny.

            If you wanted to divide Belgian regions into different nation states this would be a completely legitimate political goal and you don't need to construct any 'myths' to do so.

            >Nation building is completely arbitrary
            I completely agree, to add another to your list that relates to the Belgian revolution; Luxembourg. A "myth" or shared idenity/values isn't always needed, but it's also fair to say it certainly helps, even if it's something as simple as "we all hate those guys"
            >you don't need to construct any 'myths' to do so.
            I think If the arguments and brused egos of these autistic Belgians in this thread prove anything it's that those "myths" already exist

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Which myths?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Duh, the 'Belgian' revolution was organized by the French elite because they did not agree with the treaty of Vienna, they did not want to lose territory and influence.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The united netherlands of 1815 was created as a buffer state but turned out to be the ressurection of a powerful old enemy
            Belgium was very anti-french in its creation. Napoleon III was seen like some kind of tyrant and the relation between france and belgium was really bad

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I never said there was a problem, I'm arguing against his claim that belgium was some artifical british invention

            Nation building is completely arbitrary. We have tiny states like Vatican city and Monaco, and we have large nation states in which some people couldn't even understand each other like the United States or France and Germany; doesn't mean there is some "myth construction" like you claim. This is just manifesting destiny.

            If you wanted to divide Belgian regions into different nation states this would be a completely legitimate political goal and you don't need to construct any 'myths' to do so.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Can't believe nobody posted this rectangle yet

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I almost feel bad making fun of Israel now. low hanging fruit

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Ukraine is the obvious one.
    Literally a country made up frankly, by the Soviets, then Gallaecian butthurt fascists operation paperclipped to Canada, come back post Soviet collapse, and make up the most batshit, wild historical revisionism to create some bizarre national identity where Ukraine had no historical connection to Russia or Poland, and that Black Book of Communism memes was the reality of Ukraine in the 20th century despite being widely debunked by actual historians.
    This is pretty much a lot of Eastern Europe in general, national identity crafted purely around butthurt politics and Western Rightoid anti-Communism memes.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >This is pretty much a lot of Eastern Europe in general, national identity crafted purely around butthurt politics and Western Rightoid anti-Communism memes.
      Yeah man for sure, Poland being a Catholic kingdom since the 10th century AD and speaking a language that is NOT mutually intelligible with Russian has absolutely nothing to do with their differences from Russia and this is all just Rightist reactionary anti-revolutionary propaganda. Also England is the same country as the Netherlands because they're both "Germanic" and therefore the same thing or something I dunno I'm American

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Test

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >what are cossacks
      >what are the distinct linguistic differences between Russian and Ukrainian/Belarussian
      >what is Moscow/Novgorod
      >what are “Little Russians”
      Say what you want, but the people inhabiting the region that is Ukraine has spent such an insignificant amount of time under Russian rule that simply lumping them under Russian(or even Polish) identity is utter moronation.
      >verification not required

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If a group of people call themselves a nation, they are a nation.
    It's that simple.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    A "Country" with 1000 ethnic groups that all despise eachother, the Government doesn't even control it's borders, and there are several functional "Countries" in it's border. Wa State is literally richer and more developed than the official "Government controlled" regions.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's like India but not a joke.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      How come Burmese history dates back over a millennium? Sure, ancient Burma did not encompass its current territory but I find it extremely puzzling how a nation like this can be so divided despite a long history.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Every nation is a non-nation because nations aren't real.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Unironic take:
    >remnant of the remnant of the empire
    >has a frickton of minorities
    >tries to unite them all under one name "Rossiyane" as in "citizens of Russia"
    >this obviously doesn't work when you have literal national republics in your federation that will always promote their own identities first
    >the actual Russians, while comprising the majority of population, have no representation similar to aforementioned republics on any level
    >so we have the Russians that are forced to accept this new identity of "Rossiyane", which isn't meant to be Russian but an amalgam of identities, we have ethnic minorities that prefer to stick to their own national identities and we have the old Russian identity that is doomed to die out

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Belarus is a Russian reserve. Plus homosexual sovieticus chicks are more beautiful and exotic than Slavic marishkas

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Pakistan. Basically the only thing it has going for it is Muslimness and not being Indian (which is why they hate India so much, and basically tore their country apart over it)

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I want to kill everyone who speaks fr*nch

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Canada is a fake country, Kosovo too.
    >Verification not required.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Well, it turns out, it's more difficult to name one "real" country.

    - anything too big has multiple ethnicities (Germany)
    - anything too small is too irrelevant (Iceland)
    - anything too new is a made up country (Brazil)

    So are only real counties the ones where the majority popualtion has occupied the territory for at least from before written records and has managed to assimilate or genocide all other groups?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      yes there are no "real" countries. Most countries unified through force.

      The difference is that Belgium didn't have a Bismarck to unify the north and the south.

      The irony is that Bismarck unified Germany through strong measures; then Germany invaded Belgium in 1914 (Belgium was the 6th economy in the world at the time), and imposed Flamenpolitik which is the division of the country to weaken it, which then was united, and favored the Flemish.
      The way Germans divided the country served as staple for the progressive federalization of the country and its inefficient internal divisions.

      Of couse I'm hearing the flemish seething about my post; flemish nationalists can go frick themselves, I wish to deport them in fricking Holland.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >walloon tears
        remember that it was us who conquered most of europe (franks) remember that it was us who revolutionized capitalism, it was us who even made this country independent, and it us who have to learn your moronic bastard language and it is you who move to our lands en masse because everything is so much better here
        to the last w*lloon

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >wewuz franks
          walloons are frankish too, it's not defining modern identities
          you flemish are just arrogant potato farmers wewuzing your irrelevance since you got propped up by american marshall plan money, also far more flemish migrated to wallonia than the other way round

  16. 1 month ago
    Radiochan

    Luxembourg exists because it was the home to an important fortress in the Napoleonic era. I always found that to be strange that it still mattered after the development of mechanized artillery.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Luxembourg, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino, Kosovo, Vatican City, Bosnia, Macedonia, Moldova,

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    How are central American countries different when they have the same colonial past aside from Panama?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They are inhabited by differing Spanish+Indio populations.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    flanders is fake

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      t.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    walloon vs flemoon who wins

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    For each continent:
    >Europe
    Moldova
    >Africa
    Central African Republic
    >Asia
    Afghanistan
    >North America
    Canada
    >South America
    Bolivia (they say so themelves: it's a "Plurinational State")
    >Oceania
    Papua New Guinea

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Afghanistan is ancient
      The real made-up country of Asia is Indonesia

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Laos, the belgium of south-east asia

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Laos makes sense to me

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Indonesia
        Majapahit. Javanese were extremely influential until the Dutch arrived.

        Laos, the belgium of south-east asia

        >Laos
        >what is Lan Xang

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    that's it?

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If Belgium separates who is going to be responsible for the fiscal debt?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      debt is a hoax anyway

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Explain?

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    a liminal non-existant place: Wallonia

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Hungary. It's just 9 million magyarized Slovaks.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Moldova
    Literally a province of Romania

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    little fun fact: flanders is a modern creation made by german occupation during WWI
    conceived during WWI and put into reality after WWII

    hey exactly like another country! I'll let you guess

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Flanders already existed well in the medieval period

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The modern Flemish region has little to do with medieval Flanders. They just took them name.
        It's wewuzing.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >little fun fact: flanders is a modern creation made by german occupation during WWI
      No point in arguing with complete morons like yourself.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        My god shut the frick up flemish moron
        Modern flemish region has little to do with the county of flanders of the 14th century

        fricking moron

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >French Flanders, where people spoke Diets, and places have Dutch names, has nothing to do with the other Flanders, which lies next to it, and people speak the successor tongue
          Yeah, you're a moron bro. Lurk more

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you are just a wewuzing flem
            The modern flemish region is a byproduct of belgium, posterior to the creation of belgium, that chose some medieval county from the 14th century as a nation-building myth. It doesn't even correspond geographically.
            Even all the relevant people fled in the 17th century.
            It's like the French larping as Franks or the Italians larping as Roman. It's romantic nationalism.

            But hey you can larp with your bullshit golden spurs if you want.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I didn't we wuz shit. You just made a false claim and I called you out on it. Flanders is not a recent creation like you claimed.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            deal with it Bart, the region of Flanders is a modern creation that built its myth and national narrative during the 19th century and 20th century. Like Israel and Zionism or Germany and Arminius. It's romantic nationalism.

            PICREL is General Von Bissing (prussian general in WWI) letter to the Kaiser
            if you read well, most of what he conceived became the basis for later belgian federalism (institutional division of Belgium, Brabant cut in two, flemish capital in Brussels, walloon capital in Namur)

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >myth
            Except we have old maps to prove it was a region with a people living there. Nations have never been the litmus test for whether a people is real either. (Kurds, Basques, etc.)

            For some odd reason, you seem to be way more pressed about this than me, which is amusing to me.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            the myth is not that the county of flanders existed or not, but the fact that modern Flanders is a direct and eternal continuation of it.
            But hey, that doesn't mean Flanders shouldn't exist. But it's a new nation-state.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >myth
            Except we have old maps to prove it was a region with a people living there. Nations have never been the litmus test for whether a people is real either. (Kurds, Basques, etc.)

            For some odd reason, you seem to be way more pressed about this than me, which is amusing to me.

            Also, Since Flanders used to be called Teutonica, and the English channel the Mare Germanicum (German Sea), and Germans identify with the concept of Teutons, it makes sense why this Prussian general would want it to be separate from France.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nowhere in here does it say that Flanders is a newly invented place invented by the General, you just made that up entirely. In fact, he seems to take it for granted which makes sense considered since the region has existed since forever.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            he created the administrative region of Flanders and also Wallonia (which never existed in history, Wallonia is completely made up) in 1917.
            The federalisation of Belgium decades later would take all the points of that policy.
            The county of Flanders which existed, is just wewuzing romantic narrative justifying the administrative region of Flanders which is a 20th century invention. Flanders is just a late comer in the 19th century nation-building process.
            Flanders is a product of Belgium, if I was a flemish nationalist I'd thank Belgium.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You are talking about the nation, the region and regional identity is older, why is that so hard to accept?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You are talking about the nation, the region and regional identity is older, why is that so hard to accept?
            not hard to accept
            what is funny to me is that flemish nationalists believe that Flanders exists "despite" Belgium, while it is within the context of Belgium that Flanders became a self-governing region that enjoys a level of self-determination like never before

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >he created the administrative region of Flanders and also Wallonia (which never existed in history, Wallonia is completely made up) in 1917.

            Walloon is/was a language spoken in the region of Wallonia since the 16th century

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

            Today mostly erased by Francization, but you don't know this, because you're a moron and lack knowledge about basic historical concepts.

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

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            oh a triggered flemoid again

            >Today mostly erased by Francization, but you don't know this, because you're a moron and lack knowledge about basic historical concepts.

            well you are even more moronic who lack even more knowledge because Walloon is spoken since at least the 9th century

            but since you can't even understand the concept of what constitute a "state" or a "governement" and you confuse it with speaking a patois or a language, I don't even want to argue with you.
            The word "Wallonia" was used the first time in 1866, bart van morono.
            Belgium was a collection of duchies, counties and princebishopic (Liège). The county of Flanders was a small part of it.

            What is Flanders today is just the artificial amalgam of small part of historical Flanders, a small part of Brabant and a small part of Limburg. Bunch of incomplete parts of loosely related regions. Deal with it.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nation states are a modern concept, of course they did not exist in the 9th century.

            Again, basic historical concepts.

            Also, not Flemish.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Did wallonia speak french or dutch

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            the region called Wallonia spoke different "walloon" dialects (which is loosely related to french).
            It seems that there was a time when bilinguism was more common (mostly with German)

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What year did Von Bissing write this?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            1917

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Hey moron, did you know that Flanders was already a thing way earlier?
            Not only that, but Belgium was already a nation-state like entity earlier too.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Belgian_States

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >All of these people mentioning Ukraine
    >Totally glossing over the true Belgium of the East.
    So blinded by current events that you've missed the most logic-defying country in the region. At least Ukrainians and Belarusians have their own east Slavic dialects, these frickers are just split on whether they are Russians or Romanians.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What would that make Transnistria?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        a tumor of a tumor

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I'll be honest I hate romanians as much as the huhomie but I cannot help but feel like they deserve Moldova in it's entirety. Why is it even called Moldova?

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    north macedonia, a literal joke nation

    bulgarians larping as ancient macedonians

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Singapore. It's just a city-state

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    nation states are fake anyway

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Uruguay. It's just a break way province from Brazil.

  33. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Diets (sometimes called Middle Dutch) is a dead language from which Dutch is derived. Amateur historians like the other anon don't know this, because Diets doesn't have an English wikipedia page.
    https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diets

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Dietz NUTS HAA

  34. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Can somebody please explain thsi theory? Is anon claiming that Belgium all spoke French before “flanders was invented”?
    The population spoke various Dutch dialects and the upper-class often spoke French.
    Flanders has a self-governing region was a thing thanks to Belgian federalization process during the 20th century. The french-speaking upper-class waned in the process (except in Brussels where the opposite happened).

    >Or that it “all spoke dutch (diets?)”, and that flanders was created to split it from then netherlands? If the latter is true, then why does wallonia speak french?
    I don't know what you mean?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Did wallonia speak french or dutch, and what is that other anon trying to say

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Before the language border, the elite spoke french and france was the official language (official as in used in official documents and procedures) but a lot of the other people spoke Diets/Dutch.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Did wallonia speak french or dutch

        Even people in the French regions of French Flanders and Artesia spoke Diets (Middle Dutch). These are the language borders in the 7th and 8th centuries. It's completely obvious people spoke Dutch too, since the cities and towns in this part of France have Dutch names (Ieper, Sint Omaars, Duinkerken, etc)

        The other anon is super butthurt about this for some reason, I truly don't know why.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          not butthurt, I said this is actually Flanders, if you add west and east flanders

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >nd the upper-class often spoke French.
      Why? I guess it makes sense since they are next to France, but do you know the specifics?

  35. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The USA
    t. “American”

  36. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Amendment, obviously Belgium in it's modern tiny form is liminal. But if it were bigger...

  37. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Kuwait. It just exists

  38. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    now it can be argued whether Belgium broke off from the netherlands as a popular movement or as a foreign psyop (destruction of a bigger netherlands that could be too powerful)

  39. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    FYI

  40. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    my point is:
    countries are fake anyway

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Countries are very real lol, try becoming a citizen of one

  41. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Belgium is one of the more coherent non-nation states nations though. It actually has a history unlike many of the others and played a decent role as a center of the industrial revolution.

  42. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    ahahaha look at all the seething belgian itt. stay mad gays your c**t is a joke who cant literally substain its own population or economic system without literally stealing people money services and culture from nearby c**ts, enjoy the little time remains you before nafri will rule that shithole

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Did a Belgian bully you in school?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        no cause the belgian population is literally non existent if it werent for the muzzies coming there to replace actual belgian people too demoralized to reproduce

  43. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    All of Africa except Egypt. Most of the countries in the Americas and many in Asia. Basically anything that's a bunch of different peoples mixed into a country because the colonial powers who controlled them.

  44. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Pakistan.

    It only came into existence because of the Two Nation Theory, declaring Muslim Indians to be a separate nation from the rest of India.

    Then Bangladesh decided that being Bengali meant more than being Muslim, and now Pakistan is left as this Frankenstein state that is held together and held back by Islam.

  45. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You will never be a real country. You have no volk, you have no language, you have no soil. You are a geographical anomaly twisted by brits and liberals into a crude mockery of the natural order..
    All the “recognition” you get is two-faced and half-hearted. Behind your back nations mock you. Your neighbours are disgusted and ashamed of you, your “allies” laugh at your made up borders behind closed doors.
    Nations are utterly repulsed by you. Thousands of years of history have allowed nations to sniff out frauds with incredible efficiency. Even non-nations who “pass” look uncanny and unnatural to a volk. Your universal constitution is a dead giveaway. And even if you manage to form a "culture", it’ll break down and collapse the second its no longer economically viable.
    You will never have unity. You wrench out some fake speech about democracy every single election and tell yourself it’s going to be ok, but deep inside you feel the rootlessness creeping up like a weed, ready to crush you under the unbearable weight.
    Eventually it’ll be too much to bear – you’ll import immigrants, become a police state, have gang violence in the street, and plunge into anarchy. Your neighbours will find you, heartbroken but relieved that they no longer have to live with the unbearable shame and disappointment. They’ll settle your lands and name them after themselves, and every passerby for the rest of eternity will know that no tribe lived there before them. Your cities will decay and go back to the dust, and all that will remain of your legacy is a footnote in history that is unmistakably a non-nation.
    This is your fate. This is what you chose. There is no turning back.

  46. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >ctrl+f "finland"
    >0 results
    we've made it finnbros

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *