Media trying to make Nationalism a racist idea

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

NAFTA was a fair deal for everyone without stepping on the toes of those who matter. And trumps new deal didn't change anything. It was just renamed.
And China had every right to play the capitalist game and clearly have been winning. Not because of politics but because they were and are willing to meet demands for the cheapest mark.

You make it sound like China needs to abide by some magic laws the US has on planet earth, guess what, they dont. So might as well work with it instead of against it.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: operation mindcrime

Actually the two were originally synonyms.

Actually, they are still counted as synonyms, have a look:

Patriotism Synonyms, Patriotism Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

Patriotism Synonyms, Patriotism Antonyms | Merriam-Webster Thesaurus

It's just that the meaning and usage of these words have drifted apart a bit, but they're still connected. In one of my comments about it in another thread that I linked in my first or second comment in this thread I referred to patriotism as a preparatory step to nationalism as defined in the OP after "especially" (which is the same definition for nationalism that I used in that thread). You don't become a nationalist without becoming a patriot first. Promoting patriotism is also a useful tool to steer people towards and promote nationalism (and the often accompanying "militarism", see earlier quotations about that subject here and here; you might also want to check out the commentary in between about prejudice and "clever propagandists, such as Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler, having deliberately nurtured national ...pride to rally the support of the masses and to malign those considered to be different or undesirable" as a propaganda tool and how that's connected to both nationalism and patriotism). But nationalism is more specific than patriotism, the latter being more inclusive and general. The 2 concepts cannot really be seperated or pitted against eachother in the manner described in this phrase:

Although treated as synonyms, there is a distinction. But it's more complicated than "'patriotism' good; 'nationalism' bad."

Source: The Difference Between 'Patriotism' and 'Nationalism' | Merriam-Webster

That bolded phrase is explained and demonstrated in my quotations earlier in this thread. They are both divisive and they both have an impact on the way people view and treat eachother, nationalism (as defined after "especially" in the OP) is just the additional step into darkness, pride and what the earlier quoted Indian man described as "an idiotic exercise in artificial loyalty". The full quotation was:

I do not believe in patriotism. It is an opium innovated by the politicians to serve their ugly ends. It is for their prosperity. It is for their betterment. It is for their aggrandizement. It is never for the country. It is never for the nation. It is never never for common men and women like you and I. . . . This sinister politician-invented wall shall divide man from man​—and brother from brother; till one day it shall bring about man’s doom by man. Patriotism or nationalism, to my mind, is an idiotic exercise in artificial loyalty. . . . I take no hypocritical pride in being petty this or that. I belong to mankind.

Talking about loyalty (and the majority of nationalists and patriots professing to be Christians, as well as some things I mentioned earlier about the pledge of allegiance and the quote about "worship of the state" in one of my comments that is linked in this comment, as well as the response I got earlier concerning the phrase in the bible regarding 'paying back Caesar's things to Caesar and God's things to God'; my commentary starts on page 7):


Context for the video above

a reply to: DupontDeux
Don't think of Nationalism as somehow being opposed to Globalism. Or a healthy counter vs Globalist propaganda (as depicted by the right-wing Republicans most of the time, like Trump).

Details here and here. The last comment also being a potential follow-up to this subject of loyalty (allegiance, as in the pledge of allegiance) that I mentioned at the end of my previous comment in this thread.

a reply to: strongfp

NAFTA was fair if you like over 1 million lost American jobs and income inequality where US wage growth stagnates. Maybe that's what you like.

Such outcomes include a staggering $181 billion U.S. trade deficit with NAFTA partners Mexico and Canada and the related loss of 1 million net U.S. jobs under NAFTA, growing income inequality, displacement of more than one million Mexican campesino farmers and a doubling of desperate immigration from Mexico, and more than $360 million paid to corporations after “investor-state” tribunal attacks on, and rollbacks of, domestic public interest policies.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: strongfp

NAFTA was fair if you like over 1 million lost American jobs and income inequality where US wage growth stagnates. Maybe that's what you like.

Such outcomes include a staggering $181 billion U.S. trade deficit with NAFTA partners Mexico and Canada and the related loss of 1 million net U.S. jobs under NAFTA, growing income inequality, displacement of more than one million Mexican campesino farmers and a doubling of desperate immigration from Mexico, and more than $360 million paid to corporations after “investor-state” tribunal attacks on, and rollbacks of, domestic public interest policies.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Live by the capitalist sword, then prepare to fight with it.

The states also had a massive surplus of dairy products so much so the government had to literally buy back billions and billions because they over produced, talk about a waste of money. And like I said, when you have skillless, mundane jobs where automation has slowly crept up within' the manufacturing world, and other places willing to work for less, while Americans demand 30+ dollars an hour plus a ridiculous pension plans, and then demand to be unionized and basically get what ever product they are making for a massive discount, what do you think company's will do?
NAFTA had very little impact on the 1 million or so jobs lost, technology and a evolving economy played a much bigger role. NAFTA just made it easier for goods to flow freely between the three nations.

Also, you aren't the center of the universe, but hey, nationalism is great! Screw everyone else, screw Mexicans, and Canadian citizens, they aren't people, they don't have families because they aren't from the good ol' US of A!

a reply to: strongfp

NAFTA is globalism not capitalism. You really should stop speaking about subjects you seem to know nothing about.

originally posted by: strongfp


Also, you aren't the center of the universe, but hey, nationalism is great! Screw everyone else, screw Mexicans, and Canadian citizens, they aren't people, they don't have families because they aren't from the good ol' US of A!

So you believe American politicians should put the well being of Canadian and Mexican citizens above the well being of US citizens?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It's a trade deal, and trade is essential in today's globalized world where capitalism has dominated.

Also I'm Canadian and have been subject to trump's nationalism over dairy products. It's fine that he wants to put americans first, as he should, but when you bully and push away your neighbors dont expect to get kind remarks about the actions that have happened. And lying and blaming others for their own short comings isnt healthy, maybe trump should have addressed the over inflated dairy industry in the states before muscling and threatening thousands of people and their families in other countries.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

America , Love it or Shut the Fook Up .............

Hmmm, sounds familiar somehow...(more the attitude behind such an expression, not so much the phrase literally)

originally posted by: whereislogic
Why is the world so disunited in spite of efforts by many apparently sincere and dedicated world leaders? Philippine educator Primo L. Tongko commented on one factor in “PHP” magazine.

He observes that “national anthems and national flags have frequently given rise to a very questionable human motive of extreme or blind love of country, they have tended to make people fanatically nationalistic, so much so that sometimes they have not been ashamed even to say, ‘My country right or wrong.’”

“Nationalistic attitudes” have filled the “pages of history with continuous wars for conquest, colonization, exploitation and oppression,” Tongko notes, “thus giving rise to all kinds of prejudices, suspicions and hatred that now divide the world.”

Then he asks: “Is it not high time that we reverse the course of history from that of division to that of union, by getting rid of or abolishing these practices that have caused the sad state of affairs we now have in our divided and confused world?”

originally posted by: whereislogic
Prejudice and Discrimination—Getting to the Roots

... Ivo Duchacek, a professor of political science, observed in his book Conflict and Cooperation Among Nations: “Nationalism divides humanity into mutually intolerant units. As a result people think as Americans, Russians, Chinese, Egyptians, or Peruvians first, and as human beings second​—if at all.” A former UN secretary-general wrote: “So many of the problems that we face today are due to, or the result of, false attitudes​—some of them have been adopted almost unconsciously. Among these is the concept of narrow nationalism​—‘my country, right or wrong.’”

The Manipulation of Information: Awake!—2000

...
Playing on the Emotions

Even though feelings might be irrelevant when it comes to factual claims or the logic of an argument, they play a crucial role in persuasion. Emotional appeals are fabricated by practiced publicists, who play on feelings as skillfully as a virtuoso plays the piano.
...
Some propagandists play on pride. ...

Slogans and Symbols

Slogans are vague statements that are typically used to express positions or goals. Because of their vagueness, they are easy to agree with.

For example, in times of national crisis or conflict, demagogues may use such slogans as “My country, right or wrong,” “Fatherland, Religion, Family,” or “Freedom or Death.” But do most people carefully analyze the real issues involved in the crisis or conflict? Or do they just accept what they are told?

In writing about World War I, Winston Churchill observed: “Only a signal is needed to transform these multitudes of peaceful peasants and workmen into the mighty hosts which will tear each other to pieces.” He further observed that when told what to do, most people responded unthinkingly. ...

In the past, the U.S. government could count on the Catholic bishops to bless their participation in war. This was exemplified during the Vietnam conflict by words of the late Cardinal Spellman: “My country, right or wrong. My country.”
To Whom Should You Be Loyal?

“Our country: . . . May she always be right; but our country, right or wrong.”​—Stephen Decatur, U.S. naval officer, 1779-1820.

UNQUESTIONING loyalty to one’s country is seen by many as their paramount obligation. Others would rephrase Stephen Decatur’s words, ‘My religion, may she always be right; but my religion, right or wrong.’

Realistically, the country or religion that demands our loyalty is often determined by the place of our birth, but the decision about whom we should be loyal to is too important to leave in the hands of chance. However, questioning the loyalties with which one is raised takes courage and creates challenges.
...

Are Wars Inevitable?

Causes of War

Nationalism. Often invoked by politicians and generals, nationalism is one of the most powerful forces in promoting warfare. Many wars have been launched to protect “national interests” or defend “national honor.” When the mentality of my country right or wrong prevails, even naked aggression can be explained as a preemptive strike.
...

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

NAFTA was a fair deal for everyone without stepping on the toes of those who matter. And trumps new deal didn't change anything. It was just renamed.
And China had every right to play the capitalist game and clearly have been winning. Not because of politics but because they were and are willing to meet demands for the cheapest mark.

You make it sound like China needs to abide by some magic laws the US has on planet earth, guess what, they dont. So might as well work with it instead of against it.

NO The regulations we have had on our businesses in the US don’t exist in China . All the Libs whined incessantky about the evils of foreign “ sweat shops” while they were undercutting business in America

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

America , Love it or Shut the Fook Up .............

Hmmm, sounds familiar somehow...(more the attitude behind such an expression, not so much the phrase literally)

originally posted by: whereislogic
Why is the world so disunited in spite of efforts by many apparently sincere and dedicated world leaders? Philippine educator Primo L. Tongko commented on one factor in “PHP” magazine.

He observes that “national anthems and national flags have frequently given rise to a very questionable human motive of extreme or blind love of country, they have tended to make people fanatically nationalistic, so much so that sometimes they have not been ashamed even to say, ‘My country right or wrong.’”

“Nationalistic attitudes” have filled the “pages of history with continuous wars for conquest, colonization, exploitation and oppression,” Tongko notes, “thus giving rise to all kinds of prejudices, suspicions and hatred that now divide the world.”

Then he asks: “Is it not high time that we reverse the course of history from that of division to that of union, by getting rid of or abolishing these practices that have caused the sad state of affairs we now have in our divided and confused world?”

originally posted by: whereislogic
Prejudice and Discrimination—Getting to the Roots

... Ivo Duchacek, a professor of political science, observed in his book Conflict and Cooperation Among Nations: “Nationalism divides humanity into mutually intolerant units. As a result people think as Americans, Russians, Chinese, Egyptians, or Peruvians first, and as human beings second​—if at all.” A former UN secretary-general wrote: “So many of the problems that we face today are due to, or the result of, false attitudes​—some of them have been adopted almost unconsciously. Among these is the concept of narrow nationalism​—‘my country, right or wrong.’”

The Manipulation of Information: Awake!—2000

...
Playing on the Emotions

Even though feelings might be irrelevant when it comes to factual claims or the logic of an argument, they play a crucial role in persuasion. Emotional appeals are fabricated by practiced publicists, who play on feelings as skillfully as a virtuoso plays the piano.
...
Some propagandists play on pride. ...

Slogans and Symbols

Slogans are vague statements that are typically used to express positions or goals. Because of their vagueness, they are easy to agree with.

For example, in times of national crisis or conflict, demagogues may use such slogans as “My country, right or wrong,” “Fatherland, Religion, Family,” or “Freedom or Death.” But do most people carefully analyze the real issues involved in the crisis or conflict? Or do they just accept what they are told?

In writing about World War I, Winston Churchill observed: “Only a signal is needed to transform these multitudes of peaceful peasants and workmen into the mighty hosts which will tear each other to pieces.” He further observed that when told what to do, most people responded unthinkingly. ...

In the past, the U.S. government could count on the Catholic bishops to bless their participation in war. This was exemplified during the Vietnam conflict by words of the late Cardinal Spellman: “My country, right or wrong. My country.”
To Whom Should You Be Loyal?

“Our country: . . . May she always be right; but our country, right or wrong.”​—Stephen Decatur, U.S. naval officer, 1779-1820.

UNQUESTIONING loyalty to one’s country is seen by many as their paramount obligation. Others would rephrase Stephen Decatur’s words, ‘My religion, may she always be right; but my religion, right or wrong.’

Realistically, the country or religion that demands our loyalty is often determined by the place of our birth, but the decision about whom we should be loyal to is too important to leave in the hands of chance. However, questioning the loyalties with which one is raised takes courage and creates challenges.
...

Are Wars Inevitable?

Causes of War

Nationalism. Often invoked by politicians and generals, nationalism is one of the most powerful forces in promoting warfare. Many wars have been launched to protect “national interests” or defend “national honor.” When the mentality of my country right or wrong prevails, even naked aggression can be explained as a preemptive strike.
...

Ok so you mean as opposed to Globalist international with no loyalty to anyone but global profits ..... yah the whole Open Borders insanity from Soros... yah we get it.

Synagogue shooter was a nationalist who frequented white supremacist web site GAB. Just saying.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Grambler

Here is a libertarian take on nationalism.

Nationalism and its cousin nativism are dangerous attitudes that have come and gone almost cyclically throughout American history. They foster an arrogant aura about Americans who embrace them -- we are more deserving than you because our ancestors got here before you or yours did -- and they cause fear and hatred of foreign-born people.
They also lull one into the lazy mental habit of judging the moral worth of people not on the basis of their personal choices and fidelity to first principles but on the basis of their membership in groups marked by immutable characteristics of birth, such as people's place of birth.

This habit rejects a founding American principle that we are all created equal and endowed by our "Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
The quoted words above are not just Thomas Jefferson's most famous musings, which made their way into the Declaration of Independence; rather, they embody natural law. And natural law teaches that human rights come from our humanity -- not from the government -- and they adhere in everyone, not just Americans.

Judge Napolitano
www.foxnews.com...

This is not an excuse for crashing Borders. I like Judge Napolitsno a lot svdbim
Certain that you are taking his words out of context.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

What's your point?
China isn't part of NAFTA, and China doesn't need to follow anyones laws but their own. Bottom line it's not up to the US government to tell what China can or can't do and it's not up the government to tell business' what they can and cant' do. All they can do is make life harder for both ends by imposing massive taxes on goods, or they can continue to work with them to make a better deal for BOTH ends, not just the US.
Funny tho, China seems to be embracing automation at an alarming pace because of what Trump is doing, meanwhile people in the US want to do those same jobs, OK, bring em back, let's see automation take those jobs as well.

I'm in the steel industry, and China has company's that can literally build an entire steel structure for a big box store with only a few operators and then ship it out to anywhere in the world and let iron workers erect it. The company I work for just bought a machine that can do that as well. Measure, drill, cut, fit, weld, etc. simple structural steel with only two workers, before it took almost a dozen workers to do it.
The world is changing, and so should the US, they need to evolve, not try and relive the good ol' days where every nation funneled goods and money to them so they can feed the wounded world.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus
Please read my comment to DupontDeux before the one you responded to. Nationalism is not a healthy counter to economic globalism. And many self-professed nationalists like Trump are those who have made their fortune with global activities, global business and the phenomenon of globalization. They'll look after their own interest and profits first. Like the Indian man that I quoted before said:

I do not believe in patriotism. It is an opium innovated by the politicians to serve their ugly ends. It is for their prosperity. It is for their betterment. It is for their aggrandizement. It is never for the country. It is never for the nation. It is never never for common men and women like you and I. . . . This sinister politician-invented wall shall divide man from man​—and brother from brother; till one day it shall bring about man’s doom by man. Patriotism or nationalism, to my mind, is an idiotic exercise in artificial loyalty. . . . I take no hypocritical pride in being petty this or that. I belong to mankind.

The same counts for those globalists (depending on how you define a globalist, for example as someone who is benefitting from globalization financially as described before) that call themselves nationalists for their own betterment and for appealing to their (right-wing) market, like Trump. He doesn't care about America or the people in it, he cares about himself, Trump first. That's how all the capitalists think. Most of the time it's the same with leftwing politicians, allthough they make more effort to hide their selfishness, because that's what their market demands. It's all about catering to your market, telling them what they want to hear, tickling their ears as per 2 Timothy 4:3,4.

As a businessman Trump knows how to cater to the market. He probably doesn't even believe or stand for 'half' the things he promotes. He couldn't care less about being a patriot or nationalism, he cares as far as he can use it to his own advantage (or better said, the advantage to his benefactors, cause he will do their bidding, what's profitable to them, cause that's profitable to him and what made him President), it's an act, and he's acting as a clown for additional attention (and thus profits, cause attention translates to profits in the entertainment industry). Just like he did when he was on TV, providing entertainment. Obama was the same, just a different style cause he's got a different market. In the end, they'll both do the bidding of the military industrial complex, cause the politicians are just the figureheads, the real power lies with them (along with some other connected parties, the banking industry, the medical industry, etc. to name a couple of the most influential factors in government; to sum them all up I could say: multi-national corporations, bringing us back to the interests of economic globalism on which behalve self-professed nationalists like Republicans will act or base their decisions and thereby acting in the interests of economic globalism in spite of tickling the ears of their market with self-marketing boasts about being so patriotic or nationalistic; similarly self-professed fans of globalism will often act in their own best interest and play the nationalistic and patriotic sentiments of their markets, but without mentioning the word "nationalism"). They are also the ones who conditioned you with the notion that nationalism is somehow opposed to or a counter to economic globalism or the negative effects of globalization.

Can Globalization Really Solve Our Problems?

Is Globalization a Solution?

Like many of mankind’s projects, globalization has proved both useful and harmful. It has brought economic advantages to some, and it has ushered in an era of global communications. Nevertheless, it favors the rich and the powerful over the poor and the needy. And both criminals and disease viruses have exploited the advantages of globalization more efficiently than governments.​—See boxes on pages 8 and 9.

To a large extent, globalization has magnified the problems that already existed in our imperfect world. Rather than offering a solution to the world’s difficulties, it has become part of the problem. Social divisions have become greater, and frustration has mounted. Governments around the world struggle to harness the benefits of globalization while protecting their citizens against its excesses. Will they be successful? Could globalization with a human face be the answer? The following article will analyze these questions.

A Globalization That Will Benefit You

The principal problem is that economic globalization is driven by the desire to make money. The profit motive rarely takes into account the poor and the disadvantaged or the long-term needs of the planet. “An unregulated global economy dominated by corporations that recognize money as their only value is inherently unstable . . . and is impoverishing humanity in real terms,” argues Dr. David C. Korten.

And that bolded problem is Trump's problem as well (and when I say Trump I'm also referring to his benefactors, or those controlling his actions and acting performance, the script).

If you look carefully in this comment you may notice that I called Trump a globalist, that was a bit far-fetched perhaps (I was rather rash with my proposed example of who to count as a globalist). He certainly has benefitted financially from economic globalization and continues to benefit from it. So in that sense he often acts or has acted in the best interest of those favoring economic globalization, or those also benefitting from it. Capitalist is the more appropiate term to describe Trump, which looks past the nationalistic, patriotic and xenophobic act that is intended for the market he is instructed to appeal to (his team is playing and promoting the nationalistic, patriotic and xenophobic sentiments in their market, the voting public or potential voters). Propagandist would be appropiate as well but since his statements and actions are based on the instructions he's receiving regarding propaganda and self-marketing (or marketing of rightwing ideologies), that term is more appropiate for his supporting team giving the instructions and those influencing them financially.

It is however the biggest benefactors of the military industrial complex that stand to gain the most from promoting nationalistic and patriotic sentiments. Which I explained throughout this thread in more detail (without actually using Eisenhower's terminology). And they use either the left or the right in politics to get what they want. I recon it's a little easier when the right is in charge (or easer to get away with particular ramp ups, not so much explaining or justification to do to condition people with, just blame the warmongering and warprofiteering on the Republicans).

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus
...
It is however the biggest benefactors of the military industrial complex that stand to gain the most from promoting nationalistic and patriotic sentiments. Which I explained throughout this thread in more detail (without actually using Eisenhower's terminology). And they use either the left or the right in politics to get what they want. I reckon it's a little easier when the right is in charge (or easer to get away with particular ramp ups, not so much explaining or justification to do to condition people with, just blame the warmongering and warprofiteering on the Republicans).

Now when I'm talking about the biggest benefactors of what Eisenhower referred to as "the military industrial complex" and the general idea of warprofiteering (with which I'm thinking of all forms of profiteering, both financially and socially, and including projects that aren't labeled as "war", such as security, protection and anti-terror operations, or just arms deals in general, arms races, maintenance and upgrades, military presence, having a big military machine, etc.), I'm referring to things I mentioned previously in this thread. So a recap of a few things might be in order. Quoting from this comment:

The role of propaganda:
...
...even though people in general really do not know their “enemies.” All that they know about the enemy is what they have been led to believe by the spoon-feeding of their politically controlled media.

As Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt wrote: “Public opinion is formed by interest groups (politicians, arms manufacturers, the military) that deceive the electorate by giving them false or one-sided information.” In a similar vein, historian H. E. Barnes wrote: “Since the wars of the French Revolution . . . copious and compelling propaganda [has] been continued and greatly increased to protect warfare against popular dissent, opposition, and factual analysis of issues.”

As a consequence, “practically anybody can be persuaded and manipulated in such a way that he will more or less voluntarily enter a situation wherein he must kill and perhaps die.” (War, by Gwynne Dyer) Thus, by reason of their political and economic power, the “elite” can control the media in order to prepare the masses for the bloodbath.

Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels, leaders of the ruling Nazi elite, were well aware of the importance of mind control and deception of the masses. On August 24, 1939, Hitler explained to a group of high officers his plans for the invasion of Poland: “I shall give a propagandist cause for starting the war. Never mind whether it is plausible or not. . . . In starting and waging a war, it is not Right that matters but Victory.”

Thus it is clear that a motivation has to be generated to make a nation rise up against another. But what are the key elements in generating war fever?

Austrian economist Schumpeter wrote: “The orientation toward war is mainly fostered by the domestic interests of ruling classes but also by the influence of all those who stand to gain individually from a war policy, whether economically or socially.” These ruling classes have been defined as “elites [that] are at all times involved in trying to manipulate other elements of the population, or the public mood itself, so as to perpetuate themselves in power.”​—Why War? by Professors Nelson and Olin.

Every nation has its ruling class, even though that group may be divided into different political factions. However, many observe that the power of the military elite in every nation should not be underestimated. Former U.S. Ambassador John K. Galbraith describes the military establishment as “by far the most powerful of the autonomous processes of government.” He continues: “The power of the military embraces not only the significant sources of power but . . . all the instruments of its enforcement. . . . More than any other exercise of power in our time it is the subject of grave public unease.”

Galbraith illustrates his point by reference to the United States military institution, which has property resources that “far exceed any similar source of power; they embrace not only what is available to the armed services and the civilian military establishment but what flows out to the weapons industries.” A like situation no doubt exists in many other countries.

Sometimes the people are not in favor of a war. On what basis, then, can the rulers most easily persuade the population to support their aims? This was the problem that faced the United States in Vietnam. So, what did the ruling elite do? Galbraith answers: “The Vietnam War produced in the United States one of the most comprehensive efforts in social conditioning [adjusting of public opinion] in modern times. Nothing was spared in the attempt to make the war seem necessary and acceptable to the American public.” And that points to the handiest tool for softening up a nation for war. What is it?

Professor Galbraith again supplies the answer: “Schools in all countries inculcate the principles of patriotism. . . . The conditioning that requires all to rally around the flag is of particular importance in winning subordination to military and foreign policy.” This systematic conditioning prevails in communist countries as it does in Western nations.

Charles Yost, a veteran of the U.S. Foreign Service and State Department, expressed it thus: “The primary cause of the insecurity of nations persists, the very attribute on which nations pride themselves most​—their sovereign independence, their ‘sacred egoism,’ their insubordination to any interest broader or higher than their own.” This “sacred egoism” is summed up in divisive nationalism, in the pernicious teaching that any one nation is superior to all others.

Historian Arnold Toynbee wrote: “The spirit of nationality is a sour ferment of the new wine of democracy in the old bottles of tribalism.” In Power and Immortality, Dr. Lopez-Reyes wrote: “Sovereignty is a major cause of contemporary war”. The emphasis on nationalism and sovereignty denies the basic concept that we all belong to the same human family, regardless of linguistic or cultural differences.

Yes, the experts can come up with all kinds of explanations of why man systematically sets out to destroy those of his own kind. Yet there is one primary factor that most commentators ignore:
The Hidden Cause of War

The Hidden Ruler of the World

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Don't think of Nationalism as somehow being opposed to Globalism. Or a healthy counter vs Globalist propaganda (as depicted by the right-wing Republicans most of the time, like Trump).
...
And many self-professed nationalists like Trump are those who have made their fortune with global activities, global business and the phenomenon of globalization. They'll look after their own interest and profits first.
...
If you look carefully in this comment you may notice that I called Trump a globalist, that was a bit far-fetched perhaps (I was rather rash with my proposed example of who to count as a globalist). He certainly has benefitted financially from economic globalization and continues to benefit from it. So in that sense he often acts or has acted in the best interest of those favoring economic globalization, or those also benefitting from it. ...

Apparently Trump even referred to himself as a globalist. Try to ignore the conspiracy entertainment about a globalist conspiracy (similar to the buttons team Trump is pushing) and bad information about the incompatibility of globalism and nationalism in the video below, there are those using both to their own benefit:

Oh, please ignore the anti-semitic picture as well. The one who produced the video above is demonstrating many things I mentioned in this thread. Most of all, that he's a victim of propaganda and what's described at 2 Timothy 4:3,4 as well (see the article in my signature).

a reply to: strongfp

Actually it was Trump demanding a fair deal. Why would Canada be able to sell us whatever they want and then refuse American products? No one was bullied, a fair deal was reached.

Trump is all for trade deals, he just negotiated a new NAFTA. He's for fair trade. That's bad?

Look at the Tweet from President Trump tonight.

twitter.com...

If he were Obama, "Chicago justice" would have already been rendered to CNN. Make an example of them, and the others will shut-up, or start supporting the country that allows them to exist.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Canada didn't want your horrible hormone filled milk to flood our market and ruin our dairy economy. Good god, get over yourself, it's not all about the YOU we had the tariffs in place to protect US from YOUR irresponsibility of over producing in glutinous proportions.

Not our fault we are just better at dealing with dairy trade. The US was just bad at it. Trump just wanted to make a quick buck, and muscled his way into a deal better for the US by threatening the auto industry in Canada, what a guy eh. all for a 0.1% increase in revenue.

business.financialpost.com...