Media trying to make Nationalism a racist idea

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: luthier

I am with you on the deficit spending being ridiculous, and it will come back to bite us

However, odd that a racist like trump would deficit spend and it would end up helping minorities

Maybe trump isn’t a racist and is just a flawed president?

I don't think he is a racist. I think the media is insane and he knows how to get them to bite.

I think he, like all politicians trades the easy stuff for the hard and also forces his opinion through policy.

However, ideally a president does this with the lense that America is incredibly diverse,...hence why Congress the representatives are supposed to do it.

A real hero president would especially call his own party out, hey get this loser out he has been here 35 years and helped vote this stuff in,..they wouldn't force policy..policy comes from us. Or at least it was supposed to.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: luthier

I am with you on the deficit spending being ridiculous, and it will come back to bite us

However, odd that a racist like trump would deficit spend and it would end up helping minorities

Maybe trump isn’t a racist and is just a flawed president?

I don't think he is a racist. I think the media is insane and he knows how to get them to bite.

I think he, like all politicians trades the easy stuff for the hard and also forces his opinion through policy.

However, ideally a president does this with the lense that America is incredibly diverse,...hence why Congress the representatives are supposed to do it.

A real hero president would especially call his own party out, hey get this loser out he has been here 35 years and helped vote this stuff in,..they wouldn't force policy..policy comes from us. Or at least it was supposed to.

I am basically in agreement with all of this

I hate trumps debt spending, and wish he was more of a unifier

Now as many of my other posts show, I think trumo has done a lot of good as well, namely showing the establishment for what it is

But I agree with your post here

Oi vey these people are ridiculous.

a reply to: Thejoncrichton

Cuomo got his intellectual butt kicked in that piece. The dimbo too. Glad to see globalism called out. Trump has definitely changed the national dialogue for the better. Watching Cuomo's stupid facial expressions was both sickening and hilarious at the same time---what a goober and dipship.

a reply to: Grambler

I think the problem with any president getting stuff done is they generally are doing so by abusing the authority of the president.

I wish we would stop focusing on the presidents in the us. I would be much happier with a president who acts as a mascot and a Congress that can work vs a president who is heavy handed and a Congress that is broken.

I think the more we hope trump does the less he can effect the long term. The more he can inspire or even shame congress to act the better off we are.

So I don't necessarily see positive changes. It seems like people are burying their heals in and fighting the opposite party more than questioning and changing their own.

Another question to ask and I said this with obama is....

If half the public is divided that the country is changing for the better, is it really changing for the better?
Or is one side winning and one side losing and half the public always at odds with the outcomes?

Trump's dog whistle rhetoric is really having an effect on the dogs of society. They're crawling out from under their rocks, drinking their milk and pounding their chests.... and maybe shipping a pipe bomb or two.

...but it's ok as long as the economy is doing well.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit
Socialist/Marxist.

a reply to: Thejoncrichton

Yep totally ridiculous.
They actually believe they are the arbiters of the meaning of words and once you use a word that THEY have defined, there is no explaining to them, no reason, no logic. It's just a string of sensationalist nonsense that dribbles from their mouths.

a reply to: Grambler


It's not nationalism that is the issue. It is how nationalism is expressed by the people in charge.

The expression could be relatively benign, such as tarrifs. Or, it could be more sinister.

America is as much of an idea as a place. We have our own mythology and ideas of what it means to be American.

I am worried about the more sinister expressions of nationalism happening based on the nature of our politics. There is already a green shoot of this when it comes to the memo about gender. The Trump admin has allegedly decided that it is going to enfore a rule about two genders in an effort to erase transgender Americans. The administration is conflating gender and sex, which are two different things. There are myriad sources out there that explain the differences between gender, which is a construct, and sex, which is a biological distinction. This is an effort to define what is American-ness and what is not.

But back to the idea. America is about freedom. It's about becoming who you want to be. The expression of nationalism can run counter to the ideals on which this nation is founded. If nationalism becomes a tool to erase populations or strip them of their political power, it is a sinister thing. If nationalism is used as a rationale to invade other countries, which happened in the 20th century, then it is a sinister force.

My hope is that Trump's nationalism is of the economic variety and doesn't go beyond wailing about walls and the like. We will all see at some point. There will be winners and losers. And a chorus of people defending whatever policy of the day comes our way, regardless if it is an expression of benign or sinister nationalism.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Grambler

If you like your country, you're a Nazi.
If you don't want open borders, you're a racist.
If you didn't vote for Hillary, you're a sexist.
If you want lower taxes, you're greedy.
If you served in the armed forces, you're a domestic terrorist.
If you are for free speech you're a Nazi sympathizer.
If you want to preserve the 2nd Amendment, you are a "gun nut".
If you are against terrorism, you're an islamophobe.


Did I miss any?

I am pretty sure the list is much longer than that, plus the one's the illuminati have yet to invent for the future. Either way, they are trying to make everything that is good look bad so they can bring in their communist world government. And to do that they need to destroy all the worlds borders and invade said countries with communist/ sharia law ideologies. It is a Trojan horse. This is all about trying to undermine the the U.S constitution which gives people their rights. So if you are not for their communist government they will use nazi brownshirt tactics and label you as something that you are not.

Expect that list to grow longer in the future.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Grambler

Gee , what is the Opposite of Nationalism ? Globalism , Say No More ...........

Nailed it.

As I’ve said before, there is no fixing the deficit until
Congress stops with the spending. Drmocrats kerp trying to convince us we just need to raise taxes, but the new crop of our if the closet socialists are proposing ridiculous amounts of spending which is completely unsustainable and their only way to pay for it is raising taxes both individual and corporate. This is part of the socialist plan because socialism penalizes growth and individual success and independence. They want us all dependent on the government as much as possible. This is the totalitarian model, and as many of us know, the fascist Mussolini coined that term. It’s Democrats who employ the fascist totalitarian model then blame everything on Republicans. And Fascism is really a leftist model, just not quite as drastic as communism.

Nationalism, called by the weekly magazine Asiaweek “the Last Ugly Ism,” is one of the unchanging factors that continues to provoke hatred and bloodshed. That magazine stated: “If pride in being a Serb means hating a Croat, if freedom for an Armenian means revenge on a Turk, if independence for a Zulu means subjugating a Xhosa and democracy for a Romanian means expelling a Hungarian, then nationalism has already put on its ugliest face.”

News columnist Joseph Kraft wrote concerning Einstein’s views on nationalism: “[Einstein] set an example in renouncing nationalism. ‘I never identified myself with any particular country,’ he once wrote. He called nationalism ‘an infantile disease . . . the measles of the human race.’” Nearly everybody gets it at one time or another, and it continues to spread. Back in 1946, British historian Arnold Toynbee wrote: “Patriotism . . . has very largely superseded Christianity as the religion of the Western World.”

Similarly, in a letter to the editor of Bombay’s “Indian Express” newspaper, an Indian man stated: “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.”

Nationalism is listed as a synonym for patriotism on the thesaurus.com website. For details though, checkout this comment. Pardon the redundancy of the quotations, they stay the same regarding this subject.

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.’”

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”​—Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Despite that lofty ideal, prejudice and discrimination continue to plague mankind. This sad fact reflects not only our times but also the imperfection of humans. (Psalm 51:5) Nevertheless, the situation is far from hopeless. Granted, we may be unable to eliminate the discrimination we see around us, but we can work to root out prejudices that may lodge within ourselves.

A good start is to acknowledge that none of us are above developing prejudices. The book Understanding Prejudice and Discrimination says: “Perhaps the most important conclusions to emerge from prejudice research are these: (1) no one capable of human thought and speech is immune from harboring prejudice, (2) it often takes deliberate effort and awareness to reduce prejudice, and (3) with sufficient motivation, it can be done.”

Education has been described as “the most powerful tool” in the fight against prejudice. The right education can, for example, expose the root causes of prejudice, enable us to examine our own attitudes more objectively, and help us deal wisely with prejudice when we are victims.

Prejudice and Discrimination—Getting to the Roots

Prejudice causes people to distort, misinterpret, or even ignore facts that conflict with their predetermined opinions. Prejudice may have its beginnings in seemingly innocent, but misguided, family values, or it may be sown by those who deliberately promote warped views of other races or cultures. Prejudice can also be fostered by nationalism and false religious teachings. And it can be a product of inordinate pride. As you reflect on the following points and on pertinent principles taken from the Bible, why not examine your own attitudes and see if changes are in order?

Associates. ...

Nationalism. One dictionary defines nationalism as “a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations.” 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.’”

▪ What does the Bible say? “God loved the world [all mankind] so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16) “God is not partial, but in every nation the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him.” (Acts 10:34, 35) Ask yourself, ‘If God’s love is impartial​—embracing people of all nations, including me—​should I not strive to imitate him, especially if I profess to reverence him?’

Racism. Racists believe “that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others,” says one dictionary. Yet, as is noted in The World Book Encyclopedia, researchers “have not discovered any scientific basis for such claims of [racial] superiority.” The gross injustices that racism fosters, such as people’s systematic denial of rights to fellow humans, are painful evidence that racism rests on falsehoods and fallacies.

▪ What does the Bible say? “The truth will set you free.” (John 8:32) “[God] made out of one man every nation of men.” (Acts 17:26) “Not the way man sees is the way God sees, because mere man sees what appears to the eyes; but as for Jehovah, he sees what the heart is.” (1 Samuel 16:7) Ask yourself: ‘Do I try to see all humans as God does? Do I try to find out what others​—perhaps those of a different race or culture—​are really like by getting to know some of them personally?’ When we get to know people on a personal level, we more readily see through misleading stereotypes.

Religion. The book The Nature of Prejudice says: “Abominations inevitably result when men use their religion to justify [selfish pursuits] and ethnic self-interest. It is then that religion and prejudice merge.” What is especially striking, the same book observes, is how readily many religious people “seem to slip from piety into prejudice.” Evidence in support of those words is seen in racially exclusive churches, sectarian hatred and violence, and acts of terror inspired by religion.

▪ What does the Bible say? ...

Pride. ...

a reply to: seeker1963

Try telling Chris Cuomo that.


The title is click baitey, but the exchange must be seen IMHO

let me sum this up.

Democratic platform.....

All americans are racist.
Being an American Is Racist.
If you dont feel guilty for your American Privilage you are racist.
If your not willing to give your country up you are a racist Nazi.

Vote Democrat! Really ......Pretty please. We are you friends and care about you. God Bless America and the constitution. We do not condone violence but the time for civility is over and if we lose the midterms ..... kill everybody!!!!

ROTFLMAO!!!

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
As I’ve said before, there is no fixing the deficit until
Congress stops with the spending. Drmocrats kerp trying to convince us we just need to raise taxes, but the new crop of our if the closet socialists are proposing ridiculous amounts of spending which is completely unsustainable and their only way to pay for it is raising taxes both individual and corporate. This is part of the socialist plan because socialism penalizes growth and individual success and independence. They want us all dependent on the government as much as possible. This is the totalitarian model, and as many of us know, the fascist Mussolini coined that term. It’s Democrats who employ the fascist totalitarian model then blame everything on Republicans. And Fascism is really a leftist model, just not quite as drastic as communism.

Well you got it half right. Unfortunately you missed the part where the Republicans also blame the Democrats for everything.

The Democrats didnt eat the Republicans homework when trump was elected and make excuses when asked what the plan was for healthcare.

One Republican rand paul tries to freeze spending. That is it.

The difference between liberals and conservatives in Congress is one wants to raise taxes to cover the pork spending and the other does not.

800 billion deficit brought to you by Republican controlled Congress signed by a Republican president.

a reply to: Grambler

I hate trumps debt spending, and wish he was more of a unifier

Now as many of my other posts show, I think trumo has done a lot of good as well, namely showing the establishment for what it is

I gotta agree, the spending is out of control and that hasn't gotten much better It's just being spent differently

Of course as you said he's done a whole lot of good too. And what he's done to the Establishment is worth its weight in Gold. But I'd prefer more work on unification also. I guess I prefer it is something we all try to do more of

a reply to: luthier

Unfortunately you missed the part where the Republicans also blame the Democrats for everything.

We do. And it is no better than when we complain about the Democrats laying a lot of undue blame on us. And of course that doesn't make it right or acceptable, it is objectively wrong

The Democrats didnt eat the Republicans homework when trump was elected and make excuses when asked what the plan was for healthcare.

Beyond the slogan "Repeal and replace" we had no real plan for Healthcare. I am completely against the "individual mandate" or even mandatory insurance, but we didn't have some secret plan for healthcare (or if we did I wasn't "let in on it")

We have to do better than this. And I think a lot of the people posting in this thread realize it better than anyone

1984: For three days 250 writers, artists, musicians, philosophers, psychoanalysts, scientists, economists and industrialists from Japan, Italy, France, the United States and many other countries gathered in Tokyo to discuss themes of world importance, including nationalism. Jorge Luis Borges, renowned Argentinian writer and poet, said that nationalism is dividing the world, adding: “In this sense, it is the arch-villain of all the evils. It divides people, it destroys the good side of human nature, it leads to inequality in the distribution of wealth.”

Philippine educator Primo L. Tongko, who I quoted in my previous comment to focus on the phrase ‘My country right or wrong’, continues: “Nationalistic attitudes” have filled the “pages of history with continuous wars for conquest, colonization, exploitation and oppression, 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?”

“Nationalism’s chief symbol of faith and central object of worship is the flag, and curious liturgical forms have been devised for ‘saluting’ the flag, for ‘dipping’ the flag, for ‘lowering’ the flag, and for ‘hoisting’ the flag. Men bare their heads when the flag passes by; and in praise of the flag poets write odes and children sing hymns.”​—What Americans Believe and How They Worship (1952), by J. Paul Williams, pages 359, 360.

“Twenty-five years ago this June,” observes the Catholic Jesuit magazine “America”, “Americans piously inserted the phrase ‘under God’ into the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.” In reflecting on the reason for this move, “America” says that “most who supported the change in wording (and there were few who did not) frankly admitted that the inclusion of God was a political, not a religious, act.” In those days of fervent anti-Communism, notes the article, “the Catholic War Veterans of Wayne County, Mich., resolved that letting God into the Pledge would give ‘additional meaning to the spiritual defense of our nation.’ God . . . was being recalled to active duty.”

The significance of this was expressed by one religious writer of the time who said that, by putting God into the pledge, America was “adopting a God of war who appears as a nationalistic deity directing bombs and bullets into the hearts of our enemies.” Observes “America”: “Quite simply, the nation was afraid of the future, and it tried to meet this fear by having its children parrot in singsong fashion just how good it actually was. The Pledge was to be a spiritual boot [military training] camp for babes.”

Do you want your children to learn about a nationalistic “God of war” or, rather, about the “God of peace” as revealed in the Bible? (Phil. 4:9) “America” draws this conclusion: “The phrase ‘under God’ is the concrete symbol of what was, 25 years ago, and may still be, the established American religion: worship of the state. We ought to drop it.”​—June 9, 1979, pp. 469, 470.

1982: Israel’s military advance into Lebanon prompted much comment on what is behind the hatreds that seem to pervade the Middle East. “The great tragedy,” observed Dennis Braithwaite of The Toronto Sun, “is that the Israelis and the Palestinians, both Semitic peoples, should be warring at all over territory in which both are at home and could logically share in peace.” In Braithwaite’s opinion, “all that really divides them is religion; the rest is rationalization, propaganda, lies. . . . Take religious fanaticism out of the equation, and what have Arab and Jew left to fight about?”

But the columnist noted that religious hatreds are not limited to the Middle East: “Observe the insanity in Northern Ireland, where two conceptions of the Christian religion have caused people who look alike, talk alike and spring from the same soil, to lock themselves in a death struggle that baffles the outsider. What but religion keeps the IRA and the Ulster Defence League in constant plots of assassination and reprisal? When they’re interviewed on television, you can’t tell one from the other.”

Braithwaite went on to state that “religion is but one form of nationalism, the concept of ‘them’ and ‘us,’ . . . the greatest threat of all to mankind’s future.”

The Encyclopædia Britannica says that Machiavelli “founded the science of politics for the modern world.” “Machiavellianism” is now a word meaning the political principle “that any means however lawless or unscrupulous” may be used by a ruler to maintain his power.

Such politics has plagued the 20th century. Wars, coups, corruption, horrible violence and terrorism are all manifestations of it. Politics divides the East from the West. It divides nations, cities (such as Berlin) and even families. Politics is one of the most divisive influences of mankind.

Closely related to such politics and often exploited by political leaders is the spirit of . . .

Nationalism

On this subject an amusing story is told about an army chaplain in Scotland who, at a new military camp, asked for volunteers to convert an old barn into a chapel. In the absence of the chaplain the volunteers painted in large letters above the altar: “Scotland forever and ever.” The surprised chaplain asked them to make the sign a bit more religious. They did. The inscription then read: “Scotland forever and ever. AMEN.”

Scotsmen are known for being very proud of their country. But they are not alone in this. For example, English children, especially in the days when the British Empire was dominant in the world, were fed nationalistic fervor from earliest childhood. They were taught to believe that ‘Britannia Rules the Waves,’ and that the English are a superior nation, blessed by God.

In every nation similar feelings are promoted by politicians who know that a strong nationalistic spirit serves their purposes well. But their purpose may not be in the best interest of people. In an article entitled “Nationalism Is Alien to True Patriotism,” columnist Sydney J. Harris observed: “Nationalism means ‘going along’ with a Hitler or a Stalin or any other tyrant who waves the flag, mouths obscene devotion to the Fatherland, and meanwhile tramples the rights of people.”

Too, as the story of the chapel in Scotland shows, nationalism and religion often go together. Wrote Dr. Robert L. Kahn, a rabbi: “Religion and Nationalism always tend to go hand in hand. In times of war, particularly, . . . ‘For God and Country’ becomes a sort of battle cry. This has always been so. [In World War II] one of the popular songs was the war-whoop of a chaplain, ‘Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition.”’

A nationalistic spirit has even seriously affected sports. For example, at a European soccer championship match between the teams of England and Belgium held in Turin, Italy, play was held up for several minutes while English fans fought a battle with Italian riot police, resulting in many persons being hurt.

Racism
...

Source: What Obstructs Universal Brotherhood? Awake!—1981

Found it, hypocrisy at its ugliest, catchy tune though, good for brainwashing, indoctrinating and conditioning the masses that war is OK:

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: luthier

Unfortunately you missed the part where the Republicans also blame the Democrats for everything.

We do. And it is no better than when we complain about the Democrats laying a lot of undue blame on us. And of course that doesn't make it right or acceptable, it is objectively wrong

The Democrats didnt eat the Republicans homework when trump was elected and make excuses when asked what the plan was for healthcare.

Beyond the slogan "Repeal and replace" we had no real plan for Healthcare. I am completely against the "individual mandate" or even mandatory insurance, but we didn't have some secret plan for healthcare (or if we did I wasn't "let in on it")

We have to do better than this. And I think a lot of the people posting in this thread realize it better than anyone

I agree 100 percent. I was a new England conservative. Libertarian on social issues do as little as possible with federal issues.

I however, am not a Republican. I would vote for Republicans who haven't already failed for say 35 years and many terms but I am not the opposite of a Democrat. I have nuanced opinions and I am tired of being gathered into a party before country.

I have Democrat friends. We don't have deep discussions by making fun of each other in mean spirits, we have meaningful discussions when we are open to the concept we are both good people and should be considerate and listen to each others opinions. This is how a solution that is more inclusive is made.

We can't keep electing presidents to do the work of Congress. AMD we can't keep electing people to get personal ideas passed. We live in a country 9f diverse opinions and they are all valid when lawful and when addressed locally.

a reply to: Grambler

George Orwell.

“Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved.

By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally.

Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.”
www.goodreads.com...