 |
| via jobsanger You know who else were proud to call themselves "Nationalists?" |
Aggressive German nationalism and territorial expansion was a key factor leading to both World Wars.
Prior to World War I, Germany had established a colonial empire in hopes of rivaling Britain and France. In the 1930s, the Nazis came to power and sought to create a Greater Germanic Reich, emphasizing ethnic German identity and German greatness to the exclusion of all others, eventually leading to the extermination of Jews, Poles, Romani, and other people deemed Untermenschen (subhumans) in the Holocaust during World War II...The Nazi Party (NSDAP), led by Austrian-born Adolf Hitler, believed in an extreme form of German nationalism. SOURCE
TrumpCultists -- MAGA!
 |
| TrumpCultists Give the Nationalist Salute at Trump Rally |
And this:
"The idea that the powerful must be coddled arose in a setting that recalls the United States of today. The Habsburg monarchy of Hitler’s youth was a multinational country with democratic institutions and a free press. Some Germans, members of the dominant nationality, felt threatened because others could vote and publish. Hitler was an extreme example of this kind of sentiment. Today, some white Americans are similarly threatened by the presence of others in institutions they think of as their own. Among the targets of the accused pipe bomber were four women, five black people and two Jews. Just as (some) Germans were the only serious national problem within the Habsburg monarchy, so today are (some) white Americans the only serious threat to their own republic.
Hitler formulated his version of total irresponsibility after the disaster of the first world war, which destroyed the Habsburg monarchy and fragmented its German ally. He found an explanation for the disaster that spared the ego of the German nationalists who had supported it. The world was a struggle, Hitler maintained, among superior and inferior races. If superior Germans were somehow defeated in a war, this only proved that an invisible power stood behind the visible facts: global Jewry. According to Hitler, Jews inculcated ideas, such as that of individual rights, that drew people away from their natural bloodlust.
The notion that Jews are responsible for civil rights or immigrant protection, one that seems to have motivated the mass shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, is an example of this Hitlerian way of thinking. Since Jews are supposedly responsible for rights, they are blamed when people beyond the dominant group exercise rights. Because the spread of the norm of rights takes place in the mind, the only response, thought Hitler, was to remove Jews from the planet. The accused Pittsburgh murderer (“all Jews must die”) seems to have thought in just this way."
17 comments:
Question? Does nationalism have any positive value for any circumstances?
Discussion of the actual definition seems like a proper starting place.
From the OED:
nationalism
NOUN
mass noun
1) Identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.
‘their nationalism is tempered by a desire to join the European Union’
More example sentences
1.1) Advocacy of or support for the political independence of a particular nation or people.
‘Scottish nationalism’
That's what we thought at the turn of the last century. Then we found out that what other countries do effects us profoundly. We cannot live as an isolationist country.
Then 20 years later we had to learn that lesson again. Both times we were isolationists at the beginning until it came to our national safety, which it will.
The Monroe Doctrine was expanded after WW II and we have to live up to that responsibility.
As an ancient Asian saying says, "If you save a life, you are responsible for that life."
In the long run, nothing good comes from being strictly a nationalist country.
And what is wrong with putting America first.
Nationalism is on the rise world wide. Witness the Brazilian election.
What this disgusting president does is legitimize it and enable the white christian variety that has been festering in the U.S.
It manifests itself in many forms of violence and will strengthen as long as the rethugs are in power.
Anon... During the run up to WWII, that is exactly what the America first crowd said back then. And as a result, millions of Jews lost their lives, refugees were turned back, citizens were imprisoned here on US soil, and thousands of US service men and women lost their lives too because we refused to get involved into a problem that was "not ours."
Today, our world is even more connected.
Yes, we can prioritize America's interests, and we should, but America First, to the exclusion of our Allies and friends, is a dangerous regression to our not so distant past.
Anon... let's apply your question to the "caravan".
Please tell me why the America firsters who support Pres Trump would not welcome Latino immigrants, who are largely Christian, and prioritize them over immigrants from Islamic countries?
America needs immigrants for our economy to continue to grow and to help sustain Social Security, Medicare, etc.
If the America First push, which doesn't want immigrants from Muslim countries, also does not want immigrants from more Christian countries, from where should the needed people come?
Our policies do not allow enough legal immigration for employers to fill their positions. Just last week, trailer fabricators in Texas were featured in the news saying even at $25.00 an hour and benefits, they cannot get legal employees and are forced to hire undocumented/illegal workers to stay in business. What should employers like them do?
In Texas, it's trailer fabricators. In California, it is the agricultural business. Even President Trump cannot find sufficient workers to tend his vineyards. All of this points to a fundamental need for more general laborers here in the US.
The President's interpretation of America First is skewed to placating his base voters, and not enriching, improving, or even really putting American first.
Nationalism should be, in my opinion, one component of a sensible and rational foreign policy. Put another way the people of all nations must first define and then pursue their nations rational self interests.
In a global environment complete with complex economic and national security interdependencies isolationism will not work. The strategy must be to work towards and eventually realizing (negotiating) a win-win outcome for all parties. Focusing solely on this nation's self interests and saying to hell with all others is irrational and ultimately will leads to failure and a host of problems. Most we've already witnessed in the past.
Rev, Maybe because we would rather see our tax money spent on citizens of our country not given to anyone who wants it.
Granted we need immigrants and that is the reason we need comprehensive immigration reform not a political policy to demean the other party. Obama the great did nothing to pursue immigration reform and neither has the current democrat leadership. What is Mexico's immigration policy. Why not adopt their policy and treat their citizens the same was they treat ours. We should be able to show up, demand our citizens are provided free education taught in English and if we are ill they pay.
Why would you not support this?
Whether it is good or bad, let's look at this...
Trump is wrong, once again, on the facts. There are many countries that have birthright citizenship, including both the other countries in NAFTA, Canada and Mexico. So, was President lying when he claimed otherwise, or just ignorant?
There can be no other explanation.
Conservatives and supporters of Trump... which is it?
Skud: "Obama the great did nothing to pursue immigration reform..."
THIS IS A DAILY REMINDER TO THE GOOPERS WHO CLAIM THI ABOVE:
MITCH MC CONNELL VOWED TO BLOCK ANY LEGISLATION THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA PROPOSED ON ANYTHING.
The House of Representatives is the legislative branch of our government.
They vowed NEVER to work with ANYTHING President Obama proposed for ANY legislation.
Please return now to your mistaken fantasies, but don't publish them here.
Thank you. The Blog Management
Regarding President Obama and immigration, the following is taken directly from the Council on Foreign Relations:
"Barack Obama. President Obama took several actions to provide temporary legal relief to many undocumented immigrants. In 2012, his administration began a program, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), that offered renewable, two-year deportation deferrals and work permits to undocumented immigrants who had arrived to the United States as children and had no criminal records. Obama characterized the move as a “stopgap measure” and urged Congress to pass the Dream Act, legislation first introduced in 2001 that would have benefited many of the same people. As of March 2018, more than eight hundred thousand [PDF] had taken advantage of DACA.
In 2014, Obama attempted to extend similar benefits to as many as five million undocumented parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. However, more than two dozen U.S. states sued his administration, alleging that the program, known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA), violated federal immigration law and the U.S. Constitution. A Texas federal judge blocked the program in 2015, and the Supreme Court effectively killed it in 2016.
The Obama administration’s enforcement practices drew criticism from the left and the right. Some immigrant advocacy groups criticized his administration for overseeing the removal of more than three million people during his eight-year tenure, a figure that outpaced the administrations of former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Many Republicans said the Obama administration was soft on enforcement in narrowing its removal efforts to undocumented immigrants who have committed serious crimes."
Possumlady
Skud... either you are not thinking, or are choosing to look the other way.
I've posted the links here before to where I written on immigration reform as I saw at the time, allowing that time sometimes changes views. your meme that this is a both party issue is not supported by the facts. Here's your latest quote...
"we need immigrants and that is the reason we need comprehensive immigration reform not a political policy to demean the other party."
The last attempt to make this happen was engineered by the "Gang of Eight", a Bi-Partisan effort supported by a majority of the members of Congress. It was DOA in the House because a majority of Republican members would not support it. After that, as Shaw has pointed out, no Dem led effort could come forward due to Sen McConnell blocking all efforts at reform.
How was that a policy to demean a political party? It was bi-partisan, supported by a majority of ppl in the country and by a majority of Congress, but the Hastert Rule of the GOP in the House doomed it.
Immigration is not bottled up because of the Dems, it is 100% bottled up by the GOP.
Now, will immigration reform ultimately help the Dems? Probably, but that has more to do with the the GOP's inability to speak respectfully of ppl of Latin American descent. Latinos, generally conservative, should be a GOP voting block, but when you call them rapists and murderers, that's a heavy lift.
Dave our friend, skud, doesn't care about facts. You've pointed out the facts on what President Obama attempted to do when he was president, but skud either ignores thos facts or, like Trump, prefers falsehoods. There's no other explanation. For him to say President Obama did nothis is a lie. Period.
Possumlady, Only willfully ignorant partisans repeat the lie that President Obama did nothing on immigration. It was the Goopers who went against even their own to stop anything President Obama did.
There is no sense in trying to educate someone who refuses to learn.
Ms Shaw, You know that is not what McConnell said. He said we will deny him a second term.
As to revs stand on immigration. If this is such an important issue to the democrats why didn't they do something about it instead of trying to ruin healthcare. Why did obama pass a temporary deferred program and why did he never propose immigration reform. The democrats will pick up seats in the house and they will drop immigration reform just like they have done in the past.
Talk to your leaders and tell them to mimic Mexico immigration policy then no one can object. If you have a child born in Mexico are they a Mexican citizen. If you cross the border and want to live on social welfare can you. If you commit a violent crime in Mexico do you get a lawyer paid for by the government. Doubt it.
skud, Oh. Excusez moi!
You're right, it wasn't Mc Connell who said he'd stop anything President Obama proposed, IT WAS SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, JOHN BOHNER, and McConnell said the most important job he had was to make President Obama a one-term president. So we had the Republican leaders of Congress vow to sabotage anything President Obama tried to do legislatively, even to the point of sabotaging his re-election. When you vow to make a president a one-termer, you essentially are saying you will stop any legislative accomplishments. Same difference.
Here’s John Boehner, the likely speaker if Republicans take the House, offering his plans for Obama’s agenda: “We're going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can.”
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell summed up his plan to National Journal: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
I'm impressed with your devotion to accuracy. /sarcasm/
You keep replaying the Obama years when America is falling apart from the disgusting, morally deformed person the GOP put in the White House.
Pay attention to what your guy is doing -- wanting to fundamentally change the US Constitution. If President Obama has said he would change the US Constitution by E.O., the entire GOP and FAUX NOOZ would have blown their heads off with outrage. But you, curiously, have ignored Trump's desire to commit a Constitutionally unlawful act and you continue to blame President Obama for all of President Porn Star Shagger's failures.
You need to think about this: If President Porn Star Shagger is so brilliant a POTUS and beloved by the people, then why do 60+% of Americans say he's doing a lousy job and wish he behaved with some small sliver of dignity, instead of being the boorish, malignant narcissist that he is?
Skud... interesting remarks from John Boehner aren't they? McConnell's as well.
They seemed determined after the election to thwart, as best they could, any attempt by Pres Obama and the Dems, to enact their agenda.
And yet, when they won the House, Senate and White House, they claimed that the American people had spoken and that the Dems needed to heed their mandate.
Pres Obama spent enormous political capital on health care, trying to get it available, without restrictions, or financial ruin, to the great majority of Americans. He offered to work in a bi-partisan way with the GOP. The Dems held open hearings, dozens of them, and negotiated with GOP senators hoping to make the final product, which was based on GOP sponsored ideas in the past palatable.
In the end, the entire GOP voted no. And that block of politicians worked to derail every effort of bi-partisanship the Dems attempted. To my knowledge, you've never addressed that reality. No single party can get much done in Washington.
Perhaps, if the GOP had ever recognized Obama's victory in 2008 and the huge wins in both the Senate and the House as the mandate it was, and worked for the American people, as opposed to the 35%, we'd be in a better place.
Post a Comment