liberals are trying their best to hijack the word nationalism and reference sites like Wiki are helping them
in fact, the word nationalism does NOT include a belief that a nation is better, superior or anything along those lines http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nationalism believe what you want or learn the truth On May 18, 7:47 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > Conservatives Repudiate the Founding Fathers . . .Posted byThomas DiLorenzoon > May 17, 2011 08:32 PM > . . . by espousing the opiate of nationalism, the opposite of patriotism, > saythe Kennedy brothers. Being the world’s central planner, policeman, and > hypocritical moral scold is the opposite of the George Washington/Thomas > Jefferson vision of a nation that would engage in commerce with all nations > but entangling alliances with none. ( The Kennedy brothers take on an > ignorant New Orleans neocon radio show talking head who falsely equates Ron > Paul’s foreign policy with “isolationism.”) > xxxNationalism: The Opium of Confused ConservativesJames Ronald Kennedy > Walter Donald Kennedy > May 16, 2011 > No doubt but that the title of this article will initially be rather > infuriating to many conservatives. This is because too many Americans today > equate nationalism with patriotism. These words do not carry the same meaning > and when applied to national politics they produce very different results as > it relates to the preservation of personal liberty, limited government, and > respect for the constitution. > The inability of conservatives to distinguish between nationalism and > patriotism was driven home recently when a local DJ on WWL (“Rush Radio” New > Orleans) morning program made a vicious attack on Representative Ron Paul. > The DJ accused a Ron Paul supporter of being “lead around by the nose” by > CNN! The insulting manner in which Ron Paul’s supporter was handled would be > understandable if the DJ was a liberal/progressive/socialist but the DJ > claims to be a true blue conservative whose main interest is to find a > Republican presidential candidate who will be able to defeat Obama. The DJ’s > main complaint against Ron Paul is that he was an isolationist who wants > America to retreat back within our borders and leave the rest of the world > alone, thereby allowing extremists to ultimately destroy ancient cities and > civilizations in the mid-east—without America’s footprint all over the world, > according to this logic, evil will triumph and be free to do horrible things > to lands, cities, and people far away. This DJ views America as a force for > “good,” ready to compel others to abide by our dictates or else suffer the > military consequences. > While it might be relatively easy to define “force” it becomes more > problematic to define “good.” The DJ’s definition of “good” would most likely > be radically different from Obama’s definition, whose definition would be > different from John McCain’s definition, whose definition would be different > from Sarah Palin’s definition etc, etc., etc. Using the DJ’s standard America > would be a force for good all over the world but the definition of good would > have to change every time America changed presidents or the control of > Congress or maybe even every time the Federal Supreme Court changed! > Nationalism celebrates force; it frolics in force; international status is > nurtured and grows with force. Force expands the nation’s control over its > own people every time it is successfully applied to an enemy; therefore pure > nationalists seek enemies to destroy. Nationalism looks beyond the nation’s > borders for opportunities to expand the nation’s influence—be it economic, > ideological, commercial and/or military influence or, when the opportunity > allows, not just influence but absolute control. Notice that this new “nation > of force” will ultimately look and act more like an empire than a simple > nation. > Patriotism, on the other hand, is local; it looks inward to a community with > local traditions. Patriots see the nation as a means to protect local > communities that compose the nation. Patriots are members of local > communities and their primary desire is simply to be “let alone.” Patriots > view people residing outside of the nation’s borders as possible trading > partners in which they can engage in voluntary exchange -- an exchange in > which both sides gain. Patriots rally to the flag to defend the nation > because the nation is necessary to preserve and defend local communities. > Whereas nationalists need and ardently seek to create and expand a strong > centralized supreme and ultimately oppressive national government. Patriots, > on the other hand, seek to create and maintain local self-government that > allows for maximum liberty (i.e. minimum taxation, regulation, etc.) for we > the people at home in our local communities. > This sense of “minding our own business” or being “let alone” can be seen in > John Adam’s warning that America should “… not go abroad in search of > monsters to destroy.”; or Thomas Jefferson’s admonishment that America seeks > to be “… friends with all nations -- entangling alliances with none.”; or > George Washington’s advice to avoid “foreign entanglements”. Nationalists, > DJs and others, seek to paint this traditional American view as somehow being > un-American. > The truth is that personal liberty, limited government, and a constitutional > republic cannot exist when nationalists make up the nation’s ruling elite. > Nationalists will use any means that will allow them to consolidate power -- > thereby taking power/control away from “we the people” at the local level and > transferring it to the centralized, nationalist, (big) government. > At this point one can almost hear the nationalists howling, “How would you > isolationists deal with the 9/11 attack on America?” First, we are not > isolationists -- we want to engage in voluntary exchange/commerce with people > all over the world. We have no desire to build a wall around America in order > to shut ourselves off from the world. Nationalists use the term > “isolationists” the same way PC liberals use the word “racists” -- they both > use their magic words to shut down civil discourse because they have no > logical argument. Secondly, we knew who attacked us on 9/11, we knew where > their headquarters were and we knew what country was providing them aid and > comfort. > An ultimatum should have been given -- “Hand over the leaders and all of > their followers in your country within 48 hours or else.” The “or else” would > consist of a mushroom cloud over the training camps and every military and > terrorist instillation in the country. > Nationalists would argue that we could not afford to do such a thing but > according to nationalists we could afford thousands of American soldiers dead > and wounded (soldiers drawn primarily from mid to lower income families) and > costing a trillion dollars at a time when families in our local communities > are suffering from a failing economy. All it would take is one example and no > other country would allow such organizations to operate in their country! But > one quick and overwhelming strike would not serve the primary purpose of > nationalists—to increase the national footprint around the world while > restricting liberty at home -- all in the name of national security! > This is a warning to all conservatives who believe in the primacy of personal > liberty, limited government and constitutionalism. Nationalists of both > political parties never allow a crisis to pass -- they know how to rattle the > saber in order to rally patriots around the flag and then convince limited > government conservatives to “violate the free market in order to save it” or > to surrender just a little privacy in order to be more secure. Yet each year > the free market is less free, more regulated and less able to grow a > productive, jobs producing, economy; government has its hand deeper in our > pockets (and now even in other private personal places); and the only thing > that is secure is the system of supreme federalism that provides nationalists > ruling elites of both political parties with almost unlimited perks, > privileges, and power -- all paid for by an increasingly oppressed and once > free people. > After the unfortunate close of the War for Southern Independence, General > Robert E. Lee predicted that if a system of federal supremacy eventually > governed America, the country would become “aggressive abroad and oppressive > at home.” Is the current system of supreme federalism and the domestic and > international policies it enforces conducive of personal liberty, limited > government, and a constitutional republic? Or have we rejected traditional > patriotism and converted to nationalism and in the name of national security > become aggressive abroad and oppressive at home? Do we have a right to be the > world’s international policeman in order to force the world to be “good” > according to our temporary definition of “good”? And when nationalists answer > yes -- the next question is: “Can we afford > it?”http://www.kennedytwins.com/nationalism.pdf -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
