Why You Should Be a Nationalist

Why You Should Be a Nationalist
It’s undeniable: Around the world, nationalism is on the march, and the media and reigning political elites would have you believe this is a dangerous disaster in the making. So, why is Yoram Hazony, author of The Virtue of Nationalism, unafraid? Watch to understand.

Nationalism is merely patriotism. Its the opposite of globalism.

If you don’t have a home country, with cultural values that are similar yours, you have nothing. That is something that the people who have programmed what to think in college will not understand until they have a family and loved ones.

Interesting angle. But doesn’t everyone in college have a family?

Yes, many of them do have families, but once they get to college and have their minds filled with crap, that can take over for many of them.

Many years ago I read a biography of Lenin. It led off with his Communist Party catechism. To be loyal to the party, you give up everything in your former life. For a college student, who already has a dose of adolescent, turning the family in favor of far left politics is not impossible.

That’s how much influence these little professors have on their students and ultimately the country.

I fully agree that Nationalism, pride in ones country, is a necessary mindset.

The lack of nationalism promotes societal deterioration; you see that both in highly corrupt/ decisive nations, or in the complete grand narrative collapse that occurred in Japan in the 1990s, giving birth to the terrorist group who released sarin gas on subways.

However, while I can adopt the mindset, I can’t identify as a nationalist.

Nationalism is still fill-in-the-blank thinking. “X is okay, because Y is doing it”, conversely “X is not okay, when Z does it.”

We had that mentality fighting the Soviets, resulting in costly police actions that won us nothing.

We had that mentality again going into Iraq in 2003, throwing the entire ME region into disarray.

I also can’t fully buy the Imperialist vs Nationalist division, that looks artificial to me as defined.

The United States expanded into territories owned by other nations on the NA continent. Florida owned by Spain, the Southwest owned by Mexico. Does that make us Imperial?

Henry the 8th (who was rather tyranical) started a war in France to gain territory. A war funded by sacking Catholic churches in Britain. So is he an imperialist or a nationalist?

Ultimately nationalists do back territory grabs, as they see it as being in the best interest for the nation.

Trump tried to buy Greenland, and he’s still a Nationalist isn’t he?

We keep territory in Cuba even though the Cubans don’t want us there, and Trump nixed the idea to pull out. Is that imperial?

To sum up, Nationalism is necessary as a mindset, and I can agree that Nationalism and imperialism aren’t the same. But I don’t buy the offered distinction, I think nationalism has defects as an identity, and I think it’d be a disaster to put Henry the 8th on any kind of pedestal.

That has nothing to do with the nationalism that President Trump promoted. If he’s an expansionist land grabber, why did he support bringing all our troops home? Why didn’t he start a new war, as most presidents do?

He offered to buy Greenland, presumably because it’s rich in minerals that both we and our likely enemies need. He made no attempt or threat to “grab” it.

Most Cubans didn’t want Castro there either, or at least that’s what those that escaped said. Given that Cuba was used at one point as a launch site for our enemy’s nuclear missiles, it seems wise to keep our existing base there.

That’s neither here nor there. I’m evaluating the Nationalism as defined in the video, which was creating a meta case for nationalist movements going across the world, not just Trump or what he specifically was about.

If you didn’t watch it, you should do so. It sounds to me you would take issue with it.

In the video, they are defining a nationalist as someone whose only concern goes to the border’s edge, and never looks to expand territory, or cause problems for their neighbors. They cite a biblical quote to buffer that contention.

The reason they use the border as a delineator, is that they want to claim anyone who goes outside the border’s line is an Imperialist, and thus is clearly distinguishable from a nationalist.

Hence why Hitler wasn’t “actually” a nationalist, he went beyond Germany’s border, or even restoring its borders from pre-WWI.

That claim though looks really untenable to me. Hitler was things in addition to Nationalism, but to say that wasn’t within his stack of motivations is a very tortured, agenda driven view of the man.

In addition, hoisting Henry the 8th as a Nationalist hero is just bonkers. He was a capricious tyrant who executed people close to him for whispers of disagreement.

He wasn’t a lover of England, he was a lover of himself. He commissioned an image in the Bible where God is a marginable presence, and he is the biggest thing in the picture. He likened loyalty to him as loyalty to God.

Was this just an awkward parallel, given that the actual origins of Nationalism began in the French Revolution, and it would be unfavorable to offer that? Or that revolution gave much of the energy that embodied Napoleon, who anyone would be forced to admit is an Imperialist?

Nah, sounds like they hastily created two boxes, nationalist and imperialist, and didn’t think for very long as to how those boxes failed to capture reality. It did what they wanted, made the Nationalist distinct from “the baddies”, and they stopped thinking further.

Nationalism is important, I fully grant that, but that video is low quality and a disservice to history.

I watched it before I commented and then watched it again after I read your comment. I still disagree with your comments.

Yes, Cuba is outside our borders, but those nuclear weapons that Russia pointed at us from Cuban soil probably left an indelible image on the minds of people old enough to remember. He probably weighted pulling out. I’m guessing there was some give and take in the discussion. For one thing, what would he do with the sons of Satan that he inherited in that Gitmo prison? Some that were released got quickly recycled back into terrorism against us. There are no simple choices.

The video said Imperialism is the opposite of nationalism, and I think that’s mostly true. But I think they’re also somewhat orthogonal. Hitler was both. He kept national identity as part of Nazism because it played very well with the German people. Most of all, he knew about things that were valuable for propaganda.

I don’t remember much about Henry the 8th, but you cite complaints about the way he ruled that are neither here nor there. The ONE thing cited in the video was independence gained by his break from the Vatican. That seems relevant to the nationalist theme.

What? Didn’t that begin in 1789, 13 years after the 13 colonies declared their independence from England? And wasn’t it mostly about discontent with the king and the government within France? Also, didn’t Henry the 8th declare his independence from Rome hundreds of years earlier?

Well, it’s true that they didn’t discuss President Trump’s America First theme nor his assertion that every world leader should be most interested in putting his own country first too. But I think they hit a crucial central aspect of nationalism.

You dismiss this, why? His purpose seems to be to counter the propaganda that tries to wrongfully equate “nationalism” with “racism” or “isolationism”. The Democrats and evildoers in media were eager to paint every thing President Trump stands for as “racist” because they passionately hate him with every molecule in their evil bodies and they don’t mind sacrificing accuracy in language to hurt him. This guy was just trying to correct some wrongs.

Put history in context, this happened after the Bay of Pigs. It was resolved, by us moving our missiles out of Turkey, and promising never to invade Cuba again.

Ergo, this started with us meddling with our neighbor (to include helping Castro to begin with). Violating the very ethic the video lays out.

The Vatican had no civil power in England, the only power they had was asserting morality, and denying Henry the 8th a divorce.

So Henry said “Nope, I’m the head of the Church, and I grant myself the divorce”, and then plundered the Churches to finance a war. A war that he started to gain territory, and lost.

As tortured as their definition of “nationalism” is, they can’t get him to pass their own bar. He was out for himself.

Yup, actual nationalism wasn’t codified until the 1830s, the French revolution itself is at best a proto-example, same to the American Revolution.

Meaning America predates Nationalism, and this is because it was a Republican revolution based upon ideas that date to the Romans. It was not seeking the creation of the modern nation-state, which is a separate concept that came later, and is credited to Europeans in its conception, not Americans.

Because the Henry the 8th example is terrible, not calling Hitler a Nationalist is wrong, and their distinction of Imperialist vs Nationalist, doesn’t work in practice.

Actual nationalists, do the things they attribute to Imperialists.

So other than informing the viewer that worldwide nationalist movements are occurring, and some context for why its happened now and in the 1980s, they don’t offer an actionable take for why it should exist, nor do they usefully distinguish it from Fascism.

Half of the video is just an outright failure.

Doesn’t excuse making new wrongs in the process, that worsens the right’s position.

Get your history straight, don’t make up categories on the fly, choose relevant examples. None of those bars are hard to reach.

Are you discussing whether Kennedy was a nationalist? I hadn’t considered him. And surely not Johnson.

You’re still grousing about Henry’s bad character. But removing any control over the country by a foreign power is the issue that was referenced in the video, not character.

“Codified”? The video clearly talked about principles, not codes.

He listed Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt which I’m not sure about. But how about Ben Gurion, Mahatma Gandhi, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher? They were clearly nationalists putting the interests of the country they loved first and fighting off interference. But were they land grabbing imperialists? Are you claiming President Trump is an “imperialist”?

Well that too, but you may have missed 0:39 to 0:49:

A “nationalist” believes that the world is governed best when nations are free to chart their own independent course cultivating their traditions and pursuing their interests without interference.

Sorry, but I think your argument fails on this one. Nationalism is good. President Trump is good.

I’m saying you can’t defend the situation on nationalist grounds, if you buy their definition.

We created the situation, we meddled. We continue to occupy Guantanamo Bay for imperialist reasons, which every President since Kennedy embraced.

I’m pointing out calling him a nationalist is anachronistic, and doesn’t apply, because he did everything for himself.

His war with France demonstrates that, and the Bible image, and why he separated from the Church.

He was called the “Defender of the Faith” by the Catholic Church before it got to his wanting a divorce. It was all about him, not about the merits of Protestantism which he was all too happy to squash when it served him, or what “effect” the church had on England.

Whatever the word, the point remains the same: Nationalism as a concept did not arise until the 19th century, and it was invented by the Europeans.

Republicanism does not require Nationalism to exist, you didn’t have nationalism during the time of the Romans, yet they were a Republic all the same. The distinction is the Nation-state.

Yup, both grabbed land.

But land grabs is reductive; it doesn’t match Imperialism’s [own definition] which includes (https://www.britannica.com/topic/imperialism) exerting power over any area outside your country through diplomacy or force.

Meaning, not just land grabs; China and Russia Client state relationships with countries in Asia and Africa would also qualify.

So would, say, Reagan’s invasion of Panama. Itself the fruition of an imperialist policy Roosevelt started nearly a century before.

And no, that’s not a critique on Reagan.

So you admit the point. They used that definition, and it doesn’t work. You can’t defend their usage.

I didn’t deny it was. Remember my saying this Ken?

And this?

Nothing I said here was an attack on nationalism, or Trump, everything was an attack on the video.

The only other thing I point I made, was that I can’t identify as Nationalist, as it has invited non-criticality of foreign invasions.

Nationalism was behind why we went to Vietnam. It was behind why we went to Iraq in 2003.
The leadership under Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, and Bush could very easily be described as nationalist, and they engaged in imperialist policy to fight the Soviets, and then Saddam, citing our “national Interests” as they did so.

You can’t hand waive that. Nationalism is important, but it also has to be checked by other values.