The nationalist wave in the U.S. and Europe that liberals still don’t get

I found the following opinion to be provocative and enlightening if it's true because it would explain much about the motivation and actions of the right-wing nationalists as well as the perceptions or perhaps misperceptions from the left.

http://www.marketwatch.com/(S(rnrsy...urope-that-liberals-still-dont-get-2017-03-20

Before I even take the first step into the implications of what's suggested I'd like to see how the opinion is received by both the left and the right. It's not inherently critical of either so I don't see it as a left v right or right v left argument but instead an attempt at trying to find a common ground for both sides to be able to address the differences between the two.

 

We don't live in a global village, we have nations, which means we have borders between nations. The Founders never intended the US to be majority non-white, non-Western, and they put many safeguards in place to ensure that, but Marxists knew better and made changes to try and establish a more globalized world. The rising wave of nationalism is a response to nearly 100 years of sabotage in the West.

 

The founders never imagined what the world would look like in the early 21st Century either. Envoking them as if they were precient gods is silly.

 

So because they couldn't envision things like microwave dinners and internet pornography, they didn't know anything, and we should disregard everything they did.

Pretty typical left-wing argument for "fundamentally transforming" the country and disregarding the Constitution.

 

Canada put an end to this in 2015, the Netherlands just avoided a serious problem in their recent election and hopefully France and Germany continue the trend of "saying no" to right wing nationalist demagoguery in their upcoming national elections. We'll see but I'm thinking the world has found out exactly what this crap looks like courtesy of Trump.

 

There's apparent confusion between the "original intent" of the founders and "original government" as imposed by the ruling WASP Males of the time.

We know the original intent because it was embodied in the First Principles:

http://www.americassurvivalguide.com/americas-first-principles.php

No where in the First Principles do we find any support for the belief that the United States was established to be exclusively a "Western" or "White" nation. In fact that belief would directly violate the First Principles that establish that all persons, regardless of race, religion, cultural heritage, or any other criteria are "equal" and that unalienable rights exist for all. It would also violate the First Principle of limited government because it would allow the violations of the unalienable rights of "non-white/non-Western" people residing in the United States.

There's no doubt whatsoever that original government did not reflect the ideology of the founders upon which the United States was founded. That fact is overwhelmingly documented by history.

Returning to the opinion we can ask what is the characteristic that makes nations different? What is it about the United States that make us different than Great Britain, Canada, or Australia?

It sure as hell isn't the fact that our social, economic, and political institutions have been dominated by White Anglo Saxon Protestant men and yet that is the criteria applied by White Nationalists in the United States. That's a commonality that would make us the same and not different. So what is that unique characteristic that makes Americans different?

We have a hint of what that is by the original National Motto adopted in 1776.

E PLURIBUS UNUM​

E Pluribus Unum is Latin for "out of many, one" and understanding that provides the hint needed to understand the unique attribute that makes an American different than a Canadian, Britain, or Australian.

 

What exactly are you talking about? we spent more on border security and deported more immigrants under the Obama administration than any other administration in US history. In fact, Obama deported more people than all 20th century presidents combined. I should also note that for most of the US's history immigration was completely free. Immigration to the US was completely free until the year 1914

 

There's no reason to believe the Founders wanted the country to be a multicultural, multiracial society, similar to how the left wants the country to be. The Founders could have easily put these pluralistic views into practice if they wanted to, but they didn't. Back then, it was common knowledge that certain people were better suited for life in the West than others. Almost everybody, whether or not they believed in slavery or not, believed that there were real differences between the races that would prevent the kind of social harmony that has become the norm post 1965. They expressed a clear requirement that people assimilate. Jefferson may have signed onto the idea that "all men were created equal", and expressed a desire for slavery to end at some point, but he also said that once blacks were freed, they were to be removed from America. He also expressed a desire to remove Native Americans as well. Why would he believe such things if his original intent was to have the country look like a 1969 Woodstock concert? You're attempting to rewrite history based on your 1960's left-wing perspective, and it doesn't work.

 

We didn't have a welfare state for the majority of the country's history, so not nearly as many people tried to come here. That would explain the lower deportation levels. But, post 1965, when progressives enacted their plan to make the US a majority Hispanic country and started offering generous welfare benefits to anyone who could cross the desert and drop a baby on US soil, more people came. Imagine that.

 

He did that by changing the meaning of the word "deport".

 

This is something that has been repeated several times, it has also been fact checked, and it is not accurate. People who previously would have been subject to mere returns were subject to deportations. Regardless, these deportations still took place

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...bbs-obama-administration-manipulated-deporta/

The definition of a deportation is and always has been a formal removal. You can see the government's official definition here, it hasn't been changed https://www.uscis.gov/tools/glossary/deportation

This is an excellent point, but immigrants are not entitled to these welfare benefits unless they become citizens. A non-citizen claiming food stamps or social security is a federal felony

 

The founders defined a social, economic, and political ideology but they only took the very first step on the road of attainment. Moving forward down that path was left to future generations. They knew that and we should know that.

The last thing that the founders would have ever wanted was for the United States to be stuck in the late 18th and early 19th Century. It sucked then and they knew it sucked. They expected, or at least hoped, that future generations would make the social, economic, and political changes they envisioned.

 

There was a reason for that. The founders including Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and perhaps most importantly James Madison that was the architect of the Constitution and author of the Bill of Rights opposed government restrictions on immigration. It was a fundamental violation of the Right of Liberty that the United States was founded upon. The word "immigration" is not found in the Constitution nor do any of the clauses of the Constitution grant a power to control immigration and that was intentional and not by accident.

Thomas Jefferson sums up the position of the founders in these quotations:

Expatriation is the "Right to Immigrate" either to new places where people establish new governments or to countries where the inhabitants have already established the society that the person seeks.

It is a natural right that the person can exercise "by any effectual and unequivocal act or declaration." Effectively, according to Thomas Jefferson, even if there was a referendum and 100% of Americans wanted to close our borders that "illegal immigrant" is justified and has the natural right to ignore our law and enter into the United States.

Jefferson also place an obligation upon all of us.

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/thomasjefferson/jeff1280.htm

The immigrant has responsibilities. They need to learn the language of the land so that they may participate in it. They need to embrace our ideology and make it their own. Finally they need to exercise economic liberty to provide for themselves.

We, as American citizens also have our responsibilities. We need to welcome the immigrant and take those actions necessary to integrate the immigrant into our society and economic/political culture. We also need to ensure their economic liberty.

Ironically those that exhibit animosity towards the immigrants complain that the immigrant don't integrate into our social, economic, and political ideologies while they're the one's fighting against the immigrant integrating and becoming an American.

But once again this misses the point. Just being "A White Anglo Saxon Protestant American Citizen" is not what makes Americans unique in the world of nations.

Note:The first immigration law was the racist Chinese Exclusion Act from 1882 that barred Chinese from entering the United States.

 

You sound as if you've just know heard of this weird concept called, "national identity." I mean, I'm not sure what you find either provocative or enlightening. I mean, this seems pretty basic. Is the idea that there is a difference between a Pole, Dutch, or American brand new to you?

 

Fascist or muslims, anyway, the barbarian will win.

Anyway, their is no place anymore for intellectual distinction and cultural refinement.

Who cares if someone is black, hispanic, white, a man or a woman ?

The only thing who matters is if the individual we talk about is brave,smart, polite and cultivated. Racism is a stupidity because only personnal value matters.

Things change, civilizations dies. We can't prevent the past to be the past, however, we can build a good future.

 

No, it's not that I've just heard of "national identity" but instead what the author is saying places it in a different perspective.

What George Friedman is saying is that the "nationalism movement" is by those that don't know what it is that makes their nation unique among all nations. They don't know what their "National Identity" and are lost without it. As Friedman notes it's not food or the holidays. It's not the different sports that people might enjoy. It's not any of the superficial things that exist within the nation. It's not something you can see, feel or touch that makes a nation unique and gives it a National Identity.

It's the ideology upon which the nation exists that provides the National Identity for each nation. No two are the same and each is unique in it's own right.

The problem exists for the person, as a member of a nation, that doesn't understand what makes their nation unique among all nations. Because they don't know they are prone to grasp at something that's not that which makes their nation unique among nations and that's a mistake.

Europeans have their own national identity and honestly because I'm not from France or Germany or Holland or England it's not something I'd understand. It's not my national identity.

I'm an American and I do have to know my national identity. What has to be understood is that the NATIONAL IDENTITY MUST, by definition, include the PEOPLE of the NATION.

The problem for the Nationalist Movements is that the "Identity" they select is not typically inclusive nor is it unique to the nation. In the United States the problem is White Nationalism because the United States is not a "White" Nation nor does being a person of "white" ancestry have anything to do with whether a person is an American.

The American National Identity inherently has to include the immigrant because America is a nation of immigrants. America was founded by immigrants and was populated by immigrants and they came from around the world.

So when Americans search for our National Identity it has to include immigrants.

The American National Identity inherently has to include people with different religious beliefs. America was founded by people with different religious beliefs and was populated by people with different religious beliefs.

So when Americans search for our National Identity it has to include immigrants.

The American National Identity inherently includes the refugee. America was founded by refugees fleeing from tyranny and oppression and it was populated by people that fled tyranny and oppression.

But there's something much deeper to the American Identity and that's the ideological beliefs of the founders and I've lightly touched on those before in mentioning the First Principles. They're a good place to start but then we have do dig deeper to understand the foundation for the First Principles.

The problem isn't that America doesn't have a National Identity. The problem is that the member of the Nationalist Movement doesn't know what it is.

 

Hey, there is always Antarctica - that's all white and you could probably keep it all white....

 

I reject your first 2 sentences, but the rest must drive Brewskier nuts.

 

We have to be careful with nationalism. If there are two broad causes for war, one is religion. The other is nationalism. It is safe to say WWI, WWII, and the Korean War, as well as other wars of the 20th Century were caused by nationalism.

Often times, to promote nationalism and pave the way to war, leaders choose scapegoats around whom the people unite. Hitler used Jews and communists.

Are those promoting nationalism in the U.S. using illegal immigrants as scapegoats, blaming them for many of our ills? Do we have a President who is trying to unite the country in the face of a common enemy, Islamic extremism? The odds of being killed by a terrorist in the U.S. is one in 45,808.

Nationalism can be a good thing when used in moderation. Used excessively, nationalism can become a horror for humanity, witness WW I and II.

 

In regards to the US being established to be exclusively "Western" or "White" it is not unreasonable to infer that,that is exactly what they meant. At the time of the writing of the Constitution no one of color in America was regarded as a person but as property and as such had no rights.

 

As usual you always go off on a tangent that doesn't have anything to do with the topic you started or my reply to your comment.

 

the nationalism from the opinion forgets to mention legal immigrants, and it also does not point out economic opportunity from other nations are legally given to immigrants over the poorer half of Americans who are already here, but left behind.

what is missed by 'liberals', is that before you bring refugees, legal immigrants, or illegal immigrants to America, you must first take care of those already here with high wage jobs.

the rich should use some of their monies to invest in paid training, apprenticeships, free education, etc..instead of relying on the cheap labor of foreign countries who pay for the training and education of their elite or upper classes to replace the living wage workforce of the middle and lower classes in America.

the only reason why both legal and illegal immigrants have better work ethics than Americans is because they are leaving countries who don't see them as human beings with lives other than work.

they come for a better life, but only American nationalism sponsors that better life.

 

Anyway, time change. USA founders are dead, and it's unusefull to whant them to speak. The want who pretend to know the real will or what they would have wanted are impostors because dead people are dead. Dead people don't have any opinion. It's absurd to think that U.S founds would have wanted that or that, they are dead, end of the line. Time changed, situation changed, every change. You can be willing to inspire yourself of their way of thinking, but it's absurd to want to act as they would have wanted.

 

Free blacks served in the Continental Army and comprised over 16% of Washington's troops at one time. Slavery was a hold-over from British rule that the founders like Jefferson, Madison, and Washington (all founders that inherited slaves) wanted to bring to an end.

The ideology that made America unique was sweeping in proposing changes to the social, economic, and political institutions in America and the founders knew that they would never be able to accomplish it. They knew they were limited to laying out a roadmap to the ideology and it would be up to future generations to make the changes necessary to implement the American ideology that established the national identity,

 

The ideology that established our national identity has never changed nor would it. The ideology, our national identity, has never been constrained by time or circumstance. Always remember that the ideology that created our national identity is a goal and not an achievement. Our national identity is not that which we accomplish (i.e. a reflection of our actions) but instead is that which we seek to accomplish.