I haven’t written about the Pittsburgh Synagogue shooting yet because I am still trying to gather my ideas together about it.

In discussing the topic with my wife, one of the ideas that has coalesced is the fact the we need some new words to describe some old ideas.

A lot of people blame Trump for this shooting.  They are saying that he use of the words “nationalist” and “globalist” are anti-semitic dog whistles.  These are words that Hitler used and therefore are unacceptable for any President to us.

First of all, I don’t like the idea that the Nazis get to dictate our language from the grave.  If “Hitler used those words” is a legitimate tool for shutting down debate, I say we ban the German language and force all Germans to speak only English or French.  Go big or go home.

But what are we talking about when the terms nationalist or globalist come what do we mean?

I am a nationalist, I don’t think it’s a dirty word.

My wife asked me why I don’t use the term “patriot” and I told her I do, but I think the words have different meanings.   A patriot is someone who loves and supports his country.  I actually call myself a “Mark Twain patriot” after one of his quotes.

“Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.”

Nationalism is the belief in national sovereignty and that the first duty and responsibility of a nation and its government is to the citizens of that nation.

It is the citizens of a nation, especially the tax paying citizens, that make a country possible.  They are the ones who drive the economy, fund the government, serve in its military, and the goverment of that nation should prioritize the interests of its citizens.

I believe this for every nation.  The United States should prioritize American citizens just as the British government should prioritize British subjects, and so on.

This doesn’t mean a country shouldn’t engage in humanitarian aid, be involved in world affairs, or engage in egregious acts on our citizens’ behalf.  I wound’t support Trump invading Canada for lebensraum.

There is good nationalism and bad nationalism.

Take the migrant caravan crisis.

I am a nationalist.  The question one of the I believe should be asked when the goverment comes making decisions is “How will this effect American citizens and is the cost worth the reward?”  I don’t believe that is a racist question.

Should the US allow in these 10,000 people?  What about the next caravan, or the one after that.  What about a flotilla of refugees from Africa or the poor countries of Asia?  Does the US have the obligation to let in every poor person in the world who makes it to our borders?

There is a logistical question here.  What do you do with the thousand, or a hundred thousand, or a million people like this?  Most of these people don’t speak English.  Many are illiterate in their own native tongue.  They come from countries with high unemployment rates so few have job skills.  They have no money.  So where do we house them?  How do we feed them?  How much schooling will they need to teach them English and job skills?  Or do we expect them to live their lives on government support, never being able to full support themselves?

Is the cost of taking care of these people worth any benefit they bring to the US?

We’ve seen what is happening in Europe with their migrant crisis.  The Swedes have been forced to increase the retirement age and which Swedish citizens get their pension (what they call Social Security) because the Swedish goverment has spent so much money on welfare for migrants.  Clearly the cost/benefit analysis for migration into Sweden has been have on the cost and light on the benefit.

Of course not all refugees are equal.  Israel engaged in one of the largest humanitarian airlifts in history, Operation Solomon. Evacuating poor Ethiopian Jews who were targeted for extermination by Ethiopian Muslim militias.

I’ve said we should give refugee status to South African farmers, Iraqi and Syrian Yazidi, and Egyptian Copts, as small groups targeted for genocide, they need protection.  Simply being poor and jobless is not enough Justification for refugee status,  or half the world end has the right to end up in the US.

This has nothing to do with skin color but logistics.

As Miguel says, cui bono?  As a nationalist, with limited exceptions – such as in the case of saving a minority from genocide or sending aid after a natural disaster – the answer should be “the American public.”

What about globalism?

Charles Murray has written and spoken about this.  His premise, and I agree with him, is that socioeconomic strata has become more important than geography to some people.

The moneyed educated elite feel more fraternity within their class than within their borders.  The educated professional in San Francisco feels closer to the educated professional in New York or London or Paris than he does to the blue collar worker in Oakland.

The problem with this is that people naturally focus on taking care of what is close to them.  This is why our Founding Fathers made us a nation of states.  The expectation is that the people of New York would work to build a great New York and the people of Georgia would work to build a great Georgia and each state would benefit from the residents of those states taking care of their fellows.

When people develop a globalized attitude, the educated professional from San Francisco will vote for a policy that helps the educated professional in New York or London before it helps the blue collar worker in Oakland.  The educated professional in San Francisco supports the migrant caravan because he feels it will elevate his humanitarian status it the educated professional in London even if it hurts the the blue collar worker in Oakland.

It is easy to understand why Jews have been globalists.  When you are not considered citizens of Germany or Poland, it is easier to feel more comradery with your fellow Jews around the world than your German neighbors on the other side of town.

The rejection of globalism and the embrace of nationalism is one of the causes of Brexit.  The working people of the UK had enough of the UK goverment being more loyal to the EU bureaucrats than the citizens of the UK.

As a nationalist, I want the educated professional in San Francisco to be more concerned with what is good for California and and feel more fraternity with Californians, rich, poor, and everywhere in between, than what his socioeconomic peers in other countries.  

Good nationalism is prioritizing worrying about your neighbors within your nation’s borders and wanting to help them, as your fellow countrymen.

The media has engaged in a lot of misdirection on this.  We see this when they say “immigrants have a lower rate of criminality than citizens” – which is true – to then use that to justify illegal immigration – which has a high rate of criminality.  They deliberately conflate legal and illegal immigration.

Etho-nationalism is evil.  That is “America is for white people only.”  This is the Nazi attitude of the Aryan state.  But not all nationalism is ethno-nationalism and to deliberately conflate the two is evil.

Personally, I want to dispel the bad connotation of nationalism.  Theodor Hertzl called Zionism “Jewish Nationalism.”  Then again, the Left, has turned Zionism into a evil word too.  Churchill was also a nationalist, a “British Nationalist,” which is why he stood up to Hitler.  He didn’t want Great Britain to become part of the Third Reich.  He wanted a sovereign Britain.  Then again, the Left hates Churchill too.

The point is, nationalism can be used for good or for evil.

If we need a new word for good nationalism, so be it.

What I don’t want to see happen (and I think it is)  is an Orwellian attempt to wipe out the idea that a country should prioritized the best interests of its citizens by making the word “nationalism” crimethink.

I believe, in my heart of hearts, that America is a great nation.  We should help other people around the world because we are a great nation.  But when it comes to laws and policies that will affect the whole country, the primary beneficiary of these policies should be the American people, regardless of race or identity politics.

I believe that makes me  nationalist and I will not apologize for it.

Spread the love

By J. Kb

2 thoughts on “We need new words”
  1. JKB —

    Well said, sir! And I couldn’t agree more.

    I am in mind of the story of the two lifeboats.

    In the first lifeboat, the captain of the boat enforces the rule that the boat must not be overloaded, and refuses extra passengers by use of force. It is his duty, as boat captain.

    In the second boat, there is no attention paid to the pleas of the captain, and more and more refugees are allowed in the boat, until, overloaded, it sinks.

    So, sadly, the refugees who could not get in the first boat perished, but EVERYONE in the second boat perished.

    Thus, the captain’s authority and use of force saved everyone that was in the first boat, and they were rescued. It was a tough call, but it had to be made.

Login or register to comment.