Patriotism or Nationalism? . . . .

[redcliffsw]

Because the patriot and the nationalist often use the same words, they may not realize that they use those words in very different senses. The American patriot assumes that the nationalist loves this country with an affection like his own, failing to perceive that what the nationalist really loves is an abstraction — "national greatness," or something like that. The American nationalist, on the other hand, is apt to be suspicious of the patriot, accusing him of insufficient zeal, or even "anti-Americanism."

Any country that refuses to Americanize is "anti-American" — or a "rogue nation." For the nationalist, war is a welcome opportunity to change the world. This is a recipe for endless war.
-Joseph Sobran

Read on:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/06/joseph-sobran/patriotism-or-nationalism/

[Wake-up!]

I wonder what the 'H' Rockwell.com is doing, posting this article. It was originally published 16 years ago, and doesn't seem very incisive to me. Maybe Lew searched far and wide for material for this week-end edition. These days, Pat Buchanan writes about nationalism, and I'm not sure he would agree with Sobran's position. Not sure I do either. I seem to associate patriot with whacko-birds like John McCain. In reality, patriot and nationalist are not so clearly opposed in daily usage. From my own vantage point, WTSHTF I see patriots as a greater domestic threat than I see nationalists. And that is based simply on people I know, and how they refer to themselves.

[redcliffsw]

Pat Buchanan uses the word nationalsim too much - maybe he really believes in nationalism.
I agree with him most of the time - except for his "nationalistic" thinking.  If you ever listen to The Political Cesspool radio show, James Edwards uses the term "nationalist" too. 

Seems to me that patriot is for the country and nationalist is for the nation.  Lincoln was the first President to ever call the uSA a nation.  The uSA is or "was" a union of states - nations.
Nationalist = government. 

I associate guys like John McCain and Obama as nationalists.  Our government schooling promotes nationalism, not patriotism.  That's why so many of us are geared to the nation - government stuff. 

For what ever it's worth, here's a quiz that I took it twice and both times my score result was:  Patriot 

https://www.qzzr.com/c/quiz/64526/f0020423-75ba-4162-aa36-4fa037c9389f

[Wake-up!]

Ugh, a short quiz. And poorly done. 'For what it's worth' is right. I'm a Nationalist by the quiz's standard. I didn't check enough Patriot boxes so I become a Nationalist by default. No questions about Nationalism.

The quiz's simplicity does sound like the Dishonorable Senator McCain's mentality, however.

I haven't heard the Political Cesspool. Love the name. Think you linked to it a while back at a different topic.

I think we still are 50 nations (now). Try as 'they' might, subtle things suggest we are. I have an Ohio birth certificate. Don't we all have State birth certificates to this day? I haven't seen a recent one, but I doubt we have ones that say US of A Birth Certificate. And we still have State Licenses to drive or operate motor vehicles. True, there is a lot of federal money and control associated with their issuance.

With the advent of DHS after the twin towers were bombed, I figured we were en route for federal ID cards of some sort. That has not happened. That tells me even the feds who work for the deep state realize there is not a legal pathway for it to happen. And I think that is because each state is truly a Nation-state. Maybe it is also because they have managed to stick our SSN's on every State ID imaginable.

And for my money, it is damned time we encouraged the states to act like they are Nations, calling it patriotic or nationalistic is moot.

[redcliffsw]

Nationalism calls for central government control - there is no room for states to act like nations under nationalism. 

Yankees, neocons and liberals are nationalists.  The Founders and the Confederates were patriots. 

There's nothing moot about it - go figure.

[Wake-up!]

Beg to differ with you.

The Founders created a central government, first a weak one, then a stronger one about eight years later. By your first definition, that makes them Nationalists. And that is why labeling people, or having people call themselves a patriot or a nationalist is moot. Labels are moot. If someone speaks of ridding this country of the EPA or Dept. of Education, I don't give a rat's backside what they call themselves, or how they are labelled, I'll support them.

I'll also wager, if we could place 500 patriots and 500 nationalists in the same room and have them respond to questions, by far the majority of each group would rise and regurgitate the national anthem without even thinking about the meaning. And the majority of each group would call this country the USA, not the uSA. That's why I say labelling and name calling are moot.

I'll go further and say that categorizing people and placing them in the proverbial box is antithetical to a free society. That's why I support abolition of all political parties in this country. Let people run for office as individuals, let them individually state what they represent, rather then supporting some demagogic platform.

[redcliffsw]

No question about it - most of us have been trained (indoctrinated) to be nationalist.  That's government education - supporting and teaching nationalism.  Sure - many people stand for the national anthem - many will recite the Pledge of Allegiance.  Socialist countries had that kind of stuff from their beginning - the uSA did not - until much later.  We think this stuff to be patriotic even though it's been basically government sanctioned-endorsed in the 1930's.  Nothing like making up more stuff as we go along.  What's new?

Just saying . . .

[Wake-up!]

Relativity. I emotionally support only a very small government, probably one that would have limited authority only within a portion of the watershed I live in. And maybe not even that big. I say 'support' because it would be one I could live with, one I could breath in, one that my voice could be heard in, one I could influence.

Had I lived back in Colonial days (and maybe I did, but that is an entirely different thread) I can only assume I would hold the same sentiments (my soap boxes are deeply seated). The majority of Colonists in the 1760's-1780's were Brits and Germans, both pretty much escaping the religious-controlled governments of their homelands. Yet, studies I have read say that only 8 to 12 percent of the Colonial population supported the Revolutionary War. That tells me that most Colonists had no skin in the game of a new government, a new country. They were happy to be a two-month boat ride from the old German or English State. They didn't want a new State to get started in America, they wanted to remain free Colonists.

That's just my take. I certainly would have been one of those Colonists that disliked the British Crown as well as the Continental Congress. While I've probably said to you before that I'd prefer the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution, that is not an endorsement of the so-called 'weak' central government authorized by the Articles. So I'm not sure the Founders really did us any favors. I'd much prefer to be a free Colonist with the King across the big pond, a helluva lot father away than Washington DC. Or Topeka.

[redcliffsw]

Can't argue with your thinking on government.  Americans have a great dependency on government - they're looking to Republicans and modern Democrats to get 'em stuff.  Nowadays they're borrowing money as fast as they can from the Chinese et al, just to keep the circus agoing.  How else can they give government grants without borrowing? 

And government pays for all those so-called public service announcements the government pays the media to relay to us.  No wonder the media favors socialist government as your overseer.