Skip to main content

Patriotism or Nationalism

Do you know the difference?

People who are uncomfortable with the idea of patriotism should think about this. They aren't the same thing. The things that make American worth loving are things that ought to move all citizens to cheer for this country. Freedom and liberty. Equality and tolerance. Individual responsibility and an ethos of mutual purpose. It shouldn't be even a little bit difficult to love what this country stands for.



(Props to paco.)

Comments

Ymarsakar said…
Emperor Hirohito was the one who set the standard between patriotism and nationalism. Von Stauffenberg did this as well, but he failed.

In the end, it comes back to that old Japanese philosophy.

Death is lighter than a feather, duty heavier than mountains.

If a person feels his duty is to the leader, and not the people, then he will do much harm via nationalism. If a person feels his duty is to the people by honoring the sacred trust the people have put into him, then that person will do much good in his life.

When Hirohito had to make a choice between the honor of his race, his nation, and his person and the safety and peace of his people, he decided what his duty truly was and henceforth set the destiny of all Japanese into the future rather than the fires of nuclear annihilation.

Because Hitler cared nothing for his people, regardless of his master race rhetoric, Hitler brought his people down into the hell of destruction itself with no path out.

Popular posts from this blog

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it.  This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action   that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice.  If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...

Some times some people.

 

What Cancel Culture is NOT

  Maybe we should talk about what cancel culture isn't. It's not a boycott.  It's not deciding to no longer go to a business. It's not giving a bad review for bad service. It generally involves two things. First, the offense is a matter of opinion. Second, secondary or even tertiary targets are threatened. Cancellation does not need to be successful, and often with very famous and wealthy people it is not successful. But it serves as a warning to vulnerable people who are not in a position to weather that kind of attack. The goal is terroristic in that it's about forcing social behavior in people who are not currently the subject of the attack. The message is always, this could happen to you. And the tactic invariably includes seeking out vulnerable people to threaten in order to put pressure on businesses or on the target of the attack. So it works like this: JK Rowling is invulnerable. But they can try, right? So what they do is they find out who works for the pub...