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

I realize family lore like that is usually accepted without question, but in the 1930's US immigration policy was governed by the Johnson-Reed Act, which restricted the number of immigrants into the country. Old grandpop sounded like he was spinning a tall tale.

 

Yeah my dad's dad, who I knew for the first 20 years of my life, who until the day he died preferred speaking Italian over English, definitely was lying about how he was born in Italy and immigrated here when he was 14. I'm pretty sure he even faked the accent. I bet he was just from Jersey.

Lol go away troll.

 

Yes this is true of the founding fathers. We are to come together as a nation of one people, Americans. Yet today we have African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Native Americans, Indian-Americans et al. Until we lose the labels and start working as one, this is but a pipe dream.

 

We don't need to lose those labels because of the one commonality. We're all Americans and we should be celebrating the diverse heritage that brought us together to unite as Americans. It's the "Pluribus" (Many) of our National Motto. The "Many" reflecting our diverse demographic character of different ancestral origins in our cultural background, former nationalities, ethnic heritages, religions and even for the immigrant even the different former political ideologies they lived under, often tyrannical beyond what many of us truly imagine, before escaping to find refuge in America. The "Many" is half of our National Identity and it's equal in all respects to the "Unum" (One). It is the fact that we are so diverse and yet have united as "One" under an ideology where all are equal, none being superior to any other as a person regardless of the difference we have. The "WASP" American, the "Muslim" American, the "Hispanic" or "Mexican" American, the "Native" or "Original People" American, the "Male" and "Female" American, the "Whatever in a blue hat" American our National Identity is founded in equality where differences ancestral heritage does not deny us equality as an American. It the fact that as diverse as we are we're all united in cherishing Liberty, the freedom to exercise natural and civil rights, for all Americans because it is only by cherishing the liberty for all do we secure the same liberty for ourselves. the meat and cheese

I would not disparage our differences because that's half of what makes us an American. Our diversity as a people is the "bread" on the outside of the sandwich that others are most aware of while it's our ideology, the meat and cheese inside the sandwich that people can't see, that unites us as one people. Both are equally important because are an inherent part of our National Identity and without both our National Identity is diminished.

There does arise one problem and ironically it's based upon English grammar. The prefix before American when we refer to African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Christian Americans or Whatever American is a noun being used as an adjective that merely modifies the word American. The problem is for those that don't understand the grammar and in searching for their National Identity as an American they select the adjective as defining their Identity but the adjective is not the American Identity. If you're an "Italian" then you're not an American. If you're a "Native" then you're not an American. If you're a WASP then you're not an American. The adjective only modifies the noun "American" and standing alone, as a noun, it abandons the American.

That's the fundamental problem with "White Nationalism" and "Christian Nationalism" and even "Black Nationalism" in the United states today. They all abandoned "American Nationalism" and it's American Nationalism that creates the National Identity where there's no prefix to modify American. It's a fundamental grammatical mistake because they're picking the wrong word. They choose to select the adjective that modifies the noun instead of the noun itself. They're not selecting "American" that is the foundation of our unique American National Identity.

PS - I'm amazed I realized the grammatical problem because English grammar wasn't my best subject in school.

 

It would be a profound disappointment if Madam Le Pen did not win in France, she would be France's Napoleon, and the restoration of the French Crown. Her leadership is greatly needed in Europe.

 

But the vast British Empire did..

 

Produced more rice than China? What about Thailand and Vietnam, today's largest exporters of rice?

 

If you steal the resources which other nations need to keep their economy running, how do you expect them to survive? 'Our oil under their soil', will never work. America has done enough damage already with its geo-political adventurism.

 

She's a bloody fascist in a skirt. Hitler would have been proud of her.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/15/marine-le-pen-racist-front-national-france

 

I'm just saying that the law at the time doesn't support your claim. Unless you are really saying grandpop entered the country illegally.

 

I find your post divorced from the reality. Not surprised considering a relentless liberal propaganda that somehow the Dutch PM achieved a great victory. Seriously. These are the facts.

Rutte Victorious in Netherlands Election: Wrong Kind of Populism? Who Really Won?

https://mishtalk.com/2017/03/15/rut...ection-wrong-kind-of-populism-who-really-won/

Wrong Kind of Populism?

Rutte won, as expected, but to get to a coalition of 76 it will take at least 4 political parties to align.
If projections hold, support for Rutte is down by 22% from the last election and support for Wilders is up by about 58%.

Forget about Rutte taking more votes than expected. Rutte did so only because he embraced Wilders’ anti-immigration stance, minus the extreme bigotry of Wilders.
Misleading Labels

The media labels Wilders “far-right”. The label is ridiculous. Wilders is a socialist coupled with extreme bigotry.

Wilders is simply too extreme for most of the Netherlands. However, Wilders’ extreme rhetoric pushed Rutte way to the right on immigration.

Who Really Won?

Make no mistake, this election is a huge jump to the right. It’s also a huge move for less immigration.
Support for Rutte’s coalition partner, Labour’s PvdA, is projected to plunge from 38 seats to 9.

Given that no political parties would form a coalition with Wilders, and given Rutte’s pitch for less immigration, I suggest Wilders got nearly everything he wanted even if he fell a handful of seats short of what he hoped.

I was not rooting for Wilders, but you tell me: Who really won?

 

The Netherlands won. A dangerous nationalist populist was stopped in his tracks and the nation can breathe a little easier. Wilders' party did pick up some seats but they will have no role in governing, all major parties had agreed to have nothing to do with these dangerous clowns. The party that had the best election was, surprisingly the Green party - hardly a right wing party, LOL.

 

One of the fundamental points of Hitler, Mussolini, etc that I agree with is the understanding of Nationalism: Your fellow countrymen, your country and its ideals are worth fighting for. You cannot have multiple identities in a singular nation. It's not possible, because then your allegiance to the Red, White and Blue start to fade. In WWII, Japanese-Americans did not profess their loyalty to the Imperial Army, but to the US Army.

Americans fought harder in the Revolutionary War, even though the British hired the German Mercs. Why? What were the German Mercs fighting for? The right for Britain to maintain its dynasty? Americans were fighting for the right of their country to exist. Obviously the passions were greater on our side.

Not to say that immigration itself is bad, and contrary to that slanted article that's not at all what Madam Le Pen suggested. But rather that immigrants should respect the code, livelihood and the language of the country they wish to immigrate to. If I wanted to immigrate to France, I would have to learn French(and I have no qualms doing so.)

I speak very romantically about the Japanese, who IMO are our true Special Partner. To immigrate there, I'd most definitely have to learn Japanese. They're far more strict than Trump, Le Pen or myself on this issue.

The borders of every nation, outlined the physical barrier between other nations as to preserve their own self defense, and therefore their own livelihood. It's much easier to have separate economies, you in the EU have seen how integrating lessers like Spain and Portugal have been a challenge.

However, it's true that we have access to other countries and territories in real time(well, for those with the income to afford it but that's another story.) And it's also true about child sex trafficking as a result of these lackluster borders particularly for the US.

Do we allow trafficking to continue? Do we turn a blind eye to the abuses in order to 'get to this country'? I'd rather take in the victims of these brothels, rehabilitate them and return them to their own countries where they were stolen from.

I'm an American-German, born in America where my grandmother came legally to this country along with her parents. I haven't spoken against legal immigration. Maybe, at best, I believe we can slow it down given the overall size of the US(325 million) and the challenges that we face. But legal immigration, particularly putting more of an emphasis on high skilled workers should continue for the foreseeable future.

I'd make E-Verify the national program across all 50 States. And I ask you: What's so wrong with it? There's nothing wrong with it, and everything wrong with the multicultural world of fake unity, inner division and eventually strife. I want us all in America to be Americans in spirit and in fact. The idea of owing ourselves to separate or different allegiances or clans, simply cannot be.

And before Donald Trump, there was Teddy Roosevelt. And after Trump there is me, and there are others. The world of Globalism VS mutual acceptance, will be a war that lasts forever. Even if Madam Le Pen were to lose, the French know that alternative is there to reclaim the French Crown whenever they wish to do so. And when they do so, I hope to be in a place of significant power to welcome their choice and proudly proclaim the revival of France and renew our commitments to the great French-US Alliance.

 

Calling yourself an American first does nothing to diminish your heritage. I don't go around calling myself a Euro-American, or German-American. And you know what, I still remember and celebrate my heritage. What a concept!

 

No one implies that anyone must use an adjective to modify the fact that they're an American but those that choose to reflect their heritage are no less American than any other American.

There's no difference based upon our National Identity between the German American and the Chinese American or the American Citizen and the American Immigrant (i.e. a person who comes to live permanently in the United States) because they are the People of America. Every ten years the federal government counts all of the Americans and uses that count for apportionment both in the House of Representatives and for other laws based upon the apportioned population of the states.

We don't have any problem except when the equality of any American or any demographic group of Americans is violated by prejudice, discrimination, and/or oppression. But then this violation is not a part of our National Identity and those that engage in this violation exclude themselves from our National Identity by their actions.

 

E Pluribus Unum cannot exist in a segregated nation.

 

And yet, slavery still goes on today, all over Africa and the Middle east.

 

Of course not. A segregated nation inherently denies equality because it establishes a preferred and a disparaged population based upon an invidious criteria.

That has nothing to do with using an adjective to modify the identity of American so long as that usage is celebrated diversity and not used to disparage any other demographic group of Americans. I'm literally a WASP American based upon family heritage but I never use that as claiming a superior (preferred) status or to disparage any other demographic group. That's different from the WASP Supremacist that disparages all other demographics by falsely claiming a superior (preferred) American status. Being a Christian American is completely acceptable as long as it doesn't falsely claim a superior (preferred) American status over other religious or non-religious beliefs.

There can be (and is) a problem when society grants privilege by disparaging demographic groups that denies equality. The fact that there's prejudice based upon racial, ethnic, religious, and/or gender demographics does inherently result in a "preferred" status for me because I'm a WASP Male American where anti-WASP Male prejudice is so limited as to never adversely effect the demographic statistically. That's a social problem created by those that intentionally or unintentionally develop prejudice against other Americans. Basically by intentionally or unintentionally acting based upon demographic prejudice that denies equality is juxtaposed to the American Identity. .

A segregated nation is based upon demographic prejudice and E Pluribus Unum cannot exist.

 

We didn't give "freedom" to Iraq. We replaced the tyranny of one demographic group (Sunni Muslims) with the tyranny of another demographic group (Shia Muslims). The Islamic State of Iraq that has evolved into ISIS was a product of discrimination and oppression by the Shi'ite government installed by the United State of the Sunni population in Iraq.

A foreign affairs ideology based upon criminality? What a novel approach to how nations should interact with each other. We can call it our "First Theft" foreign policy because it's all about being the first to steal what doesn't belong to them.

 

This is a reference to chattel slavery (i,e, the ownership of the person that then owns the labor of the person) that became less advantageous as civilization become more and more dependent upon commerce as the sole means of survival for the people. It was replaced by a term that had existed for thousands of years, but is currently in disfavor, of "wage slavery" or "economic slavery" where the worker does not receive enough compensation from employment to fund the mandatory minimum expenditures of their family.

The most blatant cases in the United States were the former "company towns" where the workers were paid in company script that they could only redeem at the company store but they didn't receive enough compensation to pay for what they needed so they were always in debt to the company and could not leave their job until they paid off the company store. It was the basis for the lyric "I owe my soul to the company store" in the song "Sixteen Tons" about a coal miner.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteen_Tons

Under compensation (economic/wage slavery) remains a serious problem in the United States and it reflects a violation of the fundamental Natura Right "Of Property" that creates the "Natural Right of Possession" as addressed by John Locke that is different that the statutory ownership of property that allows possession without a right to possess the property.

The Natural Law of Survival of a Species establishes that, at the minimum, "Every member of the species has a right to secure from nature that which is required for their survival (support and comfort) by their labor individually and/or collectively." If this condition isn't met then eventually the species will become extinct because it creates a form of cannibalism where the existence of some members is dependent upon the death of other members. At the opposite end of the Natural Right "Of Property" is the limitation that no member of a species has a Right of Property to more than they can use for their survival (support and comfort) because the excess they have represents the theft from nature of that which belongs to other members of the species.

When we transitioned to a society that is exclusively based upon commerce then commerce must provide for the basic support and comfort (survival) for all of the members. This is not advocacy for socialism (the first objection by the right) but instead creates a necessity for statutory law that establishes the minimum compensation level for labor and can also indicate a necessity for a limit upon how much wealth any individual can accumulate.

As much as I hate quoting FDR he was absolutely correct when he made the following statement:

 

No, I was talking about hereditary slavery, where the children of slaves became slaves by birth.

Slavery in contemporary Africa


The continent of Africa is one of the most problematic regions in terms of contemporary slavery. Slavery in Africa has a long history, within Africa since before historical records, but intensifying with the Arab slave trade and again with the trans-Atlantic slave trade; the demand for slaves created an entire series of kingdoms (such as the Ashanti Empire) which existed in a state of perpetual warfare in order to generate the prisoners of war necessary for the lucrative export of slaves. These patterns have persisted into the colonial period during the late 19th and early 20th century. Although the colonial authorities attempted to suppress slavery from about 1900, this had very limited success, and after decolonization, slavery continues in many parts of Africa even though being technically illegal.

Slavery in the Sahel region (and to a lesser extent the Horn of Africa), exist along the racial and cultural boundary of Arabized Berbers in the north and darker Africans in the south.[1] Slavery in the Sahel states of Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Chad and Sudan in particular, continues a centuries-old pattern of hereditary servitude. Other forms of traditional slavery exist in parts of Ghana, Benin, Togo and Nigeria. There are other, non-traditional forms of slavery in Africa today, mostly involving human trafficking and the enslavement of child soldiers and child labourers, e.g. human trafficking in Angola, and human trafficking of children from Togo, Benin and Nigeria to Gabon and Cameroon.[2]

 

Times change.

What was good in the past need not be good now. You need a better argument for admitting uneducated non-English speaking, non-Christian foreigners than "that is what we've always done."

It is an article of faith that diversity is good. Reality rarely bears that out.

 

Very true, because the only Blacks they met were their own slaves.

 

we gave freedom to the muslims who made the bankers and those invested in the oil market richer, same difference.

what i'm saying is that President Trump promises wars where the resources are taken and given to the poorer half of the American people, since their doing all the heavy lifting in the wars for oil.

wars that take the resources of other nations are not criminal, the President is Commander in Chief and does not need congressional approval to lawfully go to war.

 

the world economy has not been working for all Americans, the poorer half have been left behind.

our survival Trumps the survival of those nations who are unable to defend their resources and/or economies.