To: Ammo.com
Re: The Difference Between Nationalism and Patriotism, and Why It Matters, by Sam Jacobs
Before I begin this reply to your article on nationalism and patriotism, I think I should tell you a little about me.
First, I did not write the article which your email was sent to address, but I am a person who checks the Joe’s Addiction email frequently. I saw your message to the author, and so I read both articles.
I found Mr. Zumwalt’s article exploring the elasticity “American evangelical Christianity’s” application of the title of antichrist quite satisfactory in both its content, and exploration of the issue. I would have used different language at times, but that’s merely a stylistic preference, and has no bearing on the merits of this article. Just please know that I read it.
Second, I identify as white, and my pronouns are he/him. My father’s family is German (I love it when you refer to European familial bloodlines as “stock.” That’s good stuff.) and my mother’s family is mainly Scottish with, believe it or not, some Lebanese/Syrian branches of the family tree. What all of this makes me is a white guy with a love of Middle Eastern music.
Enough about me, Let us turn to you article.
First, who is this “we,” of whom you speak in your introductory paragraph? Who are “we?” Please answer that question, first.
Once you’ve done that, we can move on. You wrote the following paragraph:
“NGOs are largely how George Soros exercises power over the political process of countries, which has led to them being expelled from Hungary and Myanmar. They tend to have generic names like “United We Dream” or “International Rescues Committee.” Thus, they are difficult to attack on their face – are you opposed to dreams and rescues?”
This is where you begin to really sell your package: The nationalist package.
I hate to do this, but I apparently need to do so. First, I want to thank you for your characterization of NGOs, especially Amnesty International, as part of some sinister conspiracy to promote policies with which you disagree.
Abortion rights, and gay marriage are issues of women’s health care, and equal rights, not some assault on civilization. Unless, of course, that particular vision of a good and just civilization is one in which women do not have control over their bodies; this control having been taken by groups of elderly white men, and those of the LGBTQ+ community are forced back into some massive, invisible closet from which they are to be thankful for the scraps of human dignity you and the aforementioned elderly white men choose to give them. Amnesty International looks to defend the basic human rights of people on a global scale, not just ‘prisoners of conscience,’ and that is a good thing.
Allow me to give you an example of the major activities of one of your ‘conservative’ NGOs. Let us examine the case of “The Family Research Council.” This, as I am certain your are aware, is one of America’s most prominent conservative Christian NGOs with global operations in service to Christ. That is all well and good, but as someone much smarter than me once said, “the proof is in the pudding.” Now I’m not sure exactly what that means, since all pudding today is perfect in five minutes, but that’s beside the point. What it means for our purposes here, is that we need to take a close look at what The Family Research Council does with the vast amounts of money the faithful send it. I want you to looks this up, because this is a good one.
This group spends millions upon millions of dollars trying to influence legislation in foreign countries, especially in Africa, to make homosexuality a capital offense. That’s right, Mr. Jacobs, one of the jewels of the right’s “well organized militia” of NGOs (a christian one, at that!) spends a majority of its money and labor trying to make sure that people can be put to death for being gay. I don’t really know if the Christ would go for that.
Regarding NGO’s financed in large part by George Soros being expelled from Hungary and Myanmar…Are you serious? You tried to show how evil an organization is by telling people that they’ve been expelled from Hungary; a state that has assumed a place as the bastion of a white Europe? The country in which Steve Bannon is setting up schools to train a sort of multi-national, modern-day SS to wage war against immigrants and refugees in Europe? A state that has, for all intents and purposes, destroyed the fledgling democracy the good people of Hungary tried to build after the fall of the Warsaw Pact? If I were George Soros, I would consider such expulsion to be an honor!
Myanmar, Really? A state ruled by a murderous military which swept aside the democratically elected government, so that it could once again exercise complete control of the country? Really, Mr. Jacobs, are these two places your examples of states that do not want the humanitarian work of groups associated with George Soros present in their countries? Believe me, it is not George Soros and his money that they don’t want in their countries, it’s the humanitarian work of dedicated and courageous people who may shed light on their nefarious and corrupt operations that they don’t want ion their countries. Humanitarian organizations tend to raise the spectre of accountability for the actions of all governments, and oppressive regimes like those of Hungary and Myanmar have no need of that, and that is what they don’t want in their countries.
Really, again, I want to know who the “we” is of which you count yourself a gear cog.
Next paragraph for rebuttal, please…thank you.
Globalism is marked by both its global orientation and hostility toward the nation state, but also its view that democracy is a means to an end. When the democratic process fails to provide the “correct” result, this is taken as prima facie something has gone wrong and needs to be corrected. This can be seen in the liberal-globalist response to the election of President Trump in 2016, but also the whole attitude of globalists toward nations like Poland and Hungary, whose democracies consistently oppose liberalism in toto at the ballot box.
Part one:
This paragraph is really the stupidest set of statements I’ve read in a long time. See discussion of Hungary above, and count Poland as moving headlong in the same direction. Your characterization of Poland and Hungary as states that choose their governments through the democratic process, is almost as ridiculous as stating that Russia chooses its president through a healthy, free, and fair democratic process.
I hope you understand that the politicians in Eastern European countries that are moving to their countries to the hard right work for Vladimir Putin. You understand that, don’t you, Mr. Jacobs?
Part two (purely for your benefit):
Globalism: Globalism is the universe in which the ultra-wealthy live. These people live without need of the nation-state in any way, shape, or form. Their investments are global, their wealth is global, and and their political power is global. The rest of us, even those of us on the left must, like you, live within the confines of the concept of the nation-state. They scream nationalism at you and me, as we’re screaming at each other, they’re fucking everybody on a global scale.
Personally, I, like most of my colleagues on the left, am a globalist in the sense that I see global cooperation, and the actions and policies produced therefrom, especially between the world’s democracies, to be of immeasurable benefit to the world as a whole. The policies borne of this cooperation are not always altruistic, or devised to insure that all people ate treated equitably, but in a broader, theoretical sense, many of these policies are of general benefit to humanity and the planet as a whole. True and active cooperation and diplomacy can be seen as one of the great pillars of peace in this world. Military force, on the other hand; even its use as a threat to other nation-states keeps the world a very dangerous place.
But let us move on. You know, as in MoveOn.org.
Next, please.
“…until the left started denigrating American history.”
Ah, yes, I must confess that I loved the world most when you wrote: “until the left started denigrating American history.” There you go, Mr. Jacobs! Why don’t you just go ahead and strip it all away, discard the shroud of intellect you tried to use to cover your purpose, and bare everything so that the audience you seek can see what your true motive is.
Let me tell you what the left sees in American history. We see the truth of America. We see the intentional whitewash of our history designed to hide the crimes against humanity committed by the white race in America.
Really, this effort of ours to confront the sins of our fathers and mothers is for the benefit of all peoples, both in America and abroad. I realize that this all seems very wrong to white supremacists, white nationalists (for people who consider the term “white supremacist” to be just a little too ‘out front), and your average boot-licking denizen of trumpism, but the truth, as painful as it may be for us all, at times, is really the only option that will allow any of us to someday enter the kingdom of heaven. You do want to go to heaven, don’t you, Mr. Jacobs?
I will close with the following overall review of your article. Your sense of justice on issues of human worth is incredibly biased, and immediately strips away the veil of intellectual neutrality you seem to have tried to create. You should know this, Mr. Jacobs, that any person with even a moderately above average IQ is not fooled by your diversions.
You move between discussing peripheral topics that have nothing to do with the point of your diatribe, and insulting what you call “the left” when defending your precious nationalism. The language that marks the discussion of peripheral topics is all very neutral, both in meaning and connotation, and this is meant to hide your true purpose, but I think you can count this article among the rest of the “epic fails” of your life. Your purpose is clearly to sell white supremacy, trumpism and a sick form of nationalism to an unsuspecting and witless audience.
I’m sorry, Mr. Jacobs, but you are as transparent as a plate glass window, and you have proven yourself completely unable to conceal the purpose of your unnaturally long propaganda poster. Believe me, I’m not the only person who was glad when it was finally over.
I await your reply.
This letter to you will be posted on my blog site, overwhelmingweirdness.com, so please reply via a comment there. Of course, I invite you to read some of my other essays on that site, if you feel so inclined. In fact, I think you should read them all. You may learn something.
Peace and Love to All,
Niemand