Nationalism vs. Globalism

[Saucy]

I apologize if there was another thread like this posted previously.

I'd like to have an open and honest discussion about this subject, as I genuinely have some questions I want to ask to those more worldly than me. (I don't mean that in a biblical sense, but those who know more about world politics and such).

I'm an American citizen and I love this country with all my heart. I was born in Denver, Colorado, grew up in Houston, moved all over from Oregon to Kentucky, and was a truck driver, spending two years traveling all over. I've never left the United States.

I think the United States is the greatest country in the world. Just my opinion though. When I vote for a president or support a leader, I'm choosing someone who I feel will be the better person for OUR COUNTRY.

Despite the greatness that surrounds me, I do agree with a lot of Trump's assessments that there is a lot of work to do here. But this isn't a Trump thread. I only bring him up to say that those who voted for him felt things were going in the wrong direction and there are issues here at home that need to be fixed.

We could easily spend $4 trillion alone updating and fixing our infrastructure it's so bad. Our vets don't get the help they need. We spend over $113 billion EACH YEAR taking care of illegals who shouldn't be here and rarely contribute to the system because they don't pay taxes. They do bring drugs and crime. The heroin epidemic is on the drug cartels who cross the border illegally. Our military infrastructure is falling apart as well. There are millions of homeless, blight everywhere, starving people roaming the streets, etc.

We want to focus on these things. We think it's important to focus on our country. That's why we elect OUR leader to take care of OUR issues and to serve OUR people.

So, when we elect someone who promises to take care of these issues and isn't a globalist, those of us who elected him are considered "white nationalists" and it's used in a derogatory manner. It has a racist connotation to it.

As Obama is on his way out the door, he tries to send $221 million to Palestine, which got people here in Michigan upset after he played games with our governor and refused to send a dime over to help with our water situation.

So, my question is, why is it wrong to want a president who focuses on America? Why is America First a 'racist' slogan? Why am I a racist for wanting to focus on our own problems here?

I mean, we're $20 trillion in debt, a lot of which has to do with fighting wars we didn't need to get involved in, giving out trillions in aid all over the world, putting band-aids on failing infrastructure that does nothing to solve the problem and our own people are suffering here.

Our president, whoever it may be at the time, is the AMERICAN president. It's his or her responsibility to take care of US. Why is that wrong to so many now? What is great about globalism when it diverts us from taking care of our own interests?

 

[tstor]

So, my question is, why is it wrong to want a president who focuses on America? Why is America First a 'racist' slogan? Why am I a racist for wanting to focus on our own problems here?

It is not racist. There is nothing wrong with nationalism or favoring your own kinsmen. Consider what Paul said about his own kinsmen:

For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. (Romans 9:3; ESV)
​

The great Protestant Reformer William Tyndale's last words were "Lord, open the King of England's eyes." He was obviously concerned about the well-being of his own people and nation.

 

[Saucy]

It is not racist. There is nothing wrong with nationalism or favoring your own kinsmen. Consider what Paul said about his own kinsmen:

For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. (Romans 9:3; ESV)
​

The great Protestant Reformer William Tyndale's last words were "Lord, open the King of England's eyes." He was obviously concerned about the well-being of his own people and nation.

I wholeheartedly agree. I don't understand why people would want to elect a president to focus on global interests rather than domestic ones. Yeah, if we had everything under control here and had a nice budget surplus and could afford to help other countries, I'm all for it!

It's like you're in major debt, can barely afford rent for yourself or food, but rather than paying your own debt and taking care of your own responsibilities, you decide to pay someone elses rent and buy them food. It's great if I had my stuff taken care of and money in the bank, but I don't.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I apologize if there was another thread like this posted previously.

I'd like to have an open and honest discussion about this subject, as I genuinely have some questions I want to ask to those more worldly than me. (I don't mean that in a biblical sense, but those who know more about world politics and such).

I'm an American citizen and I love this country with all my heart. I was born in Denver, Colorado, grew up in Houston, moved all over from Oregon to Kentucky, and was a truck driver, spending two years traveling all over. I've never left the United States.

I think the United States is the greatest country in the world. Just my opinion though. When I vote for a president or support a leader, I'm choosing someone who I feel will be the better person for OUR COUNTRY.

Despite the greatness that surrounds me, I do agree with a lot of Trump's assessments that there is a lot of work to do here. But this isn't a Trump thread. I only bring him up to say that those who voted for him felt things were going in the wrong direction and there are issues here at home that need to be fixed.

We could easily spend $4 trillion alone updating and fixing our infrastructure it's so bad. Our vets don't get the help they need. We spend over $113 billion EACH YEAR taking care of illegals who shouldn't be here and rarely contribute to the system because they don't pay taxes. They do bring drugs and crime. The heroin epidemic is on the drug cartels who cross the border illegally. Our military infrastructure is falling apart as well. There are millions of homeless, blight everywhere, starving people roaming the streets, etc.

America's heroin--opiate really--epidemic has nothing to do with illegals coming into the country bringing drugs. The drugs are here, and the epidemic is in the suburbs and everywhere else; because since the 90's companies have started to push doctors to prescribe opiates (opiates were largely given to people with a terminal condition, not people suffering from chronic pain prior) and so people, regular people, become dependent on opiates because opiates are very addictive. And you know what's cheaper than expensive pharmaceutical opiates? Heroin. This isn't a case of evil people sneaking across the border and dealing drugs, this is a case of people becoming dependent on opiates through doctor proscriptions and, because they are expensive and insurance is a fickle thing still in this country, it can be far easier to turn to a cheap opiate like heroin.

Opioid history: From 'wonder drug' to abuse epidemic - CNN.com
How the opioid epidemic became America’s worst drug crisis ever, in 15 maps and charts

Want to help here? Universal healthcare, programs to get people weaned off opiates and opioids, regulation and accountability for pharmaceutical companies, and get people to stop looking to opiates and opioids as a solution to chronic pain would be a good start.

We want to focus on these things. We think it's important to focus on our country. That's why we elect OUR leader to take care of OUR issues and to serve OUR people.

So, when we elect someone who promises to take care of these issues and isn't a globalist, those of us who elected him are considered "white nationalists" and it's used in a derogatory manner. It has a racist connotation to it.

You seem to be confusing nationalism with white nationalism. Nationalism, as a form of patriotism, is a very different animal from white nationalism.

A white nationalist is someone who believes in racial ideas about the superiority of the "white race", and/or that one's nation is for "the white race" (e.g. in the US, believing that the US is or should be or is supposed to be a "white nation" or a "nation for whites").

One isn't a "white nationalist" because they love their country.
One is a white nationalist if one believes that white people are most important, or that white people should take priority, or that one's country is exclusively or primarily for white people etc.

"White nationalist" isn't a throwaway term to attack anyone who happens to think there should be a focus on making one's country better; it refers specifically to those who want to create a segregated society based on race, ethnicity, and/or skin color in which "whites" are at the top and everyone else takes second fiddle (at best).

As Obama is on his way out the door, he tries to send $221 million to Palestine, which got people here in Michigan upset after he played games with our governor and refused to send a dime over to help with our water situation.

So, my question is, why is it wrong to want a president who focuses on America? Why is America First a 'racist' slogan? Why am I a racist for wanting to focus on our own problems here?

America first isn't itself a racist slogan; the problem comes when it depends on what being first means and. The larger problem is that it ignores the fact that America and Americans aren't isolated--what happens in other parts of the world affects us, just as what happens here affects other parts of the world. That's inevitable, and the only way to change that would be to undo several hundred years of technology--get rid of the internet, get rid of radio and television, get rid of mass transportation (automobiles, trans-oceanic ships, aircraft), etc. If we go back to a pre-industrial then it gets a lot easier to avoid dealing with the fact that we're rather interconnected globally; but even then, even if we went back to the middle ages, or to the classical age, or even the bronze age--nations, empires, city-states, tribes all had to interact with one another--trade, diplomacy, and even war. In that respect we have been more a global society for longer than we've been a nation-state society--as the notion of the nation-state didn't exist in the modern sense until the last few centuries.

Sure, vote to improve the conditions of your country; that's a good thing. But it cannot be to the exclusion of the rest of the world, because that's an ostrich with its head in the ground. Further, it matters what is best for the country, what's best not just for the few, but what is actually best, what is actually good, what is actually right and just.

I can't support Trump, in part, because I simply don't believe he is interested in making America better; and I don't believe the power players of his administration is interested in that either. I think some think they are, but frankly all I see are incompetent scoundrels scrounging up a hill trying to put on the crown kicking, screaming, and shoving away anyone else. If I thought Trump had American's interests in mind, and if I thought that he had a measure of competency to work within the American political system toward that end, and if he hadn't said all the truly awful and stupid things he has said and continues to say then hey, maybe I would have voted for him too. But I saw and heard the things he said publicly, I've read the things he's written on Twitter, and I have not once seen anything to suggest that Trump has anything other than Trump on his agenda, and the people he has surrounded himself with are parasitic leeches. I cannot, in good conscience, support any of it; it would be a betrayal of everything I believe in.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Adstar]

So, my question is, why is it wrong to want a president who focuses on America? Why is America First a 'racist' slogan? Why am I a racist for wanting to focus on our own problems here?

1) There is no problem with wanting ones leader to be focused on the advancement of the people he leads..

2) America first is not a racist slogan..

3) You are not racist for wanting to focus on the problems that are local to you..

False accusers will always project evil intentions upon those who have a different POV.. It is part of their tactic to attack the person in an attempt to undermine the persons position by bringing into doubt the nobility of that person...

People who are truly noble in their dealings with others will focus on the policies and argue against the policies or advocate for their own policies so as to show why their policies are better..

People who are lacking in morals, focus on unjustly attacking the person who supports the policy they do not like.. They throw as much mud as they can hopping that some will stick..

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

So, my question is, why is it wrong to want a president who focuses on America? .....
...
Our president, whoever it may be at the time, is the AMERICAN president. It's his or her responsibility to take care of US.
Why is that wrong to so many now?

Politically, morally, and religiously there are a lot of vested interests who don't believe Trump will protect and/or help their unrighteous causes (i.e. they know or fear or suspect they will lose power, money, position , prestige, or something else, even though they don't deserve anything in the first place (they were able to con it out of previoius administrations) ) .
OR, the instigator , the perpetrator behind the seens, told them to object, to fight, to be against whatever the President is for.... just to stir things up and bring everything closer to chaos.

 

[Namenotallowed]

I don't have a problem with a President who wants to focus on the nation, but he's said a lot of stuff that white nationalists identify with. Shouldn't that be a warning flag?

I'm a "globalist" though because there's only one Kingdom, everything else is just shadows. Personally, I find the idea of nationalism for anything other than that to be idolatrous.

 

[franky67]

I apologize if there was another thread like this posted previously.

I'd like to have an open and honest discussion about this subject, as I genuinely have some questions I want to ask to those more worldly than me. (I don't mean that in a biblical sense, but those who know more about world politics and such).

I'm an American citizen and I love this country with all my heart. I was born in Denver, Colorado, grew up in Houston, moved all over from Oregon to Kentucky, and was a truck driver, spending two years traveling all over. I've never left the United States.

I think the United States is the greatest country in the world. Just my opinion though. When I vote for a president or support a leader, I'm choosing someone who I feel will be the better person for OUR COUNTRY.

Despite the greatness that surrounds me, I do agree with a lot of Trump's assessments that there is a lot of work to do here. But this isn't a Trump thread. I only bring him up to say that those who voted for him felt things were going in the wrong direction and there are issues here at home that need to be fixed.

We could easily spend $4 trillion alone updating and fixing our infrastructure it's so bad. Our vets don't get the help they need. We spend over $113 billion EACH YEAR taking care of illegals who shouldn't be here and rarely contribute to the system because they don't pay taxes. They do bring drugs and crime. The heroin epidemic is on the drug cartels who cross the border illegally. Our military infrastructure is falling apart as well. There are millions of homeless, blight everywhere, starving people roaming the streets, etc.

We want to focus on these things. We think it's important to focus on our country. That's why we elect OUR leader to take care of OUR issues and to serve OUR people.

So, when we elect someone who promises to take care of these issues and isn't a globalist, those of us who elected him are considered "white nationalists" and it's used in a derogatory manner. It has a racist connotation to it.

As Obama is on his way out the door, he tries to send $221 million to Palestine, which got people here in Michigan upset after he played games with our governor and refused to send a dime over to help with our water situation.

So, my question is, why is it wrong to want a president who focuses on America? Why is America First a 'racist' slogan? Why am I a racist for wanting to focus on our own problems here?

I mean, we're $20 trillion in debt, a lot of which has to do with fighting wars we didn't need to get involved in, giving out trillions in aid all over the world, putting band-aids on failing infrastructure that does nothing to solve the problem and our own people are suffering here.

Our president, whoever it may be at the time, is the AMERICAN president. It's his or her responsibility to take care of US. Why is that wrong to so many now? What is great about globalism when it diverts us from taking care of our own interests?

I apologize if there was another thread like this posted previously.

I'd like to have an open and honest discussion about this subject, as I genuinely have some questions I want to ask to those more worldly than me. (I don't mean that in a biblical sense, but those who know more about world politics and such).

I'm an American citizen and I love this country with all my heart. I was born in Denver, Colorado, grew up in Houston, moved all over from Oregon to Kentucky, and was a truck driver, spending two years traveling all over. I've never left the United States.

I think the United States is the greatest country in the world. Just my opinion though. When I vote for a president or support a leader, I'm choosing someone who I feel will be the better person for OUR COUNTRY.

Despite the greatness that surrounds me, I do agree with a lot of Trump's assessments that there is a lot of work to do here. But this isn't a Trump thread. I only bring him up to say that those who voted for him felt things were going in the wrong direction and there are issues here at home that need to be fixed.

We could easily spend $4 trillion alone updating and fixing our infrastructure it's so bad. Our vets don't get the help they need. We spend over $113 billion EACH YEAR taking care of illegals who shouldn't be here and rarely contribute to the system because they don't pay taxes. They do bring drugs and crime. The heroin epidemic is on the drug cartels who cross the border illegally. Our military infrastructure is falling apart as well. There are millions of homeless, blight everywhere, starving people roaming the streets, etc.

We want to focus on these things. We think it's important to focus on our country. That's why we elect OUR leader to take care of OUR issues and to serve OUR people.

So, when we elect someone who promises to take care of these issues and isn't a globalist, those of us who elected him are considered "white nationalists" and it's used in a derogatory manner. It has a racist connotation to it.

As Obama is on his way out the door, he tries to send $221 million to Palestine, which got people here in Michigan upset after he played games with our governor and refused to send a dime over to help with our water situation.

So, my question is, why is it wrong to want a president who focuses on America? Why is America First a 'racist' slogan? Why am I a racist for wanting to focus on our own problems here?

I mean, we're $20 trillion in debt, a lot of which has to do with fighting wars we didn't need to get involved in, giving out trillions in aid all over the world, putting band-aids on failing infrastructure that does nothing to solve the problem and our own people are suffering here.

Our president, whoever it may be at the time, is the AMERICAN president. It's his or her responsibility to take care of US. Why is that wrong to so many now? What is great about globalism when it diverts us from taking care of our own interests?

Been studying this subject a few years, after WW 1 the people of the world were sick of the horrors of war, I worked for a WW 1 vet who spoke a lot about the gas attacks.

After WW1 the League of Nations was formed as an attempt to find a way to end war, after a time it failed, now we have the United Nations, it also is failing and useless.

Back in 1921 an organization was formed in the US called "Council on Foreign Relations" It is still in existence with many members, from all walks of life, many names you would recognize, from both politics, left and right.

Since 1921 this organization has influenced the government, regardless of which party is in the White House.

The agenda of CFR is one world government, one money, one religion, etc.etc. Remember "New World Order" ?

This would take a whole book to completely cover, I just urge all who are interested to google CFR look at their membership list, and see why they all hate any of the few "nationalists" presidents we have had since 1921.

I also believe their goal was world peace, but now I believe it is world domination as Jesus told us in Revelation.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The power of it is shown in Revelation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Our president, whoever it may be at the time, is the AMERICAN president. It's his or her responsibility to take care of US. Why is that wrong to so many now? What is great about globalism when it diverts us from taking care of our own interests?

I'm skipping the stuff about "internal affairs" as I'm not an american citizen. Which perhaps puts me in the right seat to answer the above specific question.

The fact of the matter is that what happens in the US, being the world's leading superpower in a variaty of ways, potentially can have great impact on the rest of the world.

Nobody cares who wins the election in Andorra or Lichtenstein. Everybody cares who wins the election in the US. In a very real sense, potus is not just the president of the US.
We in the rest of the world, expect americans to recognise that impact.

"With great power, comes great responsability", seems appropriate here.

And no, that doesn't mean at all that internal affairs should be neglected or "put in second place" or whatever.

As for globalism vs nationalism... It's really simple actually.
Globalism is inevitable. Nationalism is merely an obstacle.

The truth is that there is no escape from globalism. The world is not going to reverse all trends and established networks. The opposite will happen. The world is only going to become ever-more interconnected through all sorts of ways.

And wherever interconnectivity arises, centralization quickly follows for easier, cheaper and more efficient maintainability and operation.

 

[jayem]

We could easily spend $4 trillion alone updating and fixing our infrastructure it's so bad. Our vets don't get the help they need. We spend over $113 billion EACH YEAR taking care of illegals who shouldn't be here and rarely contribute to the system because they don't pay taxes. They do bring drugs and crime. The heroin epidemic is on the drug cartels who cross the border illegally. Our military infrastructure is falling apart as well. There are millions of homeless, blight everywhere, starving people roaming the streets, etc.

We want to focus on these things. We think it's important to focus on our country. That's why we elect OUR leader to take care of OUR issues and to serve OUR people.

Focusing on the US is fine. But you've got the wrong man for the job. Donald Trump can do jack squat about these issues. He was totally unprepared to be President. (Didn't he admit that he never realized the complexity of health insurance? Really?) He has no political skills. He hasn't worked very well even with his own party in Congress. His narcissistic personality makes him arrogant and uncooperative with his political opponents. Our system of government works only through compromise. It was designed that way. Anyone so convinced of his own correctness that he is unable to compromise will never get much accomplished. Most disturbing of all, he seems to live in an alternate reality. His perception of events often appears to be at odds with facts. (Dana Milbank has a good take on it.)

There's nothing at all wrong with wanting to make America greater. But we need a President who can actually deliver, and can do it in the right way.

 

[Albion]

Focusing on the US is fine. But you've got the wrong man for the job. Donald Trump can do jack squat about these issues. He was totally unprepared to be President. (Didn't he admit that he never realized the complexity of health insurance? Really?) He has no political skills.

He's already accomplished in four months more than his predecessor did in eight years, so he has to have more going for him than you think. And I would caution against making your decision on the basis that Trump will speak candidly both of his strengths and weaknesses while Obama lived in a dream world in which every one of his failings was actually a triumph or else someone else's fault.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

As for globalism vs nationalism... It's really simple actually.
Globalism is inevitable. Nationalism is merely an obstacle.

That mantra has been played over and over again for a long time. The Communists used to say the same thing about their political system.

...but globalism has faced an enormous number of setbacks, the biggest ones yet just in the past year. It hasn't won a major victory anywhere since the fall of South Africa.

 

[jayem]

He's already accomplished in four months more than his predecessor did in eight years, so he has to have more going for him than you think. And I would caution against making your decision on the basis that Trump will speak candidly both of his strengths and weaknesses while Obama lived in a dream world in which every one of his failings was actually a triumph or else someone else's fault.

I'll give Pres. Trump credit for achieving > 50% voter disapproval in only 4 months. Worst polls of any President since Harry Truman. Pres. Obama couldn't accomplish that until his 2nd year in office. DJT also gets credit for making SNL great again--the show's getting its highest ratings in 22 years.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That mantra has been played over and over again for a long time.

And the trend of reality only confirmed that is correct to "play it over and over again".

As everything gets more and more interconnected, as companies get more and more global reach, the world gets virtually smaller and smaller.

20 years ago, it was almost unthinkable that a new start up went international in the first year. In fact, most didn't even go national... they started regionally and stayed that way for quite some time.

Today, an international rollout at the very start has almost become a standard.

I'm looking at my desk here and of the 20-ish items I can immediatly see, PERHAPS 2 are regional products. Everything else comes from China, the US, Sweden, Germany, Australia, Japan,...

Indeed, the trend is clear and I wonder how anyone can think that it could be stopped - or that it would even be a good thing to stop it.

The Communists used to say the same thing about their political system.

Communism has nothing to do with this, so I wonder why you even bring it up.

...but globalism has faced an enormous number of setbacks, the biggest ones yet just in the past year. It hasn't won a major victory anywhere since the fall of South Africa.

Now I wonder what you mean by "globalism". It sounds like you don't mean the same thing as the rest of the world means by it...

Under globalism, I understand:
- more accessible / easier international travel
- free trade both nationally as well as internationally
- less tariffs on imports / exports
- global economy
- etc

 

[Nuteater]

That mantra has been played over and over again for a long time. The Communists used to say the same thing about their political system.

...but globalism has faced an enormous number of setbacks, the biggest ones yet just in the past year. It hasn't won a major victory anywhere since the fall of South Africa.

I'm curious, how has South Africa "fallen"?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Globalism is being financed by our trade deficits. Balance our trade and globalism falls apart.

 

[Albion]

I'll give Pres. Trump credit for achieving > 50% voter disapproval in only 4 months. Worst polls of any President since Harry Truman. Pres. Obama couldn't accomplish that until his 2nd year in office. DJT also gets credit for making SNL great again--the show's getting its highest ratings in 22 years.

Orchestrated campaigns of hatred do take a toll don't they?

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

I'm curious, how has South Africa "fallen"?

I was referring to the ANC takeover in 1994

 

[Brotherly Spirit]

It should be Internationalism versus Globalism. The former is cooperation of sovereign nations, the latter is usurpation of sovereign nations. I think nations of people who govern themselves isn't a problem; if nations aren't isolationist as to be ignorant toward the considerations of the international community. Basically nations can be sovereign with respect to other nations (one people to the other).