Bonhoeffer’s opposition to Nazism can be partly attributed to his family’s aversion to statism, but his embrace of pacifism can be traced to a single afternoon at the movies in New York City in 1930.
One of many stories from the war that, if you dare read them, you will never be the same. Everything is on the line in these pivotal moments and each of us gets to decide whether or not we give up our humanity.
Yes, nationalism can be taken too far, but so can any conception of the good. A reinterpretation of nichomachean ethics says that each conception of good has an opposite pair which is _also_ good, and the highest good is the union of these opposites. Rejecting nationalism has lead to a host of other problems, which were not visible as possibilities at the time.
I think a rejection of nationalism is the wrong lesson to draw from the Great War. A better lesson is on the dangers of governments. State controlled money, and state censorship were both necessary for the war to go as it did. The true lesson to learn is not that nationalism is bad but that governments will do evil things that ruin their own people, because a government is like the ego of the nation: necessary for safety but far too easily getting out of control.
The Bank of England tried selling bonds to finance the war, and nobody wanted to buy them. If this truth had been made public, the war never would have gone on as it did. If opposition to the war hadn’t been called unpatriotic and made criminal, saner voices would have prevailed. But the states involved consistently stole from and censored their own people, and then afterwards told us that the problem wasn’t their rebellion against the truth, but instead the idea that nations exist as an extension of the family and we have to look out for each other locally. That governments would sacrifice the welfare of their own people in order to stay in power is beyond question given the evidence of history. Arguments against nationalism are thus a convenient way for governments to avoid ever being accountable for their failures.
nationalism to a large extent protects from internationalism which I think as far as body count is concerned is maybe a tenth or less of internationalism... probably far less
The comparison of socialism and nationalism is very, very true. There are a lot of people here in the US who don't understand the concept. In my own experience and research, I've likened socialism to the Left as nationalism is the Right. It's one reason why, in terms of the political spectrum, I've always seen it less as a linear line from right to left and more as a horseshoe. Both sides and their respective 'isms,' socialism and nationalism in this respect, are just two different ways to define collectivism.
One of many stories from the war that, if you dare read them, you will never be the same. Everything is on the line in these pivotal moments and each of us gets to decide whether or not we give up our humanity.
nationalism of curse is hated by internationalists so have created a lot of propaganda regarding this
Yes, nationalism can be taken too far, but so can any conception of the good. A reinterpretation of nichomachean ethics says that each conception of good has an opposite pair which is _also_ good, and the highest good is the union of these opposites. Rejecting nationalism has lead to a host of other problems, which were not visible as possibilities at the time.
I think a rejection of nationalism is the wrong lesson to draw from the Great War. A better lesson is on the dangers of governments. State controlled money, and state censorship were both necessary for the war to go as it did. The true lesson to learn is not that nationalism is bad but that governments will do evil things that ruin their own people, because a government is like the ego of the nation: necessary for safety but far too easily getting out of control.
The Bank of England tried selling bonds to finance the war, and nobody wanted to buy them. If this truth had been made public, the war never would have gone on as it did. If opposition to the war hadn’t been called unpatriotic and made criminal, saner voices would have prevailed. But the states involved consistently stole from and censored their own people, and then afterwards told us that the problem wasn’t their rebellion against the truth, but instead the idea that nations exist as an extension of the family and we have to look out for each other locally. That governments would sacrifice the welfare of their own people in order to stay in power is beyond question given the evidence of history. Arguments against nationalism are thus a convenient way for governments to avoid ever being accountable for their failures.
nationalism to a large extent protects from internationalism which I think as far as body count is concerned is maybe a tenth or less of internationalism... probably far less
HELLSTORM, THE MOVIE, needs to be seen by everyone https://www.bitchute.com/video/oI9kdwezy03r
The comparison of socialism and nationalism is very, very true. There are a lot of people here in the US who don't understand the concept. In my own experience and research, I've likened socialism to the Left as nationalism is the Right. It's one reason why, in terms of the political spectrum, I've always seen it less as a linear line from right to left and more as a horseshoe. Both sides and their respective 'isms,' socialism and nationalism in this respect, are just two different ways to define collectivism.
I totally agree with Apxhard….