Nationalism – Freeread

Walls and Borders, Part 6

January 19, 2019 Joseph Dewey

This entry is part 6 of 9 in the series Walls Borders

Walls and Borders, Part 6

Racism and Nationalism

Let us move on to Argument Two

“Those who support a wall are racist and do not want people of a darker skin living in the country.”

This race card is a disingenuous source of attack pulled out way too often and with no justification.

Both the left and the right have participated in creating our legal immigration laws and policies and there is nothing in them that reflect racism, or discrimination because of race.

The latest poll (Jan 13, 2019) available at the time of this writing was commissioned by ABC News and the Washington Post. It reveals that 42% of the population support building a wall.

Now think a moment. Can anyone really rationally believe that 42% of the population is so racist that they want a wall built just so people from other races cannot come into the country? This thinking is just plain silly, especially when you realize that this poll tells us that 22% of non whites support the wall. Are they racists against themselves?

Here is the interesting part. Among the 54% who oppose the wall 9% see the border problem as a crisis situation and an additional 47% see it as a serious problem. So, 56% of the 54% who do not support a wall still see the border as a serious problem that needs additional controls. They just figure there are other solutions better than a wall.

56% of the 54% equals an additional 30%. Add that to the 42% who support a wall and you have a total of 72% of the population who want extra controls at the border, be it a wall or some other method, to control the inflow of people into the country.

Do 72% of the population desire more border control because they are racist? No one in their right mind can believe this.

So, why do 72% of the population want more secure borders? The answer is simple and it has nothing to do with race. There are three main concerns.

(1) We are limited in the number of people we can assimilate without overtaxing our resources.

(2) We want to screen the people to weed out potentially harmful people such as criminals and terrorists.

(3) We want to make sure they support our country’s laws and ideals of freedom and justice and will not be subversive to our way of life.

We have two groups of people attempting to get in the country. One has legally applied and waiting in line and the other attempts to forcefully cross the border and ignores the law.

Which group deserves the priority?

The answer is obvious and again race has nothing to do with this for both groups are of the same racial mixture.

Argument Three:

“Those who support stronger borders are nationalists, and nationalism is just plain wrong. Spiritual teachers, and particularly DK, are against nationalism.”

Like racism, the idea of nationalism is used as a label to sidestep the reasoning process and used merely as a tool to defeat an opposing view. If you do not like the other guy’s thinking just call him a nationalist or racist, and if the label sticks then no additional thinking or discussion is necessary. It is then concluded that anything that comes out of the guy’s mouth is tainted and not to be trusted no matter how logical it seems. This is similar to the approach of the member of a fundamentalist religion who labels someone as being in league with the devil or evil spirits. Nothing such a person says can be trusted in their view.

A nationalist is simply someone who loves their country and desires to put its needs first above that of other competing countries.

Therefore a nationalist would do the following:

He would try to feed the hungry in his country first, figuring other countries will be doing the same with their own people.

He would seek to secure freedom and security in his homeland before that of others.

He would generally support his team in the Olympics above that of other nations.

Now such nationalistic support does not mean the guy is against helping other countries, but most figure they cannot be much good to the world if they at first do not take care of themselves.

For instance, on an individual level, if one neglects his health he loses power to help others and can wind up being a burden instead. Each of us must put our health first else we may have no power to help others.

So, if nationalism is harmless and in many cases helpful, why did DK and others who are enlightened speak against it?

Again, one must read more than out of context quotes here for as DK wrote most of his thoughts on this as we were in a life and death struggle against the extreme nationalism of Germany during World War II. He appropriately condemned their extreme nationalism, materialism and selfishness, but did not condemn all nationalism. Instead, he said there were two forms of nationalism. One is good and the other not so much.

Concerning the bad nationalism he says:

“First, there is the spirit of nationalism with its sense of sovereignty and its selfish desires and aspirations. This, in its worst aspect, sets one nation against another, fosters a sense of national superiority and leads the citizens of a nation to regard themselves and their institutions as superior to those of another nation; it cultivates pride of race, of history, of possessions and of cultural progress and breeds an arrogance, a boastfulness and a contempt of other civilizations and cultures which is evil and degenerating; it engenders also a willingness to sacrifice other people’s interests to one’s own and a basic failure to admit that “God hath made all men equal”. This type of nationalism is universal and everywhere to be found and no nation is free from it; it indicates a blindness, a cruelty and a lack of proportion for which mankind is already paying a terrible price and which will bring humanity down in ruins if persisted in.”

So this negative nationalism goes beyond self interest to great selfishness, denial of equal rights and a feeling of superiority leading to contempt for others.

But then he tells us there is a good nationalism. He states:

“There is, needless to say, an ideal nationalism which is the reverse of all this; it exists as yet only in the minds of an enlightened few in every nation, but it is not yet an effective and constructive aspect of any nation anywhere; it remains still a dream, a hope and, let us believe, a fixed intention. This type of nationalism rightly fosters its individual civilization but as a national contribution to the general good of the comity of nations and not as a means of self-glorification; it defends its constitution, its lands and its people through the rectitude of its living expression, the beauty of its mode of life and the selflessness of its attitudes; it does not infringe, for any reason, the rights of other people or nations. It aims to improve and perfect its own mode of life so that all in the world may benefit. It is a living, vital, spiritual organism and not a selfish, material organization.

Problems of Humanity, Page 88-89

This enlightened nationalist still focuses first upon his own country, but not so he can feel superior but to make the greatest possible contribution to the planet. In doing this he says country still “rightly fosters its individual civilization” and “defends its constitution, its lands and its people,” but without infringing on the rights of others.

I see myself in this second category, as I do not have a feeling of superiority about being a U.S. citizen, but want my country to do well and defend its Constitution and Bill of Rights. I value the freedom and prosperity here and desire to share it with the rest of the world. But like individual humans, if we do not look after our interests and become ill then we could lose our power to assist other nations.

Yes, there are many selfish nationalists in all nations, but there are also good ones who want their nation to thrive so they cannot only help themselves, but the world.

As it is the word “nationalist” has been promoted as an evil label to describe political opponents as racists, haters, selfish and evil. Such approach does not exist on the path of return. We are all brothers and sisters in the same boat and the time is overdue that we focus on goodwill and unity rather than division through distorted use of labels.

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Positive and Negative Nationalism

August 24, 2016August 24, 2016 Joseph Dewey

Aug 24, 2016

Positive and Negative Nationalism

In my last post we talked about the duality of negative and positive nationalism. A problem with this topic is that people as a whole are fairly black and white about it. They are either all in – “My country right or wrong,” or all out and look with a jaundice eye on any sign of patriotism.

I submit that both extremes are wrong and as usual the seeker must use some good judgment to find points of truth at the middle.

Let us examine the words and DK and our common sense on the subject and ascertain what ingredients of nationalism are on the positive and the negative sides.

The first question we want to ask is this. Which ingredients lead to harm, destruction or may frustrate the plans of the hierarchy? The second question is which ingredients are either harmless or on the constructive side?

DK gives us some good information as to the ingredients of negative nationalism. The prime example he cites is Nazi Germany. Indeed if there is any good that came out of Nazi Germany it is examples of what not to do.

Here were some ingredients of their nationalism that nations should avoid.

(1) Such a state of superiority that other nations must change to conform or be forced to submit to their rule.

(2) The idea that their people were superior physically and mentally to other nations.

(3) All inventions and advancements were for the glory of Germany with little or no thought in aiding the rest of the world.

(4) Within the country minority races and groups were discriminated against and treated as being inferior.

(5) They were aggressive and threatening toward other nations, especially the weak and defenseless.

(6) Extreme materialism

DK tells us that all nations on both sides of the war were guilty in some degree of nationalism that separates and if the negative aspects of this were not so prevalent among the democracies that they could have united their positive energies and prevented the war.

Unfortunately we had to learn the hard way.

He then tells us that a benefit from World War II was that many old forms were destroyed to be replaced by new and better ones.

Humanity has this made a step forward, but the nations still have a long way to go.

We do not want to repeat the nationalistic errors of the past, but neither do we want to go to the other extreme, so let us look at some ingredients of the positive or ideal nationalism, that is acceptable to DK.

Here is he quote again:

There is, needless to say, an ideal nationalism which is the reverse of all this; it exists as yet only in the minds of an enlightened few in every nation, but it is not yet an effective and constructive aspect of any nation anywhere; it remains still a dream, a hope and, let us believe, a fixed intention. This type of nationalism rightly fosters its individual civilization but as a national contribution to the general good of the comity of nations and not as a means of self-glorification; it defends its constitution, its lands and its people through the rectitude of its living expression, the beauty of its mode of life and the selflessness of its attitudes; it does not infringe, for any reason, the rights of other people or nations. It aims to improve and perfect its own mode of life so that all in the world may benefit. It is a living, vital, spiritual organism and not a selfish, material organization.

From: Problems of Humanity, Pages 88-89

Let us list the acceptable ingredients:

(1) “…fosters its individual civilization but as a national contribution to the general good of the comity of nations and not as a means of self-glorification”

(2) “it defends its constitution, its lands and its people through the rectitude of its living expression,”

(3) It aims to improve and perfect its own mode of life so that all in the world may benefit

Then in Externalization of the Hierarchy he adds:

(4) Blocs (of nations) in themselves can be good and proper if they follow lines of natural cleavages, of language differences and of cultural distinctions.

(5) He has repeatedly stressed the prime ingredient of allowing for the freedom of expression and of the human spirit.

There are certain ingredients here, that are often criticized as being wrongfully nationalistic that are approved of by DK so long as done constructively.

He mentions “individual civilization.” Some seekers think that nations will evolve to all be petty much the same, but such is not the case. Nations will all have their individual personalities and cultures for some time to come.

Some purists think that talk of a nation’s constitution, integrity of lands or is people are wrong, but DK approves of a nation defending “its constitution, its lands and its people,” with as much integrity as possible.

A citizen can love his nation’s Constitution, its people, its culture, what its flag represents, the integrity of its lands, the National Anthem, its history, its culture and not be placed in the category of negative nationalism. Such as person (myself included) wants to see all the good things of his own country made available to the whole world. Because he sees good in his country does not mean that he sees all differences in other countries as bad,

It is the separateness and superior attitude above all which some attach to country that causes the negative turn.

Using the Law of Correspondences we could compare a country to a person. Humans are governed by the lower personality until they achieve soul contact and submit to higher will. But when soul infusion is achieved the person still maintains a distinct personality, lives in a separate home protected by law from intruders, and in many ways his life is not that much different from his neighbor of average evolution.

Nations follow the same pattern. They start out in the lower personality mode and advance to the soul, but even in the soul they will still maintain their distinct personality and differences, but will be motivated to share, using good judgment, the benefits they have received with others having no intent to infringe on the free will of others.

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Ideal Nationalism

August 23, 2016August 30, 2016 Joseph Dewey

Aug 23, 2016

Ideal Nationalism

Rudolf Steiner was quoted as saying this about nationalism;

The most unchristian impulse of all took effect in the 19th century. The first impulse which came to the fore and gained an ever stronger hold of men’s minds and emotions, was that of nationalism. […] The Christian impulse towards universal humanity was completely overshadowed by the principle of nationalism, because the new way to bring this element of universal humanity to its own had not been found. The anti-Christian impulse makes its appearance first and foremost in the form of nationalism. […] We see a revolt against Christianity in the nationalism of the 19th century, which reached its apex in Woodrow Wilson’s phrase about the self-determination of nations, whereas the one and only reality befitting the present age would be to overcome nationalism, to eliminate it, and for men to be stirred by the impulse of the human universal.

Then too there are numerous quotes from DK being against nationalism that is separative, aggressive, produces conflict and many other evils.

Here is a typical statement:

First, there is the spirit of nationalism with its sense of sovereignty and its selfish desires and aspirations. This, in its worst aspect, sets one nation against another, fosters a sense of national superiority and leads the citizens of a nation to regard themselves and their institutions as superior to those of another nation; it cultivates pride of race, of history, of possessions and of cultural progress and breeds an arrogance, a boastfulness and a contempt of other civilizations and cultures which is evil and degenerating; it engenders also a willingness to sacrifice other people’s interests to one’s own and a basic failure to admit that “God hath made all men equal”. This type of nationalism is universal and everywhere to be found and no nation is free from it; it indicates a blindness, a cruelty and a lack of proportion for which mankind is already paying a terrible price and which will bring humanity down in ruins if persisted in.

Well, that about settles any argument then. Nationalism bad, inclusiveness good. All nations should just merge, open their borders, share with the world and sing Kumbaya.

Not quite. Part of the problem with negative nationalism is black and white thinking which throws judgment out the window. If we do this we become guilty of the same primary sin of the extreme nationalists.

What is needed is to take a deep breath and read the very next paragraph in the DK quote:

Both quotes from: Problems of Humanity, Pages 88-89

It is always a mistake to not look for the duality of things. Seeing only in black and white creates divisiveness just as negative nationalism does. It creates the idea that “I am 100% correct and you are 100% in error.”

Such is rarely the case.

The idea behind transcending negative nationalism is the eventual creation of a one world benevolent government that sees all as brothers and one humanity where each person deserves an opportunity for freedom, education and the abundance of the earth.

The problem says DK is that we cannot just rush headlong into this. He says:

Blocs (of nations) in themselves can be good and proper if they follow lines of natural cleavages, of language differences and of cultural distinctions. They can be essentially right if they are formed for economic, educational, religious and social aims and can therefore provide no true cause for alarm. Such blocs would be cultural and not militaristic, economic and not greedy, and they could provide a normal and progressive movement away from the separative nationalism of the past and towards the distant creation of the One World, and the One Humanity. This will some day be seen, but the time is not yet. Mankind is not ready for some super-government, nor can it yet provide the unselfish and trained statesmen that such a government would require. As yet, there are more seeds of danger in this concept than there are of helpfulness. Nevertheless, it is a dream which will some day materialise, after the creation and the functioning of blocs have proved how men should work and live together.

Externalization of the Hierarchy, Pg 639

Esoteric students indeed look forward to this day, but unfortunately he says we are not yet ready for it. Attempting this now has “more seeds of danger in this concept than there are of helpfulness.”

What are the seeds of danger? The danger in any change of government is that of totalitarianism. The danger is that we could have a Hitler type antichrist surface as feared by the Christian world that could set us back for centuries.

DK recommends first “the creation and the functioning of blocs” of countries that work together until relationship is good and productive. Then blocks can work together with blocks until we arrive at a time where all nations become unified under the ideal of one humanity, while still maintaining maximum individual and group freedom.

This work toward the elimination of negative nationalism and replacing it with a positive one will be a gradual, step by step process. Some will be eager to take giant leaps by forcing the human spirit, but this must be avoided.

So, what are examples of the positive nationalism of which DK mentioned? Surely its seeds have surfaced.

It has indeed and the Founding Fathers of the United States set the example for us. They established what was called, “Novus ordo seclorum” or the English, “A new order of the ages.” This new order of participatory government with individual freedom was created not just for the people of the United States, but with the hope the principles would benefit the entire world.

Another example was the blending together of the Allies during World War II. The Allied nations were not fighting just for themselves but for the sake of the world as a whole, and indeed the defeat of Nazism did benefit the world. The benefit even reached to the defeated nations, who perhaps benefitted the most.

The technological revolution is also an example of positive nationalism. Most of it, including the internet, originated in the United States and most innovators are happy to see their own country benefit, but the basic idea is to benefit the world. Technology has indeed brought us closer together and has made us more aware that we are all one great family. As we make friends on Facebook and other media we find that many of them are from other countries and cultures, yet in many ways they are in the same boat as ourselves. The person you are communicating with half way across the globe seems just as close and just as friendly as your next door neighbor.

We are indeed taking steps toward a unified world. Let us hope they continue.

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE