Nationalism vs. Patriotism: What's the Difference and Why it Matters

ammodotcom

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
375
nationalism-vs-patriotism-hero.jpg


The terms “nationalism” and “patriotism” are often used interchangeably. This is understandable, as they have somewhat overlapping meanings, both of which suffer from a certain amount of vagueness. However, there are a number of key differences between the two that are worth shedding light on. In the final analysis, we believe that the term “nationalism,” while not denoting anything totalitarian by its nature, is not an accurate term for the sentiment that exists in the United States. Nationalism, it would seem, is more suited to Europe or Asia, places with historic nations, united by common language and ethnicity that are necessarily tied with a certain area of land.

There’s a lot to unpack here and the differences are extremely subtle. And to give a bit of a spoiler, we’re not going to be taking the position, as is often the case, that patriotism is fine but nationalism is simply a metastatic and malignant form of patriotism.

First Things First: How Do Both Differ From Libertarianism and Conservatism

Before going any further, it’s worth taking a few minutes to distinguish both patriotism and nationalism from libertarianism and conservatism. We can do this without parsing out the difference between patriotism and nationalism – and for that matter, libertarianism and conservatism.
Libertarianism and conservatism operate from a similar set of principles. These principles are abstract and platonic in as much as they are about divining the truest form of an ideal ideology from a stated goal. Libertarianism has a clear philosophical principle: more liberty is always good. American conservatism is a diffuse and often contradictory philosophy, but for the purposes of extrapolating the difference between conservatism and other ideologies, we will say that the defining characteristic of American conservatism (as opposed to European conservatism, which has a much greater overlap with nationalism), is that of limited government.

We can conflate both of these ideals into the somewhat more vague notion that “freedom is always good.” The point here isn’t to oversimplify and make a strawman. It’s simply to come up with a uniting ethos to illustrate how nationalism and patriotism as ideologies differ from currents that have been more mainstream on the American right for a longer period of time.

Nationalism and patriotism, on the other hand, might find value in freedom and might even make a secondary goal out of it. However, the uniting principle of each is that it is the country itself, the success of the body politic, that is paramount, not more abstract notions of freedom.

Thus, the key difference is that conservatism and libertarianism are philosophically driven ideologies where results take a backseat to principles. On the other hand, nationalism and patriotism are pragmatic ideologies, where the proof is in the pudding. Another way of phrasing this is that libertarianism and conservatism are non-consequentialist, whereas nationalism and patriotism are consequentialist. Conservatism and libertarianism are guided by “doing the right thing,” whereas nationalism and patriotism are more “the ends justify the means” type of philosophies.

It is worth noting, briefly, that Sam Francis, an advisor to the 1996 presidential campaign of Pat Buchanan, urged him to not even compete for the mantle of “conservative,” instead telling him to identify as a nationalist, patriot or America Firster. His ideas are considered enormously influential on President Trump’s 2016 campaign.

Definition by Contrast: What is Globalism?

Nationalism and patriotism also stand in contrast to globalism. While this term is thrown around a lot, it is worth discussing what it is and what it means and how it is different from its alternatives.

Globalism is, simply put, a view of politics that values trans-national bureaucracies over the nation state. Sometimes these are big, shadowy institutions like the Trilateral Commission or the Bilderberg Group, but more commonly they are far more innocuous-looking non-governmental organizations (NGOs or sometimes “QUANGOs” for “quasi-autonomous non-governmental organizations).

NGOs generally present themselves as some kind of politically neutral entity that is just about “good people doing good things.” Amnesty International, for example, was, for many years, an organization dedicated to defending people who were held in jail for their political or religious views. They now lobby for legalized abortion and liberalization of gay marriage laws across the world. Regardless of how one feels about either of these issues, it seems difficult to square either of these with the mission of Amnesty.

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?

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.

Continue reading Nationalism vs. Patriotism: What's the Difference and Why it Matters on Ammo.com.
 
So-called "limited government", in the American libertarian ideology, and in much of the American "conservative" ideology, is functional globalism.

When the state refuses to suppress transnational entities, "limited government" kills both conservatism and, eventually, libertarianism, by way of the gradual transfer of power from the state to the transnational entities.

Think about that dirty little secret.
 
So-called "limited government", in the American libertarian ideology, and in much of the American "conservative" ideology, is functional globalism.

When the state refuses to suppress transnational entities, "limited government" kills both conservatism and, eventually, libertarianism, by way of the gradual transfer of power from the state to the transnational entities.

Think about that dirty little secret.

Nothing about libertarian philosophy prevents government from addressing wrongs committed by transnational entities, whether to small business or individuals. Which means that implying that a libertarian government will refuse to suppress anything or anyone who tramples on the rights of others is dishonest trollery.

And that isn't dirty, little, or a secret.
 
So-called "limited government", in the American libertarian ideology, and in much of the American "conservative" ideology, is functional globalism.

When the state refuses to suppress transnational entities, "limited government" kills both conservatism and, eventually, libertarianism, by way of the gradual transfer of power from the state to the transnational entities.

Think about that dirty little secret.

It's not that hard...

Trade globally; govern locally.

Those "transnational entities" are enabled by transnational governing bodies.
 
Nothing about libertarian philosophy prevents government from addressing wrongs committed by transnational entities, whether to small business or individuals. Which means that implying that a libertarian government will refuse to suppress anything or anyone who tramples on the rights of others is dishonest trollery.

And that isn't dirty, little, or a secret.

Oh really? You think just saying that makes it true? It's NOT TRUE. Do you work for KOCH or SOROS ?
How the hell do you think we got to this state? hmm ? You think everything's ok ??? ITS NOT OK.
 
It's not that hard...

Trade globally; govern locally.

Those "transnational entities" are enabled by transnational governing bodies.

Trade globally? Who do you think runs that show? The same who took over our society. Who DIRECT IT.
You think transnational "governing bodies" are what? Public or Private? You don't think they can't control you locally?
Local is being taken down by them. Local power is GONE. How do you think that happened ?
 
Oh really? You think just saying that makes it true? It's NOT TRUE.

Why not? Disprove it. Or are you implying that just because I said it, it's not true?

Do you work for KOCH or SOROS ?
How the hell do you think we got to this state? hmm ? You think everything's ok ??? ITS NOT OK.

We didn't get into this state by electing libertarians.

How do you think we got into this situation? We were more libertarian when General Motors still owned Opel, Holden and Vauxhall than we are now that GM divested itself of all three. I don't believe there's any cause and effect there. But it goes a long way toward disproving your claim.

You think transnational "governing bodies" are what? Public or Private? You don't think they can't control you locally?
Local is being taken down by them. Local power is GONE. How do you think that happened ?

I certainly don't need to speak for him. He does quite well for himself, and hopefully he will. But I can guarantee he doesn't think that happened because everyone was libertarian enough to adhere to the Tenth Amendment.

You're railing against libertarianism, but you couldn't define it on a dare.
 
Last edited:
We didn't get into this state by electing libertarians..

Your elections said Republican or Democrat won, but libertarian policies DID, in many paradigm-shifting issues, prevail under both banners.
One example. All the free-trade agreements in the 80's and 90's - did you support them? Are you happy with the result ?
 
Your elections said Republican or Democrat won, but libertarian policies DID, in many paradigm-shifting issues, prevail under both banners.
One example. All the free-trade agreements in the 80's and 90's - did you support them? Are you happy with the result ?

Why do you ask? Are you claiming that because the FT in NAFTA stands for free trade, it must have been libertarian?

Have you ever seen a Venn diagram? Did you understand it?
 
Why do you ask? Are you claiming that because the FT in NAFTA stands for free trade, it must have been libertarian?

Have you ever seen a Venn diagram? Did you understand it?

I stand by my original statement here and prefer not to address your deflectionary tactics.
The simple fact is that libertarian policies are a big reason why we are where we are.
You think it over. Bye.
 
I stand by my original statement here and prefer not to address your deflectionary tactics.
The simple fact is that libertarian policies are a big reason why we are where we are.
You think it over. Bye.

Deflection? You think it's deflection to point out that free trade is not the sum total of libertarian philosophy?

Run and hide, stormfronter. Don't let the door spank you on the way out.
 
Trade globally? Who do you think runs that show? The same who took over our society. Who DIRECT IT.
You think transnational "governing bodies" are what? Public or Private? You don't think they can't control you locally?
Local is being taken down by them. Local power is GONE. How do you think that happened ?

It's funny that I say it's as simple as, "trade globally; govern locally", and you immediately jump to govern globally. :facepalming:

Who "runs" it? Who "directs" it? That assumes that it needs to be governed. If I want to buy an ivory tusk from a farmer in Botswana, and he sells it to me at a price we both agree upon, I'm not sure why we need anyone to "direct" this for us.

Maybe you just can't conceive of global trade without controls?? Remember, individuals trade - not governments. Governments are the entities that have the monopoly on force so they can complicate things for their own profit.
 
It's funny that I say it's as simple as, "trade globally; govern locally", and you immediately jump to govern globally. :facepalming:

Who "runs" it? Who "directs" it? That assumes that it needs to be governed. If I want to buy an ivory tusk from a farmer in Botswana, and he sells it to me at a price we both agree upon, I'm not sure why we need anyone to "direct" this for us.

Maybe you just can't conceive of global trade without controls?? Remember, individuals trade - not governments. Governments are the entities that have the monopoly on force so they can complicate things for their own profit.

The end result of these policies has already occurred, and it is absolute financial tyranny, leading to communism
directed by a permanent plutocracy.
 
Deflection? You think it's deflection to point out that free trade is not the sum total of libertarian philosophy?

Run and hide, stormfronter. Don't let the door spank you on the way out.

I'm not a stormfronter, but I do disagree with the sum total of libertarianism, not just the economic positions.
 
The end result of these policies has already occurred, and it is absolute financial tyranny, leading to communism
directed by a permanent plutocracy.

We haven't had libertarian financial policies since April of 1929, when Herbert Hoover was sworn in. Which leads me to ask, "So?"

I'm not a stormfronter, but I do disagree with the sum total of libertarianism, not just the economic positions.

You're in favor of the welfare state?

Look. What you want are sealed borders. Neither open nor closed borders is a libertarian position. That and hard to avoid monopolies like water systems and roads seem to be the only public policy questions libertarian philosophy can't answer definitively. So please stop calling open borders "libertarian economic policy".
 
Last edited:
We haven't had libertarian financial policies since April of 1929, when Herbert Hoover was sworn in. Which leads me to ask, "So?"



You're in favor of the welfare state?

1) We have had MANY libertarian policies. Repeal of Glass-Steagall was libertarian. I could list a thousand examples. Many involve the financial takeover and environmental destruction, they are intertwined with socialism and militarism, and lots of things in the cultural set also.

2) No, I am not in favor of the welfare state. The welfare state is a combination of differing racial traditions and the necessity of providing subsistence to a disenfranchised lower class that is unable to afford the previously affordable, due to the liberalisation of economic policy which has created said oligarchy, in other words, the Monopoly game is over, the bank owns all, and the owners of the bank therefore purchase consent by offering the welfare state - in a manner that strengthens their own system instead of offering a true hand up in life.

3) Concerning my racial viewpoints they are in line with U.S. policy before the Civil Rights Act, and with the inherent right of freedom of association. I am opposed to forced integration, oppose anti-discrimination laws and affirmative action, etc. This right is not restricted to a single "race", it is the right of all races to not integrate on a racial basis for those who do not wish to.
 
I am a Great American Patriot and it is my nation so really no difference .
 
Back
Top