“A patriot will indeed prefer the interests of his countrymen to those of foreigners, but he wouldn’t have to place zero weight on foreigners’ interests. At some point there would have to be a trade-off that he would take. If a policy reduced some Americans’ incomes by 0.5 percent and ended world poverty, would it be worth supporting? If you think it wouldâ€”as I doâ€”does that make you unpatriotic?” ~ Ramesh “Last Chance Armada” Ponnuru
Yes. In the classical sense of the word ‘patriotism’, ole Ramesh couldn’t be patriotic, at least not this side of the Arabian Sea, as the Latin pater suggests, he has no ancestral ties regarding the survival of Western man and his totemic traditions. He does not even have a dog in the fight for which he can cheer. But even in a modernized (i.e. dumbed-down) sense of the word, the mere fact that he would economically harm his own countrymen to benefit third-world invaders shows where his true loyalties lie. It’s discomforting that left-wing globalists like this are allowed to masquerade as conservatives, a point that Paul Gottfried recently made.
Addendum: Another point of follow-up regarding this global tripe is Thomas Fleming’s Morality of Everyday Life, where he convincingly demonstrates that this post-Enlightenment creation, global “humanitarianism,” is really contrary to the classical Christian and Western spirit. It is modern perversion that portends our own doom.