[Prokopton]

Good, and accurate, article. Many here on FR, including me, have been called not only isolationist but “libtard” and other assorted names for expressing these same views.

[fallujah-nuker]

Many here on FR, including me, have been called not only isolationist...

In 1943 Garet Garrett wrote an article titled "The Mortification of History," he wrote about this very thing. Here is a short excerpt:<

...If you say of this history that its intense character has been nationalistic, consistently so from the beginning until now, that is true. Therefore, the word in place of isolationism that would make sense is nationalism. Why is the right word avoided?

The explanation must be for the wrong one, for that is what it is intended to do, it is the perfect political word. Since isolationism cannot be defined, those who attack it are not obliged to defend themselves. What are they? Anti-isolationists? But if you cannot say what isolationism is, neither can you say what anti-isolationism is, whereas nationalism, being definite, has a positive antithesis. One who attacks nationalism is an internationalist.

The use of the obscurity created by the false word is to conceal something. The thing to be concealed is the identity of what is speaking. Internationalism is speaking.

It has a right to speak, as itself and for itself, but that right entails a moral obligation to say what it means and to use true words...

The ones who scream "isolationist" are internationalists, opposed to your nationalist views. Scratch a RINO, find an internationalist. The idea of America looking out for her own self interest first is alien to them.