7 votes

George Washington's Farewell Address Was About The Threat of Entangling Alliances

Did a quick search for 'entangling alliances' and this came up #3 on gurgle:



Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt, that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages, which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its Virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The Nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the Government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The Government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of Nations has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite Nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite Nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the Nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation...

read the rest:

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Entangling Alliances: Sports, Religion, Ideologies, MORE...

This warning against entangling alliances applies to ALL exclusive groups - not only NATIONS:

Have you ever heard Jewish people talk about "our people"? Customer in a store had a problem, and one of the employees said to the manager: "Let me handle this - she's one of my people".

My first internal response when I hear that is: Fuhk your people.

And then it dawned on me -- OMG, dude -- when people try to huddle together, it actually DOES INCITE retaliation.

When you FORM or ASSERT exclusivity -- there will always be push-back. I think it's because exclusivity entails drawing a boundary line, in effect removing some amount of freedom, and all beings instinctively know the basis of life is FREEDOM.

That 1 line jumped out at me:
Habitual hatred is just as irrational as Habitual fondness.

Like a battered wife who shows "habitual fondness" toward an abusive husband.

Or a big brother who shows "habitual fondness" to his little brother, even as his little brother LASHES OUT inappropriately. (usa, israel)

But I can end with the answer - because my studies showed me this awhile ago:
Trust your emotions - they are never wrong.
When you feel negative emotion - DON'T TAKE ACTION.

I think Washington was talking about nations.

But given that you seem to be talking about people here, not nations, I don't understand what you mean, saying that when you form or assert "exclusivity," you remove some amount of freedom. Sounds scary to me. People can associate with whomever they please. If they don't care to include everyone, and others might feel left out - not being "free" to join in, so be it. We aren't guaranteed happiness, just the ability to pursue it. (These days the politically-correct stance on the subject - where "equal" means "same" - is already in some elementary schools, with a rule that you can't just invite your friends to your birthday party, i.e., the classmates you like, get along with, and regularly play with: if you don't invite the *whole* class, you can't invite anyone in the class.)

I don't understand why you had a problem with an employee asking to handle a particular customer who was having some difficulty with something, saying, "... She's one of my people." I see nothing intrinsically wrong with the FACT that people with a similar background in some way (geographic, religious, in terms of nationality, cultural, political, education-related, age-related, racial, or otherwise, including simply sharing interests) might have a bond that could have a bearing on their ability to relate to one another in some unique way. It doesn't mean they only get along with each other. It doesn't mean they don't like people outside their "group." Indeed, they might consider themselves part of many groups. Again, speaking not of nations, but people (your examples above) how one comes to view others, or not, is personal, an individual's own business, not yours or the government's.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Thanks for re-linking this, POL POT

This is still worth the read, would have liked to have bumped the original, as well. We seem to be entangled everywhere, the ME, Europe, and plenty of other places. I would prefer we simply minded our own business, st least as far as government intervention is concerned.

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

The original posting is archived...

so I had to repost it.

Daily Paul cured my abibliophobia.

Thanks for re-posting

1st time read for me – I think a liberty minded congressman should step up and read it when and if they are asked to go declare war. Rand should get back on the right track and refer to Washington’s farewell address on TV in defense of being a so-called isolationist.