November 7th?

In your liberal creative imagination maybe.

Good for you.

 

No, it's called education and life experience.

It was taught in school as part of our history classes, since nationalism has been the cause of much human misery and patriotism the driver of human flourishing. Outside of the school curriculum, I grew up in a region that had an active KKK chapter and, on at least one occasion, was specifically attacked by a fellow student (his parents were KKK) because my mother and her family were not born in the U.S.

There was much writing on the difference between patriotism and nationalism in the 20th century, especially after the rise of Nazism and fascism and the calamity and death they brought to the world.

"Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first" — Charles de Gaulle

“Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.” - George Orwell (1945)

“The difference between patriotism and nationalism is that the patriot is proud of his country for what it does, and the nationalist is proud of his country no matter what it does; the first attitude creates a feeling of responsibility, but the second a feeling of blind arrogance that leads to war.” - Sydney J. Harris (1953)

“Patriotism is a lively sense of collective responsibility. Nationalism is a silly cock crowing on its own dunghill.” - Richard Aldington (1931)​

 

You mean, the United States? If anything, they seek to undermine the government of the United States because too many "white devils" have power.

In the United States, White Nationalists want the US to be a white country, closing the doors to, and perhaps even deporting, those who are not white European.

You recently posted (approvingly) an essay that would go over well at a White Nationalist meeting, that asserts that ethnic diversity undermines the United States. The essayist either doesn't realize or rejects that the strength of the United States has always been in the common Constitutional values and vision of Americans that binds us together. His over-the-top essay has lines like "...any honest and clear-sighted observer should be able to see that diversity is a solvent that dissolves the unity and cohesiveness of a nation...", a logical fallacy which panders to the White Nationalist and dismisses any other viewpoint as being dishonest or not clear-sighted.

 

Not going to waste time cherry picking quotes in a useless ping-pong debate.

 

More liberal condescension. “No, it’s called education and life experience.” Gag me. You paint such a picture. I should be dazzled. I’m not. I see this ‘nationalism’ title is the latest attack on Trumpism. Oh my, you were adversely affected by the KKK, but you dismiss their politics as democrats, convenient.

According to left leaning wiki:
‘Nationalism is a newer word; in English the term dates from 1844, although the concept is older. It became important in the 19th century. The term increasingly became negative in its connotations after 1914. Glenda Sluga (a professor in Australia) notes that “The twentieth century, a time of profound disillusionment with nationalism, was also the great age of globalism.”

So what you are really saying.....nationalism & therefore Trump, because you said so, bad. Globalism, good. Oh, but you didn’t want to say the globalism word, just make your negative Trump spin. Got it. Yawn.

 

The quotes aren't cherry-picked. I simply did a quick Google search (nationalism vs. patriotism) and came up with a bunch of results. The purpose of the quotes was to show you that nationalism as a negative position has had a long history, contrary to your ridiculously false assertion that "it has only recently acquired the nuance of 'hate' from the Fake News CNN Ministry of truth."

Why don't you and I read a short book together and then discuss whether or not it has merit? I recommend Orwell's classic book on the subject, "Notes on Nationalism."

 

Nope. Trump chose to label himself as a nationalist. "Nationalist" has a specific meaning. I'm pretty sure he knows what that is. White Nationalists certainly know what he meant. Many other people do too.

There's a bald lie.

I was a Republican in a Democratic (actually, Dixiecratic) region. Those same people and their descendants are now hard-core Trumpists. The labels have changed, but the evil has not.

Don't you know why there was disillusionment with nationalism? Two World Wars. Do you know what there was globalism? Two World Wars. World leaders developed to prevent another World War, except that the next time we have one there will almost certainly be nuclear destruction.

This is not hard to comprehend. Don't you know even basic history?

That's one of the most ignorant things I have real in a long time. You are aware of the two World Wars of the 20th century, right?

I don't have a problem saying globalism. I have previously said it on this thread. Jesus is a globalist. Therefore, all of His disciples must be globalists. It's that simple... if you are truly a follower of Jesus.

 

Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z.

 

So you are uninterested in knowing about the subject...

Why in the world do you make knowledge claims (that is, "nationalism has also recently acquired the nuance of 'hate'...") and then refuse to engage in whether or not your claim is true, and dismissive of facts and knowledge that may contradict you? You are dismissing reality and objective truth.

Not too many years ago, right-wing Christians claimed that's what "secular humanists" were trying to do and they took a stand against it. Now, they seem to embrace it because it is politically/socially convenient to do so.

You are a much better man than that.

 

If they were to achieve enough power to effectively rule their own country, whatever the territory, I seriously doubt they would term it the United States (of America), or anything close. They already have a worldly state name: Nation of Islam. And for them, “too many ‘white devils’” means more than zero. They are what they supposedly hate, the worst kind of racists.

White nationalists are generally isolationists of one type or another. (And Pakistan used to be part of India.)

Your assessment of the essay seems to at the same time both state and overlook the central point, which has zero to do with White Nationalism. There are core values and vision upon which the country is founded that can be undermined by the massive influx of those who either don’t understand them or don’t share them. The unity formed out of the many can be destroyed from within once the many have been largely replaced with other rather than replicated with similar. This isn’t a logical fallacy, it’s axiomatic. It is one thing to hold on to a certain amount of cultural identity, for example the food, family, and fellowship sometimes mentioned here. It is something entirely different to import political ideas and worldviews that do not mesh with our own regarding basic human rights and civic responsibilities. Marxism "à la King" has gained a solid foothold, but has not overwhelmed us…yet.

 

Why the scare quotes around 'secular humanists'? Do said quotes imply that secular humanism is merely a strawman fomented by radical fundamentalist Christians? My guess is that you know more about secular humanism than that, as it is a well organized movement that rejects anything outside of the observed natural universe, and particularly denies the existence of a supernatural God.

The earlier comment implying that one must be a globalist, if one professes belief in Jesus, could be defended if "globalism" was in the spirit of Matt. 28:18-20 and Acts 1:8 - taking the Gospel to all the world. If it's one of the other definitions of globalism, the position that national boundaries be abolished and replaced by a one-world government, there are biblical prophecies addressing that. And the clear (to me) implication of that comment that those not embracing globalism (outside of the Gospel-sharing kind) must not be truly believing in Christ is disturbing - seems to set up a pass/fail test of salvation. I hope that is NOT the intent.

 

Oh the shame. He’s a much better man than that, & of course Jesus is on your side, because you said so. I haven’t heard you square up with the rest of the dem agenda, even though through your vote, you are pro choice, & pro gay marriage. You’ll have some ‘splainin’ to do.

 

The Ministry of Truth (DNC) comes out with the latest and greatest get-trump-word-of-the-month and you just jump right on the ole Band Wagon.

Anyone can see the puppet strings as you dance to their music.
You also are a better man than that.

 

Be cautious there may well be a blue wave in 2020 if the DNC can motivate the sleepy millennials and politically unconscious snowflakes to WAKE UP AND VOTE.

However if Hillary runs again it will be a red wave as both those groups (and there is no way to be kind) see her as the type who rides a broom at full moon.

 

Have you read the book lately? The essay you cited (free online at link below) does not prove your point. Rather it demonstrates the age old problem of words used as labels, where they suddenly take on a rather different meaning than what might be expected. Orwell admittedly steals the word “nationalism” for his purposes, then explains at great length what he means by the label.

In translation, the word chauvinisme is used, which could have worked at least as well in English, as its original meaning was the 3rd below, and the 2nd extends it; the 1st is very modern (see also Wikipedia). And while we’re at it, Feminism and Progressivism easily fit under Orwell’s “Nationalism” label, as does Racism and a whole host of other -isms.

George Orwell - Notes on Nationalism - Essay

 

I really don't think they will motivate anyone because they have a one track hateful heart...

"Investigate,Investigate,Investigate,Impeach,Impeach,Impeach, GET TRUMP!!", Pelosi, Waters, Schiff...(although Schiff may be a presidential candidate)

Their base will walk away from the hatred and they wont even realize it until the red tsunami carries them away.

 

Orwell was one of my favorites. Have you read Down and out in Paris and London? Hilarious, or Coming up for air? or Shooting an elephant?

 

Sorry to disappoint, but I’m not nearly that well-read! I’ve only read his two most famous novels: Animal Farm and 1984. But perhaps I will try to search out the ones you mentioned. I only read his short essay on nationalism for this thread. It seems many cite it, but few realize what he actually said in it. It’s more of a plea to everyone to fight the temptation of mote-and-beam political prejudice. Anyone thinking globalism is a cure for his various forms of nationalism is about as mistaken as you can get. Modern globalism is more like adding them all together into one huge nationalism from which there can be no escape save Jesus' return.