White Nationalist Epithet Is A Smear

[boedicca]

I'm seeing the Left amping up their use of the epithet "White Nationalist" to smear any Caucasian who expresses patriotic views in support of the U.S. as a sovereign nation.

Calling someone a RACIST is worn out. Normal people see it for the fake "cry wolf" that it is. So now, the Prog-Dems are accusing Normal White people of being what is actually the roots of the Prog-Dem ideology: Neo-KKK.

Don't be fooled. The Real White Racists are the Democrat-Prog descendants of the Democrat Ku Klux Klan.

To say that modern day democrats hold the same values as those from nearly 100 years ago is just stupid. It’s not true of either party. Also White Supremasists and Nazis have adopted the Nationalist term going back to the Germans and WW2 and other commie societies. It is part of an effort to normalize white supremacy in our modern times. When we have a president calling himself a nationalist it is absolutely embarassing. He is either clueless about the historical context of the phrase or he is rallying a base of really ugly people.

You start talking about White Nationalism, and then suddenly switch to talking about Nationalism.


Their is not historical "context" of those to very different IDEAS being connected in any way.


Trump is absolutely right to be a Nationalist. He is a NATIONAL leader.


It is his JOB to work for the NATION's interests.


Your attempt to smear him with "white nationalist, utterly proves the point of the OP.

Thank you. Slade is disingenuously promoting the fallacious logic:

- Some white people are racists
- Some white people believe in nationalism instead of globalism
- Therefore, white people are Racist White Nationalists

In realityland, the phrase "white nationalist" means white who promote racial segregation. Today, the racial segregation is being promoted by Progs who want to exclude white people (i.e. campus safe space, racial segregated dorms, anti white privilege curriculum and required diversity training).

I think you are giving them to much credit with your talk of logic.


I think they think that people are stupid enough to believe that nationalism and white nationalism are somehow connected, if they just say it is and insist on it enough.


It has worked for them in the past, like when they conflated Marriage and Gay Marriage.

Indeed. But I do think it is important to point out the logical fallacies that may exist so that normal people see the case for how the Progs pin the Bogometer.

 

[Correll]

How so?

Look at the history of the USSR, communist China, the Khmer Rouge, North Vietnam.

You can see their body count here:

DEATH BY GOVERNMENT: GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER

Would you say Stalin and Hitler were nationalists?

Certainly not Stalin. Hitler called himself a nationalist, but he sign pacts with the USSR, Italy, Romania, Finland and Japan.

Are you of the thinking that nationalists want nothing to do with other countrises? So if a leader signs a pact with another country you’d call them a globalist? It’s that simple in your mind?

Communism by definition is internationalist. Stalin made use nationalism to motivate his Russian Troops, but that is a weak basis to assume he was sharing those feelings.


But it is worth noting that if not for Russian nationalism motivating the Russian Troops, that Nazism would have been much more successful, and difficult to defeat.


Who knows, it may have even survived, and contributed to a much worse 20th century than we had.

 

[Slade3200]

Look at the history of the USSR, communist China, the Khmer Rouge, North Vietnam.

You can see their body count here:

DEATH BY GOVERNMENT: GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER

Would you say Stalin and Hitler were nationalists?

Certainly not Stalin. Hitler called himself a nationalist, but he sign pacts with the USSR, Italy, Romania, Finland and Japan.

Are you of the thinking that nationalists want nothing to do with other countries? So if a leader signs a pact with another country you’d call them a globalist? It’s that simple in your mind?

What do you think a "nationalist" is?

By definition it is simple and innocent. It is the ideology of promoting the sovernty and independence of ones nation. When you look at how nationalism has been used through history to build militaries, engage in wars, pursue power and dominance, to promote genocide, to stoke fear and division against engaging with people of other countries, races and religions... you see how ugly a thing it has been and still is associated with. You are ignoring history and playing word games by hiding behind simple definitions and not public perception and understanding that come from over 100 years of history

 

[Slade3200]

I'm seeing the Left amping up their use of the epithet "White Nationalist" to smear any Caucasian who expresses patriotic views in support of the U.S. as a sovereign nation.

Calling someone a RACIST is worn out. Normal people see it for the fake "cry wolf" that it is. So now, the Prog-Dems are accusing Normal White people of being what is actually the roots of the Prog-Dem ideology: Neo-KKK.

Don't be fooled. The Real White Racists are the Democrat-Prog descendants of the Democrat Ku Klux Klan.

To say that modern day democrats hold the same values as those from nearly 100 years ago is just stupid. It’s not true of either party. Also White Supremasists and Nazis have adopted the Nationalist term going back to the Germans and WW2 and other commie societies. It is part of an effort to normalize white supremacy in our modern times. When we have a president calling himself a nationalist it is absolutely embarassing. He is either clueless about the historical context of the phrase or he is rallying a base of really ugly people.

You start talking about White Nationalism, and then suddenly switch to talking about Nationalism.


Their is not historical "context" of those to very different IDEAS being connected in any way.


Trump is absolutely right to be a Nationalist. He is a NATIONAL leader.


It is his JOB to work for the NATION's interests.


Your attempt to smear him with "white nationalist, utterly proves the point of the OP.

Did you listen to scaramuccis explanation that I posted? Doesn’t sound like you’ve been paying attention. Go listen to it and let me know what you disagree with

YOu got a point to make in response to my post, make it.


Otherwise, just thank me for educating you.

I had a question in response to your statement? Have you been paying attention to this conversation? We’ve been discussing the use of the term nationalism and I brought up the points that Scaramucci made regarding the subject. It appears you haven’t even listened to his points which I’m trying to discuss

 

[bripat9643]

You can see their body count here:

DEATH BY GOVERNMENT: GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER

Would you say Stalin and Hitler were nationalists?

Certainly not Stalin. Hitler called himself a nationalist, but he sign pacts with the USSR, Italy, Romania, Finland and Japan.

Are you of the thinking that nationalists want nothing to do with other countries? So if a leader signs a pact with another country you’d call them a globalist? It’s that simple in your mind?

What do you think a "nationalist" is?

By definition it is simple and innocent. It is the ideology of promoting the sovernty and independence of ones nation. When you look at how nationalism has been used through history to build militaries, engage in wars, pursue power and dominance, to promote genocide, to stoke fear and division against engaging with people of other countries, races and religions... you see how ugly a thing it has been and still is associated with. You are ignoring history and playing word games by hiding behind simple definitions and not public perception and understanding that come from over 100 years of history

Internationalist has done far worse. How many people died at the hands of Stalin, the internationalist?

 

[Correll]

You can see their body count here:

DEATH BY GOVERNMENT: GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER

Would you say Stalin and Hitler were nationalists?

Certainly not Stalin. Hitler called himself a nationalist, but he sign pacts with the USSR, Italy, Romania, Finland and Japan.

Are you of the thinking that nationalists want nothing to do with other countries? So if a leader signs a pact with another country you’d call them a globalist? It’s that simple in your mind?

What do you think a "nationalist" is?

By definition it is simple and innocent. It is the ideology of promoting the sovernty and independence of ones nation. When you look at how nationalism has been used through history to build militaries, engage in wars, pursue power and dominance, to promote genocide, to stoke fear and division against engaging with people of other countries, races and religions... you see how ugly a thing it has been and still is associated with. You are ignoring history and playing word games by hiding behind simple definitions and not public perception and understanding that come from over 100 years of history

If you look at world history, EVERYTHING has been used to build militaries, engage in wars, pursue power and dominance, ect ect ect.


INTERNATIONALISM, in forms such as Imperialism and Communism have just as bloody a history.



Yet you support internationalism, "ignoring historical context" of your own.

 

[Slade3200]

I'm seeing the Left amping up their use of the epithet "White Nationalist" to smear any Caucasian who expresses patriotic views in support of the U.S. as a sovereign nation.

Calling someone a RACIST is worn out. Normal people see it for the fake "cry wolf" that it is. So now, the Prog-Dems are accusing Normal White people of being what is actually the roots of the Prog-Dem ideology: Neo-KKK.

Don't be fooled. The Real White Racists are the Democrat-Prog descendants of the Democrat Ku Klux Klan.

To say that modern day democrats hold the same values as those from nearly 100 years ago is just stupid. It’s not true of either party. Also White Supremasists and Nazis have adopted the Nationalist term going back to the Germans and WW2 and other commie societies. It is part of an effort to normalize white supremacy in our modern times. When we have a president calling himself a nationalist it is absolutely embarassing. He is either clueless about the historical context of the phrase or he is rallying a base of really ugly people.

You start talking about White Nationalism, and then suddenly switch to talking about Nationalism.


Their is not historical "context" of those to very different IDEAS being connected in any way.


Trump is absolutely right to be a Nationalist. He is a NATIONAL leader.


It is his JOB to work for the NATION's interests.


Your attempt to smear him with "white nationalist, utterly proves the point of the OP.

Thank you. Slade is disingenuously promoting the fallacious logic:

- Some white people are racists
- Some white people believe in nationalism instead of globalism
- Therefore, white people are Racist White Nationalists

In realityland, the phrase "white nationalist" means white who promote racial segregation. Today, the racial segregation is being promoted by Progs who want to exclude white people (i.e. campus safe space, racial segregated dorms, anti white privilege curriculum and required diversity training).

Ha! Talk about disingenuous. Way to pivot away from the arguement and go after progs in school. Nice try buddy, but you still ignore or show lack of understanding of the context and history behind the phrase nationalism.

You've done nothing to support your absurd claim.

i posted a video of a trump ally explaining it very well which you apparently didn’t watch. So why should I waste more time explaining my point. You don’t seem interested in hearing it.

 

[Correll]

I'm seeing the Left amping up their use of the epithet "White Nationalist" to smear any Caucasian who expresses patriotic views in support of the U.S. as a sovereign nation.

Calling someone a RACIST is worn out. Normal people see it for the fake "cry wolf" that it is. So now, the Prog-Dems are accusing Normal White people of being what is actually the roots of the Prog-Dem ideology: Neo-KKK.

Don't be fooled. The Real White Racists are the Democrat-Prog descendants of the Democrat Ku Klux Klan.

To say that modern day democrats hold the same values as those from nearly 100 years ago is just stupid. It’s not true of either party. Also White Supremasists and Nazis have adopted the Nationalist term going back to the Germans and WW2 and other commie societies. It is part of an effort to normalize white supremacy in our modern times. When we have a president calling himself a nationalist it is absolutely embarassing. He is either clueless about the historical context of the phrase or he is rallying a base of really ugly people.

You start talking about White Nationalism, and then suddenly switch to talking about Nationalism.


Their is not historical "context" of those to very different IDEAS being connected in any way.


Trump is absolutely right to be a Nationalist. He is a NATIONAL leader.


It is his JOB to work for the NATION's interests.


Your attempt to smear him with "white nationalist, utterly proves the point of the OP.

Did you listen to scaramuccis explanation that I posted? Doesn’t sound like you’ve been paying attention. Go listen to it and let me know what you disagree with

YOu got a point to make in response to my post, make it.


Otherwise, just thank me for educating you.

I had a question in response to your statement? Have you been paying attention to this conversation? We’ve been discussing the use of the term nationalism and I brought up the points that Scaramucci made regarding the subject. It appears you haven’t even listened to his points which I’m trying to discuss

I have been paying attention. If you made the point before, it is possible I missed it.


For all I've seen from you, is senseless conflating and emotional generalizations.


I made a post that addressed what I saw you post. If you have a response to that, make it, or make it again.

Or retire from the field and admit you lost.

 

[Correll]

To say that modern day democrats hold the same values as those from nearly 100 years ago is just stupid. It’s not true of either party. Also White Supremasists and Nazis have adopted the Nationalist term going back to the Germans and WW2 and other commie societies. It is part of an effort to normalize white supremacy in our modern times. When we have a president calling himself a nationalist it is absolutely embarassing. He is either clueless about the historical context of the phrase or he is rallying a base of really ugly people.

You start talking about White Nationalism, and then suddenly switch to talking about Nationalism.


Their is not historical "context" of those to very different IDEAS being connected in any way.


Trump is absolutely right to be a Nationalist. He is a NATIONAL leader.


It is his JOB to work for the NATION's interests.


Your attempt to smear him with "white nationalist, utterly proves the point of the OP.

Thank you. Slade is disingenuously promoting the fallacious logic:

- Some white people are racists
- Some white people believe in nationalism instead of globalism
- Therefore, white people are Racist White Nationalists

In realityland, the phrase "white nationalist" means white who promote racial segregation. Today, the racial segregation is being promoted by Progs who want to exclude white people (i.e. campus safe space, racial segregated dorms, anti white privilege curriculum and required diversity training).

Ha! Talk about disingenuous. Way to pivot away from the arguement and go after progs in school. Nice try buddy, but you still ignore or show lack of understanding of the context and history behind the phrase nationalism.

You've done nothing to support your absurd claim.

i posted a video of a trump ally explaining it very well which you apparently didn’t watch. So why should I waste more time explaining my point. You don’t seem interested in hearing it.

I almost never watch such vids. I dont' defer to Authority very often. If you have a point that you think makes your case, then make it in your own words.

 

[Slade3200]

Would you say Stalin and Hitler were nationalists?

Certainly not Stalin. Hitler called himself a nationalist, but he sign pacts with the USSR, Italy, Romania, Finland and Japan.

Are you of the thinking that nationalists want nothing to do with other countries? So if a leader signs a pact with another country you’d call them a globalist? It’s that simple in your mind?

What do you think a "nationalist" is?

By definition it is simple and innocent. It is the ideology of promoting the sovernty and independence of ones nation. When you look at how nationalism has been used through history to build militaries, engage in wars, pursue power and dominance, to promote genocide, to stoke fear and division against engaging with people of other countries, races and religions... you see how ugly a thing it has been and still is associated with. You are ignoring history and playing word games by hiding behind simple definitions and not public perception and understanding that come from over 100 years of history

Internationalist has done far worse. How many people died at the hands of Stalin, the internationalist?

I don’t agree that Stalin was an internationalist. I think he used nationalism to build support for his army, justify mass genocide of his people and to pursue military domination to become a world super power.

 

[Correll]

Certainly not Stalin. Hitler called himself a nationalist, but he sign pacts with the USSR, Italy, Romania, Finland and Japan.

Are you of the thinking that nationalists want nothing to do with other countries? So if a leader signs a pact with another country you’d call them a globalist? It’s that simple in your mind?

What do you think a "nationalist" is?

By definition it is simple and innocent. It is the ideology of promoting the sovernty and independence of ones nation. When you look at how nationalism has been used through history to build militaries, engage in wars, pursue power and dominance, to promote genocide, to stoke fear and division against engaging with people of other countries, races and religions... you see how ugly a thing it has been and still is associated with. You are ignoring history and playing word games by hiding behind simple definitions and not public perception and understanding that come from over 100 years of history

Internationalist has done far worse. How many people died at the hands of Stalin, the internationalist?

I don’t agree that Stalin was an internationalist. I think he used nationalism to build support for his army, justify mass genocide of his people and to pursue military domination to become a world super power.

YOu sorry the Nazis didn't have an easier time conquering Europe? Cause that's what Stalin's use of Nationalism was about, fighting invaders of the Nation of Russia.

IMO, that was a good thing.


Nationalism did not justify the mass murder and genocide that Stalin did. Internationalism, in the form of Communism did that.

 

[Slade3200]

Would you say Stalin and Hitler were nationalists?

Certainly not Stalin. Hitler called himself a nationalist, but he sign pacts with the USSR, Italy, Romania, Finland and Japan.

Are you of the thinking that nationalists want nothing to do with other countries? So if a leader signs a pact with another country you’d call them a globalist? It’s that simple in your mind?

What do you think a "nationalist" is?

By definition it is simple and innocent. It is the ideology of promoting the sovernty and independence of ones nation. When you look at how nationalism has been used through history to build militaries, engage in wars, pursue power and dominance, to promote genocide, to stoke fear and division against engaging with people of other countries, races and religions... you see how ugly a thing it has been and still is associated with. You are ignoring history and playing word games by hiding behind simple definitions and not public perception and understanding that come from over 100 years of history

If you look at world history, EVERYTHING has been used to build militaries, engage in wars, pursue power and dominance, ect ect ect.


INTERNATIONALISM, in forms such as Imperialism and Communism have just as bloody a history.



Yet you support internationalism, "ignoring historical context" of your own.

I don’t see internationalism being used by people like Hitler, white supremasists and the Kim Jung Uns of the world to define themselves and promote disgusting ideologies of division, hate and war. Would you care to explain how internationalism has been used to define harmful ideologies?

 

[Slade3200]

To say that modern day democrats hold the same values as those from nearly 100 years ago is just stupid. It’s not true of either party. Also White Supremasists and Nazis have adopted the Nationalist term going back to the Germans and WW2 and other commie societies. It is part of an effort to normalize white supremacy in our modern times. When we have a president calling himself a nationalist it is absolutely embarassing. He is either clueless about the historical context of the phrase or he is rallying a base of really ugly people.

You start talking about White Nationalism, and then suddenly switch to talking about Nationalism.


Their is not historical "context" of those to very different IDEAS being connected in any way.


Trump is absolutely right to be a Nationalist. He is a NATIONAL leader.


It is his JOB to work for the NATION's interests.


Your attempt to smear him with "white nationalist, utterly proves the point of the OP.

Did you listen to scaramuccis explanation that I posted? Doesn’t sound like you’ve been paying attention. Go listen to it and let me know what you disagree with

YOu got a point to make in response to my post, make it.


Otherwise, just thank me for educating you.

I had a question in response to your statement? Have you been paying attention to this conversation? We’ve been discussing the use of the term nationalism and I brought up the points that Scaramucci made regarding the subject. It appears you haven’t even listened to his points which I’m trying to discuss

I have been paying attention. If you made the point before, it is possible I missed it.


For all I've seen from you, is senseless conflating and emotional generalizations.


I made a post that addressed what I saw you post. If you have a response to that, make it, or make it again.

Or retire from the field and admit you lost.

I reposted the video I’ve been talking about. Watch it and tell me what you disagree with. I’m not typing it all out again. I’ll let the Mooch do the talking... and he is sticking up for Trump btw.

 

[Slade3200]

You start talking about White Nationalism, and then suddenly switch to talking about Nationalism.


Their is not historical "context" of those to very different IDEAS being connected in any way.


Trump is absolutely right to be a Nationalist. He is a NATIONAL leader.


It is his JOB to work for the NATION's interests.


Your attempt to smear him with "white nationalist, utterly proves the point of the OP.

Thank you. Slade is disingenuously promoting the fallacious logic:

- Some white people are racists
- Some white people believe in nationalism instead of globalism
- Therefore, white people are Racist White Nationalists

In realityland, the phrase "white nationalist" means white who promote racial segregation. Today, the racial segregation is being promoted by Progs who want to exclude white people (i.e. campus safe space, racial segregated dorms, anti white privilege curriculum and required diversity training).

Ha! Talk about disingenuous. Way to pivot away from the arguement and go after progs in school. Nice try buddy, but you still ignore or show lack of understanding of the context and history behind the phrase nationalism.

You've done nothing to support your absurd claim.

i posted a video of a trump ally explaining it very well which you apparently didn’t watch. So why should I waste more time explaining my point. You don’t seem interested in hearing it.

I almost never watch such vids. I dont' defer to Authority very often. If you have a point that you think makes your case, then make it in your own words.

I’ve been making it but you joined the conversation late so I’m not going to retype everything. Go back and read the discussion or watch a 5 minute video and we can go from there

 

[Correll]

Certainly not Stalin. Hitler called himself a nationalist, but he sign pacts with the USSR, Italy, Romania, Finland and Japan.

Are you of the thinking that nationalists want nothing to do with other countries? So if a leader signs a pact with another country you’d call them a globalist? It’s that simple in your mind?

What do you think a "nationalist" is?

By definition it is simple and innocent. It is the ideology of promoting the sovernty and independence of ones nation. When you look at how nationalism has been used through history to build militaries, engage in wars, pursue power and dominance, to promote genocide, to stoke fear and division against engaging with people of other countries, races and religions... you see how ugly a thing it has been and still is associated with. You are ignoring history and playing word games by hiding behind simple definitions and not public perception and understanding that come from over 100 years of history

If you look at world history, EVERYTHING has been used to build militaries, engage in wars, pursue power and dominance, ect ect ect.


INTERNATIONALISM, in forms such as Imperialism and Communism have just as bloody a history.



Yet you support internationalism, "ignoring historical context" of your own.

I don’t see internationalism being used by people like Hitler, white supremasists and the Kim Jung Uns of the world to define themselves and promote disgusting ideologies of division, hate and war. Would you care to explain how internationalism has been used to define harmful ideologies?

Sure.

You take an attractive international ideology, such as Islam or Communism, and motivate people to fight for it, to build militaries, engage in terrorism and wars, pursue power and dominance, engage in genocide, to stoke fear and division against engaging with people of other countries, races and religions and ideologies.


For ONE example. There are others.

 

[Slade3200]

Are you of the thinking that nationalists want nothing to do with other countries? So if a leader signs a pact with another country you’d call them a globalist? It’s that simple in your mind?

What do you think a "nationalist" is?

By definition it is simple and innocent. It is the ideology of promoting the sovernty and independence of ones nation. When you look at how nationalism has been used through history to build militaries, engage in wars, pursue power and dominance, to promote genocide, to stoke fear and division against engaging with people of other countries, races and religions... you see how ugly a thing it has been and still is associated with. You are ignoring history and playing word games by hiding behind simple definitions and not public perception and understanding that come from over 100 years of history

Internationalist has done far worse. How many people died at the hands of Stalin, the internationalist?

I don’t agree that Stalin was an internationalist. I think he used nationalism to build support for his army, justify mass genocide of his people and to pursue military domination to become a world super power.

YOu sorry the Nazis didn't have an easier time conquering Europe? Cause that's what Stalin's use of Nationalism was about, fighting invaders of the Nation of Russia.

IMO, that was a good thing.


Nationalism did not justify the mass murder and genocide that Stalin did. Internationalism, in the form of Communism did that.

How is communism internationalism?

And don’t forgot Stalin first joined with the Nazis to invade Poland in 1939 before they became enemies in 41

 

[Slade3200]

Are you of the thinking that nationalists want nothing to do with other countries? So if a leader signs a pact with another country you’d call them a globalist? It’s that simple in your mind?

What do you think a "nationalist" is?

By definition it is simple and innocent. It is the ideology of promoting the sovernty and independence of ones nation. When you look at how nationalism has been used through history to build militaries, engage in wars, pursue power and dominance, to promote genocide, to stoke fear and division against engaging with people of other countries, races and religions... you see how ugly a thing it has been and still is associated with. You are ignoring history and playing word games by hiding behind simple definitions and not public perception and understanding that come from over 100 years of history

Internationalist has done far worse. How many people died at the hands of Stalin, the internationalist?

I don’t agree that Stalin was an internationalist. I think he used nationalism to build support for his army, justify mass genocide of his people and to pursue military domination to become a world super power.

YOu sorry the Nazis didn't have an easier time conquering Europe? Cause that's what Stalin's use of Nationalism was about, fighting invaders of the Nation of Russia.

IMO, that was a good thing.


Nationalism did not justify the mass murder and genocide that Stalin did. Internationalism, in the form of Communism did that.

OK, what do you think motivated Stalin and justified the genocide?

 

[WheelieAddict]

I'm seeing the Left amping up their use of the epithet "White Nationalist" to smear any Caucasian who expresses patriotic views in support of the U.S. as a sovereign nation.

Calling someone a RACIST is worn out. Normal people see it for the fake "cry wolf" that it is. So now, the Prog-Dems are accusing Normal White people of being what is actually the roots of the Prog-Dem ideology: Neo-KKK.

Don't be fooled. The Real White Racists are the Democrat-Prog descendants of the Democrat Ku Klux Klan.

Nope
Alt-right - Wikipedia

 

[Slade3200]

Are you of the thinking that nationalists want nothing to do with other countries? So if a leader signs a pact with another country you’d call them a globalist? It’s that simple in your mind?

What do you think a "nationalist" is?

By definition it is simple and innocent. It is the ideology of promoting the sovernty and independence of ones nation. When you look at how nationalism has been used through history to build militaries, engage in wars, pursue power and dominance, to promote genocide, to stoke fear and division against engaging with people of other countries, races and religions... you see how ugly a thing it has been and still is associated with. You are ignoring history and playing word games by hiding behind simple definitions and not public perception and understanding that come from over 100 years of history

If you look at world history, EVERYTHING has been used to build militaries, engage in wars, pursue power and dominance, ect ect ect.


INTERNATIONALISM, in forms such as Imperialism and Communism have just as bloody a history.



Yet you support internationalism, "ignoring historical context" of your own.

I don’t see internationalism being used by people like Hitler, white supremasists and the Kim Jung Uns of the world to define themselves and promote disgusting ideologies of division, hate and war. Would you care to explain how internationalism has been used to define harmful ideologies?

Sure.

You take an attractive international ideology, such as Islam or Communism, and motivate people to fight for it, to build militaries, engage in terrorism and wars, pursue power and dominance, engage in genocide, to stoke fear and division against engaging with people of other countries, races and religions and ideologies.


For ONE example. There are others.

Specifically how has it been used to promote those things. What examples do you have? How is communism the same as internationalism?

 

[Correll]

You start talking about White Nationalism, and then suddenly switch to talking about Nationalism.


Their is not historical "context" of those to very different IDEAS being connected in any way.


Trump is absolutely right to be a Nationalist. He is a NATIONAL leader.


It is his JOB to work for the NATION's interests.


Your attempt to smear him with "white nationalist, utterly proves the point of the OP.

Did you listen to scaramuccis explanation that I posted? Doesn’t sound like you’ve been paying attention. Go listen to it and let me know what you disagree with

YOu got a point to make in response to my post, make it.


Otherwise, just thank me for educating you.

I had a question in response to your statement? Have you been paying attention to this conversation? We’ve been discussing the use of the term nationalism and I brought up the points that Scaramucci made regarding the subject. It appears you haven’t even listened to his points which I’m trying to discuss

I have been paying attention. If you made the point before, it is possible I missed it.


For all I've seen from you, is senseless conflating and emotional generalizations.


I made a post that addressed what I saw you post. If you have a response to that, make it, or make it again.

Or retire from the field and admit you lost.

I reposted the video I’ve been talking about. Watch it and tell me what you disagree with. I’m not typing it all out again. I’ll let the Mooch do the talking... and he is sticking up for Trump btw.

I watched the first couple of minutes. It seems you just have a republican who has accepted the left's new spin on the word "nationalist".


Nationalism does not mean that Trump "wants to use his rhetoric to start a war and prove America is better than Imperial Japan".


That was a very stupid thing to say.