White Nationalist Epithet Is A Smear

[Slade3200]

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.

That is a stupid thing to say. And you are the only person I’ve heard say it. Kiddos for attempting to watch it

 

[Correll]

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

Communism defines the history of the world as one of class struggle. That is opposed on a fundamental level to the idea that citizens of a nation have a bond that cuts across class lines.


Communism envisions an end game where the State fades away. That is not possible if States survive elsewhere.



Communism called on the Workers of the World to Unite.



And how does Stalin cooperating with Hitler undermine the idea that he was an Internationalist?

 

[Correll]

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.

That is a stupid thing to say. And you are the only person I’ve heard say it. Kiddos for attempting to watch it

The man you pointed me to, to learn about your use of the word nationalism, said that.


At what point does he make a point that you think supports your position, ie that nationalism is bad?

 

[Correll]

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?

Communism, the international ideology of communism.


They were counterrevolutionaries.


Hell, I had a marxist on this very site tell me just last weak that counter revolutionaries need to be "dealt with".

 

[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.

Nope
Alt-right - Wikipedia

 

[bripat9643]

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.

He was the official head of international communism, moron.

 

[Correll]

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?

The Korean War is a specific example. The Communist North Koreans indoctrinated their people with the lies that their enemies were imperial lap dogs


They were given massive material support from the Communists Soviet Union, for Ideological reasons, in fighting against the world leader of the Capitalist system, ie the US.



The communists Chinese, did both.


Vastly different nations, with vastly different cultures, and very importantly often CONFLICTING national interests, brought together by ideology to wage war against their ideological enemy,

the capitalist West.


Would you like another one?

 

[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

View attachment 226477

 

[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.

Nope
Alt-right - Wikipedia

View attachment 226477

 

[Slade3200]

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

Communism defines the history of the world as one of class struggle. That is opposed on a fundamental level to the idea that citizens of a nation have a bond that cuts across class lines.


Communism envisions an end game where the State fades away. That is not possible if States survive elsewhere.



Communism called on the Workers of the World to Unite.



And how does Stalin cooperating with Hitler undermine the idea that he was an Internationalist?

Communism is an ideology of common ownership of the means of production and the elimination of classes. I, in no way, agree with or would promote communism. I also was mistaken by conflating internatioanalism with globalism. When I was using the term internationalism I was thinking globalism. So that’s my bad.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

That is a stupid thing to say. And you are the only person I’ve heard say it. Kiddos for attempting to watch it

The man you pointed me to, to learn about your use of the word nationalism, said that.


At what point does he make a point that you think supports your position, ie that nationalism is bad?

He gives some useful insight I to the historical context of the term nationalism and why it is not an appropriate term for our president to be using. That I agree with

 

[Slade3200]

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?

The Korean War is a specific example. The Communist North Koreans indoctrinated their people with the lies that their enemies were imperial lap dogs


They were given massive material support from the Communists Soviet Union, for Ideological reasons, in fighting against the world leader of the Capitalist system, ie the US.



The communists Chinese, did both.


Vastly different nations, with vastly different cultures, and very importantly often CONFLICTING national interests, brought together by ideology to wage war against their ideological enemy,

the capitalist West.


Would you like another one?

So I guess we could say that a leader can be both a nationalist and practice internationalism at the same time. They aren’t necessarily opposites. Would you agree?

 

[Correll]

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.

That is a stupid thing to say. And you are the only person I’ve heard say it. Kiddos for attempting to watch it

The man you pointed me to, to learn about your use of the word nationalism, said that.


At what point does he make a point that you think supports your position, ie that nationalism is bad?

He gives some useful insight I to the historical context of the term nationalism and why it is not an appropriate term for our president to be using. That I agree with

Does it get better later on? cause all I saw was him just accepting the lib premise that conflates the two concepts.

 

[Correll]

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?

The Korean War is a specific example. The Communist North Koreans indoctrinated their people with the lies that their enemies were imperial lap dogs


They were given massive material support from the Communists Soviet Union, for Ideological reasons, in fighting against the world leader of the Capitalist system, ie the US.



The communists Chinese, did both.


Vastly different nations, with vastly different cultures, and very importantly often CONFLICTING national interests, brought together by ideology to wage war against their ideological enemy,

the capitalist West.


Would you like another one?

So I guess we could say that a leader can be both a nationalist and practice internationalism at the same time. They aren’t necessarily opposites. Would you agree?

Depends what you mean by internationalism.


Nationalism is putting the interests of you nation first. If you define Internationalism as NOT doing that, then indeed they are opposites.


Trump wants to limit immigration to benefit citizens of the American Nation.


American citizens by definition have a right to expect that national policy will be crafted for the benefit of national citizens.


Anyone that thinks the needs of the caravan for say, some reason off "fairness" or "charity" is more important that the self interests of Americans, or the Right of Americans to define America,


is being an Internationalist and opposing the very bedrock of Nationalism.

 

[boedicca]

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?

The Korean War is a specific example. The Communist North Koreans indoctrinated their people with the lies that their enemies were imperial lap dogs


They were given massive material support from the Communists Soviet Union, for Ideological reasons, in fighting against the world leader of the Capitalist system, ie the US.



The communists Chinese, did both.


Vastly different nations, with vastly different cultures, and very importantly often CONFLICTING national interests, brought together by ideology to wage war against their ideological enemy,

the capitalist West.


Would you like another one?

So I guess we could say that a leader can be both a nationalist and practice internationalism at the same time. They aren’t necessarily opposites. Would you agree?

Depends what you mean by internationalism.


Nationalism is putting the interests of you nation first. If you define Internationalism as NOT doing that, then indeed they are opposites.


Trump wants to limit immigration to benefit citizens of the American Nation.


American citizens by definition have a right to expect that national policy will be crafted for the benefit of national citizens.


Anyone that thinks the needs of the caravan for say, some reason off "fairness" or "charity" is more important that the self interests of Americans, or the Right of Americans to define America,


is being an Internationalist and opposing the very bedrock of Nationalism.

Trump is appealing to the very rational human self-interest of putting the welfare of oneself and ones' family, community and country ahead of that of foreign nations.

The Progs do the reverse. They insist that we harm ourselves in order to support total strangers that hate us.

 

[Slade3200]

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?

The Korean War is a specific example. The Communist North Koreans indoctrinated their people with the lies that their enemies were imperial lap dogs


They were given massive material support from the Communists Soviet Union, for Ideological reasons, in fighting against the world leader of the Capitalist system, ie the US.



The communists Chinese, did both.


Vastly different nations, with vastly different cultures, and very importantly often CONFLICTING national interests, brought together by ideology to wage war against their ideological enemy,

the capitalist West.


Would you like another one?

So I guess we could say that a leader can be both a nationalist and practice internationalism at the same time. They aren’t necessarily opposites. Would you agree?

Depends what you mean by internationalism.


Nationalism is putting the interests of you nation first. If you define Internationalism as NOT doing that, then indeed they are opposites.


Trump wants to limit immigration to benefit citizens of the American Nation.


American citizens by definition have a right to expect that national policy will be crafted for the benefit of national citizens.


Anyone that thinks the needs of the caravan for say, some reason off "fairness" or "charity" is more important that the self interests of Americans, or the Right of Americans to define America,


is being an Internationalist and opposing the very bedrock of Nationalism.

The definition of internationalism that I found was a branch of communism

 

[Slade3200]

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?

The Korean War is a specific example. The Communist North Koreans indoctrinated their people with the lies that their enemies were imperial lap dogs


They were given massive material support from the Communists Soviet Union, for Ideological reasons, in fighting against the world leader of the Capitalist system, ie the US.



The communists Chinese, did both.


Vastly different nations, with vastly different cultures, and very importantly often CONFLICTING national interests, brought together by ideology to wage war against their ideological enemy,

the capitalist West.


Would you like another one?

So I guess we could say that a leader can be both a nationalist and practice internationalism at the same time. They aren’t necessarily opposites. Would you agree?

Depends what you mean by internationalism.


Nationalism is putting the interests of you nation first. If you define Internationalism as NOT doing that, then indeed they are opposites.


Trump wants to limit immigration to benefit citizens of the American Nation.


American citizens by definition have a right to expect that national policy will be crafted for the benefit of national citizens.


Anyone that thinks the needs of the caravan for say, some reason off "fairness" or "charity" is more important that the self interests of Americans, or the Right of Americans to define America,


is being an Internationalist and opposing the very bedrock of Nationalism.

Trump is appealing to the very rational human self-interest of putting the welfare of oneself and ones' family, community and country ahead of that of foreign nations.

The Progs do the reverse. They insist that we harm ourselves in order to support total strangers that hate us.

Isn’t it crazy that millions of Americans want to harm themselves and their loved ones so they can support criminals? That must blow your mind

 

[Correll]

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?

The Korean War is a specific example. The Communist North Koreans indoctrinated their people with the lies that their enemies were imperial lap dogs


They were given massive material support from the Communists Soviet Union, for Ideological reasons, in fighting against the world leader of the Capitalist system, ie the US.



The communists Chinese, did both.


Vastly different nations, with vastly different cultures, and very importantly often CONFLICTING national interests, brought together by ideology to wage war against their ideological enemy,

the capitalist West.


Would you like another one?

So I guess we could say that a leader can be both a nationalist and practice internationalism at the same time. They aren’t necessarily opposites. Would you agree?

Depends what you mean by internationalism.


Nationalism is putting the interests of you nation first. If you define Internationalism as NOT doing that, then indeed they are opposites.


Trump wants to limit immigration to benefit citizens of the American Nation.


American citizens by definition have a right to expect that national policy will be crafted for the benefit of national citizens.


Anyone that thinks the needs of the caravan for say, some reason off "fairness" or "charity" is more important that the self interests of Americans, or the Right of Americans to define America,


is being an Internationalist and opposing the very bedrock of Nationalism.

The definition of internationalism that I found was a branch of communism

What SHOULD happen, in my Nationalist opinion, is that President Trump should demand that Mexico stops the caravan way before it gets here.


Mexico, looking to their self interest of keeping good relations with their very powerful neighbor, does so, with as much force as needed.



America is grateful for Mexico being a good neighbor and increased co-operation follows.


In this scenario, both NATIONAL leaders are rightfully NATIONALISTIC, in crafting policy that serves the interests of their nation,


WHILE co-operating with each other to shared mutual advantage.



In a sane world, that is what would happen.

 

[Correll]

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

The Korean War is a specific example. The Communist North Koreans indoctrinated their people with the lies that their enemies were imperial lap dogs


They were given massive material support from the Communists Soviet Union, for Ideological reasons, in fighting against the world leader of the Capitalist system, ie the US.



The communists Chinese, did both.


Vastly different nations, with vastly different cultures, and very importantly often CONFLICTING national interests, brought together by ideology to wage war against their ideological enemy,

the capitalist West.


Would you like another one?

So I guess we could say that a leader can be both a nationalist and practice internationalism at the same time. They aren’t necessarily opposites. Would you agree?

Depends what you mean by internationalism.


Nationalism is putting the interests of you nation first. If you define Internationalism as NOT doing that, then indeed they are opposites.


Trump wants to limit immigration to benefit citizens of the American Nation.


American citizens by definition have a right to expect that national policy will be crafted for the benefit of national citizens.


Anyone that thinks the needs of the caravan for say, some reason off "fairness" or "charity" is more important that the self interests of Americans, or the Right of Americans to define America,


is being an Internationalist and opposing the very bedrock of Nationalism.

Trump is appealing to the very rational human self-interest of putting the welfare of oneself and ones' family, community and country ahead of that of foreign nations.

The Progs do the reverse. They insist that we harm ourselves in order to support total strangers that hate us.

Isn’t it crazy that millions of Americans want to harm themselves and their loved ones so they can support criminals? That must blow your mind

The progressives in question, put their idea of "fairness" ahead of the rights of American citizens.



They consider NATIONALISM to be a bad thing, and FAIRNESS, ie treating the "refugess" who have more need, generously at the expense of Americans who have so much more and are just being greedy in their desire to keep it.


They see NATIONALISM as the OPPOSITE of INTERNATIONALISM, or GLOBALISM,


and side with outsiders against their fellow Americans.

 

[Slade3200]

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

The Korean War is a specific example. The Communist North Koreans indoctrinated their people with the lies that their enemies were imperial lap dogs


They were given massive material support from the Communists Soviet Union, for Ideological reasons, in fighting against the world leader of the Capitalist system, ie the US.



The communists Chinese, did both.


Vastly different nations, with vastly different cultures, and very importantly often CONFLICTING national interests, brought together by ideology to wage war against their ideological enemy,

the capitalist West.


Would you like another one?

So I guess we could say that a leader can be both a nationalist and practice internationalism at the same time. They aren’t necessarily opposites. Would you agree?

Depends what you mean by internationalism.


Nationalism is putting the interests of you nation first. If you define Internationalism as NOT doing that, then indeed they are opposites.


Trump wants to limit immigration to benefit citizens of the American Nation.


American citizens by definition have a right to expect that national policy will be crafted for the benefit of national citizens.


Anyone that thinks the needs of the caravan for say, some reason off "fairness" or "charity" is more important that the self interests of Americans, or the Right of Americans to define America,


is being an Internationalist and opposing the very bedrock of Nationalism.

The definition of internationalism that I found was a branch of communism

What SHOULD happen, in my Nationalist opinion, is that President Trump should demand that Mexico stops the caravan way before it gets here.


Mexico, looking to their self interest of keeping good relations with their very powerful neighbor, does so, with as much force as needed.



America is grateful for Mexico being a good neighbor and increased co-operation follows.


In this scenario, both NATIONAL leaders are rightfully NATIONALISTIC, in crafting policy that serves the interests of their nation,


WHILE co-operating with each other to shared mutual advantage.



In a sane world, that is what would happen.

Sounds reasonable. But we are in an election year so bullhorns are going off from both sides. Now we have invaders coming and we need to spend a billion dollars to send the military down for support or to shoot rock throwers. And the other side is just calling everybody racist.