Nationalists or Socialists?
- Thread starter Pokeabear
- Start date
I heard there was a party last century that combined those two phrases. Might have been from Germany. Can’t remember if it worked out or not. Either way, can we stay away from both, please?
Do you think the US’s immigration policy should be more like Israel’s or less?
It’s hard to suss out your position from memes you found on the Internet.
How does one fulfill the oath of office without being nationalist? Honest question, I don’t know.
So, does that make everyone on this board a racist? I mean we all are OSU nationalist, right? Most of us are Oklahoma or Texas nationalists to some degree.. Are we not all USA nationalists or at least should be.
Move the goalpost to fit the lefts agenda.. I get it..
Move the goalpost to fit the lefts agenda.. I get it..
Maybe you are saying if you want the US Olympic team to win that makes you a national racist too?
I'm afraid you are having a discussion with people who have little to no understanding of what is "nationalism." They seem to be under the impression that nationalism is little more than pride in one's country of origin. They do not understand the depths of destruction such a philosophy causes.
Amen. Ther is a reason in this country Presidents have chose to use the word Patriotism instead. Nationalism is a scourge.
So, you are saying that the POTUS is getting on TV and proudly proclaiming that he embraces deep levels of destruction?
I'm saying nationalism, like socialism, utters sweet sounding rhetoric that when put into practice causes economic decline and chaos in international relations, not to mention internal strife among citizens of the country practicing it. Donald Trump has embraced the rhetoric (probably believes it) and has uttered those sweet sounds to naïve people who have joined his team and will follow him over the cliff's edge. Remember: he thinks he could shoot someone on the street and his adoring followers would cheer him. Nationalism leads to destruction very similar to socialism.
You're focusing on the wrong thing. No, of course I didn't take that quote literally. With DJT you can't take anything that comes out of his mouth literally. Trump is very clever. He knows how to say things that will set the left's hair on fire while evoking great joy among his adoring fans. What he says is cleverly designed to be interpreted in many ways. Actually, now that I think about it that's a pretty good description of nationalist rhetoric, which, when analyzed is virulently destructive. But it sounds so good to the true believers that the destructive elements are either dismissed as misinterpretation by enemies or simply ignored as not to be taken literally. I do not necessarily think Trump is evil and wants to bring destruction down upon us. I believe he is naïve about the true nature of nationalism, much in the same way Obama was naïve about the true nature of his socialist agenda.
My points were dumb and meant to be just like being upset about using "nationalism". I did it so see to see how many people here would get butt hurt about it. I am so sick of people being such crybabies.. I guess 20% of millennials now claim they have PTSD because Trump was elected. You cant say "you know that" followed my a phrase like "it going to rain tomorrow, right?" because "you know that" mights make people feel dumb if they really dont know that.
Sure.
Did I hurt your feelings? Maybe you and your people can sick Satan on me..
I want America to be self-sufficient. That’s not possible - we don’t have everything we need here for our economy to run on 8 cylinders.
So what am I? Somewhere in the middle perhaps? Or am I a “globalist” in your eyes?
Maybe everyone in this thread should give their definition of Nationalist. It could be that much of the disagreement is in everyone's definition of the word.
From the Oxford English language dictionary.
nationalist
NOUN
- 1A person who strongly identifies with their own nation and vigorously supports its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.
‘he was a staunch nationalist during his 22 years in power’
- 1.1 A person who advocates or supports the political independence of a particular nation or people.
‘a Basque nationalist’
- 1.1 A person who advocates or supports the political independence of a particular nation or people.
I don't define the terms , it's already been decided. My eyes aren't part of the discussion.
My question would be why all the hand wringing of someone being a nationalist?
My question would be why all the hand wringing of someone being a nationalist?
From Wikipedia....
Nationalism is a political, social, and economic system characterized by the promotion of the interests of a particular nation, especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining sovereignty (self-governance) over the homeland. The political ideology of nationalism holds that a nation should govern itself, free from outside interference and is linked to the concept of self-determination.
Nationalism is a political, social, and economic system characterized by the promotion of the interests of a particular nation, especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining sovereignty (self-governance) over the homeland. The political ideology of nationalism holds that a nation should govern itself, free from outside interference and is linked to the concept of self-determination.
If you don’t see the problem with someone being a nationalist, than I can’t imagine you could have a problem w someone being a socialist. Or argue why that’s wrong. They both lead down the same bad road. It’s been shown time after time in history. I have no problem having America being first in the mind of our president, but if it’s at all cost regardless of the outcome of the world and our allies, then you have a problem.
Again, Nationalism, like Socialism, is actually really good on paper. Actually both of them together is even better. A sovereign nation not being bothered by foreign states where everyone is on an equal playing field. Everyone shares everything. That’s great. It’s what it ultimately breeds is what’s bad. Just look at history.
This makes no sense to me. The American Revolution is the de-facto example of Nationalism.and you're trying to make a case that it's bad.
Well, when 20-something’s wearing MAGA hats and tiki torches yelling “BLOOD AND SOIL!!!” And “YOU WILL NOT REPLACE US”, then it’s starting to get bad.
That's your litmus test for being a nationalist?
Excellent idea! Many people seem to think that a nationalist philosophy means nothing more than taking exceptional pride in one’s nation’s accomplishments. And that is the core element of the philodophy. It’s been 50-55 years since I studied this at any length, so bare with me, my memory about specifics is a little clouded.
As I recall the impetus for nationalism began with a philosopher whose name escapes me, who attempted to unite societies by comparing countries to an orchestra. He waxed eloquent about how each country has unique strengths that, combined with the unique strengths of the other countries can bring peace and harmony and prosperity to the entire human race in much the same way that the various instruments of an orchestra can unite their individual tones to create great music. It was a truly beautiful idea.
But it essentially became corrupted by various philosophers and politicians who viewed relations between the countries as a harsh competition, dog eat dog, if you fon’t win you lose. The German philosophers grabbed on to the “competitive” version.
Rather than countries cooperating with each other the “competitive” version took hold and served to create strife, prejudice and hatred.
Gotta go pick up my son at the airport. I’ll continue this later if anyone is interested.9
Similar threads
