TexasCHLforum.com

Jusme wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 4:54 pm

flechero wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 4:50 pm

anygunanywhere wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 11:26 am Can someone explain to me why nationalism is bad?

Simply put- because Trump said it was good.

Exactly, if Trump came out tomorrow, and wanted to help the global economy, make friends with terrorist regimes, and open our borders, the left would do a uturn so fast they would all get whiplash.

Orange man bad! In fact blame things Obama did on bad orange man!

Jusme wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 4:54 pm

flechero wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 4:50 pm

anygunanywhere wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 11:26 am Can someone explain to me why nationalism is bad?

Simply put- because Trump said it was good.

Exactly, if Trump came out tomorrow, and wanted to help the global economy, make friends with terrorist regimes, and open our borders, the left would do a uturn so fast they would all get whiplash.

Is that why they support legalizing bump stocks now?

joe817 wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 5:34 pm

Redneck_Buddha wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 1:28 pm As a nationalist and a jingoist, I see no problem with it at all.

I think I can be a nationalist but not a jingoist:

"Jingoists really dislike people from outside their own borders. Jingoism is an extreme form of patriotism that often calls for violence towards foreigners and foreign countries.

Patriotism — a love for one's country — can, in certain cases, turn nasty and go beyond wishing for the welfare of one's own homeland. That's when a patriot becomes a nationalist. From there, it's only a short step to becoming a jingoist, one who not only waves the flag of their country but believes that all other people are threats and should be treated as such. An obvious example of a jingoist was Adolf Hitler, who stirred up fear and anger towards outsiders that led to world war...and much worse."

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/jingoist

I'm more of a 1984 Los Angeles Olympics jingoist, than a hard-core xenophobic jingoist. You can ask my friends in Nepal, India, Morocco, Jordan, etc...

Jingo. A perfectly good word that describes a perfectly good inclination. It became derogatory somehow, and that's where we are with that word.

Good discussions here. Thanks!

Redneck_Buddha wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:46 pm

joe817 wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 5:34 pm

Redneck_Buddha wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 1:28 pm As a nationalist and a jingoist, I see no problem with it at all.

I think I can be a nationalist but not a jingoist:

"Jingoists really dislike people from outside their own borders. Jingoism is an extreme form of patriotism that often calls for violence towards foreigners and foreign countries.

Patriotism — a love for one's country — can, in certain cases, turn nasty and go beyond wishing for the welfare of one's own homeland. That's when a patriot becomes a nationalist. From there, it's only a short step to becoming a jingoist, one who not only waves the flag of their country but believes that all other people are threats and should be treated as such. An obvious example of a jingoist was Adolf Hitler, who stirred up fear and anger towards outsiders that led to world war...and much worse."

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/jingoist

I'm more of a 1984 Los Angeles Olympics jingoist, than a hard-core xenophobic jingoist. You can ask my friends in Nepal, India, Morocco, Jordan, etc...

Okay I have a question? If hitler was a jingoist and had a fear/hatred of foreigners then why did he invade and seize Poland? Poland was full of the poles and not Germans! He had every intention to capture all of Europe and the United States which was not full of Germans, he himself was from Austria, sooo how was he a jingoist by the definition of the word? How about he was just a run of the mill Megalomaniac!

Grumpy1993 wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 5:22 pm

bblhd672 wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 12:21 pm

anygunanywhere wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 11:26 am Can someone explain to me why nationalism is bad?

What say you'se guys?

Because the radical globalists and the progressive socialists said its wrong.

That's it in a nutshell.

Progressives [sic] are, with rare if any exception, globalists. They dream of a world subject to their authority. Therefore, nationalism and tribalism are "bad" because they put the needs of one's own family, kith, countrymen, etc. ahead of a stranger halfway across the world. That is anathema to globalism. Except when they can use it to gain power.

Further, it's "wrong" to help (or favor) people based on your value system. Why? Because that violates a fundamental socialist principle: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

What Grumpy said. Also, globalists conflate nationalism with jingoism. Jingoism is a variety of nationalism that has thrown caution and sobriety to the winds, and advocates for an aggressive and belligerent foreign policy. Jingoists are a subset of nationalism, but nowhere near all nationalists are jingoist. For example, a LARGE segment of conservative nationalists are against any more foreign interventions in the Middle East, while it tends to be leftists that push a vigorous and aggressive foreign policy these days.

A globalist wants open borders as a vehicle to dismantling nationhood. He puts the interests of foreign invaders ahead of those who are either native born, or who follow the immigration process as described by law. He thinks that the citizens of other nations in the hemisphere should be allowed to contribute toward determine American policy by being allowed to vote in American elections.

A nationalist wants controlled borders, including a vigorous use of deportation - with due process - where called for by law, as a means to protect the republic while still having peace with our neighbors. He thinks that the best way to protect our political process is to ensure that anybody who is not a citizen with the right to vote, is punished for voter fraud if they cast a ballot in an American election....at any level.

A jingoist would "control the border" by both a total lockdown AND by threatening Mexico with war and invasion if it doesn’t get its act together. He thinks that the best way to protect the sanctity of the vote is to remove voting rights from American citizens who do not belong to his favored groups - however one defines that.

Those are extreme examples, but they help to clarify the definitions. I am myself a nationalist, although I have little faith in the nation's continued existence without there being some kind of cataclysmic event which wakes people up and forces them to take stock [abbreviated profanity deleted] their own complicity in its fall....and that charge includes some conservatives too.