Opinion “Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism"

I'm no expert in Trumpian linguistics but if I had to guess I'd say his interpretation of "nationalism" could be generally described as a populist anti-globalism ideology centered on protectionist economic policy and sovereigntist foreign/immigration policy. It's pretty easy to imagine how this would be a direct affront to EU ideology
Populist anti-globalism... except, you know, undying support for Israeli aggression, soul-less pandering to SA, cuckery to Putin, open declaration of love for Kim, praise for Dueterte, baseless accusations of voting fraud and support of candidates who actually do suppress the vote at home...

What the #maga crowd calls "anti-globablism" looks a lot to me like low-brow anti-cosmopolitanism, rejection of the broad principles of liberal democracy, and support for strongman rule around the world.
 
Macron is, without a question, the leader of the free world, in a time where the leader of the United States would rather cuddle with Russia than align with its traditional allies, the British are occupied with internal struggles, and Germany has a lame duck chancellor.

He's also 100% correct on this issue, and right on the mark pointing this out 100 years after the start of WW1.

France has never been the leader of the free world. Lol. Not even when an Italian commanded their army, and Macron has approval ratings on par with Trump.

Oh and gotta love MSNBC in the morning. Comparing Trump's America First mentality with Authoritarionism. The logic is so sound.
 
No. Patriotism means, I love my country and want what is best for it, especially the achievement of its professed ideals.

Nationalism is, I'll cheer for my flag no matter what.

PATRIOTISM comes from the Latin root pater, meaning Father.

The difference between patriotism and nationalism is the difference between a GOOD parent-- who fosters and supports actions and habits that are healthy-- and a "just there" parent-- who lets his kids eat as much junk food as they want and calls it "love."

Put it another way: unconditional love is no love at all.


No. Trump's definition of nationalism is: "We're America! We'll do whatever we damn well please! Pew pew pew!"

That's pretty much what his supporters support, and what civilized people reject.

I don't see any "misunderstanding."

So if I am reading this correctly...

PATRIOTISM = Love of your country if things are going your way.
NATIONALISM = Unconditonal love of your country.
 
They dont start wars because they are afraid of the USA.

Some sure. The middle east and pakistan and india. Not sure who else. Still dont change fact that by western leftist liberal stances basically all peoole outside the west are nationalist and have nationalist governments. Based on some examples @TheGreatA gave advocsting for your own people being majority and waving a flag can be viewed as "wrong" by some in the EU.

I'd be glad if that was the case. Obama was the leader of the free world. Bush was the leader of the free world despite Iraq. Clinton and all other presidents since WW2 have been.

Trump made it abundantly clear he is not interested in Europe as a partner, and that goes beyond NATO budgeting. It's up to the United States to decide - if the benefits of a common cultural and military sphere for U.S. power projection and soft power are not recognized any more, that's their prerogative. But let's not pretend this will not have an impact on the relationship between Europe and the U.S. or that the American empire will continue to exist in the same way.

Of course the U.S. is, by a large margin, the most powerful country in the world, and it will remain to be for the foreseeable time. And of course it speaks to the sad state of affairs if I proclaim that a French president is the main spokesperson for the West. But I stand by that. Donald Trump has willingly isolated the U.S., apparently this is also backed by American voters, so that is fine. I also think Europe needs to become more self-reliant, which is why I agree with Macron's call for a European army.

@TheGreatA Macron's domestic situation is fragile, yes. That doesn't really touch my point, though.

What tou think of my post replies to you? I fail to see how its an issue. It benefits europe.
 
Populist anti-globalism... except, you know, undying support for Israeli aggression, soul-less pandering to SA, cuckery to Putin, open declaration of love for Kim, praise for Dueterte, baseless accusations of voting fraud and support of candidates who actually do suppress the vote at home...

What the #maga crowd calls "anti-globablism" looks a lot to me like low-brow anti-cosmopolitanism, rejection of the broad principles of liberal democracy, and support for strongman rule around the world.

You can be a nationalist and also support foreign adventures abroad. Many do this

And in case you didnt know. There are many anti globalist parties in europe. They exist on both the right and left. And yes there are anti globalist leftists parties.
 
People redefining everything over and over drives me nuts.

I guess that's why my career sticks to math and science. Everyone agrees on what the terms and symbols mean.
 
Some sure. The middle east and pakistan and india. Not sure who else. Still dont change fact that by western leftist liberal stances basically all peoole outside the west are nationalist and have nationalist governments. Based on some examples @TheGreatA gave advocsting for your own people being majority and waving a flag can be viewed as "wrong" by some in the EU.

China and Russia would be trampling their neighbours if it wasnt for the threats of western pushback, dont be silly.
 
There are many brands and definitions of nationalism. The kind of aggressive nationalism prevalent in the early 20th century in Europe was bad. Not because of some abstract morals but because people would go to war to claim some piece of land and kill each other. Trump is not doing that. Hungary is not doing that either. Turkey is to some extent, they just annexed a portion of Syria, de facto.

To sum up nations warring with each other as 'nationalism' is just simplifying it to such an extreme that it's silly.
 
It is not surprising that anti-nationalist leaders of nations (read globalist, post-nationalists) would take aim at nationalism as a concept, when they view nations themselves as obsolete.

The very concept of the nations they are supposed to represent are a roadblock to the new globalist model. Something to be paved over, as the international government takes on more shape and power.

Expect more demonization of it to come, as the push continues.

It is already quite something, that a national leader can be openly anti-nationalist.
 
Macron also openly condems 'anti-zionism'.

what is Zionism? Ethnonationalism.

So he will gladly condemn nationalism when it comes to his own nation, but fully support a relatively extreme form of it when it comes to Israel.

Rather curious..

Two very different agendas.
 
Last edited:
Meh. Macron is Neo Liberalism's poster boy.

Not left though.

He s all for free trade and deregulation.

He s on the right economically, and wants to neutralise all that may oppose that, hence being on the left socially.

It s called neo-liberalism.

Not the left, boys. Get it right.

Even if all that is true... WTF does it has to say with the validity of his statement?

It's pretty transparent that you don't have an argument when you turn to character assassination instead of a valid counter point.
 
Even if all that is true... WTF does it has to say with the validity of his statement?

It's pretty transparent that you don't have an argument when you turn to character assassination instead of a valid counter point.

I will let you read the context again.
Maybe you will understand. You can come back.
 
Macron also openly condems 'anti-zionism'.

what is Zionism? Ethnonationalism.

So he will gladly condemn nationalism when it comes to his own nation, but fully support it when it comes to Israel.

Rather curious..

Two very different agendas.

It s signalling week for Macron.
These 2 are pretty common items.
 
To sum up nations warring with each other as 'nationalism' is just simplifying it to such an extreme that it's silly.

There's a common theme in WW1 and WW2, and it is that both World Wars were started by Empires, or supra-national structures, which strived for power beyond the limits of what a common national structure could offer (a single land ruled by a single people).

World War 1 was started by the Austro-Hungarian Empire invading Serbia, to suppress national sentiments, which activated a complex military pact between Empires, the British Empire, the German Empire, the Russian Czardom, etc. all of which held colonies and oppressed foreign peoples. To condemn WW1 as a result of nationalism, is to say that the nationalists who rebelled against an aristocracy which did not democratically represent them, were wrong, and that the monarchs were correct in attempting to violently suppress these sentiments. I suppose these same people would perhaps enjoy being ruled by a tyrannical, foreign king, then, unelected yet governing with absolute power.

Hitler spoke freely of cultivating Nazi Germany in the mold of what he saw as the American and British Empires, a third "Reich", requiring a genocide of peoples in the East, as the Americans and British had genocided natives and Indians, to extend their own rule and available resources. He also believed that the unification of Europe into a single "Germanic construct" was in Europe's best interests. He saw the invasion of the East as a means of restoring this Germanic order, which he believed to have been broken when the German czars and nobles of Russia had been driven off by the population, with the heads of many European states no longer representing ancient Germanic blood-lines.

And what was USSR in Stalin's hands, but an Empire which forcefully attempted to subjugate other people under its rule, while pretending that it was for their own good? Before Nazi invasions, Stalin had already been plotting the seizing of lands in East Europe and Asia. If it were not for Nazis, then he would have certainly started WW2 by himself. And it would be the Communist threat that we would still be speaking of, rather than a fascist threat. The arms race which culminated into WW2 was not started by Hitler, but rather by Stalin, with the Nazis benefiting from the terror caused by Stalin's reign, in order to seize power in Germany.

Most wars have always, and will continue to be provoked by supra-national structures, instead of national ones. Only a fool would think that the Swedes, or the Italians, or the Greeks, or the Poles, would start bickering amongst one another, unless one party decides that they no longer wish to remain a nation, but rather a construct which resides above the nation, with a claim for borders extending beyond their natural ones. There is absolutely no need for anybody to begin an imperial conquest unless they are brain-washed into it.

Right now, it is not the nationalists speaking with grandeur about residing next to Jupiter as a divine being, or restoring Europe to Roman glory, or bringing the US, Russia and China to heel under Europe's might, with a unified army. It is Macron and his like-minded EU goons, who speak that sort of language, openly amongst themselves in private, and increasingly openly even in public.

If there is any threat to peace and stability, it is due to such arrogance, delusion and detachedness from reality.
 
Last edited:
China and Russia would be trampling their neighbours if it wasnt for the threats of western pushback, dont be silly.

Who would china attack? Other than taiwan annexation which would largely be not an issue. Russia might annex eastern ukraine from the Dnieper river eastward. I dont think they would do it to kazakhstan or parts of it or even georgia. Russian strategists seem to realize that infilitration and soft power is better. An ideal situation would be the economic dependence and willingly joining the eurasian union and for it to include all former soviet states excluding the baltics and to include mongolia, iran, and (wishful but wont happen) a secular non religious turkey. Some have talked of annexing afghanistan or rather occupying it to make it stable and establish a puppet government. The only area i can think of a real Russian annexstion would either be eastern ukraine and the southern coastal areas near bresbaria. Since the population there would want it overwhelmingly. Oe the creation of a separate pro russian ukrainian state. Other than that possibly georgia and part of lithuania to create a corridor connect it to belarus. In any case something like the EU is preferable. And lets be honest the EU is led and ruled by the french and germans in cooperation. Its an empire type expanding project for them.
There's a common theme in WW1 and WW2, and it is that both World Wars were started by Empires, or supra-national structures, which strived for power beyond the limits of what a common national structure could offer (a single land ruled by a single people).

World War 1 was started by the Austro-Hungarian Empire invading Serbia, to suppress national sentiments, which activated a complex military pact between Empires, the British Empire, the German Empire, the Russian Czardom, etc. all of which held colonies and oppressed foreign peoples. To condemn WW1 as a result of nationalism, is to say that the nationalists who rebelled against an aristocracy which did not democratically represent them, were wrong, and that the monarchs were correct in attempting to violently suppress these sentiments. I suppose these same people would perhaps enjoy being ruled by a tyrannical, foreign king, then.

Hitler spoke freely of cultivating Nazi Germany in the mold of what he saw as the American and British Empires, a third "Reich", requiring a genocide of peoples in the East, as the Americans and British had genocided natives and Indians, to extend their own rule and available resources. He also believed that the unification of Europe into a single "Germanic construct" was in Europe's best interests. He saw the invasion of the East as a means of restoring this Germanic order, which he believed to have been broken when the German czars and nobles of Russia had been driven off by the population, with the heads of many European states no longer representing ancient Germanic blood-lines.

And what was USSR in Stalin's hands, but an Empire which forcefully attempted to subjugate other people under its rule, while pretending that it was for their own good? Before Nazi invasions, Stalin had already been plotting the seizing of lands in East Europe and Asia. If it were not for Nazis, then he would have certainly started WW2 by himself. And it would be the Communist threat that we would still be speaking of, rather than a fascist threat. The arms race which culminated into WW2 was not started by Hitler, but rather by Stalin, with the Nazis benefiting from the terror caused by Stalin's reign, in order to seize power in Germany.

Most wars have always, and will continue to be provoked by supra-national structures, instead of national ones. Only a fool would think that the Swedes, or the Italians, or the Greeks, or the Poles, would start bickering amongst one another, unless one party decides that they no longer wish to remain a nation, but rather a construct which resides above the nation, with a claim for borders extending beyond their natural ones. There is absolutely no need for anybody to begin an imperial conquest unless they are brain-washed into it.

Right now, it is not the nationalists speaking with grandeur about residing next to Jupiter as a divine being, or restoring Europe to Roman glory, or bringing the US, Russia and China to heel under Europe's might, with a unified army. It is Macron and his like-minded EU goons, who speak that sort of language, openly amongst themselves in private, and increasingly openly even in public.

If there is any threat to peace and stability, it is due to such arrogance, delusion and detachedness from reality.

It should also be noted the late czars were hierarchy believing racialists and imperialists. The soviets were to but proclaimed at face to be promoters of equality which was a lie. The late czar was overthrown because he dragged his nation into ww1 which was very unpopular.

Fair point. Look at china even. It sees it self as having enlarged borders beyond what its people historically occupied. Hence the chinese annxation of tibet and xinjiang and inner mongolia.

The only time nationalists get into wars is for irrendetist claims to land they may or may not have had. See "greater serbia" or greece, armenia or turkey or iran etc". But in general the campaigns of genocide, total and never ending war etc are desires of an empire.

If an individual nation has enough land and is not surrounded by hostiles (see Israel as an entity with not enough land and surrounded by hostiles so this example not apply). Then i dont see violence happening to often.. Latin american nations all have their own varuous racial either mestizo or mediterranean identities but dont and havent waged war against each otherin forever. I suspect that the lack of empires and the fact everyone has enough land and is largely surrounded by other nations similar to themselves is why. The last great war was started by a retarded paraguayan leader who destroyed his nation in an idiotic quest to try and conqeuor brazil, argentina and uruguay.

All european nationalist states if led by non imperialists have more than enough land by and large. Probably the most imperialist nationality is the ultra nationalist ukrainians who have rewritten their own history to try and claim some special land and identity separate from that of their closely related slavic russian brothers and intertwined history. And we see this in their tendency to honor nazis and fascists.
 
Last edited:
So if they form an army is France going to lead from where they have always done?
 
most countries that annex others refer to a territorial claim. for example, Iraq claimed Kuwait on the basis that Kuwait had been separated from them by unfair British Colonialism.

Russia could in theory, claim that central Asia should be a part of their territory since they owned that territory before too.
Sure but there is a difference between a claim and a legitimate claim.
Crimea was a legitimate claim, in my view, because it's inhabited by Russians, most of the population wanted to join Russia and it was controlled by another nation, Ukraine. Tajikistan would be a nonsense claim for Russia.
Kuwait is somewhere in the middle. It's closely related to Iraq but it's independent and nobody wanted to join Iraq.
Summarizing:
Is it related to your country?
Is it controlled by a foreign power?
Do the people want to join your country?
Crimea answered yes to all three questions, Kuwait answered yes only to the first.
 
Sure but there is a difference between a claim and a legitimate claim.
Crimea was a legitimate claim, in my view, because it's inhabited by Russians, most of the population wanted to join Russia and it was controlled by another nation, Ukraine. Tajikistan would be a nonsense claim for Russia.
Kuwait is somewhere in the middle. It's closely related to Iraq but it's independent and nobody wanted to join Iraq.
Summarizing:
Is it related to your country?
Is it controlled by a foreign power?
Do the people want to join your country?
Crimea answered yes to all three questions, Kuwait answered yes only to the first.

the legitimacy of a claim is just a matter of optics and opinion. FFS israelis got theirs from a religious one going back 1000s of years and the world just went with it.
 
A really interesting presentation was given at my work today on the war for bioinformatics.

It was given by an FBI agent and the big takeaway was that China is investing billions of dollars in obtaining all matters of biodata, especially genome data. We are investing millions. China is also investing in European and US companies to acquire their data legally and are even bidding and winning US government contracts to acquire more data, our data.

Essentially, China is getting their hands our biodata, and they will use it to steal away our healthcare/pharmaceutical services in the long term. And it doesn't just stop with genome data.

This guy was Asian BTW but he did mention that he wasn't just picking on China, since India and Iran are in the queue. But his attitude was very nationalistic, very America first, and I was half expecting him to use the G word (globalist). The guy definitely voted for Trump. Lol
 
Back
Top