Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have read some of Mussolini, who coined the word 'fascism' (taken from the Roman Fasces). Like many a politician and theologian he's a bloviator, and it is hard to pin down a clear definition of 'fascism.' It's like trying to get a theologian to give the difference between 'soul' and 'spirit.'
Many think fascism is linked to ethnic purity, but there were fascist Jews in Italy. My definition is: "private ownership of the means of production (unlike socialism), but with very heavy government regulation and control." This comports with the program actually pursued by Mussolini.
Orwell said that the very word fascist had been so misused and abused that it should be banished from the English language. Interestingly, per my definition most of the West, including the US, is now fascist.
The way I view 'fascism' is where the government and religion go hand and hand to control society for what they deem to be the national good. Nationalism is a component of fascism, but nationalism alone does not explain the fascist model of government - nationalism rather being a predisposition to favoring your nation over those of other nations, and thinking in zero sum games (what benefits is me is the course I should pursue whereas a globalist may pursue helping other nations with the idea this will eventually help their own nation).
America is essentially an oligarchy where it's run by a few large corporations and the military industrial complex - not in the interests of the 'nation' (doesn't really exist in America's case as everyone is essentially an immigrant, or descendent of immigrants within a few generations) but in their own interests. And that's the key, when the nation is run by corporations, that's an oligarchy and when a nation controls corporations for the national good, that's fascism, when a nation takes over the means of productions that's socialism.
Michael Medved gave a spirited defense of nationalism the other day. He's a right wing radio host, but very calm & reasoned unlike the other scat-throwers on right wing radio. He is moderate-right. He has said that he could not vote for Trump--he wrote-in McMulllin.
He cited the Declaration of Independence as a decidedly 'nationalist' document. He counted Lincoln, TR, and FDR as nationalists. He argued that historically, nationalism has gone hand-in-hand with democracy.
He didn't mention it, but after the Civil War, the main outlet for the liberal Republicans of the time was a periodical called The Nation, which is still with us today and is now liberal. (the 'liberal' Republicans of the 19th century were closer to the libertarians of today).
Now it seems that 'nationalism' is commonly considered as pejorative and menacing. When President Trump used the word, it was immediately labeled as a racist 'dog whistle.'
Is nationalism becoming obsolete? Was it always just a ploy to manipulate the ignorant, gullible masses? What do you think?
It's as valid as basing policy on which sports team is your favorite. "Us Bulls fans deserve these jobs more than those Celtics fans b/c Michael Jordan was a Bull, Scottie Pippen was a Bull..."
You know what Nationalism begets? Believing the we have "God-given" rights, but not caring when non-Americans have those rights trampled on by America.
I voted: nationalism has been beneficial, and we should keep it.
I totally agree. I don't know how nationalism turned into a dirty word. Well, yes I do ever since this so-called progressive movement has taken hold of our country.
I totally agree. I don't know how nationalism turned into a dirty word. Well, yes I do ever since this so-called progressive movement has taken hold of our country.
10 percent of the country controls publishing, media, tech academia and journalism. This sector is trying to control the narrative of the majority of the people. The cringe right is not any better either.
The way I view 'fascism' is where the government and religion go hand and hand to control society for what they deem to be the national good. Nationalism is a component of fascism, but nationalism alone does not explain the fascist model of government - nationalism rather being a predisposition to favoring your nation over those of other nations, and thinking in zero sum games (what benefits is me is the course I should pursue whereas a globalist may pursue helping other nations with the idea this will eventually help their own nation).
America is essentially an oligarchy where it's run by a few large corporations and the military industrial complex - not in the interests of the 'nation' (doesn't really exist in America's case as everyone is essentially an immigrant, or descendent of immigrants within a few generations) but in their own interests. And that's the key, when the nation is run by corporations, that's an oligarchy and when a nation controls corporations for the national good, that's fascism, when a nation takes over the means of productions that's socialism.
The last paragraph is very true. My thoughts exactly.
Last edited by Bronxguyanese; 11-08-2018 at 06:59 PM..
I totally agree. I don't know how nationalism turned into a dirty word. Well, yes I do ever since this so-called progressive movement has taken hold of our country.
i agree.
"Nationalist” policies typically are those that favor the nation about which the policy is concerned, over the interests of other nations or non-national interests.
they cant separate nationalist from white nationalist, that the whole deal, when one see or hear the word nationalist all the see or hear is white robes on horseback. they cannot understand the word nationalist by itself
and that what happen yesterday in the press conference, they wasnt asking question, they was challenger him, not to a topic but a fight, they came into that room loaded for bear to get a fight
they cant separate nationalist from white nationalist, that the whole deal, when one see or hear the word nationalist all the see or hear is white robes on horseback. they cannot understand the word nationalist by itself
and that what happen yesterday in the press conference, they wasnt asking question, they was challenger him, not to a topic but a fight, they came into that room loaded for bear to get a fight
It's more like the anti-nationalists on the left are anti-historical white majority nation. The left is against the nation's majority. Any nation with a historical majority identity could by default be characterized as "majority identity" national. Maintaining a nation's demographics is not the same thing as creating a one ethnic nation.
So how can "white nationalism" be considered a bad thing without implying or expressing whites are morally inferior and nonpreferable to a less white nation, which is a racist notion in itself?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
