|Via somebody's Pinterest.|
Gunga Dinesh leapt to the defense of Emperor Trump for calling himself a nationalist:
It's a question, I guess, of "nationalist" as opposed to what? Ho was a nationalist for Vietnam as opposed to imperialist water-carrier for the French or the Americans, or the Chinese for that matter (who had fought to control Vietnam for a thousand years, from the Han dynasty through the Song, before they finally conceded defeat). Gunga Dinesh is an imperialist water-carrier for the British, that's why I like to call him that, when he talks about the Raj or East Africa. Dinesh isn't a nationalist with respect to India, though he may be a nationalist with respect to his adopted USA.You can't say he's using the word the way Ho Chi Minh used it. Ho demanded colonial powers let the Vietnamese govern themselves. Trump invites Russian, Israeli, and Saudi regimes to tell him what to do.— YasGHOUL's Farm (@Yastreblyansky) October 23, 2018
Ho, and Castro, also sometimes called themselves "nationalists" in opposition to "communists", when they were explaining their positions to a certain type of friendly Westerner at certain points in their careers. "No, no, he's just a nationalist. Go away, Mr. Quiet American." In this, I'm sorry to say, they were lying, though not without some justification.
Another way of putting it is in historical terms: nationalist in opposition to what previous condition? The classic nationalisms of the 19th century, Germany and Italy gathering themselves out of the statelets into which they had been divided ever since the collapse of the Roman Empire, Greece and Serbia pulling themselves out of the Ottoman state, are maybe something more than simple anti-colonialism, while the ethnic nationalists in France during the Dreyfus affair, or in England in the League of British Fascists, or in the Afrikaner communities of South Africa, were something less. The former are responses to lively and noble, if not necessary very logical, sentiment; the latter to fear, of Jews and intellectuals, workers, indigenous peoples.
Lincoln was what is now called a "civic nationalist", which isn't in opposition to anything that isn't a nationalist, but rather to "ethnic nationalist" or "blood-and-soil nationalist" like the anti-Dreyfusards and the Voortrekkers; that is, he believed his nation, the Union, was created by its contract, in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and not by its borders, or the history of its population—conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition, while the ideologues of the Confederacy were blood-and-soil nationalists with the respect to the individual states, their boundaries, and their white people. Another term for "blood-and-soil nationalist" is "nationalist", and in that sense Trump's term is the opposite of Lincoln's, in the same way as Nationalsozialist is the opposite of socialist: schematically,
civic nationalist is to nationalist as national socialist is to socialist, or.I hope that's clarifying.
Lincoln is to Calhoun (or Trump) as Hitler is to Atlee
D'Souza came back later in response to Ambassador McFaul:
Gandhi. Mandela. De Gaulle. Now if you’re looking for nationalists who were also socialists, I’d go with Hitler and Mussolini https://t.co/1LkUJlmlh7— Dinesh D'Souza (@DineshDSouza) October 23, 2018
That kind of set me off in all directions.
I'd say Mandela is a much better example of a socialist. You never heard Hitler or Mussolini putting it quite like this. pic.twitter.com/dSlKamP81K— YasGHOUL's Farm (@Yastreblyansky) October 23, 2018
"Patriotism is loving one's country. Nationalism is hating other people's countries."— YasGHOUL's Farm (@Yastreblyansky) October 23, 2018
--Charles de Gaulle
You might want to scratch him off your list, I think he was on my side. pic.twitter.com/ewqSI9bguB
With some assistance from a friend:Whereas Hitler's industrial development depended on private giants like Krupp and I.G. Farben. Volkswagen was developed by his fake labor union the Deutsche Arbeitsfront, a limited company with shareholders. https://t.co/3srr3DE60r pic.twitter.com/CKPi1F9uq5— YasGHOUL's Farm (@Yastreblyansky) October 24, 2018
And Mandela championied trans-Africanism so was a "nationalist" only in the way pro-Europeans want the EU to subsume separate states in Europe - kind of the opposite of what current "nationalists" want in Europe.— Nathan Newman 🧭🌹 (@nathansnewman) October 23, 2018
Gandhi was also very much against Hindu nationalism and wanted a combined Hindu-Muslim India. It was the nationalists that tore Indian and Pakistan apart - and the nationalists who killed Gandhi (making D'Souza's argument all the more obscene).— Nathan Newman 🧭🌹 (@nathansnewman) October 23, 2018
That's right: Nationalism murdered Ghandhi. In his heart, D'Souza is OK with that. He hates South Asia with every fiber.
Hard to imagine Trump getting involved in something like that. He'd call it "shithole nationalism".— YasGHOUL's Farm (@Yastreblyansky) October 23, 2018
As for Trump, what he said in Houston:
We Can't Have That
by Donald J. Trump
Radical Democrats want to turn backIt's in opposition to "globalist", or, as I like to call it, (((globalist))), to distinguish it from the other kind of globalism which was a huge thing in ancient times three or four years ago, referring to the power of transnational corporations to dictate to national governments and something we all wanted (and still want, if Trump ever goes away and allows us to think about important things again) to combat. People like Stephen Bannon appropriated it from the left because he wanted to attach the smell of illegitimacy to the thing he was the enemy of, international cooperation, "a person who wants the globe to do well."
the clock to the world of the corrupt,
power-hungry globalists. You know
what a globalist is, right? A globalist is
a person who wants the globe to do well,
frankly, not caring about our country so much.
And you know what? We can't have that.
You know, they have a word, it sort of
became old-fashioned. It's called a "nationalist",
and I say really, we’re not supposed to use
that word, but you know what I am? A nationalist.
A Trumpian nationalist is someone who's happy if the globe is doing badly, as long as he's doing better than others: who'd rather live in a hovel with a homeless man sleeping out on the sidewalk than share a palace with him. Most recently Trump decided to wreck the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty of 1987, or liberated Putin from it, depending on how you look at it; Peskov says it's "very dangerous" but Putin can't stop smiling, and invited Trump on a date in Paris on Veterans' Day, the Washington observance of which Trump will be skipping (in a grudge, I believe, because the military refused to give him his own parade) in favor of celebrating the centenary of the end of the Great War. I asked Twitter to tell me why "we're not supposed to use the word" or why Trump said that, but I didn't get a coherent answer:
He's taking a punch-back jab at #FakeNews.— DoneWithGreys (@mtnrunfx) October 23, 2018
How you take it is how you take it. It was only a small aside, a little joke within the bigger picture that when DJT says "nationalist," he means a patriot. That's the denotative, first-listed meaning of the word nationalist.— DoneWithGreys (@mtnrunfx) October 23, 2018
I guess there's a point in there somewhere, that he knows it will get the libs all upset and calling him a Nazi, and he likes that. A "little joke". Maybe, as D'Souza suggests (unconsciously?) in the top tweet, he wants to be called a fascist, or Bannon wants it. Not necessarily that Trump believes in it or anything but because he thinks it sounds Butch. I'm sure getting hungry for that last laugh.