Adjective: nationalist |nash(-u)n-list|
• Devotion to the interests or culture of a particular nation including promoting the interests of one country over those of others • nationalist aspirations
• Noun: nationalist |nash(-u)n-list|
One who loves and defends his or her country • we do not doubt that England has a faithful nationalist in the Lord Chancellor
I see nothing offensive in the definition. Why the furor (not Führer, LOL)?
And, Drum Roll Please, a Conservative writer that my wife reads asked, of the Confederate statu-icide going on now, why did these people wait 8 years of the obama disaster without tearing down these statues, but suddenly, within months of President Trump taking office, they are driven to a statue murdering frenzy? Obviously, the statues are secondary, embarrassing President Trump, accusing him of things he did not say, that’s the only reason.
Back to words, something I’m fond of. Without the emotions and misrepresentations, here’s my take, and I think it’s more than reasonable.
#2. White Nationalist
#3. White Separatist
#4. White Supremacist
#5. Black Supremacist
#6. Black Separatist
#7. Black Nationalist
#1, #2, #3, #6, and #7 are not hate affiliations in and of themselves.
#1 is not associated with #2, #3, #6, and #7 except by all those that share a view that their nations should come first.
Separatists, a concept common in religion, even these days, Jews and muslims for example. And I intend no offense, it’s merely an observation. We should no more take offense at some whites believing that they only want to associate with other whites than we should be offended that some Jews want to only associate with Jews or muslims with muslims. We’re pushing credulity to suggest that all groups treat others with total and equal respect and fairness. Police give police breaks in minor violations, or give politicians breaks, for example. Judges are likely lenient on other judges family members. Unions play favoritism, they espouse fairness for all, but anyone in a union knows there are people in positions not because what they know but who they know.
White or black supremacists are also not necessarily a problem, as there certainly are religions that hold views of supremacy, that their religion is supreme over others. But radicals in any social identification, or faith, are a problem for society, when they’re willing to commit violence on others not of the identification as their own, and society must step in to stop it.
Trump’s warning of Radical Islam is itself an acknowledgment of violence by certain individuals in that religion/political ideology. And radical Jews in Israel have burned down Christian churches and vandalized Christian cemeteries.
The leader of a far-Right Israeli group has risked arrest by apparently voicing support for arson attacks on Christian churches amid an official crackdown on Jewish extremism.
Benzi Gopstein, the outspoken head of Lehava – which has drawn notoriety for its violent assaults on Jewish-Arab assimilation – made the remarks at a panel discussion for Jewish yeshiva students when asked by a fellow panelist if he believed burning down churches in Israel was justified.
He later tried to evade accusations of inciting his followers to fire-raise, saying it was the government’s responsibility to carry out what he presented as a religious teaching of the 12th century Jewish philosopher, Maimonides.
“Did the Rambam [Maimonides] rule to destroy [idol worship] or not? Idol worship must be destroyed. It’s simply yes – what’s the question?” Mr Gopstein told the panel.
Radicals, not adherents, are the problem. Hypothetically, we should be free to associate as we please, and to believe we are, in some way, superior. We are not free to burn down churches, and vandalize cemeteries, and we are not free to arbitrarily destroy property because it “offends” us.
Supremacy is alive and well in America, and condoned or ignored by society in certain groups, but it’s not limited to whites, yet whites seem to be the only ones the media, and corporations, are directing their condemnation of. And President Trump correctly said some people in attendance were there because they opposed the removal of the statue, not because they are affiliated with some social identification or another.
When President Trump failed to mention liberals having blame as well, I was mad, but when he did blame liberals too, liberals were mad.
If liberals believe themselves to be justified in violent actions, isn’t that liberal supremacy?