Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

I understand...

Yet within the confines of the terms "patriotism" and "nationalism" love is not interchangeable.... They are separate and distinct terms...

TexaCan Loc: Homeward Bound!

“One can be dev**ed to something without loving it... And one can love something without being dev**ed to it.... Hence nationalism and patriotism are not interchangeable terms...”. Canuckus Deploracus

My point is that with both Patriotism and Nationalism one can or not love and be dev**ed to one’s country, just depends on the concept of love! 🤷🏻‍♀️

martsiva

YES - they do equate with love and you know it!! YOU are the one who suggested looking at a dictionary, so I did and yet you till argue with what the dictionary showed!! That is sad!!

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Literally no...

One can not be a patriot and not love one's nation...

Boy from the Bronx

Come on, now, you're being ridiculous! Name one comment by Peter S. where he said he h**es "American Nationalism," or people who believe in putting America first, or where he said that he wants this country to be "2nd and subservient to other countries which he thinks should be # 1," or where he mimicked "a Marxist agenda." Or are you just assuming that he believes these things simply because you don't like his politics, especially the fact that he disapproves of Donald Trump, who, as I've pointed out many times before, has been mimicking a F*****T AGENDA?

Another thing: why do you assume that only W***E A******NS believe in "America First"? You don't think there are any NON-W***E A******NS who feel the same way? For you to think that only white people are capable of doing what's best for their country is downright R****T!

Even so, not everyone who says "America First" actually means it. Back in the 1930s and early '40s, there was an organization called the America First Committee, which, among other things, was opposed to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's policy of sending arms, ammunition, and other forms of aid to countries that were being menaced by the spread of Italian F*****m, German N**ism, and Japanese militarism. The members of the committee argued that what was happening in Europe and Asia was none of our business, that the people of those areas of the world should fight their own battles, that they meant nothing to us, and that true "100% Americanism" meant attending to the affairs of the United States of America only.

On the face of it, this might have sounded like a noble and logical idea to a lot of Americans, but it ignored the possibility that what was happening in other countries might effect the interests, or even the security, of this country, or that foreign aggressors (Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, etc) might try to attack us if they were allowed to invade and take over other nations. In other words, the America First Committee's idea of "America First" would have endangered the U.S.A. instead of protecting it.

Also, some of the committee members turned out to be sympathetic towards the Axis Powers, which means that they really believed in putting THEM FIRST, and not America, and that they were basically American F*****TS!

Big Kahuna

Your whole post reeks with anti-white bigotry and r****m. Try writing for the New York Crimes, I mean Times, they need a few more l*****t sheepie.

Boy from the Bronx

What are you talking about? My post was NOT r****t! It was NOT full of "anti-white bigotry and r****m"! There wasn't even one single word of prejudice against any race, religion, or skin color in my entire post. Did you actually READ IT? If you did, you would know that my comments were anything BUT R****T!

All I said was that it's wrong for you to assume that Peter S was "Anti-American" or a "Marxist" just because his opinions don't match your rigid ultra-right-wing world view, or because he doesn't like Donald Trump. (a lot of people don't like Trump, even some REPUBLICANS!) Was that r****t? NO!

I also said that it's wrong for you to imply that only white people believe in the idea of putting "America First," that non-w***e A******ns believe in it too. Was that r****t? NO!

Finally, I further pointed out that those who say "America First" don't always mean it, like the America First Committee of the 1930s and early '40s, which opposed President Roosevelt's policy of sending aid to countries threatened by the Axis Powers (N**i Germany, F*****t Italy, and Militaristic Japan), arguing that the United States should attend to its own affairs first instead of worrying about what was going on in foreign lands. It eventually turned out that some of the committee members were themselves believers in F*****m, which means that they must have been a bunch of r****ts, since they obviously shared Hitler's racial views. In other words, I was just giving you a little American history to prove a point.

I don't see how you can interpret anything in my comments as being r****t towards white people. I'M WHITE! Does that mean I'm prejudiced against MYSELF? Give me a break, for crying out loud!

If anyone's a r****t, IT'S YOU! You must be if you think only w***e A******ns believe in America First.

As for me being a "l*****t sheeple," you obviously don't mind being a RIGHTIST SHEEPLE!

TexaCan Loc: Homeward Bound!

It’s been awhile since you brought this one out to play! I suppose Rumi needs a rest ever once in awhile! 🤷🏻‍♀️

straightUp Loc: California

Yes, it does depend on the concept of love. It's also depends on the concept of country. There's literally nothing in patriotic or nationalist rhetoric that is anchored down to any specific definition of anything because it's primary function is to work up your emotions, not deal with reality.

It's been my observation that many people calling themselves patriots are often expressing loyalty to one side of a division created within the country by the act itself, like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Often this includes a claim on the country itself to the exclusion of those on the other side... but still... within the country.

Possession isn't love, my friend.

Nationalist movements don't have to be bad but history does show us an abundance of nationalist movements turned into authoritarian nightmares. I think the reason why this happens so often is because a sense of nationality is a key to the same kind of emotional conditioning that encourages citizens to give up liberty for security... it's powerful stuff... Tattoo-level loyalty... Like the morphine of rhetoric. Entire armies have committed themselves to kings and queens this way. Garden varieties that show a consistent neglect for verification and a high spirit for provocation should be suspect.

So what kind of nationalism are we looking at here in America? Is the language symbolic..? less facts, more slogans? Like how it's all about "America First" at the rally brimming with f**gs and banners, while back in the Oval Office, it's all about rolling back decades of hard won protections for American workers?