What’s in a name?

Donald Trump’s act of claiming the name ‘nationalist’ was significant. It will probably — in fact, already has — drawn jeers and condemnations from the crazy left, but maybe it will act as a ”permission” for those people on the right who always seem to need permission — to follow his example.

As he said, or implied, most people have been told, tacitly or explicitly, that the word is bad, for the usual reasons. But the fact is, until a couple of generations ago, just about everybody in this country was a nationalist by principle, even if they didn’t designate themselves as such.

There is, as those on the right are aware, that nationalism can mean civic nationalism, that is, loyalty to the state or the government or to the abstract ideas of ‘freedom’ or ‘equality’. But the truest nationalism is that which means loyalty to, and a real attachment to one’s own people, kindred. After all, throughout history, many peoples have been conquered, displaced, essentially being deprived of the ‘state’ which was once theirs, yet they still remained a people connected by blood, sharing a common language, religion (oftentimes), culture, and history. Governments and even states rise and fall, while peoples endure — as long as they are not dispersed, blended away amongst other peoples, or extinguished altogether.

Reading some comments on a blog frequented by the ‘civic’ type, I was astounded that the commenters seem never to have heard of any kind of nationalism other than the flag-waving kind, loyalty to a state or system. They evidently thought that this was all there is, where nationalism is concerned. Few seem to have heard of ethnonationalism, which is, after all, the primal kind of patriotism, or nationalism.

So many people have become deeply cynical about our country (more specifically our government, usually), and I’ve become more so myself; it’s impossible not to be if you have open eyes and a brain and a heart. But the really destructive thing about this attitude is that so many come to despise many of their fellow Americans, if not most of them. There’s the warfare between the sexes, and amongst various ethnic groups, regions, religions, and age groups as well as the real vitriol between political factions. How is it possible to have real group loyalty and solidarity when there is such antipathy? I firmly believe much of it is stirred up and stoked by our foes; I can’t help thinking that the bloggers and commenters who specialize in fomenting this loathing, many of them supposedly part of the ‘right’ are in fact shills or operatives, not what they purport to be.

Ethnopatriotism involves a sense of belonging to a group, to our kinsmen and neighbors — and our families, even though it seems as Scripture says, today’s enemies are ‘those of our own household’ — the ‘young’ vs. the old.

There is no common ground with the left; there can be no ‘reaching out’ to them. Even families are now divided because of  politics, mainly intransigent, fanatical leftism.

But with a house so divided, the solidarity we like-minded need in order to be real advocates and defenders of our folk is just not there. I hope that some leadership arises, somebody outside today’s internet culture of vilification, and infighting. If President Trump can do anything toward changing that, then so much the better.




4 thoughts on “What’s in a name?

  1. I suspect real soon President Trump will clarify the meaning behind his using the term “Nationalism” to be of the civic variety. Of course, we know he doesn’t mean anything else. But the media will squeeze him until he says the acceptable thing publicly. The problem, then, will be reclaiming the term from Breitbartians and other mainstream “Conservatives”, which doubles the work load of actual conservatives trying to battle for the truth.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Nick, I see your point. To the ‘mainstream’ right, or the ‘respectable right’, only civic nationalists are acceptable, and of course they will probably apply labels like ‘extreme’ to ethnonationalists. But we were using the term while they still shied away from it, afraid of losing respectability. Maybe the term can be ‘reclaimed’ for its proper meaning.


  2. I’ve believed for awhile that some of the “nationalist” commentators are either shills or informants. There are, of course, going to be disagreements on the ways to create solutions to our devastating problems; however, I notice that many of the commentators who claim to be prowhite constantly demonize white women. This is no way to unite our people so that we can come together for our common good.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Stefania – I think you’re right. Are you referring to readers who comment or the bloggers? It’s true of both, in some cases, I think. And yes there is a lot of derogatory commentary from some ‘pro-Whites’ toward White women. I think there is some outside effort to divide Whites on every kind of basis, and unfortunately the tactic has worked too well amongst some of us. Who benefits by these divisions? They are really hurtful to our efforts.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s