Unlike President Obama, who seemed to put Iran first, or Angela Merkel – who seems to put globalism first – President Trump wants to put America first.
At a rally in Texas on Monday, “President Donald Trump said this:
“A globalist is a person that 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. You know what I am? I’m a nationalist, OK? I’m a nationalist.”
At CNN, where two political points of view are given equal time between those who are on the left and those who are on the extreme left, a leftist a
“On its face, Trump seemed to simply be saying that while past presidents — and politicians — cared a lot about other countries and what other countries thought about the United States (i.e. globalists), that he cares primarily about the US and what is good for us (nationalist).
The problem, of course, is that words matter. And the American president referring to himself as a nationalist has all sorts of problems wrapped up in it.
Let’s start with what nationalism means. Here’s the definition, from Merriam-Webster (emphasis mine): “a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.”
That part in bold is what makes nationalism different than patriotism. While patriotism, like nationalism, shares a pride and belief in one’s own country or values, it doesn’t include the idea of promoting your values and culture as inherently superior to those of others….
Then there the historical context of the word “nationalism.” It primarily conjures two close associations: Nazism and white nationalism….”
At The Root, their article was titled: “Trump Comes Out of the Closet Wearing a White Hood” – an obvious suggestion he is a KKK member espousing white racism.
The Late Show’s liberal host (Stephen Colbert) said: “Do you know why you’re not supposed to use that word?” Colbert asked. “Because it’s the second half of ‘white nationalist.’ Chopping off the first word doesn’t change what it means in our minds.”
I completely agree with Colbert! How words are used doesn’t change anything in the minds of liberals because liberalism is a mental illness fueled by emotions.
Going by Colbert’s “logic” there would be no difference between:
“negative” and “double negative”
“naturally” and “act naturally”
“true” and “not true”
and my personal favorite that liberals can’t seem to distinguish
“news” and “fake news”
We get it. Liberals don’t value any of the freedoms that made America a unique land that immigrants chose to come to before it was wealthy and prosperous – just because it offered freedom. Liberals think if you care about your own country and think it’s laws and values and culture are worth protecting you must be Adolf Hitler. Because to liberals, all laws, values, and cultures are equally wonderful. That’s multiculturalism, the denial of value. So Western ideas like freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the capitalism that allows someone to reap the benefits of their own education and hard work – all that western nonsense is not progress to a liberal.
For liberals, it is just as good, for example, to value Islamic law and culture, in which women are property, boys are systematically raped, Jews and Christians are ripe for killing, and slavery is still allowed. (Officially, most Islamic nations have outlawed slavery under Western pressure “recently” – such as Saudi Arabia in 1962, or Mauritania in 2007. But Islamic fundamentalists still have slaves today, such as Boko Haram in West Africa, and ISIS in Iraq.) One Georgetown (liberal and pro-Islamic) professor very recently defended Islamic slavery in a lecture, ending any argument against its wonderfulness by pointing out that Mohammad had slaves, and he was the epitome of moral maturity and human perfection, so if he had slaves and married a 9 year old, these must be wonderful things.
Europe is doing so well taking in millions of immigrants from Africa and the Middle East; maybe Trump should watch European multiculturalism at work and see how well millions of foreigners with no intention of assimilating into their host nation can drain the welfare system of funds, send the rate of rape skyrocketing, or literally shit up their neighborhoods with feces…
Leftist globalists may be blind to the obvious as they intentionally destroy European nation states to usher in a One World Government they can rule more easily… they may seem surprised by these problems as if no one could have foreseen such results from mass immigration from these areas… but even Nostradamus foresaw this almost 500 years ago: he said European “negligence” “Neglect” and “apathy” would “open a path to the followers of Mohammad” and that Europe would be invaded from the Middle East and North Africa over years of intensifying problems culminating in WWIII – which he said would end by 2028 after the Islamic Invasion of Europe is finally pushed back.
As the very wise political commentator Dinesh D’Souza tweeted on Tuesday:
“Last night Trump called himself a nationalist, which is sure to provoke the media left to once again accuse him of fascism. Yet Gandhi was a nationalist, as were Mandela, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, Winston Churchill and Abraham Lincoln. Nationalism by itself is not fascism.”
Another comment found on Reddit.com seems relevant here; strangely enough posted under the username “Nostraadms”:
17762 points · 1 year ago
i think american nationalism is very different from european nationalism. Whereas being an American was supposed to be based off of the ideas of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, euopean nationalism is based on cultural identity. Europe is commiting cultural suicide as we speak.
Not the best at spelling, but the points made ring true.
I’m glad my nation’s leader wants to do what is best for my nation. That’s his job.
I bet most Europeans wish their leaders would do what is best for their nations, but many of those countries have traitors in charge. Who does Merkel serve? Macron?
END TIMES PROPHECY 
On another site this article has generated dozens of comments from the right and the left. I responded:
I’m glad to encourage debate; sad to see such polarization – probably reflective of the rest of America too. FWIW, I would love to see rich individuals help poor individuals and see affluent nations help impoverished nations – but I believe such help should be primarily in the form of instruction.
Giving money to a person or nation that will waste it only encourages failure and dependence. We need to teach those on a losing path how to change their behavior to achieve better results. Not every person needs to give up their individuality to be like the rich; nor does every other nation need to be just like America.
But if there are some common denominators among the most successful nations then perhaps failed nations should be taught to emulate those successful behaviors and characteristics. Think of any group that values education or hard work or high quality… and those groups succeed. I think the best thing we could do for cultures that don’t focus on such things would be to educate them on the cause and effect of a better way of doing things.
Posted by David Montaigne | October 26, 2018, 1:52 am