{"id":15484,"date":"2019-03-26T00:11:00","date_gmt":"2019-03-26T07:11:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/politicalhat.com\/?p=15484"},"modified":"2019-03-26T00:11:00","modified_gmt":"2019-03-26T07:11:00","slug":"the-question-of-nationalism-the-common-vs-the-collective","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/2019\/03\/26\/the-question-of-nationalism-the-common-vs-the-collective\/","title":{"rendered":"The Question of Nationalism: The Common vs. The Collective"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

     What is the definition of “Nationalism”? The answers vary from “advocates of genocidal ethno-states” to “the last bastion against the globalist elite cabal run by the Stonecutters”. Most people, however, fall well within these two histrionic extremes, yet even then there is a general divide in opinion and categorization. To wit: ‘Twould seem that the biggest difference in definition of what “Nationalism” is is the question of if one defines “Nationalism” as being of the “common” or of being of the “collective”; in other words, it is defined by individuals with commonalities, or is it defined by a collective from which the individual is defined.<\/p>\n

     This is a question that has been gestating for some time, and a question over which people with differing opinions about the definition of “Nationalism” have been attacking and speaking past each other because they are attacking each other over completely antithetical definitions of the core word about which the antagonistic disagreement occurred.<\/p>\n

     Perhaps this conflagration of definitions has lost any common mooring<\/a> in the English language, but the following facepalm worthy “explanation” has led to the point where we all need to step back and agree on definition lest a rectification of name be upon us.<\/p>\n