If there's no subsets of conservatism, why would there be any for nationalism?
So, no, I'm talking about nationalism, not whatever hyphenated-ism you speak of that's just used to absolve one side from blame but somehow doesn't apply when casting blame on others.
I just don't get what you are talking about. The NSDAP burned fag books, and modern nationalists movements are generally more strongly opposed to the faggotry than other conservatives. It's been the libertarians who came in with laissez faire attitudes toward social and morality issues. They supported gay marriage before even democrats.
Keep blaming conservatives for all of nationalism's failures, though.
I'm sure you'll find people dumb enough to not realize what ideology migrated to the RW that directly preceded the explosion of faggots and trannies all over America.
If by conservative we refer to the people the media calls conservative, basically Republicans, then yes they are more interested in getting power than shrinking government. A political party is on the opposite end of the realpolitik spectrum than a philosophy of governance. I argue they are more like (sports) teams than centers of ideological political thought.
I'm not sure shrinking government is such a great thing. That just leads to a power vacuum and might lead to actors with even less accountability filling that vacuum.
None of this faggotry in the RW existed before nationalism.
What you're seeing now is the consequences of letting nationalists in to the RW.
Trump is the most pro-homo president in the history of the republican party and was the trojan horse for all this shit to become mainstream.
You can thank nationalism for that, which is nothing more than liberalism wrapped in a flag.
???? You're confusing me. Are you talking about civic nationalism?
If there's no subsets of conservatism, why would there be any for nationalism?
So, no, I'm talking about nationalism, not whatever hyphenated-ism you speak of that's just used to absolve one side from blame but somehow doesn't apply when casting blame on others.
I just don't get what you are talking about. The NSDAP burned fag books, and modern nationalists movements are generally more strongly opposed to the faggotry than other conservatives. It's been the libertarians who came in with laissez faire attitudes toward social and morality issues. They supported gay marriage before even democrats.
And you never will.
Keep blaming conservatives for all of nationalism's failures, though.
I'm sure you'll find people dumb enough to not realize what ideology migrated to the RW that directly preceded the explosion of faggots and trannies all over America.
There are subsets of conservatism. Paleoconservative and NeoCon. There you go.
How do you figure that?
This degeneracy has been building for decades.
Interestingly, nationalism and liberalism were intertwined in the early 19th century.
If by conservative we refer to the people the media calls conservative, basically Republicans, then yes they are more interested in getting power than shrinking government. A political party is on the opposite end of the realpolitik spectrum than a philosophy of governance. I argue they are more like (sports) teams than centers of ideological political thought.
I'm not sure shrinking government is such a great thing. That just leads to a power vacuum and might lead to actors with even less accountability filling that vacuum.
"RW"? What's this supposed to mean? "Real World"? I suspect you don't know what most people mean by "nationalism."