What is the difference between Patriotism, Nationalism and Fascism?

[شمله ور خراساني]

No it isn't I am member of this forum, so clearly I am not going to run away lolzz.

I meant evasive in the sense that you deliberately choose not to reply to the challenges posed to you.

Your sarcasm is much appreciated.

Thank you. I hear that all the time.

Power of Nightmares maybe a conspiracy theory, but I made a point (which you overlooked).

You made a point by refering to a conspiracy theoris video? And how did I overlook it when I addressed it by dismissing it because it is useless information. Nobody cares what conspiracy theorists say. We are not in Pakistan where the entire political discourse is based on consipracy theories.

Your nickname wasn't really a great experiment at all, you are really over reaching with that. You make it seem as if in doing so you have shown how flawed nationalism is.

It was a great experiment. And I did not try to make it seem that by doing so I can expose tha fallacy of Nationalism. As I have clearly stated in the previous posts, the purpose of the nickname change was to attract emotional reactions of Nationalists who can't resist to hide their hostile and emotional nature as soon as an opposing name or idea is on the horizon.

The reality is that no one of any political background here is going to accept it. The only people who are, are ironically, tajik and khorasani nationalists.

Who cares who accepts it and who doesn't? Nobody in Afghanista who have political power is considering a name change. That is not the subject of discussion here.

However I will give you the definition of fascism from the very own mussolini you are so ardent on using as an example.

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”

As I have said previously, political manifesto's and statements by political leaders are not a true representation of what the ideologies stand for.

The question was: "what is the difference between Patriotism, NAtionalism and Fascism? " It is loud and clear and it is the title of this thread.

Who cares what Mussolini said about Fascism? We are academics here. So just one quote from Mussolini is not sufficient to answer the question I

have asked.

^^He iz zee Nat10n4l5t durr :-P
To be fair, one can search for other regimes to add on such as Romania's Ceausescu, Usthasha of Croatia and so on so forth.

Those are "nobodies" and yet, you are shooting yourself in the foot by refering to them. Because as I have said before, Nationalism is a European Ideology closely linked to Socialism. By giving Ceausescu and such as examples, you are not helping the Pashtun Nationalist cause of claiming Pashtuns were the inventors of Nationalism and that this ideology is not European by origin.

Here is an rudimentary work by Stanford University.

Nationalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

A little on patriotism

Historical dictionary of the ... - Google Books


Now from these basics you can see that there are times where each can used but they are fundamentally different concepts.

Well be kind enough to name the differences. Just by saying well there are differences and sometimes they overlap... You are not asnwering my question. So please be specific in you responses.

You don't have to be a nationalist per say and be a patriot. You don't have to be a nationalist and be a fascists, since one major aspect of fascism is corporatism.

Corporatism exists everywhere. Holland is a corporatist system. If we use your definition ( Mussolini's definiton) we could label Holland as a Fascist regime. I don't think that is true.

There are nationalists who are leftists and nationalists who are classic liberals.

Give me an example of a classic Liberal who is a Nationalist. I can give you many so called leftist nationalists. The German National Socialism is one great example of a leftist Nationalist movement. Stalin's Russia during the WOII was a leftist Nationalist country ( the motherland lol)

The whole point of your "question" was your lame attempt at proving that nationalists are fascist..

You are dismissing it by calling it a lame attempt. Yet you are not answering the querstion by giving specific definitions and distinctions we can work on.

.this has been one of your major points (if you can call it that) against nationalists. Quite frankly I couldn't care, I don't even lose sleep.

Well if you think this is a major point, why do you initially bud in this thread and eventually try to leave it with a dismissive comment?

My major point against Nationalism is that it is based on kufr and alien un-islamic ideology. But since you, Nationalists glorify your ideology as something holy, I politely ask to give me workable definitions and to give me clear evidence of the difference between the three ideologies.

[BLS_1919v2.0]

It was just answered. How am I shooting my self in the foot again, please kindly point it out?

[Wrayun]

Wrayun! With just this sentence you completely exposed yourself and your intentions otherwise you could carry this on for much longer.

wat? wat?

[Wrayun]

But the Pashtun Nationalists like Afghan Millat, ANP and PKAMP are all allies and supporters of America and are outspoken enemies of Islamic movements in Afghanistan.

So they are making deals with our enemies and are opposing the establishment of Shariah in Afghanistan. Their political party's manifesto's explicitly say that they are secularists.

Parties like ANP and PKMP are not truly nationalist in sense that they are hierarchal and dynasty based. The core of these parties is made out of the same families and tribes. They are feudal political dynasties that have hijacked Pukhtoon nationalism. They use Pukhtoon sentiments to further their own interests. This is why they don't merge, to them their personal goals are far more important than the Pukhtoon national ones. They are a huge contradiction. On one hand they cry wolf in regards to Pakistan and it's army, on another they are in the parliament calling Jinnah baba-e-qoom.

Therefore Islam and Nationalism cannot co-exist. They are mutually exclusive.

Yes it can and has co-existed in the past. Saudi and Pakistan are two examples. Both claim to be the fortresses of Islam today.

[Baygham]

You could be religious and a nationalist at the same time. But this implies that you are probably a fool. because having love for your kin does not constitute hostility to others. Which is clearly the case with nationalists.

Even if you ask these outspoken Nationalists here on PF, they will tell you that the fact that Pashtuns do not reign supreme is a motive for them to unite with one another based on mutual language and kinship. Which means that they unite because they want power and authority. So language and ethinicity becomes merely a means to rally support for political goals.

And this sentiment of us against them is perpetuated by emphasizing the differences between us and them.

Which means that there is a strong hostility towards Punjabis and Tajiks.

So how can one be religious when one is simultaneously hostile to other people ( muslims) because of their ethnicity and language?

And you have turned your back on your forefathers religion and converted to salafism and its inherit fascism for the love of mother teresa.

Give me a break.

All human associations in groups, large and small are to advance their social condition. Nationalism and religion included. Both can exclude outsiders, both can get hostile to outsiders and both can be dragged into facism. There are toxic extremes in both. A benign religion can coexist with others like say baptist in USA coexisting with evangelicals or catholics, while the same may not coexist in another location like nothern Ireland. Some doctrines are outright discriminatory, like saudia and its wahabi islam, doesnot allow any other interpretation any breathing room. Similarly hitler used both religion and nationalism, he had the pope on his payrol. Stalin used nieghter and did more damage.

[Baygham]

Parties like ANP and PKMP are not truly nationalist in sense that they are hierarchal and dynasty based. The core of these parties is made out of the same families and tribes. They are feudal political dynasties that have hijacked Pukhtoon nationalism. They use Pukhtoon sentiments to further their own interests. This is why they don't merge, to them their personal goals are far more important than the Pukhtoon national ones. They are a huge contradiction. On one hand they cry wolf in regards to Pakistan and it's army, on another they are in the parliament calling Jinnah baba-e-qoom.



Yes it can and has co-existed in the past. Saudi and Pakistan are two examples. Both claim to be the fortresses of Islam today.

we agree on something, bravo.

[شمله ور خراساني]

Parties like ANP and PKMP are not truly nationalist in sense that they are hierarchal and dynasty based. The core of these parties is made out of the same families and tribes. They are feudal political dynasties that have hijacked Pukhtoon nationalism. They use Pukhtoon sentiments to further their own interests. This is why they don't merge, to them their personal goals are far more important than the Pukhtoon national ones. They are a huge contradiction. On one hand they cry wolf in regards to Pakistan and it's army, on another they are in the parliament calling Jinnah baba-e-qoom.



Yes it can and has co-existed in the past. Saudi and Pakistan are two examples. Both claim to be the fortresses of Islam today.

There is no huge contradiction. You have a fairytale image of Nationalism.

What I find amusing is that Nationalists are anti-Pakistan in their rhetoric but give Pakistan as an example of Islamic Nationalism.

And likewise, Pashtun Nationalists oppose Pakistan in their rhetoric, but are active participants in Pakistani establishment.

It doesn't matter what you think about those two political parties. They are the most prominent Pashtun Nationalist movements.

Before them, there was no such thing as a Pashtun Nationalist movement.

So your denial that they are in fact the true representation of Pashtun Nationalism is useless.

[شمله ور خراساني]

And you have turned your back on your forefathers religion and converted to salafism and its inherit fascism for the love of mother teresa.

Give me a break.

All human associations in groups, large and small are to advance their social condition. Nationalism and religion included. Both can exclude outsiders, both can get hostile to outsiders and both can be dragged into facism. There are toxic extremes in both. A benign religion can coexist with others like say baptist in USA coexisting with evangelicals or catholics, while the same may not coexist in another location like nothern Ireland. Some doctrines are outright discriminatory, like saudia and its wahabi islam, doesnot allow any other interpretation any breathing room. Similarly hitler used both religion and nationalism, he had the pope on his payrol. Stalin used nieghter and did more damage.

So why do you people deny this and why do nationalists claim their nationalism is all peaceful, tolerant, liberal and cuddly?

[Catya Sher]

I just got the last page of this thread. I HAD to jump in to expose the total fallacy in Baygham's argument about religion and dictatorship.

Especially with regard to Hitler and Pope Pius XII.
You shouldn't irresponsibly toss out themes like that.
There was the stupidest book, easily proven wrong: Hitler's Pope by John Churchill.
It was such trash I wouldn't look at it.
I read everything on Pope Pius XII. He was a very virtuous man and very shewd politically.

Read instead all the rebuttals to that crazy piece of propaganda masquerading as history.
There are TONS.

Sister Marguerita Marchione, dubbed "The Fighting Nun" due to her powerful defense of that Pope from these ludicrous charges, is one who researched for years in the archives. She has written much and given many speeches on the topic which prove the opposite. That that Pope secretly HID and FED THOUSANDS of Jews in the very buildings of the Vatican to help them escape Hitler.
This Pope, the Pope of World War II, never succumbed to Hitler. He was CAREFUL, of course, not to antagonize Hitler too much, thinking of his flock in Germany and elsewhere.
However that was only prudent. It was not obedience to Hitler's dictates in any form.

Hitler had no influence over Catholicism.
He was into the Valkyries, old Norse pagan themes, by the way.

Your European history and European religious history are very weak.

Your statement about Stalin is garbled.
Once you make that clear, I'd be happy to discuss the history of the Moscow Patriarchate if you wish.

[Catya Sher]

Further Baygham,

What does Mother Teresa have to do with Salafis ?!
Your credibility has sunk by such inane comments as that and the ones mentioned above.

[Wrayun]

شمله ور خراساني,

There is no huge contradiction. You have a fairytale image of Nationalism.

My image of nationalism is fairytale because it's not what you want it to be? When it comes to nationalism I am more concerned with it's core foundations and not the perverted dynamics achievable through manipulation. Some Pukhtoon nationalists cross that line, and they hurt Pukhtoon interests by doing so. If my nationalist ideas are not in line with theirs doesn't mean I don't know what nationalism is. You can define your own nationalism, without having to dehumanize or belittling entire groups of people based on religion, ethnicity or language.

What I find amusing is that Nationalists are anti-Pakistan in their rhetoric but give Pakistan as an example of Islamic Nationalism.

There is a reason why people are anti-Pakistan. It has to do with Pakistani policies and double-standards. Pakistan wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for the secular and registered socialist Jinnah harnessing Islamic sentiments of the Musalamans of the sub-continent. The All Indian Muslim League was created to promote their own version of an Islamic state vs. the Khalifat Movement to which even people like Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (a non-violent Muslim Pukhtoon nationalist) belonged.

It doesn't matter what you think about those two political parties. They are the most prominent Pashtun Nationalist movements. Before them, there was no such thing as a Pashtun Nationalist movement.

Who was Mirza Ali Khan Fakir-e-Ipi? Who was Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan Fakir-e-Afghan Baacha Khan? Who was Mirwais Hotak who stood against the Persians and created the first Pukhtoon state? Who was Ahmed Shah Abdali who created the state of Afghanistan, note Afghan-e-stan, not Khorassan, but AFGHAN-e-STAN. That name itself is a nationalist one. What about Khushal Khan Khattak, who rose against the Muslim mughul rulers? Who was Pir Rokhan?

These were all religiously motivated Pukhtoon nationalists. I would go as far as even suggesting that the Taliban to a degree are also Pukhtoon nationalists. You ask how? Where do they get their support from? From Pukhtoons. Not Tajiks, not Uzbeks, not Hazaras, not Punjabis, not Urdu speaking Mahajirs, but Pukhtoons. Some Pukhtoon nationalists would disagree with this, that is because they are afraid of the religious stigma. Other religious Pukhtoons would disagree with this (including you) because it becomes a hindrance in their Pan-Islamic outlook. Both are personal views and perspectives, both are incorrect.

The reality of the Taliban is very complex. It is religious zeal mixed with local tribal or regional nationalism. It is not just a political or a religious movement, it is a politico-religious movement riding on the back of an entire ethnicity who might or might not share the Taliban religious views BUT do share language, geography, and heritage with them. That is why Tajiks/Uzbeks in the north of Afghanistan kill innocent Pukhtoons for being "brothers" of the Taliban, and Muhajir Muslims kill innocent Pukhtoons in Karachi. Religion doesn't seem to prevent them from not differentiating between actual Talibs and average Pukhtoons.

[Baygham]

Further Baygham,

What does Mother Teresa have to do with Salafis ?!
Your credibility has sunk by such inane comments as that and the ones mentioned above.

Dear CAtya lion, mother teresa's noble name was used in sarcasm, and not to link her to the saud family and its salafi doctrine.

Hitler would have used the Quran if it was useful, but it wasnt needed. And the pious pope of yours, who ever he was, I could care less. He has no relevance in pashtoon land no matter who ever he was in bed with.

The popes are all pro pashtoons and would fight for them against hitler on their behalf - we get that.

[Baygham]

And you have turned your back on your forefathers religion and converted to salafism and its inherit fascism for the love of mother teresa.

Give me a break.

All human associations in groups, large and small are to advance their social condition. Nationalism and religion included. Both can exclude outsiders, both can get hostile to outsiders and both can be dragged into facism. There are toxic extremes in both. A benign religion can coexist with others like say baptist in USA coexisting with evangelicals or catholics, while the same may not coexist in another location like nothern Ireland. Some doctrines are outright discriminatory, like saudia and its wahabi islam, doesnot allow any other interpretation any breathing room. Similarly hitler used both religion and nationalism, he had the pope on his payrol. Stalin used nieghter and did more damage.

So why do you people deny this and why do nationalists claim their nationalism is all peaceful, tolerant, liberal and cuddly?

Well it can be peacefull, tolerant, liberal and cuddly, but can also be used for exploitation. What is so hard to understand in that. Nationalism is not a holy religion, its just a mechanism, useful at times. Its pros and cons can be measured and will be in favor of pros or cons at any one point in time and space. At this time in our culture it appears to be usefull