What’s in a name?

This is something I’ve been thinking about for a while. Comrades here may not agree with me (I’d be most surprised if they did), but this forum exists to discuss and debate. So the main thrust of this piece is the nationalism in our title’ progressive nationalism’ that is. I think we need to rethink it, you may not. However, all I ask is at least we think about it and discuss it.

We use the term ‘progressive nationalist’ to describe our position, then produce large amounts of explanations to differentiate our nationalism from that of the ‘reactionary’ strain that most people think of when the term ‘nationalism’ is mentioned. But is there really any point in indulging in pointless explanations, when the majority of people fixate upon the ‘nationalist’ part of our position, paying scant heed to any suffix. Our description of ‘progressive nationalism’ is wasted, seen as nothing more than an unnecessary adornment, an attempt at obfuscation, a pathetic attempt to rationalise the irrational, an attempted ‘makeover’ to allow something to appear acceptable.

The term ‘nationalist’ or ‘nationalism’ is, and always will be, synonymous with White Nationalism and therefore ‘racist-supremacism’. No matter how you try and spin it, the term will always be seen as such and any organisation bearing the term nationalism (unless accompanied by the ‘Black’ suffix) will always be seen by those unable or unwilling to attempt an understanding of a ‘progressive’ form of nationalism, other than as an umbrella for chauvinists and bigots.

As a result the term nationalism is as inaccessible to use as the term ‘gay’. Once the word gay simply was an alternative for ‘happy’, someone could be considered gay without its sexual connotation; a place could be described as gay, an occasion also, again without reference to any sexual preference or practices. Now the word has been consumed by its connection to sexual preferences, resulting in its earlier language usage being overcome by those sexual connotations.

Society tends to eschew the term gay, and we must also eschew the term nationalism. Let the ‘movement’ have the term that they have done so much to tarnish over the decades. Let ‘White Nationalism’ pay the price for having given shelter and succour to some of the most obnoxious ideologies that the decades since the end of WWII have given birth to.

Let us think of another term for what we are trying to promote (difficult if not impossible) or, stop trying to reform a term that will not be reformed. We describe ourselves as “progressive nationalists and revolutionary socialists”; therefore I would suggest that perhaps its time to drop the part of our name that is holding us back? We are Revolutionary Socialists, let us embrace that title, and forego the unnecessary arguments over what ‘progressive nationalism’ does or does not mean.

Put nationalism in our title and you can add whatever proviso you wish; ‘progressive’, ‘reactionary’ or socialist and it will attract the usual suspects, some to aspire to membership others to conspire in its destruction. It is no more than a descriptive term, but one that can damn you to whatever hells you believe in. And what do we gain from using it? A few followers lost and separated from the usual nationalist groups, a few working-class who claim socialism but cannot bear to totally divorce themselves from Hitlerite ideas. Who see the immigrant (of whatever colour) as the problem, rather than effect of the illness that is capitalism. Who think that the solution to the problems of the first world can be solved by ‘kicking out’ the invader from without, when it is the cancer within that has to be removed.

I’ve spent a long time standing amidst the shadowy edge of both nationalist and socialist politics. And one thing is certain, in most ‘polite’ society you can admit to being somewhat left-wing without too much aggravation, but admit to being a nationalist and it has the same effect as pissing in someone’s beer. Most people won’t hang around long enough to hear explanations of the type of nationalism you espouse. Left-wing ideas = relatively acceptable; nationalist ideas = totally unacceptable.

No, we need a new descriptive term one that engenders different emotions, one that is free of the connotations that embellish and distort nationalism but in essence provide an almost identical purpose. Recently I have come to the conclusion that no matter our cultural or national differences one thing unites the various races of modernity, we are all subjected to oppression, all subject to exploitation differed by levels of relativity by the same faceless capitalists.

It’s not nationalism we need to promote; for nationalism has always been the camouflage that the capitalist has most easily hidden beneath, it is ‘liberation’. Liberation, from the same bourgeois elements that would exploit us, as euroethnic workers, with the same uncaring oppressiveness as any African or Asian worker. The difference of course being that the exploitation of the euroethnic worker is more acceptable for at least it frees the exploiter from accusations of racism. So, perhaps a better descriptive for us would be ‘progressive liberationists’? Or, given that we are talking class liberation as opposed to racial or sexual liberation, perhaps ‘progressive unionists’ or ‘progressive syndicalists’?

Thoughts please.

I have always been reluctant to avoid terminology simply because it has been "contaminated" in the public mind, so to speak. Progressive nationalism is a rather unique description, and the term "nationalism" itself does not truly provoke a hostile reaction apart from zealots. The term socialism is, in my experience, as politically charged as nationalism. While most individuals find general leftist views agreeable, they become far more hesitant to outright overtures to socialism, and the same is true for nationalism. The history of socialism is, after all, marred by the brutal regimes that have purportedly "practiced" it. The Euro-ethnic majorities in our nations tend to reject contemporary immigration trends and apart from opposing reactionary nationalist antagonisms (which most sane individuals do) do not seriously embrace the multicultural and multi-ethnic paradigms espoused by the bourgeois establishment.

The problem with attempting to "mask" our identity is that at some point it would lead to a difficult and contradictory position. How are we to seriously further an ethnic nationalist agenda when we deny such an affinity? To state that we should obscure our name simply because many individuals find nationalism offensive is to adopt a pessimistic and inimical outlook, as it assumes that such a situation cannot be overcome. Furthermore, how can we expect to implement a social policy designed to liberate a particular ethnic group in a healthy manner if we decide to somehow ignore the "less palatable" aspects of our ideology? A simple hypothetical scenario: we focus wholly on the class struggle and manage to attain a significant following. Well and good. What then? What would differentiate us from any other leftist movement? How could we suddenly proclaim nationalist sentiments without alienating the very movement that we have managed to develop? The internal turmoil would be unfathomable.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your intentions, but I perceive a dangerous slippery slope when following this type of reasoning. Apart from terms that carry tremendous historical bias (e.g., national socialism), I do not see frivolous nominal changes to be productive and therefore necessary.

If we do not need to promote nationalism, then I do not understand the purpose of this forum. Why not simply join RevLeft? Anti-capitalism is what unites us as socialists; it does not unite us as political activists.

Revolutionary Wolf wrote:I have always been reluctant to avoid terminology simply because it has been "contaminated" in the public mind, so to speak. Progressive nationalism is a rather unique description, and the term "nationalism" itself does not truly provoke a hostile reaction apart from zealots. The term socialism is, in my experience, as politically charged as nationalism. While most individuals find general leftist views agreeable, they become far more hesitant to outright overtures to socialism, and the same is true for nationalism. The history of socialism is, after all, marred by the brutal regimes that have purportedly "practiced" it. The Euro-ethnic majorities in our nations tend to reject contemporary immigration trends and apart from opposing reactionary nationalist antagonisms (which most sane individuals do) do not seriously embrace the multicultural and multi-ethnic paradigms espoused by the bourgeois establishment.

The problem here is that most people will not sit still long enough for a rational explanation once you utter the words nationalism. In America it is more than possible that the term socialism is greeted with the same level of hostility as nationalism (our experiences on Stormfront testify to that), yet in Europe the same cannot be claimed as the term socialism is not freely interchangeable with communism (the differences between two seperate ideologies are accepted in the main) and therefore Stalinism in the same manner. In Britain most people that reject immigration for social and economic reasons are far from prepared to accept nationalism (the lack of political breakthrough by the BNP, despite continued evidence that immigration is a top issue amongst the British electorate, is testimony to that). Most Europeans tend to equate nationalism with Hitler, Mussolini, Franco etc, and no amount of cool, rational explanations of what is meant by progressive nationalism will convince them otherwise.

The problem with attempting to "mask" our identity is that at some point it would lead to a difficult and contradictory position. How are we to seriously further an ethnic nationalist agenda when we deny such an affinity? To state that we should obscure our name simply because many individuals find nationalism offensive is to adopt a pessimistic and inimical outlook, as it assumes that such a situation cannot be overcome. Furthermore, how can we expect to implement a social policy designed to liberate a particular ethnic group in a healthy manner if we decide to somehow ignore the "less palatable" aspects of our ideology? A simple hypothetical scenario: we focus wholly on the class struggle and manage to attain a significant following. Well and good. What then? What would differentiate us from any other leftist movement? How could we suddenly proclaim nationalist sentiments without alienating the very movement that we have managed to develop? The internal turmoil would be unfathomable.

I am not suggesting masking or attempting any form of subterfuge, after all we can hardly convince the euroethnic worker to listen to us if we are then shown to lie as easily as other misleading politicians from left, right or centre. Simply that we refocus our attention away from the minefield that nationalism presents and more firmly toward revolutionary socialism with a ‘progressive ethno-liberationist’ slant.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your intentions, but I perceive a dangerous slippery slope when following this type of reasoning. Apart from terms that carry tremendous historical bias (e.g., national socialism), I do not see frivolous nominal changes to be productive and therefore necessary.

I do not consider it a “frivolous nominal change”, the use of nationalism, with or without the suffix of progressive, is, in my opinion, signing the death-warrant of this forum. It allows, as I stated in my original post, the infiltration of this forum by those of a more ‘reactionary’, if not downright fascistic position, and it is posts of that nature, no matter how mild or seemingly inoccuous, that will see this forum and its members dismissed as fascist or neo-nazi.

If we do not need to promote nationalism, then I do not understand the purpose of this forum. Why not simply join RevLeft? Anti-capitalism is what unites us as socialists; it does not unite us as political activists.”

And if all we are here for is to ‘promote’ nationalism why did we not simply stay on Stormfront, e-Nat or VNN, all of which forums happily promote nationalism and even socialism to an extent (as long as it worships swastikas and blood and soil visions, no matter how lost they are in the shadows of mythology) Anti-capitalism does indeed unite us as socialists, and it should also unite us as political activists, for one without the other is unthinkable The other day I read an article about the historical failure of anarchism, now I hold little respect for the sad utopian dreamers who linger beneath the particular title of ‘Anarchists’, but the following rings true;

“Anti-capitalism doesn’t do the victims of capitalism any good if you don’t actually destroy capitalism.”

It's interesting because we put two labels that seem like they are incompatible with each other. It really causes lot of confusion and right from seeing these two labels, most of our audiences from places like RevLeft and StormFront, each side sees the other label, and then just starts to disagree with it right from the start.

Example, because we had "Socialist" in our name, we were called Commies, Jews and race traitors, the usual and only argument the StormFront trash usually uses. Obviously, when you say we are nationalists most of the cosmo's from RevLeft are going to reject any line of thought we can offer.

This all said, I think we should try to come up with a singular title for our group that really represents us. A unique group with a unique ideology should have its own unique defining label/term.

Why don't we include the use of Syndicalist? That word, while also requiring a discussion, represents us as something unique.

We need something that won't link us to Cosmopolitan Leftists elements, and something that won't make us look like Fascists either.

There can be no doubt that the forum's utilization of the term 'nationalism' presents us with something of a conundrum. At the same time, however, failing to adequately emphasize our progressive nationalist framework renders the forum's ostensible position on the question either vacuous or implicitly cosmopolitan.

Whether or not we should continue to refer to this position as 'nationalism' is something that I think warrants some consideration. However, the overall (progressive nationalist) position should remain sufficiently emphasized, so that every one of this forum's guests and members can understand much of the perspective inherent to the general discourse here. It also serves to discipline whatever reactionary or cosmopolitan tendencies may burden a potential comrade, as well as compel such individuals to rethink the overall basis of said tendencies.

Isakenaz wrote:

Revolutionary Wolf wrote:I have always been reluctant to avoid terminology simply because it has been "contaminated" in the public mind, so to speak. Progressive nationalism is a rather unique description, and the term "nationalism" itself does not truly provoke a hostile reaction apart from zealots. The term socialism is, in my experience, as politically charged as nationalism. While most individuals find general leftist views agreeable, they become far more hesitant to outright overtures to socialism, and the same is true for nationalism. The history of socialism is, after all, marred by the brutal regimes that have purportedly "practiced" it. The Euro-ethnic majorities in our nations tend to reject contemporary immigration trends and apart from opposing reactionary nationalist antagonisms (which most sane individuals do) do not seriously embrace the multicultural and multi-ethnic paradigms espoused by the bourgeois establishment.

The problem here is that most people will not sit still long enough for a rational explanation once you utter the words nationalism. In America it is more than possible that the term socialism is greeted with the same level of hostility as nationalism (our experiences on Stormfront testify to that), yet in Europe the same cannot be claimed as the term socialism is not freely interchangeable with communism (the differences between two seperate ideologies are accepted in the main) and therefore Stalinism in the same manner. In Britain most people that reject immigration for social and economic reasons are far from prepared to accept nationalism (the lack of political breakthrough by the BNP, despite continued evidence that immigration is a top issue amongst the British electorate, is testimony to that). Most Europeans tend to equate nationalism with Hitler, Mussolini, Franco etc, and no amount of cool, rational explanations of what is meant by progressive nationalism will convince them otherwise.

The problem with attempting to "mask" our identity is that at some point it would lead to a difficult and contradictory position. How are we to seriously further an ethnic nationalist agenda when we deny such an affinity? To state that we should obscure our name simply because many individuals find nationalism offensive is to adopt a pessimistic and inimical outlook, as it assumes that such a situation cannot be overcome. Furthermore, how can we expect to implement a social policy designed to liberate a particular ethnic group in a healthy manner if we decide to somehow ignore the "less palatable" aspects of our ideology? A simple hypothetical scenario: we focus wholly on the class struggle and manage to attain a significant following. Well and good. What then? What would differentiate us from any other leftist movement? How could we suddenly proclaim nationalist sentiments without alienating the very movement that we have managed to develop? The internal turmoil would be unfathomable.

I am not suggesting masking or attempting any form of subterfuge, after all we can hardly convince the euroethnic worker to listen to us if we are then shown to lie as easily as other misleading politicians from left, right or centre. Simply that we refocus our attention away from the minefield that nationalism presents and more firmly toward revolutionary socialism with a ‘progressive ethno-liberationist’ slant.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your intentions, but I perceive a dangerous slippery slope when following this type of reasoning. Apart from terms that carry tremendous historical bias (e.g., national socialism), I do not see frivolous nominal changes to be productive and therefore necessary.

I do not consider it a “frivolous nominal change”, the use of nationalism, with or without the suffix of progressive, is, in my opinion, signing the death-warrant of this forum. It allows, as I stated in my original post, the infiltration of this forum by those of a more ‘reactionary’, if not downright fascistic position, and it is posts of that nature, no matter how mild or seemingly inoccuous, that will see this forum and its members dismissed as fascist or neo-nazi.

If we do not need to promote nationalism, then I do not understand the purpose of this forum. Why not simply join RevLeft? Anti-capitalism is what unites us as socialists; it does not unite us as political activists.”

And if all we are here for is to ‘promote’ nationalism why did we not simply stay on Stormfront, e-Nat or VNN, all of which forums happily promote nationalism and even socialism to an extent (as long as it worships swastikas and blood and soil visions, no matter how lost they are in the shadows of mythology) Anti-capitalism does indeed unite us as socialists, and it should also unite us as political activists, for one without the other is unthinkable The other day I read an article about the historical failure of anarchism, now I hold little respect for the sad utopian dreamers who linger beneath the particular title of ‘Anarchists’, but the following rings true;

“Anti-capitalism doesn’t do the victims of capitalism any good if you don’t actually destroy capitalism.”

(‘The Historical Failure of Anarchism)

You are reading too far into what I've stated. Nowhere have I asserted that we should mitigate our focus upon socialism, only that we should strive to integrate socialism and nationalism. At this point in time, I no longer hesitate to admit that on a personal level I consider myself a Marxist before I consider myself a nationalist, and I would rather meet advances toward socialism before advances toward a homogeneous ethnic state, although both are, in my view, complementary and ultimately necessary for the proper development of either one. However, this is not the issue. My contention is that shying away from certain terminology is unproductive. I do not find that any term conveys our devotion to ethnic solidarity better than nationalism, and this is why I believe that carving a distinct conception of progressive nationalism is paramount. I also fail to see how "progressive nationalist" is more vague than "liberationist," "unionist," or any other such moniker.

Nonetheless, I do understand your position. Usage of the term does present its own difficulties in both attracting undesirable characters and distancing potentially valuable members. I would suggest that we express our firm opposition to National Socialism and other fascistic movements explicitly while combating such views on the forum before resorting to discarding the term "nationalism," but if my fellow comrades within the RSF wish to effect such a name change, I will accept the collective decision.

What I think is needed is a better brief basic "framing" of the nature and necessity of progressive nationalism.

The vulgar globalist utopian cosmopolitan Leftists do this effectively in reverse.
"Nationalism is Nazi".
"Nationalism is racist".
"Nationalism lead to imperialism" .

Indeed, the reason why that RevLeft thread on Black Nationalism in their Opposing Views section was originally started was that some of those globalist utopian cosmopolitan Leftists were trying to make that case that even non-Euroethnic expressions of nationalism were too infected with things that are too politically naughty for their "internationalist" sensibilities.
They originally were asking if they should even continue allowing Black nationalism on RevLeft at all, or if they should basically lump and dump it into the same political heresy category that they put "White Nationalism" in.
But notice that this was even too much-- too extremely vulgan globalist utopian cosmopolitan---for most of the RevLefters who posted in that thread. I think that such response actually is a sign of some remaining (inconsistent) political health and sanity within the ostensible revolutionary far Left.

What the not-totally-crazy Leftists will argue is that there is must be a distinction made between expressions of "nationalism of the oppressors" and "nationalism of the oppressed". Ah, you see, framing here is the key, and what everything depends upon is how you define "oppressors" and "oppressed", and whether or not you think there is any potential for the genuine liberation of these oppressed within the constraints of the global capitalist system.

Further, it depends on how you define "nation"...who's in and who's out? Is an imperialist bourgeoisie part of a common "oppressor nation" with a major ethnic group living within the domestic front of its main imperial power center? Are the national bourgeoisies derived from the "oppressed" actually part of "oppressed nations" or not?

I've been thinking about the nature of the imperialist bourgeoisies, and whether or not today they are more or less comparable in universal globalist nature to the "Holy See" of the Catholic Church, which operates from its Church' power center in the Vatican City State. True, they don't go so far as to organize themselves into distinct separate sovereign nations within their empires. But can they really be considered part of a common 'nation' with ANY of the major ethnonationalities (who are mostly composed of exploited working people) within their imperial power centers, or should the imperialist ruling classes be considered essentially distinct 'nations' more or less unto themselves, parasitically leeching and lording it over the various neo-colonial nations within and outside their imperial power center "prisonhouses of nations"? To what degree are they 'citizens of the world'---part of an integrated internationalized bourgeoisie---and to what degree do they remain separate 'national' competing factions?

It seems that what makes it so difficult to explain ourselves is that what is taking place now is a historically unprecedented globalized development of capitalism that is currently ongoing/incomplete...thus, it is confusing as fuck!
All that can be said with total certainty on my part about it is that the old ways of simplistically understanding "how the world works" or "how the system works" are now insufficient. Neither the Right nor the Left really 'gets it'. This ain't the 1950s-1960s anymore, and it sure the heck ain't the 1920s-1930s. TODAY, Revolutionary socialism is again in dire need of a fundamentally advanced theoretical development on a qualitative level comparable to the leap that revolutionary socialists like Lenin and Trotsky represented upon the original foundations of the work of Marx, Engels, and other original revolutionary socialists. However, I have serious doubts that this will come from the quarters of those enemy-subsidized professional intellectuals whose job it is to expertly craft "explanations" and rationalizations for this system and for the current globalization development process. Those enemy-sponsored smart guys aren't being paid to help us understand the world in order to assist our efforts to change it. This isn't an anti-intellectual position, but rather a recognition that he who pays the musician gets to decide what songs he wants to hear played and which songs he doesn't...or in this case, to decide which ideas are "politically correct" and useful enough to the ruling class to allow them to be produced and disseminated into the public "marketplace of ideas".
There is a reason why the currently hegemonic ideas espoused on the Right and Left are the dominant ones. He who pays the piper decides the tune, comrades. Understanding this puts the Leninist concept of 'professional revolutionaries' is a new light. Our enemies use a similar concept for their interests.

It's a provocative question you raise, Isakenaz. Believe me, I sympathize with your concerns regarding the term 'nationalism'—I take absolutely no pleasure in having to use a term which has been so horribly debased by reactionaries over the years. I can definitely understand why there would be a general reluctance to use the term 'nationalism' in Western Europe, especially considering the fact that most of the political groups who utilize the term are labeled as being of the "far right" persuasion. In the United States, the 'socialist' label is far more problematic (which is why I continue to encourage American organizations to employ the term 'syndicalist' as an alternative).

Having said that, I concur with Revolutionary Wolf; it's important we avoid "masking" our identity too much, lest we risk confusing people as to the actual nature of our struggle. The absolute bottom line is nationalism is an integral aspect of any socialist society which possesses a desire for longevity, let alone overall success. It is both an instrumental value and a value in itself. Nationalism can certainly be used to further reactionary objectives, history has taught us this tragic lesson well, but we mustn't allow that to forever tarnish its name.

In a way, I'm really glad this issue was raised because I had been thinking a lot about it while writing "Reevaluating the National Question" (which, unfortunately, still isn't finished). The fact of the matter is, nationalism began as a leftist ideology during the French Revolution, and it should be reclaimed as such. As much as I like the term 'progressive nationalism,' perhaps it would be more advantageous to adopt the term 'left-wing nationalism' instead—it's not as vague and would immediately prevent any association between us and the "far right." I'd like to know what you comrades think of this proposal.

Celtiberian wrote:It's a provocative question you raise, Isakenaz. Believe me, I sympathize with your concerns regarding the term 'nationalism'—I take absolutely no pleasure in having to use a term which has been so horribly debased by reactionaries over the years. I can definitely understand why there would be a general reluctance to use the term 'nationalism' in Western Europe, since most political groups who do so are labeled as being of the "far right" persuasion. In the United States, the term socialism is far more problematic (which is why I continue to encourage American organizations to employ the term "syndicalist" as an alternative).

Having said that, I concur with Revolutionary Wolf; it's important we avoid "masking" our identity too much, lest we risk confusing people as to the actual nature of our struggle. The absolute bottom line is nationalism is an integral aspect to any socialist society which possesses a desire for longevity, let alone overall success. It is both an instrumental value and a value in itself. Nationalism can certainly be used to further reactionary objectives, history has taught us this that tragic lesson well, but we mustn't allow that to forever tarnish its name.

In a way, I'm really glad this issue was raised because I had been thinking a lot about it while writing "Reevaluating the National Question" (which, unfortunately, still isn't finished). The fact of the matter is, nationalism began as a leftist ideology during the French Revolution, and it should be reclaimed as such. As much as I like the term 'progressive nationalism,' perhaps it would be more advantageous to adopt the term 'left-wing nationalism' instead—it's less vague and would immediately prevent any association between us and the "far right." I'd like to know what you comrades think of this proposal.

I am fully in support of adopting the term "left-wing nationalism" in the place of "progressive," which is undoubtedly vague. As far as I am concerned, I will begin referring to our brand of nationalism as such regardless of what the other members think. It is both coherent and appropriate.

Revolutionary Wolf wrote:I am fully in support of adopting the term "left-wing nationalism" in the place of "progressive," which is undoubtedly vague.

I agree. Therefore, without any objection by members of the Executive Committee, I shall make the necessary alterations here on the forum.

Revolutionary Wolf wrote:I am fully in support of adopting the term "left-wing nationalism" in the place of "progressive," which is undoubtedly vague.

That's the exact term I would use to describe my political views. But I have to point out that such term might be confusing for people from outside our political spectrum.

In my experience it doesn't matter what you call yourself. As soon as the enemy realise he is dealing with a real revolutionary that is adressing the real issues and not the ones he is supposed to adress, to deflect any focus on the real problems, you will immediately be subject to nazification, and all the other ategories that is useful to make anything you say null and void.

Better to focus on how to meet these attacks and turn defense into offense! This is no business for tender people with thin skin. Be prepared to be dragged to the mud and subject to all sorts of disgusting backstabbing attacks!

WodzuUK wrote:That's the exact term I would use to describe my political views. But I have to point out that such term might be confusing for people from outside our political spectrum.

And which 'political spectrum' are you referring to?

Lew Skannon wrote:In my experience it doesn't matter what you call yourself. As soon as the enemy realise he is dealing with a real revolutionary that is adressing the real issues and not the ones he is supposed to adress, to deflect any focus on the real problems, you will immediately be subject to nazification, and all the other ategories that is useful to make anything you say null and void.

Better to focus on how to meet these attacks and turn defense into offense! This is no business for tender people with thin skin. Be prepared to be dragged to the mud and subject to all sorts of disgusting backstabbing attacks!

Fine and since 1945 Nazis have been defending against the scurrilous attacks of everyone and everyone, and achieved what? Should we, like them, take to the bunker and await the coming of a 'glorious leader'?

There is little doubt that as long as we adhere to the nationalist part of our title, whatever we suffix it with 'progressive, left or pink, we will get the 'Nazi' tag. We cannot stop that, but we don't have to advertise for it.