If you're someone that lived in the French-Canadian Province of
Quebec for a while, you'd be acquainted with the word “Franglais,” which refers
to the mixing of French and English words in your daily conversations.
Franglais is what you see in the title of this discussion.
I thought it appropriate to mention this fact, having decided to
write about the clash between the French President Emanuel Macron and the
English-speaking American President Donald Trump, concerning the difference
between “nationalism” and “patriotism,” as brought out in Clifford May's latest
column.
To be brutally honest, Clifford May has failed to shed much light
on how the two presidents define either of the two words, or if Clifford May
himself sees any difference between them. You'll get a sense of all that when
you read: “Why Trump's brand of nationalism works,” written by Clifford D. May,
and published on June 11, 2019 in The Washington Times.
What you'll discover in the May article is the writer's own
definition of nationalism as well as the underlying philosophy that led him to
that definition. Here is how it all pans out:
“On the Left, nationalism has become a dirty word. Macron called
nationalism the opposite of patriotism. On the Right, there is now a sharp
split over nationalism. Trump called himself a nationalist. It is a political
order based on free peoples with diverse traditions who come together against
common enemies and in support of common values. Trump didn't use his pencil to
strike out 'crusade,' a prohibited term because it evokes a medieval war
between Christian and Muslim armies. Trump said that the men who stormed Omaha
Beach had committed their lives in a great crusade, and spoke of World War II as
a Great Crusade. General Eisenhower's memoir was titled Crusade in Europe”.
It is clear from that passage that the thrust of Clifford May's
argument is to sanitize the word “crusade” and rehabilitate it into common
usage again. It is worth recalling that during a period of tension between
Christianity and Islam, the Jewish organizations –– such as May's own
Foundation for Defense of Democracies –– were crying out to make terms such as
“Islamic terrorism,” a common currency for no reason except to brand Islam a
religion of terror.
A popular backlash ensued, and the use of words that would lead to
imagery detrimental to Islam, was frowned upon. “Crusade” was one of those
words. So now, in the typical Jewish tradition of never giving up doing hurtful
things, Clifford May wants to bring the word crusade back into common use.
Rejecting the Islamo-Christian principle of redemption, he wants to open the
old wounds by reviving the previously spurned anti-Muslim words, thus pave the
way to start a war of the religions.
Moreover, if you are familiar with the way that the Jews operate
in the long run, you'd realize that Clifford May is not playing with words for
the fun of it. No; his intent is a lot more convoluted than that. The reality
is that Jews believe the words have a power of their own. In their view, when
the words are repeated often, they become reality. Thus, May's motivation in
reviving images of a war between Christianity and Islam, is to pave the way for
such a war to happen.
So we ask: What is the philosophy underlying all that? Well, we
find out by focusing on Clifford May's own definition of the word nationalism.
Here it is: “A political order based on free peoples with diverse traditions
who come together against common enemies and in support of common values”.
Bear in mind that the quest for a peaceful coexistence among
nations has been the motivation behind President Macron's differentiation
between nationalism and patriotism. Bear in mind also that President Trump has
repeatedly said he prefers to negotiate deals rather than make war. When you do
that, it becomes clear that Clifford May's philosophy of life is opposed to
what these two men have in mind.
To May, the world is irredeemably made of good people and evil
ones, and the war shall never end between them till one side or the other is
vanquished from the face of the Earth. He sees himself standing on the good
side together with the other Jews and those who stand with them. And he sees
everyone else standing on the evil side, together with those who oppose the
Jews.
The trouble with this theory is that it does not explain how it is
that the Germans, who were once “Hitler's executioners” and the irredeemably
bad guys, have suddenly become the good guys and the best friends of the Jews
in Europe and the World.
Is Clifford May now prepared to admit there is such a thing as
redemption, and that the Germans have redeemed themselves?
If such is the case, would he join Emanuel Macron, Donald Trump
and the Islamo-Christian masses in trying to negotiate a better world rather
than constantly trumpet the benefits of war?