Take the skinheads bowling
By 
Fair and balanced coverage of our very own demagogue from POLITICO:
President Donald Trump on Monday evening proudly asserted that he is a “nationalist” — a designation some of his fiercest critics have previously wielded against him as an attack on what they deem nativist policy pursuits by his administration.
Trump’s political rhetoric could not possibly be more nativist. He couldn’t be clearer on this point unless he actually used the word, which he doesn’t only because Stephen Miller or Steve Bannon or whoever is feeding Trump his lines these days has decided it would be better for Trump not to use it (Trump himself of course could no more define “nativist” than he could translate Finnegans Wake into Basque.).
Once again, our media elites simply can’t bear to look reality in the face, aka do what is literally their only job.
As for “nationalism,” as Chris Rock points out, that train’s never late:
“You know, they have a word, it sort of became old-fashioned. It’s called a nationalist,” Trump said at a campaign event in Houston, where he rallied voters to support Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) in November’s midterm elections.
As the crowd in the Houston Toyota Center roared with applause, the president continued: “Use that word. Use that word.”
This is now normal. The president of the United States addresses a frothing mob of supporters like some sort of sub-literate Mussolini, and what are we to make of it? Once again, POLITICO is on the case:
Trump’s remarks followed a rebuke of “globalists” whom he accused of putting other nations’ interests ahead of those of the United States.
“Radical Democrats want to turn back the clock. Restore the rule of corrupt, power-hungry globalists,” Trump said. “You know what a globalist is, right?”
He explained: “A globalist is a person that wants the globe to do well, frankly not caring about our country so much. And, you know what? We can’t have that.”
The words “nationalist” and “globalist” — both loaded terms with sometimes sinister implications — have made their way into the popular political lexicon since Trump ascended to the White House.
OK that was pretty mealy-mouthed but it’s slightly better. Baby steps.
But then:
The former can refer to the promotion of self-governance and one country’s interests. But it has also been associated with the “alt-right” movement, which is broadly supportive of the president’s agenda but has occasionally been accused of harboring white supremacist tendencies.
Is this trolling? Gaslighting? On some level it would be better if it were, but it’s almost certainly the case that this is (checks) Quint Forgey’s and his editors at POLITICO’s idea of journalism.
And the latter label, which can imply a more economically connected world of multinational alliances, is sometimes employed by racist commentators on the internet in a conspiratorial sense as a euphemism for Jewish people.
Apparently the POLITICO stylebook says it’s OK to call anti-Semites “racists.”
But then what are you supposed to call racists? Oh yeah, that would be people who have “occasionally been accused of harboring white supremacist tendencies.” Like, say, the president of the United States.
A known fact may be so unbearable that it is habitually pushed aside and not allowed to enter into logical processes, or on the other hand it may enter into every calculation and yet never be admitted as a fact, even in one’s own mind.
Orwell, “Notes on Nationalism”