I think supremacist (all other nations are inferior) and imperialist (weaker nations must/deserve to be dominated/conquered) nationalism fits well. Traditionally they often pair strongly with what Strongpoint defined as ultramationalist as far as I can see, although over here that kind of ultranationalism has taken a backseat to the less specific race nationalism for the last 30 years or so ("race nationalism" here used to describe "white power" and similar movements where they start identifying their race as their nation before their actual nation).
I like to separate supremacist and imperialist bents because while they often come together wholly or partially supremacist nationalism also comes in the more "isolationist" variety that I associate with say English nationalists (I can't say how accurate that is though but it is the impression I have from afar) who are very "we are the best and everybody else are savages" seems to not come with the assumption that the rest of the world should belong to them any more.
I define it as:
-Supremacists believe one group should dominate another. You get very obvious and overt ones like racial supremacists, but then you also get a large category of people who would not self-identify as supremacists who nevertheless believe it's "obvious" that one group should dominate another. E.g. "oh we just work harder and smarter than everyone else, that's why we're at the top."
-Nationalism believes that the goals and interests of the nation supercedes the interests and goals of the individual. Ranges from benign flavours of patriotism to expectations that loyalty to a system is more valuable than questioning whether the system is good to begin with.
Within nationalism you can probably also add the special nationalists, like those who are trying to achieve statehood (e.g. separatists trying to achieve a nation-state from another state's borders, e.g. historical Polish nationalism, Kurdish nationalism or Khalistan nationalism). Or special cases like Taiwanese nationalism or Ukrainian nationalism prior to Russia's support of Donbas separatism & the invasion, where people were building the concept of the national identity. Another way to put it, is that nationalists envision building the largest community of people who identify as a common people.
-Ultranationalism takes this concept of community and then treats anything not part of this "common people" as contaminants, whether by falling afoul of sectarian, religious or racial grounds. Some people tie this into concepts of imperialism and geopolitical darwinism like the fascists and imperialists of the early 20th century, but there have always been ultranationalists who were anti-imperialist. E.g. France and Britain both had fervent anti-imperialists who were also highly xenophobic. The US GOP today has Republicans who are like this, who are fervent believers in American exceptionalism, believe Americans are the best thing ever, but also oppose American interventions and military operations abroad and think the whole "democratic crusade" of jingoistic liberals is just going to waste American resources for the benefit of non-Americans.
Conversely you do get very liberal-minded warhawks who reject the notion of nationalism entirely, yet still advocate for imperialism. In the late 19th century this was very literal liberal imperialism, with British liberal imperialists advocating for increased enfranchisement and moral advancement, whilst also advocating for imperial expansion whether the receivers wanted such liberal generosity at the end of a bayonet. The parallels between then and now with rainbow-flagged reaper drones flying over the middle east at least rhyme
Author
Topic: Emotional Responses to War in Ukraine - Trollbait 2.0 (Read 211438 times)