Did not know this. Thanks.
Not a dig at you, mate, but why is nationalism always qualified as "reactionary"? Seems like an underhanded way of addressing it. I never read of reactionary liberalism or reactionary communism, just when it's nationalism is it so.
Is everything not reactionary to something? Why when someone is proud of their country must it be explicitly labelled as populist, [noun]-mongering and so forth. When a domestic people feel that either themselves or their culture are being threatened, they retract from the world either through policy or attitude and reevaluate. When all is good in the world, rules and attitudes lax a bit - all just, adjustments to the state of the world around them.
Another but even more confusing phenomenon is how non-native peoples feel that what best suits them, best suits the native people - they, the future and we, the past; that they are here to educate the natives on how their own culture and country should be steered; that their definition of tolerance is however a one-way street - tolerate my wants and culture at your expense, for yours is not to be tolerated. When in all Hades did this become such an acceptable approach to things?