I'll answer here someone's comment via the reputations system.
It does. But ultranationalist is only a journalist's label to make it sound all the more alarming. Think about it, ultra is a Latin prefix that means beyond, even more than. I don't know how it is to be "non ultra" nationalist. Or ultra nationalist for that matter. There is undoubtedly people with different ideologies wrapped around Nationalism (I always argue that Nationalism is not an ideology, but a sentiment that must be accompanied by a consequent ideology or a political idea attached to it). But, what is to be "beyond nationalist" is uncertain if it is at all.

I don't mind the labelling of ultra. In Spain the journalists used to call Ultras to Patriots in past decades. It was short for ultra-rightists. Today it is sometimes used to label football supporters groups.. unfortunately. They also employed "extreme rightists" as an alternative labelling to ultras. Now, I do mind a bit that one. I find it very inexact and there is a lack of imagination and of style in its usage.

Another usual labelling is that of radical. Again, used with the intention of making it sound as alarming as possible. I don't mind that one either. Probably without being fully aware, they are employing here a word with an etymological meaning in Latin derived from the word for "root[s]": radix, radices.

Many people assume that a journalist is a well informed and even cultivated person, without a reason for such a belief other than that journalists should in the theory be well informed and cultivated people. But in the practice they are not and journalism is not about informing but about creating opinion or a means for propaganda. Much unfortunately.

So, their intention behind the employment of the word radical is to equate it to the alternative meaning of extremist. Well, that's their saying. I choose to think of it in its meaning of "from the root[s]".

Notice in the above definition of radical from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary that in the second definition, fundamental is given as a synonimous of radical.

Now, when you read of Muslim fundamentalists you are used to --or rather programmed to-- think in terms of extremists. But again, what's wrong with following the fundaments of a doctrine, and ideology or a belief? Maybe if one sticks to them beyond what's reasonable.. and again, how do we measure what is reasonable and what is not for each and every single case? Surely our own perception of things, influenced by our education, our cultural and our social background among many other factors allow us to judge or to measure within an own bias.

But if we think well over it, what's wrong with following the fundaments of the Islamic doctrine and religion in an Islamic country? I don't know and, quite honestly, I don't care. But I do know that it is fundamentally wrong if these fundaments are followed in European countries. Excuse the redundancy here. Among other things, because being strange to Europe they have to be forced in. And then I do care and I have no doubts that so do most others on Stirpes.

So, it is within a context that a label used with the intention of making something or someone look and sound wrong, that we can think of it in some terms or another. Undoubtedly, the journalists who employ such labels do it with clearly dishonest intentions.

To give you another example, through the 60s and 70s and even still in the early 80s journalists created and spread what they labeled the Black International. This was supposed to be a secretive and obscure underground network in Europe and beyond, of Nationalist activists with the intention of destabilising the system and/or attempting to gain power through subversive and even armed actions. The terming "black" was employed because of its identification with Fascism. The terming "international" is most laughable at if you think of the non internationalist nature of Nationalism in those years (and to some point still today, although the world has changed and even turned upside down, and adaptation to the new times has been necessary for survival.. something that is more clear each year). But if you had read the news related to the Black International in those years, you would have been left with the deep impression of a well organized and strong underground network.

I have to admit that there was a flair to the story which was likeable and even enjoyable. But apart from that flair there was next to nothing to it. Such an "international" never existed, neither in an official nor in an unofficial form. It was a smoke screen to justify to the public the persecution of Nationalist elements. People from those years, when the subject of the Black International arises today in a conversation, joke saying how they were leaders or elements of an all-powerful international network which they didn't even know that it existed.

Of course there were contacts here and there, and of a varied nature. But such contacts were largely unconnexed one to each other and often as a result of the works of individuals or small groups who on occasions did not even trust each other to work together. And, of course, the invisible hand of the secret services of some country or another making sure that things were messy and troubled enough for convenience.

In a matter of a few lines on a newspaper, someone could become a highly dangerous individual with powerful and obscure contacts, and be involved in all kind of imaginable and unimaginable actions ranging from entangled financial operations to the overthrown of regimes around the world.

As the saying goes, information is power.

So, to answer the initial question if the label of ultranationalist applies to us, I would say yes. Ultranationalist, radical nationalist and what not. It doesn't matter how exact or inexact it is, or if it's being used fairly or not, or with such or such other intention. You can say that you are just a Nationalist or a Patriot, to try to dettach yourself from the intended demonization of the other labels. But tomorrow some journalists can re-construct the words Nationalist and Patriot, distorting their meaning and making them synonimous with the rest of the labels. You can't allow yourself to be bothered with such labels. It's a waste of time.