My challenge to the Trump sect:

First, i never called anything evil or satanistic, or even implied such - that’s just a weak strawman attempt. Nor did i “unquestionably reject” anything, given that the OP was in fact a direct question. And i haven’t rejected anything, because i’m still trying to get an answer to the question.

Now, if the Nazis hadn’t been so fervently nationalistic (ie - convinced of the superiority of themselves and their nation) they would not have started the war which led to their downfall, nor would they have overextended themselves militarily the way they did. Hitler believed in the innate superiority of his forces and failed to recognize the foolhardiness of stunts like invading Russia and attempting genocide. So, in fact, his paranoid nationalism did pretty directly lead to the downfall of the Third Reich, even if the war did briefly rally the citizenry behind him and jumpstart the national economy.

Well yeah, paranoid nationalism is a rhetorical term obviously. How one applies it will be a matter of perspective. But for myself i basically refer to, as you say, denying access to specific kinds of foreigners, building walls, and policies along those lines. i would also make a point to add “securing” and performing “surveillance” on specific kinds of residents and citizens within the nation.

As for Israel, it doesn’t seem to me that they are doing particularly well, given the constant existential threat they face at the hands of literally every one of their geographical neighbors. But again, you could argue that’s a matter of perspective as well.

China’s wall i actually don’t know much about - at least historically speaking. If it was a success and benefit for them, can you explain how?

Nationalism did not exist prior to the 18th century. It first because a major force in Napoleonic France.

In the 19th century, nationalism lead to the unification of both Germany and Italy.

It’s more say it’s a matter of proportion. You can certainly say that they aren’t doing well, but I think I’d argue that they are doing better than they would be if they didn’t have a wall and let Palestinians in no questions asked.

They built it specifically to keep Mongols out, so it struck me as an example of nationalism specifically targetted at another race. It took them a thousand years to build it, so I kinda figure they would have stopped at some point if it wasn’t helping, but I don’t have stats.

Australia from about 1901 to 1972. Highest standard of living in the world at the turn of the 20th century; unemployment around 2%; race issues close to non-existent due to homogeneous society; large manufacturing base (cars, ships, textiles, steel works, whitegoods); single income families with numerous children could buy their own home; suicide rate lower; drug issues close to non-existent; less divorce, less domestic violence.

Paranoid: seeing a hole in the ground in front and acknowledging it.

No sovereign state was ever not ruined that suffered from lack of nationalism

For fucks sake ugly look at Belgium.

In other words you have a whole lot of nothing…

Ah, so there is nothing terrible about an international conglomerate of corporations that are essentially siphoning the world’s wealth from all nations? What kind of liberal socialist are you?

The precursor to nationalism was tribalism and human beings have always been tribal.

Nationalism is merely the territorial expansion of tribalism.

Internationalism and globalism on the other hand is the notion that the world is one global tribe concerning a singular species in the desired ambition of eventually creating a global state.

Of course we’re not all one really, are we?

Just look at how the world is very much segregated economically.

Tribalism is associated with a selection principle that is based on nothing but existing bonds. In other words, those we’ve been friends with a long time are good people, others are bad. That’s different from a selection principle that is based on some sort of merit, like nobility for example.

Ethnocentrism is a bit more open but it is still fundamentally tribal as it selects based on ethnicity. Whites are good, blacks are bad. National identitarianism is tribal because it selects based on nationality. Germans are good, French are bad.

It’s group egoism, to put it simply. And no, not every group is egoistic.

And so, no, not every nationalism is tribal.

This is powerful and perceptive stuff you are writing Outsider so carry on like this if you can

I just read “women vomiting” and I was about to ask “what’s wrong with women vomiting?” Then I took another glance and oh my.

But anyways, what’s wrong with immigration? Why are you so hell-bent on this anti-immigration policy? Just because there are bad immigrants doesn’t mean all immigration is bad.

Think of it this way: different people belong to different groups, which also means nations. And often what happens is that people get born in wrong social groups . . . which weakens the group. So just as allowing wrong people to come to your country is a bad thing, so is disallowing wrong people born in your country to leave that country a bad thing. Migration is a must.

Ethnocentrism is also stupid. Ethnicity guarantees no strength . . . It just divides people even more than multi-culturalism does.

It’s all the same thing. I get the feeling you’re disagreeing with me just to disagree.

That’s what you reduce it to.
Why does the lion hunt the gnu? - It’s because he has been doing it since forever, that’s why.
Why is nature what nature is? - Because it has always been that way.

As if tribes themselves don’t change, split and merge. As if genetic similarity is not a biologically important selection criterium for the survival of genetically successful combinations.

There is no universal nobility. That’s chewbacca farm slang.
You know why the Chewbacca elite is so good at goyim farming? Because they have been farming and destroying their own people for a long time.
You level it all down to raise a few who become estranged from the rest of their people.

You only call it sect if you are part of the dominant religion which tries to minimize the competition.


Here’s an A+. Now, you have an answer to the OP’s question perhaps?

Dat OP must first explain what he means by paranoid nationalism and sovereign state because what Trump is suggesting are very relaxed policies compared to sovereign state policies prior to the last century, heck, prior to the second half of the last century. Way too relaxed if you ask me.

So then the OP must be thinking that prior to WW2 those sovereign states didn’t benefit from their policies when in fact what the OP alludes to as ‘paranoid nationalism’ is the bare minimum, if at all, of what is necessary to keep a sovereign state sovereign.

No borders, no country.
No ego, no self, no self-aware organism.

A con fidel man

Granted, Trump personifies incompetence on a scale never before seen in US politics, but that’s still a hilarious pic. Cruz is such an evil twat, i can’t help but relish watching him get embarrassed by the fat, liquid-tan, silver-spoon brat from New York and his legion of brainwashed sheeple. Not since Rick Santorum have i so enjoyed seeing an arch-conservative’s presidential aspirations get crushed.

It looks a lot like Mr. Toupee is going to win the election.