If you call yourself a National Socialist but you're not

>>131999153
I don't call myself a National Socialist but what do you mean by isolationist?

>>131999472
Limiting yourself from international involvement. I'm pretty natsoc and against EU but I'm still for Nato and Efta.

>>132000649
What's so great about NATO? It has turned our leaders into eunuchs who are only concerned with economy (and are terrible at it btw).

>>131999153
There is only international socialism.
"The economic impact of socialism is global - in truth, globalism as it were is socialism. Any time you create significant centralization, the impact is absolute. US Federal centralization has a global impact. And in turn, global impact affects us as well. Individuals pay for the entire world."

>>132000843
It keeps like minded, western nations stronger united and we have a human necessity of a strong central authority to avoid evil discord, fighting each other and civil war.
It protects small western countries that have no army like mine and ultimately makes less wars because it's such an immensely strong military power, no one really dares to go against it which in return makes peace.

File: bjarni.jpg (1MB, 1417x1962px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1417x1962px

>>132000843
Nato has nothing to do with our leaders being weak, It's mainly the EU.
Pic related is my prime minister, he's against the EU but very much for Nato but most importantly, he's for strict immigration laws and strong integration programs.
EU should fall but I believe Nato will keep western civilization strongly united keeping us from killing each other.

>>132001155
>It keeps like minded, western nations stronger united
We are not united, Anglos and Germans want to kill each other, Greeks and Germans want to kill each other, French want to kill themselves, Americans are tired of paying for Eastern Europe.

>It protects small western countries that have no army like mine
There has always been small western countries, Switzerland is pretty small yet it has created the means to defend itself. And I'm not even talking about micro-states like Luxemburg.

>>132001442
If Nato was a strictly European organization, I would agree, but it's not.

>>132001664
>>132001722
All fair points, Nato isn't perfect but we almost objectively need some kind of treaty organization between each other, making it only Europe would be smart too. America could leave but we'd still have an alliance.
Switzerland has a population of about 8 million, small countries like mine are about three hundred thousand.
If we let isolated nationalism rise as high as it did back in ~1900 we'll get another almost completely pointless war like WW1 again. We shouldn't fight each other.

>>132002338
Agreed on every points, sorry for the comparison with Switzerland (didn't know the comparative population) still, my point was a small nations has other tools (diplomacy, commerce, culture, tax havens etc.) to avoid wars with neighbors.

But yeah, I can understand how the idea of (relatively) powerful players in the region saying fuck the rest of the world could worry you.

Still, I disagree with the idea that the early 20th century conflicts were war between nations, it was war between empires (or wannabe empires) and imperialism is a foreign concept for honest nationalists.

>>132002784
The last counter point is correct but I'd still say that happened somewhat too because of rising isolated nationalism, people thought they deserved Europe and in return made alliances with the goal to become the greatest empire, if we had a treaty organization at that time people would already feel part of a strong and united military power empire and would just focus on themselves instead while they wouldn't worry about outside power attacking them since they'd be so strong. Although I just started listening to The Great Courses: World War I: The "Great War"
And haven't had a complete grasp on the event.

>>132002338
>If we let isolated nationalism rise as high as it did back in ~1900 we'll get another almost completely pointless war like WW1 again

That's completely illogical. The entire point of isolationism is so that if war does break out then you are on the moral high ground as you haven't done anything to instigate actions against your country. If another country does something to you that you didn't deserve then you have the sympathy of most other nations who simply want to get on with their lives.

I'm fine with mutual defence as long as the emphasis is on /defence/, and not trying to spread our values globally. No meddling in the affairs of the Middle East, no proxy wars with Russia / China whatever because we can't fathom any other society or system of government existing on this planet than our own etc.

>>131999153

If everyone had isolated themselves then the strongest nation would dominate all others.

Unless you give everyone nukes.