National socialists should not support the US

[Justanotherbloke]

Sovereignty and self determination are the foundation. That's why I find it cucked that some support US interventionism.
When it comes to imperialism The US has a history of imperialistic actions, from the Spanish American war to the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Supporting the US means endorsing this imperialism, which is at odds with our belief in national self determination.
And don´t forget they are a key player promoting globalism, which erodes national borders and cultures. we should be advocating for strong, independent nations, not a borderless world.

Like I talked about before, their foreign policy is riddled with interventionism, from regime changes to economic sanctions. These actions often cause more harm than good, destabilizing regions and creating power vacuums that benefit no one but Zionist Influence. Their influence holds a tight grip on American policy, particularly in the Middle East. So supporting the them often means supporting policies that favor Israel.
Some might say that the America is a bulwark against communism or that it shares values. But USA has long been a champion of liberal democracy and free market capitalism and those ideals that are contrary to to nationalist and socialist principles.

 

[Justanotherbloke]

Don´t forget the role of them in promoting multiculturalism and open borders, the most obvious one ofc and water one. US has been a major proponent of these policies, using influence to push them onto other nations. It dilutes cultural identity but also creates social unrest and division. America has a history of supporting coups and regime changes that install puppet governments favorable to their interests undermining the sovereignty of others. Supporting the US is peak level stupidity

 

[Castaway]

Sovereignty and self determination are the foundation. That's why I find it cucked that some support US interventionism.
When it comes to imperialism The US has a history of imperialistic actions, from the Spanish American war to the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Supporting the US means endorsing this imperialism, which is at odds with our belief in national self determination.
And don´t forget they are a key player promoting globalism, which erodes national borders and cultures. we should be advocating for strong, independent nations, not a borderless world.

Like I talked about before, their foreign policy is riddled with interventionism, from regime changes to economic sanctions. These actions often cause more harm than good, destabilizing regions and creating power vacuums that benefit no one but Zionist Influence. Their influence holds a tight grip on American policy, particularly in the Middle East. So supporting the them often means supporting policies that favor Israel.
Some might say that the America is a bulwark against communism or that it shares values. But USA has long been a champion of liberal democracy and free market capitalism and those ideals that are contrary to to nationalist and socialist principles.

The United States as the world's policeman is, as you know, a very recent phenomenon, dating back to the end of WW2. For most of its history, the US has limited its jurisdiction to the Americas, which it had every right to do, being the leading power in the region and the main outpost of Western civilization. The Spanish-American War, like the earlier Mexican War, was entirely justified. Just as the West was our living space, the Caribbean was mare nostrum, so we fought the Spanish for it and won fair and square. It had nothing to do with globalism and only served to assert national interests. Point being, the United States is not an inherently anti-national or globalist entity. It's simply been subverted and hijacked like all other Western nations.

As for the idea of sovereignty and self-determination, the National Socialists, or at least the orthodox Hitlerites, believe that sovereignty and self-determination are limited to peoples who can fight for it. Those who are weak and cannot defend their sovereignty have every right to be subjugated. In Mein Kampf, Hitler speaks of the conquest of Eastern Europe as a living space for the German people. Do you think he thought it necessary to consider whether the right to sovereignty of the indigenous population in this region would be violated? Of course not, in his view the Germans were strong and the Slavs weak, and therefore the former had every right to dominate the region. Of course, this is to be distinguished from modern globohomo interventionism, but it must be made clear that NS was not anti-imperialist and should not be compared with left-wing nationalist movements such as those in the third world.

 

[Justanotherbloke]

As for the idea of sovereignty and self-determination, the National Socialists, or at least the orthodox Hitlerites, believe that sovereignty and self-determination are limited to peoples who can fight for it. Those who are weak and cannot defend their sovereignty have every right to be subjugated. In Mein Kampf, Hitler speaks of the conquest of Eastern Europe as a living space for the German people. Do you think he thought it necessary to consider whether the right to sovereignty of the indigenous population in this region would be violated? Of course not, in his view the Germans were strong and the Slavs weak, and therefore the former had every right to dominate the region. Of course, this is to be distinguished from modern globohomo interventionism, but it must be made clear that NS was not anti-imperialist and should not be compared with left-wing nationalist movements such as those in the third world.

Mein Kampf is true but the whole story does not revolve around that. National Socialism is complex ideology with different factions and evolving ideas. Some National Socialists were more focused on building a strong, self sufficient Germany rather than just expanding its borders. They were into things like economic independence and cultural preservation, that aren't imperialistic goals.
Also you try to draw a clear line between National Socialist imperialism and modern globalism saying they're completely different. But if you look closer, you can see some similarities. Both are imposing their will on others, whether it's through military force or economic pressure. It's like saying a lion and a tiger are totally different just because one roars and the other doesn't.
How can you dismiss any comparison between National Socialism and left-wing nationalist movements. both were about self determination and resisting foreign domination, in this case against kikes. Their methods and ideologies were different, but they shared some common ground. It's like saying a cat and a dog are nothing alike just because one purrs and the other barks.