Esoteric Nazism (Nationalism)

[Is_Yde_opN]

But maybe, just maybe, to keep stepping on the wretched is not the best way to deal. That's why Fixed Cross is taking a distance: he likes stepping on things but appreciates life much more than he likes that. So he asked me, cause I can talk to wretched souls. Satan is all about them.

I thought it's because it doesn't look good on him to make himself dirty. He has to look the part of enlightened guru now.
He's no real Jesus after all, just a cheap copy pasta.
Remember, Jesus went to the temple himself with whip n'all.
This Jewsus here is sending you.

So, Whipocles, what do u mean by saying 'Satan is all about them'?
I thought you are the Satanist here?
You wanna join us Satanists, leaving your Fixxer behind, or what's the deal here?

[Pezerocles]

HAhahaha. We Satanist already are, there is no choice.

[Pezerocles]

[Pandora]

It did?
The Japanese have been for a long time and still are one of the most Ethno-conscious people among the industrialised states.
The atomic bombs did nothing compared to the muh-freedom, muh-equality philosophy which became particularly toxic after the 1960s in the USA.

Japan has become a feminized nation of all things useless, wacky and bizarre. Their latest contribution to the world is the Pokémon Go.

Puerto Rican is a mixed-race identity to begin with and it seems to be combining the two ideas quite well, so what are they preserving? Their own biological/ethnical mixture and the feel-good philosophy?

So? They can’t preserve their mixed-race state of affairs?

My original question was the qualitative basis of national pride. A nation that produces atomic energy can be proud just as a nation that prides itself on cultivating banana plantations, but are they qualitatively the same? If they are, as you seem to be claiming, then all nations, qualitatively, are the same.

Europeans can’t choose to remain ethnically Europeans because everybody came from of Africa?

...and just a minute ago you were defending Puerto Rican mixed race pride. By same logic, a European who wants to become Eurasian, will have the same right to be proud of being Eurasian.

Next you gonna tell me preservation doesn’t work because things always change anyway?

But it has always been that way. Things do change. Alliances change. Nations change. Political maps are redrawn. Ancient Egypt fell. Rome fell.

It’s not sensible to let go of what we have just for the sake of new possibility, especially if it’s not with a high probability of working out better. That’s in itself not a viable strategy in reality.

Ironically, that is exactly what is happening with small nationalistic countries that, for the sake of national self-preservation go so far as to indebt themselves to another and become the other's puppet. So, in appearance, the nation appears on its own, but in reality, it belongs to other because it has sold itself. And what kind of nationalism is that? It's like a tourist/museum attraction - a façade - pretty to look at but there is nothing left inside. And what are they proud of? The looks? Let's assume that a nation will preserve its people (genetically), and they will be homogenous (more or less like their ancestors), and everyone will be a fishermen, and a farmer, forever and ever, just like their ancestors were. Is that what needs to be preserved? The ancient lifestyle? So you can stay in the same place - forever?

As for your Ottoman's - I can't cooperate with somebody for a shared goal?

And as consequence, some of those European countries inherited Muslim culture (which set the stage for later wars).

[Fixed Cross]

But maybe, just maybe, to keep stepping on the wretched is not the best way to deal. That's why Fixed Cross is taking a distance: he likes stepping on things but appreciates life much more than he likes that. So he asked me, cause I can talk to wretched souls. Satan is all about them.

I thought it's because it doesn't look good on him to make himself dirty. He has to look the part of enlightened guru now.
He's no real Jesus after all, just a cheap copy pasta.
Remember, Jesus went to the temple himself with whip n'all.
This Jewsus here is sending you.

So, Whipocles, what do u mean by saying 'Satan is all about them'?
I thought you are the Satanist here?
You wanna join us Satanists, leaving your Fixxer behind, or what's the deal here?

[Is_Yde_opN]

It did?
The Japanese have been for a long time and still are one of the most Ethno-conscious people among the industrialised states.
The atomic bombs did nothing compared to the muh-freedom, muh-equality philosophy which became particularly toxic after the 1960s in the USA.

Japan has become a feminized nation of all things useless, wacky and bizarre. Their latest contribution to the world is the Pokémon Go.

Puerto Rican is a mixed-race identity to begin with and it seems to be combining the two ideas quite well, so what are they preserving? Their own biological/ethnical mixture and the feel-good philosophy?

So? They can’t preserve their mixed-race state of affairs?

My original question was the qualitative basis of national pride. A nation that produces atomic energy can be proud just as a nation that prides itself on cultivating banana plantations, but are they qualitatively the same? If they are, as you seem to be claiming, then all nations, qualitatively, are the same.

Europeans can’t choose to remain ethnically Europeans because everybody came from of Africa?

...and just a minute ago you were defending Puerto Rican mixed race pride. By same logic, a European who wants to become Eurasian, will have the same right to be proud of being Eurasian.

Next you gonna tell me preservation doesn’t work because things always change anyway?

But it has always been that way. Things do change. Alliances change. Nations change. Political maps are redrawn. Ancient Egypt fell. Rome fell.

It’s not sensible to let go of what we have just for the sake of new possibility, especially if it’s not with a high probability of working out better. That’s in itself not a viable strategy in reality.

Ironically, that is exactly what is happening with small nationalistic countries that, for the sake of national self-preservation go so far as to indebt themselves to another and become the other's puppet. So, in appearance, the nation appears on its own, but in reality, it belongs to other because it has sold itself. And what kind of nationalism is that? It's like a tourist/museum attraction - a façade - pretty to look at but there is nothing left inside. And what are they proud of? The looks? Let's assume that a nation will preserve its people (genetically), and they will be homogenous (more or less like their ancestors), and everyone will be a fishermen, and a farmer, forever and ever, just like their ancestors were. Is that what needs to be preserved? The ancient lifestyle? So you can stay in the same place - forever?

As for your Ottoman's - I can't cooperate with somebody for a shared goal?

And as consequence, some of those European countries inherited Muslim culture (which set the stage for later wars).

But but, it's not perfect, we must destroy it because it failed, because everything fails eventually. And after it is destroyed it will be better because progress, because things always get better.
So why not destroy whatever exists as soon as possible, so it can get better.
Benevolent universe will make it all alright.

As I said, change happens anyway.
I guess some people can't stand themselves. Understandable.
But why do they have to advocate for mixing themselves into something else for others, for everybody?
- Ressentiment.

[Pandora]

But but, it's not perfect, we must destroy it because it failed, because everything fails eventually. And after it is destroyed it will be better because progress, because things always get better.
So why not destroy whatever exists as soon as possible, so it can get better.
Benevolent universe will make it all alright.

There you go again. The point that I made is that the fault, the weakness, is not in the other, but within - something that the nationalists do not want to seem to accept - and instead, prefer to point fingers of blame elsewhere. As history shows, the weakness (in form of psychological self-serving values) is already there, it is only used and exploited by other, as it has been done for ages. So why have they not learned that yet?

But why do they have to advocate for mixing themselves into something else for others, for everybody?
- Ressentiment.

And where did I advocate for it? Show me. It was you who said mixed race people have a right to be proud of their mixed race, and it was you who had no problem with cooperating with different culture (disregarding cultural consequences) for the sake of self survival.

[Pandora]

Nationalism as a tool of divide and conquer. You can see this happening yourself. Take country AB that is composed with essentially the same people differing only in slight variations. Take A people, exaggerate their differences, whatever they might be, then give them a sense of individual nationalism and turn them against B people. That doesn't work only on different races, it works within the same race too (ethnic wars/civil wars). The key is to give them a bloated sense of nationalism (pride in their difference), and then gradually fan the flames. And what is the likely outcome of this? One will be assimilated and the other destroyed. And as far as instigator, as history shows, there will always be one out there, just as there will always be a differences (even if minute) to be exploited, and the exploitable psychology to go with it.

[Is_Yde_opN]

But but, it's not perfect, we must destroy it because it failed, because everything fails eventually. And after it is destroyed it will be better because progress, because things always get better.
So why not destroy whatever exists as soon as possible, so it can get better.
Benevolent universe will make it all alright.

There you go again. The point that I made is that the fault, the weakness, is not in the other, but within - something that the nationalists do not want to seem to accept - and instead, prefer to point fingers of blame elsewhere. As history shows, the weakness (in form of psychological self-serving values) is already there, it is only used and exploited by other, as it has been done for ages. So why have they not learned that yet?

But why do they have to advocate for mixing themselves into something else for others, for everybody?
- Ressentiment.

And where did I advocate for it? Show me. It was you who said mixed race people have a right to be proud of their mixed race, and it was you who had no problem with cooperating with different culture (disregarding cultural consequences) for the sake of self survival.

First, it is you who has an issue with nationalism thus with people preserving who and what they are.
See, they have no problem with their qualities which always will entail weaknesses.
You do.

Ad second, I say who or whatever people are, they may have a desire to preserve themselves, thus ethno-nationalism. Is that a problem?
Do you think feminization of the Japanese is due to nationalism? It's due to not having an other to fight, like in a defacto globalist cesspit which reduces a social organism to a narcissistic individualistic mess.

[Is_Yde_opN]

Read up a bit on Calhoun's Mouse Utopia Experiment.
(Totally Nazi!)
Gives a good hint at the root of this epidemic of narcissism and feminization.

[Pandora]

First, it is you who has an issue with nationalism thus with people preserving who and what they are.

Their view is too simple and near-sighted. You can be what you are - as a slave - and that will become your new identity to be proud of.

See, they have no problem with their qualities which always will entail weaknesses.
You do.

Are you advocating for weakness now? Pride in weakness?

Ad second, I say who or whatever people are, they may have a desire to preserve themselves, thus ethno-nationalism. Is that a problem?

And I pointed out several issues with that. One is qualitative. The nationalism of a small, very dependent country is not the same as nationalism of a country that can stand on its own and defend itself. The pride appears to be the same but it's not, because one is backed up and the other is just empty words and wishes. You can proclaim national pride but can you back it up when challenged? The second point was in regards to the pride of mixed race ethnicity, which you also supported. If a proud pure race person want to become mixed race person and preserve his pride as a mixed race person, by your logic, he would be justified and his sense of national pride would be equal. This view contradicts your previous view.

Do you think feminization of the Japanese is due to nationalism? It's due to not having an other to fight, like in a defacto globalist cesspit which reduces a social organism to a narcissistic individualistic mess.

No blaming others please. Japan picked its side and it paid the consequences of its choice. It lost and was castrated, just as Germany was castrated. Do you blame the enemy when you lose and the terms he imposes as a victor?

Read up a bit on Calhoun's Mouse Utopia Experiment.
(Totally Nazi!)
Gives a good hint at the root of this epidemic of narcissism and feminization.

I will take a look at this author and take his view into consideration, but I think history is a better indicator of how man will react to his changing environment.

[Is_Yde_opN]

Their view is too simple and near-sighted. You can be what you are - as a slave - and that will become your new identity to be proud of.

Sure, sometimes people are enslaved. But people who are not being nationalistic are not being enslaved?

Let’s say there is a nation and it is too weak to defend itself.
So you are saying, if they resist their enemies, and lose and get integrated into this bigger nation then they are now slaves.
But if they are ‘enlightened’ and see the great benefit of being integrated into this bigger nation then they are now not a slave?

This reminds me of slave morality vs. master morality. The slave morality makes being a slave into a virtuous thing. They do not necessarily call themselves slaves, they might even despise it being pointed out to them.

Sounds like a woman who can only get raped if she doesn’t just flip the script and is now willingly with her rapist. Suddenly he is not raping her anymore, because she wants it.

As for being proud of being a slave. Just because you are enslaved doesn’t mean you have to be proud of being a slave.
Why would it?

If they catch you and throw you in a dungeon, do you lose all your pride and sense of self-worth because you would be a captive and that would be all to what you are?
I don’t think so.

Are you advocating for weakness now? Pride in weakness?

Accepting your weaknesses and that there will always be weaknesses is not the same as making it into a source of your pride.

Furthermore, it’s always a becoming for any organism. Accepting weaknesses is about a realistic appreciation of the situation and what can be done and what is wishful thinking and dreaming and hoping. Doesn’t mean at the same time that there is no place for aspirations. No simple black and white arguments, if you will.

No blaming others please. Japan picked its side and it paid the consequences of its choice. It lost and was castrated, just as Germany was castrated. Do you blame the enemy when you lose and the terms he imposes as a victor?

You seem to have a hard time with differentiating an assessment of the situation from blaming.
Besides, do you think that your tactic of calling for ‘no blaming, please’ is going to protect you in some way? Like a way of shaming someone into not retaliating?

As for Japan, you say they are castrated and then you say they are feminized and your recipe is now to feminize them further by prescribing to abandon their desire to be in charge of their own destiny, to be distinct, separated.

I will take a look at this author and take his view into consideration, but I think history is a better indicator of how man will react to his changing environment.

You mean like in nature where an organism can only grow and grow and get bigger and bigger without end?

[Pandora]

On Rat Utopia.

The experiment did not account for prevalence of technology on every day life. The problem that rats/mice faced was overcrowding that resulted in unwanted or excessive social interaction. If you translate into today's human social environment, you'd notice an opposite effect. Most people, due to constant use of social media (cell phones, internet, etc.) are actually experiencing less actual, physical, social contact. People can choose how and when they interact through technology. Many chose cyber reality (staying home and playing video games, etc.). This expanse - cyber reality - acts as a psychological buffer, although how it changes behavior is still questionable. Some claim that people are becoming more withdrawn, not more aggressive, since they are being conditioned to seek out and surround themselves with similar minds online - stay in comfort zones.

Let’s say there is a nation and it is too weak to defend itself.
So you are saying, if they resist their enemies, and lose and get integrated into this bigger nation then they are now slaves.
But if they are ‘enlightened’ and see the great benefit of being integrated into this bigger nation then they are now not a slave?

So what would they have to be proud of?

This reminds me of slave morality vs. master morality. The slave morality makes being a slave into a virtuous thing. They do not necessarily call themselves slaves, they might even despise it being pointed out to them.

Sounds like a woman who can only get raped if she doesn’t just flip the script and is now willingly with her rapist. Suddenly he is not raping her anymore, because she wants it.

And many small nationalistic countries act like a beautiful frail woman, to be preserved and admired for what she is. But can she defend herself against an aggressor? No, she can only pick who will defend her.

If they catch you and throw you in a dungeon, do you lose all your pride and sense of self-worth because you would be a captive and that would be all to what you are?
I don’t think so.

And what would you be proud of while sitting in a dungeon?

Accepting your weaknesses and that there will always be weaknesses is not the same as making it into a source of your pride.

Right, but many choose ignore it and inflate themselves with pride anyway, making them easily manipulated.

No blaming others please. Japan picked its side and it paid the consequences of its choice. It lost and was castrated, just as Germany was castrated. Do you blame the enemy when you lose and the terms he imposes as a victor?

You seem to have a hard time with differentiating an assessment of the situation from blaming.
Besides, do you think that your tactic of calling for ‘no blaming, please’ is going to protect you in some way? Like a way of shaming someone into not retaliating?
As for Japan, you say they are castrated and then you say they are feminized and your recipe is now to feminize them further by prescribing to abandon their desire to be in charge of their own destiny, to be distinct, separated.

What retaliation are you talking about? Japan is not even allowed to have an army.

ARTICLE 9. (1) Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.

(2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9 ... nstitution

[apaosha]

With regard to OP, the connection with India is that the Aryans were believed to have invaded India in ancient times, displacing the Dravidians and setting up the caste system on racial lines, which over time became blurred. This may have led the guy in the article to roleplay as he did.

With regard to national socialism in general, it seems to me that a race or ethnic group, by virtue of their being a unique people with it's own self-interest to advance and defend, would organize itself in the territory it controls as a Nation; and in this context the state intervening in the daily lives of it's people, to their benefit, would be socialistic. The effect is particularist: the people form a nation and they practice a system of government which benefits themselves exclusively, as opposed to a universalist approach which socialism generally manifests itself as.

There's not much more to be said about this; the best examples of this form of government would be the 3rd Reich or Israel.

[Is_Yde_opN]

The experiment did not account for prevalence of technology on every day life. The problem that rats/mice faced was overcrowding that resulted in unwanted or excessive social interaction. If you translate into today's human social environment, you'd notice an opposite effect. Most people, due to constant use of social media (cell phones, internet, etc.) are actually experiencing less actual, physical, social contact.

In the mouse utopia experiment the mice also tried to isolate themselves from the rest. Overcrowding leading to isolationistic behaviour among individuals.
Sounds a lot like what you are describing among man.
Where overcrowding begins is also dependent on the organism. What is comfortable for a herd animal is already way overcrowded for a pack animal.

Calhoun reasons that it has to do with a breaking down of social roles.

The globalist would think, well, people have to adapt to the new paradigm because the new paradigm is a holy state of affair and the actual people come second.
Ironically, the state of affair being largely man made.

The change in behaviour doesn’t have to be uniform.
There is not one strategy for all because not all are the same and what they are is a large part of what they are able to do, how to cope.

So what would they have to be proud of?

They don’t have to, they just are.
Is the globalist not proud of his globalist outlook?
Of course he is.
And you say he should be because he is on top, but a challenger with a different outlook who is not on top should not be proud of his ways because….’Why even try’ or what’s the reasoning here?
Is the question, why even try to challenge the status quo, or why resist?

It is in the empire’s interest to subjugate its conquered nations, to destroy their national/ethnic pride.

And many small nationalistic countries act like a beautiful frail woman, to be preserved and admired for what she is. But can she defend herself against an aggressor? No, she can only pick who will defend her.

So you think that frail women have no power in this society because they lack physical strength? The frail don’t organise themselves and don’t make politics?
That’s their strength, born out of a need, a lack of individual strength.

Likewise, smaller nations engage in politics as well.
Since you made the analogy, should an individual be proud of him/her-self?
Only if she is successful?

Which brings me to another question, what good does it do to be proud?
Is it for the powerful one like a motivational tool to pleasure his ego?
What’s the purpose of being proud...?
Maybe that can clarify how you think of the not as powerful and their ‘undeserved’ pride, if they have it.

And what would you be proud of while sitting in a dungeon?

Without pride, why resist to be or become whatever your captors intend for you.
Simply put, there are animals which are easily domesticated and there are some which are not. It has advantages and disadvantages.
To be proud is not necessarily about a particular accomplishment.

What retaliation are you talking about? Japan is not even allowed to have an army.

I wasn’t talking about the Japanese in particular, (I don’t know about them blaming anyone) but about how people seek to defend themselves from the ill-will of others by shaming them into ‘not blaming’ others.

First of all, why not blame someone for something?
Like blaming society, or certain parts, or individuals for not being treated equally, lol.

And secondly, I don’t have to blame to have and fight an enemy.
Blaming is tool of social manipulation essentially.
And by that I don’t mean that it’s necessarily always bad but that’s what it is.
Blaming is ‘asking’ or better demanding something, like re-compensation or recognition of a status or whatever.


As for some article of renouncing shit, I think that Japan wouldn’t be the first nation to rip some treaty to shreds if it finds it opportune, and within its interests.

[Pandora]

So what would they have to be proud of?

They don’t have to, they just are.

That doesn't sound like a good answer, because anyone can claim this. One can be proud of things he achieved or could achieve, but these things have to be proven.

Is the globalist not proud of his globalist outlook?
Of course he is.
And you say he should be because he is on top, but a challenger with a different outlook who is not on top should not be proud of his ways because….’Why even try’ or what’s the reasoning here?
Is the question, why even try to challenge the status quo, or why resist?

He can try, but he has to be realistic. Many are being too unrealistic about their self-worth (hence, esotericism).

It is in the empire’s interest to subjugate its conquered nations, to destroy their national/ethnic pride.

When Ottoman Empire annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina, in 1463, many people (including aristocracy) voluntarily embraced Islam in order to preserve/acquire status and privileges. So it can be said, it is also in the interests of people to either preserve what they have or advance their position in society (self-interests), whatever it comes out to be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosniaks# ... ttoman_era

And many small nationalistic countries act like a beautiful frail woman, to be preserved and admired for what she is. But can she defend herself against an aggressor? No, she can only pick who will defend her.

So you think that frail women have no power in this society because they lack physical strength? The frail don’t organise themselves and don’t make politics?
That’s their strength, born out of a need, a lack of individual strength.

Likewise, smaller nations engage in politics as well.
Since you made the analogy, should an individual be proud of him/her-self?
Only if she is successful?

Yes, if one can only play in the junior leagues, he should not be pretending that he's is playing in the big leagues (unwarranted pride).

Which brings me to another question, what good does it do to be proud?
Is it for the powerful one like a motivational tool to pleasure his ego?
What’s the purpose of being proud...?
Maybe that can clarify how you think of the not as powerful and their ‘undeserved’ pride, if they have it.

If you can't back it up with something, other than just that you are, what would you be proud of that separates you out? Because if it's just your difference, then everyone would be equally so.

Without pride, why resist to be or become whatever your captors intend for you.
Simply put, there are animals which are easily domesticated and there are some which are not. It has advantages and disadvantages.
To be proud is not necessarily about a particular accomplishment.

Then what is it and how do you determine the degrees of it (how proud you are of something)?

I wasn’t talking about the Japanese in particular, (I don’t know about them blaming anyone) but about how people seek to defend themselves from the ill-will of others by shaming them into ‘not blaming’ others.

I was not addressing one blaming the other for having to defend themselves, but for losing the war. In WW2, Japan was the aggressor, not a defender. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War

First of all, why not blame someone for something?
Like blaming society, or certain parts, or individuals for not being treated equally, lol.

Likewise, blaming others for one's own weakness.

And secondly, I don’t have to blame to have and fight an enemy.
Blaming is tool of social manipulation essentially.
And by that I don’t mean that it’s necessarily always bad but that’s what it is.
Blaming is ‘asking’ or better demanding something, like re-compensation or recognition of a status or whatever.

Blaming can also be an excuse.

As for some article of renouncing shit, I think that Japan wouldn’t be the first nation to rip some treaty to shreds if it finds it opportune, and within its interests.

I agree that it would, as history has shown this to be true. But looking at Japan today, where there are more elderly than young, where young men are becoming more like women and women like children, by the time this opportunity knocks on the door, I don't know in what (mental) condition the population of Japan will be.
Realistically, it is most probable that if that happens, Japan will be given permission to expand its influence by the superpowers if they see it fit.

[Pezerocles]

With regard to OP, the connection with India is that the Aryans were believed to have invaded India in ancient times, displacing the Dravidians and setting up the caste system on racial lines, which over time became blurred. This may have led the guy in the article to roleplay as he did.

With regard to national socialism in general, it seems to me that a race or ethnic group, by virtue of their being a unique people with it's own self-interest to advance and defend, would organize itself in the territory it controls as a Nation; and in this context the state intervening in the daily lives of it's people, to their benefit, would be socialistic. The effect is particularist: the people form a nation and they practice a system of government which benefits themselves exclusively, as opposed to a universalist approach which socialism generally manifests itself as.

There's not much more to be said about this; the best examples of this form of government would be the 3rd Reich or Israel.

Basing political opinions on half-understood ancient epics.... That this is true of ALL politicians only makes it sadder.

[lordoflight]

Nazis tried to be a violent ripoff of Hindu Aryan religion. The swastika was taken from various Indian religions and is 5000 years old.

The Bhagavad-gita states that Krishna says violence can be a form of yoga. I kind of agree with this because playing violent games can be a spiritual experience for me.

That being said, I generally disagree with the idea of Nazi violence. Firstly, I don't think burning books and jews is good, and even if there is a jewish conspiracy, I don't think all jews are neccessarily part of it.

As for Hitler, at first he said Indians were lesser but once he started to lose he said Indians were superior to some whites and that Japanese were in many ways superior to Germans.

As for the current state of Japan I like anime however I don't like that so many Japanese males are made to be incel, also I think Japanese are obsessed with education too much.

There is a certain non-violence about SJWs that makes them weak-minded. That being said I don't think people should go around burning jews alive. Unless they are fake news jews out to spread lies and ruin people, but even then its a bit sick.

As for indians, they seem to have good taste, yet have a tarded society and live amongst actual literal shit, so Idk.

Also, nationalism is not the same as Nazi. Nazi is a form of National Socialism but there are other forms. Republican means a certain thing based on American context. But without the context the word could mean something else. National Socialism is different from Communism. And even with Communism each government is different. So a National Socialist government does necessarily mean it will be the same government as Hitler burning jews. For instance, a government that spread the wealth more evenly instead of giving it to the 1%, would be National Socialist. However, letting random foreigners dictate your polices and freely immigrate to your borders is not National Socialism. Trump is a nationalist but not a socialist, he doesn't care about the middle class.