To deny categorically what should be self-evident, and only 'natural', is what is characteristic of many of the dogma's of our present age.
This is the great appeal of our 'Nationalism', in that it is 'reality based,' dealing with 'reason', 'facts', and what IS, rather than how we want things to be, based purely on selfish and emotional considerations that all to often, turns out to be self-destructive, and especially destructive to future generations of our people.
These 'alien' isms, and notions, often promise 'Happiness', as a direct desire in and of itself, that's often just temporary and comes at the expense of our greater society. Whereby 'Nationalism', attempts to achieve those conditions in which 'Happiness' can be had as a natural by product of a society whose collective goal is to strive for much greater endeavors and human achievements.
For instance, we believe that 'Happiness' can better be achieved by creating jobs, full employment, and as a result, a sense of self satisfaction and self worth, where 'Liberalism' and 'Communism', creates social slaves through a welfare society, and by denying the ' creative personality', and all that the personality entails in the individual, to not only strive to be a better person, but in doing so, creating a better society and national will.
This "Personality" isn't to be mistaken for the "Individualism" of the Libertarian of whom many strive for what they think is the betterment of the individual in order to achieve that desired 'Happiness', and yet stops at that point, as if this self satisfaction, is all that they should be trying to achieve, their own selfish needs, wants, and trivial pursuits.
I realize that many Libertarians, and Liberals, might argue that this definition of 'Individualism' wasn't all that some of their intellectual leaders had in mind, such as Ayn Rand, who was no doubt a 'creative genius', but whose ideas of 'Individualism' were entirely her own, whose primary values were intelligence, ambition, ideas, and achievement. Nothing really wrong with this overall concept, but she also portrayed in her writings that the 'Leader' who uses all 'collectivism', even 'Nationalism', that " bartered individual rights for enhancement of "the state", "the public", or "the common good," that is, who uses power to serve some men's interests at the expense of others, will be a villain." Her ideas, unlike our Nationalism, wasn't meant for the masses, but for only a few. She thought of the common man, unlike our Nationalist view, as being 'nothing'! The only people she cared anything at all for, were those relatively few, who were selfish with their inherent talents and who worked only to enhance themselves!
Rand, like so many other Libertarians, Egalitarians, and Liberals, all of whom may have their own conflicting principals, all deny the harsh reality that 'power', that power that's necessary for 'good', will forever result in enhancing some at the expense of others. This isn't the desired goal, but rather the 'natural' consequence of not only the survival of the individual, but survival of the 'racial society', that's necessary to develop and maintain that 'Happiness', a happiness that's productive and fulfilling, rather than socially destructive. How do we minimize this expense, this undesired and unwanted effect upon the 'OTHERS'? We start by minimizing the 'OTHERS', by striving for a racially homogeneous society of like minded people of common blood and purpose.
It's these 'natural truths', that were well known to our people in past ages and the reason they weren't having to deal with the unique problems we're seeing today.