I’m not saying I agree with the philosophy- but what she says isn’t a contradiction. A great example of an international group of nationalists were the Axis powers in WW2. Had they won the war it is most likely they would have kept going- against each other. The Nazi Socialism hated communists and non Aryans- so Japan and the USSR would have been eventual targets- hell, ol’ Dolphy Hitler couldn’t even wait to win before attacking the Reds. The Soviets had a vision of world wide communism (which was proved in the Cold War) and their communism was antithical to Nazi Nationalist Socialism. Plus as we know the Reds like to make everything touching their borders their own- and then repeat infinity. And the Japanese held an ultra nationalism and cultural/racial superiority complex that wouldn’t play well with others either. So you can have an international network of nationalists. It’s just that it’s a recipe for horrors and wars to say the least.
Despite whether or not you agreee with the sentiments behind nationalism, this statement makes sense. Its basically states that regardless of where you are in the world, you want your country to operate more on a domestic level(ie tighter border, more local jobs). Ofc there are always arguments about racism etc, but the argument makes sense. The person below is making a false equivalency.
It's like a group of homeowners protecting a colony..
They protect from Intruders..and intrusions from each other too