Questions?

Bear with me here; not trying to be offensive in the slightest but I don't know if or when or where I might hit a nerve.

Okay so:

- How can radical nationalism possibly work in a world like ours? Multiple ethnic groups and peoples make their presence felt in numerous locations, claiming rights to land, rights to heritage, etc. etc. But how far can this possibly go, and how can a nationalist system truly work globally, or even in a single country? The United States is aptly named the "melting pot of the world". The land of Canaan is supposed to be the holy place of heritage and worship for both Jews and Muslims. Africans have spread across the globe and have rooted themselves in varying locales as a result of their legacy of slavery; Africans in say, Kenya, are considered separate from African Americans who have entirely different culture and value traits. How and where are these people supposed to establish homogeneous countries? How is the United States supposed to be of white "American" heritage when it had natives and when most of the early settlers were English and would thus belong in England?

- In the event of global nationalization based on race, how are these countries supposed to cooperate with each other? And in their establishment, who decides who is allotted what lands and resources? The likelihood of gross imbalances is great, and the divisive qualities extreme. While I cannot say having pride in your heritage is a bad thing, doesn't total division prevent unified progress? Is an "Intercultural Space Station" supposed to be possible? How can mankind advance in any large degree if each faction is too preoccupied with itself, and is willing to back-stab another group for the sake of their own? If Nazi Germany survived and burgeoned and became a technological superpower, is that really a balanced world where every country with its own nationalities and races can pursue their interests, when that single country with its handful of races can step on everyone else? Given the race ideology, it's "survival of the fittest", so I guess that sounds ideal, but it wouldn't be ideal if it was your race that was being nuked into oblivion, would it?

- What is the reason for the stigma of the individual? Why is a massive, collective mind considered ideal? A charismatic leader is an individual; Hitler's personality was praised. Why not anyone elses'? Collective bodies are easily manipulated by the powers at the top. This leads to horrible travesties and abuses of power, as it would in any government, but one this centralized would affect the entire nation; it isn't a scandal with a single minister, it would be a massive policy decision that winds up being detrimental to the entire citizen body.

No government has been perfect, and none probably will. "Democracy", or more like Republicanism, has clearly shown its marks of corruptibility and inefficiency. But the less centralized the government, the less damage is done by corruption. Doesn't National Socialism set the entire society up to be abused too easily? Is it really as practical as I've seen it described?