National Extremism as a Unifying Political Force: Trumpism, North Korean Ideology, and Nazism
Trumpism, North Korean ideology, and Nazi Germany are all rooted deeply in national extremism, wherein the nation—or a constructed in-group identity—serves as the supreme organizing principle for politics, social order, and the allocation of rights and privileges. Each system relies on cohesive national mythologies, charismatic leadership, and populist mobilization to generate consensus and justify state power, while employing exclusionary tactics that consolidate the in-group and marginalize “others” outside national or ideological boundaries.
Nationalism as a Core Ideology
In Trumpism, a doctrine of “deep nationalism” pervades all domains of policy and identity. The nation’s interests, culture, and traditions are viewed as paramount, and economic, immigration, and foreign policy are measured through their benefits to the “true” or native-born citizens of the United States. This approach forges a symbolic and emotional unity around national symbols, language, and the concept of “America First”. The in-group is protected by constructing clear borders—physical and cultural—that demarcate inclusion and exclusion.
North Korea’s ideology is founded on a parallel form of extremism, where unwavering loyalty to the leader and the party is demanded, and the nation is defined by isolation, ideological purity, and perpetual struggle against outsiders. The system’s legitimacy arises from unity around the leader, and the populace is ideologically indoctrinated to see themselves as both a chosen people and a bulwark against foreign contamination or “decadent” influences. As in Trumpism, an “us vs. them” worldview underpins both daily life and state policy.
Nazi Germany exemplified national extremism by fusing ultra-nationalism with notions of racial superiority and the unity of the “Volksgemeinschaft” (people’s community). The regime elevated the Aryan nation-state above all else, subordinating individual liberties and civil rights to the collective good as defined by the state. Massive efforts at ideological indoctrination, leader worship, and systematic exclusion of the “other”—especially Jews, Roma, LGBTQ+, and political dissidents—were fundamental to its unity and mobilization.
The Mechanisms of In-Group Unity and Exclusion
All three systems deploy a comparable repertoire of exclusionary and unifying tactics. Each elevates a strong leader whose persona is inextricably linked with the national project, and subordinates critical institutions—be they legislative, judicial, or social—under the primacy of the nation-state and the leader’s vision.
The group’s unity is produced by constant emphasis on borders—physical or symbolic—and the existence of threatening “others” (immigrants, globalists, imperialists, ethnic minorities, or ideological enemies). Internal dissent is depicted as national betrayal, and political opponents are “othered” through rhetoric, propaganda, or systematic state action. Loyalty and sacrifice are valorized, and the in-group is encouraged to see its prosperity and very existence as under threat from external or internal enemies.
This unity-through-exclusion is not merely rhetorical; it is expressed in practical governance. Social and economic policy is routinely justified as necessary for the protection, preservation, or renewal of the nation and—especially under crisis—as a defense against “corrupting” or “subversive” influences from without or within.
The Treatment of Equal Rights, Women, and LGBTQIA+ Communities
A crucial consequence of national extremism is its deeply conservative and restrictive approach to equal rights, especially toward women and the LGBTQIA+ community. In all three systems, state ideology uses national interest or social cohesion to justify the limitation or outright suppression of gender and sexual minorities’ rights, and confines women’s roles to those instrumental for the nation’s demographic and cultural aims.
In North Korea, gender equality is enshrined in law and declarations, but actual practice is shaped by patriarchal traditions and the needs of state mobilization. Women are subject to forced labor, political exploitation, violence, and severe restrictions on their personal autonomy, all under the broader objectives of socialist production and national defense. There is no legal protection for the LGBTQIA+ community; same-sex relationships are not criminalized but remain socially invisible, unsupported, and marginal, with individuals living in fear and isolation.
South Korea, while a democracy, also demonstrates how nationalism and conservative politics can impede equal rights. Women face pervasive discrimination, wide wage gaps, and underrepresentation in leadership and politics. LGBTQIA+ people lack comprehensive protections at the national level, with local advances frequently subject to backlash and social stigma.
Under Trumpism, women’s rights and LGBTQIA+ rights have faced significant challenge and regression. Policy was oriented towards the restriction of reproductive rights, the dismantling of protections for gender minorities, and the elimination or rolling back of anti-discrimination measures. Transgender and nonbinary people, in particular, were targeted via executive orders or policy proposals aimed at negating legal recognition of their identities, eliminating access to gender-affirming healthcare and education, and excluding them from public and military life.
In Nazi Germany, women’s roles were confined to those of mothers and loyal supporters of the racial community, with incentives for childbirth and legal/cultural pressure to avoid careers and public life. Feminist organizations were dissolved, and professional opportunities for women were drastically curtailed. The LGBTQIA+ community faced systematic persecution; male homosexuality was criminalized, and thousands of gay men and others were sent to concentration camps, where many perished. The regime regarded homosexuality as a threat to demographic renewal and racial purity, and as inherently subversive to national unity.
Reinforcement and Regression of Equal Rights Since 2017 Sanctions
The intersection of international sanctions—particularly after 2017, when the Trump administration intensified their scope—has further aggravated the regression of equal rights in North Korea. Sanctions, imposed in response to nuclear proliferation and human rights abuses, deepened economic hardship, restricted cross-border trade, and disrupted informal markets, which are vital for women’s livelihoods and some degree of autonomy. As survival grew more precarious, the position of women and marginalized groups deteriorated: access to healthcare, protection from exploitation, and opportunities for independent economic activity weakened. Reports indicate that this economic squeeze, together with the regime’s own tightening of internal controls, increased the vulnerability of women to state and non-state violence and drove many into riskier forms of labor, including prostitution and cross-border trafficking, with almost no state or legal protection.
For the LGBTQIA+ community, already invisible and unprotected before 2017, these adverse conditions—along with the broader environment of repression and austerity—further entrenched their marginalization. The state’s authoritarian logic and the focus on collective discipline over individual dignity intensified, echoing trends seen under periods of heightened nationalist or populist tension in other contexts, such as Trumpism in the U.S..
Tabular Comparison: National Extremism and Rights in Trumpism, North Korea, Nazi Germany
National Ideology Deep nationalism, America First Ideological purity, Leader-first Aryan racial supremacy, Führerprinzip
Leadership Charismatic, personal rule Absolute leader worship (Kim) Dictatorial leader (Hitler)
Out-group Construction Immigrants, globalists, minorities Foreigners, ideological enemies Jews, LGBTQ+, Roma, etc.
Treatment of Women Restrictive policies, opposition to reproductive rights, rollback of protections Legal equality in principle, practical subordination through labor mobilization and patriarchy Role as mothers, exclusion from most public/professional life
LGBTQIA+ Rights Rollbacks, denial of trans/nonbinary recognition, exclusion from military and public spheres No explicit legal recognition, invisibility, societal marginalization Criminalization, persecution, large-scale violence/eradication
Post-2017 Regression Yes: increased hostility, rollback of civil rights, normalization of exclusion Yes: worsened due to sanctions, harsher state control, greater vulnerability N/A (legacy context)
Conclusion
In summary, Trumpism, North Korean ideology, and Nazi Germany are comparable in their use of national extremism to organize politics and society, justify exclusion and dominance, and restrict equal rights for women and minorities—including the LGBTQIA+ community—under the banner of national survival and unity. The centrality of nationalism, charismatic leadership, and the deliberate drawing of in-group/out-group lines underlie all three regimes’ approaches to identity and policy. In both Koreas, but more severely in the North, intensification of external pressure and internal extremism—such as the escalation of sanctions after 2017—has correlated strongly with the regression of equal rights, particularly for those most vulnerable under systems where individual dignity is always at the service of the nation. This shared trajectory highlights the profound risks of national extremism as a guiding political doctrine for any society.
