Bullcrap - that's not how aircraft or aerial weaponry works.

When the F-11 in question was struck by it's own cannon rounds it was moving about double the speed of those cannon shells because the velocity of the cannon shells had decayed to about 400mph - a speed even a late-WW2 fighter could easily achieve.

The Grumman F-11 is not even an especially fast aircraft by late-50s standard. The MiG-19 was introduced almost at the same time as the F-11, and it was already significantly faster.

Nationalism is inherently concerned

Hey, don't tell me... tell every African nationalist in history that they are doing nationalism wrong because you, an armchair genius, only ascribes to the meaning of the term nationalism as it was presented to you by white liberal western media. Go tell every nation-state in the (so-called) "3rd world" that the nationalists that helped free them from your country's imperialist yoke cannot possibly be nationalists because you, still an armchair genius, have decided that they aren't based on internet "definitions" written by people just like you.

Go on. I'll wait here.

This idea that Imperialism and Nationalism are conflicting ideologies is just… so dumb

Again... don't tell me - tell it to all the nation states that aren't fundamentally imperialist, since, according to you (still just an armchair genius) nationalism cannot exist without imperialism.

Don't worry... I'm still waiting right here.

You cannot pull a cake out of a book on baking,

Dammit... I knew I was doing something wrong.

Fine - it's not yours.

Well, let's have a look at this description of yours, shall we?

As a movement, it presupposes the existence and tends to promote the interests of a particular nation, especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining its sovereignty (self-governance) over its perceived homeland to create a nation-state.

Oh yes... you are absolutely correct - I have no idea where I got the idea from that nationalization would be the most logical, direct and dependable method for a nationalist "to promote the interests of a particular nation" and "gaining and maintaining its sovereignty (self-governance) over its perceived homeland." There is no way state control over resources and industries could ever "promote the interests of a particular nation," could it?

Quick, somebody call Cuba - driving your citizens into abject poverty through privatized medical debt is how real nationalists do it.

that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity, and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power. It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity, based on a combination of shared social characteristics such as culture, ethnicity, geographic location, language, politics (or the government), religion, traditions and belief in a shared singular history, and to promote national unity or solidarity.

This is not descriptive - it's just the pseudo-scientific gibberish used to justify nation sates which does absolutely no justifying whatsoever.

Naturally, what proposed benefit (if any) the existence of nation states offers to it's citizens doesn't form part of this description... which is telling.

Aaaand... the ANC's efforts to substitute public healthcare with private healthcare while pretending it's the same as public healthcare is having predictable results.

So does Jim Brown and the Weather Underground.

Nationalism is more about elevating a certain ethnic group

No it isn't - that is so distinct from garden-variety nationalism that we call it ethno-nationalism. There are plenty of nationalist projects that doesn't have an ethno-nationalist aspect to them - there are plenty of them outside the imperial core in the (so-called) "third-world." You wanna be the one to tell them they are doing nationalism wrong?

WW2 Germany was all about elevating Germans at the cost of everyone else.

Violently building an alt-fantasy empire has nothing to do with "elevating" a people - that's imperialism, not nationalism. You can argue that the two concepts may be related - but you can't argue that nationalism inherently requires genocidal imperialism.

Nationalizing is about taking a resource or a company and putting it into the hands of the state for the people.

In other words... the only possible benefit that nationalism has ever presented as a justification for it's own existence?

Fancy that.

I think you might have a inaccurate definition of nationalism.

Sorry - I don't see it. It's very easy for fascists to wear the trappings of nationalism - fascists will wear whatever gets them into power - but of all the things Fascist Italy, Showa Japan and Nazi Germany had in common a concern with the welfare of the people living inside the nation state wasn't one of them... you know - the only point nationalism ever had? There's a reason we separate the concept of ethno-nationalism from that of just plain ole' nationalism.

Nationalism is concerned with the welfare of the actually existing nation state - not the alt-fantasy empires fetishized by fascists. In fact, the three fascist examples above was far, far more imperialist than they were nationalist, and you'd be hard-pressed to get any political philosopher to argue that nationalism inherently demands genocidal imperialist expansion.

Will electing an authoritarian promising ethnic clensing and codified class systems to further harm the poor and middle class create a democracy?

Good... I'm glad somebody is willing to admit that we don't actually get to exist within democratic societies. It's a start - it's very difficult to do something about a problem when nobody will even admit to the problem existing.

Voting for the 70% Hitler instead of the 100% Hitler

Fine and dandy - choose the least worst-seeming option. I didn't tell you who to vote for - what I'm telling you is that irregardless of who wins in November, people are going to have to start coming to grips with the fact that "liberal democracy" hasn't turned out to be very democratic. If it did, this mess wouldn't have been able to exist in the first place.

The problem isn’t usually nationalization but the utter lack of democratic control of what is owned by the state

I'd say that before that your problem is that if a state has the power to nationalize something it also has the power to privatize it again... all it takes is one Reagan or Thatcher. Or hell, an Obama - who essentially nationalized General Motors after the 2008 crash and then handed it all straight back to the capitalists again.

You have completely and utterly misused

Lol! No Clyde - I haven't. Nationalism is a very simple thing - it's not my fault you associate nationalism with fascism (which is always just false nationalism) or capitalism (which is perfectly incompatible with the beliefs of anyone who actually fetishizes a given nation state - even fascists like Francisco Franco understood that). The US has spent more resources combating nationalism in the middle-east than socialism - do you think they did that because nationalism is so "compatible" with capitalism?

I hate to be the one to break it to you - but Fidel Castro was far more of a nationalist than Adolf Hitler was. In fact, the majority of the anti-imperialist campaigns waged against colonial power during the (so-called) "Cold War" was nationalist in nature - not socialist.

The historic link between nationalism and capitalism

There are those who will pretend that there are "historic links" between liberalism and democracy, too - even though they are violently incompatible concepts. "Historic links" doesn't mean anything.

You can call the US "democratic" and the USSR "socialist" all you want - but that does not make any of it reality.

That’s just nonsense

No. It isn't. If nationalism is your game, fine... but just be honest about it. Don't confuse it with socialism (unknowingly or otherwise) - the two aren't compatible in any way whatsoever.

If you're a nationalist, you believe that all resources should be controlled for the benefit of the people living inside the territory demarcated by imaginary lines drawn on a map - that is a very distinct thing from capitalism, which holds that resources must be privately owned and fuck the people living inside (or outside) said territory.

when so many keep getting caught with prostitutes sex workers?

FTFY. If you've ever worked for a living, you're a prostitute - just like the rest of us.

How can the working class own something if the state owns it?

It's very simple.

Nationalists nationalize.

Socialists socialize.

If one is doing the other it means somebody is lying to you.

Doesn't pledging allegiance to a piece of colored fabric count as "worshipping a false idol?"

You know... considering they've got that whole ten commandment thing coming and all.

I've been doing that for years now - keeping the damn thing lit is as difficult as getting it lit in the first place.

Still tastes much better than normal cigarettes, though.

conflict with established Leftist theory and history,

Nothing I have said conflicts with leftist theory and history in any way whatsoever. What I have said does conflict with Marxist-Lennist "theory" and "history" - not really sure whether that can be called leftist, though.

Transferring power from the Bourgeoisie to Democratic institutions and councils is the goal and history of Marxism.

Oh... is that what the Bolsheviks were doing? I guess they just happened to hijack the soviets through anti-democratic means purely by accident, then?

and that which validate Class Society in Capitalism

So class society is good as long as it's not capitalist, eh? Do tell - what class do you imagine yourself to be in your idealized, faux-socialist utopia? Let me guess... the class that doesn't have to do all the hard and dangerous work with barely even a smidgen of the labour protection workers in the imperial core get?

More random jabs, childish and unproductive.

No, really, Clyde - where does the institutionalized monopoly of violence reside in a hierarchical society?

Care to explain why democratic states that control industry,

The state does not represent the working class.

The state will never represent the working class.

If the state controls the means of production, it means the working class doesn't.

The state will only ever represent the interests of the small elite that control it's apparatus. You know this perfectly well - and you believe yourself entitled to be a member of that elite that are (supposedly) qualified to dictate material conditions to the working class "for it's own good".

Everything you say merely exists to dress up that fact in socialist-sounding discourse designed to hide that you view the working class as little more than something that exists to facilitate your utopian fantasies. I'd say they were utopian fantasies that was doomed to failure - but delivering socialism isn't really the point to you and yours, is it?

You are not just anti-democratic - you are fundamentally anti-socialist.

I don’t see how you plan on achieving any leftist goals

What "leftist goals" can someone who only has loyalty to a technocratic elite have? You are no less classist than the liberals and capitalists - we have no goals in common.

Let me repeat that - me and you have no goals in common.

Sooo... the working class should own the means of production?