No, no, answer the question posed--which country has prospered by putting other countries first?

> Its a "nation first + everything for the nation" thinking.

If you think this means "our nation over other nations" then you misunderstood. It means "nation above all", e.g. "everything for the government, above citizens". That is, forget the individual, there is a greater good for which we must endure some hardship, trust me.

FYI, the promised land never materialized, historically.

Fair enough--so then, which successful nation has existed that prioritizes the individual over the nation's laws in any capacity?

Which successful nation has eschewed the idea of the greater good?

(And to your point--this absolutely has been perverted in various cases to justify atrocious behavior! It is necessary but not sufficient in order to govern well and righteously and be a successful country.)

It's not necessarily a binary choice, is it? There's a spectrum between true democracy that isn't simply "rule of majority", and authoritarianism.

There is a weakness in democracies too, that if they are too tolerant and allow too much freedom, this can paradoxically undermine democracy itself and lead to a collapse.

So in general, western democracies tend to respect human rights, sacrificing the greater good, because this in itself is considered a greater good.

> If you think this means "our nation over other nations" then you misunderstood. It means "nation above all".

A distinction without a difference, the second automatically leads to the first, no exceptions.

> "everything for the government, above citizens". That is, forget the individual, there is a greater good for which we must endure some hardship, trust me.

Right, in addition to being a code for "we over the others", "nation above all" also provides the excuse for the social mobilization necessary for wars. Nationalism is a tool of war, it may start in some covert form but the end result is the same.