Those are two excellent documentaries. I've seen the first and will watch the second this evening. As far as D. Trump and nationalism go, I tend to see him more as an actual small 'r' republican as in traditional anti-monarchist, anti-feudalist republicanism, given official birth during the Enlightenment but with roots stretching back to Cromwell and beyond to the many peasant uprisings and the Dutch Diggers. Monarchies have been hated throughout history. The aristocracy knows this, they know they are parasitic, like the mafia knows it is parasitic, but they do it anyway.
So back to republicanism - republicans (Whigs, Ghibelines, Hohenstauffen factions) were able to abstract into principle the inchoate rage of the exploited feudal peasantry into various ideas about 'the rights of man', the stuff that our Declaration of Independence is made from. Much of this idea nexus was propagated by the merchant class who wanted autonomous manufacture. This was the true cause of the American Revolution, the desire to profit from the creation of goods as well as the trading of goods.
The aristocracy controlled great swaths of farm land (latifundism) and monopolies or 'patents' over various manufacturing industries. With some difficulty, they controlled the trades guilds, which guilds chaffed to find their own markets with their own pricing structures, to the point of creating secret societies and fomenting revolution. They hated the aristocracy and the aristocracy's controllers and handlers known as the Catholic Church. These social elements who wanted the freedom to create wealth without tax or tithe became republicans. So today you have within the Republican Party USA, actual republicans vs. usurper oligarchs, the same factions that republicanism traditionally wished to destroy.
This is how I would describe the schism in the Republican party today. Yes, the oligarchs are globalist, have no allegiance to a cultural grouping or cultural nation state, and the populists are patriots, have an allegiance to the the nation state and the advantage of federation of states over monopolist globalism. With monopoly you have the danger that error will bring down the whole enchilada. With federation of autonomous states voluntarily associating for trade, defense, whatever, you have the safety net of error in one state becoming a teaching aid for the others and not destroying everything.
For example, the Soviet Union was a forced union and in 1989 we saw what a chimera it was as its constituent republics immediately sought autonomy. The monopoly failed catastrophically and its former colonies (satellites) are now independent nations states looking to the welfare of its unique peoples. I'm all for helping monopoly to fail. I think that the UN is such a monopoly in waiting.