Political realism vs the idealism of nationalists and the indy-right

I always try to consistently follow principles, but since I’m a 70% realist and 30% idealist in international politics it may seem confusing or even appear hypocritical if I don’t explain the clear logic of this position.

By “realism” I mean that I’ve reluctantly learned to accept that there are always many disagreeable things in life you can’t change. For example, I want to fight and defeat absolutely all tyrants, without exception, but if a hardcore tyrant got nukes there is basically no way to defeat this dictator, cf North Korea.

To see what I mean by nationalism and the indy-right check out:


These are my main idealistic principles:

1) Christian chivalry and the original feminism that Norway had in the 1970s and early 1980s, before neoliberalism.

2) moderate white-skin ethno-nationalism, supporting the nonviolent and very gradual repatriation of everyone back to their ancestral country of origin.

3) I support global economic justice, since it will reduce mass migration but also because it’s the morally right thing to do, universally speaking, so that’s why my Dr Philos thesis is about capturing billionaires and forcing them to give 10% of their fortune to people dying of poverty in Africa and other developing countries; a topic so militant that the “liberal” University of Tromsø refused to assess the thesis despite written recommendations from five respected professors: Arnt Myrstad, Asbjørn Aarnes, Arne Johan Vetlesen, Viggo Rossvær and Guttorm Fløistad. So my respect for “liberal” institutionalized academia is down the drain.

4) Jeffersonian republicanism, with no or little Big Government and no or little Big Business.

Being a small state nationalist I support that Israel maintains the borders it has today, but I’m against the economic imperialism and ultra-liberal propaganda of those particular Jewish elites involved in those specific activities. Without condemning Jews in general. I support all real conservative Jews.

Nationalism is the most anti-imperialistic ideology, per definition, so from this it follows logically that the idealist in me is against:

1) the occupation of Siberia

2) the occupation of the Americas

3) the occupation of Tibet and Xinjiang

4) Arab occupation of territories from west to east

I’m a 70% realist however, accepting that you can’t change nuclear empires, so I therefore choose to support all moderate real cultural conservatives within any empire.

Cultural conservatism consists of 1) orthodox religion, 2) traditional family values, and 3) ethno-nationalism.

White-skin nationalism is nothing more than viewing skin color as a biological marker signifying cultural belongingness, but not involving white supremacy, i.e. not racism.

Taiwan consists of 95% Han Chinese, so that’s why Taiwan is de facto a part of China from a nationalistic perspective.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s