I think everyone needs to stop trying to shove our current political state into that two-axis system because it's not sufficient to describe what u/acp_k2win is describing.
The problem a lot of people are getting mixed up is that populism is something that's starting to grow to be a dominant ideology and it cannot be sufficiently explained with a two-axis system. Populism has a left wing and a right wing component, but its policies are composed of a mix of things that would make both traditional leftists and right wingers angry.
Ethno-nationalism is right-populism taken to its "final" conclusion. Ethno-nationalism sees that the state is responsible for protecting the NATIVE people from outside threats. So it will use its resources and power to place the native majority population in priority over any other outsiders. To do that, they WILL do shit Lolbertarians hate. Tariffs on incoming foreign goods. Bans on immigration, both "legal" and illegal. Incentives/money/welfare/preferential treatment given to ethnically native citizens over other races and ethnicities.
More examples: Policies that fund projects at the taxpayer's dime to benefit the country as a whole (ROADS), "preferential" treatment given to certain countries over others because of compatible cultures, etc.
These are things that would make a fiscal conservative libertarian type lose their shit, because to do some of this shit requires the state grabbing more power from the people, but the "end result" is to promote not equality, but an intentional inequality that prefers treatment of its native citizens over immigrant/foreigner populations.
Japan has a mild form of this and is often used as an example by white ethnonats.
Those of us who support Trump support a somewhat milder form of right populism/nationalism where we pull back all the race-based shit and just do it under based off of merit and a heavily limited immigration policy, but you bet a lot of us would be for benefits that go towards the American citizen FIRST over any other group of people, which would again violate the average fiscal conservative's mentality.
Hell, we might even revise our welfare policies to cut back the amount of money being spent on the 14/60's and whatnot because we may see that as an actual waste of money that ultimately does not put America First and just puts them first, which never works, and focus it on say, making our trades great again and accessible since those populations tend to at least have enough IQ and physical strength to be able to do well in the trades.
Traditional right wing conservatism and libertarianism is incompatible with populism, including all forms of right wing populism - from MAGA all the way to ethnonationalist utopias.
I think everyone stop fucking trying to shove politics into that two-axis system because it's not sufficient to describe what u/acp_k2win is describing.
The problem that a lot of people are getting mixed up is that populism is something that's starting to grow to be a dominant ideology. Populism has a left wing and a right wing slant, but its policies are composed of a mix of things that would make both traditional leftists and right wingers angry.
Ethno-nationalism is right-populism taken to its "final" conclusion. Ethno-nationalism sees that the state is responsible for protecting the people from outside threats. So it will use its resources and power to place the native majority population in priority over any other outsiders. To do that, they WILL do shit Lolbertarians hate. Tariffs on incoming foreign goods. Bans on immigration, both "legal" and illegal. Incentives/money/welfare/preferential treatment given to ethnically native citizens over other races and ethnicities.
More examples: Policies that fund projects at the taxpayer's dime to benefit the country as a whole (ROADS), "preferential" treatment given to certain countries over others because of compatible cultures, etc.
These are things that would make a fiscal conservative libertarian type lose their shit, because to do some of this shit requires the state grabbing more power from the people, but the "end result" is to promote not equality, but an intentional inequality that prefers treatment of its native citizens over immigrant/foreigner populations.
Japan has a mild form of this and is often used as an example by white ethnonats.
Those of us who support Trump support a somewhat milder form of right populism/nationalism where we pull back all the race-based shit and just do it under based off of merit and a heavily limited immigration policy, but you bet a lot of us would be for benefits that go towards the American citizen FIRST over any other group of people, which would again violate the average fiscal conservative's mentality.
Hell, we might even revise our welfare policies to cut back the amount of money being spent on the 14/60's and whatnot because we may see that as an actual waste of money and focus it on say, making our trades great again and accessible since those populations tend to at least have enough IQ to be able to do well in the trades.