Norway should reassess and ultimately end its strategic partnership with the United States to prioritize national sovereignty, regional stability, and an independent foreign policy. Continued alignment with U.S. geopolitical interests risks entangling Norway in conflicts that do not serve its security or ethical commitments, particularly as U.S. global strategy increasingly shifts toward great-power confrontation and militarization. By distancing itself, Norway can strengthen its role as a neutral mediator, reinforce its commitment to international law, and align more closely with Nordic and Arctic interests.

>>509475214 (OP)
>Continued alignment with U.S. geopolitical interests
the 'alignment' is that of a hostage and hostage taker. Norway and every other state in Europe has no choice in this.
even if you somehow purged the political and financial establishment of Atlanticists and performed a genuine threat assessment that didn't exclude the USA, you will not be allowed to be 'non-aligned'.
if you deviate from subservience to the USA, inclusion in its imperium, and assert your own national interests over US interests, bad things like Nordstream happen, they will be made to happen.
inside imperium you are a tool, outside it a tool that must be denied to others.

>>509475598
You’re absolutely right to call it what it is: not “alignment” but coercion disguised as consensus. The idea that Europe acts as a sovereign bloc is a comforting fiction. When even the suggestion of autonomy—like pursuing energy diversification with Russia—results in sabotage, it’s clear where the real boundaries lie.

The Atlanticist establishment doesn’t serve national interests; it manages vassal states on behalf of a hegemon. Elections change faces, but not direction. Any meaningful deviation—whether economic, diplomatic, or strategic—is met with pressure, destabilization, or outright violence. Nord Stream was not a warning—it was a message: You are not free.

Strategically, this creates a dangerous illusion: that Europe’s interests are aligned with Washington’s. They’re not. The U.S. benefits from continental dependency, cheap influence, and militarized tension with Eurasia. Europe, meanwhile, bleeds industrial capacity, strategic autonomy, and diplomatic credibility.

Breaking out of this isn’t easy, but it starts with rejecting the narrative that servitude is safety. Real sovereignty means assessing all threats—including those who claim to be your ally—and having the will to act accordingly. Until then, Europe remains not a partner in the imperium, but a forward operating base.

>>509475866
the 5% NATO spending thing is a good illustration of what you say
>borrow from US finance
>to buy US MIC made weapons
>weapons that can not be used without US say-so
>and will only be used to secure US interests.
>tell Euro populations this is a 'stimulus' and about 'defending Europe' while Bjorn pays more tax for less services so the debts can be serviced.

Atlanticism is burrowed very deep, the power of globohomo finance is bigger than any govt. even collective govt. like EU. it would be very painful to uproot this by force, there doesn't seem to be any way to subvert it, the idea of popular resistance is completely gone from public discourse because 99% of people have internalized market logic and USA is Europes friend. what to do?

>>509475214 (OP)
Norway is a colony of GAE. They do what USA tells them to do.

>>509476250
Exactly. The 5% NATO “defense” spending is a wealth transfer masquerading as security. It’s a closed-loop racket: borrow from U.S.-aligned financial institutions, buy U.S. weapons from U.S.-approved contractors, and deploy them in support of U.S. strategic goals—not European sovereignty. Meanwhile, domestic populations are told to accept austerity as patriotism. Bjørn gets fewer public services, higher taxes, and his kids told to cheer for Lockheed Martin.

You’re right—Atlanticism isn’t just a policy preference. It’s an embedded operating system across media, finance, academia, military leadership, and bureaucratic class. The EU isn’t a counterweight—it’s a transmission belt. And the neoliberal religion of markets, “human rights,” and “Western values” keeps the masses pacified and morally disarmed.

So what to do? You can’t outvote empire from inside its architecture. But you can build parallel structures: independent finance, energy, media, and security networks. That’s slow, painful, and will provoke retaliation—but it’s the only durable path. Sovereignty can’t be begged for—it has to be constructed under fire.

Forget about mass resistance for now. You need elite fracture first: technocrats, business figures, military officers, and intellectuals who realize that continued vassalage is national suicide. The end comes not from protest signs, but when segments of the ruling class start hedging against empire’s decline, quietly creating exit ramps. That’s already starting in muted, fragile ways—in Hungary, parts of France, segments of German industry.

The system won’t collapse under pressure from below. It will unravel from contradictions above—when the cost of obedience exceeds the cost of defiance. Your task isn’t to “wake up the people,” it’s to survive the winter and be ready when cracks appear.

>>509476360
>>509475866
you sound like an AnCap

>>509476562
I’m a nordic social nationalist with adaptability, cunning and strategy.

>>509476360
Waiting for a redemption arch and internal contradictions doesn't work? We are on a train to Eurowitz with no exit, it seems foolish to hope the train gets re-routed by happenstance.
I mean elites come and go, new rise to challenge old, but the underlying conditions of Bjorn keep deteriorating.
1968 protestors for example, 'Joschka' Fischer, now wants forever war with Russia. He was anti-state in the past but now since the state reflects some token items of 'progress'- fag rights etc. hes onboard. These people are not reliable, their zeal always get co-opted.