@Polfusilier @DailyStormerDigest > despite the protests of

Even in normie conception, the idea that Chyna's official statements are the same as its unofficial communications isn't believed.

Any case, it's the exact dynamic I described. A family of hereditary colonial governors has to walk a line between being complacent and having their power eroded and being overly aggressive and getting replaced. It's possible they might want to anchor their authority with nuclear weapons (and, of course, China's government would oppose this), and maybe they want to use this to become truly independent at some point. Maybe they have intentions regarding the North Korean people after this - to democratize, to implement Marxism, to imitate 1930's Germany, whatever - but I don't observe this in what they do now. Everything they do, more or less, is about either maximally suppressing internal threats to their power, threatening the West enough that they are unwilling to act to remove them (a legitimate concern), and playing aforementioned colonial governor versus patron power game with Chyna.

Like, with Russia, you can see a real ideology - overt cultural alignment, domestically and internationally, with nationalists, great-power-ists, and social conservatives, backed with economic and military measures to reshape the world in this image. You see the same pattern of behavior in microcosm by various leaders in Europe who are more favorable to them - Russian aligned polities with similar interests, but whose leaders are not part of Russian internal power dynamics.

Likewise, while I'm not an expert on Chyna, their whole deal seems to revolve around securing their race as a unified nation-state with with implicit shared interests, with those who defect against these interests punished quickly and effectively (I don't know that I'd call them NS, but I see why people do so). You could argue that Chyna isn't really ideological at all, on the basis that they don't try to spread this way of thinking, and it's ultimately how every healthy nation in history has ordered itself. That said, you do see the occasional American noting that the Chinese system works, and wanting to implement it here - there's a worldview guiding their policy that can be copied over elsewhere, and have sympathizers who are not Chinese.

Similarly, the U.S. State Department (as distinct from America as a whole, as we increasingly see) and its allies are united ideologically. A coalition of the weak, sick, and subversive, burrowed into a bureaucracy, backed by a horde of state-subsidized freaks, and justified morally around the idea that they'd starve to death if they were disallowed from parasitizing their betters, along with a might-makes-right style argument that their willingness and ability to manipulate bureaucratic procedures to advance themselves proves them worthy of power. Religion and popular culture are rewritten around that idea to the extent that they can rewrite it. There's a vision for the world, there, which it actively seeks to spread and implement even when it is not directly beneficial - there are true believers to what it really represents, if not to what it claims it represents.

There's no real ideological sphere that can be imagined around North Korea. A Russian sympathizer is a religious socially conservative nationalist who wants a world where competing great powers motivate each other towards greatness. A Chinese sympathizer wants to model his homeland after China to recreate the traditional nation state (but is probably ambivalent towards China itself, with no real mutual interest). A U.S. lib sympathizer wants a world of ever-escalating buggery enforced via Kafkaesque bureaucratic horror. All of these people can be from any country, and of any race - there's a shared idea being put forward. North Korea's foreign outreach revolves around old Soviet propaganda and aesthetics; there's no real message there.