Source: @imleslahdin Twitter Whether one supports the Israelis or Palestinians or Russia or Ukraine is a tribal political marker. Generally pro-Israel and pro-Ukraine is the establishment position, including neoliberals and neocons, pro-Palestine and pro-Ukraine are normie progressives/woke libs, pro-Palestine and pro-Russia are Third Wordlists, such as
- I am annoyed by the moralization of ethnic conflicts.
The war in the Ukraine is more than an ethnic conflict though. Both Russia and US/Europe are rearming, so the conflict will probably enlarge, as neither side will accept a local defeat in Ukraine as a long term status quo. Can bring GAE down potentially. This is the accelerationist option the dissident right has been waffling about for at least 10 years by now, becoming a viable reality.
Sure, third worldism is heavily present in Russia propaganda. But could an entente between Russia and China really exist, one may wonder looking down at history and at geography. I doubt it, so I strongly hope "Global South" and "BRICS" ramblings is all just tactical diplomacy on Russia's part. After all, you take in all allies you can when you need them.
Russia will repair relations with the US when the opportunity arises. But they are making a historic re-alignment towards Asia and away from Europe. Russia's strongest relationship in Asia by far is with India. Overall Russia is pragmatic, not sentimental and they seek effective relations all around.
America will have to turn isolationist to have total peace with Russia. US elites are globalists hence don't want isolationism, so I am skeptical of any appeasement.
Even with Trump there will be bones of contention against Russia, under a facade of rapprochement (think Finland in NATO and trade with China). Plus that's the number one issue why they made Trump's life impossible last time he was in office, not because he was "nazi" or anything like that. If it were up to them, with Hillary Clinton president they would have provoked Russia into a Ukraine war as soon as 2016.
Any retreat from empire would be tactical only. Old school isolationism not really viable at this stage. The US depends heavily on foreign capital and foreign suppliers for consumer goods, pharmaceuticals and some capital goods (above all silicon chips).
Re Ukraine, I suspect that Washington was genuinely surprised by the Russian intervention in 2022. They underestimated Russia's resolve and her capacity and wildly overestimated NATO's conventional deterrence. I fully agree that Hilary would have provoked war. She is reckless and amoral enough...and crazy enough too.
The serious issues IMHO are not about who is right or wrong but who augments our present and future safety and welfare.
The Russians and Chinese seek to remake the global economy to their advantage. Some in the US stand to benefit from this, others do not. Similarly the Israelis, Iranians, Saudis, Emiratis, Turks and Egyptians seek to secure their various interests in an era of declining US capacity and rising Russian and Chinese power.
So far the political alignments appear downstream from expressive concerns over ideology and the legacy of old divisions. I'd like to see much more effort all round to tease out precisely how people expect to benefit.
Victory for Ukraine would clearly augment the position of the Deep State in a straight-forward way. This is not going to happen, but the fall-out from the imminent Russian victory is going to be tricky.
Victory for Israel would be even more complex. Portions of the Deep State are very comfortable with Israel's enemies and key institutions in the West receive support from Qatar (especially some of the elite colleges). The alignment of pro-Palestinian right-wingers with the Global South reproduces the enthusiasm for Arab nationalism that was once associated with the oil industry and the intelligence community. Those US oligarchs seeking allies/partners in the Global South benefit from this alignment.
Ultimately, what is critical is how the various oligarchic interests in the West mobilise support amongst the shrinking middle classes.
One issue here that hasn't been getting any attention is that there are White and non-White Jews. Israel is in the latter category -- it's largely non-White (a mix of whites, MENAs, and Africans, on the level of Latin America). Since race is the defining issue of our time, the Right's support for Israel will eventually run into racial headwinds, whatever the current religious basis exists for its support. When I see FOX News show Israeli faces, which are largely POCs, I feel that the Right's affinity for Israel could be short-lived -- it's a racial contradiction for MAGA, and race is the top determinant of everything in the modern world. On the other hand, European, non-Israeli Jews tend to be White in contrast to Israeli ones, so all Jews shouldn't be conflated with Israel. This distinction doesn't get much attention. Jews claim to be a single entity but racial distinctions exist; it could be that they'll have to subdivide into White Jews vs. Non-White ones, and this could have political ramifications.
I agree. But in real life the race card gets super tricky. Contradiction, paradox, irony are baked into the cake. There are DNA studies showing European Jews to have a greater genomic affinity to Kurds and Armenians and Italians than to anyone else. In its ethnic hybridity present-day Israel embodies complexity.
Western societies are also becoming more complex. The Groypers and Trads appear to be set to reach out to selected white-adjacent immigrants. Perhaps this will make them beige-adjacent?
In the era of Global Mestizaje Neo-Tribalism ethno-sectarians across the board will need to co-operate with allies of convenience as well as genomic kindred and ideological fellow-travelers. This will be celebrated, rationalised, justified by all the powers of fancy and science. We will see Western Zionists in conflict with Castizo Fascists and mixed-race Wignat Mutts just as Israel forms friendships with selected Arab and Turkic states.
- I am annoyed by the moralization of ethnic conflicts.
The war in the Ukraine is more than an ethnic conflict though. Both Russia and US/Europe are rearming, so the conflict will probably enlarge, as neither side will accept a local defeat in Ukraine as a long term status quo. Can bring GAE down potentially. This is the accelerationist option the dissident right has been waffling about for at least 10 years by now, becoming a viable reality.
Sure, third worldism is heavily present in Russia propaganda. But could an entente between Russia and China really exist, one may wonder looking down at history and at geography. I doubt it, so I strongly hope "Global South" and "BRICS" ramblings is all just tactical diplomacy on Russia's part. After all, you take in all allies you can when you need them.
Russia will repair relations with the US when the opportunity arises. But they are making a historic re-alignment towards Asia and away from Europe. Russia's strongest relationship in Asia by far is with India. Overall Russia is pragmatic, not sentimental and they seek effective relations all around.
America will have to turn isolationist to have total peace with Russia. US elites are globalists hence don't want isolationism, so I am skeptical of any appeasement.
Even with Trump there will be bones of contention against Russia, under a facade of rapprochement (think Finland in NATO and trade with China). Plus that's the number one issue why they made Trump's life impossible last time he was in office, not because he was "nazi" or anything like that. If it were up to them, with Hillary Clinton president they would have provoked Russia into a Ukraine war as soon as 2016.
Any retreat from empire would be tactical only. Old school isolationism not really viable at this stage. The US depends heavily on foreign capital and foreign suppliers for consumer goods, pharmaceuticals and some capital goods (above all silicon chips).
Re Ukraine, I suspect that Washington was genuinely surprised by the Russian intervention in 2022. They underestimated Russia's resolve and her capacity and wildly overestimated NATO's conventional deterrence. I fully agree that Hilary would have provoked war. She is reckless and amoral enough...and crazy enough too.
The serious issues IMHO are not about who is right or wrong but who augments our present and future safety and welfare.
The Russians and Chinese seek to remake the global economy to their advantage. Some in the US stand to benefit from this, others do not. Similarly the Israelis, Iranians, Saudis, Emiratis, Turks and Egyptians seek to secure their various interests in an era of declining US capacity and rising Russian and Chinese power.
So far the political alignments appear downstream from expressive concerns over ideology and the legacy of old divisions. I'd like to see much more effort all round to tease out precisely how people expect to benefit.
Victory for Ukraine would clearly augment the position of the Deep State in a straight-forward way. This is not going to happen, but the fall-out from the imminent Russian victory is going to be tricky.
Victory for Israel would be even more complex. Portions of the Deep State are very comfortable with Israel's enemies and key institutions in the West receive support from Qatar (especially some of the elite colleges). The alignment of pro-Palestinian right-wingers with the Global South reproduces the enthusiasm for Arab nationalism that was once associated with the oil industry and the intelligence community. Those US oligarchs seeking allies/partners in the Global South benefit from this alignment.
Ultimately, what is critical is how the various oligarchic interests in the West mobilise support amongst the shrinking middle classes.
One issue here that hasn't been getting any attention is that there are White and non-White Jews. Israel is in the latter category -- it's largely non-White (a mix of whites, MENAs, and Africans, on the level of Latin America). Since race is the defining issue of our time, the Right's support for Israel will eventually run into racial headwinds, whatever the current religious basis exists for its support. When I see FOX News show Israeli faces, which are largely POCs, I feel that the Right's affinity for Israel could be short-lived -- it's a racial contradiction for MAGA, and race is the top determinant of everything in the modern world. On the other hand, European, non-Israeli Jews tend to be White in contrast to Israeli ones, so all Jews shouldn't be conflated with Israel. This distinction doesn't get much attention. Jews claim to be a single entity but racial distinctions exist; it could be that they'll have to subdivide into White Jews vs. Non-White ones, and this could have political ramifications.
I agree. But in real life the race card gets super tricky. Contradiction, paradox, irony are baked into the cake. There are DNA studies showing European Jews to have a greater genomic affinity to Kurds and Armenians and Italians than to anyone else. In its ethnic hybridity present-day Israel embodies complexity.
Western societies are also becoming more complex. The Groypers and Trads appear to be set to reach out to selected white-adjacent immigrants. Perhaps this will make them beige-adjacent?
In the era of Global Mestizaje Neo-Tribalism ethno-sectarians across the board will need to co-operate with allies of convenience as well as genomic kindred and ideological fellow-travelers. This will be celebrated, rationalised, justified by all the powers of fancy and science. We will see Western Zionists in conflict with Castizo Fascists and mixed-race Wignat Mutts just as Israel forms friendships with selected Arab and Turkic states.