As you say, it is true that the Third World is more conservative (and really, how could it not be) but that romanticizing it is wrong. But most people can only think "for" or "against" something. Should I be for or against X, huh?
Well, let's take Ethiopia as an example. They join the BRICS, why?
-Not because the West is "White imperialism!" Whites give Africa everything. Unfortunately. Free money flows every year. Volunteer doctors go to Africa and treat patients where the local hospitals have a high death rate. And so on. So any leftists who are pro-Ethiopian or pro-BRICS because they imagine Russia is their beloved Soviet Union are dead wrong, as usual.
-It is understandable however that Ethiopians and others want to get away from a West that now demands homosexuals be legalized. They see all the craziness that goes on in our streets. Unfortunately, they often think that's simply "the West" - when it's the Left.
-Countries like Ethiopia also want to get away from Western demands for pro-women laws. On the one hand, there are African countries where a rapist goes unpunished if he offers to marry the rape victim. On the other hand, there are quotas for women in Western society. An African wish to get away from pro-women laws can be either understandable, or an example of just what goes on in Africa.
-The big trump card for BRICS is that they don't interfere in whatever the current government in a country is doing. In Ethiopia, that means the government could kill hundreds of thousands of people in Tigray, rape tens or hundreds of thousands of women, and there's not a word of BRICS condemnation.
-Likewise, Saudi Arabia, now also in BRICS, doesn't want to be too tied to a West that - inefficiently - criticized them for mowing down hundreds of Tigray on the border. These Tigray tried to escape Ethiopia through Yemen and get to SA.
What I want to say is, there is a lot we can understand in the Third World, and also a lot to condemn since they are the same bastards as they have always been. They are conservative because that is simply the ordinary way of living, and opposing the Western Left's excesses is normal. But conservatism doesn't always mean something good. Not in the hands of people like Africans.
But such nuance takes too many words to write and doesn't fit in a short YouTube comment or X post.
I write about BRICS because you mentioned the hope of Russia acting as a force against what we see in Washington. I still believe that, and I don't see why it would be bad that they are getting closer to China.
Speaking of China, that's another country people lack nuance about. "Should we be for or against, huh?" China is more conservative than the West, and it is a market economy, not "communist" like fake conservatives like to say when they look for a safe enemy to oppose. But then they have a leader who says "I'm communist!", because you mustn't admit that the party did something wrong in the past. Just like Putin, a pro-market nationalist conservative, tries to separate "Soviet power sure was a cool thing" from the communism that he doesn't support.
While I'm at it, China will never attack Taiwan. For one thing, they have repeatedly said so. There's no reason to. They simply hope that Taiwan will come back to China voluntarily in the future, and in the meantime, the usual stubborn "can never admit anything wrong" attitude demands that they keep talking about how Taiwan really belong to them. But look beyond the rhetoric. There is daily trade between Taiwan and China. Two companies have daily flights from Taipei to Shanghai. Taiwan has invested more in China than the U.S. has. (And China has invested more than 1 trillion in the U.S., so they definitely don't want war.) Millions of tourists have gone back and forth between the countries. Many Chinese work in Taiwan-owned factories.
Aside from that, China barely has a navy and Taiwan's US-made rockets can hit them as soon as they leave port. There are only a few months per year when the weather would allow a crossing. Experts believe China would have to land half a million soldiers in the first day of a war, and they only have two modern vessels for that. Before the U.S. navy, far superior, would come to blow them up. China has no reason to send its navy to be destroyed, and lose their huge investments in the U.S., when Taiwan works with them in every way already. BUT, they keep up the rhetoric against Taiwan. Giving the "China is communist!" types what the want. So tiresome.
China also lays claims to waters not just around Taiwan but all the way down to Indonesia and Brunei, demanding Vietnam's coastal waters along the way. And the party is corrupt - most people in China rightfully want to get rid of it. But it is also a party that keeps homosexual pride parades out of the country. It is a party that keeps Tibet from becoming a CIA-armed and -trained outpost like Georgia's military was. It is a party that limits online games to a few hours a day, because young autistic-style Chinese guys become obsessed with them, just like in South Korea. Xi Jinping has a close advisor who spent years in the U.S., observing leftist universities and movements, and wrote about how China must not be torn apart like U.S. society. He couldn't criticize "leftism" or "Marxism," so he said that "the U.S. has no core today." We can support that while seing the bad as well. We don't have to be "for" or "against" China, any more than we have to be "for" or "against" Third World countries.
And as seen in the cases of Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia's bombings of Yemen, the Sudanese civil war, factions fighting all over Africa, there is no Third World unity.
Which makes the new propaganda term "the Global Majority" the most laughable new leftist phrase. As if the Third Worlders would all have the same opinion. Using "majority," a word from democratic thought, because Westerners are conditioned to think that whoever is the majority should get to decide.
Does that Global Majority include the Ethiopian government or their victims in Tigray? Which side in Sudan does it include? Which side in Yemen? Does it include the Saudi government or the Shias it is holding down? Are all of these supposed to be on the same side, in a "majority"?
Nice article one of the msin issues facing not just shites but all 100 iq plus people globally is whether they have the strength to expel those who cannot contribute to there society once the welfare state collapses under its own weight, the camp of the saints phenomenon will become the dominant political factor of the mid 21st century, it will be the world war 2 boomer truth regime foundational myth of this century , and all of out culture, media, political parties, economic systems will be impacted by this epochal event, IQ and behavioral genetics will have to come to the forefront because the luxury of ignoring them will be impossible, eugenics will be finally accepted and wokeism will die in an era of scarcity
Israel is a terror state and "jews" are not the ancient israelites. They are the edomites that Jesus said were kiars, murderers, and children of the devil.
- Also who and what is Western? Is Russia not part of the West despite being White?
And is Germany really "western"? And can really any nation -other than Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, and the offshoot of Anglo colonies- be called "Western"? Because outside of these mentioned nations anyone would find it ridiculous to conflate the Christian+classical (Greece/Rome) foundation of European civilization with capitalism-inspired liberal values, as constituents of equal importance of an elusive definition of "Western civilization".
And I think even France, Holland and Britain by now prefer social democracy, so the above definition of Western civilization can be confined to America. Which is a nation with unique social characteristics, that do not generalise well in the old continents, that have a history of human settlement and ethnogenesis that goes way more back than America.
That's why, from where I sit at least, one looks at Russia's 3-5 million/year shell production against (much less than)<1M production of all NATO combined, and starts grinning in hope - counter-currents be damned with their by now several years old wornout argument in favour of siding with Ukraine (and NATO) in the war because of the 'human right' of peoples to self-determination.
Many good points made, Robert! Well done.
As you say, it is true that the Third World is more conservative (and really, how could it not be) but that romanticizing it is wrong. But most people can only think "for" or "against" something. Should I be for or against X, huh?
Well, let's take Ethiopia as an example. They join the BRICS, why?
-Not because the West is "White imperialism!" Whites give Africa everything. Unfortunately. Free money flows every year. Volunteer doctors go to Africa and treat patients where the local hospitals have a high death rate. And so on. So any leftists who are pro-Ethiopian or pro-BRICS because they imagine Russia is their beloved Soviet Union are dead wrong, as usual.
-It is understandable however that Ethiopians and others want to get away from a West that now demands homosexuals be legalized. They see all the craziness that goes on in our streets. Unfortunately, they often think that's simply "the West" - when it's the Left.
-Countries like Ethiopia also want to get away from Western demands for pro-women laws. On the one hand, there are African countries where a rapist goes unpunished if he offers to marry the rape victim. On the other hand, there are quotas for women in Western society. An African wish to get away from pro-women laws can be either understandable, or an example of just what goes on in Africa.
-The big trump card for BRICS is that they don't interfere in whatever the current government in a country is doing. In Ethiopia, that means the government could kill hundreds of thousands of people in Tigray, rape tens or hundreds of thousands of women, and there's not a word of BRICS condemnation.
-Likewise, Saudi Arabia, now also in BRICS, doesn't want to be too tied to a West that - inefficiently - criticized them for mowing down hundreds of Tigray on the border. These Tigray tried to escape Ethiopia through Yemen and get to SA.
What I want to say is, there is a lot we can understand in the Third World, and also a lot to condemn since they are the same bastards as they have always been. They are conservative because that is simply the ordinary way of living, and opposing the Western Left's excesses is normal. But conservatism doesn't always mean something good. Not in the hands of people like Africans.
But such nuance takes too many words to write and doesn't fit in a short YouTube comment or X post.
I write about BRICS because you mentioned the hope of Russia acting as a force against what we see in Washington. I still believe that, and I don't see why it would be bad that they are getting closer to China.
Speaking of China, that's another country people lack nuance about. "Should we be for or against, huh?" China is more conservative than the West, and it is a market economy, not "communist" like fake conservatives like to say when they look for a safe enemy to oppose. But then they have a leader who says "I'm communist!", because you mustn't admit that the party did something wrong in the past. Just like Putin, a pro-market nationalist conservative, tries to separate "Soviet power sure was a cool thing" from the communism that he doesn't support.
While I'm at it, China will never attack Taiwan. For one thing, they have repeatedly said so. There's no reason to. They simply hope that Taiwan will come back to China voluntarily in the future, and in the meantime, the usual stubborn "can never admit anything wrong" attitude demands that they keep talking about how Taiwan really belong to them. But look beyond the rhetoric. There is daily trade between Taiwan and China. Two companies have daily flights from Taipei to Shanghai. Taiwan has invested more in China than the U.S. has. (And China has invested more than 1 trillion in the U.S., so they definitely don't want war.) Millions of tourists have gone back and forth between the countries. Many Chinese work in Taiwan-owned factories.
Aside from that, China barely has a navy and Taiwan's US-made rockets can hit them as soon as they leave port. There are only a few months per year when the weather would allow a crossing. Experts believe China would have to land half a million soldiers in the first day of a war, and they only have two modern vessels for that. Before the U.S. navy, far superior, would come to blow them up. China has no reason to send its navy to be destroyed, and lose their huge investments in the U.S., when Taiwan works with them in every way already. BUT, they keep up the rhetoric against Taiwan. Giving the "China is communist!" types what the want. So tiresome.
China also lays claims to waters not just around Taiwan but all the way down to Indonesia and Brunei, demanding Vietnam's coastal waters along the way. And the party is corrupt - most people in China rightfully want to get rid of it. But it is also a party that keeps homosexual pride parades out of the country. It is a party that keeps Tibet from becoming a CIA-armed and -trained outpost like Georgia's military was. It is a party that limits online games to a few hours a day, because young autistic-style Chinese guys become obsessed with them, just like in South Korea. Xi Jinping has a close advisor who spent years in the U.S., observing leftist universities and movements, and wrote about how China must not be torn apart like U.S. society. He couldn't criticize "leftism" or "Marxism," so he said that "the U.S. has no core today." We can support that while seing the bad as well. We don't have to be "for" or "against" China, any more than we have to be "for" or "against" Third World countries.
And as seen in the cases of Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia's bombings of Yemen, the Sudanese civil war, factions fighting all over Africa, there is no Third World unity.
Which makes the new propaganda term "the Global Majority" the most laughable new leftist phrase. As if the Third Worlders would all have the same opinion. Using "majority," a word from democratic thought, because Westerners are conditioned to think that whoever is the majority should get to decide.
Does that Global Majority include the Ethiopian government or their victims in Tigray? Which side in Sudan does it include? Which side in Yemen? Does it include the Saudi government or the Shias it is holding down? Are all of these supposed to be on the same side, in a "majority"?
A nice run-through of the twists and turns or trials and tribulations besetting us. Thank you.
Nice article one of the msin issues facing not just shites but all 100 iq plus people globally is whether they have the strength to expel those who cannot contribute to there society once the welfare state collapses under its own weight, the camp of the saints phenomenon will become the dominant political factor of the mid 21st century, it will be the world war 2 boomer truth regime foundational myth of this century , and all of out culture, media, political parties, economic systems will be impacted by this epochal event, IQ and behavioral genetics will have to come to the forefront because the luxury of ignoring them will be impossible, eugenics will be finally accepted and wokeism will die in an era of scarcity
Right-wing Third-Worldism is indeed cringe.
Your Piece Is Very Hard To Follow…
It Is A Quagmire Of -Ism Jizzom.
Turn Off Your Super Phone And Your Internet For A Few Days, Go Outside And Get Some Fresh Air.
How distant is your kikeratness ?
What percent are you kikerat ?
True converts are like brother nat at realjewnews.com .
Israel is a terror state and "jews" are not the ancient israelites. They are the edomites that Jesus said were kiars, murderers, and children of the devil.
See dustin nemos on rumble.
- Also who and what is Western? Is Russia not part of the West despite being White?
And is Germany really "western"? And can really any nation -other than Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, and the offshoot of Anglo colonies- be called "Western"? Because outside of these mentioned nations anyone would find it ridiculous to conflate the Christian+classical (Greece/Rome) foundation of European civilization with capitalism-inspired liberal values, as constituents of equal importance of an elusive definition of "Western civilization".
And I think even France, Holland and Britain by now prefer social democracy, so the above definition of Western civilization can be confined to America. Which is a nation with unique social characteristics, that do not generalise well in the old continents, that have a history of human settlement and ethnogenesis that goes way more back than America.
That's why, from where I sit at least, one looks at Russia's 3-5 million/year shell production against (much less than)<1M production of all NATO combined, and starts grinning in hope - counter-currents be damned with their by now several years old wornout argument in favour of siding with Ukraine (and NATO) in the war because of the 'human right' of peoples to self-determination.