Ndim

@SizweLo Fascinating views.

Prof Jiang Xueqin argues that the outcome of the war in Iran is “pre-ordained” and it is to kill as many people as possible and destroy the global economy, and more interestingly, “force the US out of the Middle East”. He argues that the “historical lens” of analysing current conflicts based on past events like the 1979 Revolution or 20th-century geopolitical patterns is a flawed and insufficient framework for understanding the Zionist war with Iran. His assertion rests on the belief that the world has entered a “unique” and “eschatological” era where traditional logic no longer applies. Prof Jiang posits that traditional reasons for war, such as controlling oil, trade routes, or resources, are no longer the primary drivers. He cites the ongoing war in Ukraine as evidence; from a military and historical perspective, he argues the war was “lost” two years ago, yet it continues despite making “no sense” under conventional frameworks. He suggests that because the old rules of engagement and negotiation are being ignored, looking at history to predict the future is a “hallucination”. Prof Jiang’s argument is that the conflict is driven by religious and eschatological motives rather than political ones. He believes the war is “scripted” to bring about specific religious outcomes, such as the Second Coming of Jesus or the establishment of a “Greater Israel”, cited from Genesis 15. Prof Jiang dismisses historical grievances, such as the 1979 overthrow of the Shah, as mere distractions. He warns that if you insist on using 1979 as a reference point, “you’re not getting anywhere.” He further argues that the historical lens is flawed because it assumes that nation-states like the USA, Iran, Russia are the primary actors. Instead, he describes nation-states as “hosts” for “parasitic” secret societies and transnational capital groups that orchestrate conflicts to extract wealth or achieve spiritual goals. Because he believes the people pulling the strings might be the same across different countries, historical rivalries are irrelevant “shadows on the wall”, referencing Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, designed to distract the public. Perhaps his most controversial departure from historical analysis is the assertion that the US might have entered the war intending to lose. This is radical because empires go to war to win and expand. Prof Jiang suggests that in this case, for certain “end-times” scenarios to manifest, the American Empire must be removed from the Middle East, meaning a military defeat would actually be “according to plan”. He argues that US actions are increasingly dictated by the “Greater Israel” project, or “Pax Judaica” which aims to expand Israeli territory from the Nile to the Euphrates as in Genesis 15:18. He notes that political leaders like Donald Trump and Marco Rubio have framed these actions as essential for Israeli security. Prof Jiang concludes that using history to predict this war is like looking at a map of a world that no longer exists. He urges viewers to “throw history out the window” because the coming conflict is a “spiritual war” where the goal is total destruction and a radical reduction of the global population, rather than the territorial or ideological victories of the past. Of course, Prof Jiang is not the end-all and be-all of geopolitical analysis. Many credible political analysts argue that Israel “calling the shots” and dictating to the US is just a tactic of a larger strategy. In this view, taking over Iran would allow the US to dominate the “nexus of global trade” and energy flows that China depends on for its survival. The argument is that the US is using the “for Israel” narrative to cut off China’s energy access in the Middle East to gain a permanent chokehold on the primary energy supplier for its greatest economic rival. In this sense, analysts such as Brian Berletic see Israel as a US proxy, in which doing something “for Israel” is functionally the same as doing it for US regional hegemony, which is ultimately used to pressure China and Russia. So, while Prof Jiang believes that the war in Ukraine makes no sense, Berletic posits that the West never intended for Ukraine to “win” in a traditional sense. The goal was always to use Ukraine as a tool to grind down Russia’s military hardware and deplete its treasury and economy. By keeping Russia bogged down, the US prevents a “Eurasian integration” where German technology and Russian resources combine to challenge American hegemony. Now, for me, personally, the main problem with Prof Jiang’s analysis is that it’s unfalsifiable. Any evidence against it can be reframed as another “shadow on the wall”. And when a theory can absorb all contradictory evidence, it stops being analysis and becomes theology. In any case, both analyses conclude that the publicly stated reasons for conflict are not the real reasons. Both see nation-states as fictitious actors concealing deeper agendas. They diverge sharply on what those deeper agendas are. One says it’s spiritual, the other believes it’s material. Still, Prof Jiang is identifying something real, that certain actors genuinely are motivated by religious eschatology. After all, Christian Zionists in the US Congress are a documented political force, not a conspiracy theory, but then he seems to overcorrect by making this the total explanation, dismissing material interests entirely. Then, on the other hand, Brian Berletic’s framework may be underestimating how much ideological and religious beliefs shape decision-making among actual policymakers by treating them as pure rational-actor strategists when the evidence suggests otherwise. In simpler terms, the fundamental divide between the two points of view seems to be on intent. Berletic believes the United States is viciously rational, that they want to stay on top of the pile at any cost. Prof Jiang believes the people who are “really” in charge are viciously irrational and want to burn the world down to fulfil a perceived destiny. Ultimately, maybe the answer is that both things are happening simultaneously. After all, an American Christian Zionist politician, an arms manufacturer, an oil trading banker, and an Israeli genocidal maniac can all support the same policy for entirely different reasons. Brian Berletic’s material analysis and Prof Jiang’s eschatological logic don’t necessarily have to compete, as they can both be true depending on which warmonger you ask.

@SizweLo It’s Economic Apartheid

This is De Doorns in the Western Cape. All the residents here work for 4 families that own all of the farms in the area. The same 4 families also own of the shops in the town nearby. Basically, the same people the farmworkers work for in the wine farms also control the local Pep, Shoprite, KFC etc. During the picking season, Intercape buses drop off hundreds of workers straight from Maseru and Harare.

@BoerInExile @BowNkambule When evidence dismantles racism, racists don’t rethink — they double down and expose their intellectual bankruptcy — too spiritually retarded to be able to admit.

@dlambulo @BowNkambule Correct, balcks are racially inferior.

Look at these Bantus in their shitholes

@BoerInExile @BowNkambule If poverty proves racial inferiority, then the picture proves too much — and that’s exactly why it stings.

@BowNkambule Don't be such a liar: you also know the exception doesn't disprove the rule.

@Olivia_LaGrange The Western Cape’s prosperity rests on national revenue, migrant labour, and integrated supply chains. To fear internal migration is to forget that “collapse” and “stability” are two sides of the same uneven development.

The wealthy and powerful in Cape Town & Stellenbosch better make a plan.... If Johannesburg collapses, millions will be flocking down to the WC.... and Cape Town's infrastructure will collapse.

@KwazaUnathi Majorities deserve a voice — but justice is not a referendum.

newsday.co.za/south-africa/1… A study conducted in 2024 in the town of Graaff-Reinet found that the vast majority, 83.6%, of residents did not want the name to change.

@Lisathe_first I’m not convinced Sobukwe’s legacy requires a purified space. Apartheid towns carry contradictions, but not every inherited symbol negates the meaning of renaming.

The truth is , This is not Robert Sobukwe Town, there is nothing Robert Sobukwe about the infrastructure here. The ANC government must build a town, with post offices, school, and chruch. Then call it a Sobukwe town. This is a hallow victory, we are stealing.

@SizweLo Gen Z rely less on memorisation and linear problem-solving, and more on navigating systems, tools, and networks to reach solutions quickly. This can look like a decline when judged by older benchmarks, yet it may reflect adaptation to an environment shaped by digital saturation.

@dlambulo Can you give an example of this different thinking?

Gen Z, or ama2K are dumber than their parents. Which is scary because the parents aren’t that sharp to begin with

@errolbsk Racists are too spiritually retarded to be able to admit.

When we tell them that Trump is a dumb racist piece of shit,some whites in SA come to his defense.

@SongezoZibi Naming white nationalism as a global ecosystem — not an anomaly — is essential. The next frontier, perhaps, is confronting how liberal mediation and elite incorporation stabilise the very conditions that allow supremacist politics to mutate and persist. Necessary reading. Thanks.

My Substack essay about global white nationalism and fascism, and how locals have been slowly radicalised. open.substack.com/pub/songezo/p/…

@hayleykitty01 @Christo64486953 Sure, the ANC has human rights contradictions. But the DA’s selective outrage is the issue: demanding UN action abroad while exporting alarmist, racially charged narratives at home — then disowning the fallout — is a credibility problem, not a partisan attack.

@dlambulo @Christo64486953 Why don’t you address the main issue - that the ANC govt is hypocritical and does not stand for human rights. They are merely the puppets of Islamic regimes that pay their bills.

The DA has formally written to the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, Ronald Lamola, demanding that he report the Islamic Republic of Iran to the UNHRC. The ANC face a moral test: Stand with the people of Iran, or those that suppress them 🔵🇿🇦

@Christo64486953 Telling someone to “educate themselves” is a way of avoiding the argument, not answering it. When a party disciplines its authorised foreign representative after controversial international engagements, it concedes political harm occurred. You don’t correct what doesn’t exist.

@dlambulo How can we take responsibility for a narrative we didn’t push, that no DA public representative pushed. You need to get off your high horse, tweet less nonsense and educate yourself on the facts a lot more.

@Christo64486953 You cannot deny responsibility for a narrative while simultaneously disciplining the person who carried it abroad. That contradiction exposes not innocence, but awareness.

@dlambulo That is not true in the slightest You would be well advised to improve your understanding and education yourself more.

@Christo64486953 You knowingly fed an ecosystem that frames South Africa through genocidal fantasy — and you did so in foreign capitals.

@dlambulo Sorry excuse me Where did the DA say there’s a whole genocide ?

@RobertHersov @BizNewsCOM facebook.com/share/1CKoiWzN…

⁦@BizNewsCOM⁩

Well said, Songezo, very well said!

@PieterDuToit Your comment may strike as fair on the surface, but it also reveals the nauseating undertone of South Africa’s political commentary: a kind of moral voyeurism that mistakes elite disgust for analysis. The comment captures the symptom but not the system.

Following Bheki Cele's testimony at the ad hoc commission into police corruption, it is astonishing that he has risen as high as he did. Incoherent, petulant, rambling, and clearly conflicted. Yet, president after president appointed him. news24.com/politics/live-…

“South Africa is going to burn, that is the only viable path you are proposing if you say transforming must be abandoned.”