Across the Western media, a new Traitors Coalition has emerged in support of Russia: Dirtbag leftists and rightists, “America First” Groypers, Q holdouts, LARPing “traditionalists,” Ultra MAGAists, literal Commies, and the occasional neoreactionary and paleoconservative.
The Traitors Coalition roughly tracks with those who either enthusiastically endorsed or apologized for January 6. Some “fellow travelers” in this coalition, notably Trump himself and Tucker Carlson, have already back-tracked and reversed their positions.
The “Z” emerged overnight as a curious symbol. Z is a Latin letter, not a Cyrillic one; its meaning is cryptic, though its implications are not. It’s hard not to see its similarities with “Q.” It is, in fact, the new Q. In itself it means nothing…but it implies everything.
What we see with these Traitors is a “coalition of the fringes”: basically, they hate everything; feel like they’re under attack (sometimes for good reason); and see Russia as, in effect, assaulting, weakening, or humiliating the Western World.
Before the New Left, Frankfurt School, etc. turned on the USSR, “Russia” existed as a fantasy realm for Western leftists and subalterns: everything was free; work was good; racism and alienation were overcome, etc.
Today, the Traitors Coalition might project similar fantasies onto Putin’s Russia, with a twist. Russia will be imagined as super “trad,” “based,” and religious—a land where every Incel is mandated a gf and eGirls are thrown into prison.
The emerging Digital Iron Curtain between East and West will only heighten the level of fantasy for the coalition of the fringes in the West. That is, they won’t have any idea what life in Russia is actually like.
As mentioned, during the First Cold War, many subalterns instinctively sided with the Soviets, perhaps merely out of resentment. This was, in fact, a major motivation, mostly unspoken, for policies like the Civil Rights Act and Great Society.
In other words, the American system sought to integrate the subalterns, so as not lose them to Communism and subversive practices.
I doubt this process will repeat itself. Most highly educated non-White immigrants have Ukrainian flags in their bios. The Hispanic population will largely be indifferent or benignly pro-NATO in the coming conflict. Such people aren’t at issue for the system.
The system is more likely to crush or marginalize the “Z” people, much as it did to J6 and Trucker Convoy enthusiasts. The notion that it’ll seek to work with them—or that Russia will come to the Zs rescue—is simply unthinkable. Z in the West simply cannot win.
I understand their frustration… But how much sympathy should I have for people who are constantly seeking out new hills to die on?

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Richard 🇪🇺🇺🇦 Spencer

Richard 🇪🇺🇺🇦 Spencer Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @RichardBSpencer

Mar 5
*The Batman* is a great film. I loved it. As many noted, it evokes *The Godfather* and *Chinatown*, but mainly Batman: The Animated Series. A “sad and rainy reboot”—an interesting twist on the “dark and gritty” reboots of the 2000s.
I don’t think *The Batman* is quite as definitive a vision as the Nolan series… but I appreciate the “noir detective” and slow-pacing.
Michael Giacchino’s theme is infectious. It’s basically “i-V-i”—the chords of “Something in the way” by Nirvana, which features throughout. It has a driving, primal quality, and begins to sound like the Imperial March (i-VI-i).
Read 5 tweets
Mar 2
America and the West went insane over the past 30 years. Whether it was a matter of too much luxury or something deeper—we had no enemy abroad and turned on ourselves.
A Neo-Cold War environment is where we are headed (though, of course, with some important differences). Many hysterically loathe such an outcome: fearing the potential dangers—WWIII or even nuclear annihilation—and the imperial burden such an arrangement entails.
I, for one, have fond memories of my Cold War childhood. Unquestionably, life was more civilized and decent; the intellectual world and media were more sober and serious.
Read 8 tweets
Feb 26
The conflict in Ukraine is depressing and sickening—and could have been avoided. But I ultimately think it is a positive and necessary development for European civilization and consciousness.
We are returning to the 20th century, to a divided world (probably a trifurcated, instead of a bifurcated one). The 30-year period of true globalism—"The End of History," Unipolar Moment"—is over. It was America's time, when it projected itself across the globe, and it is over.
The difference between the new 20th century and the old is that the three sides (U.S./EU/NATO; Russia; and China) have been evacuated of ideology.
Read 14 tweets
Feb 24
There’s a funny rhyming or symmetry to Russia’s current invasion of Ukraine and America’s 2003 Iraq debacle.
Both Moscow and Washington justified war as “liberation,” “protecting minorities,” and even “de-Nazification.” The Donbas region, supporting anti-Saddam liberals, the Azov battalion, and sending Iraqi girls to college can all be mixed and matched.
Both invasions also started out with spectacular “shock and awe” campaigns. In 2003, many analysts warned of Iraq’s military’s prowess, not to mention WMDs. Last night, I was amazed at the speed of the Ukrainian military’s collapse, barely putting up a fight.
Read 4 tweets
Feb 22
Putin has already sent forces of some kind into the break-away regions. A full invasion of the country, including Kyiv, is more that possible. I’d say it’s probable, and I’ve been saying this for a while. The reasoning behind my assessment is the basic structure of the conflict.
Returning Ukraine to the Russian sphere—the long-term Russian empire, which stretches back further than the USSR—means quite a bit to Moscow, and, apparently, Putin in particular. It means more to Moscow than the option of Ukraine entering NATO does to Washington.
Biden might change his tune (as Macron seemed to suggest…), but he told the world in clear language that Washington will not send ground troops into Ukraine. It follows—or I hope it follows—that catastrophic retaliation, like aerial bombing or nukes, is off the table.
Read 16 tweets
Feb 20
Amassing 150k troops is a curious way of “trying to deescalate all along.”

Bringing all of Ukraine back into the Russian sphere is a long-term geopolitical objective (as Putin understands Russia’s interests).
Returning Ukraine to the Russian sphere is far more important to Moscow than bringing Ukraine into NATO is to Washington—which is why Biden explicitly said he won’t send in troops. Putin, however, *is* willing to invade.
The pro-Russia (“anti-imperialist”) Left has offered some of the dumbest analysis of this conflict. In some ways, it would be worse if they’re *not* getting paid to spread falsehoods. It’s worse if they actually believe this nonsense.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(