The opinion polls in the US show broad based support for escalation with Iran amongst the Republicans (84%), despite their drift towards “America First”.
Although some marginal libertarians, paleocons, and Alt Righters (such as Richard Spencer) may have stridently opposed this, all of this is perfectly compatible with mainstream Republican voters, including the nationalist/America First elements (as reading the standard Alt Liters like Ari Fleischer, Posobiec, Ian Cheong, Andy Ngo, Paul Joseph Watson, etc. will quickly reveal).
In contrast, it is the hard left in the US that takes the most consistent stand against escalating in Iran. The popular leftist subreddit /r/ChapoTrapHouse upvoted “seditious” calls to side with Iran to the top throughout the crisis.
But at least the US has some genuine beef with Iran (if for retarded reasons), and it is Europe that will bear most of the consequences (e.g. refugee outflows) from a large Middle East war. In fact, the more aggressive and cynical American nationalists may consider weakening Europe – and, potentially, China, should the Strait of Hormuz be shut down – as feature, not bug. But nationalists in Europe have no such excuse. Logically, then, it should be the national populists who are most opposed to it. Right. Right?
Well, not in Italy, at any rate…
Most of Italian politicians call to make every effort to avoid further escalation after #Soleimani’s death. #Salvini tweets his wholehearted endorsement of #Trump air op and disappoints sections of his sovereignist followers, who condemn the #Usairstrike https://t.co/lLLFPZ224P
— UgoGaudino (@GaudinoUgo) January 3, 2020
UgoGaudino: “Most of Italian politicians call to make every effort to avoid further escalation after #Soleimani’s death. #Salvini tweets his wholehearted endorsement of #Trump air op and disappoints sections of his sovereignist followers, who condemn the #Usairstrike”
And I do suspect it might reflect underlying voter preferences. For instance, as I pointed out during the last major crisis in 2017, Front National voters in France were as hawkish as Macron supporters on Syria:
62% of Front National voters and MLP supporters supported the strikes – that is virtually the same as those evil “globalist” En Marche!/Macron supporters.
Ergo for Fillon/conservative voters. Hamon supporters were 50/50, while Melenchon voters were actually opposed, at 45% to 55%.
This raises a disquieting scenario. Assume Marine Le Pen was to get into power by some miracle, and were to find herself hobbled by the universal hostility towards her populist-nationalist program from within and without.
What could she then do to break the deadlock?
Well, if the Trump experience is anything to go by, why not bomb some brown people in the Third World in the wake of the next round of dubious atrocity propaganda, with the quiet approval of her own electorate and the jingoistic cheers of the “moderate” centrists, who will go on to reward her “Presidential” actions with a few weeks of support before digging in their talons again.
OK, perhaps these views are based on arcane Galaxy Brain calculations that the refugees a new war will bring will be what finally tips the electoral scales in their favor.
But I suspect the more banal reality is that such people are just pretty low IQ, more bloodthirsty, and as susceptible to propaganda (of the Ziocon variety) as the “normies” they otherwise mock.
What makes this all the more ironic is that even purely ethnonationalist considerations aside – many of these people, of course, are culturalists and/or Christian nationalists of the Bannon variety, not racialists – these are generally the only political groupings that make a big deal of the plight of Christians in the Middle East. But it is Iran, and men like Soleimani in particular, who have played an inordinate part in safeguarding at least some Christians in Iraq and Syria, while it is what Iranians call the Great Satan and the Little Satan who had been most assiduous about sponsoring their jihadist tormentors. But when the Good (Persian) Samaritan comes in conflict with that Synagogue of Satan, it appears that all too many European “nationalists” consider it just swell to plump for the latter.
I was hoping that Russian nationalists are at least more based, since at least (a) they have more reasons to resent the US than most European nationalists, and (b) a US-Iran war, at least assuming it remains contained, should be good for Russia in a way that it will not be good for most Europeans. Oil prices will go up, the refugees will go to Europe, not Russia (where they will galvanize European nationalists), and there’ll be more freedom of action in the Near Abroad. That’s a cynical way of looking at things, sure, but it’s not like nationalists have much of a reputation for being nice anywhere.
And they are more based… but not by that much.
According to an n=216 poll in a Russian nationalist chat on Telegram (there are several such groups on social media like Telegram and Discord):
- 27% sooner support Iran
- 13% sooner support the US
- 38% wish a “pox on both their houses”
- 22% for “peace in all the world”
The US supporters (13%) tend to be low information people who unironically believe Trump is championing the white race against the Mohammedan terrorists (or occasionally more esoteric/”powerful” reasons, such as avenging the Griboyedov murder of 1829).
There were twice as many (27%) who would presumably agree with the following take:
Иранцы никогда не спонсировали либеральные НГО в моей стране. Иранцы никогда не вооружали киевский режим. Иранцы никогда не наносили авиаудары против русских бойцов в Сирии. Иранцы не держали два года Марию Бутину заложником. Иранцы не ведут экономическую войну против моей страны
— Vile Varangian 🇷🇺 🇮🇷 (@vilevarangian) January 5, 2020
Vile Varangian: “The Iranians never sponsored liberal NGOs in my country. The Iranians never armed the Kiev regime. The Iranians never bombed Russian warriors in Syria. The Iranians didn’t hold Maria Butina as a hostage for two years. The Iranians aren’t waging an economic war on my country.”
The majority hold to varying degrees of negative or positive neutrality. The former can be justified through cynicism/Realpolitik, while the latter is justifiable on ethical grounds. But unironically shilling for the US is so many levels of cucked for any Russian, let alone a Russian nationalist.
Believe it or not, but there are MIGA fans even in Serbia.
On Jan 8, a Serb nationalist friend wrote to me, “Mentioning this on the brink of an all-out war between the US and Iran may sound trivial, but there are some Serbian alt-right Trump fanatics that are actually supporting him in this madness, their reasoning being Quds supported Muslims against Serbs in Bosnia.”
Very big brained take to be sure.
Admittedly, it’s pretty funny that American far leftists are principle be more opposed to US imperialism than Russian or Serb nationalists.
This is all pretty depressing and blackpilling, since it’s just one more example of the Right’s acute human capital problem. At least the Americans have some excuse, but what about the Europeans? Not to mention the third of Russian nationalists with a non-neutral position on the US vs. Iran question??
Perhaps they deserve to keep losing to GloboZOGoHomo, over and over again?