liberal ethio-philia phenomenon deep dive

[Idilinaa]

No, at that time he was normalizing with Somalia and Eritrea and was talking a big game about peace in the region, so the west was backing the TPLF (their long time stooges) to take back power in Ethiopia and keep the old policy in place. Since he was fighting the west preferred candiates to replace him with they sanctioned Abiy and condemned him on their media while funding the TPLF.

Once he returned to the usual satellite state and hostility against Somalis and Eritrea (who they hate for supporting Somalis). He has been back in their good graces ever since and he can kill whoever and however many he wants now.

So he was being punished at that time only because he was not hostile to Somalia and Eritrea.

That could be a plausible theory. But they gave him a peace prize though for his normalization and negotiations.
Honestly Abyi Ahmed was one of the reasons i was hopeful for this new age Pan-Horner pivot. Just i gave up on it and now believe if ethiopia becomes dismantled it will be for the greater good.

Remember this article some time ago of western backing of TPLF. It's funny how the TPLF were the bad guys back then but now the roles have reversed and new ethnic ethiopianist regime is at the helm essentially peddling the same policy.

The TPLF’s Obstruction Of Peace: Enabled By Its Western Backers – OpEd

During the past week, peace talks between the Ethiopian government and a delegation from the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) took place in South Africa. The talks, led by the African Union and which finally commenced after earlier being delayed due to logistical issues, were scheduled to...

www.eurasiareview.com

In fact, the West actually supported and rewarded the TPLF. Substantial amounts of foreign aid flowed, making it one of the world’s largest recipients of foreign aid. The considerable international debts that were accrued by the TPLF were also regularly forgiven, while various other forms of assistance and support continued to be directed toward the regime. Furthermore, the TPLF was frequently held up as a “darling” of the West and it was placed at the heart of the “Africa rising” narrative. Meles Zenawi attended prestigious international gatherings, such as the G7/8 and G20 meetings, and he even became a favored member of the British government’s “Commission for Africa,” alongside Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Even as the TPLF repeatedly flagrantly rigged elections and regularly won by massive, unbelievable margins (frequently winning between 97 and 100 percent of seats in parliament), Western leaders invariably referred to the Ethiopian government as “democratically elected” and pointedly refused to raise serious concerns.


Without a doubt, the TPLF’s biggest supporter as it remained the major obstacle to peace in the region was the US. Utilizing its dominant position within the UNSC and its own considerable diplomatic clout within the unipolar global system, the US, which had helped broker the Algiers Agreement and been one of its witnesses, shielded the TPLF from any pressure or censorious action and also sought to reverse or reopen the “final and binding” EEBC ruling.

Btw have you read this thread. It's a great irony indeed

 

[Kisame]

View attachment 346078remember how they tried to mainstream ethiopian food as part of the ethnic cuisine 'canon' during the 2010s?. they wanted it up there with mexican, indian, japanese food etc they saw ethnic food was lacked the token black country so they pretty much jumped on this bandwagon


now people are being open and honest about it these days, the hype was manufactured
View attachment 346079

Tbh Ethiopian food is respected in madow spaces. The only people that don't really f*ck with it are Cadaans. Tbh I think most Madows that eat African food like it more than west Africans food.

 

[Ashraf]

Ethiopia was more like Israel, embracing Western imperialism as colluders willing to be the conduit and facilitators, the symbolic and strategic embodiment of the introduction of Western colonialism than Japan was to the Axis powers. The invitation to the Axis came through sheer acknowledgment for the latter, the former existing as merely an ideological satellite stooges.

I get the sense you're misattributing Ethiopia's status as more of a rational actor on par with the latter than the former in the eyes of the Western historical body.

One thing was true. Given its historical position as described and its relations through this modality of early Modern Era pan-Christian appeal of concerns -- that viewed Abissinya as a 'Christian island in the sea of Muslims' -- coupled with the colonialism regional aid enforcer, afforded it agency of individuality greater than most African states that, for the most part, were merely colonial subjects.

The British supported the Italian control over Ethiopia in the 1890s because it would prevent the French ambition to gain control over the Upper Nile region. Relations had aligned itself differently by the 1930s. During the Italo-Ethiopian war, they took a diplomatic mediating role, not an aggressive stance toward the Italian invasion, as one might think. One of their officials stated it was not in Britain's best interest to want Italy to lose badly during a defeat because of economic relations. Britain sought to amend the relationship expediently through mechanisms of depressuring of sanctions after the war.

Remember, this was when ties were different, a period before the Axis powers established a firm geopolitical union, a moment when Italy had maintained complex relations with independent European nations. It was not black and white -- yet.

A lot of what took place after the war that was filtrated through the whitewashing of history ties perfectly with what you stated, but it was a post-colonial artificial recounting, only understood through the earlier colonial relations in that they gave Ethiopia a contradictory convenient image because of its ironic pro-British colonial acts. This typical grandiose embellishment occurred after the dust had settled; if you read the documents, the Britains were less hypothetical for any ideals and more matter-of-fact.

History was re-imagined by the winners in a developmentally convenient manner: judgment of their crafting holds a higher position in obscuring the truth. The 'narrative building' (as you put it) became the bedrock of legitimizing how these nations that once were the core of the problem now self-assert as the most virtuous, even anointing a symbol of such for Ethiopia, being their former colluder.

Liberalism repainted the same things in a new language. That is why Israel does what it does as the most advanced colonial settler state where colonial justifications furnished in a language of Western appeal -"But they are a liberal democracy," tying direct roots from liberal, imperial expansionism always getting support from a domestic ideological justification by the West mainland.

It sounds so simple and evil but that is what it bogs down to, the Israeli Jews are like us, the Palestinians are not. And since people who have gays on the streets, are Western in their values, and have advanced economies, they can afford to kill poor Muslim brown people by only that.

Similar to how 1 million Iraqis had to die for what non-Iraqis did to thousands of people. I recently read a tweet saying if Israel put Palestinians in gas chambers, many would be in support of it. This civilizational contempt and arrogance is rooted in the same disease that brought colonialism. It's not a fascist process, it is a liberal one. I believe most fascism is a version of liberalism. It's just that they have cranked up certain aspects of it. Nazi Germany was not a highly conservative country. Hitler in Mein Kampf had a hyper-secular picture, where his interpretation of evolution was liberal and very secular.

People need to take root in how the discourse of Social Darwinism is in parallel with the thinking of the secular liberalist linear growth view, centering the evil and improvement of the West as the core of the humanities path for growth, being the pinnacle of traversing that roadmap. Palestinians are far from adjacent to Westerners which is why their lives are worth less than Israelis who signal Western appeal. That is why Netanyahu said that Iran is no civilization, they are merely a barbaric entity that does not deserve to exist. This is the colonial imperial, Western-centric language that Israel was founded upon, that colonized the world.

What books do you read bro seem knowledgeable af

 

[Ashraf]

No, at that time he was normalizing with Somalia and Eritrea and was talking a big game about peace in the region, so the west was backing the TPLF (their long time stooges) to take back power in Ethiopia and keep the old policy in place. Since he was fighting the west preferred candiates to replace him with they sanctioned Abiy and condemned him on their media while funding the TPLF.

Once he returned to the usual satellite state and hostility against Somalis and Eritrea (who they hate for supporting Somalis). He has been back in their good graces ever since and he can kill whoever and however many he wants now.

So he was being punished at that time only because he was not hostile to Somalia and Eritrea.

What does the west gain from destabilising Somalia. The sure seem to want to invest a lot in our security, wouldn’t be beneficial for them if we were stable and could extract our oil at a time when prices are very high?

 

[Galool]

What does the west gain from destabilising Somalia. The sure seem to want to invest a lot in our security, wouldn’t be beneficial for them if we were stable and could extract our oil at a time when prices are very high?

They do not invest in our security, they invest in their own interests. Which is to keep the country unstable and especially without a strong or independent government. What they get out of it is not just exploiting resources but most importantly it weakens Muslims over all in the region and our interests. They get free reign in the sea and keep Muslims out of power. The same reason they do the same thing to every other Muslim country.

It amazes me that people believe the west invests in fixing anything. They are the main source of destabilization. They make sure there is no internal unity or a military. They support regions against each other to keep them weak and divided. When they lose control they send their proxies in directly like in 2006 and then placed colonial troops there to secure their interests.

The same model plays out in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, etc it is their policy for Muslim countries. And the west is controlled by zionists.

 

[Midas]

What does the west gain from destabilising Somalia. The sure seem to want to invest a lot in our security, wouldn’t be beneficial for them if we were stable and could extract our oil at a time when prices are very high?

That's the thing your right. They don't gain anything from somalia or any other country being completely unstable. The problem people don't realize is that it's incredibly diffuckt to stabilize a country. All it takes is for the west to fuckup a country initially one time . Then even if the west wants to they can't just simply put the pieces back together.

 

[Idilinaa]

What does the west gain from destabilising Somalia. The sure seem to want to invest a lot in our security, wouldn’t be beneficial for them if we were stable and could extract our oil at a time when prices are very high?

It's not security investment, its military positioning. If you destabilize a place , you would reduce it's capability to defend itself, allowing foreign powers to increase their military presence or influence in the area. You see this with all the foreign troops and bases stationed in Somalia.

Destabilization can create opportunities to access or control valuable resources, including minerals, oil, or other products. If you look at how the US companies and various entities fought over control of Somali oil resources , uranium, maritime resources, made a our coast dumping ground via striking deal with various warlords. That could only be a situation born out of destabilization.

If a neighboring nation is destabilized, it may create security risks that justify intervention or military support to ''friendly factions''. The way that Ethiopia did when it invaded Somalia in 2006 to dismantle the ICU with the help of the US .

Ideological Expansion, they may seek to spread its ideology by undermining governments that oppose it, promoting political movements more aligned with its own beliefs. You saw this happened with how the US/Ethiopia supported ''secular'' warlords and the soviet & others supporting multiple coups to replace the Kacaan government because it didn't reflect their belief system and interests.

Most important reason strategic Influence by destabilizing Somalia they can increase their own geopolitical influence in a region and other nations can use that position themselves in the Indian ocean and the red sea

 

[DubatDiaries]

how would this extend to anti-liberal regimes of the derg and abiy?

the liberal order allegedly punishes its enemies for stepping out of line, ie iran post shah and russia after the crimea invasion. they really wanted to bring russia into the fold for quite a while before 2014

abiy can be as anti-liberal as he wants and he gets a nobel peace prize for deposing their TPLF friends and media sympathy for his land grabs (somaliland)


pictures like this indicate the liberal order is still friendly to abiy
View attachment 346497

Its confusing, isn't it? What does an emperor heavily tied up with a religious institution have to do with liberal ideals? Not much, but these political alliances and the narratives around them don't always make sense. America supporting Iran in the Iran-Iraq war, Iran turning around and supporting America in the invasion of Iraq. America supporting the mujahideen against the Soviet Union, the banana wars etc. Ideology (liberalism ), a lot of the times, is exploited as a means to an end.
All things considered, the TPLF/EPRDF was a success in Ethiopia (the Derg had a strained relationship with the US) - moved away from communism as an ideological tool, Zenawi openly stated democratization is the goal, introduced some market liberalization measures. Addressed ethnic tensions, built capacity for Ethiopian governmental institutions etc. Keep in mind, 1991 saw two 'communist regimes' toppled in the region, one was a chimp out on an international stage, the other had public servants paid on time by the end of the month. So this was seen and welcomed as a success by not only the 'liberal world' but most countries.
Ethiopia also benefits off of 'alqaeda linked' groups being active in Somalia in a post 9/11 world. The whole " we can't let alqaeda take hold in Somalia, Ethiopia will be next" story Zenawi had going on really helped them.

Ethiopia is just cruising along, its honestly kind of fascinating how the country is entrenched in regular large scale violence and its still kicking.

 

[Galool]

Its confusing, isn't it? What does an emperor heavily tied up with a religious institution have to do with liberal ideals? Not much, but these political alliances and the narratives around them don't always make sense. America supporting Iran in the Iran-Iraq war, Iran turning around and supporting America in the invasion of Iraq. America supporting the mujahideen against the Soviet Union, the banana wars etc. Ideology (liberalism ), a lot of the times, is exploited as a means to an end.
All things considered, the TPLF/EPRDF was a success in Ethiopia (the Derg had a strained relationship with the US) - moved away from communism as an ideological tool, Zenawi openly stated democratization is the goal, introduced some market liberalization measures. Addressed ethnic tensions, built capacity for Ethiopian governmental institutions etc. Keep in mind, 1991 saw two 'communist regimes' toppled in the region, one was a chimp out on an international stage, the other had public servants paid on time by the end of the month. So this was seen and welcomed as a success by not only the 'liberal world' but most countries.
Ethiopia also benefits off of 'alqaeda linked' groups being active in Somalia in a post 9/11 world. The whole " we can't let alqaeda take hold in Somalia, Ethiopia will be next" story Zenawi had going on really helped them.

Ethiopia is just cruising along, its honestly kind of fascinating how the country is entrenched in regular large scale violence and its still kicking.

It is still kicking because they are financially and politically supported by the west. They still confer legitimacy on the government even when the entire country is unstable and at war, give good media coverage, or ignore the negatives, financially support them, and arm them.

They will back kings related to religious institutions as long as it is not Islam and Muslims, especially if they are hostile towards it. Just like how they support Modi's Hindutva India. Beyond that, they are religious in name. Those religions are liberal in every other way culturally, take a look at their cities, they are not too different at all.

You will notice the anti-Russian rhetoric took off in the west after Russia intervened in Syria to support Assad when the west (zionists) were trying to topple him.

What supersedes the liberalization project is zionism and securing it first militarily, so they will support one group against another when they see it is a bigger threat and eventually attack the former like your Taliban Soviet example. Once there is no military threat and it is in a weakened state they will push liberalization.

It is a war against Islam and Muslims, first physically, then ideologically. Once you see that, things will make sense.

 

[DubatDiaries]

Ethiopia was more like Israel, embracing Western imperialism as colluders willing to be the conduit and facilitators, the symbolic and strategic embodiment of the introduction of Western colonialism than Japan was to the Axis powers. The invitation to the Axis came through sheer acknowledgment for the latter, the former existing as merely an ideological satellite stooges.

I get the sense you're misattributing Ethiopia's status as more of a rational actor on par with the latter than the former in the eyes of the Western historical body.

I wouldn't say Ethiopia existed as a 'rational actor on par with Japan' in WW2 for obvious reasons, the biggest one being that the emperor in question quite literally had no empire and was living in 'exile' for starts. Italy joining WWII was what triggered ‘Western’ support of Ethiopia- it might’ve been the single best thing to happen to Selassie and it was a matter of happenstance. The Italians joined in June of 1940, the British met with him in weeks time and by August they were funding and training Selassie loyalists

A lot of what took place after the war that was filtrated through the whitewashing of history ties perfectly with what you stated, but it was a post-colonial artificial recounting, only understood through the earlier colonial relations in that they gave Ethiopia a contradictory convenient image because of its ironic pro-British colonial acts. This typical grandiose embellishment occurred after the dust had settled; if you read the documents, the Britains were less hypothetical for any ideals and more matter-of-fact.

History was re-imagined by the winners in a developmentally convenient manner: judgment of their crafting holds a higher position in obscuring the truth. The 'narrative building' (as you put it) became the bedrock of legitimizing how these nations that once were the core of the problem now self-assert as the most virtuous, even anointing a symbol of such for Ethiopia, being their former colluder.

Liberalism repainted the same things in a new language. That is why Israel does what it does as the most advanced colonial settler state where colonial justifications furnished in a language of Western appeal -"But they are a liberal democracy," tying direct roots from liberal, imperial expansionism always getting support from a domestic ideological justification by the West mainland.

The war in Europe turned into some narrative of good vs evil (liberal edition). Britain and France who both were colonial superpowers had a whole lot to say about preserving the dignity and sovereignty of the free world. What it does look like is 'pulling the ladder up behind you'
Churchill wwII quotes are a series of doomsday prophecies/lamentation for the whole world in the chance that Britain falls… he set the blueprint for every war after him. No war was openly fought simply for the interest of the West/ America from then on it was always some existential fight for 'preserving all that is good in the world'

Great summary of the liberal foreign policy machine. The Palestine/Israel issue was a gaping hole in the credibility of the liberal narrative. It was too egregious of a situation to get away with painting it as a matter of values - straight up land grabbing.
How much of it is a matter of power/people corrupting ideology or do you think these things are part of the liberal framework?

 

[The alchemist]

I wouldn't say Ethiopia existed as a 'rational actor on par with Japan' in WW2 for obvious reasons, the biggest one being that the emperor in question quite literally had no empire and was living in 'exile' for starts. Italy joining WWII was what triggered ‘Western’ support of Ethiopia- it might’ve been the single best thing to happen to Selassie and it was a matter of happenstance. The Italians joined in June of 1940, the British met with him in weeks time and by August they were funding and training Selassie loyalists

I wrote in strong distinguishing terms and might have grouped your stance a bit stronger than needed in an attempt to break ambiguities. My bad.

I gave a broader overview of the relationship between those Western actors, Ethiopian reach for influence and mutual interest leverage of those, and how such dynamics shaped the power incursions of Britain and Italy from early colonial towards later. What I shed light on was that the forces of Italian interests were channeled by long-standing ambitious competition between Britain and to a lesser extent France.

I think we're complimentary if one considers different temporal and context differences. For example, how the Western war efforts turned into a good versus evil spiel was one of the consequences of the liberal rebranding, when they were historically fighting the cause of a new form of imperialism.

How much of it is a matter of power/people corrupting ideology or do you think these things are part of the liberal framework?

Liberal to me is everything. It can be, and is, synonymous with the 'West'. If you examine all the nuances of ideologies, philosophies, etc., they go back to much of the same roots -- 17-18th century Europe. I'm not exaggerating that every system of thinking followed directly from that. All of it is liberal. Classical liberals hold "conservative" views and progressive liberals go back to those roots and have the same stem of converging elements.

The West, which is more of a physical entity, has used that liberalism template as its defining DNA - that is why Albania had to de-Islamize to be European. That is why Turkey had a historically awkward relationship with the EU.

In reality, the concept of liberalism is the Western world's main current of civilization. The concept of what the West is is much more complex in reality than its ideological liberal ideals purport but that is a different nuanced conversation.

One lie is that Western Civilization goes back to ancient Greece and ancient Rome. This is not true. However, liberalism is the extension of what Westernism contrived itself after. The difference is, that liberalism can be shipped out everywhere, the West is hyper-conservative to the limited geography of Europe, America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Basically, there is a racial element to this.

To answer your question: it is all a consequence of the liberal imperialist effort rather than individual corruption issues.

 

[The alchemist]

What books do you read bro seem knowledgeable af

Thank you. I just check around for writings here and there for specific purposes and try to construct some individual thinking that might or might not be original.