That would be actions cause reactions, but it might be more accurate to think of it as the globalists versus the nationalists.

Think in terms Rome and Christianity as the first globalism, with the various tribes and local gods as the nationalists.

The various minority groups being weaponized by the globalists against the nationalists are in the useful idiot category.

Ask yourself, do you really think the George Soros of the world actually care about the George Floyds of the world? Or are they being used against local power structures?

It occurred to me the other day that the Abolitionist movement leading up to the American Civil could have been a similar situation. Consider that lots of European immigrants were coming over, from a world convulsed by revolutions. What better distraction from their inclinations of revolution against the power structure here, than to the point the finger at slavery in the South.

Remember Jackson had defunded the Second Bank of the United States around 1830, which was a source of power and leverage for northern bankers and industrialists and Jackson was a southern slave holder.

So it would be a twofer, distract their own serfs and undermine the southern power structure.

If the abolitionist movement had been entirely organic, why wasn't there a similar movement to help Native Americans?

Much of the Jim Crow laws were explicitly designed to keep poor whites and African Americans from connecting over economic issues, by pushing tribal frictions. Bob Dylan did some studies on it, having come out of the folk music business.

Obviously everyone will champion their own people, but when you find yourself at the tip of a much larger spear, be careful how you are being used. The Ukrainians are finding that now.

It's politics all the way down, but it's economics all the way up.