Screenshot from Think BRICS showing the guests Lorenzo Pacini and Glenn Diesen and the show host Anastasia. Photo: Substack.
By Karim Bettache – Feb 25, 2025
For God’s Sake, Political Analysts, Talk to Melanated People
As I have written here, here and also here: In the realm of geopolitical analysis, particularly among independent media and anti-imperialist platforms, there exists a glaring and consistent failure: the persistent inability to incorporate racial analyses into discussions about global and domestic politics. This analytical blind spot not only reveals the limits of white-centered anti-imperialism but also actively erodes the solidarity necessary to challenge imperialism in all its forms. A recent episode of BRICS Briefs, featuring well-known analysts Glenn Diesen and Lorenzo Pacini, provides yet another painful example of this failure.
The episode, which claims to examine the rise of populist parties like Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) in the context of European foreign policy, epitomizes a broader malaise: the complete erasure of xenophobia and racism from conversations about Europe’s political developments. Throughout the entire segment, not once do the analysts address the AfD’s well-documented hostility toward immigrants and minorities. The word “racism” itself is conspicuously absent—banished, as though it has no relevance to the political terrain they are dissecting.
Instead, the discussion reduces the AfD to a mere force of political “change,” focusing obsessively on its potential to reshape Germany’s foreign policy and the implications for NATO and the EU. This framing is not only woefully incomplete—it is profoundly dangerous. By ignoring the AfD’s explicit targeting of people of color, immigrants, and sexual/gender minorities, the analysts sanitize and legitimize the party’s rise, treating it as a neutral political phenomenon rather than a direct threat to the very fabric of European society.
In fact, in predominantly white anti-imperialist circles, the AfD is often portrayed as a natural outcome of disenchantment with mainstream politics—a “logical” backlash from large swathes of the populace. This subliminal normalization of far-right responses to political disenfranchisement highlights a glaring omission: a lack of racial considerations and solidarity for marginalized groups. Such an approach not only obscures the real dangers posed by such movements but also fails to challenge the systemic structures that allow racism and exclusion to flourish under the guise of political discontent.
The White Gaze in Anti-Imperialist Discourse
This omission is not unique to this particular show or its analysts. It reflects a pattern within white-dominated anti-imperialist spaces, where the realities faced by racialized and marginalized people are routinely sidelined—or worse, erased. These platforms position themselves as critical voices against Western imperialism. Yet their critiques are trapped within the suffocating confines of a white-centered worldview. The result is an anti-imperialism that is intellectually hollow and ethically bankrupt, incapable of recognizing how imperial structures intersect with race, gender, and class both globally and domestically.
Indeed, a cursory glance at the guest lists of many prominent geopolitical analysis channels on YouTube reveals a troubling lack of diversity. In a globalized world where geopolitics affects every corner of the planet, it is both striking and problematic that the voices typically elevated belong predominantly to white ethnic Europeans. This demographic represents only a fraction of the global population, and their overrepresentation raises significant concerns about the inclusivity and comprehensiveness of the discourse.
This lack of representation is not just a matter of optics; it profoundly impacts the scope and depth of analysis. When the majority of commentators come from a similar racial and cultural background, there is a high risk of overlooking or minimizing the racial implications and consequences of geopolitical events. This omission can lead to a skewed understanding of global affairs, where the experiences and perspectives of the majority of the world’s population are ignored or marginalized.
Take, again, their treatment of Germany’s recent elections. The rise of the AfD—a party unabashedly steeped in white nationalist rhetoric—is analyzed as a political curiosity, a shift in the “radical center,” or even a potential “corrective” to Germany’s militaristic foreign policy. But what of the millions of immigrants, people of color, and marginalized communities in Germany? What of the broader European project, which has always been built on a white, Christian vision of Europe that systematically excludes its racialized citizens? These questions are not just ignored—they are unthinkable to such commentators.
The analysts fail to grasp a fundamental truth: the AfD’s foreign policy positions—its skepticism of NATO, its criticism of Germany’s role in Ukraine—cannot be uncoupled from its domestic agenda of racial exclusion and authoritarianism. The same party that advocates for German sovereignty in foreign policy also seeks to strip rights from immigrants and minorities. This is not an aberration; it is the essence of far-right populism. But when racial analysis is absent, these connections remain invisible, and the danger goes unchallenged.
“Far-right movements thrive on exploiting racial divisions to uphold the very system of oppression—capitalism—that victimized their voter base.”
Europe’s Racial Blindness
This failure is rooted in Europe’s long history of racial exclusion, a history that continues to shape its political and social landscape. Western Europe remains one of the only regions in the world with almost no significant native Muslim population, having expelled or assimilated all of them centuries ago. Spain’s “Golden Age” under Muslim rule—a period of flourishing cultural and scientific achievements—was followed by the violent expulsion of Muslims and Jews during the Reconquista. To this day, Europe’s relationship with Islam is defined by this legacy of exclusion, with Muslims seen primarily as immigrants or outsiders, rather than as integral parts of European history and society.
This legacy of exclusion is mirrored in Europe’s present-day political institutions, which remain overwhelmingly white despite the millions of Europeans of color who call the continent home. The European Union, often lauded as a beacon of ‘liberal democracy’, is itself a monument to whiteness. As Yanis Varoufakis aptly observed, “The only people of color you come across in the EU Parliament are its cleaners.”
Its policies on immigration, integration, and citizenship are designed to prioritize the interests of white Europeans while systematically disregarding the struggles of racialized communities. And yet, this critical racial dimension is entirely absent from both mainstream and independent discussions of European politics—even among those that claim to be anti-imperialist.
Dismantling Capitalism is Impossible Without Racial Analysis
The lack of racial analysis in anti-imperialist discourse leads to repeated failures to confront the realities of far-right populism and, by extension, capitalism. Far-right movements thrive on exploiting racial divisions to uphold the very system of oppression—capitalism—that victimized their voter base. Yet, these movements are often celebrated—or at least tolerated—by white anti-imperialists because of their opposition to NATO, the EU, or U.S. hegemony. This celebration, however, comes at a significant cost. By focusing solely on the foreign policy positions of parties like the AfD, these platforms ignore how these same parties erode social cohesion and human rights domestically, beginning with the most marginalized groups.
This highlights how crucial a racial analysis is to dismantling capitalism. Without it, as we can see now, racist and far-right parties are able to manipulate public sentiment, fooling people into supporting fascism as a supposed defense against capitalism and imperialism. In reality, these parties serve to reinforce the capitalist system by dividing the working class along racial lines, ensuring the preservation of both the economic and social hierarchies that uphold it. Without confronting this dynamic, anti-imperialism will remain incomplete and ultimately complicit in maintaining systemic oppression.
This compartmentalization—the ability to praise a party’s foreign policy stance while ignoring its domestic racism—is a product of imperialism itself. It reflects the psychological separation of those classified as “white” from those classified as “other,” a separation that allows white commentators to discuss politics without ever considering the perspectives or experiences of people of color. This is not just an oversight; it is a catastrophic analytical failure that undermines the very principles of solidarity and justice that anti-imperialism purports to uphold.
For God’s Sake, Talk to Melanated People
If anti-imperialist platforms are to remain relevant and effective, they must evolve beyond this narrow, white-centered worldview. This means actively seeking out and including the voices of Europeans of color, immigrants, analysts from the Global South, and other marginalized groups in their analyses. It means recognizing that the rise of far-right populism is not just a political or foreign policy issue—it is a human rights issue, one that disproportionately affects the most vulnerable members of society.
The discussion on BRICS Briefs could have been an opportunity to explore these dynamics. Although BRICS Briefs generally focuses on the Global South and often includes voices from these regions, this particular episode, which centered on European geopolitics, was yet another example of how the white gaze predominates that discussion. It failed to address the critical dimensions of race and racism, illustrating a broader issue within white anti-imperialism. Until this changes, these platforms will continue to fall short of their potential, offering critiques that are as incomplete as they are ineffective.
Europe is at a crossroads. Its inability to confront its racial blind spots is not just a moral failing; it is a strategic one. A continent that excludes millions of its own citizens from its political, social, and cultural life cannot hope to build a just or sustainable future, let alone cooperate effectively with the rest of the non-White, non-Western world. The same holds true for anti-imperialist platforms. Without incorporating a rigorous racial analysis, their critiques remain shallow, their solutions inadequate, and their solidarity hollow.
The question is not whether Europe and its commentators can evolve—it is whether they are willing to.
(Substack)
