I think I’d rather have an endless cycle of violence than whatever this fascist is describing, you’d just end up tearing the planet apart after 4 steps.
I think they’ve got a point (though it might not be the message they intended to send).
The devils who genocide, plunder, and desecrate other peoples’ land, who constantly seek expansion and global destabilization, cannot simply be tolerated. The global south has to bite the bullet, they won’t (not so easily) because they actually have such basic decency and humanity as to try to find solutions for peace, but their hands will be forced, because there was likely never going to be a choice from the start… the monstrous, all-consuming, inhuman system which has genocided the majority of three continents’ indigenous peoples, which has scoured every single square inch of the planet, which has plagued the earth for 500 years if not more, has to be put down, or humanity will be doomed.
You’re completely correct in a moral sense, but the pitfall of this way of thinking is that you can’t be certain that if you go all-in on wiping out the oppressors that you’ll be successful. That’s why it’s still necessary to be measured and strategic. Probably the best example is China: patient to a fault and always making plans decades ahead, and they never commit to a war because they aren’t certain they’d win. That doesn’t mean they don’t take their long term goal seriously (the opposite, really) but it comes at the expense of all of the people they could be helping in the short and medium term that weren’t originally factored into the plan.
But yes, you’re right, at the end the anti-imperialists don’t have a choice, and there will have to come a time where an existential threat has to be eradicated for good, when negotiation and tit for tat stop being enough.
Sounds like we’re both fully agreeing with one another tbh. China’s (and even Russia’s and Iran’s/the resistance’s, flawed as they are- or even the countries that are not trying to be “resistance,” like India, Brazil, etc.) approach is as impressive as it is nigh saintly in its restraint. But as we both agree, it can only go on so long (or rather, it will only even be allowed to go on so long- and that time is coming, sooner than later).
The west is losing its grip, and the offer they’re holding over the rest of the world is essentially just this- “bow to our terrorism and re-enslave yourselves, and destroy your means of ever escaping said slavery or resisting our terrorism and genocide, or else.”
I think I’d rather have an endless cycle of violence than whatever this fascist is describing, you’d just end up tearing the planet apart after 4 steps.
Fascism itself is an endless cycle of violence.
I think they’ve got a point (though it might not be the message they intended to send).
The devils who genocide, plunder, and desecrate other peoples’ land, who constantly seek expansion and global destabilization, cannot simply be tolerated. The global south has to bite the bullet, they won’t (not so easily) because they actually have such basic decency and humanity as to try to find solutions for peace, but their hands will be forced, because there was likely never going to be a choice from the start… the monstrous, all-consuming, inhuman system which has genocided the majority of three continents’ indigenous peoples, which has scoured every single square inch of the planet, which has plagued the earth for 500 years if not more, has to be put down, or humanity will be doomed.
You’re completely correct in a moral sense, but the pitfall of this way of thinking is that you can’t be certain that if you go all-in on wiping out the oppressors that you’ll be successful. That’s why it’s still necessary to be measured and strategic. Probably the best example is China: patient to a fault and always making plans decades ahead, and they never commit to a war because they aren’t certain they’d win. That doesn’t mean they don’t take their long term goal seriously (the opposite, really) but it comes at the expense of all of the people they could be helping in the short and medium term that weren’t originally factored into the plan.
But yes, you’re right, at the end the anti-imperialists don’t have a choice, and there will have to come a time where an existential threat has to be eradicated for good, when negotiation and tit for tat stop being enough.
Sounds like we’re both fully agreeing with one another tbh. China’s (and even Russia’s and Iran’s/the resistance’s, flawed as they are- or even the countries that are not trying to be “resistance,” like India, Brazil, etc.) approach is as impressive as it is nigh saintly in its restraint. But as we both agree, it can only go on so long (or rather, it will only even be allowed to go on so long- and that time is coming, sooner than later).
The west is losing its grip, and the offer they’re holding over the rest of the world is essentially just this- “bow to our terrorism and re-enslave yourselves, and destroy your means of ever escaping said slavery or resisting our terrorism and genocide, or else.”
I don’t know, escalating straight to nukes after exactly one of your soldiers gets shot makes sense to me!