dessalines

Because the US installed nazi-sympathizing government in 2014: https://forward.com/news/462916/nazi-collaborator-monuments-in-ukraine/

Why does John Locke say all creatures of the same species are equal when you claim he's only thinking of the white ones?

John Locke was a shareholder in the royal african company (a slave trading / capturing company), and also helped author the constitution of the carolinas that enshrined slavery. He also justifies it as captives taken in a "just war" . From his two treatises:

captives taken in a just war forfeited their lives and, with it, their liberties. [They were slaves] ‘subjected to the absolute dominion and arbitrary power of their masters’.

Locke on indigenous peoples:

When he sought to challenge the march of civilization, violently opposing exploitation through labour of the uncultivated land occupied by him, the Indian, along with any other criminal, could be equated with ‘one of those wild savage beasts with whom men can have no society nor security’, and who ‘therefore may be destroyed as a lion or a tiger’. Locke never tired of insisting on the right possessed by any man to destroy those reduced to the level of ‘beasts of prey’, ‘savage beasts’; to the level of ‘a savage ravenous beast that is dangerous to his being’.

This is all out in the open. I suggest you read the book I linked above.

Wrong again. John Locke (the founder of liberalism), owned shares in slavery-concerns, and openly defended slavery. The 3 liberal countries (US, UK, and Netherlands), all heavily engaged in the slave trade, (britain and the US especially). The US genocided an entire contintent and hundreds of native tribes, under a liberal form of government.

Nazi germany explicitly tried to emulate the US model (Doing to eastern europe what the US did to turtle island), and failed. In fact the only thing you can say with regard to fascism vs liberalism, is that liberalism is far more effective form of government for genocide than fascism was.

Its wild how liberal are memory-holing Copmala's entire history.

Please read Losurdo - Liberalism, a counter-history. Because from its very inception, in all of liberalism's founding authors and countries, liberalism has meant unlimited freedom only for rich, white, male, property-owners / capitalists. Colonized peoples, the poor, workers, and women have always been and were explicitly excluded from the community of the free.

The history of liberalism is one of theft, disposession, and slavery.

https://dessalines.github.io/essays/crash_course_socialism.html#democracy

Liberals occasionally come to the correct conclusion that the game is rigged. But then they still inevitably spend hours telling us how important it is to play it, and vote for their genocidal parties anyway.

Damn, all of south america, africa, and asia are russian bots now. /s

That resolution probably broke Deutschland's brain, because although it was a resolution against glorifying nazism, it was also against other forms of discrimination, which they're cool with.

This is also false. Biden drastically upped the military aid to Israel after Trump left office.

The US democrats are a vicious, genocidal party.

From zak cope - divided world, divided class:

Labour Aristocracy

The labour aristocracy is that section of the international working class whose privileged position in the lucrative job markets opened up by imperialism guarantees its receipt of wages approaching or exceeding the per capita value created by the working class as a whole. The class interests of the labour aristocracy are bound up with those of the capitalist class, such that if the latter is unable to accumulate superprofits then the super-wages of the labour aristocracy must be reduced. Today, the working class of the imperialist countries, what we may refer to as metropolitan labour, is entirely labour aristocratic.

The labour aristocracy provides the major vehicle for bourgeois ideological and political influence within the working class. For Lenin, "opportunism" in the labour movement is conditioned by the preponderance of two major economic factors, namely, either "vast colonial possessions or a monopolist position in world markets." These allow for ever-greater sections of the metropolitan working class to be granted super-wages so that it is not merely the haute bourgeoisie which subsists on profits. Thus, according to Lenin, it is not simply capitalists who benefit from imperialism:

The export of capital, one of the most essential economic bases of imperialism, still more completely isolates the rentiers from production and sets the seal of parasitism on the whole country that lives by exploiting the labour of several overseas countries and colonies.

For Lenin, superprofits derived from imperialism allow the globally predominant bourgeoisie to pay inflated wages to sections of the (international) proletariat, who thus derive a material stake in preserving the capitalist system:

In all the civilised, advanced countries the bourgeoisie rob---either by colonial oppression or by financially extracting "gain" from formally independent weak countries---they rob a population many times larger than that of "their own" country. This is the economic factor that enables the imperialist bourgeoisie to obtain super-profits, part of which is used to bribe the top section of the proletariat and convert it into a reformist, opportunist petty bourgeoisie that fears revolution.

There are several pressing reasons why the haute bourgeoisie in command of the heights of the global capitalist economy pays its domestic working class super-wages, even where it is not forced to by militant trade-union struggle within the metropolis.

• Economically, the embourgeoisement of First World workers has provided oligopolies with the secure and thriving consumer markets necessary to capital's expanded reproduction.
• Politically, the stability of pro-imperialist polities with a working-class majority is of paramount concern to cautious investors and their representatives in government.
• Militarily, a pliant and/or quiescent workforce furnishes both the national chauvinist personnel required to enforce global hegemony and a secure base from which to launch the subjugation of Third World territories.
• Finally, ideologically, the lifestyles and cultural mores enjoyed by most First World workers signifies to the Third World not what benefits imperialism brings, but what capitalist industrial development and parliamentary democracy alone can achieve.

In receiving a share of superprofits, a sometimes fraught alliance is forged between workers and capitalists in the advanced nations. As far back as 1919, the First Congress of the Communist International (COMINTERN) adopted a resolution, agreed on by all of the major leaders of the world Communist movement of the time, which read:

At the expense of the plundered colonial peoples capital corrupted its wage slaves, created a community of interest between the exploited and the exploiters as against the oppressed colonies---the yellow, black, and red colonial people---and chained the European and American working class to the imperialist "fatherland."

Advocates of imperialism understood very early on that imperialism would and could provide substantial and socially pacifying benefits to the working classes in imperialist countries. Cecil Rhodes, arch-racist mining magnate, industrialist and founder of the white-settler state of Rhodesia, famously understood British democracy as equaling imperialism plus social reform:

I was in the West End of London yesterday and attended a meeting of the unemployed. I listened to the wild speeches, which were just a cry for "bread!" "bread!" and on the way home I pondered over the scene and I became more than ever convinced of the importance of imperialism ... My cherished idea is a solution for the social problem, i.e., in order to save the inhabitants of the United Kingdom from a bloody civil war, we colonial statesmen must acquire new lands to settle the surplus population, to provide new markets for the goods produced in the factories and the mines. The Empire, as I have always said, is a bread and butter question. If you want to avoid civil war, you must become imperialists.

Also, John Smith - imperialism in the 21st century.