Liberals don’t have any consistent political line beyond supporting what is currently beneficial to empire.
For Tibet, they say that the principal of self determination for nation states trumps the theocratic nature of the state.
However when it comes to the Eastern Ukrainian regions, self determination takes a back seat to stopping Russian expansion, labeling that as an outcrop of an ethnosupremacian.
Yet the concept of opposing ethnosupremacist ideology goes out the the window when it comes to supporting Russian opposition figures like Navalny, who are forthright with their ethnonationalism, now the issue becomes Putin’s subversion of democracy or the people’s will.
This subversion of the people’s will is however not accounted for when the average Tibetan today and at the time (largely enslaved) welcomed the intervention of the Communists against the theocracy. The issue here is now that the Communists invaded and invasion of one power by another us unacceptable.
Unless in the case of a place like Libya, where Ghadaffi was suppressing the will of the people-
And I could keep going in infinite circles. My point being, that liberals are not upfront with their actual consistent beliefs. Notice I did not say they are hypocrites, because is my view, in order for them to be a true hypocrite they would have to hold some attachment to their stated principles but it’s very clear they do not.
The consistent principle that liberals do hold on to unwaveringly is the principle of imperial supremacy of their states. Anything that aids that goal falls in line with their principles, anything that doesn’t is discarded.
Yeah. Most people hold a mostly unexamined, self-contradicting bundle of accumulated Gramscian common sense, which was constructed from imperial core bourgeois ideology.
However when it comes to the Eastern Ukrainian regions, self determination takes a back seat to stopping Russian expansion, labeling that as an outcrop of an ethnosupremacian.
It was NATO expansion, though, not Russian!
where Ghadaffi was suppressing the will of the people-
I’m just stating the often cited reasons that liberals support certain decisions made by their empire. It doesn’t need to be true, it just needs to something they can point to aa a reason for why whatever western plot is sowing discord.
Liberals don’t have any consistent political line beyond supporting what is currently beneficial to empire.
For Tibet, they say that the principal of self determination for nation states trumps the theocratic nature of the state.
However when it comes to the Eastern Ukrainian regions, self determination takes a back seat to stopping Russian expansion, labeling that as an outcrop of an ethnosupremacian.
Yet the concept of opposing ethnosupremacist ideology goes out the the window when it comes to supporting Russian opposition figures like Navalny, who are forthright with their ethnonationalism, now the issue becomes Putin’s subversion of democracy or the people’s will.
This subversion of the people’s will is however not accounted for when the average Tibetan today and at the time (largely enslaved) welcomed the intervention of the Communists against the theocracy. The issue here is now that the Communists invaded and invasion of one power by another us unacceptable.
Unless in the case of a place like Libya, where Ghadaffi was suppressing the will of the people-
And I could keep going in infinite circles. My point being, that liberals are not upfront with their actual consistent beliefs. Notice I did not say they are hypocrites, because is my view, in order for them to be a true hypocrite they would have to hold some attachment to their stated principles but it’s very clear they do not.
The consistent principle that liberals do hold on to unwaveringly is the principle of imperial supremacy of their states. Anything that aids that goal falls in line with their principles, anything that doesn’t is discarded.
Yeah. Most people hold a mostly unexamined, self-contradicting bundle of accumulated Gramscian common sense, which was constructed from imperial core bourgeois ideology.
It was NATO expansion, though, not Russian!
Was he, though?
I’m just stating the often cited reasons that liberals support certain decisions made by their empire. It doesn’t need to be true, it just needs to something they can point to aa a reason for why whatever western plot is sowing discord.
I know. I just don’t want the
narrativelies to go unchallenged.