Where the fukk have I EVER said we should ally with anyone other than those who support our vision? And how do you jump from arming to carefully choosing allies? Arming yourself doesn't have ANYTHING to do with who you allying with, you ain't going out and shooting Brown activists whether or not you ally with them. Arming is for protecting yourself from criminals, not for protecting yourself from other activists.Guess what? Globalists dont want people, especially black people, arming themselves. Globalists want black people joining hands (i.e. allying themselves) with anyone and everyone instead of just focusing on allying themselves WITH themselves till they can gain some type of unified front to where they could then look for allies that actually go along with their own vision.
Yeah, about that:All your politics, view on religion, view on history/black history, is globalist...
You know why Dems lost the last election? Because they voted for a neoliberal globalist who protected the financial elite.
The legitimate root of West's beef is that Obama started off his administration appointing the exact same Wall Street figures and carrying out the same pro-Wall Street policies that all of his predecessors had. And then he won the globalist Nobel Peace Prize while following through with the exact same neoliberal globalist policies as his predecessors. You can't go around putting Wall Street in charge and dropping drones on a dozen Black and Brown nations and think you gonna get Cornell West's uncritical support.
I think that the Republican and Democratic mainstream are both broadly "neoliberal" in their manner of pushing a globalist top-down interest-based economy that primarily serves the wealthy and ignores the consequences on everyone else. The corporation/mainstream Democrats are quite a bit less evil than the Republicans in how they go about it but at a big-picture level they're doing the same thing and having the same long-term effect.
Basically, Republicans are trying to drive us off a cliff at 60mph and better than their wealthy elderly white constituents will enjoy the ride and die before the rest face the consequences, or be able to parachute themselves out. And the mainstream Democrats come in and try to say, "Hey, can't we pump the brakes a little so we only fly off the cliff at 30mph?"
We're still going off the same fukking cliff.
So far as neoliberals, I hate their agenda. That's well demonstrated.
Neo-Liberalism Is Dying
Is "globalist" the most meaningless term of all time?
The Democrats continue to ally with Neocons
Spike Lee gives Bernie Sanders yet another endorsement from the Black community
Ta-Nehisi Coates Deletes Twitter Account After Feud with Cornel West :snoop:
Hillary Clinton calls on Europe to curb migration to halt populists
Argentina Bailout: $50 Billion Loan, Biggest in IMF History
Trump's full history of racism
https://www.thecoli.com/threads/pol...furiate-the-party.569447/page-2#post-26273231
You're playing like you don't know the entire history of America. What difference have you seen in the parties when it comes to going to war? Remind me which party got us into damn near every war in the 20th century. Who was president when we pulled off the 1953 coup in Iran in the first place? When we went in to Korea? Who was president when we started sending troops to Vietnam? Who was president when we started escalating Vietnam? Who was the president who started bombing Cambodia and Laos as well?
And if you really think Vietnam era is irrelevant, then remind me again which Secretary of State was regularly looking for the advice of HENRY fukking KISSINGER during her term in office? I'll give you a little clue, it's the same SecState who was central in the invasion of Libya, pushed for the Afghan surge, and who thought that Obama and his robot killer planes committing acts of war terrorizing people in 17 different countries were too dovish because he wouldn't commit to large-scale arming and training of Syrian rebels.
So you don't think US foreign policy would be different under Hillary Clinton than Trump?
Clinton would have a relatively more coherent foreign policy based around her ideological hawkish, globalist instincts.
Because Trump is so unpredictable it's not really possible to say how likely it is that he will start wars, but his poor mental state makes anything possible. Clinton I'd say is somewhere between Obama and Bush in her eagerness to start wars. And since both of those characters started wars....
I'm one of the main ones shytting on neoliberal globalists all the time in HL, you ain't paying attention.
I'd much rather we just stopped fukking up their countries for profit so that they wouldn't want to leave. 90% of people want to stay home in their communities, they don't want to move to some other culture on the other side of the world that's gonna hate on them unless their own country got mad messed up, and America is implicated in most of that too. THAT is the main issue, not immigration.
Cape for racists who are hating for racist reasons and think it's not gonna come bite you on the ass later coli brehs.
Say it with me, globalist free trade is environmentally devastating and a race to the bottom for workers
Fixed.
Fixed.
That's what it looks like for someone to ACTUALLY shyt on globalism. Rather than someone who just uses it as a meaningless catch phrase to try to make shyt up to win arguments. So long as you think shytting on globalism means calling the round Earth a "cac theory" and claiming Native Americans and Hebrews are Black, you're just gonna stay getting clowned.