Why do internationalists leftists like ethnonationalist guerrillas so much?
Imperialism. It is funny how die hard communists and anarchists get massive boners over nationalist movements just because they're fighting le western imperialismo
>>16545243they think that they're fighting against "the man"
>>16545243Societies are organisms and chuds/leftytroons are the white blood cells of that organism. They go around attacking everything and cleaning up the weak shit. They are the way they are because of personality type which is preprogrammed genetically to serve that roll in the social organism. Regardless of the actual political order or policies in place, you will always have both.
>>16545243lenin and stalin said nationalism is fine if it has a communist end to it or something
>>16545556Tracks with Stalin approving of National Socialism even a year into the invasion of the USSR
>>16545950Based
>>16545950There really was a period of time when both the U.S. and U.S.S.R. disliked Germany ideologically less than the U.K., and it was still during the time they were fighting it. It goes to show you that liberalism is a dead letter.
>>16545243Because they hate white people and the west, support any movement that is aesthetically anti-west even if they are anti-communist like Iran or Hamas
>>16545243Because the guerillas in question are also leftists.
>>16545243They don't, they just really hate Britian.
>>16545964>Because they hate white people and the west,Based. Both of those things are synonymous with trannies and niggers these days anyway.
because they klll kill kill the bad bad bad guysyeah I said it
>>16545243Because Marxism is essentially an accelerationist eschatology cult based on a belief that Communism is the end-state of human civilization which we have been steadily progressing towards for all of history. If you truly believe in the idea of inevitable linear progress, where there's only one possible outcome of the process of history, then the only thing you'd really oppose is the status quo. Any anti-establishment movement, even one that appears counter to your goal, would inevitably serve your goal, because any form of change could only possibly bring the world closer to the Communist utopia you believe awaits us at the end of history.
>>16545243its a cult of self-hatred, they subconsciously strive for that which will end their own wretched existence.
>>16545243>Why do [caricatures of people I already dislike] enjoy [some bullshit]Because you've been poisoned by ideology
>>16547046So whig history with Marxism instead of Liberalism?
>>16547060basically yeahwhy do midwits always fall for whigism
>>16547063Because it's religion for people who think they're too smart for religion, the quintessential midwit demographic.
If the Basque country, Corsica, Chiapas or Catalonia became independent, Is there 'any' real scenario grounded in reality where the Basque's, Corsicans, Mayans or Catalonians could then use their new-found independence to become 'Just as bad' as the country they split from? Obviously not. One would need to be severely mis-educated or under-educated on the topic to believe so.Likewise, Is there any actual scenario where most of the members of the modern 'Axis of Evil' [Iran, North-Korea, Syria etc] could successfully launch a conventional invasion of another country? Or use threats of military violence to gain extraterritorial political or economic benefits via unfair treaties? Once more obviously not.America had/has the population, geography and combined-arms warfare tradition built up over generations where they can, even with the current rot apparent in the system, Have the privledge of having a war-plan to invade every country on earth if they deem themselves as needing to - Iran, North-Korea, Syria and Russia don't have this. Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in the 60s and 70s did not have this. - This is the distinction, Not a moral one, But one measurable in terms of military and MIC size, geography and population. - There is no scenario where by America not invading Iran, Iran will invade them instead.So 'Third-World' nationalism is essentially all about wanting to be left-alone, While 'First-World' nationalism [With the exception of an unthinkably small cluster of third-positionist/Fascio-Corporatist ideologues, who want their country's to be both nationalist and 'be left and leave others alone' like those in the Third-World] is embarrassing Top-Gun reboot 'calling China west-taiwan' basedism where you want potentially millions of your countrymen to die to 'protect some shithole islands democracy and microchip fabs' or French and British boomers fuelling themselves with rage porn over how they 'lost their empires'.
>>16547117>Nationalism White People :(>Nationalism Brown People :)Also the idea the da ebin oppressed third world nations would never resort to invading their neighbors or using covert means to expand their sphere of influence is ridiculous because the nations you've listed have done just that
>>16547117>So 'Third-World' nationalism is essentially all about wanting to be left-alone,How can anyone look at the wave of conflicts and near-conflicts that followed decolonization and sincerely argue this lol. Those Third World nationalists often just wanted to "be left alone" by greater powers - so they could pursue their own designs on neighbouring countries.
>>16547117This is just "racism is power+prejudice" but applied to geopolitics >See White people have all the "institutional power" so therefore black people can't be racist >Uh America is the global hegemonic superpower so therefore other countries can't also be imperialistic
>>16545243They love the group which is the most dangerousThe more you want to rape and behead the them the more they'll love you
>>16545243marx supported polish nationalism
>>16547236Marx is long dead His opinion doesn't matter
>>16547128Did you not read the post? It has nothing to do with whether they would, it has everything to do with whether they COULD. The Gambia is never going to invade Thailand no matter how ravenously psychotic The Gambia's govt becomes. The U.S. meanwhile can bomb, sanction, coup, or whatever else Thailand with near impunity.
>>16547378>Literally just ignores that various countries he listened have invaded their neighbors before >But that's fine because they can't invade Belgium you imperialist Chud
>>16547128The IRA and ETA are both """"white"""" guerrilla groups and supported by lefties everywhere dumbass, kill yourself
>>16545243>Why do internationalists leftists like ethnonationalist guerrillas so much?They can actually be nice people once you get to them.https://youtu.be/fAPnxaYVxxw
>>16547642Ok and? The reason leftist support them is because leftist see them as fighting against Western imperialism. Also it still doesn't change the fact that they see a lot of conflicts as poor minorities fighting against their colonial oppressors.
>>16547159>Uh America is the global hegemonic superpower so therefore other countries can't also be imperialisticThat's obviously wrong, but I don't think that would apply to some ethnonationalist guerrillas. Seem to be confusing different things.
>>16547659He makes the claim that ebin oppressed rebels just want to be left alone despite that various nations born out of revolution have turned imperialistic and have invaded their neighbors and he comes by saying that since America could theoretically invade any country in the world their still oppressed.
>>16547664Oh, yeah I think you have a point there. A slave today could be a slave driver tomorrow. But the way I'd look at it, if I was coming at this from a left-wing point of view, is that it'd be a problem when they become imperialist, y'know? But I'm not sure it's preordained that this will happen, although I'm open to the possibility of that happening. Like it seems somewhat situational with a changing context over time. Everything is sort of like this too if you think about it. J.K. Rowling was once a radical feminist who probably cancelled some men and now she's getting cancelled as a sexist oppressor by men who turned into women. The people who cancel her will become oppressors in the future and then something new will emerge and cancel them. It's evolution. Would there be any history at all if this wasn't how things developed? Iran had a revolution and then become something of an imperialist power intervening in Arab countries while claiming the mantle of being more Muslim than the Arabs. Everything is reversible. Today you are a victim, tomorrow you become a villain once your "enemy" learns from your tactics and adapts. The same thing happened in the Cultural Revolution and the French Revolution and within Christianity and Islam. We all evolve and adapt. At the end of the day, it's all about acquiring resources and space for the species:https://youtu.be/3giTYRttoRQ
They be sovlfvl
