- 06 Apr 2024 04:21
#15310750
This simply fails on basic logical grounds that should be obvious to anyone if I just point it out.
The essential anti colonial position is that people have a right to self determination rather than to be subject to foreign rule. That is...people who perceive themselves to share a common legacy and a common destiny have a primae facie right to organize and determine their own destiny.
There is a word for that attitude: nationalism. Historically, nationalism arose in Europe in competition with christianity...that the legitimacy of a government comes from the will of the people and consent of the governed rather than decided by God or the church. A religion which seeks to actively convert the entire world would be intrinsically 'internationalist' and 'globalist'...obviously if you want to conquer the whole world and make them Christian you cannot have much respect for the right of a people to have self determination.
That brand of Christianity is basically extinct today...so the most common 'new' version of internationalism is basically what people label as communism. Communists do seek to unite all the 'workers' of the world under a shared ideology...and they pretend that ethnic identity is some sort of trick that thr bourgeois play on people to 'divide' the workers and prevent a one world government where all the workers will be happy (in practice workers in communist countries are actually miserable, but this is besides the point).
When people who call themselves communist pretend to be anti colonial...there is always an obvious double standard. What they really mean is that they cannot tolerate white people having their own country...there is nothing universal about their values.
For example, they would never say: "Indians should have allowed the anglos to enter their country and seek a better life. India would be better off with more diversity and the anglos could help bring innovation and perform the jobs Indians didn't want to do. Only Indian supremacists would want to kick the anglos out of their country'. This is, of course, exactly the rhetoric these people use when they insist white countries become more brown...but using the exact same argument with the races switched is unthinkable. Thus it is not a universal standard.
People who self identify as communist will also always give away the reason they pretend to be anti colonial when they are actually just anti white. They are terrified of how powerful white people were in recent history. This is why they talk about history all the time and try to remind everyone about how mean the anglos once were to other races...even if it is totally irrelevant today and the uk has no colonies at all. Communists simply recognize the enormous potential white people have for acquiring power and anyone who wants world domination would be wise to first get rid of their most dangerous potential enemy: white people.
It is a totally cynical and calculated tactic...and it is exactly the same thing some extra terrestrial life form would do if they wanted to conquer earth.
It is worth mentioning, however, that once should be careful what they call 'communist. Mosern day China, for example, has significant government control over the economy. But the government also focuses on the Han national identity. That means modern day China is nationalist. They are socialistand nationalist. There is a term for that: national socialism. And unlike communism proper, a national socialist CAN be anti colonial because they recognize national identity as legitimate, and they can respect the right of self determination for a people. Likewise, what caused the ussr to collapse was not Ronald Reagan, it was nationalism. Specifically it started with estonian nationalism and spread quickly when thr ussr found itself unable to invoke enough fear in the Estonian nationalists to submit.
The essential anti colonial position is that people have a right to self determination rather than to be subject to foreign rule. That is...people who perceive themselves to share a common legacy and a common destiny have a primae facie right to organize and determine their own destiny.
There is a word for that attitude: nationalism. Historically, nationalism arose in Europe in competition with christianity...that the legitimacy of a government comes from the will of the people and consent of the governed rather than decided by God or the church. A religion which seeks to actively convert the entire world would be intrinsically 'internationalist' and 'globalist'...obviously if you want to conquer the whole world and make them Christian you cannot have much respect for the right of a people to have self determination.
That brand of Christianity is basically extinct today...so the most common 'new' version of internationalism is basically what people label as communism. Communists do seek to unite all the 'workers' of the world under a shared ideology...and they pretend that ethnic identity is some sort of trick that thr bourgeois play on people to 'divide' the workers and prevent a one world government where all the workers will be happy (in practice workers in communist countries are actually miserable, but this is besides the point).
When people who call themselves communist pretend to be anti colonial...there is always an obvious double standard. What they really mean is that they cannot tolerate white people having their own country...there is nothing universal about their values.
For example, they would never say: "Indians should have allowed the anglos to enter their country and seek a better life. India would be better off with more diversity and the anglos could help bring innovation and perform the jobs Indians didn't want to do. Only Indian supremacists would want to kick the anglos out of their country'. This is, of course, exactly the rhetoric these people use when they insist white countries become more brown...but using the exact same argument with the races switched is unthinkable. Thus it is not a universal standard.
People who self identify as communist will also always give away the reason they pretend to be anti colonial when they are actually just anti white. They are terrified of how powerful white people were in recent history. This is why they talk about history all the time and try to remind everyone about how mean the anglos once were to other races...even if it is totally irrelevant today and the uk has no colonies at all. Communists simply recognize the enormous potential white people have for acquiring power and anyone who wants world domination would be wise to first get rid of their most dangerous potential enemy: white people.
It is a totally cynical and calculated tactic...and it is exactly the same thing some extra terrestrial life form would do if they wanted to conquer earth.
It is worth mentioning, however, that once should be careful what they call 'communist. Mosern day China, for example, has significant government control over the economy. But the government also focuses on the Han national identity. That means modern day China is nationalist. They are socialistand nationalist. There is a term for that: national socialism. And unlike communism proper, a national socialist CAN be anti colonial because they recognize national identity as legitimate, and they can respect the right of self determination for a people. Likewise, what caused the ussr to collapse was not Ronald Reagan, it was nationalism. Specifically it started with estonian nationalism and spread quickly when thr ussr found itself unable to invoke enough fear in the Estonian nationalists to submit.