If you aren't anti-American, you aren't leftist. America is the most reactionary, most capitalistic country on Earth. America holds its hands around the neck of the entire world with its imperialist actions. America is solely the cause of all problems in modern world. America has been constantly causing suffering of innocent people from its foundation. American consumerist "culture" destroys everything of any worth, turning people into braindead morons. American values are greed, stupidity, violence, hypocrisy, immorality and debauchery of highest magnitude.
If the world is to progress any further, America must fall first.
I hate America too but don't act like China; or hell any other western shithole nation wouldn't fill Americas place.
I'm not an anti-American, I'm a post-American.
(you) this assclown again
Wow, Scoob's really seducing me with those eyes. Hot.
America haters are simple folk, they can only see that what is there, they can not imagine what would be there otherwise. Now let it be that time before America was much more brutal, why then do you assume that time after america won't be?
whoa edgelord alert there at the end slow down bud I'm pretty neutral on America, I don't really hate it or love it. But as far as most capitalistic country on Earth, look no further than Hong Kong. Markets don't get much freer.
As far as consumerist culture goes, this is also not an America-exclusive problem. This is a problem any country with a notable amount of wealth has happen. Look at Qatar, for example. Qatar got exceedingly wealthy off of oil, and ended up falling into a similar materialistic culture, but I'd be damned if that's a western nation. Also take note that America's materialism and consumerism really didn't kick in until a few decades ago, namely the 80's. America has always done fucked up things and had fucked up people long before consumerism came along to hollow out skulls.
In terms of America being the most reactionary country on Earth, that depends on two things. First, what do you mean when you say reactionary? I assume you mean the traditional sense of politically reactionary groups acting out of a reaction to growing left wing policies and sentiments in favor of right wing ideas. If we are splitting hairs, though, left wing policies made solely as a shocked response to right wing policies could also be considered ideologically reactionary, even if it doesn't fit the traditional alignment of the work. I assume you mean the former, so we will go with that. The second thing it depends on is a matter of perspective. If you are using reactionary as a synonym for right wing, then you are opening a whole can of worms in that right wing is relative to a country's political landscape. "Traditionalism" is relative to that country's traditions, meaning that in a matriarchal society patriarchy is considered leftist because it is radically different from their traditional values. Thinking of it this way, America has undergone far too much political change over the years, largely thanks to a pluralistic democracy, to be considered to still be sticking to its traditional values historically. Women can vote, gays can marry, gender identity is federally sanctioned, etc. Even if social issues regarding such things still exist (and they absolutely do) the codification of this into law shows that America can't be 100% right wing and reactionary. Some better examples of reactionary governments would be Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc. Compared to Germany, Poland is somewhat "reactionary" even if not wildly right wing.
Cont. When you mention the imperial grip of the US, I get the sense you refer to military action around the world in the 1900s. This is valid, we were where we shouldn't have been. If you are referring to historical (and much more detrimental) trends of imperialism, however, America fought to resist British imperialism for quite some time. The worst offenders of imperialism are arguably the Spanish in terms of devastation and widespread effects, while the English also colonized large areas and were worse to indigenous peoples. American imperialism (meaning 1776 and up to the aforementioned 1900s) was largely limited to westward expansion and displacement and killing of Native Americans, as well as some islands here and there. It was small potatoes compared to Spanish imperialism in South and Central America, Africa, etc. May I remind you, America only ever had Liberia as a colony in Africa. TLDR American imperialism pre-1900s was essentially limited to where America is today, while Spain, France, Britain and others ransacked through multiple continents. What was done in modern day America was absolutely abhorrent, and is a blotch on human history, but other countries did it just as bad but on a larger scale. This doesn't excuse America, but it isn't as if we are the biggest, worst imperialist nation out there.
While I'm at it, I think its worth bringing up the topic of slavery. During the height of the slave trade, from 1600s to 1800s, the colonies/future America accounted for only 5.4% of the slave trade, the second lowest of all major traders at the time. The highest two European countries, with a big lead on the third, were British Caribbean settlements at 22.5% and French Caribbean settlements at 20.3%. Interestingly, the number one importer (including non-European countries) was Brazil, at a whopping 33% of slaves. I can link you the statistics if you'd like. The big problem with slavery in the United States wasn't volume, it was the system set up around it. Slavery as an institution continued along the mother's lineage, which I personally think was the worst evil of slavery in the United States. The continuation of slavery along a lineage rather than having children born free extended slavery for much longer than in other countries, even after the demand for cheap labor wasn't nearly as strong, which meant that the horrors of slavery continued for longer and became an institutional and social stratification in society. The longevity of it makes it the worst part, not that I'm insensitive to the actual experiences of slaves, simply that those experiences kept happening over and over I find appalling.
If you've made it this far you're probably tired of reading, and I'm a little tired of writing. If you need sources I can cite them for you a la carte. So TL;DR It's kind of sensationalist to attribute America to all the world's problems, and its a bit ridiculous to belief it has to fall for things to get better.
Preemptive nuclear strike on major U.S. cities and land invasion of American heartland when?
And I always thought dystopic corporations would send us into our cyberpunk future Comradepunk when?
Oh shit boys, someone that hates America. Let me guess, Pol Pot did nothing wrong, kulaks deserved it, and everyone but you is a revisionist
I always found it funny that it's always America versus the invaders in games like Homefront and Freedom Fighters, when Americans have such a boner for fighting against a hypothetical tyrannical government. They should go down a Deus Ex route and have them fighting FEMA.
I'd play the shit out of a FEMA takeover themed FPS thatd be fun as tits. Make that and greenlight it on steam ill buy
America is without a doubt the worst country on the planet, and should be taken out ASAP.
I'm pretty sure North Korea has a load of sleeper agents with chemical and biological weapons sat around smoking cigarettes listening to radio static in dingy apartments as we speak.
I would like to go the crysis 3 route with a merc outfit gets powerful enough to take over the planet as a mega corporation or maybe a group like blackwatch from prototype taking over the country under a nationwide quarantine. Black watch already has more power than anybody in the country and can nuke cities with zero fucks and kill civilians.
The whole point of socialism's to set us on the path to full communism. As boring as it sounds if all goes smooth there ain't gonna be no more grit in the streets and crime in the alleys.
If somehow I'm still breathing by then I'm leaving Earth for good. I don't wanna live on a planet fulla Ned Flanders types. I'm off to be a scumbag on some human colony on a far off, backwater planet.
A lotta them mushroom clouds look awfully far north, eh?
Never even played that game before. All I know is a new one came out round 2011/2012-ish and featured a Neo-looking guy with mechanical wings.
Same, I don't know if you actually fight FEMA in it but there's always this WOKE webm knocking around.
You start fighting the terrorists and then actually defect. It's a pretty good game try it out sometimes if you have the time
you go to a FEMA camp in Human Revolution
the original is the most w 0 k e game though
I've got a strong suspicion Alex Jones played this game before launching hos radio career.
Alex was already going strong before it came out, he actually bought into the Y2K thing in the late 90s. Whenever a town had a power outage or something he would fear monger about Y2K.
He thought Russia would nuke us in 2000, funny how no one mentions this anymore and he totally loves Russia now.
Is it /ourgame/ though? Cuz judging by the WebM it's just anti-globalist. It still sounds like it appeals to a lolbert's small government wet dreams cuz of the strong anti-globalist feel it's got. Any socialist vibes in the series?
Heard him sperging out bout Y2K in an old video in the buildup to the ball drop of 2000 back in 2013. He lost all credibility right then and there.
it's utterly ambiguous, the terror group in it is pretty leftist in rhetoric, and also libertarian. the writer just looked up every conspiracy theory online in the late 90s and treated them as factual.
you can choose to have an AI take over the world in the end who centralizes everything, so it's kind of future space gommunism
Space communism it is then…
No real leftist would disagree with you op. The us is rotten, and i'm not talking about the upper-class either. Even the proles in the us have become a petty-bourg parasitic class of themselves, leeching off imperialism's tit for scraps. Only the burger anarkiddie posters who have never opened a book in their life nor ever traveled outside the us would argue otherwise. Too bad those posters are 40% of Holla Forums posters in general
If we're materialists, why do we consider "materialistic culture/values" to be bad? Please explain.
"Anti-American"-ism is just stupid nationalist idpol.
You're confusing materialism as a philosophical term and materialistic as an adjective.
Usually by "materialistic" people mean "consumerist," because American culture isn't by any means materialistic.
because (historical) materialism as espoused by marxists is different than materialism in the "consumptionist" sense you seem to be referencing.
marxist materialism is a method of analysis, to put it very simply.
But they are related.
Yeah but it can go beyond that and be a criticism of a lack of spiritual/religious values. Religious people do that all the time.
Edgy anti-americanism is retarded lifestylism. If burgerland were to somehow collapse tomorrow, then the yuropoors would quickly take over for western imperialism and capitalism would continue on largely uninterrupted. And assuming that burgerland's destruction didn't somehow cause it to fall into the sea, we would have a few weak 2nd or 3rd world states for the internet chessmasters to either support or condemn in the struggle of imperialism.
Yeah, by their root word.
Can a philosophical materialist be a spiritual person?
Spirituality is pretty loosely defined, and some posters here meditate since it's good for their mental health so I suppose so. Depends if you define it as looking after yourself and taking care of the mind as well as the body or delving into the cosmic woo new age type spirituality really.
America is truly the cancer of the world. Looking forward to american civil war.
my mother worked for a leftover aristocratic shitstain cunt that had a vacation mansion in the woods with an extra bungalow just for the dogs in europe this isn't something for only burgerscum, it's pretty common among the decadent capitalists in general
Doggos deserve houses that nice tbh
the best thing about eating out of trash cans is it's considered stealing and the reason they lock up trash cans at super markets stuff isn't even turned bad, you'd be amazed if you checked out the stuff they're throwing away and refuse to give away for free just to force people to buy it
(checked) fuck leafs too though.
I'm against the hamburg empire but not against hamburgarian proles of course
This. Also I love lots of American music, cinema, literature to hate it tbh.
I think we should just kill all the niggers of the world, since obviously idpol is okay now.
America (which includes plenty of blacks anyway) as an imperialist superpower isn't an identity
Yeah, you're totally not using identity politics there.
by that definition any act of war ever is idpol (hint: it isn't)
huuuurrrrrrr it's not like it's just impotent autism and exactly none of the Holla Forums posadists are anywhere near a nuclear button not that the wouldn't press it if they happened to be around.
pull your head out of your ass.
t. antifa twink
An act of war targeting civilians because of their nationality is idpol. If you replace Americans with the word "nigger", and it looks like idpol, then it's because it was idpol when you said it about Americans in general. I call this the substitution property of idpol.
I'm just trying to say that the general hatred for Americans because they are American is fucking retarded and is no different from any other brand of idpol. I don't have a WMD, but if I said I wanted to nuke Africa, you'd rightly consider that bigoted, and me an idpoler faggot. However, people here seem to get a pass when talking exclusively about Americans.
lmao how do you wage war on a country without it being targeted against a specific nation by definition? are you literally autistic?
you're obviously not talking to the same person who said that
By that logic, the US military has never done anything wrong.
Then the person defending the other asshole is retarded for defending a statement he does not agree with and not voicing his own differing opinion instead.
They've done plenty wrong, but I don't think it was idpol because that's retarded. For example, nuking Japan and ground war in Vietnam were both shitty but they didn't do it because they hated gooks.
You can never complain about the US killing civilians, because you excused it when it came to killing American civilians, including, of course fellow Holla Forums posters that just happened to be born in the wrong country. Way to go, idpoler faggot.
In fact it was higher than that. In 1945, corporations accounted for about 60% of all taxation.
t. Basically every "fuck America" absolutist
I can't tell what kind of retardation this is but I'm assuming you think that as long as something isn't idpol it isn't bad, i.e. some newfag dipshit
Congratulations, you failed at logic.
I'm literally just repeating your shitty logic back at you. Go back and read what I said and show me where I "excuse" killing civies like you said here I just said (correctly) that it isn't idpol
The original post was this: Cities aren't normally military targets. You have to prove military necessity. If you defend that statement, you are defending targeting civilians on purpose.
Except that you haven't, and you don't know anything about logic, since you seem to think that believing idpol to be a negative mans one believes anything not idpol to be positive. You're fucking retarded.
Cool, now where's the idpol?
Laughing at mad butthurt burgers in this thread.
I didn't defend it, I said it isn't idpol. Holy fuck could you be more of an amerilard stereotype?
The fact that this thread is about hating Americans for the crime of being American, and people seem to get boners about killing random American civilians, under the guise of some nebulous form of anti-imperialism. I get that you're mentally challenged, but I shouldn't have to spell this out for you.
There's zero chance I'm not smarter than you, but playing poke the retard is endlessly amusing so please keep going
Terrible strawman. The original post, by your own admission, just said that America should be attacked. That alone isn't idpol, unless you can similarly say that American attacks on civilians targets abroad are idpol as opposed to strategic for the purpose to expanding empire and hegemonic interests.
I love how you're just not addressing this dudes point.
I love that you're pretending you're not the same poster
Yeah, you're super smart. This is why you cannot grasp the concept that wanting to murder people of a certain nationality is idpol, and the general anti-American sentiment is also idpol. That was my original complaint, and you either did not read the thread, or did and are directly defending that statement. It's not idpol as long as it's against Americans, or maybe it never was. If the latter is the case, then I want to kill all the niggers of the world because niggers commit crime.
"America should be attacked" and "Americans should be murdered for being American" are not equivalent statements, and only be pretending they are can you keep your shitty non-argument afloat
I'm the guy that was originally talking to you, and no, not the same guy.
Is "I want to attack Saudi Arabia" idpol against arabs?
No, it was: So not a strike against legitimate targets, but a strike against civilians. And every time a thread like this gets posted, we have edgy faggots masturbating about how they're so much better than their American counterparts. So yes, that is an equivalent statement, and you're just lying about what was actually posted to keep your non-argument up. If I said, we should nuke major Israeli population centers, while complaining that Israel is the source of all problems, you might rightly think that my main problem is that there are any Israelis at all.
Yeah, that makes it sound like you have a problem with Arabs.
Install gentoo faggot.
Are there people here who don't support iran? What the fuck?