The US has never been “isolationist.” And their fake democracy is about just as “efficient” as any other in the (so-called) “liberal democratic” world.
“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”
USMC Gen. Smedley D. Butler (ret.)
Do tell… does it only count as “isolationism” when you’re not interfering with white countries?
Do tell… does it only count as “isolationism” when you’re not interfering with white countries?
Yes, that is literally how the US defined it in the 1930s. The link I shared basically says the same thing, intervention in South America was totally fine, Europe and Asia wasn’t.
“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”
USMC Gen. Smedley D. Butler (ret.)
Do tell… does it only count as “isolationism” when you’re not interfering with white countries?
Do imperial powers see it as intervention when they’re interfering in the politics of what they consider to be their colonies or backyard? You’re right — the idea that the U.S. was ever truly isolationist in the strictest definition of the term is a myth. What they actually were/are is a kind of imperial exceptionalism: the U.S. avoids entanglements with other empires while actively dominating weaker nations, usually outside the scope of mainstream historical narratives.
‘Isolationism’ is a term imperial nations use to describe their non-interference with peer empires — not their restraint toward the rest of the world. So yes, it often does only apply when you’re not interfering with other white or Western powers. It doesn’t mean they weren’t acting imperially elsewhere — just that they weren’t stepping on another empire’s toes. That doesn’t make imperialism right — it just means your use of the term ‘isolationist’ is historically inaccurate. Something something, don’t use the master’s tools.
Also the point of democracy is to be inefficient. It slows the process of enacting law so other people can voice their concerns. If you’re looking for an efficient government, some dictator telling everyone what to do is super efficient. It gets a lot done real fast.
Maybe read some of it, then… then you can explain to me how a (supposedly) “isolationist” empire based in the continental Americas manages to have a gigantic naval base in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
SUPER easily. you’re describing anti-imperialism, not isolationism. anti-imperialism: we shouldn’t interfere in anyone’s affair. isolationism: no one should interfere with what we’re doing, no matter how vile and evil.
So you don’t actually know what words mean - that explains a lot.
No. I do. You don’t. I can understand your frustration that “isolationism” sounds like something it isn’t, but unfortunately it is what it is, and it has an established meaning and you not liking that doesn’t change the fact that it means what it means. I saw you in another comment saying we shouldn’t use the world the racists created for their concept, which I do agree with but most of the time we don’t have the luxury of time to establish that I think it should be called something explicitly stupid like “fartpoggin” so that the sound of it is dumb enough to discourage people for falling into isolationism of fascism because the word the originators chose for it made it sound like something else or something sexy. But again. Most of time time we’re talking to other people about things and the most expedient way to do that is to use established terms as they’ve been established. I WILL NOT be carrying a conversation where you try to convince everyone that America isn’t isolationist because it’s imperial. I’m sorry, but I just don’t have time for that. Let’s have the conversation about that America tortures the planet and the isolates itself from consequences by refusing to agree to the terms of the ICC, the Paris Climate Agreement, the fucking Treaty of Versailles, you fucking name it, we isolate ourselves from consequence ALL THE TIME (hence the term Isolationism)
Will this be taking long, then?
It wouldn’t have if you were willing to listen to others, but here we are. Still spinning our wheels because you don’t understand what a word means and you think everyone who isn’t you doesn’t understand it. At a certain point this conversation will simply need to end because you’re not paying attention to what anyone else is saying because you have the world’s dumbest axe to grind and are getting in your own way of making coalitions with people who do basically agree with you, but you require purity of terminology in online discussions and drag a conversation away from what matters into administrivia that absolutely fucking doesn’t
Established by whom? The same people who applauds when the US “tortures the planet and the isolates itself from consequences”?
but you require purity of terminology
Am I the only one who understands the propaganda value of terminology around here? Perhaps we are “still spinning our wheels…” but I’d say it’s rather because the propaganda machinery of the status quo is still running rings around us if we even allow them to dictate the meaning of words at us.
Next you’ll be telling me we should also not reject liberal’s definition of things like democracy or justice.
Next you’ll be telling me we should also not reject liberal’s definition of things like democracy or justice.
See. That’s the opposite of what I’m saying. We need to get them to understand that “isolationism” is a bad term. It’s a bad thing. It’s bad to be isolated from the rest of the world. We as individuals are meant to be connected into the context of the community around us. These fuckfaces want to be isolated and insulated and alone. This scales downwards. They want our imperial nation alone, they want their party alone, they want their city disconnected from others, they want their family alone, they want to be alone. They want to act and behave without consequence or reinforcement from anyone around them. But what a sad life! We are meant to have connections with our family, with our friends, with the people we encounter on the street, with visitors from other places. We’re meant to go out into the world and meet other groups and bring all of that wisdom home with us and enjoy the fruits of our own labor returned to us as gifts from a mutually beneficial lifestyle of cooperation.
It’s easier to repackage the emotional context of these words than it is to re-establish their meanings. Re-establishing meanings is new speak, it is a weapon of the enemy and I will not use it. Re-establishing the way these words impact us and each other, these are our weapons. This is the power that we have. Fighting fire with fire will only leave the whole world burned. It’s better to fight fire effectively by isolating it with a fire line, starving it of fuel, and then dousing it.
Idiotic take.
The US has never been “isolationist.” And their fake democracy is about just as “efficient” as any other in the (so-called) “liberal democratic” world.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/american-isolationism
Do tell… does it only count as “isolationism” when you’re not interfering with white countries?
Yes, that is literally how the US defined it in the 1930s. The link I shared basically says the same thing, intervention in South America was totally fine, Europe and Asia wasn’t.
In the 30s, eh? So why are people here still buying into it now? What else does a pack of imperialist thugs get to define for you?
Lol this is what all theory and no history does to a mfer.
Do tell… does it only count as “isolationism” when you’re not interfering with white countries?
Do imperial powers see it as intervention when they’re interfering in the politics of what they consider to be their colonies or backyard? You’re right — the idea that the U.S. was ever truly isolationist in the strictest definition of the term is a myth. What they actually were/are is a kind of imperial exceptionalism: the U.S. avoids entanglements with other empires while actively dominating weaker nations, usually outside the scope of mainstream historical narratives. ‘Isolationism’ is a term imperial nations use to describe their non-interference with peer empires — not their restraint toward the rest of the world. So yes, it often does only apply when you’re not interfering with other white or Western powers. It doesn’t mean they weren’t acting imperially elsewhere — just that they weren’t stepping on another empire’s toes. That doesn’t make imperialism right — it just means your use of the term ‘isolationist’ is historically inaccurate. Something something, don’t use the master’s tools.
Also the point of democracy is to be inefficient. It slows the process of enacting law so other people can voice their concerns. If you’re looking for an efficient government, some dictator telling everyone what to do is super efficient. It gets a lot done real fast.
Then that is the term that should be used to describe US policy before WW2.
You mean… like using a term to describe history specifically invented by perpetrators of historical atrocity to mask said atrocities?
Can you people just stay on .ml so the blocklists work instead of making us read the dumbest takes this side of VK?
No.
the US has never been isolationist? my brother in Christ, that’s our entire history from the Munroe doctrine to the 45th/47th president
We are not brothers.
Maybe read some of it, then… then you can explain to me how a (supposedly) “isolationist” empire based in the continental Americas manages to have a gigantic naval base in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
SUPER easily. you’re describing anti-imperialism, not isolationism. anti-imperialism: we shouldn’t interfere in anyone’s affair. isolationism: no one should interfere with what we’re doing, no matter how vile and evil.
some examples of isolationists:
So you don’t actually know what words mean - that explains a lot.
Will this be taking long, then?
No. I do. You don’t. I can understand your frustration that “isolationism” sounds like something it isn’t, but unfortunately it is what it is, and it has an established meaning and you not liking that doesn’t change the fact that it means what it means. I saw you in another comment saying we shouldn’t use the world the racists created for their concept, which I do agree with but most of the time we don’t have the luxury of time to establish that I think it should be called something explicitly stupid like “fartpoggin” so that the sound of it is dumb enough to discourage people for falling into isolationism of fascism because the word the originators chose for it made it sound like something else or something sexy. But again. Most of time time we’re talking to other people about things and the most expedient way to do that is to use established terms as they’ve been established. I WILL NOT be carrying a conversation where you try to convince everyone that America isn’t isolationist because it’s imperial. I’m sorry, but I just don’t have time for that. Let’s have the conversation about that America tortures the planet and the isolates itself from consequences by refusing to agree to the terms of the ICC, the Paris Climate Agreement, the fucking Treaty of Versailles, you fucking name it, we isolate ourselves from consequence ALL THE TIME (hence the term Isolationism)
It wouldn’t have if you were willing to listen to others, but here we are. Still spinning our wheels because you don’t understand what a word means and you think everyone who isn’t you doesn’t understand it. At a certain point this conversation will simply need to end because you’re not paying attention to what anyone else is saying because you have the world’s dumbest axe to grind and are getting in your own way of making coalitions with people who do basically agree with you, but you require purity of terminology in online discussions and drag a conversation away from what matters into administrivia that absolutely fucking doesn’t
Established by whom? The same people who applauds when the US “tortures the planet and the isolates itself from consequences”?
Am I the only one who understands the propaganda value of terminology around here? Perhaps we are “still spinning our wheels…” but I’d say it’s rather because the propaganda machinery of the status quo is still running rings around us if we even allow them to dictate the meaning of words at us.
Next you’ll be telling me we should also not reject liberal’s definition of things like democracy or justice.
See. That’s the opposite of what I’m saying. We need to get them to understand that “isolationism” is a bad term. It’s a bad thing. It’s bad to be isolated from the rest of the world. We as individuals are meant to be connected into the context of the community around us. These fuckfaces want to be isolated and insulated and alone. This scales downwards. They want our imperial nation alone, they want their party alone, they want their city disconnected from others, they want their family alone, they want to be alone. They want to act and behave without consequence or reinforcement from anyone around them. But what a sad life! We are meant to have connections with our family, with our friends, with the people we encounter on the street, with visitors from other places. We’re meant to go out into the world and meet other groups and bring all of that wisdom home with us and enjoy the fruits of our own labor returned to us as gifts from a mutually beneficial lifestyle of cooperation.
It’s easier to repackage the emotional context of these words than it is to re-establish their meanings. Re-establishing meanings is new speak, it is a weapon of the enemy and I will not use it. Re-establishing the way these words impact us and each other, these are our weapons. This is the power that we have. Fighting fire with fire will only leave the whole world burned. It’s better to fight fire effectively by isolating it with a fire line, starving it of fuel, and then dousing it.
Whew big radgie man who can’t take a joking phrase lol
Sheesh homie didn’t realize he was playin with a ice cold badass muhfucker.