Im not militarily occupying a land, stripping the natural resources, and extracting labor value from a people while justifying under it the pretext of a national identity and state wealth. They talk of national unity yet their capitalists exploit the workers all the same.
The west has used that logic for decades to justify brutal military occupations. I say that land and resource belong to no state, any claim of ownership is inherent violence.
He thinks he can make anyone friends with enough money and influence, what he doesn't realize is that he has made the money worthless and destroyed all influence.
Why should any state inherently exist? I'll say it about the US and ill say it about Russia. No state deserves to exist, the second their military is no longer strong enough to enforce their rule they dissapear.
Liberals still support them, and anyone who still belives US imperialism is a good thing. Basically people who will complain about Trump ending usaid not because its neocolonialism but because Trump is destroying the American empire with his incompetence.
If I go on the string of liberal justifications I wonder how far back I have to go before I find the CIA pulling it