The US and Israeli governments are almost certainly funding proxies to have the government over thrown so if you’re in either country your tax dollars are probably already working against the current government there.

This is a widely accepted paradigm in the Global South, where the majority of humankind calls home.

Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. As we are seeing, in real time, with the flourishing of the far right in the West. Thank you for the opportunity to contextualize my argument for you in my post above. Wish you the best on your personal journey to better understand our world.

Many of every other nation, race, culture and creed do too.

Not in the way that Indigineous cultures actively do today. See the sources listed by fossilesque above. Indigineous peoples often find themselves in a position where they have to protect the environment from Western corporate interests (which are an extension of Western culture).

No, there is value in sperating out the West here. Let’s refer to the past 500 years of human history. You can claim that my approach is binary ie. western by seperating them out as an entity but the reality is it was their binary view of the world (ie. white people being superior) that has led us to this point. They developed the economic and technologic leverage to make that binary our lived reality. Ignoring that would be naive at best, disingenuous at worst.

It was less than 100 years ago that the average Westerner felt that white countries / cultures were moral, sophisticated, trustworthy and non-white counterparts were immoral, simple, suspicious. The noble savage is a rare stereotype that went off the beaten path, but it was still an example of yet another binary (they’re simple, we’re sophisticated) Western stereotype / worldview.

Coming back to the present day, was it not the Canadian government that signed a memorandum of understanding to build an oil pipeline to its west coast without consulting the Indigineous community there? I recall multiple Indigineous leaders stating they would take the government to court. That sounds to me like the Indigineous community in Canada (as one example) takes environmental sustainability more seriously.

Many indigineous peoples uphold sustainability as crucial to their culture.

It is actually a common logical failing of Western thinking to assume that everyone sees the world and interacts with it the same way (like them). An unfortunate legacy of Eurocentrism during the colonial era.

The noble savage archetype itself came from Western schools of thought, and though it’s now accepted as overly reductive, that doesn’t mean that many Indigineous cultures do not live lives closer to nature and therefore put more thought into their ecological impact.

Indigineous cultures are layered and sophisticated. Some argue that principles of egalitarianism and self governance were introduced to englightenment thinkers through contact with Indigineous peoples in the Americas. Unfortunately a Eurocentric world view meant that crediting non European cultures for anything over most of the past 500 years has been discouraged.

Yes, generally outside the context of civilization though. Combining stateless and classless with civilization is the hard part.

CEO of ExxonMobil to be appointed as monarch.

It’s very unlikely that other NATO members would take military action against a US campaign on Greenland. They would almost certainly sit there and watch and then try to approach the conflict diplomatically. Many of these countries have US military bases on their own soil.

How are we defining rest of the world here because China, India and Africa make up nearly 50% of the human population and things were really not great, especially for the first 40 to 50 years after WW2.

How did America manage to become the continuation of the British Empire and Nazi Germany? Was it really necessary to be both?

Strongly worded letter. We know this is not what Trump and his ilk respond to. They’re going to have to find some form of material leverage, if they have any, to strengthen the argument.

America is essentially an autocracy when it comes to external affairs and two party state for domestic matters.

Now I don’t think a Harris administration would have implemented tariffs. They may not have acted in Venezuela in a first term at least. If they did, it would have been a more traditional funding of anti government factions, work that up to some type of revolutionary movement and then coup. Not what we just had.

Venezuela has been in US imperialistic crosshairs for over 20 years now.

You are pointing out a legitimate double standard. The only difference is that Ukraine and Canada are allies.

Thankfully there’s nothing in her resume that seems to point to her putting Ukraine’s interests over Canada’s.

Hard power is often leveraged by state actors to coerce agreement / consent. It doesn’t necessarily invalidate consent but it certainly obscures it.

After WW2 Japan and Germany, for example, were not in a position to say no to US bases. I wouldn’t consider that legitimate consent.

1. Immediately reverse domestically regressive policies.

2. Foreign affairs? I’m afraid cats out of the bag. No ones trusting the US in the same way again. Start the process of patching up relations but it’s going to take much longer than one presidential term.

3. Find a way to actually improve the material conditions of the average American. Trying to use laws to prevent another Trump is not going to work. Demagogues thrive in an environment typically defined by unease or insecurity. If people feel that their lives are improving they don’t fall for it as easily.

4. Be competent.

I’m afraid the US operates on military keynesianism. It would be a welcome change in character, but an unlikely one.

I dont see either of us as uniquely savvy or insightful so at least we have that in common haha. Have a good one bud.

The EU is a US vassal so doubt they’ll put much thought into it.

Interestingly the US is the least kool aid drinking of Western nations when it comes to managing ‘great power’ realpolitik. Its unabashedly imperialistic with carefully constructed domestic propaganda. It effectively convinces its subjects of its (false) moral legitimacy, generally speaking.

Europe is the most kool aid drunk at the moment. Stagnation, impending demographic collapse and vastly overestimating their standing on the global stage. Trumps crass handling of relations with Europe has been a wake up call there to say the least. Alexander Stubb’s (president of Finland) speech at the G20 was hopefully heard by and reflected on by EU leaders. Most of the world perceives Europe as having lost its strategic autonomy to the US, mainly though complacency.

Fair. My overall impression is you’re coming at this from an American viewpoint so there is a natural predisposition to want to tell yourself that choice, via elections, makes a difference. Coming from a non American, non Western perspective there really is very little if any consideration given towards who is in power from this vantage point. There’s an understanding that America will intervene for its within its national interests. The process may differ but the outcome is the same. Our goal is generally to avoid being in the crosshairs of empire, if at all possible (while also protecting our interests).

I respect your opinion even though I find it a bit narrow in focus and perspective (as I’m sure you have similar criticisms of mine). In any case thanks for the discourse.