Don't mind me, just destroying 3 empires and destabilizing Europe for 25 years to virtue signal

As a nationalist, Wilsonian ideas of self-determination were excellent. There were of course problems with the League's marketing (why wasn't it talked about how League-sanctioned wars would be much, much cheaper than WW1 was) the League itself, (why is there no opt-out for countries facing shortages, why intervene in Russia, why wait so long to include Germany), and how it has been seen since then (intervene whenever you don't like a country's domestic policy, not whenever there's an invasion), but the overall ideas of the 14 Points were pretty great.

How did Wilson destroy the Russian empire?

Because he is seen as a man way ahead of his time by a lot of people. I don't want to use the partisan word "globalist," but he was pretty much a staunch globalist when the entire country wanted nothing to do with that. Non-globalists hate him with a passion, and I personally think he was a naive and highly overrated president to think the world would just join in hands and sing kumbaya after WWI.

It's the same kind of flawed logic we fell for after the fall of the USSR, where we thought it was time to unite under one world banner and everyone would their differences to gladly take part.

Wilson represents the first steps into the liberal/globalist dream of a quiet world domination through Western values under the disguise of uniting as one global community. They love him, while conservatives and nationalists hate him. Without getting partisan, there is a liberal slant in academia and the media, and it makes sense that the hatred for Wilson that many had would be hushed down.

Notice that Wilsonian nationalism meme only magically applies to conquered countries, never to Wilson's allies.
>Austria-Hungary needs to become Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Austria, Yugoslavia, Romania and Poland
>Independent Scotland? Independent Brittany? Independent Wallonie? Independent Vietnam, Algeria, Kenya? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT LMAO
Hypocritical faggot. It was never about some nationalist moral high ground, it was always about destroying your enemies by splintering them into a million squabbling non-countries.

Wilson is proof that regime has not, does not, and will never work

I'm also pretty sure his definition of self-determination only pertained to countries that "self-determined" under the American way of self-determination. Kind of like how today we use the excuse of "spreading democracy" to invade and meddle in the affairs of other countries. We only care about their self-determination until they elect a government that is not 100% pro-American.

His name was Thomas Woodrow Wilson. Why did "Woodrow Wilson" become his default name instead of the more conventional "Thomas W. Wilson"?

>Woodrow Wilson: "National minorities have a right to self-determination!"
>Sudeten Germans and Tyroleans: "We want to join Austria, then!"
>Woodrow Wilson: "Lol, not you"

Wilsonism as I understand it is something entirely different from globalism as it's been used by the liberal hegemony since the 1940s. Currently, it's just "suck banker cock, suck Soviet/Chinese/Russian cock, or get invaded"; it should be "if anyone tries to force another country to suck their cock, they get invaded"

Well said.

Wilsonianism is kind of a precursor to the globalism parroted by liberals after the 1940's. Both Wilson and modern globalists have a mind-set of spreading capitalism and democracy (AKA American values) abroad. Their values of self-determination only seem to go as far as to how much countries adopt those American values. Both seem to think that by spreading these American values, we are "civilizing" the world. Wilson had more of a racial bend and was more blunt in using the world "civilized" world, while the globalists today are very cautious not to use that language. While the language has changed, the undertones to it have not.

While the League of Nations was never fully implemented, it is hard to see how they would have worked in practice. The way it looked to be going, however, is the same way that you describe how globalism is today. Suck the cock of those in power, and we will let you "self-determine." As with today, you needed to fully accept democratic and capitalistic principles to be allowed to self-determine.

The self-determination, as it is today, was also limited to Wilson's allies as others have said. He supported self-determination for the countries under the German Empire, but scoffed at others who wanted to take part too. Both ideologies seem to ignore cultural boundaries and barriers in practice, taking a more realist approach that looks at countries as allies and enemies. It is pretty hypocritical thinking.

and destroying the USA
>income taxes
>federal reserve
>intervention in foreign wars
>suppression of free speech
etc

There is literally nothing wrong with exporting capitalism and democracy by force.

>Wilsonianism is kind of a precursor to the globalism parroted by liberals after the 1940's. Both Wilson and modern globalists have a mind-set of spreading capitalism and democracy (AKA American values) abroad. Their values of self-determination only seem to go as far as to how much countries adopt those American values. Both seem to think that by spreading these American values, we are "civilizing" the world

You're right, but they're right too.

Without income tax, the government has to fund itself through tariffs. Income taxes disproportionately affect the wealthy whereas tariffs disproportionately affect the poor.

What did Wilson have to do with the Sudetenland issue?
People itt are attacking him for the failures of American policy following ww1 when many of his 14 points were ignored

Threadly reminder that if the US joined the League of Nations ww2 would have been avoided

Why? This is how we lose trillions of dollars in places like Iraq, when it could be put to better purpose on other endeavors that benefit Americans. Personally, I really don't give a shit whether or not Iraq, Syria, or Libya have democracy or capitalism. They can do what they want, as long as it keeps stability, and spreading our values by force has done the exact opposite of that in the region.

Of course they are right in that it would make other cultures and people more civilized, but I just think it is highly impossible to carry out in reality.

Seems Communist China is still doing well with tariffs.

with out income taxes. the US would have to scale back their spending.which means we get less involved in the world.

>capitalism
>good
why do you sell out your countrymen for useless and unproductive middlemen?

>China
>doing well
Uhhhhh
>without income taxes
The government would just find other ways to fund itself

China is 2nd economy in the world. should probably be first if not for currency manipulations. still growing and will probably over take the USA with in a decade.

when in the 20th cenutry China was an impoverished shithole.

Capitalism isn't perfect, but it is far better than the communist system of equality for all, where everyone is only as strong as the weakest link. That type of positive talk may work well in shitty team building exercises at work, but it doesn't work in reality. Your country is going to decline sharply and fall hard on its ass if you hold everyone to that standard.

That's also because china has literally more than a billion more people than America.
I don't get why someone complaining about income taxes is praising a communist state

because they're communist in name only.

they stopped the communist economy meme in the early 90s.

now it is a state capitalist/mercantaism. where foreign money can easily flow in, but chinese money can not easily flow out.

The problem is that the US keeps electing people from Texas.

If you remove Texas-born US presidents, US foreign policy is very good.

The American lifestyle is dependent on oil. When the price of gas goes up, the price of everything else goes up with it. Where does oil come from, user?

The vast majority of industry in China is still state owned.
And tariffs wouldn't allow in foreign capital either

>China is communist
Get off my board

>china is capitalist

THere is literally nothing wrong with exporting National Socialism by force

partially stated owned.

you can open a car factory in china. though only by partnering with a partially state owned chinese car company.

you want to import a car to china, and you have to deal with a 37% tariff. which is why Buicks are made in China. instead of the USA and sent to china.

If you compare the modern day U.S. economy against modern day Chinese economy, you'll find that the Chinese economy has a much higher degree of central planning and government-owned industry. There are no government-owned industries in the USA. The U.S. government regulates the economy but doesn't control it to the degree that Chinese government does. And while it is true that China is no longer Maoist, they're far from being "capitalist" in the American sense of the word.

>communism doesn't work because people will be leeches
capitalism has leeches too, you know, they just happen to run the system and exist in luxury rather than austerity. if we take their shit and use it to build up the infrastructure, the factories, and the knowledge that is responsible for a great deal of our wealth, i'm sure we can make do with giving a few people a blanket, a couple square feet of space indoors, and 2000 kcal of food a day

>partially state owned
And just straight up state owned. China's a big place with a lot of different companies
>not made in the us and sent to China
Also cause it's way cheaper to use Chinese labor than American labor

The Middle East, so yes, let's spread democracy and capitalism to such a crucial place to our way of life, but where people always seem to elect anti-US governments that more likely than not have Islamic extremist ties. That's a great idea.

>cheap chinese labor meme
that is barely a factor anymore. there are a lot of other things in china that are more of a factor.

like china's control of the rare earth market. selling electricity at a loss to factories. cheap loans etc.

china is moving factories that produce things for chinese domestic production, to other countries. because chinese labor is too expensive to make cheap things for chinese consumption.

making new car factories isn't cheap, even in china.

It's really cheap compared to western labor.
And of course, this is ignoring that China does in fact import $1.7 trillion worth of goods yearly

Sorry, but I'd rather live in a capitalist country where even the lower class has better quality of life than a fucking blanket, one room apartment, and the bare minimum of food everyday. Jesus Christ, that sounds like a nightmare, not a utopia. I don't get how this idea is even pleasing to anyone.

If I know I'm never going to get more than what you are offering, why would I even try harder than the lowest rung of society? What's my motivation if I'm a doctor with the same shit living standards as a janitor?

Fuck that, I want to work hard and get paid in a way that lets me enjoy life instead of living like a fucking rat and pretending to work while the state pretends to pay me.

Jesus, I can't believe I used to like Marxism.

if you weren't approaching this conversation in bad faith you'd know that I never suggested people who aren't leeches wouldn't get more than the bare minimum

Say that anywhere and you will get labeled a socialist if not a communist.

>burger education where everything is in black and white

China is unironically more capitalist than the US.

denmark is more capitalist than the USA. they have massive taxes and social welfare spending too.

elaborate

Capitalism means "the existence of private property rights", not "income inequality" or "absence of regulation". China's more than prepared to curb private property rights if not doing so would lead to absurdity (as they do over and over in the West); that makes it less capitalist than the US.

You never mention that anywhere, you sound like you're saying we could all live off well enough in a cramp space, with bare minimum food to survive and a blanket. That sounds miserable and I doubt many non-homeless people would like that idea.

If you aren't peddling Marxism, than how do you expect to rip the wealth away from people while having them stay put and not moving to another country that has wealthy-friendly governments?

If you do what you want to do, you're going to have to go for a state-run economy because nobody is going to stay around and have their wealth ripped away. Do we have too few people with a high concentration of wealth in America? Absolutely, and something needs to be done about it, however, just doing a massive wealth redistribution isn't going to get the job done without necessitating authoritarian and socialist measures.

The only way you are ever going to get these "leeches" to give up their wealth without catastrophic consequences is by creating a new existential threat to our well-being.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind a revolution that sees the "leeches" and their families murdered on live TV, but I'm just trying to carry this out in a way that doesn't cause such a massive upheaval. Sorry for misinterpreting your response, but I would definitely not be behind such a movement that makes the ceiling for everyone what I thought you meant.

>burger education where political ideologies are adjectives

China doesn't have massive taxes. It's literally a strong government enforcing a doggy dog ANCAP society and no that's not a contradiction.

I'm not a burger.

That's not what capitalism is you mong

Found the vegan.

Nice trips.

Well, kill yourself.

I am peddling Marxism, though?

>how do you expect to rip the wealth away from people while having them stay put and not moving to another country that has wealthy-friendly governments?
Appealing to love of countrymen. Convincing workers to refuse to assist in transporting capital out of the country. Recitation of Johnathan Edward's "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" sermon in front of a crowd of thousands on the National Mall or in front of Wall Street.

where are you from because you're retarded

With religion declining in this country the way it has, I don't see anyone ever leading a movement based on Christianity again. Right or left. Also, how do you peddle Marxism while also saying the way you get people to cough money up is to pretty much appeal to a nationalistic message of love for your fellow countrymen? It kind of sounds more like an American national socialism over full-Marxism.

I do like your idea though, of getting people to rally around America and making our own little communities a better place to live and flourish rather than the current system in place.

Hungary.

I'm most certainly not a Christian; Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God just makes what is essentially my point with different names elegantly. The bourgeoisie is wholly dependent on the goodwill of the proletariat they leech upon to continue living, just as the sinner in a Christian framework is wholly dependent upon the God they deny to continue living.

I guess you forgot about Obama already

He had mediocre foreign policy
Much better than his predecessor

Who was from Texas other than Bushes and LBJ?

...

>let china build and steal dozens of islands. during his supposed "pivot to asia".
>russians take crimea. weak ass sanctions are the only response.
>destabilized the entire MENA region. psuedo state of ISIS is formed. knows our "allies" are funding and supporting terrorists. sells them billions in weapons anyways.
>new hispanic immigration crisis happens. decides to stop deporting hispanics and start trying to legalize tens of millions of illegals.

>china...
Completely insignificant. It's a SEA squabble
>Russia...
As opposed to going to war?
>destabilize MENA
Already achieved by Bush. The Iran deal is an attempt to pivot away from the Saudis
>immigration
Not foreign policy + Obama deported the highest amount of illegal immigrants in American history

Not at all. Obama caused isis to rise and destabilized the middle East taking down allies like Mubarak that were aligned with us for 30 plus years

Iran's wants to spread their specific brand of Islamic beliefs around the world. They are just as bad as the Saudis

The Middle East was already unstable following the invasion of Iraq and ISIS has existed in some form or another since 1999
Iran is much less dangerous since there are far fewer Shias and they have much less financial power. You won't ever get a Shia ISIS

Hey Schlomo
>THOSE RUSSIANS CAN'T GET AWAY WITH TAKING THEIR OWN LAND, WW3 NOW!!!

China's island military base build is putting china in charge of the most active shipping region in the world. It also is grabbing fisheries and oil fields from SEA nations. It is incredibly important.

stronger economic measures. like cutting off the EU from russian oil and gas. Freezing all russian assets, etc.

Iraq was actually fairly stable in in 2008. the rest of MENA was ok.

the iran deal was obama trying to pad his legacy again. I don't care if Iran gets a nuclear weapon. In fact iran getting nuclear weapons stabilizes MENA. Since iran can't be invaded later by the USA and others.

immigration is foreign policy. when you stop deporting and start encouraging illegal immigration. you are telling other countries it is ok to keep coming.

Crimea hasn't been Russian since the 1950s.

Russia agreed on the borders with Ukraine in the 90s.

Nevermind the fact that the USA got nothing out of the war anyways.
We should have joined the Germans and annex Canada.

So what should we do, go to war over them taking an area that's 70% Russian?

>it's incredibly important
If you're the Philippines
>like cutting off Russian assets
That would lead directly to war
>MENA
Iraq would never have survived as a republic and the other destabization came from the Arab spring, which wasn't created by Obama
>immigration is foreign policy
Literally wrong and Obama still deported the most illegal immigrants of any president

plutocrats made a fortune from selling stuff to the europeans, and the interest on the loans the europeans paid back to the USA.

USA becomes a world power. instead of a regional great power in the western hemisphere and pacific.

Iran is shia isis except the extreme violence

he hated niggers so probably not

and the multiple attacks in western countries
and the violent war of expansion that is inherent in their existence

and vietnam and Malaysia.

they tried taking the Senkakus from Japan too.

token sanctions so the western politicians can look like they did something, are worse than nothing. they didn't harm russia at all. the only thing that harmed russia, was the saudi's plummeting oil prices by $80 a barrel. Putin gets to look like a winner out of all of this.

obama intervened in libya, egypt, yemen, and syria. libya is teetering on being a failed state. egypt's military had to remove the Muslim Brotherhood(obama's buddies) from power. Yemen has turned into a shitshow and the USA is bailing the saudis out. all those moderate muslim rebels the usa supported. turned into isis fighters.

Iran has funded multiple groups including al queada

no.

Iran's religious ideology violence has a specific geopolitical goal. to eliminate israel and counter the saudis. they aren't going to have people running over shoppers in Nice.

>and vietnam and Malaysia.
aka no one of world importance
>token sanctions so the western politicians can look like they did something, are worse than nothing.
I'd rather not go to war over an unimportant peninsula
>Putin gets to look like a winner out of all of this
who the fuck cares?
>MENA
Libya and Syria are failures, but Egypt is doing relatively fine. Yemen collapsed because of the Saudi-Iran struggle.

Trust me if they come out victorious they will

>iran
>supporting Wahhabi Islam group that is a Saudi front.

So have the saudis and everyone else

Enemy of my enemy jackass

no they won't you tard

SEA monkey nations are of importance. If we let China keep going as they are. Then things will come to shooting between them and China. Or china wins through soft power and the USA loses influence and economic opportunity in the region.

>US loses influence in a region it's ridiculous to try to hold influence in once China becomes powerful again
why is this bad?

Woodrow "He Kept Us Out of War (until he didnt)" Wilson.

Yeah they will. The only t reason they don't now is because they would get tsg teamed by everyone around them