If china can develop effective anti-ship railguns, that pretty much counters the whole strategy of the US military. If they can railgun the aircraft carriers, what's the US gonna do?

The us could easily be almost entirely self sufficient in a few years if our leaders had any clue what to do

the US also has little will to fight, though that might be changing

yes agree, US is well poised, but it would be a big effort

and even a 0.1% GDP cost would have the corporate media howling at trump's anti-market agenda blah blah

look at brexit -> hey we can have sovereignty again but it will cost us a couple percent of GDP

oh heavens tebetsy

I think the us populace in some level realize like there's was no reason to be in Vietnam or other similar wars

well, there was a reason. communism

it's not a reason for them to be involved

and the US successfully stopped communism from spreading around the world

But like Japan and 9/11 no one was against it

this only matters to the ruling class

that's why vietnam was continued and escelated by 5 different presidents from both republicans and democrats

they thought it was important to do, and we don't know how it would have turned out if the US didn't do that

Why is it our job to save you dumbasses when you all fuck up, if we remove the safety net you'll have to learn

communism is an inherently violent, expansionist and seditious ideology. the US was right to vociferously oppose it's spread

and look now how cultural marxism finally has a foothold in the US and the west

lol

what you're calling "cultural marxism" is the product of liberalism

This

totally disagree

So much this

the key difference is marxist power dynamics (oppressed/oppressor) and identitarianism

liberalism without those 2 things is very different from what we have today

the oppressed/oppressor dynamic is a feature of liberalism and has been since before marxism even existed

don't agree

think sargon but left of centre

marx's class analysis was influenced by liberal philosophy

influenced maybe, but it's not the same

of course it's not the same

to me, liberalism is basically the opposite of those 2 things

Also for the record there's a middle ground between the US being world police and the US being Switzerland and the world getting fucked without us

liberalism is there to enforce equal treatment under the law, and to compensate for being dealt a bad hand

compensating for being dealt a bad hand means that you are not limiting egalitarianism to equal treatment under the law

I mean in terms of universal health care and that kind of thing

In the semi modern age like mid 1900s liberalism and marxism have been driven by the same 2 things profit and some sort of freedom or equality

social liberalism already opened the door to the sort of egalitarianism we see from progressives by prescribing political action to rectify inequalities that transcend legal inequalities

They are strongly related

one thing that truly baffles me is how identitarianism became synonomous with liberalism. why can't people see that's a backslide?

that isn't to say that progressivism is entirely liberal, but it mostly is, and the illiberal strands carry the power they due by virtue of their proximity to ruling class ideology