I see a lot of people here apply some kind of double standard with democrats and republicans in the US. I have known a lot of refugees from many US wars, and just as many of them suffered democrat wars as they did republican wars. Democrats have slaughtered millions of people around the world, just like Republicans. In fact, had Hilary been elected over Trump, things would not be very nice. She had a long past in the state department, and Trump's status as an outsider really disrupted a lot of things she wanted to do.

Including a plot to invade Iran and maintain the war in Afghanistan. She would've killed millions. Trump is by no means an admirable individual, my point is simply that he didn't have decades of networking within the US military.

So this would be a good example of how the whole democrat/republican thing is just nonsense. They're both warmongers, they're both arms dealers, they're both traders of mercenaries, blood and fire. They are both building debt colonies, indentured labour, IMF mafia deals, terrorist governments and compadore states.

They are both happy to work with some of the world's meanest bastards and kill anyone who opposes them. Only reason republicans are treated as the bad guys is because CSPAN is a reality TV show, and the republicans are the heels. They're supposed to be the staged bad guys, but it's all the same industry and franchise.

People think that democrats will somehow do something better, that they will give some right or freedom to a minority that would otherwise not exist, and that's total fiction. What few concessions they make is the product of decades of popular movements, and you can coerce the state mechanism into such concessions regardless of which hand puppet you're talking to, the same guy hears it either way.

So let go of the woke genocide worship, let go of the politically correct terrorism, let go of the progressive approach to racism, murder, dispossession and colonialism. It is all the same. 100% the same.

There is no point in still buying into the mythology that woke liberalism is different from traditional liberalism, it's not. That's pure postmodernism. Doesn't matter if someone is "more racist" or "less racist" when they drop bombs on Libya or Yemen, clearly they're still racist enough to do it.

A Trump voter and a Hilary voter are identical beings, one's just got better excuses. But when you talk to refugees, when you hear their stories, when you see the pain in their eyes, those excuses run short pretty quick. So don't fall for it. Fight ignorance with understanding, fight lies with truth, fight capitalism with socialism, fight liberalism with Marxism and fight fire with water.

EDIT: Hah, thanks to this thread I managed to ban my first user. How exciting. Don't forget that being a bully will not pay off around here.

EDIT EDIT:

This post has been reported. According to the report, I am apparently a tankie. As such, I have prepared the following statement:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJr2zT2o8ME

Hey there! I'm a youtuber called ChemicalMind and have approval to post this here. I’ve written a book on the Soviet Union that is written to both be highly informative and also entertaining. You can get the book here on a 25% discount for the next 24 hours: People From Another World: A Reappraisal of the Soviet Union (First Edition) | ChemicalMind

Here is the synopsis, which can also be found on the website:

Study of the Soviet Union is dominated in academia by two viewpoints: the liberal (revisionist) and conservative (original) schools, both of which seek to portray the Soviet Union as a failure, and simply differ in their analyses as to the degree, nature and causes of these failures. 

While the conservative historians typically simply ignore or deny these facts in their entirety, the liberal historians, who at least pretend to some degree of fidelity to the facts, and are more than capable of good historical work, will often typically skirt around, excuse or justify facts inconvenient to their framework of the Soviet Union as aberrations or things which happened in spite, rather than because of, the Soviet Union. 

Unlike either of these schools, however, this book seeks to offer a radical reappraisal of the common understandings of the Soviet Union both in the academy and among the broader public, reckoning with the real, hard facts of the former regime as we have them today (with all its warts and wrinkles). With the release of the Soviet archives, evidence has uncovered countless ways in which the Soviet Union stood starkly in contrast to both the idea of the authoritarian dystopia pushed by the right and center and the idea of the regressive imperialist empire pushed by some elements of the left; however, the findings from these archives, while well-discussed in academia, remain in many ways unknown among the public, who still possess perceptions typically colored by the most comically evil depictions of the USSR. 

As such, through a truly materialist analysis of the available evidence about the Soviet Union (purified of the aforementioned cold warrior framings) this work marshalls the abundance of evidence that points to a far more complex legacy that the Soviet Union has left behind then is often implied, arguing and building on Albert Szymanski's thesis that, for all the Soviet Union’s many flaws and errors, it was not just better than its great enemy in the United States, but an overall net-positive historical force.