I think what irks me about colonialism from like the 1700s to 1960s is how there's a hypocritical cognitive dissonance and that's annoying. What libs did from the 1960s onwards was just removing this confusion by saying that "yeah colonialism is always evil and you should never invade others (unless in self-defense maybe)." Meanwhile ancient and medieval colonialism, whether or not they tried to convert natives and brutally destroy their religions for Jesus, was shamelessly aggressive and predatory really without much cognitive dissonance (it was either vae victus exploitation or a concoction of legalistic jargon). The way Enlightenment-era Europeans up to the 1900s justified colonialism, in comparison, just seems unsustainable because it's plagued with too many weird contradictions.

You can really only point out that colonialism, while leading to the development of a race, is economically detrimental to them. The caveat being that some races could never achieve the level of society they have without constant input from white people. So, colonialism is bad, when it's white people. You could argue white people fueled the slave trade or sold opium to China or destroyed Latin America but this isn't really a critique of the system.

And that's ultimately the problem with socialists. They don't look to prove anything but their own worldview which is borderline fantastical

>>17863940 (OP)
The Enlightenment was the worst thing to ever happen in history. Worse than the Fall of Constantinople.

>>17864063
And for the enlightened Uberman, The Globular Amphora culture

>>17864063
>the french revolution ruined everything before the world wars
I am not sure. If the World Wars just never happened and the Russian monarchy survived to prevent marxism from spreading worldwide, our political scene would be less radioactive. Nationalists,conservative monarchists and liberals arguing about whats best for the country. Marxism and fascism would be fringe ideologies. An eternal 19th century. I bet that timeline would be nice for Europeans.

>>17864503
so what you're saying is marx fucked it all up

>>17864512
Not really. Without the Soviet Union(or some other Great Power falling to it) I think marxism stays as irrelevant as the anti-technology ideology. If you look at marxism before 1918 it was powerless. The takeover in Russia got the ball rolling. But then after WW2 the "international community" just allowed the Soviet Union to annex all of eastern Europe and boom. Now marxism can be spread everywhere with so much manpower and resources available. In a normal scenario you cannot allow a nation to annex so much land. It should become a pariah state. In every other case a power like the British Empire,the USA or even Spain and Portugal should have declared war on the Soviet Union in 1945 directly. It was a very low chance and everything had to align(ww2 devastation + the west being weak and retarded) for the Soviet Union to get away with so much landgrabbing. We live in a freak universe that should not exist.

>>17864512
To be short. Russia participating in WW1 fucked it all up as it kicked off a chain reaction of doom for all of Europe.

>>17864503
>>17864512
>>17864615
The rejection of the Civilization's Foundation is natural, Marxism and DeNazification was a vessel for this phenomena.
not its ultimate origin.
Its origin is the civilization itself, its baked in.
A civilization, as it progresses, will always question its foundation at some advanced point.

Understanding the evolving justifications and their contradictions helps explain both the persistence of certain attitudes and the passionate pushback against colonial legacies.

>>17864615
Marxism was really big with Jews in the east and they were pretty much solely responsible for the 1905 revolution in Russia which lost Russia their war with Japan.