Preface (so no miscontruing my arguement)
Anyone in the occidental world who isnt european should be deported
1. Leftism comprises of marxists ill with oikophobia who do in fact use the third world in their agenda , but for multiculturalism - ie globalism, they also are fervent lgtvers which I say goes against third worldism
I. Mexicans or other assorted bunches dont associate with third worldism rather they do as democrats, as to look western (new englanders)
2. Third worldists are hardcore nationalists who want the best for their nation, and we should emulate that
3. US could very well have good relations with Iran/Cuba if
I. They recant all sanctions
II. Get the hell out of the Middle east
Their countries mixed economies could very well orient itself as classical liberal capitalism given the US becomes an example something to idolize rather than coercive force (see singapore)
4. They are socially conservative
5. Imperialism was bad (colonialism was good) not for the natives, but for the west as it was resource drainage since we gave them industrial machines/medicine which destroyed Europes population advantage and lead to independence movements
(IE Brits were scared to overthrow the Ottoman caliph due to Indian muslims)
I. New"imperialism"
Why shouldnt we share tech (ie western eugenics "embryo selection") / (nukes- so theres no more wars) with the third world while also getting tons of cheap material from them like we did before except that theyre sovereign?
From Kants eternal peace
5.—“No state shall violently interfere with the constitution and administration of another.” (in light of recent events + proposed invasion of cuba
[p. 113]For what can justify it in so doing? The scandal which is here presented to the subjects of another state? The erring state can much more serve as a warning by exemplifying the great evils which a nation draws down on itself through its own lawlessness. Moreover, the bad example which one free person gives another, (as scandalum acceptum) does no injury to the latter. In this connection, it is true, we cannot count the case of a state which has become split up through internal corruption into two parts, each of them representing by itself an individual state which lays claim to the whole. Here the yielding of assistance to one faction could not be reckoned as interference on the part of a foreign state with the constitution of another, for here anarchy prevails. So long, however, as the inner strife has not yet reached this stage the interference of other powers would be a violation of the rights of an independent nation which is only struggling with internal disease.[114] It would[p. 114] therefore itself cause a scandal, and make the autonomy of all states insecure.
Updated