Do you believe that the West truly take "freedom" , "democracy" and "human rights" into account when it comes to international relations?

[ChadFucksYourOneitis]

When in the reality, it's all about realpolitik. Money, resources and power not "democracy" , "human rights" nor "freedom" BS they want the world to believe. They are way more pragmatist than what they want to portray themselves.

When it comes to balancing the Chinese influences in the Pacific region, they turn to Vietnam, a country with the same exact governance system and similar track record of "human rights" , "democracy" and "freedom of expression", and this pretty much tell you what you want to know about the West and their modus operandi in general. People who do not study history would buy into the west's narrative of them being the global upholder of "democracy" , "human rights" and "freedom". They are really just PC terms for their "civilizing mission". Ruling the world for centuries will shape the way they think or see the "uncivilized" or the third world.

Another example is Singapore, a futuristic city-state located at the startegic strait of Malacca, it's also an authoritarian state with corporal punishment , death penalty and tight grip on media. Yet, the west don't even try to tell the Singaporeans how to run their country. They just don't want to alienate Singapore or risk pushing them closer to China.

I can go on and on about this but my point is in geopolitics, it's all about realpolitik not "democracy" , "freedom" nor "human rights". I feel bad for the thirdies who bought into these BS buzzwords.

 

[pig_face]

Water tbh

 

[Tabula Rasa]

'Freedom', 'Democracy', and 'Human Rights' were always illusory terms to justify Western hegemony. It's funny how these values appeal to the lowest common denominator and that's why they're so widely accepted and taken as a given.

 

[Lebgfinal]

You have all the freedom until you say something they dont agree with
Go say that you hate troons and see if you have the freedom

 

[thenewhebbe]

You make it looks way to black and white in your analys. Its completly possible to do both .

Second a government is filled with many diffrent people with diffrent intrest and that include democracy and other shit like that

 

[mogstars]

When in the reality, it's all about realpolitik. Money, resources and power not "democracy" , "human rights" nor "freedom" BS they want the world to believe. They are way more pragmatist than what they want to portray themselves.

When it comes to balancing the Chinese influences in the Pacific region, they turn to Vietnam, a country with the same exact governance system and similar track record of "human rights" , "democracy" and "freedom of expression", and this pretty much tell you what you want to know about the West and their modus operandi in general. People who do not study history would buy into the west's narrative of them being the global upholder of "democracy" , "human rights" and "freedom". They are really just PC terms for their "civilizing mission". Ruling the world for centuries will shape the way they think or see the "uncivilized" or the third world.

Another example is Singapore, a futuristic city-state located at the startegic strait of Malacca, it's also an authoritarian state with corporal punishment , death penalty and tight grip on media. Yet, the west don't even try to tell the Singaporeans how to run their country. They just don't want to alienate Singapore or risk pushing them closer to China.

I can go on and on about this but my point is in geopolitics, it's all about realpolitik not "democracy" , "freedom" nor "human rights". I feel bad for the thirdies who bought into these BS buzzwords.

They only take Jewish interests and hating white people into account