I get you must feel some embarrassment from not knowing about Carter’s involvement but digging yourself a deeper hole doesn’t seem, to me, to be the best solution because you just make yourself look worse. You could just accept that you should stay quite about things you are ignorant of, because not a sole wishes to hear your voice drone on about them.

I’m sure you’d have more fun on the Daily Stormer or 4chan as you clearly feel the right to talk about things you are ignorant of. Keep your mouth shut about things you don’t know about.

The truth is that they want to see non-white people killed. They support Carter because he supported groups like the Khmer Rouge and they killed Vietnamese people. It’s just racism at its core

There were dentures made of wood, ivory, wax and other materials being made during the time period

That’s the only other thing he was critiqued for? Brother, you must certainly have never opened a book before…

There were many other types of dentures not made from human teeth

Please keep your mouth shut about politics (and frankly everything else) if you are an adult and still this ignorant

He had dentures made of human teeth, human teeth dentures were almost always made from slave teeth during this time.

I’m sorry the rest of the world doesn’t cowtail to your far right delusional version of reality

Hey now, you can’t forget the standing ovation for Yaroslav Hunka country

War crimes lol, war crimes like saving Donbas from mass murder by fanatic Ukrainian nationalists?

Ah yes, 100% made up. That poor Azov Battalion just doesn’t know what the flag means, they are too innocent

It’s because your thoughts aren’t inline with Kant’s actual philosophy and is an oversimplification of it to just one principal which bastardizes both what socialism is and what Kant wrote.

First of all, Kant’s principle of humanity is just one component of his philosophy. Boiling down all of Kant’s corpus to saying that that that is it “in short” is ridiculous. You can’t just separate the principle of humanity from Kant as a whole. The categorical imperative is not just the principle of humanity. You also said that it is socialism plus Kant but didn’t even seem to read my explanation of immaterialism in Kantian metaphysics.

What in the world is socialism plus Kant? I will always defend the study of Kant and view him to the one of the most important figures in the history of the world to read but the foundation concepts of the majority of Kant’s ideas are contradictory with socialism. Deontological ethics are diametrically opposed to dialectal materialism. The presumption of the goal preceding the effect in our analysis fails to look at the underlying reality pinning the action to the world. Even if we accept the categorical imperative’s universality formation, the Kingdom of End’s prior assumption relies on the idea that the autonomous will can even exist, something that is obviously not reasonable within a dialectical materialist framework.

The idea of the transcendental idealism is a phenomenal, not materialist view of the world. Knowledge beginning with sense and not experience would completely be opposed to essentially the entire conclusions and analysis of Marx.

Sorry if I misrepresenting what you mean but my understanding of Kant would make this whole concept be nonsensical.

Propaganda functions with a pre-supposition of the initial dominance of the material over the immaterial. People are functionally motivated to accept specific ideological and social viewpoints where the material state encouraging that comes first. I think this article makes an interesting case for why this general concept is non-Marxist: https://redsails.org/masses-elites-and-rebels/

You still haven’t achieved that understanding. Ideology does not come about from ‘convincing’ or ‘swaying’ anyone. I once again suggest you to read Settlers to see why this thought process is flawed. I understand where you are coming from but the material precedes the immaterial

That doesn’t make sense. You need to start with a correct historical and material analysis before you can approach anything else. Socialism is based on dialectical materialism, not gaining ‘followers’. Leftism is not a religion that aims to have many converts but rather should understand why neocolonialism and other such institutions would deincentivize white people from being leftists in the United States in the first place.

I guess those values like Nazism and goals of cultural suppression of Russian-speaking people in the Donbas was all just to “protect their families”

I think you should read J. Sakai’s Settlers. It explains this (in a US context) quite well and I think that it refutes the concept of just making leftism “more appealing” for people