Redpill me on globalism. What is the endgame? What are the main short-term goals? Who wants it to happen? Why is it not good?
>>78803079
One race, one religion, one government.
No morals at all, no nationalism, no culture, everything mixed up.
Why is it not good? Because I don't want my culture and other people's culture to disappear because a few greedy and wealthy Jews want to dominate the world.
>>78803079
Powers who push globalism want more for themselves while believing what they're doing is better for everyone
That's really the end game. To be able to sit in a high chair and say they've achieved the moral high ground
It's mainly driven by jews. The goal is world dominance.
It might've been a less terrible idea if:
A: It wasn't driven by sociopaths who want to build a dystopian hellhole and turn everyone into slaves
B: The human gene pool didn't consist of 80-90% subhumans
>>78803079
The problem with globalization is that it inhibits assimilation. As a result, it's never going to win over the native working classes while at the same time it's going to create tremendous ethnic tensions in urban areas. It's a recipe for absolute disaster. The nation is splitting up between productive rural areas and cosmopolitan city centers teeming with underclasses.
And I'm not even specifically for nation-states or even specifically the white race itself.
>>78805337
Compare the house of 2014 with the house of 1988, when Reaganism was going full stride. Notice how both parties are competitive throughout the US, and it isn't just Urban/rural divide.
Ethnic groups have different genetics.
They have varying intelligence and behavior.
Globalism rests on the marxist lie that everyone is the same and we're all one big family. It's communism on a global scale.
Whites and a few asians will be dragged down into the gutter by blacks, arabs and mestizos.
The end-game is plutocracy. Megacorporations like Google and Facebook will seek to govern more and more areas of your life.
>>78803079
>jews lead the fight to open all borders
>distinct populations decay into a brownish deracialized proletariat mass
>jews are the new aristocracy
>they give the earth to their lord and master Lucifer
>Christ comes and leads the Christ-bearing race in revolt against the Judeo-Satanic sanhedrin headed by the son of Satan
>we gas the kikes in the lake of fire
>attain beatific vision and become detached from physicality and linked to the Godhead
He who has ears let him hear.
>“And behold, I grant some of the synagogue of Satan, of those who say about themselves that they are Jews and are not, but they are lying, behold, I shall make them come and worship before your feet and to know that I love you.”
>>78806216
>>78806331
>>78806359
I just want to add, these things may sound contradictive, but they are all true.
It's a marxist system on the grass roots, but with jewish multinationals ruling. And they're also crazy cultists.
So there you go.
Globalism and Globalization, besides the /pol/ maymays, are essentially ideas about the facilitation of free trade and world peace.
A doctrine began to appear in America and western democracies generally in the 80s and 90s that analyzed the causes for conflict. Their takeaway, which, in retrospect, was pretty stupid, was that liberal democracies don't make war on each other. Instead, their dependence on approval ratings, cultural respect for rule of law, and desire to continue seeing trade continue uninhibited meant that they would try to work things out within international bodies like the UN/WTO rather than resorting to war... this however ignored the the fact that up to this point, western liberal democracies were bound together as a trading bloc that stood together in the highly polarized world defined by two such trading blocs that shared very close economic and military ties: one in the Warsaw Pact countries and the other in western Europe and North America.
So, the idea was that in a post-Soviet world order, the way to solve the problem of disruption of free trade, which supposedly makes everyone rich (another basically flawed/dated idea that people are starting to move away from) was to avoid wars whenever possible... and since the liberal democracies composing the NATO bloc states never made war on each other, the solution was to aggressively export democracy and liberalism. This was "the end of History". This was their chance to make people and markets free, safe, and prosperous...and like all ideologically driven utopian ideals, and when you examine it critically it looks pretty fucking stupid.
Why?
Democracies aren't something culturally suited to every country. So that means you now have to try to change the cultures of countries for this to work.
Nation States inherently have unique prejudices, blood-feuds, etc. So that means you have to try to deconstruct the racial identity of countries for this to work.
>>78807549
> A doctrine began to appear
Yeah that's how it usually goes
>>78807549
>A doctrine began to appear in America and western democracies generally in the 80s and 90s
>80s and 90s
laughinghegels.jpg
You're right. Our enemy is older than post-modern era though.
>>78808083
>>78807824
the foundations for this shit obviously predate the current era.
but the "end of history" approach to geopolitics was something that gained steam in the political class during the end of the Cold War and then became the official party line during the 1990s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man
>>78808767
Fucking Guelfs. Concordat of Worms was the beginning of the end.
>>78803079
people who take globalism seriously are usually just nostalgic retards.
>>78808767
That's interesting, I've never heard about Fukuyama before.
