Has anyone ever heard an honest, objective, non-short sighted argument for globalism?
Has the case for destroying sovereignty and the nation state for something that is potentially better for all ever been made?
I'm sure there has been an argument made at a Bilderberg meeting, but not one that is even remotely better for all.
>>79659115
That's my point anon. I see shills everywhere, propping it up as an idea, condemning the stupidity of nationalist principles and actions. But I've never heard a single, objective argument in favor of globalism. At least one that didn't turn out to be incredibly short sighted or outright deception in the long run.
Anytime its disputed around a world leader who is in favor of it, which is most world leaders, they pull out there short hand list of platitudes. And they try to manipulate the democratic system with these, which they are often successful.
Attempt to transform the planet into a big human farm under jew rule.
>>79657818
Thank you for the pic. Been trying to save a copy of it for a while now.
>Has anyone ever heard an honest, objective, non-short sighted argument for globalism?
Simple answer no.
Do know it works better for businesses and could many laws in general simpler but I lack the knowledge to word a decent argument for globalism.
I know many uni-fags like to talk about the benefits of globalisation.
>inb4 those uni-fags actually find the negatives such as no work after finishing uni as their qualifications don't worth shit due to a variety of factors from globalism.
>Has the case for destroying sovereignty and the nation state for something that is potentially better for all ever been made?
Can only think of the Roman Empire in this regards, but they fell and the unity never lasted.
Not a good example as they destroyed other nations and their sovereignty and not themselves, but that said they did destroy themselves in the end.
>>79660256
We all have our ideas of the end. But have you ever heard a comprehensive, objective reason or list of reasons as to why globalism should happen?
>Muh world peace
>Muh democracy
>Muh we're all the same
We've all heard the run around. But who has ever heard an appeal to reason by globalists? And why is it no one?
>>79657818
I could formulate such an argument, but I've never actually heard one from a proponent of globalism.
>>79660854
Np anon
The uni-fags are the "dude weed" hive mind of the intellectual branch of society. They will believe anything that is contained in a PowerPoint presentation that gives them a perspective on things they've never even thought about. Anything. Then they clamor on about these new beliefs, and how people directly affected by them are simply wrong because they are uneducated. (They didn't see the same power point presentations essentially).
I think less laws across boarders and more uniformed laws for trade deals really help multinationals cut legal corners and crush smaller businesses and western manufacturers with greater ease and less financial strain. That is why so much lobbying is done in government, and so many power points for uni fags are centered around the benefits of globalization.
>>79660898
>And why is it no one?
I'm sure those appeals were voiced early on in the process of building the post-modern international order. However, any ideological movement eventually degrades into a self-referential morass, where-in the ideology's supporters learn it's reason based conclusions as dogma, instead of learning the reasoning underlying those conclusions. As a result they lose the ability to persuade via any means other than enforced ideological purity or simple emotional appeals.
This has happened to the globalists of today.
Globalism is the natural evolution. We travel more than ever, people meet, competence is shared, new ideas are born.
Only conservative cucks can't understand this.
>>79661593
who is she?
![1600x900_415297_[www_ArtFile_ru].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/V39GsSe.jpg "1600x900_415297_[www_ArtFile_ru].jpg")
>>79661209
>I could formulate such an argument
I don't think I could anon. I have autist debates with myself longtime, and I couldn't even think of a decent point to make without sounding despotic or sociopathic. Perhaps it was a lack of effort on why I couldn't think of one, but that's why I came to /pol. Just to see what anon thinks.
>putting all your eggs in one basket
>>79661882
Horsefacehippoass girl.
>>79657818
People are different. culturally, ethnically, and morally
Big government leads to more corruption
A small to medium sized nation can run more efficiently by its self and cater more to the citizens needs
If the world government is overly corrupt and suppresses and brainwashes its citizens. Who will stop the?
>>79661725
Literally just fuck off you Malteser cunt, you only support Globalism because your culture is formed from the perverted bastardisation of ours. You want to reap the benifits whilst providing nothing. Your country is a non entity, nobody cares about it. Go shag a monkey you fuck.
>>79657818
It will improve the conditions in poor countries but at the expense of the rich countries.
Also it will make the people with the money to invest in those countries a lot of money.
In theory it is good for the majority of people but it is not good for the people already living in the US/EU.
>all governments are inefficient and corrupt to some extent
>the damage they can do grows along with their power
>only thing holding them back is politics with other governments
>dude why dont we just have one government for the entire planet?
>>79657818
No one wants globalism cause
>Muh culture
>Muh religion
a globalized world works better.
Everyone speaking english and sharing moral values. Obviously we have to educate the niggers, muslims and Latinos
>>79657818
Globalization is the attempt to privatize all the currently nationalized political power into the hands of a supranational cabal of banking oligarchs. It's an attempt to strip the people of all political power, effectively destroying democracy and representative democracy and replacing the democratic systems of the nation states with a one world top to bottom tyranny, where an unelected, unaccountable and mostly anonmyous cabal of anglo-jewish oligarchs and bankers get to make all the political decisions.
The recent american free trade agreements with Asia and Europe that try to establish a transnational court system is a primary example for that.
The European Union is another example. The EU is a globalist attempt to strip the people of Europe of their sovereignty.
>>79657818
>Has anyone ever heard an honest, objective, non-short sighted argument for globalism?
The international cabals, the political mumbo-jumbo, the councils and the think thanks, the oligarchs and Bilderbergs really really want it.
>>79657818
>Has anyone ever heard an honest, objective, non-short sighted argument for globalism?
Whats wrong with a world controlled by a Jewish elite? Are you an anti-Semite to question our superiority?
It's all for the greater, you goys are just to stupid to understand the advantages of gayness, mental gender diseases, civil unrest, censorship,...
Its all for the (((greater good)))
Yes. Globalism as of now is the single greatest tool for accelerationism. It creates shitpiles so high that people are now rallying behind nationalist causes all over the world.
Honestly, if I wanted to revive the glories of Western civilization, I would stack the decadence and degeneracy so high that people would beg for the return of the Roman Empire. I would shove the world so full of drugs, people would dive head first into art, science, philosophy and culture, all to repare the shitpile that is their society. I would fill the world with so many corpse raping faggot freaks that people would line up for bootcamp, to fight and die against the vile mutant fucktards that have engulfed their lives and have slimed their way into their living space
If you want the best of civilization, you should fuel it by the very worst of it
>>79661725
>Muh platitudes
>>79662310
Nod an argumend
>>79662406
Education will NOT solve their problems. This is less of a platitude and more of a debased position to take in current year. It has solved nothing to western standards, it will continue to solve nothing to western standards. Almost like, cultures are a product of genetic capacity and some are incompatible with others. Rly makes you think.
>>79662390
Wow really makes you think
>>79662799
Wouldnt be a thing if the jews didnt want to exterminate all white males and christians
Since I happen to be a white christian male...
...I shall have to crusade their jewish globalist asses back into submission and poverty
>>79662438
>>79662819
>>79662799
I realize these things fellas. I just mean its remarkable that there hasn't really been an appeal to reason on the issue. tfw maybe we are mostly as dumb as cattle.
>>79661673
This
A few years back Merkel said that "multikulti" has failed. 15 years ago the CDU was a conservative party, probably the biggest lackeys of the rich after the FDP.
The CDU and their overlords probably saw that you can get elected and push your laws way more by being "friendly globalists".
This "refugee crisis" was the best thing that could happen for the rich and powerful. More workers, more consumers and more government programms that fill the pockets of someone, somewhere.
I just can't understand why any leftists would be for globalism in the way it is right now. Politicians effectively played off the German under class and illegal immigrants against each other.
A big problem of nationalism is that the idea of nations was always entangled with ethnic and cultural homogeneity.
Rallying against globalism is way easier, if you just don't want to pay for the problem of other countries.
>>79657818
Problem with globalization is that the cons outweigh the pros.
>one currency
Pretty nice but when you consider the people who control the banking/financing, it can be a potentially dangerous thing
>open borders
Nice traveling to other countries without any hassle but I'll be damn if I let some third world dirt farmer come and fuck up my town
>Free trade
While it can help small businesses. However, they tend to sell their goods in a relatively small area. Free trade really only benefits big companies who can afford to open up shop and produce large quantities of goods for cheap.
The only normies I see support globalism have never been actually involved or buttfucked by it. People tend not to be happy when their job gets outsourced to Mexico/China/India.
>>79662991
:-------DDDDDDDDDDDDD
>>79660256
They literally want to destroy sovereignty and mix the masses together to destroy identity and make everyone easier to guide into wars and consumerism. They want to be our gods. So yes, a giant human shekel farm.
>>79657818
>implying it would ever be a good idea to hand a single group of people power over the entire world
That's all the argument you need you fucking moron. Do you expect these unelected leaders to be benevolent for even 5 years? What about 100 years?
The only way globalism will ever work is if people have their own desires and wills destroyed completely, such that they are completely subservient because:
1. Leaders only look out for themselves and their 'donors'. Their only interest in the people is what the people can give to them in form of money or power.
2. Multiple ideologies cannot exist in a globalist society. Notice how homogenized western culture is at this point in history? It has been going in that direction quickly for many decades. Now imagine every single person believing the exact same rule of beliefs. People who don't fall in line either go to prison or are somehow excommunicated. That is obviously where globalism is going (see: $200k fine for not calling trannys the right name, everything not in lock step being labeled racist/sexist/bigoted, visits from the police in EU for speaking up against the immigrant problem on twitter, etc).
Globalism could work if people were cyborgs with no free will. Otherwise, it will be hell for the common man (communism is globalism lite, and has resulted in more deaths than any other system of government).
It could maybe (maybe) be an okay idea if the majority of humanity didn't consist of IQ 85 subhumans.
Looking at the current shape of the human gene pool, globalism would mean the end of civilization as we know it.
>>79664013
Leftists in a democracy have no interest in eradicating poverty. They would lose their voter base. That's why all democratic leftists support mass immigration of third world migrants, ESPECIALLY if those third world migrants end up permanently unemployed.
Mass immigration increases the voter base of socialist parties.
>>79657818
Globalism was never about the coming together of all mankind for human progress. It is about a (((globalist))) plan to consolidate the world under their rule.
Read The Protocols.
>>79664261
>free trade
Innumerable regulations are created to stifle small businesses though, so that only globally powerful corporations are able to even operate.
>>79664535
KEK burger education made me read the OP incorrectly. I apologize.
>>79664835
it's okay lad, I enjoyed your post.
>>79661906
Probably the easiest argument to understand would be the concept of the "global community". This idea is basically that each nation is on a global scale like a family is on the scale of communities.
Love for and loyalty towards one's family is to be expected, but to have a civilized society that affection must be subordinated to a higher social principle: fair play, the rule of law, etc. To ensure everyone plays fair, or at least keep the peace, you have to have a government with the authority to regulate interaction between individuals and family groups.
The alternative to this is a society crippled by the corrupting influence of nepotism or even the violence of feuding family groups. On the global scale this manifests as more powerful nations exploiting weaker ones and violent wars for control of resources or just national pride (the large scale equivalent of family honor). To someone who believes in the "global community" model, most of history looks like feuding among backwoods hicks. It's crude, irrational, and undermines the "public good" on a global scale.
What's more, arguing for national sovereignty is like insisting individual families should be above the law. That if a parent is abusing their children the community should do nothing, and if two families get into a feud, well that's their business and no one else's.
The argument here is:
> rival interest groups need external authorities to resolve their conflicts without violence or exploitation
> such authorities must have more power than said groups to be effective
> nation states are rival interest groups
> therefore, nation states should grant power (surrender sovereignty) to international organizations to resolve their conflicts without violence or exploitation.
Also, sauce on pic?
We need to eliminate stupidity before implementing globalism. Stupid people cannot be allowed to take political control through democracy.
Stupidity is a disease, and the cure, are genius sperm banks.
>>79664699
>I apologize
After hurtin' my feels like that u probably should anon
>>79664617
Yeah but anon, isn't it remarkable that there hasn't even been an attempt to appeal to our reason? At least, not one any of us can think of. And that this singular issue creates a geopolitical umbrella of existential complexity which will most certainly decide the future and potential of the species?
Could we, the shitposters of /pol/, possibly have just isolated at least once source from where the kek flows? Think about the memes anon, the memes. They are often an appeal to reason through irony and shame. Its just a thought, and maybe a stupit one. But, I can't grasp reality anymore without thinking about it.
>>79666590
>global community model and its concepts
I realized that, this or some similar ideological model served as the foundational theory of globalism, and many powerful people took the bait. I think that's how dudes like Cronkite and other elites in the media and politics got into globalism as a movement.
Definitely should have worded my question better since its confusing some shitposters. You got the point I was trying to make, it seems you've put a lot of thought into this. But I was hasty when I posted and for the sake of clarity, I meant that now since globalism as a concept is pretty mainstream, has anyone with political or social power made an appeal to reason on the issue...
I subscribe to nationalism, but I didn't know if I was just falling into bias conformation and not being reasonable, that I couldn't form any of their objective (contemporary globalist) arguments. When I did try to be as objective as possible, the only points pertained to population control, environmental standards, the allocation of resources and the other potential arguments that would result from centralizing world power under a singular body of authoritarianism. A government of sociopaths, basically. And maybe that's why an appeal to reason hasn't even been attempted anon.
Also, pic related is Jana Defi.
More bad news, OP:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/world/europe/obama-will-need-his-oratory-powers-to-sell-globalization.html
>When President Obama travels to North Carolina and Europe this week, he will press an argument that could define foreign policy in the last six months of his presidency: that Americans and Europeans must not forsake their open, interconnected societies for the nativism and nationalism preached by Donald J. Trump or Britain’s Brexiteers.
>Few presidents have put more faith than Mr. Obama in the power of words to persuade audiences to accept a complex idea, whether it is the morality of a just war or the imperfect nature of American society. Yet countering the anti-immigration and anti-free-trade slogans in this election year will require all of his oratorical skills.
>Mr. Obama road-tested his pitch over the last two weeks in two friendly venues: Silicon Valley and Canada. This week, he will take the case to North Carolina, a swing state that has been hard hit by the forces of globalization, and to a NATO meeting in Poland, where the alliance members will grapple with the effects of Britain’s vote to leave the European Union, known as Brexit.
>>79669541
>And maybe that's why an appeal to reason hasn't even been attempted
I think it's more that the purveyors of globalism have found the emotional appeals work best. Especially when they can shame their opponents by drawing false comparisons between all nationalists and the Nazis. A huge part of the motive for building the international institutions of the post-war era was to ensure another world war could never happen. The Nazis, and their racial-nationalism, became a bogeyman for the left. They've been using the Nazis to scare people away from nationalism ever since.
I genuinely believe they have also forgotten how to use reason to justify their positions, since the left's dominance of the media and academia means they so seldom have to defend, or even explain, their views. Most of their views are easy to take down if you know the facts of history and human psychology the left ignores.
For example, WW2 could have been avoided if the British and French had been more nationalistic. They declared war on Germany after Germany's invasion of Poland because their treaties (i.e. "international law") required it not because it was actually in their national interest to fight the Germans over Poland. In fact, correspondence from within the Fourth Reich shows that Hitler expected them to be nationalistic enough to back down, especially after he conquered France. The Brits stubborn resistance to making peace when it was in their national interests to do so baffled him.
Thus, on the allies side WW2 represented a lack of nationalism, not a surplus of it. On the German side the push war came not from the nationalistic urge, but from the racist and totalitarian aspects of their ideology. The Nazis wanted to a build a "Totalstat" (Total State) to rule all Germanic peoples with absolute authority. If they had focused instead on simply upholding the sovereignty of their nation state WW2 would never have happened.
>>79670740
Yed uhh... Uhh.. My-speaking-skills uhh.
This uhh Trump thing uhh... its-gotta-stop uh... now folks... uh
Th-th-those just uhh... Those just ar-aren't our values uhh
I'm uhhh.. such a great speaker uhh.... Really I'm uhh. Uhh God-I'm-fantastic uhh
Globalists are probably the most short sighted people on earth
they're destroying the global economy and crashing it with no survivors
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-MraD1Ys3Q
>>79670740
Reminder to sign
https://www.change.org/p/president-of-the-united-states-petition-to-impeach-barack-hussein-obama
>>79671976
>I genuinely believe they have also forgotten how to use reason to justify their positions, since the left's dominance of the media and academia means they so seldom have to defend, or even explain, their views. Most of their views are easy to take down if you know the facts of history and human psychology the left ignores.
Totally agree anon. I've never articulated this point to anyone. Sometimes its fun if they are salty, very loud SJW, but most of the time when I debate opposition its depressing to see how foundationally void they are. That was the reason I posted this question. Just to see if that observation stood up to /pol standards. Conservatism and nationalism for so long were vulnerable because controlled opposition like Irving Kristol and other globalist shills in the west had taken it over as a movement and laid the foundations of ideological ruin.
I don't think they anticipated too much resistance in the west, after all this time and all of this effort done on our alleged behalf. And they certainly not anticipate resistance from nationalists and non-globalists of all walks in the form which that resistance has taken.
I think a big divide strategy is coming our way. But I've got a good feeling about the future for the first time in a while anon.
Globalism is an ideal situation, but we don't currently live in an ideal world.
Some day, globalism and multiculturalism will rule the world. It's just inevitable. But at the moment, there are too many cultural differences between nations for it to be fully successful, but those differences will lessen as education and economies improve.
Seriously all these redpill threads need to be deleted on sight. Off topic garbage
>>79660898
I'm sure they have some form of argument, but this is 4chan. If it isn't on here, we can't ridicule, or dismantle it.
>>79657818
humans are way too stupid to understand how stupid they actually are
you are fucking stupid and you dont even know it. how many times you have questioned yourself? i bet you havent at all, otherwise instead of making threads youd look critically the thoughts going through your head, why are you believeing in them? what flaws they have? do i even begin to understand human nature?
>>79673920
>Muh idealism
>Muh just inevitable
Same bullshit different shill
>>79674137
Finn bro you're out of your element, me being a narcissist and. lacking ability for self reflection is not the issue here. The lack of a coherent, objective argument in favor of destroying the nation state is.
>>79673994
And in violation of stated board rules.
>>79676155
No, its not.
"food"
This is literally the only argument I've ever heard that makes me think even a little bit.
>>79657818
anyone that has studied (((economics))) knows globalism is mathematically a net benefit in the long term regarding the prosperity of mankind
however, here are the catches:
long term - there are all sorts of inneficiencies and unfair allocations that can sprout in the short term from globalism, it's a project for centuries
prosperity - it doesn't take into account culture at all: history, costumes,morals, religion, ideologies, nothing, it only looks at wealth per worker and assumes the most prosperous society is the best society
mankind - globalism is willing to halt the increase in living standards of europeans and americans for speeding up the increase in living standards of the rest of mankind (i.e. pajeets and baba yetus)
economics is concerned with modeling economics, not understanding society, that's why globalism will fail even if it's the best way for humanity in the long term
I imagine in the late 21st century people will view globalists like we view commies today, advocates of an impracticable ideology that's good in paper but ultimately bankrupt in real world experience
Leftists denounce colonialism because it destroyed cultures and exploited people but they'll embrace globalism even though it will do the same thing.
>>79673920
Explain just one little thing to me:
>globalism and multiculturalism will rule the world
>just ONE world culture AND many different cultures will rule the world!
This is the doublethink the modern narrative cannot reconcile, and it will be our downfall.
>>7The bell is tolling soon for Hillary Clinton! Trump 2016! Watch****
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s2h92qYu_sg9679440
>>79676643
>he thinks the type of globalism that is being created is the kind where Europeans hold hands with Africans and Asians singing happy songs
>he doesn't realize it'll be a population of maybe 100k with 99k slaves for the technologically equipped masters
>>79674137
As edgy as it sounds, I have to agree. Humans will never realize how controlled they are. Not even me. Once you think you've found all the layers, you won't even begin to wonder about the hundreds more waiting to be peeled back. Ignorance is bliss.
Promote stability.
After the advent of the nuclear bomb and the end of World War 2, it was apparent that WW3 would end civilization as we know it. Any measure that would prevent WW3 was on the table. After lots of debating between folks in ivory towers, it was determined that both previous world wars were caused by people loving their country a little too much. Therefore, the notion of country must be destroyed and replaced with something extraordinarily similar, but bigger.
>>79657818
Globalism is basically just communism. It's Muh unity. Get rid of god and culture, let's be one. It's hippies run a muck. Rich people want globalism because it benefits them. The poor libtards who support it are so stupid. My liberal teachers used to tell us to support small businesses and buy local. This was big to them. But these are also the same people who support globalism. Globalism will murder local and small businesses. How can a hippie parlor or a mom and pa shop compete with global trade agreement signers?
>>79661673
>self-referential morass
thats why when you disagree with them they say things like "you dont UNDERSTAND violence against women". i.e. they think you dont understand the world when you really just dont AGREE with their opinion.
Because to them reality is their own made up network of definitions or, as you put it, a self referencing morass.
>>79680732
>>79681333
The United Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) would be proud of ole Bernie. I am ashamed of my country. No need to celebrate the 4th tmr.
>>79660898
Those Amerislags are top notch m8!
>>79657818
Nation A can produce enough food for 10k people, but only has enough mineral deposits to build 5k tractors annually.
Nation B can produce 10k Tractors, but can only feed 5k people.
By "Globalizing" their economies, they can "both" produce 15k food and 15k tractors. Unfortunetly, by connecting their economic systems so heavilly, any fluctuation means that BOTH are disrupted.
Instead of easing tensions, the opposite is done. Markets become less stable, people become unhappier with their situation, and generally it's easier to attack.
What happens when food aide gets cut off to africa?
What happens to high-tech programs requiring rare metals like titanium or uranium dry up or arn't traded for whatever reason?
What happens to china when people don't want to buy their slave-labour any more, because they're using actual robots to do the production jobs at home?
The bigger they are the harder they fall.
The caveat being that the bigger they are, the more then end up destroying collaterally when they fall.
>>79679775
>As edgy as it sounds, I have to agree
>Edgelords fail to see the point
Oh, masters of abstract philosophy on /pol. That's cool.
But the premise wasn't in finding a new ideological precept or pseudo philosophical pretense. Try asking a politician in your country objectively, the reason for instituting globalist policy. Try asking anyone who shills for globalism. It tends to go like this:
>Diversity is great anon
But why?
>Platitudes, we are all the same, etc
But objectively, why?
>Crumbles
This is what I'm talking about. This is not an abstract matter, aside from the kek and the potential memes which can be derived from it. I'm talking about actually debating these people, just trying to reason with them. Its like its beyond them. Go see, try it.
>>79681333
You know I tell people what the USSR stands for, and they don't believe me. They say it wasn't "Democratic" Socialism. It's very sad. I grew up with these people. I went to civics class and we all learned how bad socialism is. They don't even rem. That's the education they want to continue for free? What a waste.
>>79661725
No. Nation or level organisms survive only if they have borders. That can be racial or ideological -- the western world has undermined both and will not act in a unified way to preserve and advance itself. Modern futurists do not predict a kumbayah world without borders, they predict a pluralistic world with intense competition. Destroy pre-existing borders and humans will just reorganize new nation level entities, albeit in a much more chaotic and violent way than if we simply did the natural thing and preserved our own heritage.
>[can] the case for destroying sovereignty and the nation state for something that is potentially better for all [even] been made?
Aliens attacking from outer space.
The advent of commercial space travel and off world human colonies would probably convince me desu , but that's not happening in my lifetime
>>79681506
>babby's first politics
It is no grand secret that politicians will never utter a statement. Watch Hillary Clinton for 10 hours straight without saying a single definitive sentence.
The point I was making was that even when people try to defend globalism (even as devil's advocate), they defend a globalism viewed through rose-tinted glasses. I think the public should reject that as a given if we collectively pursued a globalist agenda. It is clear just from the patterns of local politics that any globalist society would be corrupt to the core, and this time there would be no safe havens in another society.
I would be fine with a new world order if it didn't involve race mixing and disenfranchisement of the white straight male.
>>79681792
In that case, I'd probably go for it too.
>>79681497
What do you think would happen if all of the world cut off all aid to Africa for like 3 years? Srs...
A lot of people think it would be for the better.
>>79661991
coolio
>>79681890
>It is clear just from the patterns of local politics that any globalist society would be corrupt to the core
But you know well that the unwashed masses of normies lack pattern recognition, and do not perceive these ends. In fact, most don't contemplate any ends at all.
I guess in a way I didn't anticipate the epidemic of sycophancy, and that does denote naivety. But the fact that they don't have ANY objective philosophical or ideological foundation (or at least one they care to speak of publicly) for the policies the powerful globalists create and the normies advocate is still pretty shocking at this point. And its like this to a lot of people now for the first time, not just the recently redpilled, or those who just got into politics recently and took a nationalist stance.
>>79682943
Yes, which is why I made the comment about stupidity and naiveté towards that stupidity. I don't claim to be much smarter, just one or two rungs about on an infinitely tall ladder.
I don't quite understand what you're saying precisely about the first time, but in response to objective philosophical foundations it is quite clear what some of these are, albeit entrenched in doublethink tactics. For example:
>Diversity is Strength
>Hate Speech must be Forbidden
>Bigotry is Intolerable
These are ingrained in the youth via "education systems" and taken as axioms for the rest of their lives. These are the basic premises they will never question, and then must use them to deduce further "facts." This leaves them quite naked when faced with a "deeper" question like, "What is the role of humanity in the grand scope of existence?" Their axioms aren't equipped to even meet such a thought for their battlefield is shallow and controlled.
>>79664552
This this this this this
>>79683605
>Diversity is Strength
>Hate Speech must be Forbidden
>Bigotry is Intolerable
This is all the feelsgood veil. Not the objective foundation. You know this. I've been anti globalist for years anon, way before the Trumpening occurred, and in that time I have sought out consistent debate with SJW, Marxists, neocons, etc shills of all walks. I have been around long enough to perceive a change, and that is they aren't even trying anymore in terms of an appeal to reason. Its a noteworthy change in their patters, and that's my entire premise on this thread.
the World as One Big Vibrant African Village ...
no thanks we have a better model
The idea is something along the lines of "we have to unite to stop war and shit and focus on grander projects" but at the end of the day rich elites could not give less of a shit about you or the hardships pushed on you by mass immigration and multiculturalism
Their bloodlines are nice and safe through selective breeding and access to the best medical treatments
And of course the corporate greed of consumerism that was already brought up helps fuel it, there's a shitload of untapped potential consumers in the world
>>79685051
Yes, I am not disagreeing with you. But the irony is that the word "objective" means different things to different people. To those who have been brainwashed, those are "objective unquestionable truths."
>"How dare you imply diversity is not the ultimate good?! You bigoted racist!"
I've been anti-globalist for quite some time and have noticed the same patterns as you. I cannot tell if this is attributed to my own grown affinity for rationalism as a pillar of reason (in contrast to empiricism) due to my mathematical studies, or if they have really started to slack in the rational reasoning department. If anything the buzzwording has certainly reached critical mass, hence the Trump support. There is no effort in their argument, so people like Milo, Christina, et al. streamroll them with even the smallest ounce of determination.
>>79657818
human life is sacred, no matter the nationality, may be one.
there's an interesting intersectional book on shakespeare and law that talks about how blood feuds (one family warring against another in a perpetual cycle of self-annihilating vengeance) are a trademark of pre-modern, poorly policed, societies that have no central power
using this logic to today: we find ourselves in perpetual "blood feuds" with the middle east and other proxy locations in a perpetual war, that smacks of orwellian propagandizing
a global government would be the local police force, the centralized government that could halt the blood feuds, end the seemingly endless violence.
>i tend towards nationalist as our world is still incredibly heterogenous
>but i can see this as some logical defense of wanting globalism
>>79685454
is there a brief summary of the rational vs. empirical debate?
interested by this
>>79685936
shameless desperate attempt for others to comment on my above post^^
please help anons, i think globalization may be the only way to ever attain some semblance of peace and get off this planet one day to be creator god-men
>>79681961
>>79681792
>>79681612
>>79681506
>>79685051
>>79657818
What is with the German president always crying in public?
Does Germany have no shame?
I just want to punch that face every time I see it...
FUCK
>>79686136
I'm not sure. Most of it is just some stuff I've concluded by reading a little bit of 18-19th century philosophy and my own input from my background. I can give you my own biased summary if you'd like:
Rationalism is the philosophy of finding truth via pure mental reasoning ("I think, therefore I am." - No external sensory input, just pure logic.) Empiricism is the philosophy of finding truth via the senses ("Seeing is believing"). This is the backbone of all scientific thought in the modern age. It doesn't matter if something seems reasonable or you want it to be true - without the PHYSICAL (i.e. sensory, in some way) data, scientists do not conclude it is true.
This is the opposite of rationalistic reasoning, the backbone of mathematics, something I specialize in. Rationalists accept the possibility that our senses might be untrustworthy ("The Earth looks flat, so of course it is!") so we must rely on mental reasoning to deduce any hard facts. Mathematics is performed by assuming some true statements, called axioms, and then deducing other truths using cold reasoning, no intuition "of course it must be true" nonsense.
To me, I think whatever deserves to be called "reason" needs a healthy mixture of both modes of thought. Today, it seems with the rise of militant atheism people have rallied behind science/empiricism as the end all path to truth. This, I think, in light of my rationalistic tendencies, is a short-sighted fallacy that leads to people producing all these "studies" which happen to support their political beliefs, and are hence "unquestionable" because they stem from empirical data.
>>79657818
Only in terms of gdp and the like. No one talks about its effect on individual people.
Expect the shit countries that get our jobs they benefit. Economists will say millions are lifted out of poverty. And by lifted out of poverty they mean make 1.00 a day instead of .50.
>>79685454
>rationalism as a pillar of reason (in contrast to empiricism)
This is very remarkable I think. Its weird because its like there is potentially some sort of big, philosophical formation building, right now, and that seems to be a part of it. And its not because we're invested in emotional ends or anything. We're both in STEM, and so many others perceive the fragility of empiricism as opposed to rationalism now. A decade ago, even a few years ago, this wasn't the case.
Its fitting, because, though we're unsure of the precise social and geopolitical mechanics, so we can't really perceive the ends, most who are intelligent and actively using their mind can perceive the same sort of change in the winds lately.
>>79657818
Globalism makes sense in economic terms.
And economists and rich rootless cosmopolitans dominate public discourse, and silence critics.
If you dare say GDP literally doesn't matter that much, today they'll probably hang you.
There's also that "look how America is great guys" argument that ignores reality: America literally had an empty fucking continent and that's what allowed you to thrive, not liberal ideals or multiculturalism or immigration.
>>79657818
Removing local power and placing it in the hands of distant elites has never turned out very well. It tends to lead to world wars, civil violence, corruption that can't be policed, ect.
Read this book, he was the biggest critic of globalism in the 1970s-90s when Globalism 2.0 died. We are experiencing the death of Globalism 3.0 they keep trying to reinvent it. 1.0 was beta test back in 1840-1912 http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1664253.The_Collapse_Of_Globalism
Here is a really quick summary of Globalization in terms of quality of life.
"Let's all be poorer together."
>>79687858
We must also examine how our politics works these days and why its on a bullet train for globalization. Notice how everything is around economics, and economics in a perfect world globalization works. But the issue is, Economics is fucking theory, and the economic theory relies on 'Perfect World', aka no human intervention. Its basically a clusterfuck and won't work.
We will see the EU collapse in our lifetime.
>>79687076
The philosophical climate is certainly changing, at least in the political sphere. I am not sure yet it will ever go deeper, for the powers that be desperately don't want it to! It is much easier to control a populace with a superficial philosophy than a deeper one capable of conversing with difficult, grand scope type questions like the purpose of a society, and morality.
Rationalism is the worst nightmare for the globalists, and really anyone who wants to maintain power. It is not the natural mode of thinking for a human, but to me it is one of the cornerstones of what make a human capable of intelligence. There is no doubt that scientific empiricism has a good place in society, but not as a sort of God as it has become. If there is to be a secular "God" it cannot be empirical.
Any sense of rationalistic thought is crushed by the current education system. Anyone in mathematics knows this to be fact. If anyone is looking to get redpilled on this fact, read the short essay, "A Mathematicians Lament" by Paul Lockhart. It's an accurate depiction of how the school system is set up to make children despise "true" mathematics, i.e. rational reasoning, and logical thought. The essay does not state this, but it is easy to see how political figures enjoy this kind of system where its members are docile and easy to accept the empirical illusions created via modern media technology.
>>79657818
It will be like best korea but global.
>>79657818
It's entirely possible, but first we have to nuke the middleast.
I'll post it until you get it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI5hrcwU7Dk
>>79685936
>the middle east and other proxy locations in a perpetual war
>middle east
Globalism has a long history of inventing boarders where they don't exist, destabilizing functioning democracies and establishing violent theocracies in this region.
We are not in a blood feud with these people. We don't give a shit about these people, and they would prefer to not be bombed by western governments acting as a globalist strong arm.
If you read anything about the Libyan war, how they destroyed Ghaddafi because he had about $7 billion in commodities and was trying establish a competing currency. And the media tried to pass this off as a human rights mission, that he was handing out Viagra to rape gangs or some insane shit of that nature.
You're trying to cure the world with the poison that is killing it.
>>79686906
thank you much, anon, i hope others read and received as much knowledge as i did
i think that's an excellent sparring tool against the champions of militant atheism, nihilists, and those who disavow any capacity for transcendance through form.
cheers, matey
sorry for the incoherent reply, tired and just took my meds
>>79688046
beautiful, anon
i like you
>>79688046
Agreed and great post anon. I'm gonna check that essay out. Thanks.
>>79688276
Clinically insane demagogue manipulated by corporatist shill trying to stop profit loss. Got it.
>>79688762
>>79688906
Absolutely. I truly believe this is the best counterattack there is to the modern witch-hunting political philosophy, but it is a difficult one. To get people to think about rationalism in place of 100% empiricism is quite a deep change that cannot occur overnight. To me, /proper/ mathematical education is the answer. It's something I hope to spend a good part of my life doing. It's sad on both a political but also a somewhat spiritual level that many humans will never experience the joy of truly witnessing a mathematical proof - an inarguable chain of reasoning which overwhelms the reader with pure understanding. THAT is the stuff that transcends borders, cultures, and time. That is what makes us human. You don't need a lab to see this kind of truth, just an open and patient mind. That is what makes it so powerful, and a true threat - when people can understand what is true without looking at a screen or listening to a radio cast.
People think mathematics is a cold dead subject. For me and my colleagues, we know that cannot be further from the truth. The public perception must change. Other subjects share their unjust perversions for political gain, but the story of mathematics may be one of the most tragic.
>>79689711
youre making me want to open up my math textbook again
im an actor by trade, and a damned good one, and i take a similar solace in the formula of storytelling in order to find the common myths, the common truths throughout human experience, regardless of culture.
while literature is certainly more subjective than math, the existence of literature, the existence of oral, written, and performed tradition is unanimous across humanity.
and there is much form, much technique that goes into Acting, though it may seem to be a wholly subjective medium. we know what is good acting, we know what is bad, even if most cant point to why.
it is essentially learning the science of being human, how to replicate an honest and heightened expression of the soul.
>Stanislavski's method grossly oversimplified: be a human, be honest, but dont strive for realism, strive for super-realism
rambling again, but im hoping to intersect the arts and sciences here a bit haha.
do you have any favorite formulas? silly enough question, but im very interested in an exemplary model of what you mean
>>79690398
Every discipline not artificially created (see: "xxx Studies") is something that forms a fundamental piece of humanity, in my opinion. Literature is one of my favorite interests, perhaps as equal as mathematics for me. Something about storytelling has always been magical, in every form.
To see what I mean about mathematics, do NOT open up your old calculus textbook. That garbage is produced by (usually) non-mathematicians and shipped out each year with a new edition to exploit first year college students, etc. etc. in the industry masquerading as Academia. (See: Lockhart's Lament, as referenced above.)
To get a sense for a concrete example of what I'm talking about, we don't need any formulas! (Though formulas are a vital and beautiful part of mathematics, they are merely a piece! Like a poem belongs to written art, so does the formula belong to mathematics. But there is much more written than just poetry.)
This is a question I like to ask people with barely any mathematical background. Think about simple, natural whole numbers. A prime number is just one that's indivisible like 2, or 5, or 19. We can create lots of examples. But how many are there?
I can tell you the answer, but what's more instructive is: how the hell can we even answer a question like that? And that type of thought is the spark that starts the mathematical journey.
>>79691079
certainly my gut would give the pretty meaningless answer of "an infinite amount of prime numbers"
>>79691535
But the universe seems finite. How could that be possible? It just doesn't seem to coincide with what we see.
Yet you are correct. The "why?" is much more interesting. If you want to see why, the most beautiful proof is due to Euclid, the same guy you might have heard about in your boring geometry class. He is historically significant for being one of the first people to write down mathematical proofs to pass along to future generations.
His proof is beautiful and elegant. I'd recommend try thinking how to reason through on your own first before giving up. Here's a vague hint: what if there were only a finite number of primes?
>>79691828
if there were only a finite number of primes, that would mean we had some imperfections in our understanding of how to solve for higher and higher values of prime numbers
as the generations go by, our formula gets better, more exacting, more far-reaching into quantifying the upper limit, but this is sisyphus returning to push up the boulder type task, right?
im not exactly sure what you are asking, other than why is there an infinite amount of prime numbers, but am keen on seeing why such qquesitons fascinate you
im not so eloquent in maths, so i hope my mundanity is none too boring for you, anon haha
>>79692448
It is not boring at all. It is always exciting to see how people try to reason in their own creative ways - for the question I've posed actually has many, many different routes to prove it!
Your response is not far from one of them. Indeed, although "formulas" for primes are quite difficult to create, there do exist some which would imply there are infinitely many. Here is the line of reasoning Euclid chose many centuries ago, which is still taught today:
Every number is either prime itself, or divisible by a prime number. For example, 12 is not prime, but it is divisible by the primes 2 and 3. Primes are like building blocks to generic numbers (like molecules). So whatever number I have is either prime or made up of many primes.
Now here's something about divisibility: the numbers divisible by 2 are evenly spaced apart: evens are followed by odds are followed by evens. For 3, those numbers divisible by 3 are spaced apart by 3: /3/, 4, 5, /6/, 7, 8, /9/, 10, ...
In particular, if I take any number divisible by 2 or 3 and then add 1, I get a number NOT divisible by 2 nor 3. (Try writing down some examples.)
So if I have a finite number of primes, I can do something strange: I can multiply them all together (because there's finitely many!) and then add 1 to this number. I get a new number which is not divisible by any of the primes I multiplied together, because I took a number divisible by all of them and then added 1. But then this new magic number is either prime, or divisible by a prime. It can't be prime because it's bigger than all my primes (I multiplied them all together), and it can't be divisible by any prime because of the +1 argument.
So we get a mess by assuming there are finitely many primes. We call this a contradiction and conclude our premise was false. There must be infinitely many!
This is a rough sketch of what a mathematician does. It takes time to understand! But the point is when you do understand it, it's not from external.
>>79693328
>sort of want to be freemason now so I can be esoteric about math too
>>79693720
>implying I'm a freemason when I'm posting about rationalism on a Nigerian paper-maché porn webpage
I've painted a romantic picture about math in this thread, but rationalism is the true lost gem in our time to be saved. Math itself unfortunately is not as pure.
>>79694063
And again, we're in agreement on rationalism. I just wanted to go full on super secret esoteric order for a minute senpai,
You're crushing my fantasy with this
>>79694586
Don't worry: there are plenty of Jews in math if that sort of thing is what you're after. Sorry for derailing your good thread.
>>79657818
No such argument exists. That is exactly why we're so frightened and disgusted by globalism - we're being flung headlong into the dark, not given any proper reasoning behind globalism, and expected to just deal with it. Meanwhile, all signs point towards globalism being incompatible with human nature itself (we're only built to socially know a few hundred people, diversity causes a decrease in social trust, and so forth). The unease we're feeling is also partly because our 'betters' are trying to play God while they're about as competent as shit-flinging monkeys.
>>79660854
>it works better for businesses
That depends. It only works better for big businesses, because:
1. They can now access a labour pool a thousand times bigger, meaning they get access to the same level of workers for a quarter of the pay (and if the workers try to negotiate higher wages or conditions, big businesses can just bail from one country and move to the next).
2. They can now pick and choose the location for their headquarters, and governments have to compete for their attention. That means there's currently a 'race to the bottom' in terms of corporate taxes, because if big businesses don't like it they'll just move their operations away.
3. They can better influence political processes. On a national level, politicians have to at least pretend to pander to the electorate. But when it comes to supranational or international negotiations, negotiators can take their points straight from big businesses. And because these negotiations are so far away from the world that voters exist in, big businesses can influence the creation of new international laws and standards much more easily than before.
4. Their shareholders benefit in countries with a lot of immigration. Apart from the obvious effect on the labour market (a significantly worse negotiating position for poorly paid employees), immigration also means capital becomes relatively more scarce (and valuable).
>>79695100
Just wanted occasional masquerade orgies and hidden illuminati knowledge for a sec anon. You can't fault a man for that.
>>79695443
all of those are issues with global corporativism, which is sadly the reality we face.
If we manage to create a unified global state, then globalism is possible without screwing 99% of the population.
>>79662406
>Everyone speaking english and sharing moral values.
If we averaged current moral values in the world, we'd have a global economy of cattle raids and spiteful banditry. Most people in the world don't give a rat's ass about human rights, or dignity, or tolerance of anything other than their own cultural and religious group. That's unique to western liberals - most other people in the world just want money bags, a big family of their own, and violence against those they hate.
In fact, what I'm most worried about in domestic politics is that we're letting entitled millennial hipsters who grew up in an era of peace and untold prosperity decide our future on the inherently flawed assumption that the rest of the world shares their passivity. They're leading us into the lion's den with globalism and mass immigration because they believe it's full of fat, lazy cats like themselves. They simply cannot comprehend, after over seventy years of peace, that a lion can have sharp teeth and claws.
>Obviously we have to educate the niggers, muslims and Latinos
With the average IQ for Muslims and Latinos being 80-95, and Africans being 60-80, I think you're doing a lot of wishful thinking. Do you have a scruffy beard, glasses and a beanie, perhaps?
>>79662149
This is a perfect and succinct rebuttal to the idea of globalism, good work anon
>>79696035
I think there is a keen insight here on passivity among modern Westerners, and the tendency to imagine people all around the world as just like them: lazy, apolitical (in the sense of anything heavy, i.e. economics, judicial systems, etc.), and naively kind. But is it really due to an era of peace? It feels like that, but perhaps because we've always been at war with Eurasia, haven't we?
>>79696008
I think this song sums up not only libertarian idealism, but any kind of globalist, universalist, pan-humanity idealism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcUZrDX5P7A
If you show any signs of vulnerability or unnecessary openness, the lesser peoples of this world will exploit you literally to death.
>>79696303
It's to do with a distorted view of danger.
Look at the young European or American people who take holidays in third world countries and end up getting raped, robbed or worse. Growing up in a wealthy town without any real risks has absolutely numbed the parts of their brains that are supposeddetect danger. That's why they'll go into the jungle or up a freezing mountain without a guide, or why they follow a random Muslim guy into a stinking alley in downtown Cairo because he says he wants to show them something special. They've never been trained to see danger.
In fact, some preliminary studies seem to suggest that this is a neurological thing - that the brains of conservatives flare up in disgust, anger or fear when seeing something gruesome or dangerous, while the brains of progressives remain far more passive. They could be faced by a pack of growling predators, proverbially speaking, and still not fully comprehend what's going on.
>>79696647
That neurology thing is quite interesting. Where can I read more about it?
I think you're right about detecting danger becoming a numbed sense, perhaps for everyone. Technology makes it so people rarely have to face any real physical hardships now in Western culture, unless they are poor. This creates a sense of security that seems to permeate into all aspects of our lives now, if we are not careful.
>>79696880
There's plenty to find on that, although most researchers go down the route of thinking disgust, fear and anger are independent things rather than manifestations of healthy human instincts.
On an elementary level, start with this one.
http://spp.sagepub.com/content/3/5/537.short
>...contamination disgust, which reflects a heightened concern with interpersonally transmitted disease and pathogens, was most strongly associated with conservatism.
Seems our preoccupation with not getting pozzed is more than just an inside joke.
Globalism is the reason OP can be such a poor useless asshole and still own all of the material things OP currently has. Would you like to guess your shitty three hundred dollar HP laptop piece of shit would cost without it?
>>79657818
The more you spread the power the less those in control have to care about.
>>79696313
it's idealism now, but if we go slow and smart about it, it's possible to reach. Obviously first we need to achieve cultural and economical homogenization before even attempting to negotiate the possibility of having a global state.
The UE is crumbling because they allowed barbarians into their borders and the differences between the economies were too large to maintain the system without screwing the richer countries and the poorer citizens.
But imagine a UE with more political power and stronger institutions to keep in check the power of big corporations, but without the massive (muslim) immigration and without the failed welfare states.
I don't think it sounds too bad, or does it?
No, not really, unless you favor the unrestricted movement of people across any border/want to get rid of all national borders in the first place.
>>79657818
globalism isn't bad per se
it just get associated with mass migration and loss of democracy unfortunately
globalism just means "bringing people closer together". don't see how you can be against that, unless you're some die-hard racist.
>>79657818
Also, remember to destroy the EU wherever you can
>>79697939
>Sweden
>>79697184
Thnx for link anon
>>79696880
Reading that essay now. wew lad. Thanks again for recommending it.
>>79697694
>it's possible to reach
If you think so, then my challenge to you is to come up with a plan that involves more than platitudes. What hard goals would you set for what future dates and how would you set about achieving those goals through specific, practically and legally defensible political measures?
>first we need to achieve cultural and economical homogenization
Due to the relatively low intelligence of a majority of mankind, any cultural homogenization would necessarily involve a regression to the global mean. That means the world will look like Kibera, not Tokyo, because most people in the world are too stupid to do better.
>The UE is crumbling because they allowed barbarians into their borders
If you unite the world, the barbarians won't just be inside the borders. They'll be, by sheer virtue of their numbers and aggression, in power over you. Make no mistake: no Western-dominated world is possible at this point. Our only possible game plan for survival is to hold on to what we have and hope that the rest of the world will crash and burn before we do.
>But imagine a UE with more political power and stronger institutions to keep in check the power of big corporations
Why would increased checks on corporate power follow from increased political power for the institutions that currently help corporations? Look at the European Union as it is today, and at the only people who have the social and professional connections to get to positions of power within it. Would they use more power, if given to the institutions they run, to keep corporations in check? Of course not. They'd use it to help the corporations.
>>79698797
You're welcome m8. Lockhart can be a bit flowery and dramatic, but the core ideas ring true. It's also a good redpill into seeing how the education system is quite flawed.
A good thread is about to die. Good night all.
