The only problem I can see is that it's led by rat like people (Both mentally and physically) who happen to be extremely cunning and powerful (Doesn't that say something about the rest of us?).
But what if it was led by a pure race? Globalism would mean all wars would end, humanity would be able to advance at a fast pace, possibly leaving behind our animalistic nature that we so much loathe but can't do without it.
Aware me, I don't try to spark controversy, I will be open to discussion and facts so no "shill" and other memes please.
>>79952554
>But what if it was led by a pure race without scumfucks like George Soros?
Then that would mean other races would have to be subsurvient to the "pure race" which would likely lead to mass resentment.
That's why Nazi Germany's plan to isolate itself from the rest of the world economically and peacefully is idolized by much of /pol/
>>79953652
Mixing every other inferior race would prove beneficial as a strengthened humanity (But perhaps more subservient) would arise while also being led from the superior race, no?
But that's all mental gymanstics, if the globallists (jews) control everything, doesn't that mean they won and thus proven their superiority?
>>79953925
Not if we can still fight back.
Sovereignty.
The further the top level is from you, the less likely you have any power over it, the less likely it is to properly represent you and your interests.
Actually all this means is that the top level should be neutered, which raises the question why any more government than an international law court and place to draft treaties is necessary.
>>79952554
The problem is inferior races will flock to economic centers, ruining the economy and fucking up societal stability.
Do you want to be the area flooding in millions of niggers into your country? Because I don't.
>>79952554
Humans are greedy by nature, you could never have a group of people who control so much be so willing to help out their common man
If you want freedom, you should favor localized government. I'm not opposed to a global "law," (based on property rights and individual liberty) but I am opposed to a global legislature that writes new laws without my consent. Globalism stands opposed to political plurality.
Absolute globalism is awful. Unions, global trade agreements and international politics are not bad. We do live on the same planet, you can have some sort of unity or a shared culture. Someone in Japan drinking a bottle of Coca Cola is also globalism. There's nothing wrong with that.
Globalism becomes a problem when they try to dissolve the borders and change laws in other countries. You have to be braindead to not see how that's a bad thing.
All nations have different laws, different people, different languages, etc. If some unelected fucking faggot who has never even been here decides that we need to abandon who we are and get flooded full of niggers then I want them to fuck off. That's the ultimate goal of globalism, to mix everyone together and destroy our nations. Something like that can't be achieved without bloodshed and genocide.
We can't even get along with Russians.
>>79954081
True. We must.
>>79955005
Yes but what if humanity advances so far and fast enough that we no longer have shortage of supply? Couldn't that happen under a unified world where wars and racial differences would have eclipsed? I'm talking about space exploration and other possible scientific advancements. Although I can't see why this can't happen under rule of whites and possibly more efficiently.
>>79955228
True, but what if that greed is satisfied by technological advancement? We could be receiving artificial dopamine surges through other stimuli. Of course provided that space exploration and harvesting other planets could be made possible. Otherwise a global world would be catastrophic for everyone except those who rule it.
>>79955240
I finally want to find a purpose for humanity. I want humanity to be able to discover the truths about this world not just serve our mindless instincts. That is my hope and the evidence is in what we've been able to decode so far about how the world works.
Biggest blow would come after discovering life serves absolutely no purpose.
>>79952554
Globalism cant be a one state projecting itself to global 'state'. Furthermore its not a state anymore, cant give a proper term for that either right away. By not being a state, the structure of that wholness is very different. Imo globalism cant grow out of capitalism and state based politics. I think we are way too far away from such structure.
>>79955834
Yes, the means to achieve full globalism would be terrible, countless of lives will be lost and we MUST fight back. But in a hypothetical scenario where a globalist society prevails, wouldn't it benefit humanity provided technological advancements would skyrocket?
And don't get me wrong, as I said I'm all for fighting the rotten establishment, in my opinion another race should be at the forefront of such a project.
Globalism can be a force for good. What is globalism? Globalism is simply the end of all borders between nations, mainly economic barriers but many intend to expand it to political and cultural borders too.
The reason why globalism is believed by many to be inevitable is because its the logical choice. The first step towards globalism is the liberalization of the market, or in other words, eliminating tariffs, installing large trade agreements, lessening regulation, promoting multinational enterprises, etc. Essentially its increasing economic freedom, which according to the Washington consensus and history, has a correlation to prosperity.
Globalism peaked with the fall of the Soviet Union. People like Francis Fukuyama stated that it was "The End of History", meaning that all other ideologies like fascist, monarchism, communism, socialism, etc. Have been tried and failed except for Western Liberal Democracy, which has emerged victory. With the USA being the sole hegemonic superpower, George Bush stated it was the start of a New World Order, a where hungry for their share in the prosperity of capitalism, where third world countries from Africa, to Latin America, to Asia will follow the Western way and promote capitalism by increasing economic freedom.
This all changed with the global financial crisis in 2007 and the rise of China. Since the crisis, democracy has been in recession, and market regulations have increased. China practices State Capitalism, a more command centrist model of capitalism, where the state legitimizes its rule by maintaining stability and consistent growth in its economy. China's rise proves to be a new ideology to counter that of the Western Liberal Democracy. Aside from external threats, internal threats have arisen against WLD.
>continued
>>79952554
what's with all the bait posted on /pol/ today?
>>79956359
The people have become increasingly aware that the prosperity of capitalism has become amazingly disproportionately concentrated in the wealthy elite. In America, the top 10% owning 85-90% of stocks and bonds, as well as the top 1% being wealthier than the bottom 40%, the largest gap in 70 years.
Voters have also realized that many manufacturing jobs have been outsourced overseas to Asia where they have cheaper labor. This has disgruntled the working class of many countries, has many are feeling their voices aren't being heard. Trade agreements like NAFTA have indeed increased the American gdp, but the profit from this has gone mainly to the rich while it was the working class that lost their jobs and have received little benefit from it.
Many also have realized that the political elite have attached a sort of 'globalist ideology' that accompanies the elimination of economic barriers, with the lessening of borders, encouraging alternate perspectives and 'tolerance' (relativism), and the undermining of national identity and culture.
As you can see, although globalism can be a powerful tool to modernize the world and bring prosperity to us all, there is a lot of abuse surrounding it.
>>79956247
It really depends on how we handle globalism. It's easier to just say no to globalism and throw a jew down the well.
In a hypothetical scenario I'd like stop all third world immigration. We can fix all the white and asian countries. Just close the borders and make these countries into paradise.
When you're done with that all the problems have been eradicated I'd like to see third world countries taken over. Just let whites and asians rule these countries. Not by exploiting them, but by creating great infrastructure so blacks can live out their sad little lives without starving to death. Just turn the entire third world in a kind of zoo where sub-humans can run around and play. We can do that eventually.
Even in my perfect hypothetical scenario we'd still have states. The nations would become states and the leaders would make sure each state has it's needs met.
We're talking about full on automation and surplus of resources here.
>>79955922
>Yes but what if humanity advances so far and fast enough that we no longer have shortage of supply? Couldn't that happen under a unified world where wars and racial differences would have eclipsed? I'm talking about space exploration and other possible scientific advancements. Although I can't see why this can't happen under rule of whites and possibly more efficiently.
Literally what? Capitalism itself has at least given us a non violent alternative to war, only a naive child can't correlate our fewer wars with more capitalism and when some states departed from capitalism, naturally they became more aggressive.
Even WW1 was literally the last remnants of feudal states being aggressive.
We don't need a one world government to lessen wars.
>>79952554
>let's end wars by giving a small group of people absolute authority over the entire planet
>Hey, people from all over the world, speaking a single language decided by history, what do you think of the idea that one day all borders in the world will disappear and there will be free intercourse throughout the whole world.
Globalism already happened.
>>79952554
pic related.
>>79957486
It's struggling to maintain its agenda. We will know globalism has happened when America drops its border to Mexico.
>>79952554
Do you perceive globalism strictly as a race issue or do you have anything against it that could be brought up in a politically correct discussion?
It is run by psychopathic corporations which profit from war?
If it was run by the Dalai Lama, Brad Pitt, and Stefan Molyneaux we'd have no problem
>>79952554
>So what's really the problem with globalism?
""""""people"""""" with shit tier generics
sandniggers and regular niggers just have to go, among others.
Globalism is literally ideal if everyone contributes equally to the cause, which is easy to imagine but only to imagine
>>79952554
It's based off of borderless "international cooperation" that's really just a code word for rich businessmen exploiting cheap foreign labor and suppressing development while neglecting the domestic and moral consequences of their actions.
