What's so special about nationalism vs globalism or the others...

What's so special about nationalism vs globalism or the others? Globalism is objectively the best method to achieve peace-- unite as HUMANS. Memes aside, we are all HUMAN and we would have a greater chance of survival if we worked together on a global scale. Nationalistfags are impeding this progress every time they vote republican setting us back 10 years each time.
Or, one step forward, two steps back. With Pres-elect Trump, it's more like 100 steps back.

>Globalism is objectively the best method to achieve peace

Yea, buddy, that's why we're on the verge of World War 3.

Sage this shit.

Nationalism is the ideal for man's current tech. It can take advantage of economies of scale while not allowing for monopolies and global scale corruption. Once we go to the solar system, we can adopt continentalism, and once we reach the stars, we can adopt globalism.

Whose language should we speak? Whose culture will be dominant? Who leads the entire world? These questions will be decided by the strongest nation, not a group of them jerking each other off

Then sectorism, galaxism, and so forth.

Problem with globalism is that most third world "people" are actually retarded scum that aren't capable of building, let alone maintaining a civilization.

Thou cannot put Love, Peace and Tranquility in all human minds. So thou cannot into globalism.

>What's so special about nationalism vs globalism or the others?

We are moving way too fast. Globalism needs to develop naturally. Evolution needs to work a few kinks out. If it is shoved our throats, we will self-destruct and set us further back again.

By your logic Imperialism is objectively the best method to achieve peace.

I wholeheartedly agree. First we would need some type of global government which runs the military of earth but allows the individual counties some autonomy as a confederacy. Then, we need to create one mixed master race. We can use gentic engineering and eugenics to ensure that everyone has the optimal blend of positive personality, physical and intellectual traits. Only once we accomplish this can we truly begin to maximize the potential of the human race.

We do of course, by using our power and intelligence to manipulate global trade and make all other countries bow down to us.

Why not? One Leader, one Idea, not divided humans in Empire, all doing their best to achieve best for Great Idea. If Hitlers Idea was to conquer all world by spreading Love and Education, he will be still praised as Great Leader. But he chose War.

>Globalism is objectively the best method to achieve peace-- unite as HUMANS

>Letting people who want to murder and rape into your country to achieve piece

Hear hear, brother! What these fags don't realize about race mixing is that it is UNITING us into ONE species. Yes, there will be bloodshed. But it will result in the best possible outcome for the human race. Or we can keep being afraid of brown people and be stuck right where we are for the next 2,000 years.

The elites want gobal cattle, not global stability.

Only if the empire is ruled by an immortal emperor who will never die there for not leaving the empire to some sheltered, spoiled shit head kid.

To clean ship form rats, sailors put about ten-twenty rats in bag and then into barrel. Most powerfull and most angry rat will eat all others. And when that rat is put into ships hull, she will feed only on other rats bodies. It is called King Rat.

>we would have a greater chance of survival if we worked together on a global scale.

>Nazis
>Communists
>Global cooling
>Global warming
>ISIS
>Aliens
>Illuminati
>Our own selves

You keep and keep piling up enemies but it never actually actualizes itself cause the enemies don't exist

Indeed.

>Memes aside, we are all HUMAN and we would have a greater chance of survival if we worked together on a global scale.
'Survival' is for amoebas and parasites. HUMANS should have other goals.

...

That graph only makes sense if you're thinking of civic nationalism, which actually is a sort of arbitrary decision that something bigger than small states and smaller than continents is the right size for a state.

But the classic idea of a Nation isn't geographical, so "cities" and "states" and "hemispheres" shouldn't be on there. A Nation is a people, a sort of extended family the size of a small race or a sub-race, that all share a common ethnic culture. Globalism is about seeing all nations (all peoples) as part of the in-group. If there was something on the left of Nationalism on a more accurate graph, it would be "clan" then "extended family" then "immediate family" then "individual"

We either create Esperanto or we simply allow the tech industry to give us a good solution. Translation/speech technology is advancing so rapidly I would be stunned if there wasn't a real time translator which you could just clip to your lapel and talk into by 2025 or so. Countries could keep a moderate form of their culture as long as the military is globally controlled.

Globalism would be the best if it was actually being used as a progressive ideology. The belief that humanity should be devoting all of its efforts to the advancement of humanity as a whole is a fine thing, and the utopian dream of a one world nation coordinating the whole planet's resources to advance the species as efficiently as possible is understandably attractive.

The problem is that what is currently being pushed by "globalists" is a negative, regressive ideology that has the primary effect of wasting resources and destabilizing the cultures that should be leading the push towards the future.

And that push that should be happening would probably be called colonialism and all the mainstream media outlets would run sob stories about how tragic it is that that traditional native culture is disappearing, even when that culture is stoning adulterers to death.