Without bullshit conspiracy theories, redpill me on globalism. Why is it bad...

Without bullshit conspiracy theories, redpill me on globalism. Why is it bad? The most destructive conflicts in our history as a species happened under the guise of fascist nationalism.

How would globalism not result in lasting peace for humanity?

>0.02 New Shekels have been deposited into your account by Soros Fund Management

Because patriots, the worst kind or cancer there is, are obsessed with artificial and abstract lines drawn on maps, meant to give a small pocket of very rich people some power over the unfortunate who were born within those invisible lines. There was no such things as countries when humans came to being. Our immoral side got to us, and divided us over false idols like patriotism, nationalism, and liberty.

It will just end up as global fascism.

You should probably go out there into the world and see how different all of the other cultures and peoples are from you. This seems like a dilemma limited to people who have never been outside of their home towns.

Because globalism takes away the people's ability to represent themselves.
Under a fascist democracy, you can still represent your own interests. Your civil liberties might be severely restricted, but you can work the proper channels and have yourself represented.

Under a globalist rule, foreign people can just decide your laws and your policies as you are completely reliant on foreign nations to keep your country afloat.
No matter what you do, you cannot and will not ever have any sort of representation unless your interests align with those of the foreign nationals that control your nation.

The only logical step after having your country taken over by foreign powers is a declaration of independence followed by a civil war.

Marx was wrong, globalism has only enabled the rich to farm shekels. Meanwhile cultures are diluted and clash with each other in divershitty.

Imagine if reddit Sup Forums and tumblr were all forced together in one website and everybody had to follow that website's rules no matter what each board was like and what its posters wanted beforehand just so the people who run the site can made more ad money from a consolidated user base. That's globalism.

because the crappy and unfair resolutions to the conflicts resulted in pissing off nations resulting in more conflicts so globalism will most likely fix things in more crappy and unfair ways which would cause more conflicts

>everyones brown
>no borders
>no distinct definable single "race"
>one religion

People will stil find a way to blow themselves up over some new bullshit. Religious branches probably, or cultural differences.

People are shit and will always be shit.

The only major difference between fascism and globalism is that fascism seeks generally speaking to improve the state of the nation at the cost of the individual.

Globalism seeks to improve some foreign dudes at the cost of both your nation and your individual liberties.
Globalism in it's most disgusting forms is worse than fascism as it employs the same methods, but does not give anything back.

Because diversity is our strength with globalism all our unique cultures and traditions will vanish and be replaced by vain "human" consumerism. Robes, burkas, kimonos will become Nike t-shirts, traditional cuisine will become McDonald's, mozart, Arabic flute, Japanese war drums will become kayne, and Taylor swift. Bleak hollow consumerism consumed by a massive brown peasant horde.

No thanks

Remember how there was a world war when nations got too big?
See, part of that was because these nations already felt the strain of being too large, and then a bunch of globalists tried to open up borders even more and erase individual national ways of life. It was a national response.

If a globalist government ever succeeded, regardless of its form, it WOULD become socialist. That's even if it weren't set up to be from the start like all of the Soros-kin dream about. No matter what, it would become socialist to placate so many large and diverse masses. The larger a socialist government, the harder it falls and the faster it must expand, must devour surrounding areas AND ASSIMILATE NEW POPULATION GROUPS to survive.

The global government, the global order, would already be crumbling before it was completed, and when they run out of new countries to raid and pillage and rape in the name of liberation, when the supply lines and the supplies themselves get mismanaged and dipped into on a global scale, when entire pockets of humanity are "forgotten" and left to starve, but still levied from to help support the rest, there will be mass death and there will be mass war. It will be war against anyone who fights back against the newly born yet dying world government that grinds them down, that forces them into poverty, that destroys their country and starves their children. It will make the previous world wars look like pissing matches, and it may take more than one global war to bring down the global government due to the concentration of power, despite it bleeding out on its own due to the sheer hubris and stupidity of the people who built it.

In the end many lives will be lost, many cultures utterly destroyed and forgotten, and incredible amounts of knowledge lost. There WILL be book-burning, mass file-deletion of classic literature including the concept of nation-states should a globalist order succeed.

I just want to preserve my species.

Because utopian sci fi doesn't get everything right.

Because it is not globalism, it is centralism. It is once again the same old shit, repackaged, rebranded and stuffed down our throats.

Look at the EU, all of it is set up in a way to benefit Germany, manufacture for broken penny in the east, sell expensively in the west. And people in the charge of union prove time and time again that they don't give tiniest shit about countries furthest away.
It is hoarding of power and money in smaller and smaller areas, not benefitting everyone. Look where money and people flow, the braindrain of certain areas more and more to one or two countries.

Globalism isn't bad, eventually the world will lead to globalism. The problem is that it happened too early, countries need to solve their own problems first before then import or export their problems. Also the kikes associated globalism with race mixing which was a stupid move, hardly any people are attracted to shitskins.

its also easier to overthrow tyranny in your own country than it is to overthrow tyranny half way across the world

Nationalism is concerned with the affairs of the citizen.

Globalism has no citizens, you're all just cattle trying to climb up some social or economic ladder.

You decry "fascist nationalism", but Hitler was right in condemning these "internationalists" or in our current nomenclature, "globalists" who only care about plundering the populace and encouraging money to rule in these nations.

A global government would be an inefficient bureaucratic nightmare which would stomp all over local governance and peoples right to self-determination. You cant blindly apply the same politics to all the different peoples, societies and religions in the world

>You are an idiot that has never read a history book

No, seriously. Hood fences make good neighbors. Let's just remove that lock on your front door. I'd really like to have all those nice things you are keeping restrained in your home.

In your globalist ideal world, who is in charge?

sounds like a Georgia guide stone wet dream

Picture one country as a bowl of M&Ms. Now picture another as a bowl of Skittles. Both are good as is. But put them together and you get shit.

Do you want to live in the United States, or do you want to live in Syria?

i put my tinfoil hat on, and say that globalism happened before, and civilization did not survive it
i think we reach a point so high that it collapse

Idiots like this poster, 100 iq MAX, must be denied political rights in the future if high civilization is to continue to exist

World will not lead to globalism. Whenever I hear someone talking about world globalizing, they are not aware they talk only about western countries, a small pocket of barely one billion people.
Arabs don't give a shit, Hindus don't give a shit, Chinese surely don't give a shit, Africans don't even know what that means.
One big economical collapse and all of this 'globalization ' shit flies off the window.

>>How would globalism not result in lasting peace for humanity?

other countries might see more pressing security concerns which would force them to forgo economic and social integration in favor for military or other hostile actions.

It only works if everyone wants to work together. This is currently impossible because massive groups of people in the middle east want to kill everyone else. Globalism only makes this easier for them. See EU.

>redpill me on globalism. Why is it bad?

who knows better how to deal with local problems? local people or some asshole who lives thousands of miles away?

You get the worst of the planet polluting the best of the planet. Of course a nog in the Congo loves globalism! But what does someone already living in the West get out of it besides shitty neighbors and the degradation of their society?

>Africans don't even know what that means
kek

I don't equate globalism to one ecomony rhough, i don't think anyone does. Besides that when one big ecomony goes to shit the rest tend to follow anyways.

>How would globalism not result in lasting peace for humanity?

How has it been working out for us thus far, shit for brains?

thanks for the rare

>>How has it been working out for us thus far, shit for brains?
American hegemony

ITT Educated fools who have no idea how true democracy functinos and confuse the bullshit they sell us with the real thing.

Globalism does not mean totalitarianism, but people need to learn who to be active, contributing members of democracy (i.e. by practicing democracy throughout childhood and education -see democratic education- making them independent thinking agents that are members of their democratic communities - not brainwashed and confused sheeple).

Competition as a motivator for growth also has to be removed (yep, that means that fraudulent financial system that traps us too) so that the common good can become the most common purpose for doing anything (deviant (i.e. sociopathic) behaviour becoming an ever decreasing minority rather than the current norm).

Then globalism would be obvious and positive for all. For people who struggle to imagine this, try reading U. LeGuin's "The Dispossessed".

Globalism in itself isn't bad. It's the Zionist-Soros brand of globalism that's bad. If worlds nations got together and people set aside their differences for a common identity or cause or set of values, and volunteer to cooperate with each other instead of competing, sure, why not.

But that's not the globalism that's being FORCED upon us.

One is a lasting peace of true cooperation and understanding ourselves spiritually.

The Zionist brand of globalism is lasting peace in the most dehumanizing, dystopic way. To current globalists, the individuals are nothing but interchangeable automatons that fuel their game of musical chairs, until they're ready to stop the music and establish a monolithic power consolidation that rules over the entire world.

yea, i'm gonna wait for something better.

>How would globalism not result in lasting peace for humanity?

Globalism would lead to the worldwide genocide. After it's established and the global order is in place, any outlier who continues to fight would be given an ultimatum, buy in or be destroyed.

There would be countries that would never buy in, and the globalists would either outright obliterate them, or starve them to death. It would be genocide greater than any genocide we have seen in the history of our world.

What good is this hegemony doing us exactly? If you want to jerk yourself off about how much power the US has at least state some way it's actually benefiting us.

We don't have governmental globalism, we have some limited measure of trade globalism, a tiny bit of international law via the UN (which hasn't gone as terribly as expected yet, actually), and the EU which is partway between a continent-government and just an alliance. Which went pretty badly desu.

We should not do globalism.

Democracy can be a wonderful thing, but a democracy of 7.5 billion fucking people would suck ass for at least 3 billion of them at any given time....out of sheer necessity. Which would be pretty terrible.

>re-educate people to care more about their democracies/enforce participation in democracies
What could go wrong?

>Competition as a motivator for growth has to be removed
OH BOY HERE WE GO
SURELY NO FAMINES LIE THIS WAY
HIDE THE BODIES STALIN

>anything I don't like shouldn't be allowed and we need anti-competition
Surely socialism will work out, we just need to make it even bigger so we can't expand anywhere else when it inevitably starts to fail!

That was actually the synthesis of world war two. A thesis of communism merged with an antithesis of national socialism leading to the predefined and well thought out synthesis.

Mr. Beale didn't understand this and had to be told straight up wtf was going on, don't be a Mr Beale.

It is moot point anyway. In three decades the population of Africa explodes the number of people to more than twelve billions. At that time it will already be too late for all of us.

aware me. who is getting assassinated in this gif?

Globalism is bad, but I can tell you how our global hegemony is good for us:
>No mainland wars
>Rich -> Quality of life/military funding
>Everyone properly terrified to fuck with us
>We don't have to fuck with anyone else in a global scale war
>So many alliances and deals no one dares start another global shitfest
>World peace on a macro scale at least more or less enforced by US existence
>Still way less malevolent and pushy than literally every other empire in history
>Only downside is retards who don't understand history will continue to complain about the US being the villain when we basically invented actually giving a shit about your enemy once you beat them

so you saying for the world to be fixed, the elites need to genocide 2/3 of the world population, that way we have a good democracy or put a totalitarian globalism with a few intellectuals rullin the brainless drones?

this

See that's the thing, giving ashit about your enemy once you beat them is 9 times out of 10 just creating the next generation of enemies. The kids saying "Thank You Sir" grow up to be a fucking suicide bomber because we completely fucked up their country. Mujahideen, Al Qaeda, ISIS, you name it. The biggest conflicts around the world are caused by our fuck ups and we pay for it with tax money.

>happened under the guise of fascist nationalism

Not really.

Fascist nationalists were involved. So were globalist communists and democracies and a million and one other reasons.

>How would globalism not result in peace

We're seeing how it fails right now. Living through it.

The two big problems;

1. Yes. Westerners are losing privilege. They're losing wealth. This isn't a mistake. It's a necessary part of globalism. For ever "white" person in the first world who falls below the poverty line, a dozen Indonesians, Chinese, Africans, etc are brought above the poverty line. It is one of it's baked in selling points. It will assist millions of poor people around the globe increase their standard of living. Unfortunately, it will decrease the standard of living for those in the first world ESPECIALLY, and this is a very, very important point, if you have open borders/no nation states.

With closed borders confined to nation states, you can offset the loss of, say, manufacturing, with an increase in wages of the service economy, as certain parts of the economy have more money to spend on services as they make large profits from outsourcing.

However, if you remove the borders, you have a constant stream of labor moving towards the higher wage areas and conversely depressing the wages because of surplus in workers. A solution by the left is to push for increased state intervention in profit sharing - Companies being forced to pay higher wages or supply "free" money to workers at the poorer end of the scale. The right push for closed borders. The the smaller labor pool and demand for labor drives higher wages. I.e. "they're doing jobs you don't want to do!" (which means they're doing jobs you don't want to do for the wages we are paying).

This obviously is creating a lot of resentment. People are losing not only their incomes, but also the standard of living they once enjoyed. See: "The Rust Belt".

contd.

Go back to the early 90s and all the happy talk about how globalization wpuld export American freedom and prosperity. Now go to the mid-90s and look at Central Americans trapped in predatory loans so they can buy idiotic consumer goods and feel like they're marginally better off.
Everything else aside, globalism doesn't work.
Also
>the guise of facist nationalism
What guise? And did you mean to type nationalistic fascism? Are you aware of the Gulag? And are you aware of Spain under Franco versus Spain under the later Socialists?

I'm looking at the middle East and it whispered to me that you are full of shit on all points.

Exactly. People from different cultures will not assimilate together. Instead they will clash.

there's nothing wrong with globalism. The problem is the humans currently on the globe. Most are low IQ savages. We need genius sperm banks to hybridize these people into more intelligent versions of themselves.

>Democracy can be a wonderful thing, but a democracy of 7.5 billion fucking people would suck ass for at least 3 billion of them at any given time....out of sheer necessity. Which would be pretty terrible.

No, Democracy is a terrible thing. Retaining Democratic elements in your Government is fine, but Democracy leads to mob rule, and can quickly divulge into Oligarchy and eventually fascism with a dictator at the helm.

Democratic elements, good. True democracy, bad.

(You)

>Democracy can be a wonderful thing, but a democracy of 7.5 billion fucking people would suck ass for at least 3 billion of them at any given time....out of sheer necessity. Which would be pretty terrible.

wait, what?!? why would it need to suck ass for so many people. we are not limited on resources, we are just lacking any form of sensible distribution (except muh capitalism which doesnt fucking work when people are constantly being exploited, therefore have no money to be consuming the best product, therefore no free market correcting all problems). Also don't forget the massive amount of waste, which brings us to second point.

Yes, competition truly is retarded as a motivator of people. No Stalin's Russia was in competition internationally, do you really think that the starvation and suffering of that time period was cause by people working for the common good (must be that muhrican education i always hear about.. so sad).

No socialism in a marxist sense is also retarded, because it truly believes people only need physical things for happiness (its just as materialistic as capitalism, which is why both systems intrinsically fail).

There has not been any attempt at communal democractic rule applied worldwide and only now, thanks to technology (capitalism wasn't bad, its just that its time has now passed), i.e. the internet, is global democracy actually a viable option.

>>What good is this hegemony doing us exactly? If you want to jerk yourself off about how much power the US has at least state some way it's actually benefiting us.
the relative lack of problems for america is a hidden result of the american dominance of the world order.

the power of the american navy ensures that we have access to global trade and resources. countries like saudi arabia are practially fighting off an iranian stranglehold of their oil supply lines. the chinese are practically encircled by a bunch of US friendly allies, and they become complete wild cards in 50 years. insecurity is a huge problem that shit countries have to deal with. we dont have that, in large part because we rock cities made of guns.

there's also a lot to be said over the leverage that our huge military and influence gives us. if russians sanction the US, its fine and not a big deal. if the US sanctions russia, we get half of the world that matters on board and the russians starve.

it's amazing to see how clueless most americans are about our place in the world and now their trying to crash it.

>The most destructive conflicts in our history as a species happened under the guise of fascist nationalism.

Not even close. The most destructive conflicts in our history as a species happened because:
1. International (proto-globalist) leftist movements, ie the Fuggin Gommunists
2. Terrible, untenable international agreements

Internationalism kills and will keep killing.

No, I think it would be preferable to just hang all the socialists so the workers can unite, free from the thieving faggots, and continue to build a good world through the cooperation of their separate nations :^)

Yeah man, it's so messed up and cruel how we mess with their countries trying to get them not to bomb us rather than just massacring them like any empire would do. How could we be such bad guys? My heart is bleeding rn qq in all honesty family

>retards who don't understand history will continue to complain about the US being the villain
That means (You). For real, learn some history or fuck off. "OH man the US didn't magically bring absolute enduring world peace to people who never stop fighting, wow how EVIL of them, they should have just sat back and let themselves get bombed"
Just kill yourself, honestly.

Non-pure democracy generally has oligarchical baked in from the start, so this seems like you're not avoiding anything by avoiding democracy. Protip: ALL government is mob rule when you get down to what's real. Also known as anarchy. Government isn't "real", it's a contractual agreement.

Outside of Japan, not everyone agrees with each other 100% of the time on everything and wants to do the exact same thing in the exact same way and doesn't dare to question it. That's why.

I don't know user, why would centralizing power in the hands of a small elite capable of manipulating national governments and the world economy at large to further their own ends possibly be a bad thing?

Call me old fashioned but it seems to me that putting all your eggs in one basket then asking a bunch of bankers to hold the basket for you isn't the best idea.

contd.

Along with this income and industry dying, so too does the community, the traditional, the culture and the family. Leaving many angry, dispossessed, citizens with no investment in the nation.

This becomes compounded by part 2.

2. The Globalization of trade was one factor, but not necessarily a bad factor. As I outlined above, the real issue has been the removal of borders and nation states. I believe, as do many others, and I think what we're seeing, is that humans are tribal in nature. No man is an island. You fundamentally seek organizations and groupings to help you achieve, well, living.

When you remove the nation state, it doesn't seem that people then turn to the outside and welcome everyone as a "global" citizen. It seems as if trying to form unity this large is impossible. Similar to Dunbar's Number (people can only REALLY care and be involved with 150 other human beings or so) it seems like that once a group becomes so large and disparate and diverse, that you simply don't have the emotional or intellectual investment in what is happening on the other side of the room. So, we see balkanization of former nation states that had a firm, national identity. Think the fall of Yugoslavia - When Tito exited the stage, every ethnic and former national group began reforming along their old lines and jostling for dominance. So the nation state is eradicated. There are no borders. There is no universal accepted cultural standard (we are, as they say, multi-cultural).

Now people are beginning, in the west, to retreat to religious or ethnic groups. Race is the easiest identifier so it seems to be the most readily attractive. In the Middle East, which is less racially diverse than Europe, they flock to religious sects.

You then take all of this and compound and agitate it violently by dismantling traditional communities and standards of living (by weakening communities economically).

contd.

You're afraid of fascism and want a single unchallenged government entity that has a monopoly on state power? Do you know what "fascism" actually means?

...

>the power of the american navy ensures that we have access to global trade and resources. countries like saudi arabia are practially fighting off an iranian stranglehold of their oil supply lines. the chinese are practically encircled by a bunch of US friendly allies, and they become complete wild cards in 50 years. insecurity is a huge problem that shit countries have to deal with. we dont have that, in large part because we rock cities made of guns.

But none of that is globalism, it's just the ability to project power and remain unassailable. Being able to do these things doesn't make us globalist, it just makes us powerful.

Globalism is shit like one world currency, one world government, and shit like that. The concerted push to centralize political and economic power while further marginalizing and divesting the people of the world, including Americans, of their power and civil rights.

Fuck that shit. I'm all for America First nationalism but fuck Globalism.

So why do rich people spend so much of their riches fighting nationalists?

...

...

...

...

...

(You)
Outside of Japan, not everyone agrees with each other 100% of the time on everything and wants to do the exact same thing in the exact same way and doesn't dare to question it. That's why.

Your just proving my point. You have no idea how well democracy can work, it is the only form of decision making that works well with dissent and in which people willingly accept their view being differend or in disagreement with what has been decided.

Please educate yourself on functioning democracy (protip - there are very few and they only operate on a small scale, i.e. communal based), by that I mean go and meet the members, in person, not read about them online.

That would improve most of the people's reasoning on here. Actually go and meet those foreigners you fear and project all your darkest feelings onto, they are truly just like you, except probably less brainswashed...

contd.

This seems to be a perfect storm of mobilizing sectarian and nationalist sentiment.

Right on down to ethnic and tribal conflict.

It appears Globalization has had the opposite effect of it's intention - Rather than unify everyone, it has set everyone against each other, and driven people to form old alliances based on ethnicity and religion as opposed to nation states.

The solutions we're seeing to maintain this system are essentially just endless variations of the Soviet Union.

>If we just take enough from the rich to give to the poor they'll settle down
>If we re-arrange the geographical markers and mix cultures together, they will not engage in competition against each other
>If we control the flow of information, we can change how they perceive their standards of living

etc etc.

And it seems to be falling apart just as rapidly as those systems fell apart in the 80's and 90's.

Hence a swing back to nationalism in the west, or religious totalitarianism in the Mid East.

...

Because freedom > peace

No system exists that could rule the entire earth without a very brutal iron fist

Also you're wrong most wars in history were due to religion

1 post by this I.D.

Step it up /leftypol/.

Don't spam raid. Have some fucking balls and try and engage.

It's fucking cowardly.

>Marxists

Meh, what do you expect, I guess.

>>Globalism is shit like one world currency, one world government, and shit like that. The concerted push to centralize political and economic power while further marginalizing and divesting the people of the world, including Americans, of their power and civil rights.

i'm not for an NWO, but the current arrangements of international institutions like the UN and EU serve american purposes in the end. they were shaped in large part to america's will, after all.

because destabilizing regions is the safest way to make a fortune on the trade market, especially if you're the one doing the destabalizing, its like having an insider tip or rigging the roulette table before placing a bet.

Not really more like global feudalism

Stop posturing Americunt, not once in your history you did anything that was even slightly moral in regards to wars, you were more than happy to sell arms to trade with nazis long into WWII, before the japanese bombed few faggots in Pearl Harbor, and you went to Europe only because you saw Soviet make their move and it threatened your shekels.
You are a villain you shitstain, you conquer countries and kill civilians who don't even know where America lies on the map, you install tyranicall pupets, you support jihadi scum, you destabilize whole regions, just for your gains, nothing else. And if people in EU gets tired of their burreaucratic overlords, you will bomb them to ashes, screaming 'there is no place in Europe for homogenous countries in 21 century' from the top of your ivory tower.

This

Who gives a FUCK about everlasting peace? That sounds like some muslim nigger fantasy to me.

All I care about is surviving, and it just so turns out that in reality, that involves sometimes killing your competitors.

Since we are the apex predator of this planet, and the shitskins have become much too arrogant and increasingly brazen, I have decided that it is time for the race war to start.

You are right, Why shouldn't we have allowed the Nazi's in the 30's to take over the world in conjunction with the Japanese?

After all what you are saying is that it would be better under one overarching and over reaching government that controls everything on the planet from one location on the planet right?

So tell me, why did the US stop the Germans when we could have had a single global government established 70 years ago burgerclap?

Fake news. Saudi Arabia are a Sunni country and the holy center of Islam. Sunnis make up 90% of all Muslims. Iran is Shia - a 10% minority of Muslims.

China is also not your friend. They're an aggressively expansive country with a highly militarized predominantly male 1.4 billion population and an ever shrinking living space.

China and radical Islam (all of which is financed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar) are the 2 actual problems the world is facing in this century. Grasping at Russia and the Cold War is all smoke and mirrors.

This

But eventually it would deteriorate into feudalistic rule by the elite the people would be kept too dumb and uneducated to even know anything was wrong

So lack of nationalism destabilizes regions.

Dis

unfair assessment of america. sure it always prides itself in "just wars", but it's not that much of a fault when they do what any other rational state actor would do in america's shoes.

...

yes, kill the blacks, kill the muslims, it's a war, they are threatening your safety, also look at gooks funny cos they are next. and remember, israel is the world greatest ally

There were always tribes and different groups

Countries didn't exist originally yes but that was before agriculture when you had to follow the food around all year

It wasn't some big utopian mass where everyone was human. Tribes went to war all the time over hunting grounds

Even in the wild social animals like wolves still divide themselves into groups. Yes what an artificial human construct.

diversity + proximity = conflict

available resources = are - population

Therefore, nationalism is the best method for actually enriching your people.

Globalist Marxists can't just be satisfied with this basis; they try to force the whole world to become some amorphous blob, and it only fucks things up in the process.

Yes but do they serve the American people or do they serve (((elites))) who happen to spend lots of time in America?

That kind of globalism might work. If there is only German and Japanese culture and Aryan/Japanese people on the earth of course their halves would be united.

It's kind of like why one day there will be a single large nation where English speaking Canada and US are today. The French and spics will be let go

The threat of China is a reality for Australia.

Islam is a threat in terms of it's destabilization. Maybe in other corners of the world it's a more civilization challenging threat, but here it's a nuisance, at absolute worst.

China on the other hand is beginning to absorb us.

It's almost inevitable at this point.

What's scary for Australians is that China, which seems like an inevitable eventual colonizer of Australia (in the loosest sense) is at direct odds with the U.S., who, for all intents and purposes, own Australia.

Our political and business elites can smell the tension in the air, and we see previously unthinkable situations, where former high ranking politicians and military leaders talk about betraying the U.S. and switching allegiances to China.

It's a shame Australia never had any real leaders who could step up and start moving us towards a Swiss style system of insularity. Unlike many other nations on Earth, we're also ridiculously well positioned (with a tiny bit of territorial expansion) to be self reliant.

Alas, we've always hitched our wagon to someone else. The British, The U.S., and now China it seems.

They can downplay the "threat" of China all they want, the proof is in the pudding. An entire first world nation like Australia doesn't begin to discuss seriously the concept of abandoning Western Europe and the U.S. in favor of China, unless there is a genuine belief that China's power is growing and eventually unassailable.

>>Fake news. Saudi Arabia are a Sunni country and the holy center of Islam. Sunnis make up 90% of all Muslims. Iran is Shia - a 10% minority of Muslims.
Saudi Arabia is fighting a proxy war against Iran in Yemen. They are no friends to each other and have made numerous invective towards each other.
>execution of a popular shia cleric and numerous alleged iranian spies
>iranian reaction to the hajj incident
>competitors in the global oil trade
>saudis trying to open up diplomatic relations with long time iranian foe - israel


>>China is also not your friend. They're an aggressively expansive country with a highly militarized predominantly male 1.4 billion population and an ever shrinking living space.

no one is blind to this. this was the major point in hillary clinton's "asia pivot".

>Grasping at Russia and the Cold War is all smoke and mirrors.
russia is still some sort of concern. their strategy has always involved the subjugation of its neighboring states, through force or words. a strong russia is inherently a challenge to a strong america. a weak russia involves the american subjugation of russia's neighboring states

>diversity + proximity = conflict

Ironically, the Marxist believes this will lead to acceptance and tolerance.

which means;

>available resources = are - population

Ceases to be an issue as we will want to share.

> without bullshit conspiracy theories
> except the NWO isn't a conspiracy theory
> and that is what globalism is
> and they are in fucking tears now with Brexit and Trump

feels good, m8s

It can work and it has to.

We owe it to the universe to become as complex, widespread, and long lived as possible.

>>Yes but do they serve the American people or do they serve (((elites))) who happen to spend lots of time in America?

It's wishful thinking on my part. I believe in the end it serves the American people better this way than if america had to worry about the same security or economic issues nearly every other country in the world has. Yes, the elites gets the biggest cut, but the pie to be sliced is overall bigger.

Russia wants to reclaim lost territory to bolster it's economy.

To do this is must weaken NATO to prevent them from intervening.

That's why they support nationalist movements in Europe. Typical divide and conquer.

The question people are asking is this;

>Is it WORTH fighting Russia and dealing with their interference over Whateveristan?

Is the Crimea worth a global conflict?

Do you want to get millions killed protecting Belarus?

Should Britain have maybe said;

>Sorry Belgium, but you're just not worth it

And potentially saved tens of millions of lives?

It results in lower wages from for everyone by exploiting developing countries.