What's so bad about globalism?
What's so bad about globalism?
Jonathan Brooks
Carter Lee
Xavier Bailey
it's pretty much treason of every country in existence
Julian Perez
it btfo's everything not Jewish.
Landon Baker
No borders.
Connor James
Having a government that doesn't directly identify with you, does not get it's power directly from you, and can't be held accountable by you is guaranteed to end in tyranny.
Remember that wars don't exist because of borders, borders exist because of wars.
The way of life that we enjoy is extremely fragile.
Brayden Ramirez
The idea is that the rich will only get richer and the poor will only get poorer
Austin Bailey
>what so good about private property
Colton Allen
Nations can't control their own people that well.
Kayden Miller
It brings Muslims into western countries with the lie of diversity.
Parker Lee
Destroying the barriers between countries fucks up the good countries for the benefit of the bad. Corporations send jobs overseas or import workers, and unskilled people hostile to our culture come swarming in from their third world hellholes and cause all kinds of problems.
Tyler Reed
isn't that already happening
Jaxon Campbell
in practice? the lifestyle of you and the poo in loos will be aligned to match. Do you really want that?
Andrew Jones
Global government are free to do whatever they like with you, and you will have nowhere to run.
Ryan Lewis
Did you take that photograph of Earth while on a mission onboard the ISS?
Brody Nguyen
is only good 4 the poor countries and the rich people, is bad 4 the average Joe
Cooper Bell
What is this a fucking text message from 2003?
Elijah Price
nationalism cannot coincide with globalism because you're adopting a larger demographic of different people. The markets can be the same though.
James Sanchez
Aren't these the same arguments that would have come about from Nationalisation?
Like, when we were all living in tribes, separate from each other and one day our chiefs said they were gonna team up with all the chiefs and make one giant tribe, wouldn't people like you guys been rejective of such a concept?
What about our tribes culture?
That tribe on the other coast are savages
The mega chief will get all the control?
Do you guys ever consider that you're looking at this on a very specific scale. And that the same problems can scale up and down accordingly?
But yet you all seem to accept that the scale of Nations is the exact right scale. Why?
Matthew Parker
mostly, is from an online translator, the fuck u want m8? let's see ur spanish.........
Kayden Collins
Non whites
Brody Scott
>Non whites
t. 56%
Cameron Cook
huge nations are actually a little too big. For instance North vs. South vs. Commiefornia. They could be three. But they're still much more compatible than South America or the third world.
Robert Taylor
I support the balkanisation of larger states desu.
Besides, individual tribal cultures are either dead or too vulnerable on their own now.
Carson Ward
Socialism on a global scale.
Andrew Davis
What is the best size?
Joseph Gutierrez
The system is still too fucked up. We can't trust being run by ONE SINGLE GOVERNMENT THAT YOU CAN NEVER OPT OUT OF yet. Maybe someday once we hang the pedo elite and jew bankers.
Andrew Davis
it's a trade-off between more resources and power, and being similar and having shared interests.
The ideal would be where you have the maximum ability to push your interests forward.
In case of globalism there isn't even an interest to push forward at all since you've already compromised most of your personal interests by submitting to the one ideal.
Landon Roberts
good for the average jew, bad for the average joe
Kevin Nelson
Capitalism on a global scale
Isaiah Wright
To put it in the simplest words:
Globablism tries to make itself look like "We all get along together and work together holding hands", and tries to make itself look friendly to the people, like the rich will be put away. However, in reality, it pretty much ends up being rich assholes living in a gated community in one corner of the world essentially deciding how the world lives, assuming that everyone will just magically get along together if they're around eachother. However history has taught us that groups of people can't get along with others, there are even groups of people that literally can't get along with themselves if people inside have slightly different ideologies. However, the powers that be don't care or just assume everyone will get along, and if they can't, well it's always the fault of what they view as the more fortunate, and not the attacker who just happens to be less fortunate. But of course Globalism has to be enforced, or else your country will be destabilized, whether it's by a powerful military destroying it because "lol, fuck u" or the market punishing you for being a bad goy, but people do get a free ride to a better place that they already hate the fuck out of for fucking up their life, or just fuckers taking advantage of a weakened world.
tl;dr: Globalism is stupid, it can't work, but (((they))) love forcing it on everyone despite it not working and being unable to work ever, and they don't care about the consequences.
Xavier Fisher
Easton Cruz
Isn't this a case of scale again though?
On our current technological ability you almost make sense. But the rate at which we are progressing, it's a very very short term solution.
You seem to be looking at this as a scale of, each individual state is trying to survive and the best way is to team up with the states immediately around you to compete for resources which you then share, because you all need them.
But if you replace state with tribe, country, continent or even planet, the exact same problems exist.
Now, issues that effect a tribal scale, can in theory be fixed from any scale above it. But issues that effect a global scale can't really be fixed by any scale below it.
The inverse is also true. The problems caused by a lower scale only effect that that scale and the ones below it, but the problems caused by a global scale effect everyone. Why have you all decided that the national scale is the most beneficial? Wouldn't one extreme or the other make more logical sense?
Thomas Powell
The eventual degradation of mankind into one giant mass of soulless coffee-colored consumers.
All of humanity, enslaved by debt from infancy, beholden to an unaccountable ruling elite until advancements and automation make the final slave obsolete.
youtube.com
youtube.com
Cooper Miller
immigration != globalism
Adrian James
It's all just an excuse for policy laundering. Globalism means the end of democracy.
Oliver Turner
But the entirety of America is a bunch of unrelated groups of people who decided to live together. They were from all different parts of Europe. The only thing they really share with each other is a skin color. And we know that skin color can't be an indication of ideology because everyone knows someone in their own skin color who they disagree with politically.
At some point along the line of dividing themselves by country, these Europeans came together with a similar ideology and formed a nation by ignoring any genetic and cultural differences they had in pursuit of a better goal.
Isn't that really how every nation came to be? A bunch of tribes got together and started to share things? Allowing a peace between their people (after much tension) to bring about greater technological advancement for everyone involved?
Of course, they all drew what are essentially arbitrary lines in the mud over very specific differences they held. But eventually they disappeared.
Ryder Kelly
we all know, and is {
immigration != globalism;
}
Gavin Morgan
Nationalism = every family lives in their own house.
Globalism = all families live in a communal house, like a giant dorm.