Why is nationalism a good thing?
>Why is globalism a bad thing?
Why is nationalism a good thing?
Why is nationalism a good thing?
Other urls found in this thread:
Nationalism is more fun.
Meme answer. Argue for real.
Would you rather paint a picture with many unique, vibrant colors or just one shade of brown?
What is language?
What is cultural identity?
What is a homoginized, bland monoculture?
Meme answer. Saudi Arabia is a nationalist country. Skin colour has little to do with not being brown.
Language and cultural identity can exist separate from nationalism. In fact, Canada, as a post-national country, still sees a variety of cultures exist within it.
>implying I meant skin color
I mean their culture, you mongoloid.
Also, meme answer.
well i could tell you. but this guy does a pretty god job. have it on in the back ground. find out why you should kill all communists and what (((their))) end game is.
Your leader is also cuck-supreme and is allowing sharia law to spread into his country.
Saudi Arabia has an extensive variety within its culture; you just happen to label it as one homogenous entity because you don't understand / haven't taken the time to investigate it.
Nationalism is the unwielding defense of your own in the effort to make your own life better. It is the crux of all competition.
Globalism is the unwielding desire to make the world even. It has no reason to make the world better, only equitable. There is no desire for competition, it only brews complacency.
I'm not talking about Saudi Arabia you dumb nigger. I'm talking about the end result of globalism.
globalism is ultimatum-collectivism which sets as side the individual over the group
as we've seen through history, the group is easily tricked and deceived to act against its own interests
its harder to make the individual work against themselves
i believe my life is worth more than the lives of 10,000 strangers...you would probably sacrifice yourself to save them
would you save them if it they were 10,000 babies? 10,000 killers? 10,000 "regular" folks?
no thanks for me
This is a non-argument and off-point.
Why is it the "unwielding defense"? Less flare, more content. Nationalism is grounded in a love of one's country. How exactly does this better the individual? Surely there are people in this modern age who seek to better themselves spiritually, mentally, and physically despite globalization and the loss of nationalism. Many of them (or because I don't myself like vague claims, let's say at least some of them) are not even nationalist.
As for globalism, a humanist would argue that making the world equitable was making it better. Meanwhile, thanks to globalization, humanity has seen an interchanging of ideas and manpower on an entirely new scale. Competition certainly exists, because if the people within a country do a poor job, immigrants will be imported to replace them; open borders makes this process even easier and, at least theoretically, should provide incentive to make a country's population work harder.
>implying the end result of globalism isn't Saudi Arabia
Leave my thread.
Is not nationalism, the idea that the good of the nation is the good of all, not set aside the individual as well? World War II, for example, was a competition of various nationalisms, and it saw incredible amounts of death and violence.
The deceiving and tricking interests me; is this contingent on globalization, or is globalization simply a convenient vehicle for it?
>10,000 vs 1
If everyone thinks this way, then best case is we have corrupt and self-interested governments; worst case is we become no-road libertarians who keep violating each other's NAP.
unwielding->unyielding, sorry for typo.
Your own is not yourself, it's your fellow countrymen. If every country's countrymen are defending their own and trying to advance their country (because a great country creates better outcomes for its citizens) it is undeniable that the world will advance faster. You are entirely incorrect in your belief that nationalism implies a lack of global communication. It encourages collaboration by countries who have tradable technologies and items.
A humanist is a fucking moron by default, projecting their own opinions on people who have nothing else in common with them. They're irrelevant to globalism, because a country does not unilaterally consist of hippies doing fucking yoga all day long. They believe everyone is equal in terms of capability by merit of being born (wrong). Importing immigrants with different ideologies has contributed to the demise of most major empires.
What do you mean by globalism? One world government? Multi-national federations such as the EU? Global economic trade?
I'm against the first two because governance becomes too detached from the people. Even in our countries this occurs. The federal government of Canada is more concerned with Ontario and Quebec the prairies and Atlantic kind of get the shaft.
>If every country's countrymen are defending their own and trying to advance their country (because a great country creates better outcomes for its citizens) it is undeniable that the world will advance faster.
And what if different countrymen see different ways of making their country better? Then there is contention and ultimately one view must win out over the others. Yet collectivists would naturally group together, at least at first; in this way, they'd bolster their numbers until might made right and the country was theirs.
By your description, collectivism and globalisation is a natural evolution of nationalism.
>A humanist is a fucking moron by default, projecting their own opinions on people who have nothing else in common with them.
And to repeat the point above in a different way, a nationalism is a person who, based on your description of him, either projects his opinions on others because he feels it is for the best of his country or does nothing while others project their views and end up ruling his country.
I think we need a more rigorous definition of nationalism here.
As far as I'm concerned, multi-national federations like the EU and UN are attempts at one world government; economic trade isn't, yet the one world government model acts as a facilitator of trade and gives countries who unite under multinational organizations the edge over nationalist countries who value their individuality.
Also, thank Kek that Trudeau is incompetent, otherwise he might have changed our voting system to further this bias and give more voting strength to Ontario. Imagine this ugly mug being able to dictate federal politics.
Globalism doesn't work unless the global population is in agreement of it. There has to be a point to instate globalism. You can't just say "globalism because world peace and unity." Humans don't unite without a reason to have unity. You'll have a sustainable globalism when someone or something evil decides to try and conquer the world, and then, hopefully, the world says "no."
She DOES influence federal politics. Trudeau is buddy buddy with her and all the BS that ontario has they want to roll out on the federal level. Ontario had the gender identity laws first now we have it on the federal level
The same could be argued for nationalism--nationalism doesn't work unless the national population is in agreement of it; judging by historical precedence, nationalism hasn't worked out, and even Trump (despite being called a nationalist by the MSM), is superficially nationalist. "Make America Great" is his slogan, but I've watched his rallies and it's a lot of useless filler. Real nationalism would have had more substance to it; instead, I think Trump sort of represents the vengeful ghost of nationalism, spurred on by the SJW retards who created the MAGA counterculture.
Because forcing niggers into majority white countries has no positive effects
Global collectivism is sending American taxpayer money to Africans because they can't get a grip on themselves, for nothing in return.
National socialism is the collectivism you're implying as being globalist. You couldn't be more wrong. A nationalist does not always need to get his way, and if I lived in a nationalist society I do not need to be afraid of decision not going my way. My fellow countrymen and I have a pact greater than self to defend and protect our own.
You started the thread, let's hear what you think nationalism is.
the funny thing that no one on this board realizes is that nationalism is just globalism on a smaller scale. It destroys local culture and traditions by centralizing the state within a supposed "nation". That's why I always laugh when you natsoc's namedrop Evola without understanding what he was saying.
globalism is mixing bad cultures with good ones and crossing your fingers for the best, nationalism is about ensuring your own people and culture and looked after first
Yeah but I mean long-term after voting. I live in Ontario and these corrupt fucks have had control of the province for 13 years. The saddest part is that unions have both power and intimidation behind them, so the large majority of them can fear monger their way into voter manipulation without being accountable to the law. "If you want to keep your job, you'll know what's good for you and vote liberal!"
It doesn't help that our provincial conservatives used to be full-on retard and are now just plain old corrupt. I have several close friends in the party and from speaking to them (and meeting Patrick Brown), it's very plain to see that nobody believes in conservatism; they're just playing the game to win the next provincial election.
>Nationalism isn't a solution, it's a response to decay.
>Globalism is like a car. When you're young it's simply dangerous but when old enough is a essential tool.
Most nats respect and acknowledge that. We don't have anything in common with Sudanese people. We never will.
We do have things in common with people from our country (the very definition of a nation is "a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory"). That's why it works.
Both are shit.
NEVER MIX CHEAP AND EXCELLENT WINE
I'll say that nationalism is nessecary because with out the people being united they will turn on each other which we can see plainly in the states with the left right divide becoming very hostile
That's really shitty. Government needs to be switched out every few years so to bring balance and avoid corruption.
globalism as it is, has only led to the exploitation of nations by large multinational entities
at least nationalism puts the interests of a countries citizens first
what do you think about a "nation" like Spain? Do you support nationalistic secession movements within your nation?
Globalism is your friend.
Greetings fine citizens of the world!
My name is Justin Trudeau and I'm a huge faggot. Some of you might recall me as a part time drama teacher but I'm Prime Minister of Canada now thanks to my family name and my #1 kike, George "I start insurrections" Soros. Now you might be wondering why I've taken time away from finding black bulls to fuck my wife and inhaling muslim cocks. Well, I'll tell you.
As I watched my wife being pleasured by numerous men that were not me the other night I thought of how all white men could get a deep sense of satisfaction if they could just let go of their inhibitions and act as fluffers for the 3rd world, offering up the women we cherish most in an altruistic gift of formerly unexperienced patriotism of not country, but humanity. Wives and daughters the western world over impregnated by strong verile niggers and muslims. I say nigger of course in only the most cuckold fashion.
Well there isn't much more to this. I think I should go check and see if my wife needs a cleaning!
Again, my name is Justin Trudeau and I love sucking big hairy cocks.
They're not all niggers, and with free movement, neurosurgeons could easily move to countries that need and would pay for them.
If you agree that trade is a good thing, then investing in helping Africa become a developed country is beneficial for us; also, to take your example elsewhere geographically, we've been investing heavily in India as well, which is expected to grow to the world's second largest economy by 2050.
>a nationalist doesn't always need to get his way, and if I lived in a nationalist society I do not need to be afraid of decision not going my way
Ah, now you are talking of the zeitgeist of nationalism, the national spirit as it were. This is a philosophical idea wherein the members of the society would not believe they always had to get their way. Thinking pragmatically, do humans really act like that? It goes back to the problem of collectivist blisters forming in a national state; while collectivism may be formed as a result of cooperation, it can also be formed by a lazy person who wants a free ride.
I have my own thoughts about nationalism, and I'm planning on creating a series of essays to deal with this an other concepts; in thinking about it though, I kept finding problems with trying to define it as a sustainable political ideology; hence the thread here.
I'll have to get back to you on my definition of nationalism. Right now, I don't feel its good enough.
>it destroys local culture
Many of the immigrants who come to Western countries do not adapt. In Toronto, for example, there are very clear sections of the city that belong to the Chinese, the Russians, the Italians, etc... All have retained their cultures; only the national Canadian culture has been lost. Your understanding of the microcosmic effects of globalization is faulty.
>Why is globalism a bad thing?
Greetings. For your information, your post has been monitored and approved by the מוסד (Mossad) and צה''ל (also known as IDF = Israeli Defense Force). Keep fighting the good fight.
>how does this benefit the individual
It's clear you have no concept of family nor community values in you're brainwashed head. The truly civilized regions of the world was built upon loyalty to self, family, community, and nation through generations of investing in those around you. That is why the west, for example, reigns supreme. People think of themselves and beyond it to those they share values with to create something better. They are willing to plant trees they will never sit under, craft art and architecture as monuments for their people, and develop things around them so that their children will better prosper.
That is the foundation of advancement and success in this world, not some bullshit lofty notion of global humanitarian need. Colonies arose to better advance ones own people and with such they gave technologies to people the world over. India still uses british rail systems.
Thats a non-argument, you traitor to the crown! Meet me at timmies right now. I will fucking fuck up your shit
>nationalism is a response to decay
I've had similar thoughts about this and I like the concept. It reminds me of the attached picture. But how do we know that nationalism is not just a band-aid solution? Every nationalist (or imperialist) movement has overextended its reach, then withered out and been replaced with either democracy or collapse.
So this is the fabled "centrist" I've heard so much about.
What qualifies something as cheap? What qualifies something as excellent?
>with out the people being united they will turn on each other
In nazi Germany, the people turned on each other as well, based on stereotypes of gypsies and (((jews))). inb4 holohoax--we know that there were at least labour camps, and any nation that treats its nationalist citizens like criminals because of their race has proven itself to be detrimental to the national citizen.
Also, Ontario is 300+ billion in debt. We account for well over 1/3 of Canada's debt and companies are moving out of the province. The provincial gov't also sold off several of its assest to private friends of theirs to get more money for spending on buying votes, and when they ran out of that money, they created a pension plan that forced people to contribute, then spoke with Trudeau about raising the age of retirement so they wouldn't have to pay that money back; they're literally cannibalizing the land and its people. In my opinion, this province is past the point of saving. I just hope smart folks can get out before it's too late.
>interests of the country's citizens
See my response above with respect to labour camps.
dude weed lmao
The dark fire will not avail you. Go back to the ovens.
fuckin relax bud. weed is legal now. have a toke.
>They are willing to plant trees they will never sit under, craft art and architecture as monuments for their people, and develop things around them so that their children will better prosper.
Globalism does the same thing, but sees the world as an extended family. Explain to me why this is a bad thing. Can the family unit not exist within a globalist framework? I think you're confusing cultural marxism with globalism.
No it isnt, you literal mong. But having your dog blow me isnt. Bring him to timmies instead
>In nazi Germany, the people turned on each other as well, based on stereotypes of gypsies and (((jews))). inb4 holohoax--we know that there were at least labour camps, and any nation that treats its nationalist citizens like criminals because of their race has proven itself to be detrimental to the national citizen.
I don't think referring to Nazi Germany is a fair argument. Obviously that is nationalism gone wrong because they were only inclusive to ethnic germanics. I like American nationalism where anyone that assimilates to the values of the country is accepted.
The tribal nature of people seems to necessitate an "other" and the Germans made their "other" a domestic one.
>Why is Nationalism a good thing?
American culture and values are fucking awesome and beneficial for literally everyone in the country whether they like it or not.
>Why is globalism a bad thing?
There are cultures that are generations behind and are both barbaric and retarded.
>Nationalism is not a band-aid solution.
It is. It's a reset button on democracy when pluralism becomes extreme.
(See America, Italy)
Okay, we had fun for a little. Shitposting time is over, now. Let's get back to politics.
Sure, we could look at American nationalism instead then, which has seen violent fights between Trump voters and American muslims / hispanics break out (not counting the CTR psyops and antifa faggots, who are clearly do not respect the rules of democracy). Again, there's an element of ethnicity in play, but despite being Americans, minorities have been attacked by Trump supporters in non false-flag events. You could argue that the women in hijabs have not adapted to American values, but what about hispanics? Or we could take the argument in a different direction by asking what constitutes American values. Values change depending on the values of the people within the country, and there is no realistic way to police the values a person holds without becoming authoritarian. One of the interesting things I've noticed when chatting with anons from America is that many of them take pride in their German ancestry. Now I think that has quite a bit to do with our board culture, but it also begs the question--are they American patriots, or German ones? Do their values completely align with the values of American republicanism?
because this is the "utopia" the (((Globalists))) want
If you have many legal systems, you're not limited to one.
As a canadian with such questioning you may like weed, so if you're in a country that outlaws it, you may not smoke, do it so hidden or you will get caught. In this case, you still have the power to go towards another country more in touch with your preferences.
In the globalist government, if weed is unallowed, you're fucked. That's it.
Of course that's one small example for the sake of illustration, but it can be used to many other situations. Mr Gov is being abusive towards its citizens? International community may offer disenting stances, refraining the country's power to opress its citizens. Global Gov wants to fuck you over? Too bad, no one to oppose it in the slightest.
I'd like to go back to my example of Saudi Arabia for a minute. They do have barbaric practices, grounded largely in the Quran and the Hammurabi Code, yet statistically, they have less crime than the US and are "safer" than democratic countries.
Trump is globalist you dumb shit.
Do you think that there is a form of nationalism that is not expansionist? (I mean outside of North Korea, which would be if it could) I'm wondering this because if nationalism seeks to extend its influence to other regions and, let's say does not globalize those regions but rather colonizes them, then countries that share different cultures and values are now restricted by globalist-like laws. If we argue in absolutes, then nationalism, at its end-game, is just as bad as globalism; if we argue in degrees, then nationalism could grant its colonies some leniency and let them create their own laws, as was the case with Canada and the US before their independence, but globalization could (and I think is forced to) do the same thing. The world is just too big to be governed competently by one small, centralized body.
I think you've argued very well for the necessity of division, but it's not as powerful an argument for why nationalism fits well into that context.
>Sure, we could look at American nationalism instead then, which has seen violent fights between Trump voters and American muslims / hispanics break out (not counting the CTR psyops and antifa faggots, who are clearly do not respect the rules of democracy). Again, there's an element of ethnicity in play, but despite being Americans, minorities have been attacked by Trump supporters in non false-flag events.
This US election was uniquely polarized and hostile. Can you link the instances of trump supporters attacking people? If we didn't have a media and culture that disparaged nationalism and assimilation there would be less Hispanics seeing themselves as Mexicans(or whatever else) first instead of Americans first. Muslim conflict is hard to do away with because many people are very concerned about their nation's culture shifting away from or even becoming dominated by Muslim values instead of Christian values.
Would you agree or disagree that you should first most see yourself as a member of the nation you live in not your ancestral nation. A first generation immigrant it's rare to fully assimilate but a second generation immigrant should see themselves as a Canadian first and an ethnic Filipino or Ukrainian etc
Can you please explain what American culture is? Are you talking about pop tv culture?
No. Why would I care about some group of people that have no regard for what I care about, wish to alter the way things work for me and my people, and if possible would take what me and my people for generations have worked for and replace us?
Get your head out of your ass.
>legal to rape women and murder infidels
>"hey they have less crime!"
Looking at Saudi Arabia is kind of comparing apples to oranges. The best comparison in terms of ethnic diversity to the U.S. might be Brazil
Maybe if it was some worldwide traditional Kaiserreich or Roman Empire it would be ok.
But the current globalist agenda is literally about destroying everything I believe in morally, ruining my life and the life of all middle class folks economically, (try buying a house in Canada) and oh ya, genociding my race.
So ya, fuck globalism.
Populism is the way forward.
I'll just pick a random one and let's assume for the sake of argument that it's true:
I think it brings up an interesting question: in a nationalist society, would citizens help the disadvantaged? If being an American nationalist is about contributing to the greater good of the country, then why should nationalists attack the poor (or broadening that, the marginalized)? Nationalism, at least in practice, marginalizes groups of people without understanding the underlying circumstances for why they are as they appear. If job prospects are poor, does the nationalist state devour itself by attacking its poor?
Look at that Fat Fuck.
As for your second question, I'm the child of immigrants to Canada, but I personally take pride in my country and Canadian identity. For an immigrant with parents who carried more of their cultural values into Canada, however, I would not automatically expect them to adapt. I think it's a messy question to ask, because the answer will always be very circumstantial.
I don't think nationalism has to be expansionist, although I see how it easily derails towards it.
I believe even though nationalism could lead towards the same endgame of globalism, it's a way longer path. The growth in nationalism ends up slowing down globalism. We could even argue that it stops the second altogether, for it's nature may break down the government body once it grows too much. People from a certain region can develop pride and etc, as it's said that the foundation of a nation is the blood and the earth.
Thinking about it, race oriented nationalism could even provide a more peaceful endgame, as a bunch of radically different races have a harder cohexisting than "cousin" ones. Still, the developing of racial pride among seemingly identical races can still occur to break down society as we can see in Africa, Europe, Asia...
As a personal belief, I think humans will always fragment large social bodies. It's not genetically encoded to live in too large tribes. We can build cities and countries, but that alone is already pushing. Yet, that's not to be seen as bad thing as it promotes uniqueness, prevents staleness and creates true diversity unlike the kinds promoted by pro-racemixing and similars.
Nationalism is great when your country is civilized.
Globalism would be great if it meant everyone got to live like americans, unfortunately it means a downgrade to our way of life-unacceptable.
What defines "us"? Your culture is the accumulation of centuries of conversations, trading, and physical and ideological intermixing of various regions. Where do you draw the line and call someone your person?
>I think it brings up an interesting question: in a nationalist society, would citizens help the disadvantaged? If being an American nationalist is about contributing to the greater good of the country, then why should nationalists attack the poor (or broadening that, the marginalized)? Nationalism, at least in practice, marginalizes groups of people without understanding the underlying circumstances for why they are as they appear. If job prospects are poor, does the nationalist state devour itself by attacking its poor?
We have not evolved past tribalism. I'm not proposing nationalism as utopia but it is better for people to be united. If you have religious freedom then the only thing people can be united under is the nation and it's flag. I'm worried that we keep down on this dividing path where people stop identifying with their nation and we get the provincial metropolis divide that Spengler predicted.
If you're not an infidel or a woman, things are looking up for you.
yes but the group is defined by YOU, i.e the group=you in every regard since they are living/working/breeding in the same place as you and of the same herd/tribe where as globalism offers no guarentee that you and your herd/tribe will prosper.....we are social animals living in herds/tribes, after a while it is harder to identify with your tribe/herd if outsiders are in it.....ethnocentric-ism will yield a higher chance of reproductive success (ultimate goal of life) than humanism
its just easier to divide you from your self interests when youre acting as part of a large group that you hardly identify with, you have your desires but you cant vocalize them/the group is comprised of so many people different than you that you cannot move in any meaningful direction since you all want/have different goals
So do you dislike globalism or the cultural marxism that uses it as a vehicle to worm its way into societies across the world?
Bad dissonance there. You just disproved your original statement with later evidence.
>Why is nationalism a good thing?
because it keeps people free
>Why is globalism a bad thing?
because it enslaves people
So aren't you making a good point for nationalism now?
And I'd say because in a globalist world, how do the vastly different types of cultures and races each make laws that reflect their own beliefs? A global model can't cater to specific differences between different people in the world.
Nationalism Is natural, before globalism it was tribe based over century's for keeping your genetics running and alive, how evolution it meant to be. In 1900 tribes growth as nations for greater good for same kind of people. I actually think that globalism Is what born nationalism because its everything against that what evolution Is teached us about surviving and passing on our genetics.
>Inb4 evolution mentioned
Im religious people but i dont see that evolution closing religion out of any way.
Governments change their shape to suit their times. And people deserve their government.
>we get the provincial metropolis divide that Spengler predicted
I haven't read Spengler, but is this the same as what happened to the Roman empire? (being unable to police its entire collective of citizens, local regents ended up with power over their own people and the empire became more of just a formality than an actual structure.
That's a good argument; it can also be backed up with the fact that there are higher rates of mental illness and the perception of isolation in larger metropolitan cities.
However, if the ultimate goal of life is reproductive success, then by extension, a preservation of the human collective should be the ultimate goal, no matter what form that collective takes. Maybe you mean to say the highest goal of life is genetic lineage, but even in this, genetics do not remain the same throughout generations; over time, deformities in heir structure occur, and in a worst-case scenario, an isolated community inbreeds and is reduced to nothing (see the Hapsburgs). Follow-up question: is nationalism in your mind compatible with immigration?
Also, on the note of cultural difference, this could work the other way in that when you are with a group of friends who all share your values, should you happen to question your value, you might be silenced out of fear of reprisal and being ousted from that group.
What was my original statement and how did disprove it?
Simplistic but with little proof. A meme answer that we must commit to the flames if Sup Forums is to be great again.
I am a nationalist; I'd just like to better understand it. I guess I didn't intend to make that argument, but other anons have pointed out for me that Saudi Arabia is a violent place where barbaric cultural practices usurp personal freedom; I think by this point, we've established that nationalism must offer its citizens freedom from oppression but strike a balance between that and national cohesion. How it does that in a sustainable way though is still up for grabs.
>21st century: All other forms of social division will take a backseat to the huge, ever-deepening gulf between mega-city cosmopolitanism and “provincialism”. (2.IV.4 and 5, 2.XI.5)
>It will no longer matter whether one is ethnically Russian, German, Brazilian, or Nigerian, religious or non-religious, male, female, or Other, or indeed sexually reproductive or sterile. The only distinction that will be made will be between the inhabitants of a few “gigantic” global metropolises, and the inhabitants of land, town, and city outside these places, who will be backwards rustics and provincials. Cosmopolitanism will assume and invert all of the social superiority previously assigned to the noble class. “Rights” will become the privileges of these new elites. Even those urbanites who grow tired of the pretentiousness of the mega-city will prove unable to go back to their roots, given the ostracism this would involve.
Haven't actually read the source either.
Globalism is a great thing, you are using a globalist technology. Imagine the clusterfuck if every nation had their own Internet. Now imagine the same clusterfuck if trade was similarly restricted. It would create widespread poverty and suffering everywhere. That's the only thing nationalism does, time and time again.
Most people on Sup Forums are autistic faggots and you won't get a good answer from them on why globalism is bad, because it isn't bad.
>NATIONALISM OVER (((GLOBALISM))) ANYDAY.
> THIS NEEDS TO HAPPEN
>inb4 evolution is mentioned
You were late by a few posts. Also, why shouldn't we strip religion of its theology, place that into philosophy, and be left with a set of governing morals for nationalism?
>Hint: we must do this if we want to free ourselves from a society governed by the irrationality of believing in things without proof, yet if we do commit to purely moral laws, then what happens when moral relativism ultimately kicks in? That's the state we're half-at present day.
The problem with religion is that it excuses irrational behaviour, like importing thousands of rapefugees because "it's what Jesus would want and Jesus was the son of God". Pope Francis has done a very good job of advancing the globalist agenda through the use of religion.
>Globalism is a great thing, you are using a globalist technology. Imagine the clusterfuck if every nation had their own Internet. Now imagine the same clusterfuck if trade was similarly restricted. It would create widespread poverty and suffering everywhere. That's the only thing nationalism does, time and time again.
>Most people on Sup Forums are autistic faggots and you won't get a good answer from them on why globalism is bad, because it isn't bad.
Don't conflate globalist trade/economics with globalist identity/governance.
Neat. Ostracism can be avoided with secretive cliques though; in fact, that's how a lot of commies got by back when the red wave was out of fashion in the US. Sure it was risky, but diversity of opinion regarding communism survived.
Monolithic metropolitan areas concern me too though, not solely due to the lack of diversity, but because they may be responsible for the destruction of humanity, or at the very least a purge of a large portion of it. You should watch this video: youtube.com
It's very short, and it discusses the results of Dr. John Calhoun, who studied mouse utopias and overpopulation / the destruction of tribalistic cliques. What happens to the beautiful ones and in the final phase of the experiment is horrifying when one thinks about the implications for
>Most people on Sup Forums are autistic faggots and you won't get a good answer from them on why globalism is bad, because it isn't bad.
Actually, we've had a very rich conversation up to this point.
Nationalism is good because us first world countries enjoy wealth and comfort that is not available to easily 80 percent of the world. We are near a society where work can be replaced entirely through automation.
The developing nations are breeding uncontrollably and we cannot afford to take care of the rest of the world, not to mention they are likely mentally unable to live peacefully in a 1st world society (literally all first world nations are from high IQ populations).
Globalism will bring the world to a mean standard of living, why would any nation that lives above the mean wish to sacrifice their wealth for a bunch of third world shitskins.
But there is governance to trade and other international systems. In the end of the day enabling trade and defense are the main purpose of the government, if this power is transferred to international institutes the nation is just a facade.
But you are an autistic faggot you fucking leaf
This chart is probably per capita murders. Everyone knows Asians are the most violent.
Easy problem to solve. Make a CRISPR virus that injects the eight or so neural-connected alleles into the rest of the world.
The Chinese actually have very high IQs, and they're a second-world country.
It's a misconception that first world countries only have high IQs. European IQs and American ones, for example, fit to a bell curve; more of a variety in the IQs is purported to suggest more variety of thought within the population (i.e. more creativity and discoveries).
Your point on nationalism is a good one--so then nationalism is only for rich countries? What if globalization were to only occur between first world countries? Surely innovation would be maintained since everyone in them has high IQs!
Not an argument.
>The Chinese actually have very high IQs, and they're a second-world country.
Recovering communist states are all economically lagging behind.
Can you rephrase this?
Even the Chinese we import into Vanvouver lack creativity in their thinking processes though. That's why they have such a hard time adapting to workplaces outside of a university lecture-styled context.
All populations IQs fit to a bell curve, that doesn't mean someone with an IQ of 85 is just thinking "differently" than 115. Out major scientific and technological advances are not coming from the bottom 75% of our IQ distribution.
I wouldn't mind nationalism for only rich nations but we can't be overrun by immigration from third world nations or feel responsible for their development.
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic in regards to innovation being a result of a ""diversity"" of IQs. Intelligent people don't think alike, stupid people are not more likely to innovate.