Globalism

What's the arugment against globalism?

You open your castle and let raiders take your shit

America polices the world, the world doesn't get to police America. /thread fuck off

What's the argument against globalism that doesn't use terminology and concepts that have been irrelevant in the civilized world for 500 years?

destroys individual cultures
divides and segregates people even more and stirs tension
promotes dependency in third world nations, never allowing them to develop properly

If a system is fucked up
You wont get any other options.

And total power in hands if a single group of self importanr billionairs

It makes the world population an identity-less, culture-less mass of nihilistic consumers, whose only values are to consume and distract themselves, while the ruling elite become more and more separated into a ruling caste of aristocracy and the gap between the wealthy and the poor widens and resources diminish and we descend into a cultural nothingness along with all our innovations and achievements, forever.

bigger government => greater corruption

The US does a shit job at the federal government despite having the strongest, most advanced economy in the world and people want to try governing the entire world under one government? People will completely lose their right to self determination and what voice we have will be completely lost.

globalism is the ultimate in (((control)))

it sucks

What people don't understand is there are many tiers of globalism. People think it just means social globalism - open borders and free movement of peoples so immigrants can live anywhere at any time with no hassle.

Globalism is economical, cultural, and political. The ancient Silk Road is an example of economic globalism. The internet - where you can connect with millions of people from around the world, sharing ideas and data freely, is an example of cultural globalism.

What the Jews, big banks, powers that be, Illuminati - whatever you believe in - are doing by sending thousands of third world brown people into one area is not true social globalism. True globalism is two-way, which means those white people in England, France and Germany would have to move by the thousands to Syria, Afghanistan, India etc. In this way, social globalism fails and is much harder to achieve than political or cultural globalism.

I think when Sup Forumstards say they want to fight the globalists they don't really consider the ramifications of such a task. They just think it means fighting the jews who want to make one world culture of brown people. Or they want to fight the international banks, or liberal agenda.

But fighting globalism - really fighting it - means returning the world into an era of nation-states, like how it was in ancient times, with no global powers like the UN or the IMF, no free trade, no communication of languages, people and ideas.

The only logical first step to achieve this is to shut down the internet and all forms of electronic communication. But anons enjoy the internet and the wonders of globalization.

Holy shit, stop proxying faggot, no Australian would ever make such a screencap-worthy summary of reality

Interesting post. A non shit thread in 2017's /paul/, what timeline is this?

"muh nationalism"

we are not ready

we always had globalism,you cannot stop it,you can only reduce the percentage.

I don't understand this erasing our culture bullshit. No one is forcing you to adopt the better culture, you can just watch local TV shows, dress in local costumes, moves to a secluded place and do your own thing. The people who seem most against it are clueless Americans who are sad that Europeans don't do their traditional song and dance anymore when they visit.

It's pretty simple, you either take the good stuff from everywhere (which you can do now in a globalized world) or you're left behind.

The problem with that argument is white people are free to move to India if they like they just won't since it's a shithole.

Yeah, and pointed out that social globalism fails because of it. What's your point?

lol

globalism is fine
deliberate demographic replacement and anti-white, anti-family propaganda/social engineering is not

Precisely why these brown people are coming into Western Europe - it's better there.

Social, two-way globalism is something that I don't think will ever be achieved in our lifetimes, our grandchildren's lifetimes, our great-great grandchildren's lifetimes. Indeed, probably the world will end before it can be achieved. It fails because whereas political globalism and economic globalism is easier to control - set up a world governing entity, set up trade routes and policies - they are so because they deal with simple variables. Humans are complex variables. There are many motivations across millions of people who have lived among thousands of cultures to start moving from one place to another. It just can't be done, it's not feasible. Even if, by some genetic law that makes every single human brown and similar looking genetically, it will still be impossible because there will always be disparities between cultures and socioeconomic status.

The only way I see it working is if everybody has the same genetics, the same culture, the same amount of money in their banks, the same political ideology, and the same motivation for their life goals. It's impossible unless we engineer all of humanity to be robots.

>The only logical first step to achieve this is to shut down the internet and all forms of electronic communication.
What the fuck are you talking about

Controlling the nigger population

...