To all you racists on pol: explain to me how globalism is a bad thing

To all you racists on pol: explain to me how globalism is a bad thing.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/IDvWyBOTVNc
poopandpeemaster.bandcamp.com/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Just look at the EU.

Competition breeds success. Imagine the olympics with one team, rather than many.

Also I bet the next olympics will give sand nigger countries the gold even if they don't win for being oppressed.

Gears won't move on this pic OP

Because some countries are good, some are shit. If you make everyone the same, the good ones suffer.

Racism is not the opposite of globalism.
The idea that all races have to share the same values, and all have to be feminist, secular, etc. (or else they will be "liberated") is the actual racist thing.

This.
The picture is a perfect representation of globalism

>the people in good ones suffer.
ftfy

businesses are making a killing though. you're just buttmad you're left out of the loop by your own rich countrymen

>not wanting globalism
>racist
How?

>If you're against globalism you're a racist

That's not how it works.

Globalism is a road and at the end of the road is one world government. The destination is unavoidable if you stay on the road. Globalism feeds on perpetually increasing "integration." It starts with binding multilateral economic and defense treaties, and then it creates international institutions to enforce them. These institutions, like all institutions, seek more and more power. This in turn justifies the creation of even more international institutions to keep up with the endless quest for more "integration." Before you know it you have international laws governing everything from environmental regulations to crime to gun ownership standards, and the institutions needed to enforce those laws.

There is only one place this can go. Eventually the mountain of global bureaucracy that is created will have to, necessarily, lead to a streamlined top-down world government. The result of that will be the total dissolution of the nation-state and borders and local control over cultural norms.

It's the single worst type of tyranny that humanity has ever encountered.

My opposition to globalism has nothing to do with my racism.

kek, great pic, nothing works, they just wear each other down with spasmodic eternal jerks until there's enough space to move around, when there's nothing left.

It's gay desu senpai. Gay af.

Nigger isn't a color, it's an attitude. There are white and red and yellow and brown and black princes in the formal sense: powerful intellects and personalities with the capacity for achievement come in all shapes and sizes.

Some of us are better than the rest. Color and race are not the important factors. I can point you again and again to quality among men, and it will always be a function of breeding, bearing, education, experience, and spirit. Each people has their kings and their noble lines.

The issue is that for the bulk of the population, these advantages are a genetic impossibility. The wealth of great nations can be distributed as largesse, and when it is distributed widely so, the low born niggerishness of the common man can be dressed and gussied up for show. The nature of human beings remains fixed, however. But only the cream rises.

From the top, the elite look down, considering a final solution of their own making. Do not doubt it: these are the Eugenics wars, and we are on the eve of some sexy new atrocities.

There would still be Olympics & competition. They'd simply be more about the individual (or whatever group he represents) and less about the country.

As lovely as our borders and cultures are, the "global village" is becoming a reality - we've been pacing in that direction for a while now, and I doubt it can be halted now, since the younger generations were already absorbed into this "global culture".

Honestly, this concept doesn't disturb me, but it's total folly to think that we're any close to it ever coming to materialize world-wide. There are still several cultural/religious/ethical divides between the various populations of our planet. I think the most surefire way to ruin a civilization would be to push for multiculturalism in our days. There are still too many "bad apples" for anything other than outright dystopia to be spawned from blind multiculti.

>one world government
Not really an argument. You forgot to explain why this is supposed to be bad.

Without an immortal authority figure with dream like Big E, it won't work

jews

I don't want to end up like a cultureless cosmopolitan American.

I already did. Because it will require the dissolution of the nation-state and concentrate power into an even smaller circle of global elites than it already is. The overwhelming majority of humanity will become completely disenfranchised and subject to the rule of people who look, sound, and think nothing at all like they do.

Hello, is this the shitposting and/or shilling thread?

The further removed the government is from the people the less effective it is at administering to their needs and in accordance with their ethical framework.

these

there's no control over a one world goverment, no uprisings because they will be immediately dealt with
too much power in a one world gov.

>he failed to come to an objective conclusion that globalism is literally the worst ideology on this planet
>he continues believing otherwise
jesus christ

Enjoy having only one culture that is dictated by a certain group of powerful elites

>it will require the dissolution of the nation-state and concentrate power into an even smaller circle of global elites than it already is.
Not necessarily bad.
>The overwhelming majority of humanity will become completely disenfranchised and subject to the rule of people who look, sound, and think nothing at all like they do.
That won't happen because all people in the world will be mixed and there won't be any racial, cultural or language differences between them.

>why is globalism bad
You obviously never listened to Hitler.

youtu.be/IDvWyBOTVNc

>That won't happen because all people in the world will be mixed and there won't be any racial, cultural or language differences between them.
Let me ask you this Ruski. In Russia and before it the Soviet Union, have you all become one single ethnic, culture and linguistic group?

>explain to me how globalism is a bad thing

The vast majority of "humans" on this globe are shit.

poopandpeemaster.bandcamp.com/

In economic terms globalism is bad for the lower class people in all nations, while being good for the upper class people in all nations

Globalism is also bad for culture, national identity and also sovereignty

increased competition decreases the market share of wealth for 1st world nations

places with lower cost of living that have roads electrical grids , piped in water and factories not only make shit cheaper but the people spend less to survive

meanwhile in 1st world nations inflation has been used to justify currency values through increasing consumer spending on essentials for generations to keep gdp growth in the positive range

20 years ago a trip to the grocery store was way cheaper. fuck 10 years ago it was cheaper.

those little fucks even have the nerve to try to dump their poor on 1st world nations like we dont have poor and homeless people. like its our responsibility not theirs

but the jokes on them. they cant support themselves without 1st world nations buying their shit and they dont get a pass or a slap on the wrist when they cook the books.

Consolidation of power always breeds corruption. You want power as decentralized as possible, that's what made the united states so great before the fed got out of control.

Might make cultures we dont like the norm.

No, because while communism was promoting internationalism and friendship between peoples it never advocated making a melting pot out of them. In fact it created many relatively pure ethnic nations (that have their own countries today) that were supposed to live together because they shared common ideals.
I may not necessarily be against globalism, I just want to hear a compelling argument against it. Not just "it's bad because muh nation".

I like my nation and do not want it to go away is a good enough reason.

It leads to destruction of the world, only that, not much else is there to complain about it.

nig

It's silly to pretend regional differences can be erased completely. As long we we retain physical, human form, how can that ever be achieved? People will always adapt to their environment, and the results will always vary across environments. But let's assume that that's not true. Who decides what the cultural norms are? What cultures do we pick and choose from and why? And who decides it? A small handful of elites? The process is bound to produce resentment, and in fact already has (ask the average Western European how they feel about American cultural incursion, for evidence). Or talk to an American gun owner about the UN and see what sort of infuriated reaction you get. People prefer their own cultures and the norms that are established within them due to environmental and historical circumstances that are not shared by other peoples. Why do you think nationalism is a thing right now?

ok...so your picture is of different blocks working together like cogs.
> Thats not what globalism is.
> It's one giant cog that when it does. simply breaks, forever.
You want an example?
> look at all of the post empire colonies.
> Global system run by elites broke down.
> Everything went to shit.
America survived and then thrived because it was isolationist.
> Everyone now hates America because it holds/held overbearing power.
> A lot of people are also concerned at its decline on the world stage because they have seen this shit before.

What? The EU is a GOOD thing.

How does globalism make good countries the same as bad ones?

Basically, stable systems look forward to preserve identity. Forcing globalism aims specifically to destroy identity. And variety is the key to survival of the species.

By blending cultures we are effectively destroying variety.

Also, not all variety is good. But sometimes temporarily neccesary. It is complicated.

It's not a bad things, but sharing the world with lesser races is.

Globalization will never work, it is a flawed concept. You cannot possibly expect to make universal decisions that will benefit vastly different people on opposite ends of the planet.

Statistically speaking, low IQ people far outnumber those with even a shred of intelligence. You would not have enough people who would be capable of understanding these laws let alone enough people to enforce them everywhere to a reasonable degree. A society can't exist with more dead weight that people able to carry it.

Really, the only way it might work is if one group dominated the whole planet and filled the world with their homogenous offspring. Even this isn't indefinitely sustainable, within a few decades people would form within tribal clusters and develop their own cultures and ideologies again.

When will Nigeria gloablise? They could use some cultural enrichment? Perhaps start filling their country with Chinese or Latinos... is that okay? Or only Europe and its descendants?

Competition is not the only way. Cooperation does that too.

Because we will have to lower our living standards to match with those poor fucks in the south.

Um, your/our gov'ts are ALREADY like this. Policy and laws are influenced by lobby groups and/or political 'donations' (+ illegal kickbacks, etc) from big business and wealthy individuals.

Explain why """" diversity"""" is only happening white countries, then.

Yes, and it's terrible. So why would advocate for this on a global scale that concentrates this evil into an even smaller group's hands to govern an even larger scale?

Not because it was isolationist.

Elements of various cultures will be preserved with accordance to the desires of the people and a dominant mixed culture will emerge. Some people may feel bad about incursion of American culture, but it's a fact that most people in the countries that are considered "civilized" embrace it. People want it, so it will dominate eventually.
It doesn't seem like nationalism is a thing right now outside of Sup Forums and a couple of fringe political parties, really.

Brain drain on poor countries, social breakdown in rich countries, increased pollution through shipping costs, constant tension because we're always trying to enforce universal morality, constant guilt on the part of any successful country, ruthless meritocracy that tells 80 iq retards that they can be astronauts, dysgenic mating practices, declining happiness, the creation of a worldwide oligarchy, neofeudalism through privately-owned real estate, to name a few things.

those gears are literally locked and unmovable

Because no whitey save old farts wants to spend his life and raise a family where germs and temperature are the same as in your anus.

Democratic Deficit.
Globalism inevitably leads to transfer of effective power (be it political, economical or cultural) to larger units. Be it supranational organisations like the EU or whathever, it will usually be at the expense of national governments.

And even if all of the organizations or groups that would have the power in globalised world were democratically elected, they would still not represent individuals as well as the national governments do (even if they already do so arguably)

Because it's impossible for any of those cogs to move.

Burden of proof nigga.
You tell me how it's a good thing.

Nationalism is trending all over the western world and beyond. That nationalists have not successfully wrested control of their nations from the globalists that have seized them does not mean it's not a thing, it means merely that they have not yet succeeded.

>Elements of various cultures will be preserved with accordance to the desires of the people and a dominant mixed culture will emerge.

This is a siren song. Like the siren song globalists sang about increased prosperity, which ended up meaning little more than a governmental obsession with economic growth concentrated into the hands of a few at the expense of the many.

If the globalists feel that "elements of various cultures" should be preserved, then why globalism in the first place? If global diversity is a good thing, then why seek to erase any of it? At this point you're just talking about degrees. We get to keep x percent of our cultures and way of life and the rest goes out the window. Why should we give up any of it?

And no, Western Europeans did not choose that, it was forced onto them through trade deals and other government brokered economic invasions. Why doesn't Russia have the Americanization problem but Germany does?

Tower of Babel

It's not a bad thing, but how they are forcing it now is not good.

When gears are interlocked like that, they don't turn. The whole system binds up.

It's a very apt image.

>a Jew defending globalism
ohamisurprised.jpg

Le epic maymays aside, Jews are getting BTFO in France and are leaving en masse, so the Chosen clearly have a stake in avoiding hordes of unwashed militants entering Europe.

Alright, figure out how to mesh the US and UK's gun laws without forcing either side to sacrifice.

There are too many ideals for everyone to exist under one banner. We're better off not trying to tell other countries how to live their lives.

>If the globalists feel that "elements of various cultures" should be preserved, then why globalism in the first place? If global diversity is a good thing, then why seek to erase any of it? At this point you're just talking about degrees. We get to keep x percent of our cultures and way of life and the rest goes out the window. Why should we give up any of it?
It's not that any of them should specifically be preserved by the decree of some secret ruling society. It's that they will end up preserved naturally because other people will find them superior to their own and start using and thus preserving them. Like, say, Americans like pizza which is originally an Italian food, so even if Italy ceased to exist tomorrow the pizza will still live on because people all over the world like it. Strong cultures will give up only their weak elements that other strong cultures can do better, and if some cultures are weak and can't compete with others at all then they will vanish completely. Those strong elements will make up a universal dominant culture.

People are different. What one man needs may not be what another needs. Everyone wants to change the world. They want to focus on the big picture. But in doing so they miss what's in front of them. There is nothing wrong with globalism. look at the division in the US so many different people bound under a single government and it's only made people angry. States keep losing rights, and with it their individuality. The presumption that all men can be governed under universal law is questionable. it seems to me better to let nation states make their own choices and decide their own fates than to attempt to enforce an ever changing yet universal force of moral law deliberated by foreign force with little knowledge of the localities struggles.

But I'm just a loser posting on a malaysian water polo website.