Just as an intellectual exercise, have you considered their case?
>technology is advancing so rapidly that problems caused by mass immigration and globalization can be overcome
>the return of nationalism will make it more difficult to solve global problems that need international solutions
>barriers between nations slow down the flow of information, technology and other exchanges between peoples
>nationalism breeds exclusive attitudes and makes it easier to dehumanize others and go to war
That still has the underlying assumption that everyone will work harmoniously together in their multicultural paradise.
these aren't arguments you fucking gook
>mass immigration and globalization can be overcome
HOW?
>that need international solutions
LIKE WHAT?
>slow down the flow of information
THAT'S BULLSHIT
>nationalism breeds exclusive attitudes
you need to dehumanize the enemies other because trust me he will do the same and if you don't youre just as bad as obama or that faggot canadian "dont kill your enemies" faggot
>you need to dehumanize the enemies other because trust me he will do the same and if you don't youre just as bad as obama or that faggot canadian "dont kill your enemies" faggot
B-but it is possible for countries to decide together to abandon their mutual emnity which is usually a good thing for both sides if you don't like war. Consider the UK and Ireland, France and Germany, etc. today
have you considered how selfish and small minded human is?
have you ever questioned your own intellect? have you considered that many who work in goverments become tools for someone else to use? have you ever heard of such thing as corruption? or such thing as communism?
people are fools. we would be trapped forever if we had one world goverment. it would be north korea but much larger scale
>mass immigration and globalization can be overcome
I meant that technology may be able to mitigate the problems caused by immigration and for example the flattening of wages caused by globalization. Greater inefficiency may well keep the cost of basic necessities down, new energy sources hold out the prospect of keeping down the cost of living. Even the dysgenic effects of immigration could be fixed if scientists can come up with affordable human genetic engineering solutions within a few decades.
>that need international solutions
LIKE WHAT?
Like air and water pollution, overfishing, that kind of thing that has to be solved globally.
>slow down the flow of information
THAT'S BULLSHIT
Not really. When countries are competing against one enother, they will naturally seek to keep a competitive advantage. This will lead to a sort of Galapagos effect worldwide as everyone shuts themselves in, if nationalism was to really take off.
Fair enough. Then again, space travel is about to free us from the confines of this world.
The "other side" can only function with the assumption that all humans are the same and have the same evolutionary level, and that these humans will all magically work, life and breed together and of course that all cultures are magically compatible with each other.
every liberal policies is build upon false assumptions which are emotional wish thinking and not based on statistics and reality
yeah but just like in business it hast to be a win win situation, and what would the west win? we fucking invented EVERYTHING, we have the god damn beauty standard of the EARTH every one wants to be like us, look like us, ect but on the other hand we don't want any of their objectively seen inferior cultures, genes, traditions.
a nigger who comes to the west has the opportunity to x fold increase his life and JUST by taking, taking taking we don't want anything from him nor his ugly women ugly dumb culture ect
FPBP
Now, go tell the globalists to conquer Afghanistan and bend the people to their will. Not gonna happen.
they are right, government is bad, but their solution, more government, is even worse
>Even the dysgenic effects of immigration could be fixed if scientists can come up with affordable human genetic engineering solutions within a few decades.
Yes, so we should hold off the open borders lunacy until that tech is actually developed. Until that time, no, shit should stay where it belongs.
Multiculturalism so far has been a complete and utter disaster and waste of resources in every nation it has been tried, and its wasting more resources, humans and fragile peace to start adapting to a global supernation before we have the necessary tech in place.
The cabal responsible for the global industrial balance of production and consumption, powered by Saudi oil consumption, (which, in turn, is powered by recycling petrodollars through British and United States banking systems [which, in turn, is enforced upon OPEC oil producers by American military projection]) is fragmenting. The Russians have been involved in a campaign of carving up and laying claim to critical bottlenecks of oil consumption while expanding their own oil exports to China. The mythos of environmentalism, born in the 1960s, has evolved into an influential force, directing official policy in developed countries and the economic perception of their consumers to bypass the cabal altogether. Developing nations are asserting their own authority in regional matters via land grabs and nuclear proliferation.
Alexander of Macedonia wasn’t a great leader because history says so. Alexander managed to bind hundreds of tribes, each with their own language, ethos, culture, religion, and economic pressures, to his goal. He carved a path from the Mediterranean to India (and funneled nearly all of the gold from Mesopotamian antiquity into Europe) in the world’s first attempt at aggressive globalism. His grand ambitions were dashed by simple human needs: His soldiers went on strike, citing a desire to reconnect with loved ones and their increasing skepticism of Alexander and his willingness to blur cultural identities.
>yeah but just like in business it hast to be a win win situation, and what would the west win? we fucking invented EVERYTHING, we have the god damn beauty standard of the EARTH every one wants to be like us, look like us, ect but on the other hand we don't want any of their objectively seen inferior cultures, genes, traditions.
Okay, so how about the previous era of globalization, i.e. colonialism? Wasn't that pretty close to a win-win situation?
What I'm essentially trying to pin down is this: is alt-right Little England Syndrome a principled opposition to internationalism, or just a realpolitik reaction to the collapse of Western power?
Basically, do you guys really think that thinking big, thinking global is bad, or do you just hate it now that the West is becoming the more passive actor on the world stage?
There have been many more attempts at globalism since Alexander, all of which have subsequently reduced the emotional buy-in required to accept the destruction of one’s cultural identity. However, once the industrial age came to fruition, the ability to overcome previously insurmountable cultural squabbles became cheaper and easier, mostly due to mass media. With this technology, cultural perceptions could be homogenized across hundreds of millions of people, ensuring their economic actions were within a range of acceptable behavior. However, with every increase in globalism, there has been countercultural reactions obsessed with restoring a primal understanding of identity that doesn’t require years of education and propaganda to comprehend. The high cost of normalizing globalist culture (perpetual reinvention of new communication mediums to create a generation’s worth of authenticity) eventually hits diminishing returns because of this identity impulse. It appears that human DNA has several million years of defenses to invoke emotionally convincing skepticism of mass identity destruction, despite the best intentions of the learned and the powerful.
Assuming that these unverified assumptions of human neurosociology are completely incorrect, we still live in a world where the elite absolutely rely on the leverage provided by the labor arbitrage that only globalism (and floating exchange rates) can provide. Take the European Union, for example. Each member of the European Union can print bonds in their nation’s name, but they cannot print currency to pay the coupon of those bonds. Furthermore, these nations cannot raise their taxes to pay the coupon either, as they are high-tax socialist paradises, thus, any increase in taxes will cut directly into consumption, which directly affects their imports/export agreements. There is only one way in which European nations can pay off these coupon: labor arbitrage.
Importing massive amounts of cheaper immigrants, especially in export-heavy nations like Sweden and Germany, is a conceit that Europe must now follow the American/Ford model of labor arbitrage: Import labor to do that which is too complex to outsource, and then outsource the rest. In short, Europe is engaging in a variation of Gresham’s Law regarding labor: Hoard complexity, liquefy simplicity. That means human organizations have a propensity to hoard those who can resolve complexity and expend those who are tasked to resolve simplicity. The profits generated from cheap labor arbitrage will extend the politically popular (and expensive) socialist policies of human care that an export nation must provide to be competitive. As gains in labor arbitrage occur, tax revenue increase, and stable bond issuance can increase to allow socialist nations to engage in production expansion. (Taxation being collateral) The loyal socialists who labored for years are replaced by a configuration of cheaper labor. Their complaints and frustrations are dismissed as nothing more than racist reactions or tone deaf nationalism since the imported labor heralds from a variety of different races and/or nationalities.
The inevitable response to this automatic dismissal is populist nationalism. To counter this evolution, the Americans have developed a very effective model in destroying populist nationalism when they engaged in their transition to global labor arbitrage back in the 1960s. The American solution is that as long as those who benefit from the labor arbitrage (Fortune 500s, bond issuers, and Wall Street) are allowed to invest in and/or financially control media outlets, then nationalist impulses can be defused without unpopular and overt government heavy-handedness.
It's actually already been tried.
No we don't need mass immigration of Koreans to Japan, thank you.
How? In this setup, for-profit news and clickbait peddlers are driven by profit motive that undermines, waters down, harasses, lies about, and ultimately destroys countercultural nationalist upstarts. This profit motive is very powerful and has achieved countless victories over the past ten years.
I will now going to give you the way to counter that profit motive.
During World War 2, the Europeans decided it would be hilarious if they blew themselves up. As a result, they shipped most of their highly coveted gold to America, (the one place unscathed by the war) specifically, to the bedrock underneath Manhattan currently manned by robotic palate pushers owned by JP Morgan and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. In fact, 98% of the gold owned by the Federal Reserve system is actually owned by Europe. (Over a thousand years of gold conquest led by Alexander, the Romans, the Conquistadors, and the Imperialists) America has since refused multiple times to return this gold upon request to their various owners… while simultaneously pushing the narrative that gold is barbarous relic. (If it was so barbarous, why hold on to it so desperately, America?) Because of this arrangement, there is a way to undermine the mass media anti-nationalism profit motive with the blessing of globalist overseers: Each European nationalist movement must strike multiple deals with the Federal Reserve. When those nationalists come to power, they will enact quotas and legal changes to alter national import/export mechanisms, (driven entirely by Federal Reserve policy objectives) those European nationalists will be allowed to easily repatriate their gold to bypass and undermine Brussels currency issuance limitations. In essence, European nationalism can be used to destroy the European Union with blessing from the Federal Reserve.
This model will achieve initial gains and advantages for first movers, leaving the remaining globalist bloc to operate without their full support. This will profoundly affect global trade and, in desperation, second-tier members of the globalist bloc will nationalize, triggering in a cascade of nationalization for the remaining members. The military and technological advantage of superstates and national unions will diminish as intelligence gathering will be made more expensive due to the subsequent regionalizations of the Internet, depriving the NSA and GCHQ of their current advantage. Hundreds of tribes will return and we will be living in a world in which only an Alexander can understand and make sense of.
So you're all like "what if nationalism is bad"
Hey Jihun, if you were white and in a place where leftism is especially bad, you'd know that very little is better than the out group preferences that make it near impossible to get a job as a white male with a degree in "shit that easily matters" or STEM. Sorry bro, but it's just not fair that I'm not judged on merit.
Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiifififififiifififififififiifififiififidififififiififififiififififififififi
Okie doke
I don't need to. I was one of the "globalists". The redpill I took AFTER thinking, if the other side might be right.
pretty weak reasoning
>nationalism breeds exclusive attitudes and makes it easier to dehumanize others and go to war
there hasn't ever been a war between two democracies
Subscribed.
The problem with globalisation over internationalism is that is that globalisation is forced. It is a political and business elite doing it largely for their own interests. I think the biggest objection to globalisation is that it's top-down. Imposed from above and the people affected by it are never consulted.
More to add. You've got me thinking.
>previous era of globalization, i.e. colonialism?
You mean how we catapulted THE ENTIRE earth into a new era and brought them light like Prometheus has done?
it was win-win because we got resources we needed but if you look at UK now invested with all these sub-human low IQ flooding into the country from these earlier colonies it's not a win win when they still profit from it but not us any more it's a net negative for us.
>internationalism
you mean all the low IQ countries invading the west and abandoning their shitty countries? it's not like white people are moving to africa, middle east and other shitts subhuman places?
>West is becoming the more passive actor on the world stage?
yeah that's what you think because you gook countries cook your books to keep a high GDP up, it's all bullshit and we know it and it will crash on itself keep on producing thinner and thinner televisions each year now body gives a shit south Korea
>Is alt-right Little England Syndrome a principled opposition to internationalism, or just a realpolitik reaction to the collapse of Western power?
Its a bit of collumn A, a bit of collumn B. The rising nationalism is reaction directly to both the failure of Globalist leadership at mitigating the damage, and a more instinctual, tribalistic reaction of humans to keep to their own kind.
All in all, nationalism, or neo-tribalism will always exist since human beings divide themselves into groups and subgroups by instinct.
The sudden rise of neo-tribalism however is a direct response to the disastrous policies of foreign govermnents, the obvious incompactability of different ethnic groups and peoples, and the harsh toll the multiculturalism experiment has had on nations budgets.
Its ugly, its costly, and it has harmed much more than anything good so far, so opposition to Globalism is nowdays rooted in rational cost analysis, while Favoring Globalism is rooted in just blind ideology and wishful thinking.
>do you guys really think that thinking big, thinking global is bad, or do you just hate it now that the West is becoming the more passive actor on the world stage?
I think its great that people are minding their own business nowdays, instead of trying to take on any kind of "White man burden" of the modern age. What the hell is there to gain in being a "big player" in third worlds, other than unfettered migration and some money sinks?
For colonialism to be profitable, the colonized part of the world has to be of so low tech level that they will not mind their resources syphoned away, or for it to be so one-sided its guaranteed to cause resistance, and damage to the empire itself. Its not worth the cost.
The problem is that they want Global Socialism.
Like the soviet union, only the entire planet and with them in charge.
This will be the end of humanity. it will be impossible to recover from it.
>>technology is advancing so rapidly that problems caused by mass immigration and globalization can be overcome
well it's absolutely not being overcome right now, so let's not even consider doing it until we have the slightest idea how
>>the return of nationalism will make it more difficult to solve global problems that need international solutions
globalism is worse because you can't even adress problems
>>barriers between nations slow down the flow of information, technology and other exchanges between peoples
internet? retard. how do you think you're giving me this idea from south korea?
>>nationalism breeds exclusive attitudes and makes it easier to dehumanize others and go to war
how can you dehumanize a group that you can watch on youtube/facebook? it's not the 1700s anymore where you can easily brainwash your whole population
Also this. No human leadership or institution has shown itself to be incorruptible, and a globalized single governing system is guaranteed to be taken over by manipulative sociopaths in a generation.
Governments need to be limited as much as possible until such a time we can create AI leaders.
Imagine if you were an advanced Alien race visiting Earth. If you saw a bunch of squabbling tribes (i.e. how things currently are) you wouldn't hesitate to kill or enslave everyone and take all the humans' resources. Now imagine I saw one strong, unified society representing the planet. I would have respect for humans and try and trade and learn from humans. That's why there should be one worldwide nation.
But why this though
fucking paki, so you want the high IQ cultures to carry the entire world with their failed cultures and sub human 85 average IQ nations
ridicules.
What if the globalist are the alien race and they simply want one government instead of 400 because that way the slaves are easier to manage?
>dude what if ayy lmaos came, I wouldn't want to hurt their feelings
>that's why globalists are right
>how can you dehumanize a group that you can watch on youtube/facebook? it's not the 1700s anymore where you can easily brainwash your whole population
To an extent, you still can. For example, most South Koreans actually socially discourage one another from learning English or interacting socially with foreigners. Seems odd when you consider how much money and time they spend learning it, but it's very true. Viewing English as something to pass the TOEIC is considered "normal" while being too much into Western culture or interacting with Western people is considered "weird". To be fair, the same is true in reverse; think of the stigma in the West associated with Westerners who "go native" and are assumed to be maladjusted or creepy/abnormal somehow, weeaboos are a great example.
Anyway, back to my example of South Korea: even if there is a small minority of about 5% of the population with good English it doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of the population is utterly unable to either understand or communicate with outsiders, which means that they can only consume media in their own language, which makes it very easy to keep them on message.
>technology is advancing so rapidly that problems caused by mass immigration and globalization can be overcome
No they can't, if anything our age of technology exacerbates it. It's far easier for those moving around the world to stay in touch with their roots and drag their cancerous culture and values everywhere they go, causing division everywhere.
>the return of nationalism will make it more difficult to solve global problems that need international solutions
There's no good reason why separate, independent nation states can't simply cooperate with eachother in such cases, nationalism isn't about supremacy or domination it's about independence.
>barriers between nations slow down the flow of information, technology and other exchanges between peoples
Not for those who have good reason to move around the world, if you are an incredibly intelligent, wealthy and successful individual you will be welcomed by almost any country.
>nationalism breeds exclusive attitudes and makes it easier to dehumanize others and go to war
A civil war within a global state would make world war 2 look like a training exercise and it would definitely happen. One group or another (perhaps multiple groups/former independant nations) will inevitably contest global rule and bring bloodshed.
A one world government would be a dystopian nightmare for pretty much everyone involved.
>Globalism
>UN Arms Treaty
>Taxes drafted and enforced by a group that doesn't consist entirely of your country
plz no
Their case is to reserve the Earth entirely for themselves in the long run while they pretend to be "healing" it in the short run.
CONSTANT REMINDER THAT GLOBALIZATION IS JUST A NEW WORD FOR COLONIALISM
What globalism is for liberal:
A perfect coexistence of diverse cultures
What it is actually:
The stronger culture kills the others
How exactly would white and Asian countries be stronger if they were having to subsidize the current population boom happening in sub Saharan Africa even more than they are now?
What effects do you think that would have on their strengths and competence(especially if they were forced to breed with the africans)?
Strength doesn't come from numbers, especially when the human races/populations aren't equal.
So because some south Koreans stigmatize learning English we should destroy every single ethnic and cultural identity to create one encompassing, easy to control, slave people? Not an argument.
Also, tell me how not learning English because of cultural identity is the same as dehumanizing a group to the extent that a government has the population's approval to wage total war.
And let's say these arguments had logic to them, how do you plan on converting all of these south Koreans to accept your globalist agenda? You just sort of argued for me, because they obviously won't accept it without some resistance, just like every other population on this earth.
>technology is advancing so rapidly that problems caused by mass immigration and globalization can be overcome
Holy shit, could it really be true? They finally invented an oven capable of incinerating millions of bodies in a short time peroid?
...
Globalist goal is to mix all people onto a single mongrel race. This reason alone is why I can never support them.
This was very well written and thought out, did you write it? the only thing is the end, it (necessarily) extrapolates a lot. Will hundreds of tribes appear, simply because they wont be monitored? And is this what you want? a world that suits Alexander? What is your objective in sharing this?
As long as humans are different, there will always be conflict.
What you need is blank slates of people, husks of humanity that are easily programmed and heavily influenced by peer pressure and other outside forces.
Remember, freedom of thought is just fine, as long as it is the same as your own.
This leads to the greatest weakness of tolerance and freedom of all expression, it allows your own demise over time.
Hence, homogeneity is beneficial for stability of mass political thought and values and society in general.
This homogeneity however begins to get eroded when people have different developmental experiences and have less in common with their own kind, class differences for example or what music genre or what football team you prefer.
There will always be chaos and disharmony on a global scale. Rather than fight it and try to control the unstoppable force, maybe you globalists should just do what you have previously done and profit monetarily from it, adapt to the continuous change and be at peace with the inherent differences that humans have.
Yes, I have considered it. I'm open-minded enough to hear out opposite opinions and think carefully if they might have a point. That's why I'm on Sup Forums in the first place. I was once a leftist muslim apologist and everything, but I was willing to listen to other opinions, and eventually they managed to convince me. But I continue listening to people who disagree with me; it's still possible that I'm wrong and the other guy is right.
The problem I see is this The globalists that I've been listening to usually tend to have unrealistic views about people.
Most of them don't seem to realize that humans are tribal, especially outside Western countries, and forcing vastly different cultures to interact together is going to create conflicts due to different belief systems and values.
Then there are some globalists who seem to agree about tribalism being a part of us, but they think that it's totally okay to put cultures together and work things out through some bloody warfare, until it ends and some kind of new status quo emerges.
The third group that I've seen appear to have just a pathological and unhealthy hatred of West, and they're in favor of islamic immigration because they want the white man to die.
I don't want countries dragged into conflicts that could be prevented, and I don't want people to suffer or die needlessly. I think globalism is going to cause that. That's why I oppose it.
I'll be willing to try out globalism when Saudi Arabians allow non-muslims to travel in Mecca, when women in islamic countries don't have to cover themselves under a veil anymore, when arab countries can have gay pride parades, and so on. Until then, the globalist agenda looks like a huge risk that will endanger the Western way of life.