Ask a non-ironic globalist anything (for about 25 minutes before I get bored and go to sleep)

Ask a non-ironic globalist anything (for about 25 minutes before I get bored and go to sleep).

Other urls found in this thread:

web.archive.org/web/20150221143809/http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/data_access/data/datasets/social_capital_community_survey.html#.UDTTcnCUpME
robertdputnam.com/
hks.harvard.edu/about/faculty-staff-directory/robert-putnam
data.worldbank.org/topic/poverty
migrationpolicy.org/research/integration-outcomes-us-refugees-successes-and-challenges
yourdictionary.com/globalism
businessinsider.com/heres-median-income-in-the-us-by-race-2013-9
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Are you fucks really this scared

Seriously, I don't bite

Why would you promote multiculturalism despite the fact that it's one of the most dangerous political ideologies on the planet? It's a fucking time bomb and it's going to explode in everyone's face and you're too fucking ignorant to see it coming.

I don't support "multiculturalism" in the sense of "let's all be pussies and tread on eggshells all the time and be sure not to appropriate anything," because I do view that as dangerously ignorant.

I don't quite know why you think that melting-pot-style "throw shit at the wall and see what sticks" multiculturalism is bad. Even if you just consider food, the availability of multiple cultures has greatly improved the lives of people everywhere, and especially in countries where life isn't generally shit (AKA the west).

Why exactly do you think it's dangerous?

Niggers.

Okay, great, but black people in America are largely a homogeneous culture, almost none of them arrived here via immigration, and the higher crime rates can be explained away as poverty and cultural isolation more than anything. Trying to educate yourself and get a respectable job is seen as "not black" (IE not within black culture), which is a huge issue.

If anything blacks have so many problems because they're a highly insular mono-culture.

Try again.

>I don't quite know why you think that melting-pot-style "throw shit at the wall and see what sticks" multiculturalism is bad. Even if you just consider food, the availability of multiple cultures has greatly improved the lives of people everywhere, and especially in countries where life isn't generally shit (AKA the west).


So you're simply arrogant?

>Muh food

Even when controlling for income inequality and crime rates, two factors which conflict theory states should be the prime causal factors in declining inter-ethnic group trust, more diversity is still associated with less communal trust.

Lowered trust in areas with high diversity is also associated with:

Lower confidence in local government, local leaders and the local news media.
Lower political efficacy – that is, confidence in one's own influence.
Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social reform groups.
Higher political advocacy, but lower expectations that it will bring about a desirable result.
Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective action (e.g., voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy shortage).
Less likelihood of working on a community project.
Less likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering.
Fewer close friends and confidants.
Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life.
More time spent watching television and more agreement that "television is my most important form of entertainment".

You need a CHEF FOR FOOD NOT SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND PEOPLE.

I wasnt the first guy to reply. Just the one that said niggers. I just dont see how giving them more rights whad a negative impact on their "culture" it honestly happens anywhere niggers are left to their own means. Turns into a complete shit show.

>more diversity is still associated with less communal trust.

I'd love to see a source for this!

I'd also think that the correlation is likely not a causation. Places with higher diversity tend to be poorer and more urban on average, and almost everything you said seems like it could be drawn more from those two factors than anywhere else.

I'd also love to know why you're using allcaps. There is no need to be upset.

Giving them more rights didn't have negative impact on culture. The average black person makes a lot more today than they did in the fucking 1930s, that should be extremely obvious.

Yes they make much more now that they have cocaine and get huge tax refunds for their bastard children. I see your point. Oh lets not forget the rappers making but loads by reinforcing this life style on the black youth.

Do you really think all blacks are slinging coke or existing off welfare?

A lot of them are, sure, but there's plenty of blacks being accountants, doctors, floor managers, what have you.

As for rappers, this isn't the 90s, my friend. Rap songs today are almost entirely about fucking and getting money, with very little shooting and gangbanging to be found.

Are you aware that the Japanese still have access to other cultures and foods despite homogenous?

Literally kill yourself, cuck

money is now worth more in the hands of a white American man. am I wrong?

for example, I live in Los Angeles. it's pretty much the truth that nobody here actually has real money besides (((the globalists))) and Chinese immigrants. now, unless you're financing a movie production (in which case you need total fucking idiots to give you money anyways so it doesn't really matter where you get money from) if you're raising capital BOTH of those sources look really bad to have on your cap table. am I wrong?

I remember in the 90s and early 2000s there was this flood of companies that would pop up to spread foreign money around and they would hire white people as their face people to go to meetings and smile and shake hands and nod with people. I know that cause that's basically exclusively the companies I worked at for a good minute (6'3" look like hitler youth). Do you see this coming back?

>I'd love to see a source for this!

web.archive.org/web/20150221143809/http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/data_access/data/datasets/social_capital_community_survey.html#.UDTTcnCUpME


Just check his website
robertdputnam.com/

hks.harvard.edu/about/faculty-staff-directory/robert-putnam

You will not win don't you realize that? You came close this time but you must shut down the plans or you will all be killed. When governments and corporations and media agents keep reshaping the world into new versions of locked-down conformity and robot behaviorism, the breakout will never be smooth. Because the thing most wished for, and most precious, is an article called freedom.

he means the people

they eat the people from the different cultures

what do you use to lube up your wife's bull?

Japan is also one of the worst civilized countries to live in. They work themselves to death, their birth rate is negative, their economy is in a slump (and has been since the fucking 90s), everything is terrible.

>money is now worth more in the hands of a white American man
A dollar is a dollar no matter who's holding it, actually.

The rest of your post makes almost no fucking sense. White people are desirable as spokespeople to foreign markets because China is insanely, ludicrously racist against everybody who isn't from China or white.

This post is so overly dramatic that I think it has to be trolling.

Globalism is freedom. Borders and trade restrictions are just that—restrictions. You're right, people do desire freedom: that's why my ideology is inevitable.

The only place that page mentions "diversity" is in the phrase "diversity of our friend patterns."

Please try again.

Nice cuckold meme, friend! Please, however, I'm trying to be serious. Keep it on-topic, okay? You can have time to sexually fantasize later.

Do you trust (and I mean honestly in your hear of hearts) that when this big, centralized power takes over that it will truly be benevolent? Do you really think that once the power is consolidated, it will do what is honestly best for humanity, and not just do what is selfish and benefits the ruling class?

If so, what evidence do you have that they will be benevolent?

>The only place that page mentions "diversity" is in the phrase "diversity of our friend patterns."

Are you baiting or retarded?

You realize you live in a country with a mass shooting once a week right? Yeah nothing dangerous about a bunch of people who feel no connection to their neighbors or the outside world; a decreased trust in the government or media. Holy fuck do you want another Hitler?

Globalism is freedom? How so? Globalists are the ones trying to force radical / extreme societal change. Globalism is all about allowing mega-corporations to take their factories and jobs out of the country overseas. It’s a cornerstone of every trade deal. Mega-corps can manufacture their products more cheaply in a hell hole with slave workers, and then export those products back here (and to other industrialized countries)—and pay
no tariffs. How sweet (and destructive) it is. How can you possibly expect that you can take take the existing trends in the world, some favorable, some undesired, and mold them in such a way as to create even more wealth for the world's 0.01%, while perpetuating the existing system, one which even the IMF
agrees is no longer working, and expect people to be fine with that?

YOUR COUNTRY HAS 4000 NUCLEAR WEAPONS THE LAST THING YOU WANT IS AN ANGRY MOB WITH NOTHING TO LOSE.

Thoughts on bitcoin?

Why are you conflating globalism with globalization?

Do you believe you have the right or privilege to rule over someone not of your kind?
With no shared creed, little shared language and an entirely different cultural context.

Not even the problems they may cause us, but do you think it is fair to govern someone who is not your own kind?

Big, centralized power? You misunderstand me—I would consider myself a "globalist", but not in the Alex-Jones-style "one world government" sense.

Globalism is primarily achieved through the erosion of power. You eliminate local economic monopolies via the promotion of trading agreements and local economic power via sensible regulation. Enabling further immigration is not an erosion of power so much as it is a good economic ideal, but it does increase the freedom of people overall by giving them freedom of movement.

I think a one world government would almost definitely be a fucking disaster. I don't want that, I just want freer interaction.

>Yeah nothing dangerous about a bunch of people who feel no connection to their neighbors or the outside world

Is this because of diversity or an increasingly polarized media? Fuck, forget politics, people have fights over Marvel movies vs DC Movies and what fucking sitcom they watch. It's modern culture that's fucked us, not globalism.

> How sweet (and destructive) it is

You do realize that the increase in freedom of trade is the primary reason the worldwide starvation rate is so ludicrously low, correct?

data.worldbank.org/topic/poverty

Current gains from trade are slightly skewed to the ultra-rich, but you can fix that via smart taxation (and eliminating certain loopholes). The fact of the matter is, however, that, trade is efficient. Look at this neat chart!

Bitcoin is interesting but unfortunately fiat currencies have the advantage of being open to manipulation. That's actually a good thing when you have smart people (like Ben Bernanke, not as much Yellen) in charge.

I apologize.

Of course not! Now, if they want to move here they'd better play by our rules, but I don't think anybody has a right to conquer anybody.
See the first part of this post.

>A dollar is a dollar no matter who's holding it, actually.
If a Mexican is holding it, there is a good chance that it gets sent to Mexico and not spent on our nation's economy

"higher crime rates can be explained away"

And yet in a globalist system you inevitably do.
Folk will say anything to get into a country, if Germany can be trusted with Syrian refugees, can it logically not be trusted to rule over Syria?
Germany are clearly better administrators and governors.

If consent of the person involved is required then how can you justify trying to force the people in the nations that receive immigrants to accept them?

You're thinking far too zero-sum.

The average mexican works a shit-for-pay awful job. He spends almost all of his income immediately in America, to pay for his apartment, his (probably lowered) car, and a few other things.

The money which leaves America is a pittance compared to what he spends, and even that is not necessarily lost forever. America exports a large amount of goods to Mexico, and the money he sends back to his abuela will likely wind up here again soon enough.

>I apologize.

That's not good enough. Your entire argument is a straw man because you're arguing for globalization and you have no idea what globalism is.

Globalization = more globalized economy enabled by more free trade / looser capital controls. Some include relatively open immigration but I do not believe that is a necessary component.

Globalism = centralization of political and financial power into global or supranational entities like the United Nations, IMF, European Union, World Bank, etc.

Globalization is good as long as it doesn't involve open borders.

Globalism is the worst threat facing humanity.

Came here to say this. Now stop posting Milton Friedman OP.

this

>If consent of the person involved is required then how can you justify trying to force the people in the nations that receive immigrants to accept them?

Because the immigrants aren't ruling over the Germans? They're just living in the same country.

Bear in mind that I think European countries shouldn't accept refugees, because European countries are absolute dogshit at integration. America, on the other hand, is quite good at handling refugees, and they quickly become extremely productive members of society:

migrationpolicy.org/research/integration-outcomes-us-refugees-successes-and-challenges

This is mostly due to how US culture is different from European culture.

yourdictionary.com/globalism

I base my views off the second definition of the word, my friend.

Personally I'm not for open borders, but I do think that immigration should be much easier. Just check to make sure they aren't a criminal and let 'em past as a "beta citizen", where they don't receive any government assistance but have to pay taxes for a period of five years (six months if you're highly educated). That should be good enough.

>I think a one world government would almost definitely be a fucking disaster. I don't want that, I just want freer interaction.
You don't fucking get it.
You will get one world government once you get "freer interaction". Current proposals of "free trade deals" are great examples of it - they open window for specific big corporations to legally influence their governments and the population can't do anything against it.

Even if they wanted to because corporate media tells them to be more inclusive to muslims and disabled LGTBBQQPEDO rather than to fight for their rights and there's too much division on every level(ethnic, religious, cultural) between the people to ever change the course.

>Is this because of diversity or an increasingly polarized media?

Why not both?

>You will get one world government once you get "freer interaction".

I don't see how this follows at all.

>- they open window for specific big corporations to legally influence their governments and the population can't do anything against it.

That's not what trade courts do, actually! Trade courts are a way for a company to sue a government for unfair treatment. If a government were to say that all foreign companies need to pay a 90% tax on the import of a certain good, this is against the deal and unfair. The company can then sue to enforce the deal. If the people don't like it, the answer is simple: leave the deal!

>division on every level(ethnic, religious, cultural) between the people to ever change the course.
I personally don't think this is true.

>I base my views off the second definition of the word, my friend.

Then you need to be specific and either say "economic globalism" or use the proper term 'globalization'.

It can get confusing but the word globalism today means viewing people as "global citizens" and desiring to erode the concept of nation state.

Also, most so-called "free trade" deals are not true free trade, they're crony deals written by insiders for economic advantages and require large bureaucracies like the World Trade Organization to oversee. A true free trade deal wouldn't need to be more than a few pages long.

But in your suggestion the American people are shouldering the burden, or benefit.
Your only argument for immigration is that all involved consent, and yet those who are most likely to bear the burden, ie those indirectly affected have little to no choice in the matter.

Why should I have my taxes raised because someone moves here and refuses to integrate? Why should the people who are not affected by this get to make the decisions?

KYS Sage thread

how do you know what average mexican gets payed in us?
why are you assuming that average mexican has a shit pay in us?why are setting such a low expectation from an average mexican?

niggers dont stop nogging when they get money. Also multiculturalism is garbage because i dont want the best race who produce the best societies to be superseded by shitskins.

>Why should I have my taxes raised because someone moves here and refuses to integrate?

Did I ever say this should happen? I don't believe it should. I don't want your taxes to be raised, and I certainly don't want immigrants benefiting from unreasonable entitlements.

Trade Deals are so complex because the countries involved have a shitload of special interests.

They're an intern measure until we get better deals.

businessinsider.com/heres-median-income-in-the-us-by-race-2013-9

The median income of hispanics is almost $20K less per year than that of whites.

Globalism does not have the interests of the little people in mind. A global market and affairs is only accessible to wealthy elites who exploit it to expand the income gap. In the end, the only free market left is that of governments, who are left to compete with each other to meet the needs of big corporations. The people ultimately have no say

I don't give a fuck about the rest of the world and world starvation. Take your Babylonian money magic bullshit and shove it. Were going to end the FED, take back all the stolen wealth/ownership, that you stole from us in 1913 with the illegal and unconstitutional Federal Reserve Act and ALL the problems of the world will be solved. You're going to return it to the people/treasury, then we're going to prosecute Paisen and all the primary dealer bank heads since Nixon. Finally we're going to take some fucking heads.We're going to do this because you have been plotting against America. The powers that be cannot allow successful alternative government models to exist that hold in check or threaten the full reach of the powers they will
attempt to retain. But we don't care. We don't want your Globalism. We know want you ruling over us. We will take you all down if we have to. You're lucky that American people have been as patient with you as they have been and make no mistake the Constitution IS a powerful document that was drafted in order to make this abuse of power all but impossible. We're going to get you unless you reverse course.

You say this, but what would you suggest we do when thousands of folk who can't speak English show up on boats and start making a fuss about how they're treated?

You're kidding, right?

>The median income of hispanics is almost $20K less per year than that of whites.
what is the reason for this then

>Did I ever say this should happen? I don't believe it should. I don't want your taxes to be raised, and I certainly don't want immigrants benefiting from unreasonable entitlements.

That's what inevitably happens when you let third world scum pour into a first world country with a benefits system.

My lord, you are thick as a brick. Let me guess, you're 18 or younger and just learned about libertarianism?

>Trade courts are a way for a company to sue a government for unfair treatment.
how do you know that this won't be abused and average citizen won't be effected?

>Did I ever say this should happen? I don't believe it should. I don't want your taxes to be raised, and I certainly don't want immigrants benefiting from unreasonable entitlements.

the fact of the matter is that we DO have unreasonable entitlements in spades. i think while globalism is a brilliant idea, were very far from it and it absolutely cannot work in modern america

I don't think this guy has a sophisticated understanding of large populations of black people..

>That's not what trade courts do, actually! Trade courts are a way for a company to sue a government for unfair treatment. If a government were to say that all foreign companies need to pay a 90% tax on the import of a certain good, this is against the deal and unfair. The company can then sue to enforce the deal. If the people don't like it, the answer is simple: leave the deal!

Yes, I've seen that unfair treatment in Poland.

Dell wanted to be completely tax free here. Our government didn't want to let them so they've stopped building their factory here. I bet they would sue the govt over it and win if trade courts had any power.

They won't stop 90% import taxes, they will stop every single tax, every single legislation that hurts them and their profit through trade courts, and win every time. And "leaving the deal" won't happen because divided population will never elect leadership that will be able to leave it.
>I personally don't think this is true.
You personally saw it in the US a little over week ago. City dwellers voted for pro-deal establishment, blacks voted for pro-deal establishment and they would outweigh the anti-deal anti-establishment candidate if it wasn't for Trump being smart enough to court midwest and Clinton being stupid enough to not care about them. In fact if it wasn't for electoral college(which is US specific thing) it would never happen.

Low education.

lol

>That's what inevitably happens when you let third world scum pour into a first world country with a benefits system.

Doesn't happen here! Look at the PDF about refugee outcomes I posted.

Tell them to fuck off?

In America refugees typically hunker down, get a job, and live pretty normal lives. They have high employment and achievement rates.

They haven't been in the past.

>bet they would sue the govt over it and win if trade courts had any power

They can't. That's not what trade courts are for.

are you agreeing with me or did you forget to reply

>Low education.
And what is the reason for that?

public education system is terrible

Races differ in average cognitive capabilities. People of african descent have an average IQ of 70, around the same as mentally retarded whites. The reason why they can't perform in a technological society is not cultural, but racial (which is also why asians can and do perform. They have an average IQ in the white range)

IQ isnt a biological measure

but even if it were, they can still be productive at low IQs

We'd like to!
But apparently letting children and political asylum seekers drown is an issue (now if they didn't throw their kids overboard to get attention it might be a bit easier too).
So we have to take them somewhere to check if they're economic or political refugees as if anyone actually fucking cares, and if they're "valid to enter the country".
And then they whine about treatment, and every stage of this is costing the taxpayer money.

Especially if they manage to get into our overbloated welfare state.

>biological measure
What did he mean by this?

If you meant "IQ isn't a measure of intelligence", you'd be wrong, as it is.

They could be productive in a society where unskilled labor is in high demand. In a "post-industrial" society like modern day america they're basically obsolete.

And even if we take your attitude of "America accepting all the refugees", one has to wonder how the nation can handle it.
Because there are a lotta refugees and a limited amount of America.

>They haven't been in the past.
but we're not talking about the past, you're terrible at answering questions and being honest

did the holocaust happen?

>cultural isolation causes crime

you are retarded and probably a nigger

>you're terrible at answering questions and being honest
Well, after all he's a "non-ironic globalist". He's either a Jew or a moron.

>Make a silly product, market it as "bling"

Now you have a customer base

It wouldn't benefit the economy if it's paid for by their welfare checks. It'd be like doing a blood transfusion from one arm to another...

See this is what I don't really understand.
If you appreciate all these awesome and interesting cultures, why do you want to remove culturally homogenous nation states and replace them with a "melting pot" that will eventually just become one homogenous mix with no connection to authentic culture and no room for new unique cultural shit to emerge?

>Even if you just consider food

Stopped reading here, you're a globalist and the reason you want to flood white countries with shitskins is for a better variety of restaurants?

>Places with higher diversity tend to be poorer and more urban on average

I'm sure they don't mind as long as some gooks cook them some food

>In America refugees typically hunker down, get a job, and live pretty normal lives. They have high employment and achievement rates.

[Citation needed]

They know on some level that a homogeneous nation state is the ideal.

They just want one to govern the world without having to do anything genocide-y.


It's understandable but... They'd seek to undo the complex and beautiful tapestry, to cut us all down to the same cloth, to the same people.
And that's a fucking boring world.

>I'd love to see a source for this!

>Harvard professor of political science Robert D. Putnam conducted a nearly decade long study on how diversity affects social trust.[93] He surveyed 26,200 people in 40 American communities, finding that when the data were adjusted for class, income and other factors, the more racially diverse a community is, the greater the loss of trust. People in diverse communities "don't trust the local mayor, they don't trust the local paper, they don't trust other people and they don't trust institutions," writes Putnam.[94] In the presence of such ethnic diversity, Putnam maintains that

>[W]e hunker down. We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it's not just that we don't trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don't trust people who do look like us.

>Relatively homogeneous societies invest more in public goods, indicating a higher level of public altruism. For example, the degree of ethnic homogeneity correlates with the government's share of gross domestic product as well as the average wealth of citizens. Case studies of the United States ... find that multi-ethnic societies are less charitable and less able to cooperate to develop public infrastructure. ... A recent multi-city study of municipal spending on public goods in the United States found that ethnically or racially diverse cities spend a smaller portion of their budgets and less per capita on public services than do the more homogeneous cities.

I guess this is still worth it as long as they can cook?

It's not even about it being boring in my opinion. I think it's a serious risk to our future as a species.. over specialise and you breed-in weakness.
At different times throughout history most of the great nations of the world have contributed to the project of human survival.
An example I find interesting is the Persians preserving a lot of knowledge that would've been lost during the dark ages. They might be a blight on the world at the moment, but if all people had been suckered in to the same dim witted shit at the same point in history it would've been quite shit for the species' productivity as a whole.
We need independent nation states as incubators for different ideas and approaches to dealing with problems as they emerge in different parts of the world.