|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted September 11, 2020 10:17 AM |
|
|
anyone supporting globalism from the lower and middle classes are not only traitors to everyone in their own class, but traitors to their nations as well.
the bootlicker to end all bootlickers. because with globalism comes world government.
you see how you all have no say what happens in your own countries? expand that worldwide, where the powerful now have an even more vast, worldwide network to control you, everyone you love, and all theirs, and your, offspring. until the end of the human race.
so far beyond disgraceful, as a human capable of free thought, that no word comes to mind to describe the notion.
|
|
blob2
Undefeatable Hero
Blob-Ohmos the Second
|
|
posted September 11, 2020 10:52 AM |
|
Edited by blob2 at 10:54, 11 Sep 2020.
|
I also think the countries are trying and will try to be more isolationist as things stand out. Countries like America or Western Europe first pumped money/technologies into China (cus lower production costs), so no wonder China reaps the benefits from this now. But crisises like corona or immigration one show that countries take big hits by "sharing things", other then their own internal problems. There is no perfect solution for this unfortunately as long as there are personal interests involved... and there will always be personal interests.
At the end of the day most people will take their interests over interests of others.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted September 11, 2020 11:16 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Let me repeat that globalism is a fact.
Well, this alone proves you're oblivious. Globalism is no fact, it's a trend which has multiple dimensions and is not the inevitable future. The only two things which have changed significantly since the ancient times in the "we are all linked" sense is that the means of communication have vastly improved and that the world population has increased dramatically compared to, say, the times of the Romans or the medieval period. People were just as "linked" back then in terms of disease exposure or natural disasters, or any other topic which is fashionable to be presented as modern. And see, that's the problem - common problems doesn't mean common solutions. To begin with, who's "we"? People don't identify with a very broad group of other people as "we" unless there is a very direct, balls to the wall kind of problem to solve - they identify with themselves first, then with their family, with their community, town, ethnicity, country and so on and the bigger the circle becomes, the thinner these "we" links become too. Sure, you can indoctrinate people to jump over some of them, like a fanatic believer in whatever betrays his own mother to the authorities, but that's an artificial forceful solution which doesn't last. On global scale there's next to no "we", unless perhaps we get attacked by aliens, and the roots for that are not in some backwater ideology but in the basic human psychology. Globalism at this point has virtually NO functional framework for uniting people from China to the US or from Russia to South Africa. What you have is transnational economy which is not global in the "we" sense because it's based on the very opposite of unifying the world's population - on private profit and private property (not even mentioning that the so-called global economy is a gross oversimplification еven from a technical perspective). So if you expect that we'll get unity out of egoism, well...
But skip that, what is there on the plate physically to make people cooperate from a mere organizational point of view? The UN? Totally powerless and its own charter is actually non-globalistic as it gives all the relevant decision-making power to the individual "big players", allowing them to pursue their own agenda. International agreements? They are between individual states, not between the people in those states, and whether and how they are followed is another thing entirely (how "fair" these agreements are for each and every country is an even broader topic). So what's left then, good intentions? There's one other thing actually and it's as old-school as it gets - one superpower subjugates the rest of the world and tries to enforce its vision of globalism on it - but that's neither achievable, nor sustainable. So, at this moment this cute, naive version of globalism which brings the peoples on the planet together "naturally" simply doesn't exist. What exists though is individuals and groups with significant economic power to play "globalistic" cards for their own gains, which is actually a completely natural result of a capitalistic foundations. You might say that the globalism the way you envision it will have a chance to start emerging after capitalism collapses. Thing is, no major social structure has ever collapsed peacefully.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 11, 2020 12:54 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 14:08, 11 Sep 2020.
|
fred said:
i think what you mean to say is, i reap the benefits of commerce between different countries.you guys apparently have no understanding at all of what globalism is, or what it actually stands for. as per usual.
You make it sound like trade of olive oil and fish between the Romans and Egyptians. That trade is done with YOUR monetary currency. You have grasp over the market. When they have a dispute, Trump can say something to Erdogan such as "dont make me crush your economy." (Real example.) If you happen to think that trade between countries is simply selling and buying stuff, you are clueless.
@Zenofex
Globalism is a fact, all in terms of transnational companies, environmental issues, internet and instant global communication, the world is smaller than ever and you can't compare that to some ancient pandemic.
The isolasionist politics are a reaction to it, they dont prove it doesnt exist, they prove it does. Nobody would even try to point out local law is superior to international law 200 years ago. And the answer to that argument is, it depends on the law and the situation.
When you say "on global scale there's next to no 'we', unless perhaps we get attacked by aliens, and the roots for that are not in some backwater ideology but in the basic human psychology," you make it sound so black and white, that's like denying the existence of nation-states because there is group psychology and differences between provinces. Globalism doesn't mean all the world is now one big bee hive of course and local characteristics and disputes will remain, just like they remain even between the neighbors in a building. But do "tribes" mean anything anymore, not unless you are living in the wilderness. Nation-states and local law is less significant compared to 200 hundred years ago and this will keep happening, with some backlash of course.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted September 11, 2020 01:40 PM |
|
|
Denying the existence of the nation state because there are no tribes anymore is kind of a strawman because I'm saying something completely different. Even in the most "patriotic" nation states you won't find more than a very small number of people who care more about their compatriots that about their family for example. Extremes may exist for one reason or another but they are statistically negligible. How much do you care about another random Turk? Or how about another random non-Turk? Do you consider each of your actions taking into account that they might affect someone half a world away? And what if that person is actually someone you know and care about?
Globalism is a thing in the sense that people have, or rather can have if they want to, a much better picture of the world they live in compared to the previous ages. Transnational corporations are a construct of capitalism, not globalism, because it's in capitalism's very nature to transcend borders, cultures, values, whatever you want as it only cares about profit which does not go into the hands of some abstract "global society" or any vaguely defined common goal but to some very concrete people who have neither moral, nor lawful obligation to share them with anybody else or dedicate them to whatever. It should be fairly obvious where the difference is. Improved communication and technological advancement do not unite people on their own as they can spread progressive ideas just as well as regressive ones, information is bundled with disinformation and so on. As for arguments of the sort "this wouldn't have happened 200 years ago" - I wish I had a time machine to check what would have happened if I repeated them to some early medieval scholar after he has been nearly executed for reading a work from Aristotle.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 11, 2020 02:34 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 14:37, 11 Sep 2020.
|
In the manner that you object, it seems like when people say globalism, it sounds to you something like “global unification of brotherhood of mankind” or something? Globalism and capitalism are interlinked at the moment and in a very problematic dynamic I might add, which opens borders to the capital but not the work force, hence you have all the immigration issues, flood of the poor, snowstorm in the Middle East and so on. In the not so distant future, capitalism can adapt to this new global scale, just like it adapted to the socialist backlash in early 20th century, it can transform into something else but unless we are talking Mad Max level collapse of civilization, globalism isnt going anywhere.
Now, comparing a monk reading Aristotales to states giving reaction to international law is pushing an analogy extremely too far, nevertheless, there are of course, scholars who claim globalism isnt that new after all, some date it back to the 1700s, some even to the Age of Discovery. However, what everyone agrees upon is, in todays post WW2 world it has taken a turn, it has reached a peak that was never seen before both in terms of benefits and problems. (The environmental ones which you dodged in your reply, for instance, will certainly need international law and sooner or later, any isolationist policy will have to adapt to this.) This is not something unseen in the historical process, something slowly emerges, use of gunpowder and guns for instance goes back to 14th century, at first they had no radical impact to the battlefield, by the 1700’s, the technology evolved, significantly affecting warfare tactics and in the 20th century, it has caused swords and such to go completely obsolete. When someone says to you something about how guns changed warfare in modern times you can say something like “hah, they date back to end of the middle ages” but that is obviously not the point.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted September 11, 2020 03:39 PM |
|
|
I don't quite understand how do you imagine addressing common issues without having some sort of unity (that "brotherhood" thing if you like). The homo homini lupus est formula which capitalism has never outlived and isn't even capable of overcoming without turning into something else is quite the opposite of that, isn't it?
I haven't dodged environmental issues because nobody is really doing anything substantial about them in the so-called globalized world and as you can see with Trump, there's also a reaction against them - it's actually up to you to prove that these issues have actually affected people's mindset enough to claim that there is some sort of active worldwide consensus about them beyond some slogans and half-measures.
Quote:
Now, comparing a monk reading Aristotales to states giving reaction to international law is pushing an analogy extremely too far
It's not an analogy, just a historical proof that things don't necessarily go "forward" in terms of free thinking and ideological progression.
|
|
blob2
Undefeatable Hero
Blob-Ohmos the Second
|
|
posted September 11, 2020 03:51 PM |
|
|
Zenofex said:
I haven't dodged environmental issues because nobody is really doing anything substantial about them in the so-called globalized world and as you can see with Trump, there's also a reaction against them - it's actually up to you to prove that these issues have actually affected people's mindset enough to claim that there is some sort of active worldwide consensus about them beyond some slogans and half-measures.
Actually, because of global warming, after around 30 years in the future there might be a migration crisis with unprecedented scale: there will simply be too hot plus there will be no food nor water in the south. This will make waves of people, who won't be able to adapt anymore, go north where it's colder. I think only then some kind of consensus will be reached, but then it will be to late. Even if at that point European countries will be controlled by different groups, I doubt anyone will be open to invite millions of migrants. In short - there will be war.
If we can physically (not theoretically) do something about it is a different matter...
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 11, 2020 04:39 PM |
|
|
Zenofex said:
It's not an analogy, just a historical proof that things don't necessarily go "forward" in terms of free thinking and ideological progression.
But I already stated that globalism is not an ideology but an infrastructure, that was in fact, the first thing I said. And it certainly doesnt mean world wide consensus, just like rise of nations did not mean nation-wide consensus about everything. But the platform where people seek the middle ground has evolved into a larger scale. Doesnt mean there will be no local disputes or conflict of interest. You can either treat globalism itself as some form of new colonialism or you can except it as a reality and seek the solutions for turning it into something other than a new form of colonialism. Either way, it exists.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted September 11, 2020 07:47 PM |
|
Edited by Neraus at 19:47, 11 Sep 2020.
|
I was of the impression that globalization was the process in which economical and cultural processes extended beyond the borders of a nation and/or continent to reach planetary exposure, while globalism is essentially the ideology of accelerating this process by fully integrating production networks between different countries for example.
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 11, 2020 08:18 PM |
|
|
That is true, but if you read this forum, sometimes one term is used instead of the other and you just go with the flow instead of correcting technicalities. It is a very handy distinction though.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 12, 2020 12:17 AM |
|
|
i didn't use the term "globalization". i used the correct term for what i was referring to. there's no confusion on MY end. not talking about you, neraus. 
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 12, 2020 02:12 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 14:13, 12 Sep 2020.
|
So when you say “globalist scum” what you mean is “scum who accelerate globalization”? Please...
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 12, 2020 06:35 PM |
|
|
globalist scum are the people responsible for the illegal immigration issues(not just in the states), the tearing down/lack of borders, the forced integration of opposite cultures in a host/target nation, the revocation of firearm rights, the criminalization of law/constitution-abiding citizens, anti-constitutional laws, those who enforce those anti-constitutional laws, the eradication of a nation's culture... the list goes on and on.
read what i post. i've been very clear on who i'm referring to.
____________
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted September 12, 2020 06:45 PM |
|
Edited by Neraus at 18:45, 12 Sep 2020.
|
I mean, I put it in a milder way, but it can be applied the way fred says as well, many issues that are unjustly labeled far right are direct consequences of globalization, and what many push for, usually on the left, are facilitators of these processes indeed.
Mass migration is an effect of globalization, and it is needed to keep the machine going, just to make an example.
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 12, 2020 08:13 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 20:17, 12 Sep 2020.
|
@Neraus
I dont think objecting to mass immigration is far-right at all, immigration is a reality of globalization but it should be handled with rational policies. However, USA is not France, it doesnt have flood level immigration from North Africa or some place similar, you can say it’s southern states have Mexican immigration but in that case, the cultural integration issues are not as drastic as French versus African Muslim.
Besides, nothing at all were mentioned about Mexican immigrants whatsoever. What people were debating was comepletely something else.
@fred
How is your gun culture/laws issue about globalization or globalism at all? It is a completely local issue, no one else has it but you Americans and if the rest of the globe sinks into the ocean tommorow, you would still have it.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 12, 2020 09:56 PM |
|
|
@ artu:
it's painfully obvious. look at any other country, besides switzerland(one of the globalist countries pushing this snow, btw), and compare them to the U.S.
in australia and england, 2 former predominantly white countries, the rights of their citizens are trampled daily; what they're allowed to defend themselves with become more and more restricted; and now the push for thought/voice crimes are becoming a more widespread reality.
why? do they have firearms rights anymore? barely in australia, last i heard. not at all, in england. they're even criminalizing KNIVES used to cut food there.
and why? to keep their populace from being DANGEROUS to them.
why do you think the globalists are pushing for the same thing in the U.S.? why do you think they're doing everything they can to subvert anti-establishment/anti-globalist movements? why are they dividing the populace however they can? because the U.S. is the last country left, to fall into line with the others.
____________
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 13, 2020 12:18 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 12:19, 13 Sep 2020.
|
Lol. You can come up with a scenario fred, I’ll give you that one. So the globalists are pushing firearm laws to prevent the law abiding citizens to hunt down illegal immigrants if necessary! I guess, that must be “painfully obvious” to you.
The problem with your gun laws isnt about carrying a revolver or a hunting rifle, it’s about ordinary citizens having access to millitary grade assault weapons resigned to mass kill. These are not for self-defense, they are, by definition, for assault.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted September 13, 2020 01:06 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Besides, nothing at all were mentioned about Mexican immigrants whatsoever. What people were debating was comepletely something else.
I was making an example based out of fred's post, as I do agree, more lax migration policies are a staple of globalist policies.
And I'm too lazy to read it all to break down who is correctly referring to globalism and who is mistaking it for globalization, I just skimmed and saw that post about globalism not being an ideology lol
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 13, 2020 03:13 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Lol. You can come up with a scenario fred, I’ll give you that one. So the globalists are pushing firearm laws to prevent the law abiding citizens to hunt down illegal immigrants if necessary! I guess, that must be “painfully obvious” to you.
The problem with your gun laws isnt about carrying a revolver or a hunting rifle, it’s about ordinary citizens having access to millitary grade assault weapons resigned to mass kill. These are not for self-defense, they are, by definition, for assault.
your first paragraph is retarded. i don't know if that's supposed to be bait, or what, but it's retarded. i'd expect that kind of stuff to be posted by 2 other members(who will remain nameless) in the vw, but not from you, here in the osm.
according to our constitution and what our forefathers had in mind, the citizenry would act as it's own militia, and we'd have access to whatever our military has.
just so you understand what was intended:
our firearm rights, and our firearms, are there for us to overthrow our government if they don't act as servants to the populace, accordingly. tyranny and globalists existing in this country, and enforcing anything unconstitutional or traitorous to our nation or it's populace, is an abomination; and was never intended. our nation was created, and EXISTS to combat such an affront.
____________
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
