NationStates

Tybra wrote:This is a question i've been pondering about myself recently Lately i've been confronted with my thoughts becoming more radical, if you can call it that, on particularly the formation of a European state. Foregoing more democratic and liberal approaches to more Bismarckian methods (war with Britain and an alliance with China and all that). Perhaps this is caused by my recent loss of faith in mankind which has always been fairly high. Though personally i blame this on my foolishness of reading comment sections of youtube.

The only answer i could currently give would be to not slow down the pace of globalisation but speed it up (if that would be even possible). Smash down all barriers, shake up the world and leave the nationalist in the dust with their head tolling; wondering about what happened to yesterday.

"Too bad buddy, this twisted game needs to be reset. We'll start over from 'Zero' with this V2 and entrust the future to the next generation."
Nice one Pixy
Working for a world without boundaries already.

Neoliberia wrote:

The Liberated Territories wrote:
Not necessarily lizards, but something far more evil: multinational corporations who answer to no one, colluding with governments around the world to make themselves richer.

In order to defeat them, we must reject the agenda of globalism.

So what you're saying is: big government should stop people from exchanging goods across borders because multinational corporations benefit too?

I am disappoint TLT. The notion that libertarianism is just right-wing populism with a sexier face has become increasingly convincing....

Absolutely not, I very much believe in free exchange across government borders, but not at the benefit of multinational corporations, which are not a product of any free market but systematic privilege granted by the political elite. I would not advocate harming innocent people with tariffs now since so many people rely indirectly on globalism, but rather reforming the system so that we can have an actual free market without cronyism where only the rich benefit. That means freeing money (competing currencies), fighting inflation which benefits the rich, abolishing intellectual "property," abolishing all subsidies, abolishing trade organizations that only benefit multinationals, and abolishing various other laws that either directly or indirectly benefit one group at the expense of others.

Neoliberia wrote:

The Texan Union wrote:A combination between nationalism and individualism would be great.

Well except that it doesn't make sense.

Globalism is individualist. It's all about individual rights over arbitrary nationstates and the restrictions they impose.

It makes plenty of sense. Wasn't it the whole idea behind the US? I mean, think about it.

You HAVE to be a nation in order to defend yourself from outside forces, like, say, Commie scum. So how do you do it? You set up a decent, centralized government with the role of defense. The government of the US is meant to defend the Constitutional rights of Americans: Their life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, that kind of thing. The government leaves its citizens entirely alone, except when one breaks the law. The citizens take pride in being part of this fantastic system, and defend it when the time comes. Americans are proud to be American because being American means being free.

E Pluribus Unum. Out of many, one. We celebrate each others' individual abilities, encourage them to use said abilities to better themselves and establish a foothold in the world. One American doing well means the country does that much better.

That's the way it's intended to be, anyway. That's obviously not what the current government has in mind, but still.

Neu Leonstein wrote:So, the article argues, globalisation may have to be slowed down intentionally to make sure people with nationalist preferences don't get triggered. It suggests that this is not a matter of preferences: globalisation will be slowed down either way... the choice is about how this happens.

[...]

The thing I find challenging about this, is that I have a very fundamental distaste for barriers to cross-border anything, including cross-border migration. Like I said above, I don't believe in a right to pick the place of birth of your neighbour. If you tell me that I'm not allowed to be part of society because I was born in a different place, I think of that as unjust.

Fortunately, I believe in controlled migration, so I don't have to worry about what you think is unjust. But my notion of how many people a society can absorb at once is pretty large, based on the historical experience of the US during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

As to other issues of globalization, I see nothing wrong with admitting that we pushed too hard, and we should slow down... so long as the goal of free trade (etc) remains. We've also been very bad at mitigating the negative effects of globalization, such as providing new training and education for people who've lost their jobs as a result. Further, I think the effects of change are compounded: seeing new people move in after losing one's job (or dealing with income that doesn't keep up with inflation) is far worse than either in isolation. So, slowing down one may allow the other(s) to continue at their previous pace.

North Arkana wrote:

Tybra wrote:This is a question i've been pondering about myself recently Lately i've been confronted with my thoughts becoming more radical, if you can call it that, on particularly the formation of a European state. Foregoing more democratic and liberal approaches to more Bismarckian methods (war with Britain and an alliance with China and all that). Perhaps this is caused by my recent loss of faith in mankind which has always been fairly high. Though personally i blame this on my foolishness of reading comment sections of youtube.

The only answer i could currently give would be to not slow down the pace of globalisation but speed it up (if that would be even possible). Smash down all barriers, shake up the world and leave the nationalist in the dust with their head tolling; wondering about what happened to yesterday.

"Too bad buddy, this twisted game needs to be reset. We'll start over from 'Zero' with this V2 and entrust the future to the next generation."
Nice one Pixy
Working for a world without boundaries already.

The problem with globalisation and no boundaries is large nations vs. smaller ones. The smaller ones can be overwhelmed both economically and politically without boundaries.

The Serbian Empire wrote:

The Liberated Territories wrote:
Not necessarily lizards, but something far more evil: multinational corporations who answer to no one, colluding with governments around the world to make themselves richer.

In order to defeat them, we must reject the agenda of globalism.

Nationalism will not stop them without nationalizing corporations.

No, you are correct, it isn't. Brexit and the like are imperfect solutions to globalism.

Neoliberia wrote:

MERIZoC wrote:Are we speaking of nationalism in the sense of nations, or nation-states?

Don't the two things reinforce each other?

Sure, but the concepts are distinct enough.

The Liberated Territories wrote:

Neoliberia wrote:So what you're saying is: big government should stop people from exchanging goods across borders because multinational corporations benefit too?

I am disappoint TLT. The notion that libertarianism is just right-wing populism with a sexier face has become increasingly convincing....

Absolutely not, I very much believe in free exchange across government borders, but not at the benefit of multinational corporations, which are not a product of any free market but systematic privilege granted by the political elite. I would not advocate harming innocent people with tariffs now since so many people rely indirectly on globalism, but rather reforming the system so that we can have an actual free market without cronyism where only the rich benefit. That means freeing money (competing currencies), fighting inflation which benefits the rich, abolishing intellectual "property," abolishing all subsidies, abolishing trade organizations that only benefit multinationals, and abolishing various other laws that either directly or indirectly benefit one group at the expense of others.

Then what makes you different from a free trade globalist? You just want to modify the system slightly.

The Texan Union wrote:It makes plenty of sense. Wasn't it the whole idea behind the US? I mean, think about it.

You HAVE to be a nation in order to defend yourself from outside forces, like, say, Commie scum. So how do you do it? You set up a decent, centralized government with the role of defense. The government of the US is meant to defend the Constitutional rights of Americans: Their life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, that kind of thing. The government leaves its citizens entirely alone, except when one breaks the law. The citizens take pride in being part of this fantastic system, and defend it when the time comes. Americans are proud to be American because being American means being free.

E Pluribus Unum. Out of many, one. We celebrate each others' individual abilities, encourage them to use said abilities to better themselves and establish a foothold in the world. One American doing well means the country does that much better.

That's the way it's intended to be, anyway. That's obviously not what the current government has in mind, but still.

That was a different time. Nevertheless nothing there is anathema to globalization. Maybe I should have said anti-globalism paired with individualism doesn't make sense. You can be a nationalist and still support globalization.

The Texan Union wrote:

The Liberated Territories wrote:Reject both, and embrace individualism instead.

A combination between nationalism and individualism would be great.

Rough draft:

1) The nation is greater than the individual
2) The individual is greater than the nation
3) Um, wait....

Eyyyyyy.
To be honest, I don't know, but I'm open to suggestions. This particular rising tide of nationalist thought keeps getting bigger then I expect. Hopefully, we've gotten far enough along people will realize soon enough that global economies are ultimately better, and nationalism will lose steam

I think it's quite important to seperate Brexit from Trump, although they may look similar when you look at their grass roots supporters, Brexit was pushed ideologically by people who love globalism and want to see the UK as a global trading nation, just an independent one. Whilst it was a blow to internationalism it wasn't a blow to Globalism. Trumps election looks like it will be, but unless he wipes out the world in a nuclear war with China it's only 4 years, and Le Pen has not won yet, we're still a bit off a complete protectionist coup in the West.

What has to be understood is a few major things;

(1. When people hear globalism, they don't think of protectionism. Many Trump supporters, with Rust belt exceptions, are fiscally very conservative. Their support for Trump stems from opposition to immigration, not so much protectionist sentiments. The same is in Europe, most of the FN voters, PVV voters, they couldn't care less about free trade, they don't know jack about it. They're opposed to immigration, and equate immigration with globalism. To many, it is almost synonymous. Is that what globalism is? No. But when you use rhetoric to deliver a word, it takes on a new meaning to many.

(2. The left claims to be globalist. The left, in many respects, and I'm talking of the more cosmopolitan, Guardian reading, Latte sipping variety has taken on a whole new role in that they're not the protectionists anymore, and the large chunk of the right wing is. This inadvertently alienated many blue collar people in the US who chose to shift their support from Democrats to Trump. Many Midwesterners in the Upper Midwest are Scandinavian American union members with Democratic lineage as far as they can trace. But they voted Trump. If the European left doesn't tread a fine line between appealing to disenfranchised blue collar voters and their more cosmopolitan, centrist liberal voters, they could find themselves losing yet again.

The word globalism has been distorted by both those on the left and right, especially the so called alt right. The people who vote against globalism are seldom voting against trade, but really voting against what they perceive to be en masse immigration. That distinction is a very important one.

Rio Cana wrote:

North Arkana wrote:"Too bad buddy, this twisted game needs to be reset. We'll start over from 'Zero' with this V2 and entrust the future to the next generation."
Nice one Pixy
Working for a world without boundaries already.

The problem with globalisation and no boundaries is large nations vs. smaller ones. The smaller ones can be overwhelmed both economically and politically without boundaries.

That's a way to see it, I agree. Imho, globalization is a destroyer of culture. It tends to uniformize towards one culture, one language, one ideology (neoliberalism mostly) and one set of values. Nationalism, as in civic nationalism, is a rampart against various forms of imperialism. Some people here are afraid of nationalism because they only see it as a full Sieg Heil incubator. The things is, nationalism can produce the best and the worst. Ghandi was a nationalist, Mandela too. I'm pretty sure those two are not too fond of goose step. The Tibetan people resisting the Chinese imperialism are nationalists as well. The First nations of Canada also have a strong nationalist sentiment.

Saint-Thor wrote:

Rio Cana wrote:
The problem with globalisation and no boundaries is large nations vs. smaller ones. The smaller ones can be overwhelmed both economically and politically without boundaries.

That's a way to see it, I agree. Imho, globalization is a destroyer of culture. It tends to uniformize towards one culture, one language, one ideology (neoliberalism mostly) and one set of values. Nationalism, as in civic nationalism, is a rampart against various forms of imperialism. Some people here are afraid of nationalism because they only see it as a full Sieg Heil incubator. The things is, nationalism can produce the best and the worst. Ghandi was a nationalist, Mandela too. I'm pretty sure those two are not too fond of goose step. The Tibetan people resisting the Chinese imperialism are nationalists as well. The First nations of Canada also have a strong nationalist sentiment.

Nationalism opposes imperialism? On the defender's side, yes. But nationalism also inspires a nation to embark on campaigns of imperialism as well, for the glory of the nation! Nationalism is a very potent force, and when it becomes prevalent, things often get messy. All we need is for resurgent nationalism in Russia, China, or the US to collide, and then... well, we know. The thing is though, that unlike in WWI and WWII, this time is our last time. We would annihilate the entire northern hemisphere. The only hope for permanent peace (and therefore the avoidance or nuclear catastrophe) is through eventual federalization with post-nationalism as the guiding principle. Otherwise, our nation states will eventually become inflamed and decide that dying is worth it if it means killing the other. I've already heard people say things like that, and that scares me. I think people forget how good a thing peace is.

Arkolon wrote:I may be irrationally optimistic here, but I believe that globalisation's setbacks have been blips and not a change of trajectory for the course of history. As you said yourself, one of the votes was won with the help of people who will no longer be with us in twenty years' time - and they will be taking their politics with them. It is not news that the younger generation was on the opposite side of their elders in these setbacks: young people voted disproportionately Remain and Clinton, while older people voted disproportionately in the favour of Trump and Leave. These have been two battles lost to an old kind of politics: a politics of division and cultural identity that is anachronistic in the 21st century. The drive of younger voters is a bane for nationalism, nativism and the 'closed world' politics of the populists. The battles we have lost are signals that our message is not coming out clearly enough, that we need to improve our way of communicating so our ambitions translate into cross-generational support. And over time, the young people of today will be the old voters of tomorrow, and with them they will continue to push the trend of globalism and globalisation forward.

Funny how people tend to vote more right wing as they age and begin to experience what actual living is like - and how the unexperienced and naïve youth always tend to support the more idealistic movements.

Montchevre wrote:

Saint-Thor wrote:That's a way to see it, I agree. Imho, globalization is a destroyer of culture. It tends to uniformize towards one culture, one language, one ideology (neoliberalism mostly) and one set of values. Nationalism, as in civic nationalism, is a rampart against various forms of imperialism. Some people here are afraid of nationalism because they only see it as a full Sieg Heil incubator. The things is, nationalism can produce the best and the worst. Ghandi was a nationalist, Mandela too. I'm pretty sure those two are not too fond of goose step. The Tibetan people resisting the Chinese imperialism are nationalists as well. The First nations of Canada also have a strong nationalist sentiment.

Nationalism opposes imperialism? On the defender's side, yes. But nationalism also inspires a nation to embark on campaigns of imperialism as well, for the glory of the nation! Nationalism is a very potent force, and when it becomes prevalent, things often get messy. All we need is for resurgent nationalism in Russia, China, or the US to collide, and then... well, we know. The thing is though, that unlike in WWI and WWII, this time is our last time. We would annihilate the entire northern hemisphere. The only hope for permanent peace (and therefore the avoidance or nuclear catastrophe) is through eventual federalization with post-nationalism as the guiding principle. Otherwise, our nation states will eventually become inflamed and decide that dying is worth it if it means killing the other. I've already heard people say things like that, and that scares me. I think people forget how good a thing peace is.

Nationalism may have been like that 70 years ago, but it has completely done a 180 since. Russia only concerns its' self with areas with Russian Majorities ( Eastern Ukraine, sections of Georgia ). I seriously can't imagine they have global conquest on the mind.

if you are looking for actual war and destruction, look towards the globalist west. We helped fan the flames in Libya by bombing Gadhafi targets, and now the country is in near anarchic civil war. We helped fund jihadist rebels in Syria, which no doubt contributed to thousands more dead and a prolonging of their civil war. We ousted Saddam Hussein and replaced him with an equally corrupt yet even more incompetent government which has allowed for ISIS and other factions to spring up all over their nation. through countless thousands dead we invaded Afghanistan, a nation which posed literally no threat to the west what so ever, and established a ridiculously inept republic ( which will almost certainly fall in the coming future ).We supply Saudi Arabia with billions of dollars in weaponry every year, and we see it being used either on targets in Yemen, or as a means to bolster their proxy war with Iran. According to native sources, western intelligence agencies may even be supporting extrajudicial killings ( death squads ) in Eastern Africa.

The nationalists want to keep to their own and for other nations to mind their own business, the globalists want to export democracy round the world - form 30,000 ft in the air if they have to.

Olivaero wrote:I think it's quite important to seperate Brexit from Trump, although they may look similar when you look at their grass roots supporters, Brexit was pushed ideologically by people who love globalism and want to see the UK as a global trading nation, just an independent one. Whilst it was a blow to internationalism it wasn't a blow to Globalism. Trumps election looks like it will be, but unless he wipes out the world in a nuclear war with China it's only 4 years, and Le Pen has not won yet, we're still a bit off a complete protectionist coup in the West.

Political developments are only a plus in moving to end Globalism, technology itself is pushing for this to happen eventually with 3D printing and eventually cheap energy.

Republic of the Cristo wrote:

Arkolon wrote:I may be irrationally optimistic here, but I believe that globalisation's setbacks have been blips and not a change of trajectory for the course of history. As you said yourself, one of the votes was won with the help of people who will no longer be with us in twenty years' time - and they will be taking their politics with them. It is not news that the younger generation was on the opposite side of their elders in these setbacks: young people voted disproportionately Remain and Clinton, while older people voted disproportionately in the favour of Trump and Leave. These have been two battles lost to an old kind of politics: a politics of division and cultural identity that is anachronistic in the 21st century. The drive of younger voters is a bane for nationalism, nativism and the 'closed world' politics of the populists. The battles we have lost are signals that our message is not coming out clearly enough, that we need to improve our way of communicating so our ambitions translate into cross-generational support. And over time, the young people of today will be the old voters of tomorrow, and with them they will continue to push the trend of globalism and globalisation forward.

Funny how people tend to vote more right wing as they age and begin to experience what actual living is like - and how the unexperienced and naïve youth always tend to support the more idealistic movements.

Nice jab there buddy, but not entirely accurate. The older voters today, often grew up in the 60s and 70s where they were beneficiaries of some of the strongest welfare states in the world, lower costs of education, healthcare, greater unionization, among many other things that made life easier. They have little idea of what actual living is like in the modern world, where we have a very weak safety net, a very strong police state, and a permanent class of people living in extraordinarily unstable conditions (the precariat). Further the notion that being older means being wiser is a farce, while there is a correlation between experience and wisdom, correlation does not equal causation, and I've interacted with some very stupid senior citizens and some incredibly wise children.

Cultural Hegemony wrote:

The Texan Union wrote:A combination between nationalism and individualism would be great.

Rough draft:

1) The nation is greater than the individual
2) The individual is greater than the nation
3) Um, wait....

I'm not sure what definition of nationalism you're using, but I've never seen one that specifically states that it places the nation above the individual.

See Civic Nationalism.

Neu Leonstein wrote:Brexit won by a small margin, driven by people who won't be around in twenty years.

Lolwut. 1,269,501 votes, or 3.8% is not a "small margin". In fact more people voted to Leave than have ever voted for anything in the entire history of the United Kingdom.

And I can assure you that I'll still be around in twenty years, too.

I'm not about to give the globalists free hints on how to win elections, because I am a nationalist-populist looking on with glee as globalism crashes and burns, but given your last statement I would suggest you begin by not looking down your noses at people, or making crude stereotypes about the people who don't share your aims. People are a hell of a lot smarter than you think they are.

Perhaps learning to respect democracy might be a good start, too.

Post War America wrote:

Republic of the Cristo wrote:
Funny how people tend to vote more right wing as they age and begin to experience what actual living is like - and how the unexperienced and naïve youth always tend to support the more idealistic movements.

Nice jab there buddy, but not entirely accurate. The older voters today, often grew up in the 60s and 70s where they were beneficiaries of some of the strongest welfare states in the world, lower costs of education, healthcare, greater unionization, among many other things that made life easier. They have little idea of what actual living is like in the modern world, where we have a very weak safety net, a very strong police state, and a permanent class of people living in extraordinarily unstable conditions (the precariat). Further the notion that being older means being wiser is a farce, while there is a correlation between experience and wisdom, correlation does not equal causation, and I've interacted with some very stupid senior citizens and some incredibly wise children.

Safety net in the 60's and 70's? Many of the modern safety nets were created in that time ( food stamps and Medicaid being a few ), but they were by no means as large or as widely used as they are by modern standards. College education was cheaper back then because fewer people pursued college degrees http://www.familyfacts.org/charts/560/t ... since-1965 / unionization was greater because the United States was a much more industrial nation ( unions in service economies just aren't as prominent ) / I don't know too much about the healthcare thing so I will not comment.

Our current safety net meets the requirements for living by 1st world standards. Of course your life isn't going to be easy, the safety net is just meant to get you by / why don't you tell us all about your numerous run ins with police state / the precariat was a thing back then as well.

Although experience does not mean wisdom, it is in many cases a cause for the latter. There are of course exceptions, but as a general rule, first hand experience should be favored over 3rd person observation.

You don't. You're done. Nobody wants any part of your Globalism.

Obviously the Illuminati and the UN need to strike now and establish the New World Order. They can't stop us if they're all in FEMA gulags, and we have the black helicopters and sleeper agents to do it.

I'm by no means a globalist, but to the globalists here (since I think this is a very open discussion): don't be too overly optimistic about the future being more 'pro-globalist'. The youngest generation shows some very interesting trends, many of which are non-globalist.

Kerbodine wrote:I'm by no means a globalist, but to the globalists here (since I think this is a very open discussion): don't be too overly optimistic about the future being more 'pro-globalist'. The youngest generation shows some very interesting trends, many of which are non-globalist.

17, theocrat