Anti-Globalism Thread

[Republic of the Cristo]

Over the last two years, an anti-globalist trend has been witness all across the western world. The big and event which really brought the trend to light for most people, in my and others opinion, was the United Kingdom's vote to leave the European Union in June of 2016. Following this, we saw the United States elect the establishment outsider Donald Trump to the Presidency. These were by far the biggest and most well known events, but other such occurrences have occurred recently as well. Rodrigo Duterte, a populist strong man was elected as president of the Philippines; Hungary shut down it's borders to further migrant passage; Slovenia has closed it's borders to further migrant passage; Sections of Ukraine are attempting to separate from the Pro-EU western part of their nation and join with the Russian federation; Marine Le Pen is now a major candidate for the 2017 presidential election in France. Even on NS we have seen a rapid rise in anti-globalist rhetoric. We have seen rising support for Assad in the Syrian civil war, as well as a generally warm feeling to Vladimir Putin

The purpose of this thread is to discuss several things:
1. Why is the west rejecting globalism?
2. Why is it that the Right wing is heading this movement and not the left?
3. Why do you hate or support globalism?
4. Will this tide continue, and if so, to what end?

My opinion on the matter:
I believe that the western world is rejecting globalism because of largely cultural reasons. Many globalists claim that globalism brings on multiculturalism, or the mixing and matching of numerous other cultures in the creation of a new culture. This new and singular culture has no room for old traditions or taboos, and thus previously held institutions, ideas, traditions, etc, must be done away with as quickly as possible in order to create the most neutral environment as possible. Inevitably, this massive uni-culture is one lacking any value to identity. Nationalism is vilified, the idea of there being only two genders is heresy, whites some how not oppressing people of color is ridiculous, demanding that foreigners respect the native traditions of the land they currently reside in is the worst form of intolerance, and to be actually serious about your religion is idiotic. Your nationality is not important, your gender is not important, your race is not important, your history and culture is not important, your religion is not important - some of the previously mentioned are so unimportant, they can be interchangeable. Many feel that this push for a uni-culture is being directed by the more privileged liberal elites of society. Most in the west do not hold so little value on their identities though, and that is why I believe the west ( specifically the right )has recently began to fight back against the tide of globalism.

I dislike Globalism because it places far too much political and economic power into the hands of a few - as well as for it's push towards the previously mentioned uni-culture.

I am unsure weather or not the trend will continue.

This is just my opinion, what do you think NS?

[-Mr Money-]

Globalism is a product of the left wing, so naturally they will be sympathetic rather than actively against it, the right wing represents individual liberty and national sovereignty which Globalism is attempting to dissolve. I am an Anti-Globalist precisely because it removes individual liberty by establishing powerful Governments and political cartels (the EU is one example) which in turn raises taxes and binds nations into political unions rather than individual nations existing and co-operating. Globalism is designed to further the creation of a single world political entity, often cited as a 'New World Order' with ultra-protectionism and the removal of Democracy or rejection of the Democratic process.

[New Werpland]

It would be less elusive if the 'anti-globalist' movement stuck to its original buzzwords.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rootless_cosmopolitan

[Cattle Mutilators]

I believe that the western world is rejecting globalism because of largely cultural reasons. Many globalists claim that globalism brings on multiculturalism, or the mixing and matching of numerous other cultures in the creation of a new culture. This new and singular culture has no room for old traditions or taboos, and thus previously held institutions, ideas, traditions, etc, must be done away with as quickly as possible in order to create the most neutral environment as possible. Inevitably, this massive uni-culture is one lacking any value to identity. Nationalism is vilified, the idea of there being only two genders is heresy, whites some how not oppressing people of color is ridiculous, demanding that foreigners respect the native traditions of the land they currently reside in is the worst form of intolerance, and to be actually serious about your religion is idiotic. Your nationality is not important, your gender is not important, your race is not important, your history and culture is not important, your religion is not important - some of the previously mentioned are so unimportant, they can be interchangeable. Many feel that this push for a uni-culture is being directed by the more privileged liberal elites of society. Most in the west do not hold so little value on their identities though, and that is why I believe the west ( specifically the right )has recently began to fight back against the tide of globalism.

So why is there room in America for Greek-Americans to have their own churches and culture, or for Swedish-Americans in Minnesota to have smorgasbords with dishes like lutefisk? The American "melting pot" — which is in itself a kind of globalist approach to culture — has never required the elimination of ethnic differences, merely their acceptance by enough people to keep the general peace.

Your premise is faulty: Globalization does not require monoculture. It simply requires tolerance of the differences between people of different origins.

[-Mr Money-]

It would be less elusive if the 'anti-globalist' movement stuck to its original buzzwords.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rootless_cosmopolitan

And this is relevant to anti-Globalism how?

[FelrikTheDeleted]

I too am generally opposed to Globalism, solely because of multiculturalism, while a noble venture in my opinion, I do believe that it leads to the destruction or at least great degradation of the cultures involved. Peace between other peoples of different cultures is something that could be sustainable, however, opinions change, hostilities can ignite, loyalties can lay elsewhere.

I believe that the west opposes Globalism because they wish to preserve their cultures, not let it fall into the history book. Culture (And some other factors) are what keep a nation united, money being something else that keeps countries together, Switzerland being an example.

I believe that the Right happens to be more Nationalistic and opposed to multiculturalism.

I mentioned my reasoning above.

I do not see this ending well for the west, unfortunately.

[New Werpland]

It would be less elusive if the 'anti-globalist' movement stuck to its original buzzwords.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rootless_cosmopolitan

And this is relevant to anti-Globalism how?

"Cosmopolitans were intellectuals who were accused of expressing pro-Western feelings and lack of patriotism."

ie: cucks

The anti-semitism is there as well.

[Republic of the Cristo]

I believe that the western world is rejecting globalism because of largely cultural reasons. Many globalists claim that globalism brings on multiculturalism, or the mixing and matching of numerous other cultures in the creation of a new culture. This new and singular culture has no room for old traditions or taboos, and thus previously held institutions, ideas, traditions, etc, must be done away with as quickly as possible in order to create the most neutral environment as possible. Inevitably, this massive uni-culture is one lacking any value to identity. Nationalism is vilified, the idea of there being only two genders is heresy, whites some how not oppressing people of color is ridiculous, demanding that foreigners respect the native traditions of the land they currently reside in is the worst form of intolerance, and to be actually serious about your religion is idiotic. Your nationality is not important, your gender is not important, your race is not important, your history and culture is not important, your religion is not important - some of the previously mentioned are so unimportant, they can be interchangeable. Many feel that this push for a uni-culture is being directed by the more privileged liberal elites of society. Most in the west do not hold so little value on their identities though, and that is why I believe the west ( specifically the right )has recently began to fight back against the tide of globalism.

So why is there room in America for Greek-Americans to have their own churches and culture, or for Swedish-Americans in Minnesota to have smorgasbords with dishes like lutefisk? The American "melting pot" — which is in itself a kind of globalist approach to culture — has never required the elimination of ethnic differences, merely their acceptance by enough people to keep the general peace.

Your premise is faulty: Globalization does not require monoculture. It simply requires tolerance of the differences between people of different origins.

America has always been an exceptional case in that regard. Since we are a nation of immigrants, we have always dealt pretty well with assimilation. But these days, we see people like radical feminists attempting to bring down all ideas of traditional gender roles, people calling the majority of whites the reason why America is wrong. Radicals in recent years have really put a nasty taste for globalism in a lot of peoples mouths

[The Liberated Territories]

I support globalism in the sense I support free trade. There is simply no other way we could be chatting right now, if it weren't for globalized trade.

[-Mr Money-]

And this is relevant to anti-Globalism how?

"Cosmopolitans were intellectuals who were accused of expressing pro-Western feelings and lack of patriotism."

ie: cucks

The anti-semitism is there as well.

I'm no anti-Semite, believe you me, I'm what you'd call a 'Zionist'

[FelrikTheDeleted]

And this is relevant to anti-Globalism how?

"Cosmopolitans were intellectuals who were accused of expressing pro-Western feelings and lack of patriotism."

ie: cucks

The anti-semitism is there as well.

Where did you obtain that definition of the word "Cuck".

[-Mr Money-]

I support globalism in the sense I support free trade. There is simply no other way we could be chatting right now, if it weren't for globalized trade.

You may be thinking of Globalisation. Globalisation is a good thing in my opinion, but Globalism is protectionist, the opposite of Free Trade

[Republic of the Cristo]

I support globalism in the sense I support free trade. There is simply no other way we could be chatting right now, if it weren't for globalized trade.

We most certainly still could be having this conversation, it may just be slightly harder or more expensive.

[The Liberated Territories]

I support globalism in the sense I support free trade. There is simply no other way we could be chatting right now, if it weren't for globalized trade.

You may be thinking of Globalisation. Globalisation is a good thing in my opinion, but Globalism is protectionist, the opposite of Free Trade

Wikipedia definition:

The concept of globalism now is most commonly used to refer to different ideologies advocating globalization.

erm?

[United States of Natan]

I believe that a) people need to accept globalism, not push it away. In today's society, it's inevitable, and b) the people pushing for anti-globalism are conservative alt-right populists who want to take our nations, and our world back to a time before we accepted people for who they were, when it was acceptable to be racist and to hate people for no good reason. We cannot go back to times like the 1950's. We must continue moving forward.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

I believe that a) people need to accept globalism, not push it away. In today's society, it's inevitable, and b) the people pushing for anti-globalism are conservative alt-right populists who want to take our nations, and our world back to a time before we accepted people for who they were, when it was acceptable to be racist and to hate people for no good reason. We cannot go back to times like the 1950's. We must continue moving forward.

That has to be one of the most naive claims I've seen of all my time on this website.

[-Mr Money-]

You may be thinking of Globalisation. Globalisation is a good thing in my opinion, but Globalism is protectionist, the opposite of Free Trade

Wikipedia definition:

The concept of globalism now is most commonly used to refer to different ideologies advocating globalization.

erm?

I'm referring to Globalisation as the easy access of information, goods, services etc. That's the principles of Free Trade, Globalism is consolidation of power into single global entities, using Globalisation as a method of said consolidation.

[New Werpland]

"Cosmopolitans were intellectuals who were accused of expressing pro-Western feelings and lack of patriotism."

ie: cucks

The anti-semitism is there as well.

Where did you obtain that definition of the word "Cuck".

Well what do you think is the definition?

[Great Nepal]

America has always been an exceptional case in that regard. Since we are a nation of immigrants, we have always dealt pretty well with assimilation.

No, not really. Near westminister you've several mosques, churches, Hindu temples and a Buddhist temple within walking distance of each other (yes I had to check the map). In harrow you've Hindu temples, Jain temple, churches and mosques on the same road all within walking distance. People living in areas with comparatively higher of migrant population largely don't seem to have a problem with migrants or multiple cultures - people living in areas without exposure to migrants tend to be the vocal opponents.

But these days, we see people like radical feminists attempting to bring down all ideas of traditional gender roles, people calling the majority of whites the reason why America is wrong. Radicals in recent years have really put a nasty taste for globalism in a lot of peoples mouths

Removing gender roles is hardly radical, it is entirely sensible and it is rather embarrassing we still have that concept. I've no idea what your second point about majority of whites is supposed to mean.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Globalism as in easy access of information, goods, services etc, I'm all for, however, a single world government is what I oppose. I do not believe it would work, not in today's world, not for a long time from now.

[Republic of the Cristo]

I believe that a) people need to accept globalism, not push it away. In today's society, it's inevitable, and b) the people pushing for anti-globalism are conservative alt-right populists who want to take our nations, and our world back to a time before we accepted people for who they were, when it was acceptable to be racist and to hate people for no good reason. We cannot go back to times like the 1950's. We must continue moving forward.

You are saying that the majority of the western world are a bunch of arbitrary racists who wanna bring back " da good ole' days "? No. Why should we have to change our ways in our own homes so that people that we have begrudgingly allowed in as guests feel welcome? If they intend to stay, they should adopt our ways or leave. Conformity is not a bad reason for reaction.

And consider for a moment the pro's and cons of the 50's. Pros: 50's we had a very strong middle class, a very strong family life, every body was patriotic, and most people had a generally bright view of the future.

Cons: ( in America's case ), we were pretty racist and we were a bit too militant about fighting communism.

Well, America is not nearly as racist as it once was, and the only thing that has really changed about the militancy is the communism part - so why not return to the golden age of the United States only without the racism?

[The Liberated Territories]

Wikipedia definition:



erm?

I'm referring to Globalisation as the easy access of information, goods, services etc. That's the principles of Free Trade, Globalism is consolidation of power into single global entities, using Globalisation as a method of said consolidation.

How does globalization consolidate the power of states? Perhaps if you are talking about, i.e. the EU, then yes, but most trade goes on without superstructures telling it what to do. If anything, they hamper the ability for trade to function, since they usually come with pages of regulations and cut outs for special interests.

[Republic of the Cristo]

America has always been an exceptional case in that regard. Since we are a nation of immigrants, we have always dealt pretty well with assimilation.

No, not really. Near westminister you've several mosques, churches, Hindu temples and a Buddhist temple within walking distance of each other (yes I had to check the map). In harrow you've Hindu temples, Jain temple, churches and mosques on the same road all within walking distance. People living in areas with comparatively higher of migrant population largely don't seem to have a problem with migrants or multiple cultures - people living in areas without exposure to migrants tend to be the vocal opponents.

But these days, we see people like radical feminists attempting to bring down all ideas of traditional gender roles, people calling the majority of whites the reason why America is wrong. Radicals in recent years have really put a nasty taste for globalism in a lot of peoples mouths

Removing gender roles is hardly radical, it is entirely sensible and it is rather embarrassing we still have that concept. I've no idea what your second point about majority of whites is supposed to mean.

And as we have seen, the United Kingdom has recently voted itself out of the EU over such issues as immigration - clearly, they are not as multicultural as you perceive them.

Indeed removing gender roles is incredibly radical, as the very notion has not gained real traction until quite recently in our history. The idea that there is no difference between men and women aside from genitals and that any perceived difference is purely cultural is wholly false. I do not know if you are an American, but after Trump's election - Hillary's supporters on Twitter began blaming whites left and right for failing America.

[Great Nepal]

Globalism as in easy access of information, goods, services etc, I'm all for, however, a single world government is what I oppose. I do not believe it would work, not in today's world, not for a long time from now.

Globalism doesn't lead to single world government; single government may nevertheless form due to lessening of nationalistic, divisive rhetoric and dilution of national identities but ultimately if that happens to sufficient level you've a single world government that works, otherwise you just have less nationally divided world. Either scenario is a win-win.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Where did you obtain that definition of the word "Cuck".

Well what do you think is the definition?

The dictionary doesn't have a definition, because "cuck" is shorthand for "cuckold," a word from Shakespeare. Merriam-Webster defines cuckold as "a man whose wife has sex with someone else." The 2016 presidential election mainstreamed "cuck" in a variety of ways. It has largely become a buzzword.