The new political dichotomy: Globalism vs Nationalism?

[quote=“HaHaHa”]

[quote=“Peter Kropotkin”]
Globalism is simply the next step. With each step humans have
gone from a single person to a family to a tribe to a city to region
to nation and the next step is Globalism. We will slowly drop old fashion
thinking like race and color as we slowly figure out we are one and the same.
We will also abandon divisive thinking like religion and nationalism.
Any attempt to say, for example, I am a Christian, is to divide people into us vs them.
And we must end our current and small vision of us vs them. Nothing can be
gained from that and it damages everyone. We can no longer exclude based
on false and phony criteria like nationalism and religion or race because
they really don’t mean anything. They are artificial and arbitrary and no
longer have any value in the world. Think bigger, view bigger, look beyond
the old thinking and enter the new world where we don’t divide based
silliness like nationalism and religion or race."

H: Stooge puppet.

K: You are living in the long dead past, whereas I am living in the present and
the future. I am simply following the road that has already been taken to it
next step. Instead of living in the past, might I suggest the present or perhaps even
the future. Just a thought.

Kropotkin

Don’t be silly that’s exactly the reason why they can claim the right to the ‘required amount of defence/protection’. You and insurgents are doing exactly what they want. you wont get the nightmare because fear of that will promote the new order. everyone will be increasingly watched and all things itemised, then all alternatives are pushed to extremes ~ which are also minorities and easily dispatched where there is the will. note the lack of will!

Utopic peon.

You’re onto something here.
The right-wing movements gaining popularity at the moment are anti-globalist/nationalist movements. A counter-movement like this is inevitable, İ think, because the old right is no different now from the left (with a few exceptions here and there).

“Present”, “future”? What you are failing to either acknowledge or recognize, is that this “progress” from “old fashioned thinking” has been entirely engineered, and is not a natural evolution. Most people I hear these types of statements from don’t even have a clue for themselves of where we are supposed to be heading, they just hear the words “progress”, “old fashioned”, “this is the 90’s, 2000s, 2015” and somehow think this means something, as if the year is supposed to mean something and we are headed in some vague idealistic direction without regard to history and human nature. We have tens of thousands of years behind us but for some undefined reason we are supposed to “outgrow” our natural evolution, nevermind that this type of psychological disease is only a blip on the time line of humanity. This type of talk is directly the result of memetic engineering. It’s exactly the reason why you have people like The Amazing Atheist, who are relatively spot on about a number of things, but then other things are so completely out to lunch on that you have a hard time conceiving that it is the same person speaking. It is exactly WHY “history repeats itself”.

Simply speaking, people have been bombarded by nonsense but have been bombarded for so long that these memes have infected the psyche of otherwise rational individuals. We are just supposed to accept these things (from whence they came nobody knows, or conversely are easily traceable but people are incapable or unwilling of actual thinking). Its why you have things like turtle island activist vegans, people who simultaneously hold fundamentally contradictory ideals and can’t or don’t see how it doesn’t make sense. They look at X and they look at Y and they like both so they believe both, but they are absolutely incapable of looking at X and Y as separate aspects within the framework of an overarching paradigm and discovering that to hold both X and Y as ideals is nonsensical. Personally, I believe this is one of the things that separates humans from other humans. There are varying degrees of consciousness and self-awareness. We are not all the same on these most fundamental levels, not even close.

Globalism is leading daily to a strong and once global tough to change us vs. them. Rich vs. everyone else. Nationalisms allowed, and to the extent nations still exist allow, people to find redress against organizations like banks and corporations who have been undermining democracy and nation-interested dictatorships and their varying degrees of interest in protecting their own people. Sure nationalism leads to problems and nations are so huge they already have the problems on that smaller but still enormous scale that globalism has and will have. But there will be no us vs. them for the poor and non-elites to use to defend themselves, once the globalism is fully in place. We will have an oligarchy with enormous degrees of separation. An oligarchy in a city state, say Venice 500 years ago, still had not many degrees of separation, so at least one could beg for mercy, or ask one’s clients or customers or master to appeal to the power. In a global oligarchy the ones pushing buttons on computer screens (or actually those who have their underlings do this) will have no connection to the people they are controlling. I think it makes sense to root for nations against the full corporate take over of the world, even if nations are strange bedfellows to justic, etc. They have to pretend a little more to be fair. Toss in the fact that globalism will create media control beyond anything seen before and surveillance the like of which we have not seen before, Orwell should come to the mind of anyone with a smiley picture of the end of nation states, however flawed and unjust these have been.

REally, however Rich vs everyone else is a bit of a misread. It will be non-persons vs. everyone. The non-persons will first be corporate entities, then later, I would guess, corporate AIs and transhuman lackeys.

Honestly a majority of human beings need to quit being cowards and start killing these internationalists. Death is the only solution for these people however most human beings are spineless weak cowards willing to do whatever to save their own skin where as usual a small group of individuals are going to have to do their dirty work for them. Fucking helpless morons…

Globalism stands for the most extreme expansionism and dictatorship (imperialism to a global extent); so the dichotomy globalism versus nationalism (including: regionalism, localism, … individualism, thus at last any ism of freedom and independence) can also - at least economically - be called debtism (inflationism) versus autarkism (an ism of economical independence), because globalism is mostly based on economical (especially financial) facts, thus: globalistic corruption.

Today there are no real conservatives. If one says these days “I am conservative”, then you can be sure that that one is lying. And politicians are lying anyway. “Being a politician” and “lying” are synonyms.

Do you agree?

Arminius, I agree with you.

What I wanted to say in my OP but perhaps I failed to express myself clearly enough, is that politics have begun leaning so radically leftist that even the present right have bought into the leftist bullshit of -isms and -phobias, hence why conservatives are actually cuckservatives and rightists are pretty much socially left, perhaps only economically right.

To be a ‘moderate’ conservative (cuckservative) is to buy into -isms and -phobias.
Why is this bad?
First of all, it is WRONG. It is a survival instinct we are programmed with to prefer your own group and to have an aversion to other groups, or things like homosexuality, pedophilia, etc. It is not a diabolic, evil conspiracy idea conjured from purely satanic intentions of bringing somebody/something else down purely for the sake of evil or something, as the left would have you believe.
Second of all, because once you buy into it you pretty much leave yourself open to further cuckification and being infected by liberalism, as you have already accepted the basic premises of their cultural marxism.

This is why Alternative Right/Nationalism is needed and has pretty much replaced the conservatives (cucks) and the modern right, who are unworthy of their name.

You have bought into the false idea that all political positions that we have today are leftist. But the truth is that, in the past oh-so-many years, there has never been a single truly leftist political position. They were all rightist; everything you could see, no matter the manner in which it dressed itself, was fundamentally rightist.

It is true that American politics is a bit limited compared to what we have in the rest of the world, but that says absolutely nothing about the reality of the situation. Your right might not be very different from your left, but that does not mean that what is lacking is right, let alone that what you need is an “alternative right”.

What is lacking is left. What is disappearing is left – the last traces of it.

To understand that the modern left is fundamentally no different from the modern right, you have to understand what lies at the core of the rightist ideology. And what lies at the core of the rightist ideology is preservationism, or the idea that the highest value is the indefinite and unconditional preservation of an identity of some sort.

Naturally, relativism follows from preservationism, as universalism threatens to question the value of identity that is to be unconditionally preserved.

The opposite of preservationism is, we can say, eliminationism, or the idea that the highest value is reduction of violence. Here, preservation is seen merely as a temporary means.

The former is hedonistic, in that the goal is to maintain or increase activity, whereas the latter is ascetic, in that the goal is to reduce activity.

And that is the true dichotomy: either you are an ascetic/Gnostic (left) or you are a hedonist/materialist (right.)

You will note that both modern left and modern right belong to the same camp of preservationists, the only difference being the way they determine and preserve their identities.

Liberal identity is based on what gives pleasure, conservative identity is based on ethnicity (but it can be any other morally neutral trait e.g. gender, sexual orientation, intelligence, physical strength, etc.)

Liberals value individualism, conservatives value collectivism.

Liberals want a minimal state the purpose of which is to regulate divergence that follows from individualism, whereas conservatives want a nationalist state the purpose of which is to direct all of its folk in the same direction.

They both value divergence, hence, they both divide, they only do it in different ways.

Liberals use covert aggression to divide internally, conservatives use over aggression to divide externally.

Liberals patch internal conflicts through TOLERANCE which means through peaceful desensitization, conservatives patch internal conflicts through FORCE which means through forceful desensitization.

Fundamentally, there is no difference.

You need to understand that what makes one evil is the prominence of the very instinct that you mention. So the above, far from being a defense, is an admittance to being evil, an evil that reaches the level of Jew, for in its attempt to wash away the accusation of evil by insisting that you’re merely trying to survive, a motive each one of us shares, it tricks people into thinking your intentions are good.

Preservationism, let me repeat myself, is the idea that the highest value is the preservation of some sort of identity. It is this valuation of infinite, unrestrained and self-referential growth that is considered evil.

What we call cancer, for example, is nothing but that which preserves itself infinitely, for no reason at all, other than to simply continue preserving itself.

It is always a rather good idea to read what you have typed before posting it and especially when it directly contradicts
another post you have made. When explaining your ideology it helps to be consistent or else you may not be understood

Shouldn’t you be with others right now polishing Satyr’s knob?

You must laugh more often as you are not so good at being serious

You got some jizz on your mouth…

HaHaHa, let me get this straight. If a person agrees with you, they are necessarily ‘polishing your knob’ and have your ‘jizz on their mouth’. If they disagree with you, they are just deluded retards and they’re wrong.

I could explain the irony of that statement but I’m really not in the mood.

Formerly the conservatives were nationalists, not extreme nationalists but nationalists. Now the „conservatives“ are no conservatives anymore, because they support the globalists. So what we have been experiencing since 1945 or at least since 1989/’90 is an age of globalism.

Both nationalism and internationalism / globalism are part of the Occidental creations, and the Occident will defend its creations, regardless whether they are already destructive or not. So maybe the resistance to globalism will only be successful by coming from outside of the Occident, for example from East Europe.

Globalism does not work in the long term. Perhaps nationalism does also not work in the long term, but the nation is the biggest possible political unit that people can manage (something bigger - like globalism or any other imperialism - is not possible in the long term). So why are we wanted to do something that does not work in the long term? Why are people so stupid or/and crazy to support impossibilities?