Did you read nothing i posted HERE?
They resist American unipolar messianic Globalism, and propose an alternate multipolar model.
I read it.
What is your argument, exactly?
Whether the global system is “unipolar” or “multipolar” as you suggest is rather irrelevant. It’s still a global system. The point is it’s a global system. The point is globalism.
I’m arguing those in power are already operating from a global perspective. In that sense it is already a global system.
My argument is America is under their control and is the enemy.
Americans have no clue. They are brainwashed and mostly apathetic, as they have been for decades.
If you don’t understand d what the difference between unipolarity and multipolarity means, I can’t help you.
China and Russia would have never become allies if the US wasn’t pushing the Globalist agenda on the entire world.
Their push-back does not suggest the world dominated by one government, one nation, one system, open borders, etc.
So, we’ve lost…assuming you are against the globalist scheme.
According to you, they should not have united and pool their resources in order to resist American Globalizing hegemony, so that people, like you, are not confused and think they are forcing the world to adapt to their systems?
Neither China nor Russia forced any nation to adopt their system.
You don’t know what Russia and China are proposing instead of America’s unipolar, Messianic system.
The links to the African summit would have helped - listen to what they are saying…or don’t bother.
I’m done.
Unipolar or multipolar, if the system is networked the system is networked. The highest power is always the highest power even if distributed over that network.
There are globalists. There are people and groups with vested interest in globalization. I’m not denying that.
I’m saying it’s beyond politics, it’s beyond “American hegemony”.
It’s beyond politics. It’s beyond nations.
It is technology. It is the expansion, the integration and interconnectedness of high tech. That is pushing globalization.
We couldn’t have communication, we couldn’t have interaction among nations without technology.
It doesn’t matter what globalists think. It doesn’t matter what nationalists think. It doesn’t matter what America thinks or stands for. It doesn’t matter what Russia thinks or stands for. Technology is breaking boundaries. Technology is forcing progress. Technology is forcing us together. Technology and its integration is pushing us places we likely would not have reached. At least voluntarily or of our own accord. Global interests are simply riding that wave.
It’s just like A.I. In a sense it is A.I. Technology is restructuring us regardless our political persuasions. It’s connecting us. It’s merging us. With each other and the tech itself. It’s dissolving boundaries. Nation-states, like organic life forms, are becoming obsolete.
And you still want to blame all this on a secretive little group of globalists? That’s an old conspiracy theory.
What does modern man value?
Does he value faith/God?
Not much, people tend to think about God when times are tough, not when times are good, and times are comparatively good to medievality for the time being.
Instead of spirituality and his priest, modern man turns to science, his psychiatrist and the self-help industry.
Does he value flag/country?
Does he care about the collective, about conventions/customs/traditions, about clan/ethnicity/nation/race/tribe?
Not much, modern life is simultaneously cosmopolitan, and atomizing, modern man often changes his job, residence, but even if he doesn’t, the world around him is constantly changing, his town/city is developing, new people, ideas and ways of life are moving in and old ones out, and modern man spends a lot of time on the internet, consequently he’s grown detached from people, instead he’s attached to himself, his nuclear as opposed to extended family if he has one, his pets if he has any and a few close friends if he has any, his social circle is fluid.
Is modern man patriarchal?
No because technology has liberated women from housework and most modern jobs are cushy, not backbreaking and dangerous like they used to be, consequently modern gender roles have less value than they did ages ago.
Does modern man want a big family with a lot of kids?
No because kids are an asset on the farm, you can work them and they end up taking care of you when you’re old, now your pension plan and the state take care of you when you’re old, consequently kids are a liability in modernity.
Does modern man worship his employer, landlord and the state?
No he may (not) respect his employer, landlord and the state, but feudalism was abolished centuries ago in the west, capitalism defeated feudalism, later fascism and authoritarian socialism because people tend to work harder and smarter when they (believe they) have opportunities to move up the socioeconomic ladder.
Does modern, urban man value nature and naturopathy?
No medieval, rural man value nature and naturopathy.
Modern man likes artifice and allopathy.
He doesn’t think much about his health until he loses it, then he turns to his doctor and big pharma.
He may recycle, but other than that he doesn’t revere or think much about the environment despite all the media attention it gets, unless he’s a college educated upper middleclass PMC.
Does modern man care about anti-racism and anti-sexism?
Maybe, if he’s a college educated upper middle class white man and he’s virtue signaling, or a woman and/or minority, otherwise he probably doesn’t care much about anti-racism and anti-sexism, despite all the media attention it gets.
Does modern man care about anti-classism?
Maybe, if he’s poor, and cynical about his prospects for advancement in society.
As the middleclass shrinks and the gap between rich and poor grows he may care more about anti-classism.
So what does modern man care about?
He cares about living his best life now, about his education, career, hobbies, interests, consumerism, materialism, egoism, hedonism and pop culture.
Is modern man good or bad?
Neither, he’s just a product of the modern world, which has its pros, cons and may not be sustainable, and in turn the modern world is a product of himself.
Where did the modern world originate?
It originated in Europe, more specifically western Europe, more specifically in Great Britain, France, western Germany and northern Italy, more specifically in Great Britain, that’s where industrial capitalism and most of the modern world was pioneered in Great Britain, later America became the leader of the modern world, and now modernity has spread to nearly every corner of the globe, America is no longer relevant, hence BRICS.
Thanks to BRICS, every nation state, or what’s left of them will get a say in shaping the modern world, but of course the globalists will have the lion’s share of the say.
The modern world isn’t all good or bad, and is largely the only world for the time being, we must all adapt to it in our own way.
To the degree we like it we like it, to the degree we don’t we have to find ways of getting around it.
The modern ruling class is extremely corrupt like any ruling class.
In some ways it’s more lenient, in others more strict than previous ruling classes.
_
…but parallel to that^ are the negative aspects of societies, running alongside it… the global-mafia crime cartels, the people-trafficking of humans and body-parts, the paedophile rings… all, multi-billion-dollar ‘industries’.
Corruption is always part of a system.
But when it declines, and its ethics no longer impose self-cotnrains, and tis law & order cannot produce fear, then corruption increases.
The civilized man reverts to his manimal state, and that’s when biological factors become apparent…and significant
Civilization imposes a deceptive uniformity.
Man is always in his “manimal” state. Civilization is a cloak.
When hungers and desires are not satisfied,
people will do anything to get their fix.
Heroin:
It’s a process.
It’s illlegal because it fucks everything up.
Getting relief from an extreme craving,
the being will do anything to get the fix.
They will assault others and steal and
even kill.
People are so satisfied in Canada that
they can use an excess of energy to
fancy smart man’s ideas.
A calm and collected logician.
They can afford God.
Culture of satisfaction:
Humans are nice beings in that context.
but when hunger hits, or something
threatens your life, things get serious.
Morality goes out the window.
Yes…civilization forces the creation of a public man, to conceal and compesnate for the private man.
Personae = determined by inherited organ symmetries and proportionalities, manifesting a demeanor, a personality.
Character = determined by socioeconomic cultural factors, forcing the personae to selectively reveal itself openly - caricature, a performance.
But not all cultures are equal, so no civilizations founded on them demand the same degree of self-repression and pretence.
Americanism - being nihilistic - requires a complete self-denial and a reconstruction of character using only socioeconomic pop-cultural ideals.
This creates a superficial man who has no past, only a present and a future - void of substance, rootless…lost.
“Self-denial”?
“Reconstruction of character using only socioeconomic pop-cultural ideals”?
Didn’t you just claim Americans “reject all collective identifiers”:
Wouldn’t “self-denial” in combination with the adoption of “socioeconomic pop-cultural ideals” be collective by definition?
collective
“of, relating to, characteristic of, or made by a number of people acting as a group”
thefreedictionary.com/collective
That’s the irony…their “individualism” makes them all the more un-iforming and collective in their behaviours, because they can be exploited and manipulated.
Like zombies…they act independently, but they behave like an organized herd…why?
Because they are driven by shared hungers…like Americans. Their pretentious individualism is driven by shared hedonistic, materialistic ambitions and common objectives.
So, they independently behave like a herd.
Have you seen fish schooling and birds flocking…they independently move as if they were a single organism.
Yes.
They believe they are individuals, acting on self-interest, and that no collective identity can define them…and yet, they behave as a collective.
A herd.
Actions contradicting words and beliefs.
Even anarchists have to justify why they refuse to live outside groups…preferring to exist on the perimeter.
Did I not say Americanism, like Abrahamism, is founded on lies?
This goes for its founding principles, like individualism.
Mind/Body dissonance.
Like a biological male convinced he is trapped in the wrong body.
Ideal contradicting the real.
Right, there are good, bad and ugly things about modernity, same as premodernity.
Slavery didn’t end, just as the drug trade didn’t end with ‘the war on drugs’, it just went underground, and governments & the ruling class participate in them.
When and where did modernism begin exactly?
It began during the industrial capitalist revolution of the 18th in Great Britain.
Before that the world didn’t change much (relatively speaking, of course there’ve always been big changes going on in the world) since civilization was created in the fertile crescent in the 4th millennium BC by Mesopotamians, Canaanites and Egyptians.
So modernism is about 250 years old.
Protomodernism gave us the renaissance, the age of discovery, the reformation and the scientific revolution, the rise of absolutism (monarchical) and commercial mercantilism.
Every ism could be said to be premodern, modern or postmodern, but some isms overlap with all 3.
Capitalism, liberal democracy, industrialism, consumerism, individualism, liberalism, progressivism, republicanism, nationalism, populism, humanism, scientism, secularism and transhumanism are all very modern.
These isms were developed by the Brits, and other Europeans, but they drew inspiration from antiquity, especially from Rome, which itself drew from other Mediterranean civilizations like the Etruscans and Greeks.
What about Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism, and other ‘world religions’, are they modern?
No these are premodern religions, religion itself is a premodern institution, altho some moderns still practice it, and some religions were born in modernity, and so are modernish.
What about conservatism?
No proper conservatism is traditional, a premodern thing, altho conservatism has been updated to make it more compatible with/complementary to modernism.
What about anarchism, communism, socialism and fascism?
In one sense they are modern because they arose in modernity but in another they’re postmodern.
They’re postmodern because they attempted to overthrow the system at the heart of modernity; capitalism and liberal democracy.
Fascism drew inspiration from the past but it was profoundly progressive and revolutionary, a forward thinking and futuristic movement.
Anything that’s not premodern, but critiques modernity, envisions an alternative to it, could be said to be postmodern.
Only time will tell for sure how long modernism will go on for, decades, centuries, millennia?
It will end, the question is how?
Will it end in total collapse?
Or will it end by evolving into something else, perhaps more sophisticated?
Modernity refers to the Last Man.
Man with no past, but only a present and a future.
Future replaces the Abrahamic idea of Paradise with an imminent Utopia that never arrives - a perpetual future.
America’s techno-utopia is such a futuristic source of transcending biological identities.
In Americanism there are no races, no gods, no genders or sexes…only a present projecting an Ideal future.
With no past all the American individual has is pop-cuklture’s idols offering him tends, fashions to construct his identity.
America is Globalism…Messianism. It tolerates no alternate world-view.
Like the Abrahamic one-god no other gods will be tolerated. All must worship their god, like with America…only its model is acceptable, no other model will be tolerated.
They’ve been conducting wars for decades…no other system has imposed its system in this way except Marxism and the Abrahamic triad.
All with the same source.
The essence of modernism is its political economy; liberal democracy and capitalism.
Liberal democracy was invented in the 17th century by John Locke, an English philosopher, and capitalism in the 18th century by Adam Smith, a Scottish economist and philosopher.
So these two more than any other two are the fathers of the modern world.
Industrial capitalism is the best system yet devised at growing GDP.
Love or hate it, it’s the best there is at what it does.
This has led to enormous wealth gaps between the rich and poor.
Nonetheless some of the wealth has managed to trickle down, which’s led to profound societal changes such as consumerism, globalism/globalization and secularism, the civil rights movement, feminism and the sexual revolution.
Liberal democracy was always largely ceremonial.
This’s perhaps especially true in our digital electronic age, where elections are more easily rigged, and the gap between the rich and poor, the powerful and the powerless has never been bigger in official history.
Where liberal democracy may be most affective is horizontally, and at the local level, where it may be the least affective is vertically, and at the national level.
Another…
The right is synonymous with premodern critiques of modernism.
The left is synonymous with postmodern critiques of modernism.
The right is nostalgic about the past before liberal democracy and capitalism, the left is hopeful for the future after liberal democracy and capitalism.
The extreme right wants to abolish liberal democracy and capitalism, the moderate right wants to moderate them with traditional conservative values, the extreme left also wants to abolish liberal democracy and capitalism, the moderate left wants to moderate them with progressive values.
Fascism is a bit of an anomaly because it has features of both the extreme right/premodernism and the extreme left/postmodernism.
Fascists want to totally transform society overnight top-down, they want a totalitarian dictatorship, but some of these transformations are what they believe to be a return to a historic way of life, updated and upgraded for the modern world.
Fascism can be distinguished from traditional conservatism, which’s more reactionary and gradualist than revolutionary, more authentically conservative, less utopian, more realist, more grassroots and localist.
Traditional conservative seek to nurture and cultivate what already exists in society that’s still traditional, rather than revive things dead for centuries out of the ether like the roman empire.
So if premodernism is on the right, and postmodernism is on the left, that would make modernism in the center.
It’s modernism, the center, not the right, nor the left that’s really running the show here.
It’s consumer/crony capitalism that’s in charge, along with the security and surveillance state which supposedly protects us from thugs, drug dealers and pimps, domestic and foreign terrorists, right and leftwing extremists, climate change, viruses, natural and manmade disasters, real, imagined or exaggerated.
Modern authoritarianism isn’t about the collective, about sacrificing the individual for the good of the whole, or trying to make man into a better person, liberal democracy and capitalism aren’t based on those premises, modern authoritarianism is about safety and security for all.
Rights and freedoms are ‘temporarily’ (permanently) suspended because we’re in a ‘state of emergency’.
It’s these states of emergency that the state uses to justify sacrificing individual rights.
The state says it just wants to keep you and everyone safe, ‘it’s for your own good’, the state, state media and state scientists tell us.
If we wanted to give this practice a label we could call it securitism or securitarianism.
Securitarinaism can be contrasted with libertarianism.
Libertarianism is one side of the modernist coin, securitarianism is the other, both are based on individualism, but one prioritizes individual liberty, the other individual security, both largely look to the state to maintain them.
I think we really got to get away from the left and right.
The modern world isn’t about the left and right anymore.
It’s about the center.
And what’s at the center?
Rather than being this halfway point between left and right, think triangularly.
The center is the top of the triangle, the left is the bottom left of the triangle, and the right is the bottom right.
Fiscally at the center is consumer, crony capitalism with a lot of corporate welfare and a bit of social welfare.
Socially at the center is the security and surveillance state.
Conservative and progressive values are largely just for show.
This is what modern man, the kind of man acceptable to the ruling class, wants, he wants to consume, and be safe, these are his two primary considerations, everything else is secondary, tertiary or of no importance.