returnofkings.com/76454/what … tive-right
rooshv.com/youre-either-a-gl … ationalist
I think this makes sense and far more accurately describes the actual 2 opposite poles.
Conservatives and liberals often both belong to globalism, especially American conservatives such as neoconservatives and Republicans who are pretty much cucks.
Internationalism versus nationalism.
The real political dichotomy is between relativists and universalists. Both liberals and traditionalists are relativists. The only difference lies in the way they derive their values. Liberals use pleasure principle as a guide, whereas traditionalists tend to use ethnicity as a guide. Both think that it is normal, and to be expected, for different people to have different values.
The political dichotomy you’re offering here, and that is sponsored by PUA’s such as Roosh V, is not only an old dichotomy, it is also a false dichotomy.
The word “nationalism” is also a misnomer. What they mean is identitarianism. So the dichotomy is globalism vs identitarianism. If your willing to divide people of your own nation along ethnic lines, then you’re not a nationalist, but an identitarian.
An article I’d link as a response to the articles linked in the original post:
trueleftblog.wordpress.com/2016 … ourselves/
I don’t agree with ROK/PUA’s/Roosh on almost anything. I just found the articles on that website.
What are those supposed to mean?
I presume a relativist would be a nationalist/identitarian, while a universalist would be a globalist?
No, both globalists and identitarians are relativists.
Multiculturalism and diversity are about building a society that can tolerate as many different systems of values (you can say “self-valuings”) as possible. That’s no universalism. How can that be universalism? Universalism means universal values, and that means one system of values for everyone and everything. It implies monoculture (though it does not imply monoethnicity.)
Identitarianism, on the other hand, is about relativism on the level of ethnicity. While I am not saying that one should dismiss one’s ethnicity – apparently French will be French and Serbs will be Serbs – I think that ethnicity is one of the worst ways to determine values. We need to look for values that transcend all of the existing differences between people so that we can unite them, not emphasize existing differences in order to divide them.
Both globalists and identitarians ultimately divide people.
It also goes without saying that I am not against nationalism. I am only against “nationalism” that is based on ethnic identity, which is the dominant form of what goes by the name of nationalism nowadays. I am, you can say, against egoistic forms of nationalism. Unviersalism and nationalism are not mutually exclusive.
Americans will never be true identitarians anyways. They have no ethnic identity . . . and that’s a good thing.
Don’t know about ‘new’! Its getting real old to me.
For a while now it has been all about numbers e.g. of men you could get to a battlefield [like WWI WWII], communism happened because the people/masses had power. democracy kinda works for most, but its politics rely on the wants of the masses outweighing the few. before that it was feudal and an elite ruled, and how do you see it going in the future…? I can see a return to the feudal-like past, where the elite will have AI and robotic protection and no amount of men will equal that. Robotic craft will be able to rapidly eliminate inferior foes as if like Abrams tanks Vs peasants.
What is worse than that prospect, is that there is no mass politicised youth like there was back in my day. We are going to walk straight into it with eyes wide open as if in a trance.
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.
Kropotkin
this is all very true, but ‘they’ the elite, will use that like communists do to strip us of our individuality. Then they will continue living in there closed off areas, but will now have ‘adequate protection’ e.g. against terrorist and other bogeymen. Eventually their corporations and distinct social base will have greater firepower than states, and will otherwise use and become integral to state defence strategy.
power increases. unless there is something to balance that out. which there is not.
Speak for yourself please. Some of us are not going to go so silently in the night.
There are some segments of the population like myself that are ready for a war.
If the global elite want nightmarish blood in the streets I am only happy to give it to them.
Stooge puppet.
[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.