A Rational Argument In Favor of Globalism

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

If such a thing exists, I would like to read it. Do any of you guys know of someone who has made a coherent, reasoned argument in favor of globalism?

I’ll start by saying I don’t think most “progressives” really believe in globalism, I just think they want special treatment and recognition for their failures (both innate and personal) so I don’t expect this argument to come from Social Justice Warriors or the like.

I’m thinking something more along the lines of a sci-fi futurist a-la Philip K Dick or someone from the same era. During the height of the cold war, there were those who believed that reconciliation of the two great ideological poles was a necessary next step toward the true unification of humanity and the projection of our species into space and the ultimate salvation of humanity. One of those guys must have been able to make the argument without just assuming the conclusion was obvious.

Now, if I had to make the argument, I would make it along the lines of Nicholas Wade’s _A Troubling Inheritance_ in which he states that the development of human social structures has progressed along a path of greater trust and inclusion… self to mate to family to band to tribe to nation to race… and that as the world grows smaller and the scope of our awareness grows larger, we will ultimately set aside our differences and embrase the whole of humanity as our brotherhood. This would imply, by extension, that individualists, familial, tribal and national loyalties are actually an impediment to the future success of humanity… but I don’t know that he actually makes that point as I’ve not yet finished reading his book.

The contept of unity is, after all, what America was founded upon… E pluribus unum… out of many come one. We respect our differences but we bind together in common purpose. Instead of shooting each other across a stretch of no-man’s land, we tell jokes about each other and eat in each other’s restaurants. Our strengths combine, our weaknesses diminish and we’re all better off when we’re on the same team.

But I don’t believe the progressive left sees the world as a “same team” situation. I think they see successful cultures (and their individual representatives) as oppressors and failed cultures (and individuals) as victims and do not want unification to learn and benefit from the strenghts of the successful but rather vengance in order to topple them (us!) and take or destroy what we’ve built.

I’ve seen it first hand. Go to El Paso. It’s 90% Mexicans. When Americans took this territory from Mexico, it was a wasteland. White western culture turned it into mines and ranches and farmlands and towns and safe, secure neighborhoods. Now the Mexicans are taking it back… and you’d think they’d want to keep it as we’ve made it but they don’t. They’re gradually turning it back into Mexico.

Unification of cultures based on the selection of the MOST successful virtues and values would be good for humanity… HAS been good for humanity. But the idea of multiculturalism wherein “every culture is equal” means that we’re selecting for the LEAST successful virtues and values. This isn’t true globalism, it’s… well, it’s idiocracy.

All people will be equal when the whole world is a ghetto… is this the objective of globalism? Is there truly a global elite that just wants to suck the life out of the planet through its “useful idiots” and escape into space in a gleaming city while leaving the garbage behind like in the movie Elysium? Or is the very concept of globalism flawed at the core the same way socialism was… assuming the best of the general public who almost always turn out to manifest the worst?

If there was truly a plan to launch our best and brightest into space to further the human species… and the cost was that 99.999% of us would have to die to make it happen… that’s an idea I could get behind, even if I’m not on the ark. Movies like Moonraker and Sky Captain portrayed the architects of such plans as terrific villains but I always saw them sympathetically. Sometimes you do have to burn a village to save it… but I fear there is no great plan to save humanity… that it’s all just masses of r-selected losers using the power of their collective stupidity to overcome the stronger K-selected individuals and destroy everything decent people have built.

Any ideas, anyone?

[PistolPeteParticipant 27143]

Humanity will be unified one day under one of two competing regimes. Without going into a long discussion the Bible in the Book of Revelation clearly explains the new reign of Jesus over the entire world. That is one possibility. The other is the triumph of evil in the world. Sure we will be unified but the same as a team of animals under one whip. Today’s Globalist are striving for that end. They want to be the ones with the whip enslaving everyone else.

Sooner or later everyone will have to pick a side. I know which side I’m on.

[Faust For ScienceParticipant 22521]

Wherever globalism was originally believed to be, globalism today is the looting and enslavement of 99% of humanity by the other 1% of humanity.

[Can’t Stump TrumpParticipant]

I think globalism is generally touted with benefits like world peace, easy trade, and diversity (which is somehow viewed as beneficial in and of itself).

Yes, enslaving the entire world is a pretty effective method of bringing about world peace, no question about it 🙂

Women are better at multitasking? Fucking up several things at once is not multitasking.

[John Woods 13Participant 2855]

Very good post.
There cannot be a logical argument for globalism, because, for it to be desirable, there would have to be some kind of problem/need that globalism would provide a solution for. This has always been the driving force behing human interaction. Family was better because of pooled resouces. Communities are better for economical reasons, tribes and countries provide better safety, etc.
Globalism will only make sense when we get invaded by aliens, until then, it makes no sense, because people would have to give up too much(language, culture, autonomy, freedom) for very little reward, if any(free movement, free trade?).
There will always be large groups of people with different world views, mentalities and beliefs, that would rather go to war and die protecting them, then just give them up for the “greater good”, so I see global war andand the end of humanity as a far more likely outcome than fully implemented globalism.
Uniformity and conformity in not in the human nature.

The answer is NO. “I could but I won’t”. Memini murum!

[IRuleMeParticipant]

Can’t Stump Trump wrote:

I think globalism is generally touted with benefits like world peace, easy trade, and diversity (which is somehow viewed as beneficial in and of itself).

Yes, enslaving the entire world is a pretty effective method of bringing about world peace, no question about it 🙂

Globalism also tries to pedal a singular global government, and a global currency. No thanks. Stripping nations of their individualism, and their currency doesn’t fly with me. They tried an international currency. The UK invested a lot of money into it. It’s been a colossal failure. It’s bad enough because the banksters manipulate currency that nations have their own problems with money. Imagine the result of bankster manipulation with a global, unified currency. It’d be disastrous. Inflation would kill the entire world economy. A global military? We have the UN now, and it basically does nothing. Globalism is a pipedream of the elite. They keep trying to push it on the masses. It’s garbage.

Henry Kissinger is a big time advocate of globalism, and he’s an old ass blowhard. He was tasked with Vietnam and he fked that up. But I’m supposed to believe he’s on point with globalism. LOL.

[Joey AlfioParticipant]

If it sounds too good to be true, well, you know the rest. At the end of the day we’re a tribal people and nothing’s wrong with that.

Δεν υπάρχει τίποτε αδύνατο γι’ αυτόν που θα προσπαθήσει. - Μέγας Αλέξανδρος

[UntamedParticipant]

The only globalism I’ll accept is one under the Savior at its head with the blessings of the Almighty.
Short of that count me out.

Don't let them Blame, Shame or Tame you!
Give 'em NOTHING, not even an answer!
#GenderSegragationNow!

[Y_Participant 4591]

Biologically and racially we have characteristics that divide us to form tribes. Until these traits are reconciled globalism will not work in a ‘democratic’ world.

The politicians forget (or have never learned) that tribalism is a subconcious survival trait and will assert itself when threatened – like now. And usually in violent and primitive ways. We are not the civilised species we think we are.

Democracy and globalism are mutually exclusive and a contradiction in a Darwinian tribal world. It is in our genes.

[Anonymous 42]

Globalism has made allot of rubble and ruins in my neck of the woods!

F~~~ GLOBALISM!

[Anonymous 14]

Globalism would only be a good thing if everyone were onboard and it was of a Technocratic Socialist Utopia in design. (society run by scientists for the good of all mankind) Elites don’t want this. They want all your s~~~ and they want to rule over you.

I see you mention two movies I most predict the future to be like, Idiocracy, and Elysium. Phillip K. Dick? Read it all as well as hundreds of works of Sci-Fi over the last few decades. Anything outside of a Technocratic Socialist design is just Elites getting over and stealing the wealth of the masses… So, unless built on the foundations of Scientists then it is nothing more than a scam in which 99.999 percent of people will continue to live in decline and the Elite continue to move into a breakaway civilization of absurd wealth and control like in Elysium.

Globalism in the form it is taking place now is nothing more than a consolidation of power to better rob the masses of their lifestyle and slowly push them all to the bottom as the Elite continue to rise to insane levels of wealth. This is why I am Libertarian… as far Right Wing as you can get, I am on board with none of it. The more power you give Western Governments the more they will use it in every arena to advance Globalist intentions which will benefit only the Elite in the end. Vampires sucking the wealth and life out of everyone until only hollow corpses are left roaming the streets in hunger is a program that I want nothing to do with on any level.

To sum up- There are rational arguments for Globalization, but greed and the thirst for power will never allow it to happen in a manner that will work.

Basically you would have to first get men or women to transcend their animal nature by either:

A. Getting men to stop chasing pussy and therefore stop chasing what helps them acquire pussy, that being money and power.

Or:

B. Women would have to stop rewarding men with pussy for being wealthy and powerful.

Since I don’t see either one of these two things happening anytime soon I don’t see any way that Globalism can happen in a good way, maybe in short term for those who come up due to it, but in the long run it everyone will be sucked dry.

[WolfParticipant 890]

John Woods 13 wrote:

Globalism will only make sense when we get invaded by aliens, until then, it makes no sense, because people would have to give up too much(language, culture, autonomy, freedom) for very little reward, if any(free movement, free trade?).

I agree. And for some to benefit, others have to sacrifice. This doesn’t bode well for those of us who are deemed privileged by liberal society.

[Shrouded MonkParticipant 78]

Globalism is another word for New World Order. I am not for it whatsoever. Agenda 2030 is upon us. The controlled media has everyone under it’s control.

It’s only a matter of time before another catastrophie occurs that will further the New World Agenda. Ya gotta wake up and read between the lies.

Women. Parasitic trophies. Nothing more. Walk alone and walk proud. A wolverine always on the move, looking for more.

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

Y_ wrote:

Biologically and racially we have characteristics that divide us to form tribes. Until these traits are reconciled globalism will not work in a ‘democratic’ world.

These “tribal” differences are all related to biological adaptations to environment and culture and language derived from shared experience, as well as territorial inclinations. Racial, ethnic, linguistic, cultural and nationalistic affiliations, if you will, which globalists define as the problem.

The only NATURAL affiliation we have is to ourselves. This later developed into affiliation for our hunting brothers due to the benefits of cooperation and then for our tribesmen, then wives and eventually in-laws, children, neighbors, countrymen, etc. Those latter affiliations are developments of culture and are NOT innate… they’re adaptations which have served to enhance our survival.

Could it not be said that affiliation for all of humanity would be the next step? I’m just making the devil’s argument here… not putting my own beliefs up the flag pole… but if all human biological distinctions and cultural adaptations are caused by environment and the isolation of geography and time, then as the world shrinks and the races intermingle, can we not expect… in other words, would it not be illogical to assume… that those distinctions of race and culture will begin to disappear and humanity will unify naturally?

Are not globalism and a unified world culture inevitable in a technologically and spatially interconnected world?

[Author]

Posts