Social Reading John Bolton's wikipedia page... this guy is like a movie villain wtf

[TheGreatA]

Common international rules and standards is a hallmark of globalism and not nationalism, no? Wouldn’t a nationalist be much more likely to consider themselves above such norms or standards?

That's the thing though, Zionism was one of the first movements of a truly "global scale" and had a big impact in bringing these common rules and standards to come about, because of the funding and support that Jews gave the Zionist movement from all the corners of the world, requiring a level of co-operation that was rarely seen before, by any group of people. So while its intention was to bring about a national homeland for Jews scattered around the world, it also had a "global" aspect to it, requiring global co-operation, and can't simply be observed as just another nationalist movement.

Many of the prominent supporters of the Israel regime do not operate out of Israel, but in other nations, which is not necessarily the case for, let's say, Palestinians.

Any separatist nationalist movement, whether it be Palestinian, Irish, Basque, etc. has relied on international support as well. That’s not unique to Israel. America had the French. Sometimes it’s outright foreign invasion like in Crimea. Wouldn’t the ethnic Russian separatists in Crimea be nationalists? The nationalist is not always “the little guy.”

edit: btw I don’t think nationalism is an inherently bad thing, but I just don’t think globalism is either. And I think globalism is a term that recently seems to be misused constantly. I think of the two as complementary opposites. The world needs both to function.

edit2: and sorry about all the edits! My attention is divided right now haha. Cheers.

The problem as I see it is that all the conflicts nowadays tend to be "global" in their scale rather than merely national. It's not just, let's say, Iran or Iraq beating their chest and trying to establish a pecking order, but whenever a conflict occurs, it inevitably brings about players from all continents, trying to establish their vision of a "global hegemony", a world order that they believe to be good for everyone involved.

That's why I'd personally be more critical of globalism than nationalism right now, because we are living in a more of a "post-national" and global era, with a new phenomenon occurring, that has not been as carefully and elaborately criticized as nationalism.

None of this means that nationalism is a flawless concept, incapable of bringing about death and destruction, but it's in many ways a "known" issue, while the scale of death and destruction potentially brought about by "globalism", is as of yet unknown. We know that while larger structures have been more and more capable of bringing about peace and order regionally, they have also, always, gradually increased the scale of the conflicts that humans have partaken in. From the tribal stage, to petty kingdoms, and nations-states, and now, eventually the global scale.

We should certainly be very wary of the "scale" of conflict that could occur under a global world order. What might occur if two competing "world ideologies" come to conflict with one another? The Cold War, I suppose, was our first taste.

We cannot, for example, expect the Chinese to bow down to our ideas, any more than we can expect ourselves to bow down to theirs. So conflicts of interest are bound to occur between people who wish to increasingly assume responsibility for bringing about a world order, not just a national order. And many nation-states are bound to become just chess-pieces in a global chess-game played by people who wish to determine the future of the entire world, not just parts of it.

 

[forum poster]

You don't even need to go as far as checking his wiki. You can simply tell visually. Just look at him! LOOK AT HIM!

 

[west42]

His music is terrible

 

[Happy Man]

His music is terrible

Uh huh.

 

[Jesus H. Sherdog]

That's the thing though, Zionism was one of the first movements of a truly "global scale" and had a big impact in bringing these common rules and standards to come about, because of the funding and support that Jews gave the Zionist movement from all the corners of the world, requiring a level of co-operation that was rarely seen before, by any group of people. So while its intention was to bring about a national homeland for Jews scattered around the world, it also had a "global" aspect to it, requiring global co-operation, and can't simply be observed as just another nationalist movement.

Many of the prominent supporters of the Israel regime do not operate out of Israel, but in other nations, which is not necessarily the case for, let's say, Palestinians.



The problem as I see it is that all the conflicts nowadays tend to be "global" in their scale rather than merely national. It's not just, let's say, Iran or Iraq beating their chest and trying to establish a pecking order, but whenever a conflict occurs, it inevitably brings about players from all continents, trying to establish their vision of a "global hegemony", a world order that they believe to be good for everyone involved.

That's why I'd personally be more critical of globalism than nationalism right now, because we are living in a more of a "post-national" and global era, with a new phenomenon occurring, that has not been as carefully and elaborately criticized as nationalism.

None of this means that nationalism is a flawless concept, incapable of bringing about death and destruction, but it's in many ways a "known" issue, while the scale of death and destruction potentially brought about by "globalism", is as of yet unknown. We know that while larger structures have been more and more capable of bringing about peace and order regionally, they have also, always, gradually increased the scale of the conflicts that humans have partaken in. From the tribal stage, to petty kingdoms, and nations-states, and now, eventually the global scale.

We should certainly be very wary of the "scale" of conflict that could occur under a global world order. What might occur if two competing "world ideologies" come to conflict with one another? The Cold War, I suppose, was our first taste.

We cannot, for example, expect the Chinese to bow down to our ideas, any more than we can expect ourselves to bow down to theirs. So conflicts of interest are bound to occur between people who wish to increasingly assume responsibility for bringing about a world order, not just a national order. And many nation-states are bound to become just chess-pieces in a global chess-game played by people who wish to determine the future of the entire world, not just parts of it.

Nationalists have already tried to determine the future of the entire world. Will globalists likely bring about a larger conflict than the nationalist Axis powers did?

Globalism is precisely why there has been so little conflict between USA and China despite their national ideologies being so oppositional. They rely on each other’s trade too much. The multinational corporations foster the true globalists, not necessarily the governments. Globalization lessens conflict because it creates financial motivation not only to keep peace with trading partners, but also to protect them from losing their investments so as not to disrupt the established order.

I’ll agree with you in this sense though: if China does fully go back into communism then yes there will be conflict, and perhaps like never before. Communism is absolutely a dangerous aspect of globalization, as it requires a forceful imposition of an unnatural global order, and a withdrawal from markets. The markets though, in my opinion, are a mostly positive side of globalization, particularly when free trade rules the day.

 

[The XL]

The world is openly run by evil people, and all we can do about it is bitch lol. It's pretty surreal. We the people have absolutely no power or influence

 

[TheGreatA]

Nationalists have already tried to determine the future of the entire world. Will globalists likely bring about a larger conflict than the nationalist Axis powers did?

Globalism is precisely why there has been so little conflict between USA and China despite their national ideologies being so oppositional. They rely on each other’s trade too much. The multinational corporations foster the true globalists, not necessarily the governments. Globalization lessens conflict because it creates financial motivation not only to keep peace with trading partners, but also to protect them from losing their investments so as not to disrupt the established order.

I’ll agree with you in this sense though: if China does fully go back into communism then yes there will be conflict, and perhaps like never before. Communism is absolutely a dangerous aspect of globalization, as it requires a forceful imposition of an unnatural global order, and a withdrawal from markets. The markets though, in my opinion, are a mostly positive side of globalization, particularly when free trade rules the day.

And what occurs when trade no longer benefits both parties equally? In Chinese, we are talking about a nation of people who conducted one of most large-scale massacres in human history, over the price of bamboo poles. Can we act so certain that they'll remain pacified, if they feel like they are being screwed out of a deal? They way that they're currently screwing us in our dealings with them?

The idea of globalization being such a good thing for humanity, relies mostly on never thinking about what occurs "after" the current phase. What occurs when resources have been exhausted, the decline occurs, Empires come to their natural end, new powers begin to emerge, and so forth? Is it such a good idea to have post-national structures projecting their power over us then, when those constructs are no longer in our hands, but rather, the hands of Chinese and other peoples? Can we truly adapt ourselves to live under their influence, the way they've been forced to adapt to live under ours? To live in a world where Western values are spit upon, rather than cherished?

I'm sure the Israeli came to this same conclusion when the UN turned out to be a bunch of Arab oil sheiks rubbing each other's backs. The realization that the global constructs that were once erected to defend them, were no longer protective of their interests, but rather, those of their competitors. The notion that globalization is for good, usually seems to rest on the basis that it is us who get to determine what the global world order looks like.

It is also unfortunately true, that peace is not necessarily always prosperous. If it was, then the most pro-capitalist, free trade nation in the world, the United States, would surely stay out of conflicts. Just because they're not fighting China or Russia directly (in truth mostly because of nuclear deterrents), doesn't mean that they cannot use some stirred-up and destabilized country to fight a proxy war against them, over global influence.

 

[Dirt Road Soldier]

Hes near the top of the food chain for US politics. Nobody gets that far up without being a vile piece of shit.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Chickenhawk

Exactly. Another in the line of neo-con draft dodgers.

"I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy… I considered the war in Vietnam already lost.” - John Bolton

 

[Hollywood Jack]

Gee, I wonder why John Bolton (and people like him) behave the way they do?

It's a real mystery.

One hint of anti-semitism and this thread is gone.

Shabbos goy.

 

[Crash Lance]

Uh huh.

Samir: Why don't you just go by "Mike?"

Michael: Why should I change? He's the one that sucks.

 

[ocfightfan]

You can't believe everything you read TS, and most certainly not the leftist shitbag spin. Bolton is a good man who is fighting evil.

 

[Happy Man]

The world is openly run by evil people, and all we can do about it is bitch lol. It's pretty surreal. We the people have absolutely no power or influence

if we talk about it too openly, you get banned from being able to bitch about it. Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, sherdog......

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

I feel like the explanation is pretty obvious, but I'm pretty left wing, so I am unwilling to give republicans the benefit of the doubt at all.

Lmao. So true. These are the same people who blame rural Americas problems on the democrats when it was the GOP who destoryed them.

Explaining anything to these hayseeds is a gigantic waste of time.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

A complete and total POS.

Yet the people you worship love him.
Please get help in the new year.

 

[RetiredSlave]

I like his brother Michaels philosophy much more, although it may be considered scarier nowadays.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

USA - "are we the baddies?"

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Edit

 

[SBJJ]

That doesn’t make sense. Market globalism would require less conflict. Nationalism would more likely push for conquest of your nation over others.

Unless you’re just using it as a nonsensical antisemitic dog whistle, which is common as well.

Zionism is a nationalistic movement, btw.

Again. Except Nationalists hate him and Globalists love him. That is just a fact. Why would Nationalists who are isolationists ever love a war monger. Meanwhile globalist owned media is nothing but propaganda for the war machine

 

[Jesus H. Sherdog]

Again. Except Nationalists hate him and Globalists love him. That is just a fact. Why would Nationalists who are isolationists ever love a war monger. Meanwhile globalist owned media is nothing but propaganda for the war machine

Most nationalists aren’t isolationists though. Historically or presently. Almost nobody in politics, especially in the USA, are actually isolationists, which should be clear at this point. How is a nation whose biggest industry is military served nationalistically by isolationism? It’s nonsense.

Bolton is a nationalist. Zionism is nationalism. American exceptionalism is Nationalism. These are just facts.

Bolton really was never keen on neocon dreams of transplanting democracy into the Middle East, declaring instead that he was “pro-American” and in favor of “protecting the American national interest.” That’s the language of nationalism, which holds that a country ought to advance its own fortunes rather than acting on codes of universal principles.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/04/john-bolton-trump-national-security-adviser/583246/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/556529/