This Election Isn't Democrats vs Republicans, It's Globalists vs Nationalists

All I want is for everyone to have the opportunity work hard, pay their taxes, don't engage in criminal activity, and treat fellow citizens with a modicum of respect.

What does that make me?

Sensible.
 
There are no issues with globalization...only issues with people who can't deal with change.

Like you noted, we can already communicate instantly with someone on the other side of the world. So many of of our most transformative inventions exist primarily to shrink the world. We are a social species and improving communication is the one thing we're always working on doing better.

Some people just can't deal with what that means in other areas of their lives.

It sounds great in theory, just like communism. When you look at the current globalization models however, you will see that the average citizen has less representation than in a nationalistic democracy, while the corporations have an even larger sphere of influence.

As a citizen and not a corporation, there is very little benefit for me to support such a big brother system.
 
As everyday passes in this election, this becomes less about Democrats vs Republicans and more about Globalists vs Nationalists.

Globalist platform:

  • Open-borders
  • Consumerism
  • Feminism and matriarchy
  • Multiculturalism, diversity, and egalitarianism
  • Paganism or atheism
  • Global solutions for local problems
  • Empire building
  • Centralization
  • Collectivization
  • Unarmed populace
Nationalist platform:

  • Closed borders
  • Protectionism
  • Patriarchy
  • Homogeneous population
  • Monotheism
  • Local solutions for local problems
  • War as self-defense
  • Decentralization
  • Individual rights
  • Armed populace

Great observation. This is exactly what this election is about. Those who can't see it and vote for Hillary are going to be on the wrong side of history.
 
All I want is for everyone to have the opportunity work hard, pay their taxes, don't engage in criminal activity, and treat fellow citizens with a modicum of respect.

What does that make me?
a racist, sexist, cis gender motherfucker thats what
 
It is absolutely not.


We choose our path with the laws we enact and challenge, the causes we focus our efforts on, and the way we live our lives.

With our presidential election, we choose 1 of 2 individuals.

And Its really that simple. Make a choice, or have it made for you.
 
As everyday passes in this election, this becomes less about Democrats vs Republicans and more about Globalists vs Nationalists.

Globalist platform:

  • Open-borders
  • Consumerism
  • Feminism and matriarchy
  • Multiculturalism, diversity, and egalitarianism
  • Paganism or atheism
  • Global solutions for local problems
  • Empire building
  • Centralization
  • Collectivization
  • Unarmed populace
Nationalist platform:

  • Closed borders
  • Protectionism
  • Patriarchy
  • Homogeneous population
  • Monotheism
  • Local solutions for local problems
  • War as self-defense
  • Decentralization
  • Individual rights
  • Armed populace
Is it Trump or Hilary that represents atheism?
 
There are no issues with globalization...only issues with people who can't deal with change.

Like you noted, we can already communicate instantly with someone on the other side of the world. So many of of our most transformative inventions exist primarily to shrink the world. We are a social species and improving communication is the one thing we're always working on doing better.

Some people just can't deal with what that means in other areas of their lives.
I feel like one day we will be colonizing the planets and this globalization nonsense will be looked back on as a joke. Imagine the the government's of the world trying to have colonies on other planets and back on earth everyone is still living behind their borders.
 
There are no issues with globalization...only issues with people who can't deal with change.

Like you noted, we can already communicate instantly with someone on the other side of the world. So many of of our most transformative inventions exist primarily to shrink the world. We are a social species and improving communication is the one thing we're always working on doing better.

Some people just can't deal with what that means in other areas of their lives.

It's not about interacting with the world and traveling. It's about maintaining collective sovereignty and individual freedoms while you do it. The sit back and pretend the issue is just a blanket inability to deal with change is about as lazy of thinking as possible.
 
Trump is a fake nationalist though. You can't believe anything he's said.
 
If people can't defend themselves, what do you think is going to happen?


"To disarm the people...is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

The available evidence clearly shows that you don't need to have a population with guns in order for them not to get killed. The US is the most gun liberal of the developed countries, and it also has huge homicide rates for such a country (about 4 times higher than western Europe).

The argument that people die if they can't defend themselves with guns has been dead for a long time.
 
Yes and both candidates are globalists. It doesn't matter who you vote for.
 
The available evidence clearly shows that you don't need to have a population with guns in order for them not to get killed. The US is the most gun liberal of the developed countries, and it also has huge homicide rates for such a country (about 4 times higher than western Europe).

The argument that people die if they can't defend themselves with guns has been dead for a long time.
This is not a good comparison because most of these countries are small and racially homogeneous.
 
It sounds great in theory, just like communism. When you look at the current globalization models however, you will see that the average citizen has less representation than in a nationalistic democracy, while the corporations have an even larger sphere of influence.

As a citizen and not a corporation, there is very little benefit for me to support such a big brother system.

That actually makes zero sense since your government is still nationalistic. Nothing about your representation has changed.

Your labor competition has changed.
 
It's not about interacting with the world and traveling. It's about maintaining collective sovereignty and individual freedoms while you do it. The sit back and pretend the issue is just a blanket inability to deal with change is about as lazy of thinking as possible.

Allow me to explain how that makes zero sense.

Nothing about globalization requires you give up sovereignty or individual freedoms. For example - before we had states, people interacted with the world and traveled. They traded and had freedoms. Then they created "States". They maintained individual freedoms and sovereignty. Then they put a centralized government on top of it. They maintained individual freedoms and sovereignty.

As history as unfolded, people have always gone from small units to larger ones. PRetedning otherwise is basically pretending history didn't happen. What was Rome but globlaization? What was the British Empire but globalization? Where did China come from if not from their attempts at globalization.

The only people pretending are those who pretend that there's some reason to prevent humanity from travelling, communicating and working together as efficiently as possible.
 
Allow me to explain how that makes zero sense.

Nothing about globalization requires you give up sovereignty or individual freedoms. For example - before we had states, people interacted with the world and traveled. They traded and had freedoms. Then they created "States". They maintained individual freedoms and sovereignty. Then they put a centralized government on top of it. They maintained individual freedoms and sovereignty.

As history as unfolded, people have always gone from small units to larger ones. PRetedning otherwise is basically pretending history didn't happen. What was Rome but globlaization? What was the British Empire but globalization? Where did China come from if not from their attempts at globalization.

The only people pretending are those who pretend that there's some reason to prevent humanity from travelling, communicating and working together as efficiently as possible.
I mostly agree with what you're saying but that doesn't preclude some issues with the way globalization is implemented in practice. Take your example of the British Empire. Its arguably one of the foundations of the modern globalization process but its implementation led, in part, to the Bengal Famine. So while globalization is a natural process with momentum behind it that does not mean in practice its being implemented with the best interests of the world's citizens in mind.

I don't think globalization as practiced now is going to lead to another tragedy like the Bengal Famine, in fact it could very well allow us to better respond to one, but the idea is that globalization is crafted by a small international economic elite and their collaborators in the political class for their benefit and I think there's some truth to that.
 
id love to truly believe trump is a nationalist but i think trump is just a trump-ist.
 
I mostly agree with what you're saying but that doesn't preclude some issues with the way globalization is implemented in practice. Take your example of the British Empire. Its arguably one of the foundations of the modern globalization process but its implementation led, in part, to the Bengal Famine. So while globalization is a natural process with momentum behind it that does not mean in practice its being implemented with the best interests of the world's citizens in mind.

I don't think globalization as practiced now is going to lead to another tragedy like the Bengal Famine, in fact it could very well allow us to better respond to one, but the idea is that globalization is crafted by a small international economic elite and their collaborators in the political class for their benefit and I think there's some truth to that.

I'd agree with you (although I don't think the current corporate globalisation is the equivalent of colonialism), but the idea that closing borders, restricting religious freedom and abstaining from international agreements is a matter of "individual liberty" is laughable. The idea that nationalism is about individual liberty is laughable.
 
I'd agree with you (although I don't think the current corporate globalisation is the equivalent of colonialism), but the idea that closing borders, restricting religious freedom and abstaining from international agreements is a matter of "individual liberty" is laughable. The idea that nationalism is about individual liberty is laughable.
Oh I agree, I don't mean to defend Trump as the answer to the ills of globalism though I do believe some of his support comes from the perception that he is.
 
I mostly agree with what you're saying but that doesn't preclude some issues with the way globalization is implemented in practice. Take your example of the British Empire. Its arguably one of the foundations of the modern globalization process but its implementation led, in part, to the Bengal Famine. So while globalization is a natural process with momentum behind it that does not mean in practice its being implemented with the best interests of the world's citizens in mind.

I don't think globalization as practiced now is going to lead to another tragedy like the Bengal Famine, in fact it could very well allow us to better respond to one, but the idea is that globalization is crafted by a small international economic elite and their collaborators in the political class for their benefit and I think there's some truth to that.

Of course, the road is going to be bumpy. I'm not so naive as to believe that there won't be issues and setbacks.

I disagree with the idea that globalization is crafted by a small international economic elite and their collaborators. I disagree specifically with the idea that they are sole groups pushing for or benefitting from it.

I'll use my family for example since it's largely immigrants. My mom and her sister lived in this country for decades before my grandfather came over. The ability to trade and communicate and interact with their home country was extremely important to them and they advocated for things that people call globalization today. My dad was the same except his family went to Britain or stayed in Jamaica. Staying close and working together led him to support things that we call globalization.

My wife's family is mostly still in India. My son's is an overseas citizen of India. The freedom to move between his country of birth and the country where his mother's family still lives will be important to him. So will the ability to move assets between the 2 countries as he sees fit (whenever the day comes that he has to make those decisions).

Globalization benefits people who have traveled the world looking for new opportunities and setting up roots. It allows them to take risks because they know that they're not being cut off from the world they knew. I suspect people who don't deal with international relationships regularly might not see how this is beneficial to more than just the corporatists.
 
Back
Top