Is a world wide empire possible

is a world wide empire possible

YES, AND THERE HAS ALREADY BEEN A WORLDEMPIRE —THE ORIGINAL EMPIRE; THE FIRST STATE; THE CIVILIZATION OF THE ORIGINAL ARYANS—; THE SECOND WORLDEMPIRE WILL BE ESTABLISHED AFTER ZIONISM, AND THE FORCES OF "EVIL", ARE DEFEATED; FOR A MILLENNIUM WILL THE ULTIMATE WORLDEMPIRE WILL FLOURISH ON EARTH, THEN THE WORLD WILL END, AND THE NOBLE ONES WILL TRANSCEND THE KOSMOS.

what did i just read in that pic and your post?

It seems likely that political stability is inversely proportional to population size and ethnic diversity.

If this is the case, than any world empire would need exceptionally effective mechanisms for legitimization, administration, and countering corruption.

A global government would only work in a world that has developed cornucopia technology. Without having to worry about competition for resources, humanity could focus on technological innovation, space exploration, etc.

If you delegate power properly it might be possible. but corruption is going to be one hell of an issue if mishandled and might break the whole thing in a generation

The more I read your posts on any thread, the more I get the feeling you are a pompous ass.
Someone who doesn't listen to opposing views, only your own, which you've slowly crafted from other philosophies but just enough for them to seem original. However, you don't make an effort to promote "your" philosophies, but hope that it's spread through their originals.

To OP,
Yes, its possible, but it probably wouldn't last long. If it would be a union of nations or a secret "illuminati" organization sort of deal, it would be possible, but I presume whatever the case would be, it would collapse within a generation due to Man's weakness to seductions of power. That and the overbearing weight of the world. Could you imagine anyone agreeing long enough for any effective action? The budget?

Why would you reply? You realize doing so make YOU the dopes, right? He has severe mental retardation, what's YOUR excuse?

I agree with the first paragraph of 140.

That's not true. The ability to project power is far more important.

It seems to me like the most important aspect to keeping an empire together is avoiding having "backwaters'. Ergo it was nearly impossible in the past, but it could probably be done with current technology. It would be extremely hard to put together tho, you'd have to shed a lot of blood, and the more you shed the harder it becomes to keep your people happy.

If you could find a way to minimize casualties of all sides along your conquest then I could see it happening a lot easier. You'd have to bang a few heads in places like the middle east and Africa tho, where people want self-rule for the sake of having it.

>I agree with the first paragraph of 140.

WHY WOULD YOU NOT AGREE WITH THE SECOND AND LAST PARAGRAPH ALSO?

THERE IS NO REASON THAT YOU WOULD AGREE WITH THE FIRST PARAGRAPH TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE SECOND ONE SINCE THEY DO NOT CONTRADICT EACH OTHER.

The first paragraph is mostly fact based. The second is based on ideology along with mysticism.

There is a fine line between delegation and disintegration, and it's a line that very large states tend to cross frequently.

...

1. HOW IS IT THAT WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH IS INVALID, ACCORDING TO YOU?

2. THERE IS NOTHING MYSTIC REGARDING THE SECOND PARAGRAPH, NOR STRICTLY IDEOLOGICAL, AND EVEN IF THERE WAS, IT WOULD NOT BE A FACTOR TO ITS LOGICAL VALIDITY.

...

lelito

t. Muhammad Karzai

>a world with nation states is an imperfect world
>a world empire subdivided into zones is a perfect world
>necessity
How is this not based on ideology? Not everyone agrees to it.

Also:
>Kosmic gates
>not mystic shit

I THOUGHT THAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO SECOND PARAGRAPH OF SECTION ONEHUNDRED FORTY, NOT TO SECTION ONEHUNDRED THIRTYNINE —YOU DID NOT EXPRESS YOURSELF ACCURATELY IN THIS POST:

>I agree with the first paragraph of 140.

You are responding to different people.

IF ONE INTENDS TO DISCUSS ANYTHING ON AN IMAGEBOARD, BEYOND INANE HUMOUR, AND NEWS, ONE SHOULD ACQUIRE AND USE A TRIPNAME, EVEN ONE ONLY USES IT ON PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES, OTHERWISE, FUTILE DISCUSSIONS LIKE THIS ONE WILL KEEP OCCURRING.

globalism is a cancer and a world with nation states has been the norm for millenniums now. why change it?

What about something like the HRE? Everyone gets to keep their self-rule except for a few global ones, and they mostly just share resources to work towards important goals that affect humanity as a whole.

>globalism is a cancer...

GLOBALISM IS A MODE OF GEOPOLITICAL OPERATION; IN ITSELF IT IS NEITHER "GOOD", NOR "BAD"; IT IS NECESSARY TO ACTUATE "GOOD" ON A PLANETARY SCALE, JUST AS IT IS NECESSARY TO ACTUATE "EVIL" ON A PLANETARY SCALE.

TO REJECT GLOBALISM NOW EQUALS TO RELINQUISHING THE MEANS OF ACTION ON A PLANETARY SCALE TO THE FORCES OF "EVIL".

>...and a world with nation states [SIC] has been the norm for millenniums [SIC] now. why change it?

LOOK AT THE WORLD NOW, AND LOOK AT WORLD HISTORY.

MULTIPLE NATIONSTATES ARE A SYMPTOM OF DISUNITY; DISUNITY ENGENDERS STRIFE, AND SUFFERING; A NATIONSTATE SHOULD BE A MEANS, NOT AN END; TO PERPETUATE THE NATIONSTATE, OR WORSE, THE MULTIPLICITY OF NATIONSTATES, EQUALS TO PERPETUATING "EVIL".

THE ACTUAL "CANCER OF THE WORLD", WHICH IS PERPETUATING DISUNITY, IS ETHNOTRIBALISM, NOT GLOBALISM.

you're ignoring the destructive elements of globalism, such as the forced immigration and assimilation of people across different cultures. it's literally the reason why europe is having the refugee crisis. it is also responsible for fucking up economies (world bank) and the loss of jobs everywhere. sure there are positives but the cons outweight the pros.

MULTIPLE NATIONSTATES ARE A SYMPTOM OF DISUNITY; DISUNITY ENGENDERS STRIFE, AND SUFFERING; A NATIONSTATE SHOULD BE A MEANS, NOT AN END; TO PERPETUATE THE

>NATIONSTATE, OR WORSE, THE MULTIPLICITY OF NATIONSTATES, EQUALS TO PERPETUATING "EVIL".
false. many of the world's most prosperous nations and states were homogeneous or had a familiar culture. just watch and see if integrating billions of impoverished and uneducated africans/indians/hispanics will do for your world empire. some cultures just do not mix unless you intent genocide.

>THE ACTUAL "CANCER OF THE WORLD", WHICH IS PERPETUATING DISUNITY, IS ETHNOTRIBALISM, NOT GLOBALISM.
I don't get it. you hate jews so why are you so against nationalistic/racial doctrines that many /pol/lacks subscribe to?

>you're ignoring the destructive elements of globalism, such as the forced immigration and assimilation of people across different cultures.

GLOBALISM DOES NOT ENTAIL FORCEFUL REMOVAL OF PEOPLE.

>it's literally the reason why europe is having the refugee crisis.

EUROPEAN COUNTRIES ARE EXPERIENCING REFUGEE CRISES, DUE TO NEGLIGENT LOGISTICAL ORGANIZATION, AND FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT MEASURES TO SIFT PEOPLE, AND SOCIALLY, AND LABOURALLY, ASSIMILATE THE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE ACCEPTED.

THIS NEGLIGENCE IS MOSTLY INTENTIONAL, WITH THE PURPOSE OF INCITING AN ETHNOTRIBALIST REACTION, AND PRODUCE FURTHER STRIFE.

>it is also responsible for fucking up economies (world bank) and the loss of jobs everywhere.

ECONOMIC CRISES ARE ENGINEERED BY THE ONES MANIPULATING THE VALUES OF CURRENCIES.

ALL THE CENTRAL BANKS IN THE WORLD ARE OWNED BY THE ROTHSCHILD FAMILY, EXCEPTING THE ONES IN NORTH KOREA, IRAN, CUBA, AND SYRIA.

>false. many of the world's most prosperous nations and states were homogeneous...

REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THERE IS INTRANATIONAL SOCIETAL HARMONY, AS LONG AS THERE ARE MULTIPLE NATIONSTATES, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE INTERNATIONAL STRIFE.

>... or had a familiar culture.

1. "FAMILIAL CULTURE" IS A MISNOMER; FAMILY, AND CULTURE, ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE; THE CORRECT TERM IS "FAMILIAL TRADITION".

2. FAMILIAL TRADITION IS ANTITHETICAL TO THE INTEGRITY OF THE NATIONSTATE; THE FAMILY IS THE ROOT OF ETHNOTRIBALISM, AND ONE CANNOT HAVE BOTH, ETHNOTRIBALISM, AND NATIONALISM —IT IS EITHER THE FAMILY, OR THE NATION.

>just watch and see if integrating billions of impoverished and uneducated africans/indians/hispanics will do for your world empire. some cultures just do not mix unless you intent genocide.

QUOD VIDE:

>GLOBALISM DOES NOT ENTAIL FORCEFUL REMOVAL OF PEOPLE.

>I don't get it. you hate jews so [SIC] why are you so against nationalistic/racial doctrines...?

1. I AM AGAINST ETHNOSTATES, THE PERPETUATION OF THE NATIONSTATE, AND THE MULTIPLICITY OF NATIONSTATE, NOT AGAINST NATIONALISM.

2. I AM AGAINST RACISM, ETHNOCENTRICISM, AND TRIBALISM IN GENERAL, NOT AGAINST RACIALISM.

Yes but only temporarily.

Will Jai Paul ever release the album?

>GLOBALISM DOES NOT ENTAIL FORCEFUL REMOVAL OF PEOPLE.
all the conflicts in the middle east were spurred by or influenced by globalism. isis too is a zionist creation with the purpose to have as many people to flee their home and to europe. europeans in response open their borders. how is that not globalism at work?

>EUROPEAN COUNTRIES ARE EXPERIENCING REFUGEE CRISES, DUE TO NEGLIGENT LOGISTICAL ORGANIZATION, AND FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT MEASURES TO SIFT PEOPLE, AND SOCIALLY, AND LABOURALLY, ASSIMILATE THE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE ACCEPTED.

see above reason. the crisis is due to europe opening their borders as a result of suicidal altruism. (leftists, liberals)
>THIS NEGLIGENCE IS MOSTLY INTENTIONAL, WITH THE PURPOSE OF INCITING AN ETHNOTRIBALIST REACTION, AND PRODUCE FURTHER STRIFE.
the leaders of europe are secretly national socialists? kekking hard.


>ECONOMIC CRISES ARE ENGINEERED BY THE ONES MANIPULATING THE VALUES OF CURRENCIES.
ALL THE CENTRAL BANKS IN THE WORLD ARE OWNED BY THE ROTHSCHILD FAMILY, EXCEPTING THE ONES IN NORTH KOREA, IRAN, CUBA, AND SYRIA.
and how do you think they were able to engineer those moves? globalism.


>AS LONG AS THERE ARE MULTIPLE NATIONSTATES, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE INTERNATIONAL STRIFE.
conflict is human nature. regardless of the government type or state.

>NOT AGAINST RACIALISM.
which is another by word for racism. or, unless you define it by it's strictest term, to have inherent belief in biological differences between groups of people and that race exists. under these beliefs, inevitably people are going to think one group is superior to another, regardless of your anti-racist slant.