Nationalism is outdated and dangerous, and the globalists are right

On August 29, 1949 the nature of mankind's future became muddled and murky. Before and since time immemorial nations of some sort existed in so far that a nation in its most basic understanding is a general geographic area controlled to greater or lesser degrees by constantly changing power blocs. Sometimes they were republican senators, democratic voting citizens, or the secretaries and ministers of despotic regimes but they evolved according to the needs of those that held sway within a geographic location. And on August 28th of 1949 it was supposed by everyone that this trend would continue, possibly forever. But the next day, something happened, something that would put that certainty, that thing that has always been, the future absolutes that tied all men that lived in what we call a society. To be blunt it put into question precisely that a society in and of itself would exist tomorrow. Because on the 29th of August of 1949 the Soviet Union detonated an atomic bomb.

With that the number of nations that could realistically field atomic weapons in an armed conflict ticked over from 1 to 2. As time went by this number would inexorably increase to encompass the totality of the UN security council plus Israel(probably), Paksitan, India and most recently a small culturally stagnant regime in North Korea. South Korea, Taiwan and Japan (despite repudiations in the past and legal checks to the possibility) are likely to obtain some measure of nuclear weapons capability in the future if China continues its ascent to superpowerdom and North Korea solidifies its nuclear option. Iran will likely arm itself in the future if it continues to feel threatened by the west and in all likelihood even if it does not as nuclear weapons seem to be the only deterrence universally respected by the great powers of the world.

(CONT)

Nuclear weapons have put the realistic and credible power to end all human civilization into the hands of less than a dozen people. This number is set to only increase in accordance with the number of nations capable of creating them. In the past the brushes with death and near misses the people of Earth have had with apocalypse have been many and due to luck, cool heads and even a bit of selflessness mankind has averted extinction for 68 years. This trend however cannot be assumed to continue indefinitely. Throughout history catastrophic mistakes are many. Men exist that care little for the suffering of their fellow man. In the case of modern men, have been born with a gun resting against their forehead with few left remembering a time when such births were not so. Men exist today that are so accustomed to both gun and gunman that they neither feel the cool steel against their skin nor see him following them wherever they go. Rest assured though, he still remains there waiting for a mistake, a lapse in judgment, an overzealous leader.

The national interests of one nation can be in direct competition with the interests of other nations and when they are the tensions between countries can lead to outbreaks of violence. So far there has been no direct major clash between nuclear powers but this trend can be broken at any time. If the national interests of one nation are in direct opposition to the interests of another and both nations are nuclear powers the result will be a genocide of one or both parties. If the conflict is large enough it will result in a genocide of all humanity.

(CONT)

T kururugi suzaku

The belief that each nation should continue down their own path and promote their own self interests above anyone else’s actively endangers the existence of the entire human race. Because of this I would like you the reader to consider my point, that nationalism as an ideology or as a general methodology of state is no longer tenable. That nationalism is a divisive force that will inevitably lead humanity to ruin and contribute nothing but the temporary comfort of some groups but will in return demand the future death of the entirety of the human race including those that sought and attained their comfort.

(END)

white nationalism or barbarism desu

Bring it on. Niggas be spending $9 gs on a Bit Coin. I've been collecting bottle caps nigga. Let's do this shit.

I prefer to believe that a common ground can be found between globalism and nationalism, that putting your country above others doesn't have to mean you want to stamp others out and prove your nation is the undisputed best. Globalism will lead to Feudalism in that the haves will control multiple parts of people's daily lives and the have nots will be equal as paupers whether they live in New York City or Somalia. Nationalism provides a check on the elites, in that they have to serve the whole rather than just themselves.

>globalists are right
I'd rather live in nationalist world than in corporatocracy where you your well-being depends on shadowvy cabal of nameless CEOs and bureaucrats half a world away. And that's exactly what the world is coming towards under globalism.
And that's coming from somebody who hates nationalism. It's just that globalism is so much worse. It's utterly detached from people on the ground level and doesn't give a shit about anything but GDP going up.

You don't have to support either. And both are deeply flawed. To the point of a faux-debate between the two that doesn't really exist. Because nationalism is largely dead, as countries are already independent. And globalism has no teeth to prop itself up, but rather, empty promises that never came true. Hence, we must return to the values of meritocracy and Roman-style imperialism.

>that putting your country above others doesn't have to mean you want to stamp others out and prove your nation is the undisputed best.
If it meant that it would almost be defensible. At present though it seems that nationalists want to live good lives at the expense of other nations or at least without bothering too much with the well being of others. Which itself is not really a problem that would kill the whole of humanity. The problem stems from having multiple power blocs that can all potentially be armed with weapons that can kill everyone. Even if theoretically it is possible to have a middle ground the fundamental problem posed by nuclear weapons serving different interests is still there and a North Korea can still occur.

>Roman-style imperialism
You can't do that anymore without triggering a war that exterminates every society on the planet.

Russia, China and USA just need to make an alliance.

The rest of the world wouldn't be able to mess with it.

Countries are still being conquered. Nukes are by no means teh end of war, or we wouldn't have been able to kill Osama who was hiding in Pakistan. Or destroy the USSR who had nukes.

globalism with capitalism is horrible

global socialism tho....

>nationalism is outdated and dangerous
say that to my face you fucking faggot

Until they get nuclear weapons. You've negated the ability of other nations to seek help from greater powers to escape the influence of nearby powers whose interests conflict with their own. All you're doing by allying the largest nuclear powers is making it necessary for everyone else to get nuclear weapons even sooner.

I dont have a slowjack slow enough for this

You are saying it like everyone can easily get nukes which is certainly not true.
Between tech and resources necessary it requires a lot of time and most nations will never be able to produce nukes in relevant numbers.

And certainly not in a world where China/USA/Russia would be cracking down on it.

It's almost as if the resource problem means that living comfortably is a zero-sum game.

Pakistan has nukes

I disagree that I presented it as a simple objective just one that would be inevitable when faced with a coalition alliance of nations that are nuclear powers and industrially unmatched. The only card left to play to be left alone is the nuclear card and those that don't have it will seek it or seek protection from those that do.

Realistically however I find it farfetched that Russia, China, and the USA would all agree to respect each others imperialist desires in perpetuity. Much more likely, power politics runs its course and once all others are subdued they attempt to subdue eachother or more than likely come to blows with one another long before most nations have been conquered.

Hell North Korea, a heavily embargoed country with most of its population starving has nukes.

Yes, it is a very old stance. However I think it has been ignored as most people today have forgotten the man with the gun still waits with it pointed at our heads. I feel most nationalists or to be more accurate, most anti-globalists have forgotten that the entirety of human achievement can very realistically be laid to waste in an afternoon.

North Korea is a perfectly functioning nation state, with in all likelihood an above average state apparatus.

Conquest today is mainly economic, you don't see large annexations of entire nations or even regions anymore and when you do it's always a nuclear power annexing part of a non-nuclear power. The message this sends is "get nuclear weapons and you won't be Ukraine".

Moreover I think you misunderstand the OP if you think it the suggestion that nuclear weapons make war impossible would be something written here without major contention. Quite the contrary, the existence of nations guarantees eventual conflicts will erupt somewhere at some point over some thing. Nuclear weapons proliferation just means that when it does a lot of people will die and if it's right countries everyone will die.

North Korea is a slave state that functions on work camps.

>I'd rather live in nationalist

You wouldn't be living at all, that's the whole problem.

Can you explain your point of view please ? I don't understand why someone wouldn't live at all under a nationalist state

wow youre right! I would love nothing more than to be forced to give half of everything i own to everyone all over the world!
Oh wait i already am

There's three posts explaining the pov user, I think that's clear enough. The existence of independent nation-states each vying for their own self interests creates conflict>Conflict in the nuclear age has the potential to kill everyone>In the interest of not killing everyone maybe we should work towards globalism

You'd think two world wars would be enough to discredit nationalism by now desu. How many more million people does it have to kill before we say "enough?"

Not that corporate "globalism" is any better; they love having separate nations, it's how they dodge taxes and force a race to the bottom.

The only answer is internationalism.

You're expressing a disdain for a possibility or reality that extends from management and present trends. Not from a statistical certainty or anything inherit in the system. The ideology you fall back to has an unvarying predictable outcome, namely the death of everything humanity has built. Yes globalism has its faults but as a road for humanity to travel down it is filled with far less peril than nationalism. Nationalism ensures petty squabbles will continue and that eventually these will be solved with thermonuclear weapons.

You have forgotten how easily your culture and way of life can be erased from history. How you don't need Mexicans, Guatemalans or Syrians to change your voting trends. All you need is 6 minutes and a misread radar screen.

You've done this because your enemy is no longer ever present. It's not some place "over there". But rest assured, the missiles are still there, they are still pointed at us and they're all ready to go. Now looking into the future. If North Korea succeeds in not starting WW3 you can bet Iran will be the next nation to detonate an atomic weapon. Then who? Will Brazil do it? Will South Africa startup their program again? How many nations will turn nuclear? How many times will we have a Cuba or Norwegian rocket incident before we finally plunge into the abyss and the wrong person lets one go?

I rather have humanity go extinct in a glorious nuclear fire then continue the cosmopolitarian mongrelization

Nationalism is what keeps the world turning.
Globalism would be even worse for humanity.

And I for one welcome the nuclear fire in all seriousness. Salavagin the clusterfuck were in now is close to impossible, we need a plague/purge/global happening. We really do.

Nationalism and internationalism are both stupid ideologies. The best ideology is clearly human supremacy. A united human nation, colonizing and subjugating all the aliens.

For that to happen we would need either nationalism on a global scale by one nation taking it all or said globalism.
YOu cant unite humanity without one of those.

You cant have nationalism on a global stage unless humanity would be able to contact and regulary interact with ayy civilizations.
You need to have "the other" to create an identity

>implying humanity will ever be able to leave the solar system and meet aliens

As globalism grows the boundaries between our cultures and races lessens. Eventually, given enough time, humanity might very well be a single race and culture, which would likely lead to increased power of international organizations like the EU and UN, and possibly the creation of a one nation global state, aided by AI and automation.

Given current demographic trends if humanity were to become a single race it would average to humans pretty close to subsaharan Africans. This humanity would be unlikely to be able to develop a global AI or even maintain a working global government.

Nah it would be fine. Or at least better than what it is now.

Yeah, not having any toilet paper or having to wait 15 years to get a car because planned economy doesn't even work in smaller nations sure sounds great

>nuclear weapons exist!

Good goy, have a shekel

So how did you manage to stay calm while jamal fucked your wife?

>ur a joo

>ur a cuk


Height of nationalist debate ppl.

I'd agree with you if it weren't for the fact that competition between nations (whether military as in Europe or scientific-ideological as in the Cold War) has been THE main incentive for elite innovations through history. A global superstate would be good for trade but we'd probably stagnate into shit. Also, even a superstate like that wouldn't be tenable without some form of decentralization or control of immigrant flows.

Wrong on all counts but let's say for a second you're not. How is any of what you described worse than being a civilizational radioactive heap? Now that's stagnation.

Eh, why am I wrong? The Cold War forced both sides to make massive innovations (many of the appliances in your house nowadays have their roots in some NASA or Department of Defense research program), for example. I agree that nuclear weapons are a huge threat, sure, but no competition or accountability would just mean a civilization where a global class would keep hoarding benefits for themselves instead of having incentives to innovate or else they get killed/deposed.

>why am I wrong?
Answer my question.

I'm just saying that there are some serious drawbacks and we shouldn't just rush into globalism thoughtlessly.

Nice copypasta.

Really, I wouldn't have a problem with a stable world government uniting the planet, provided it wasn't too authoritarian, and allowed each cultural pocket to do its own things, within limits, only settling disputes between them and serving as a mechanism for globally agreed upon efforts.

I have a bigger problem with nations importing destitutes who have values and cultures directly counter to their own in an attempt to lower wages and compensate for their dwindling populations in order to remain economically competitive.

...and really, that, has nothing to do with globalization.

Manifest destiny and the monroe doctrine writ globally - that would be globalization - what you guys are complaining about, is simply corporate greed.

>Nationalism is dead because a collapsed union had nukes

That is bullshit

Eh, I'd be more worried about nobody pouring billions into cool Jet Fighters and Tanks.

>had

They're still there fgt

>most anti-globalists have forgotten that the entirety of human achievement can very realistically be laid to waste in an afternoon.

This is a very poor understanding of Nuclear weapons and their usage.

As it stands at the moment, there is little reason to believe that even a maximum sized exchange would 'destroy human civilisation'.

The only credible reason people give is nuclear winter, but the studies always use very unrealistic maximal countervalue strikes that were seemingly designed to start as many fires as possible.

In theory you could do so, by deliberately designing extremely destructive weapons (ie: salted bombs) and using them in such a way to maximise long term fallout and ash ejection; but doing so would be fucking retarded and go against nuclear game theory.

And I'm just saying nationalism leads to conflict and conflict with nuclear weapons ends with everyone dead.

Yeah, way up your ânus

For arguments sake lets agree that the scientists saying a nuclear war between nuclear powers will likely end human civilization as we know it are wrong in favor of the scientists saying it won't.

You still have at the very least China, Japan, both Koreas, Taiwan, Russia, pretty much all of Europe and North America and maybe a good chunk of the Levant going up in smoke if a full exchange between powers occurs. Lets say Pakistan and India sit it out. You still have massive amounts of radioactive dust floating around the atmosphere and mass starvation around the world with the likelihood that the remaining powers would likely arm themselves with nuclear weapons as well as competition between survivors increased and the spheres of power were carved.

Eventually culminating in them doing it all over again in the S. Hemisphere because they're still competing among themselves for now even more limited resources.


So all right, maybe a Nuclear war doesn't take us out immediately. Maybe it'll take 2 or 3. We still didn't win anything and we as a species still lose.

If it's copypasta he changed it up quite a bit

And i say that it's a lie, the cause for war (wich will always occur) isnt nationalism per say, it's the weakness of the new world order who caused more and bloodier war after ww1 than what we had after Napoleon, we also saw the same with proxy wars on the cold war, but deterrence prevented armageddon
Yet it's funny how people blame nationalism for causing wars and turn the other eye on comunist and liberal agression on the middle east

>muh nukes
is the only reason we arent still in the cold war

You are a cuck. You would date a coalburner, or even worse disrespect your ancestors and lineage by outbreeding with a shitskin. Disgusting.

The reasons for war are varied. I am not saying all war is caused by nationalism but that by it's very nature nationalism puts the interest of a power bloc above other power blocs. The more power blocs you have the more competition you have and the more conflict is present. Eliminating the number of competing blocs eliminates the amount of conflict by that same amount. This is a straightforward fact, there is nothing to lie about here.

Deterrence and MAD however is something that only needs to fail once. It has only prevented armageddon for a historically minuscule era of 68 years. We currently are, and have at no point been out of, the most grave of dangers.

And you're a retard that would suck off an inbred monkey with a radiant smile on your face as you felt the warm spooge writhe out of your mouth you degenerate shitbag.

Kek. I love how the left keeps implying it's not racist when they clearly associate white people with inbreeding. Fuck kike

no world is better than world full of niggers

So you associate white people with monkeys

I meant a literal wild primate, but ok.

>Eliminating the number of competing blocs eliminates the amount of conflict by that same amount.

No, conflict is both a necessity and a burden the human has to carry. Either you direct conflict towards something constructive or you minimize it trough damage control/prevetion

What nationalism has so good is that it deflects that violence away from it's citzens from it's own people, out of comunal pride, giving also reason to act violently to impose that peace if necessary, while deflecting that violence towards outsiders, may it be a minority or a far away people

While liberalism is good in damage control, not much you can do when someone dies murdered but at least you can save some face and virtue signal a bit and talk like a pseudo-humanitarian saying criminals are victims too, wich in a way it's true, victims of modern degeneracy and of not having a comunity of their own were they wouldnt feel like aliens.

You can easely see by checking criminality rates

Your whole argument is self defeating. It presupposes that the conflict can continue eternally and doesn't factor in that there are state actors immune to violence. Nor does it factor that the number of actors immune to violence is only going to increase. What happens when those outsiders have a way to retaliate that kills everyone? This is the entire point you're proving. Yes, violence is directed outwards and we can't risk it anymore because there are these weapon systems that can kill everyone if you direct violence outwards.

If we allow shitty (un)intelligence genes to persist, yes. Thank fuck for genetic engineering, the judeo-euro-oriental master race might yet be possible.

>Your whole argument is self defeating. It presupposes that the conflict can continue eternally and doesn't factor in that there are state actors immune to violence.
Nobody is imune to violence, much less phisical violence, violence is real and even if the causes change over time, it's human nature to be envious or wroth enough to have caused wars trough history
>Nor does it factor that the number of actors immune to violence is only going to increase.
How is that bad? To get things done is better than to live in a cage forever or with head burried in sand, while you allow bad things to happen wich mobilize higger crowds to the meat grinder wars of the future
>What hapens when those outsiders have a way to retaliate that kills everyone?
War obvious
>This is the entire point you're proving. Yes, violence is directed outwards and we can't risk it anymore because there are these weapon systems that can kill everyone if you direct violence outwards.
As i said better to get things done than to live afraid, soviet revolution, ww2, cold war are prof, our era is a reminder and im afraid will be ultimate proof, it's best to root out bad weeds than to wait them to grow
Social disconection is so big today, our youth is flirting with nazism/fascism and comunism, crimes and drug increases, neets too...

Nowhere does he provide a reason as to why nationalism is particularly more likely to cause nuclear apocalypse as compared to some other system, let alone does he specify what system would be the better alternative and why.

Shit opinion.

>Nuclear weapons have put the realistic and credible power to end all human civilization into the hands of less than a dozen people.

Which 'less than a dozen' people have the power to detonate without interference from others enough nuclear armaments to end all human civilization?

>we allow
Who is we?
This trend can also happen without a race-merging event.

This theory is disproved by the fact that both North Korea and Pakistan are nuclear powers.

>perfectly functioning nation state
>Be North Korean
>starve

>there were never wars before nationalism
>the worlds wars were as deadly as they were because of nationalism

Both are very stupid statemetns

>assume
>assume
>assume

Lets assume next year a meteor ends all existence.

Isnt it ironic that it was anti nationalist powers who brought upon the nuclear era?

We as in humanity collectively.
If intelligence isn't bred out of existing developed countries and they maintain their population, technological and political progress will still happen there. Averaging humanity as a single race doesn't get rid of the extremes unless it's through a race mixing event.

I like how the communist globalist cuck in this thread is trying to make us think it cares about human life.

Why does humanity need to unite?

I never said that (my first post in this thread was ). The only reason I see humanity absolutely needing to unite is building a Dyson sphere around Sol, and even then splinter groups could just leave for other stars or deep space. Or be put in reservations if they're that stubborn and primitive.

Dumb nigger where did I imply that?

How so? If they take over they are superior, so how is living in a world full of superior people, worse?

Yet that problem can happen in a "nationalistic world" or globalist world. You don't have any point.

I wasn't arguing for either. See

That doesn't support any conclusion. The point of a globalist and a single world race is independent to the "intelligence" eugenics process. Every society put the most intelligent at the top, the decisions they make can support this process, yet there will always be competition and such interests will oppose naturally an intelligent "population". The rulers prefer their "population" to be manageable. That's the main purpose of politics: a happy and obedient population. "Paradigm" changes from fulfilling noble caste wishes to focusing on the low classes, is a continuous process which actually keeps the same fundamental mechanism of politics.

Why does OP think only nationalist states will prioritize national interests? That's basically how foreign policy in general works. Also, if OP got his way, you'd just get the prisoner's dilemma on a grander scale.

>western states try to be nice and inclusive
>everyone else continues to play geopolitics how it's meant to be played
>the former is constantly fucked over until forced to adopt the latter strategy

>greatest african invention in 200 000 years is a wooden stick
>we wuz kangz

OP probably believes everyone will be inclusive and play nice

>doesn't deny it
African people are taking over the world. How doesn't this make them SUPERIOR? You BUTTHURT, subhuman. lol

>you didn't provide arguments for either side
>slave an master moralities dominate each other cyclically
>the most intelligent always are at in rulership positions

Everything you said is true except for intelligence always naturally being at the top - societies value different values in their leaders depending on circumstances and culture. Also, isn't it time we transcend the master-slave cycle (and politics at large) and become a bit more productive?
I don't care whether it's under a single government or not, a technocratic meritocracy benefits statistically from a large pool of candidates for decision making positions.

Are you some sort of gook that believes in the mandate of heaven? How will blacks feed themselves when there is no withey to give foodstamps?

Was black death superior to humans too? Why are you giving human qualities to nonhumans? It's not like they are doing it themselves. Lmaoing @ your life!

>said is true
Except it's true. The high social castes try to maintain naturally their superior blood by marrying their sons and daughters to people with similar background/status/ or obvious potential.

>values
>leader
You don't understand the purpose of electing leaders of political parties. The representants of parties and movements are chosen by a practical program of various choices. The fundamental machine which chooses the fate of nations and countries is inside the political power. The families that manage to get into the political sphere and maintain themselves against different interests have demonstrated superior intellect against the others. The process is continuous.

>isnt' it time we trascend
You don't get it. There will always be one at the top. Because humans crave power. I'm not supporting a radical dialectical materialism analysis, yet such way of comparison is accurate in human nature without reaching any direct conclusions.

>"how will-"
>*african people populate the entire world
Dumb wh*tey. How are they not superior if they are literally demonstrating that "might makes right" is an incomplete statement.

>i don't like that makes them superhumans
>*gets replaced by superior people*
That's what nature has always been. The superior replace the inferior. Is there another more accurate way to measure superiority?

The world populated by a bunch of half dead starving skeletons would end in one generation. You do know fried chicken doesnt grow on trees?

So you don't have a problem with africans taking over europa then?

A bear could rip my head off, wtf bears are master race now?

You seem to think that you are making a point, yet it can be pretty much solved with limiting the comparison between humans.

AFRICAN world.