okay, so what does "globalism" mean to you?

in particular, what policies do you think are required to be advocated for, and on what grounds?

why is everyone in this chat so angry all of the time

I don't perceive any anger here tbh

just mockery mixed with strident debate spirit

``` playing defintional games and engaging in sophistry.
and then randomly spouting quotes that nobody gives a shit about

```

<:think_woke:378717098681171988>

I wonder why

strident debate spirit == angery

so

what you're saying is that

Damian == being a dip

also something about lobsters presumably

=/=

It's funny that you guys rail against sjws but love identity politics at the same time

[gets blown 3 miles back by dave rubin's attack helicopter arm spin]

special attack?

for it to be amusing that we "love identity politics" would require that to actually be the case. AFAICT, it is not.

It's funny you to claim to be a libertarian but then advocate for wealth redistrbution

I don't love identity politics

I think it's a potent weapon that I can't afford to not take advantage of, especially considering the high stakes

How is nationalism not identity politics?

how is it?

It doesn't need to be identity politics in the sense I think you see it in

Entitlement mentality based on identity

It doesn't need to be a divisive form of identity politics, in fact it's purpose is to bring many peoples together under one banner

wat

Let's use Rome as an example

😕

1. entitlement to what? 2. based on what identity? 3. mentality of whom?

They were pretty nationalistic but integrated other tribes into their system through subsuming them into the national identity

globalism is an entitlement mentality

Some groups became noteworthy for their skill in particular forms of combat, some became model citizens who adapted quickly to the Roman way of life, etc

the auxilleries right @banestrum

People kept as much of their smaller group identity as was useful to society

When in Rome do as the Romans do

@Deleted User Yeah, and some calvalry

@Deleted User Yes, but not because conformity is easy, but because it is mutually beneficial

Not total conformity, but enough that you and some totally different people can work together

Conform to our religious cult

>implying globalism isn't conformity

for example: I am Canadian, and rather proud of it. Canada is a rather nice country to live in.
This is not an identity in any meaningful sense. Canadians, even the most strident flag-wavers among them, do not consist of an identity bloc. There are no identity politics going on here. There is no complaint, for example, about under-representation of Canadian citizens on the world-political stage or whatever. there is no basis from which such a complaint could be made.

if by "religious cult" you mean "local law", sure. how is replacing this with global law any better? If anything, you deprive people of the opportunity to seek out a different locality with a legal system they prefer.

If Roman armies, with all their auxilaries, irregular troops, standardized equipment, and multinational manpower don't represent one of the greatest achievements of nationalism to you, then I don't know what to say.

all you have is empty rhetoric here, @Deleted User .

@zahlman I believe the only thing he has is sophistry and quotes no one gives a shit about

well, yes; that's the form of the rhetoric generally

@Deleted User Globalism is economic colonization and mutual wage slavery on an unprecedented scale, and all parties are worse for it. No nation is self sufficient, all are exploited, and national pride in unique products and labors is reduced to gross GDP

^

^^

Rome had the right idea, beat people until they comply, and then show them how nice you live.

I especially like the part where "the global poor used to average $1/year , now they average $2/year in income" is held up as an *accomplishment*

We don't do enough of either now

if you believe in globalism, you believe in colonization and slavery

as if it didn't occur to anyone that the mere fact of being able to survive on $1/year might possibly indicate that the economic rules of the developed world don't apply

@zahlman I mean, it's a big deal in some shitholes, but it's still a shithole, just marginally wealthier

How are those cheap clothing made by poor SE Asian workers?

^

Itchy

Bangladesh can suck a dick

yeah, the quality is lacking @banestrum

jfc, when I was in university in the early 00s all the university leftists understood this shit

Fuck the tags they put on their shirts, they are the actual worst

you literally couldn't get away from people talking about sweatshop labour

https://www.dailywire.com/news/28537/uk-student-allegedly-reprimanded-watching-video-daily-wire

now they've all sold out

The plastic stickers that are ironed on or something, you have to peel them off a letter at a time

American made products are of quality, from what I noticed @banestrum

because they can't afford to skimp on quality

@Deleted User They have to be, to compete

Plenty of cheap stuff, so no room there

yeap

@Deleted User that's fucked

if it's true

UK has fallen

we're supposed to be happy about a state of affairs in which workers literally halfway around the world can be economically exploited to the point where it's cheaper to make it there and also ship it, rather than make it locally
meanwhile, hundreds of millions of people still have malaria and schistosomiasis and fucking hookworm, the latter of which mark goddamned twain wrote about

I learned today that japan makes really good jeans because they bought up all the machinery in the states when it went under due to outsourcing

So they basically make american jeans

that's what your precious globalism gets you.

Do you think the lead-lined canteens of the Roman armies were good @banestrum?

superficial pretending-to-care bullshit and calling people racist based on nothing, while real problems are ignored

you got a source for that?

I thought that was just the pipes in rome

@banestrum too bad the jeans are too small for american waists

@zahlman We can all see that globalism has purported to bring the world closer, but has eroded what binds nations together

How is global free trade a bad thing @banestrum?

@Deleted User I think it's a lot of export, so some must be made for us amerifats

So slavery is a good thing ?

wow, how enlightened of you hooty

You guys are starting to sound like communists

bahahaa what

and you're a retard

@Deleted User It's a net economic gain for the world, but those benefits mostly go into the pockets of multinational corporations and extremely wealthy individuals rather than to the societies that produced said goods

christ, what do you even think your own political alignment is

Hooty is a corprate whore

`neoliberal`

```"libertarian"```

@Deleted User I'd be a communist if people were entirely logical and not emotional at all

Too bad that's not reality

[boot up the internet machine] time for a little own-a-rooni on the sargon chat

Thanks, Luigi

With goatee?

That's horrifying

Free trade equals economic slavery?

Where is the logic in that?

Are you willing to listen to our explanations?

... I like the part where you were given reasoning to start out with, and then discarded the reasoning in order to substitute your strawman, and then asked where the reasoning is

that's quite impressive, really

Ya

I'm just taking what you said @zahlman

er, which part, I think you're getting people mixed up now

is this how it works?

gimme a sec

For me, "economic freedom" on a global scale means that all nations can trade with each other with little to no restrictions. This means that regional differences in prices are esentially meaningless in such a large market, and so nations are essentially locked in to producing whatever creates the greatest GDP. So a nation with lots of fertile land is going to produce cash crops to sell on the international market and use the profits to buy food from somewhere else. If a nation did anything less than maximize their GDP, they would be outcompeted by other nations in the market and subjugated by economic means

Essentially, nations are locked into producing certain things by the current prices of the market and general economic pressure

I see

they don't want to have to compete with others

I get that the global economy produces the most economically efficient solutions on a global scale via market pressure, but it also creates extremely unbalanced systems that border on global monopolies

rather stay primitive & backwards

> produces the most economically efficient solutions

not even necessarily this, considering the overhead of transportation

like Islam

transporting goods also has environmental consequences

At the end of this, every nation produces exactly one product to sell on the market, and essentially holds a gun to the head of the world. If Neo-USA stops producing the worlds supply of planes, nobody has planes, thusly everyone is enslaved to the USA. And everyone is enslaved to each other via resource production

@zahlman That's why I said "economically" efficient.

They're not resource efficient by any means

makes sense

So I'm not denying the benefits of globalization, but there are downsides to it.

https://youtu.be/6yqA6-ukmfg

https://youtu.be/qcXtYXUCOMY

As a classical liberal, you should watch these.

**@Pepe** was cleansed from the server.

Ok, so that first one, everything they said was technically correct

But costs ARE passed on to other nations via externalities

Could be environmental costs from production, health costs from pollution, whatever, because the global economy is global, the costs and benefits are going to be spread around

And obviously less powerful nations, economic or otherwise, have less means available to protect themselves from those negative consequences

Can't get enough of that sweet sweet division

@Edgy_Username The anti-white crowd has been out in force on twitter

Bringing out the old "whites are domestic terrorists" thing again

The whole internets a shithole the now

Folk on Reddit saying that free speech should be limited and all tha anti-White stuff on Twitter

Doesn't that mean Trump is successfully stopping Muslim terrorists from killing?

Blame the leftists

We just want to be white in peace

Checkmatey democrats

At this point, I think universal sufferage is incompatible with America

It's not functioning so good with so many fucking voices voting in opposite directions

*suffrage

You realize there are more terrorist acts committed by whites than any other in America right?

Which means he's stopping the radical Islamic terrorists from attacking.

Two scoops, two genders, two terms, baby.

This is what gets underreported

How do you recommend we fix that then?

Whites are the majority of the population, so nothing's out of the ordinary there, statistically.

He probably wants equality of terrorists.

Have a quota.

Let's make sure half of terrorists are black, half are arabic, half are asian, half are mexicans....

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/aug/16/look-data-domestic-terrorism-and-whos-behind-it/

So, even that bottom graph says that islam did more than everyone else combined

Obviously a lot of people died on 9/11

Is this one of those graphs that conveniently starts after 9/11?

Wasn't that politifact article debunked because they left out some incidents to make their case?

his point is that it's a little hypocritical that we have massive media coverage and patriot acts dedicated to one group but the other is generally unspoken, and things like "both sides" probably/definitely wouldn't ever be said about muslim terrorists

im pretty sure that the US has the least restrictions on trade than any other nation

so the idea that by doing tariffs we're not participating

is a bit silly

Or from the fallout of it

https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/25885/

>62 people in U.S. killed by Islamic terrorists for every one killed by right-wing extremists

i think i'd rather crucify myself than read a college fix article about a professor with debunk written in all caps

however i did anyway....

>Is this one of those graphs that conveniently starts after 9/11?

yes, it says so explicitly at the top

Until the Orlando nightclub shooting, "the number of deaths caused by far-right-wing attacks outnumbered those caused by jihadism-related attacks," Ford said.

@DanielKO They've also included some oddball incidents as "far-right"

>“Together, Muhammad and Malvo killed at least ten people. Yet [the foundation] does not list their victims among those under the category of ‘violent jihadist attacks.'”

The "2003 Salinas, Calif. Abudction, Torture, and Murder" was two hispanics killing a bisexual

also >implying radial islam isn't "far-right"

Dunno how that's similar to the actual skinheads they've cited selewhere

"The terrorist threat in the United States is almost entirely homegrown, as no foreign terrorist organization has successfully directed and orchestrated an attack in the United States since 9/11,"

Yeah, it only took ONE incident to change that balance

per capita islamic terrorism is probably worse

```“If you include the death totals from 9/11 in such a calculation, then there have been around 62 people killed in the United States by Islamic extremists for every one American killed by a right wing terrorist,” Holt stated in his analysis.```
well duh
```Secondly, it did not factor in extraordinary security measures, such as the Patriot Act and the Holtcreation of Homeland Security, put in place after 9/11 that prevented a large number of attempted attacks by Islamic terrorists on American soil.```
i'm not sure if the best point he could've made here is imply that homeland security is completely incompetent at stopping right-wing terrorism

They have the same goals as white nationalists

ONE islamic terrorist killed 49 people in a single incident, but it took 14 years for "far right" "terrorism" to approach the same figure

And I'm supposed to consider Islamic terrorism LESS of a threat?

What a surprise, after a massive Islamic terrorism attack, strict defense policies are put into place to try to stop more Islamic terrorism attacks. This retard thinks that, since fewer attacks happened after that, it means that Islamic terrorists aren't a threat.

They've killed more people in less incidents

Dude, it's exactly the opposite.

Except the TSA has never prevented anything

Underwear bomber

Not one to defend TSA, but still.

Gotta give it to em you do something you do it right

Their value is also mostly deterrence, rather than active prevention

The TSA will always end up killing more people than it will ever save

@Edgy_Username Exactly, am I supposed to consider a bunch on unrelated skinheads committing armed robbery a serious national threat?

Know why?

@Deleted User Who the fuck has the TSA ever killed?

the entire point is that you wouldn't find out if they did prevent something from happening

@banestrum his fee fees

```ONE islamic terrorist killed 49 people in a single incident, but it took 14 years for "far right" "terrorism" to approach the same figure
And I'm supposed to consider Islamic terrorism LESS of a threat?```
9/11 is obviously a massive outlier

Because people are more likely to drive rather than fly now which is statistically much more dangerous.

when am I gonna see white nationalists flying crop dusters into corn silos???

@Deleted User So the TSA should regulate motor transport now?

holy shit, @Deleted User , do you have any idea of the implications of having that loose of a standard for responsibility

Unintended consequences

@Sue✨ Yeah, it's such an outlier we fought a bunch of stupid wars over it, it was a pretty big deal. Over a thousand people died because we upset some rich saudi cunt with religious pull

They are not worth the $7 billion

That's why people don't include 9/11 in these "far right attacks have killed more than islam" meme-tier infographs, because it makes the graph so damn big you can't even see the far right deaths

Airlines could handle their own security much better

right, but i think the studies hooty posted earlier were more talking about the frequency of how often your standard terrorist attack happens and who commits them, putting 9/11 in there defeats the purpose

I do not trust airlines to handle my luggage, let alone my security

do you think there'd be less incidents without security

@Sue✨ I'm pretty sure the "point" was to say that islam has somehow killed less

Well it's really hard to get jihadits on planes anymore so yeah homegrown terrorism happens more often

Unless it's the UK of course

@Deleted User I'd imagine so, but it's impossible to prove

Where I'm scared to be edgy incase the SAS invade my house

Who knows how many insane persons have been deterred over the years by the simple idea that they'd get caught

@Edgy_Username Yeah, you guys fucked it

Eliminate parliment now, start over

We're to far gone we have no say about what happens in our government

https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/06/07/threat-extremists-more/

the article could've been a little clearer about its numbers but generally politifact is fairly ok

Look at that garbage, for instance

It ends with "Not a single death has resulted from terrorist activity by a Muslim extremist refugee."

well, yes, that's a different article, yes

I have Muslim uncles and the one thing they detest the most is refugees which surprised me

Ah yes, not a single person known to be an enemy of the united states on religious grounds has been granted passage into the US and then carried out a lethal attack on american soil

What a surprise

Twisting the question, imagine my shock

@Sue✨ My point is that all the articles of that nature are attempting to place the blame on "far right" terrorism while minimizing the number of people killed by islamists. They obfuscate, quibble over definitions, distort data, and manipulate statistics wherever possible and the BEST they can do is the first article posted

The one where excluding that ONE time islam killed 1k+ people in a day, it still killed more than "far right" (a very inclusive group apparently) did over 15 years

@banestrum that's so silly though

they obviously are a deterrence

Who is that in your pfp @Deleted User

And they attempt to dress it up as "Far right extremists have committed more attacks". Great, they're not very good at killing people, so by your logic we shouldn't worry about them.

@Deleted User The what now?

sure, i'm not trying to make the point that islamists did more or less, i was just pointing out a few things about what hooty's article was talking about

It's like when you reinforce policing of crime-ridden areas, crime goes down, then some idiot activists complain "see, there's no crime happening there, you're a bigot because you insinuated they needed extra policing."

Yeah, it just amazes me that that one is the best of the bunch

The BEST one is "Islamists might kill more people, but far right groups attack more often"

With a bunch of asterisks at the end

*"Far right" includes hispanics and unaffiliated people who commit hate crimes

Do you guys believe in a Jewspiracy?

Lol no

Only as much as everyone conspires with their own groups

the TSA

That's a funny word, I like it.

Is that from /pol/?