What's wrong with globalism?

[Kirkrapine]

I'm curious as to how "globalist" became a RW snarl-word. Isn't free international trade just part of conservative economic libertarianism?

 

[nowisthetime]

Just some cheap lingo they decided to parrot off each other. They are like sheep.

 

[bellisarius]

Demographics, energy, and agriculture. In 15 years the US will be the ONLY surviving nation with capital investment and consumption markets. The point being that we won't need the rest of the world and we damn sure aren't going to support them with lop-sided trade agreements.

 

[Kirkrapine]

In 15 years the US will be the ONLY surviving nation with capital investment and consumption markets.

What do you base that on?

The point being that we won't need the rest of the world and we damn sure aren't going to support them with lop-sided trade agreements.

The point of neoliberal trade policies is not to support other countries, it is to give American businesses a chance to profit through international trade.

The point of Trump's protectionism is to give American businesses a competitive advantage over foreigners in the domestic market. That is supposed to create jobs -- but while the jobless rate is down, I don't think it has anything to do with that.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I'm curious as to how "globalist" became a RW snarl-word.

It goes against the idea of national sovereignty.

Isn't free international trade just part of conservative economic libertarianism?

Economic liberalism....nothing particularly libertarian abut free trade, but yes.


Thing is international trade =/= globalism.

 

[Kirkrapine]

Economic liberalism....nothing particularly libertarian abut free trade, but yes.

How is free trade not libertarian?

Thing is international trade =/= globalism.

What's the difference, then? What is globalism?

 

[BotanyBoy]

How is free trade not libertarian?

Every other variety of liberalism, even social liberalism is highly capitalistic and pro free trade.

There is nothing specifically libertarian about free trade.

What's the difference, then? What is globalism?

Centralized economic and social control on a global scale.

 

[FGB]

One world, One Government.

It will be here soon enough. You can wait a little longer to be enslaved and done away with at the whim of the all to magnificent world government.

Why are you in a hurry?

 

[phrodeau]

It’s only lip-service for the uninformed electorate. Trump and Republicans have zero intention of ever halting international trade.

 

[Kirkrapine]

Centralized economic and social control on a global scale.

By whom?

 

[Kirkrapine]

One world, One Government.

It will be here soon enough. You can wait a little longer to be enslaved and done away with at the whim of the all to magnificent world government.

Why are you in a hurry?

The one thing I've never understood about the "New World Order" CT is what anyone has against it. World government? There's nothing the world needs more!

 

[BotanyBoy]

By whom?

Whatever organization or union the left wants controlling everything.

 

[BotanyBoy]

The one thing I've never understood about the "New World Order" CT is what anyone has against it. World government? There's nothing the world needs more!

We can't even get 50 states or 28 European states to all work together and you think we need a world government? LOL

Shit......maybe one day in the far flung future, but I doubt it.

Sure as fuck ain't happening in either of our lifetimes.

 

[Kirkrapine]

We can't even get 50 states or 28 European states to all work together and you think we need a world government? LOL

But, the American states and the EU states do work together -- not always to everyone's satisfaction, but the systems do work.

World government means no more wars, that's the main point of it.

 

[Kirkrapine]

Whatever organization or union the left wants controlling everything.

Can't really think of any such thing on which lefties would agree. The UN, maybe -- but even if it turns into a government, it's hard to imagine it turning into a tyranny.

 

[FGB]

LOL!

There was none so blind that could not see.

If History and Prophecy doesn't give you a clue I do not know what to say except

They will no doubt kill me first if I live that long... but worry not they do not like people that ask questions like you do so you will not be following long behind me.

It will need NO explanation then.

 

[BotanyBoy]

But, the American states and the EU states do work together -- not always to everyone's satisfaction, but the systems do work.

Both systems are crippled and are borderline non-functional at the moment buddy.

One is breaking up and the other is on the verge....that's not working.

World government means no more wars, that's the main point of it.

LOL that's the most naive shit I've ever seen.

More likely to start a war than prevent one.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Can't really think of any such thing on which lefties would agree. The UN, maybe -- but even if it turns into a government, it's hard to imagine it turning into a tyranny.

You said even if the US lost WWII it would still be free......so you don't even think Nazi Germany = tyranny.

Anyone who thinks Nazi Germany = freedom doesn't have any sense of what tyranny is.

 

[Kirkrapine]

There was none so blind that could not see.

A truism -- blind is blind. I think the original quote is, "There is none so blind as those who will not see."

If History and Prophecy doesn't give you a clue I do not know what to say except

There is no historical precedent to go by, and why should anybody pay attention to "prophecy"?! That nonsense I will not see, and neither should you!

 

[FGB]

You are not seeing it now... so why would you see it in the future?

 

[Kirkrapine]

Both systems are crippled and are borderline non-functional at the moment buddy.

Don't know about the EU, but whatever is troubling the U.S., it is not a matter of disagreement between states as states. You'll find plenty of LWs in red states and RWs in blue states.

 

[Kirkrapine]

You are not seeing it now... so why would you see it in the future?

Whatever comes in the future, we'll all see it.

 

[phrodeau]

You said even if the US lost WWII it would still be free......so you don't even think Nazi Germany = tyranny.

Anyone who thinks Nazi Germany = freedom doesn't have any sense of what tyranny is.

Do you think the Nazi military felt tyrannized?

 

[bellisarius]

Of all of the industrialized powers the US is the LEAST engaged in the world economy. A mere 7% of our economy is based on trade and half of that is with the new NAFTA coalition, Canada and Mexico. If you consider that those two are seriously in our sphere of influence that leaves a mere 3.5% for the rest of the world. If we were to shut down our non-NAFTA world trade tomorrow we'd have a recession that lasted a year. The rest of the world would collapse.

ALL of the rest of the worlds industrial powers are in a state of demographic collapse. It seems that sometime in the 1970's they either forgot how to fuck, all turned gay, or started putting Ortho-Novum in their water supplies. The Europeans, with the exception of the UK (Thank God) have decided to turn continental Europe into Europistan. Good luck with that policy.

The US achieved energy independence from the rest of the world 9 months ago. We don't need energy from anyone.............period. (California is an exception and they're fucked.) The rest of the world is left to fight over dwindling supplies while ours is set to increase into the foreseeable future. We're actually gearing up to export natural gas............to Canada and Mexico.

The demographic collapse of the rest of the industrialized world is going to have a profound effect on banking systems, theirs, ours not so much.

Again, we are disengaging because we don't need them. We don't need them from a security standpoint, energy, agriculture (food), manufacturing, or financial.

Say what you will about Trump but he knows all of this. And he's likely to be one of the most globally engaged president that this nation is going to see for the foreseeable future. He is methodically disassembling the old republican notion of our having to stick our nose into everyone else's business and the democrats are so keenly focused on race and hormones that they don't give a shit about global engagement.

Brave new world indeed.

 

[Kirkrapine]

You said even if the US lost WWII it would still be free......so you don't even think Nazi Germany = tyranny.

Of course it was. What I meant was, even if we lost the war, Germany would not have conquered the United States. It was neither possible nor on the agenda. Hitler's war aim was to destroy the nations of Poland and Russia, enslave or exterminate or expel the native populations, settle the land with Germans, and build a Greater Germany on their bones, making Germany a continental power comparable to the U.S.; also, to make Germany a naval power comparable to Britain and the U.S., and acquire an empire of overseas colonies. Then, in the generation after his death, he envisioned a final confrontation with America for global domination. All this can be gleaned from Hitler's unpublished "second book" (found in a drawer after the war), and various speeches. I got it from Modern Times: The World from the Twenties to the Nineties, by Paul Johnson (a very conservative writer).

When the Germans invaded the USSR, many people welcomed them as liberators from Stalin's tyranny -- but they soon learned that for anyone not of German blood, Hitler's tyranny was even worse.