Nationalism vs. globalism

[Votto]

Many believe that nationalism and globalism are natural adversaries. However, I believe that nationalism at one time was a globalist tool. It was used in the US to shift power from the states to the Federal government. However, now that power has been centralized in the US federal government via the Progressive era, nationalism ironically is now no longer a collectivist tool, rather, it is a collectivist obstacle that impedes globalism. Now the US has been centralized enough through nationalism, it is now ripe to embrace globalism. But without the first step of nationalism, globalism would have been virtually impossible for America to embrace.

It is akin to unwelcomed immigration in America in the 1600's. At first, white Europeans came over by the droves as Indians tried to fight them off. Brown colored skin was seen as inferior as Indians were seen as barbarians. These Indians were made up of decentralized tribes that gave way to a more "progressive" centralized European style governments that united America into one government. Then power shifted from the states to the federal government through the more "progressive" nationalism.

However, now that collectivists have successfully centralized power in the US, they now ready themselves for more "progressive" globalism. Now instead of favoring white colored skin over dark, they favor dark colored skin over white. Now it is the white man who is the barbarian that needs to submit to his darker skinned counterparts. Now national borders must come down as globalism takes over and as national sovereignty becomes a thing of the past for the on coming globalist government to put us all under one banner. Now it's time to destroy and overwhelm sovereign nations so that the crumbling nations can be convinced to look for a global salvation.

So as we see, racism against white colored people and dark colored people are mere tools of the globalist/collectivist., as was nationalism.

Ironically though, it is only the adversaries of such progressives that are painted as "racists" as they try to hold onto nationalism in order to fight globalism and the destruction of their national sovereignty, much like the tribal Indians who tried to fight off the European invaders. It reminds me of the saying, "accuse the other side of that which you are guilty", which is often attributed to the Nazi propaganda administer Goebbels.

So even though there are racist nationalists, just remember, not all are. In addition, these constructs were created by globalists to begin with.

 

[Timmy]

Globalism is really just an economic thing .

If people are so worried about it they should stop buying all that Chinese made shit .

 

[Votto]

Globalism is really just an economic thing .

If people are so worried about it they should stop buying all that Chinese made shit .

No, it's a political thingy as well.

Anytime you have money involved, you have politics involved because money and power is all politicians care about.

 

[Votto]

We have been provided with false propaganda.

Here is what we have all been taught.

When it is more like this.

I would take issue with anarchy, however. For it is anarchy that leads to tyranny in pretty much every case.

 

[beagle9]

Many believe that nationalism and globalism are natural adversaries. However, I believe that nationalism at one time was a globalist tool. It was used in the US to shift power from the states to the Federal government. However, now that power has been centralized in the US federal government via the Progressive era, nationalism ironically is now no longer a collectivist tool, rather, it is a collectivist obstacle that impedes globalism. Now the US has been centralized enough through nationalism, it is now ripe to embrace globalism. But without the first step of nationalism, globalism would have been virtually impossible for America to embrace.

It is akin to unwelcomed immigration in America in the 1600's. At first, white Europeans came over by the droves as Indians tried to fight them off. Brown colored skin was seen as inferior as Indians were seen as barbarians. These Indians were made up of decentralized tribes that gave way to a more "progressive" centralized European style governments that united America into one government. Then power shifted from the states to the federal government through the more "progressive" nationalism.

However, now that collectivists have successfully centralized power in the US, they now ready themselves for more "progressive" globalism. Now instead of favoring white colored skin over dark, they favor dark colored skin over white. Now it is the white man who is the barbarian that needs to submit to his darker skinned counterparts. Now national borders must come down as globalism takes over and as national sovereignty becomes a thing of the past for the on coming globalist government to put us all under one banner. Now it's time to destroy and overwhelm sovereign nations so that the crumbling nations can be convinced to look for a global salvation.

So as we see, racism against white colored people and dark colored people are mere tools of the globalist/collectivist., as was nationalism.

Ironically though, it is only the adversaries of such progressives that are painted as "racists" as they try to hold onto nationalism in order to fight globalism and the destruction of their national sovereignty, much like the tribal Indians who tried to fight off the European invaders. It reminds me of the saying, "accuse the other side of that which you are guilty", which is often attributed to the Nazi propaganda administer Goebbels.

So even though there are racist nationalists, just remember, not all are. In addition, these constructs were created by globalists to begin with.

Revelations is telling us or tells us alot about these things in which are written within the Bibles books on the subjects. Makes one wonder where it all is now, and how much longer the world has to go before the sequence of events we are told about in the book are to be fulfilled ??

 

[Votto]

Speaking of racism as a globalist construct, this article about Lebron comes to mind.

Analysis | LeBron James ‘would never sit across from’ Donald Trump, who he says is using sports to sow division

So basically globalists/Left wingers are free to do anything despicable that they want. However, if anyone calls them out on it, that person becomes divisive or a racist.

Case in point, NFL players who kneel for a national anthem. Naturally, people view this as disrespecting the flag and nation, something that can be seen as despicable. However, once Trump calls them out on it, all of a sudden he is the racist divisive one.

 

[Votto]

Many believe that nationalism and globalism are natural adversaries. However, I believe that nationalism at one time was a globalist tool. It was used in the US to shift power from the states to the Federal government. However, now that power has been centralized in the US federal government via the Progressive era, nationalism ironically is now no longer a collectivist tool, rather, it is a collectivist obstacle that impedes globalism. Now the US has been centralized enough through nationalism, it is now ripe to embrace globalism. But without the first step of nationalism, globalism would have been virtually impossible for America to embrace.

It is akin to unwelcomed immigration in America in the 1600's. At first, white Europeans came over by the droves as Indians tried to fight them off. Brown colored skin was seen as inferior as Indians were seen as barbarians. These Indians were made up of decentralized tribes that gave way to a more "progressive" centralized European style governments that united America into one government. Then power shifted from the states to the federal government through the more "progressive" nationalism.

However, now that collectivists have successfully centralized power in the US, they now ready themselves for more "progressive" globalism. Now instead of favoring white colored skin over dark, they favor dark colored skin over white. Now it is the white man who is the barbarian that needs to submit to his darker skinned counterparts. Now national borders must come down as globalism takes over and as national sovereignty becomes a thing of the past for the on coming globalist government to put us all under one banner. Now it's time to destroy and overwhelm sovereign nations so that the crumbling nations can be convinced to look for a global salvation.

So as we see, racism against white colored people and dark colored people are mere tools of the globalist/collectivist., as was nationalism.

Ironically though, it is only the adversaries of such progressives that are painted as "racists" as they try to hold onto nationalism in order to fight globalism and the destruction of their national sovereignty, much like the tribal Indians who tried to fight off the European invaders. It reminds me of the saying, "accuse the other side of that which you are guilty", which is often attributed to the Nazi propaganda administer Goebbels.

So even though there are racist nationalists, just remember, not all are. In addition, these constructs were created by globalists to begin with.

Revelations is telling us or tells us alot about these things in which are written within the Bibles books on the subjects. Makes one wonder where it all is now, and how much longer the world has to go before the sequence of events we are told about in the book are to be fulfilled ??

Revelations talks about the mark and how everyone will need to have it in order to buy and sell.

That sounds like a centralized global system to me.

Sadly, it is not that far fetched. Having a world government mark us would be ideal and something they long to do and we have the technology to do it. In fact, many are doing it right now for various reasons.

Think of it. If this mark was used to identify you and track you and to use as a credit card, then it would solve a whole slew of problems, such as missing persons, running from the law, cheating on taxes, filing taxes, using it as a health data base so that when you find someone unconscious you just scan their information and you know all about them and how to treat them, etc.

There is no doubt about it. Marking people would be highly efficient and probably be promoted once the world economic system fails.

Just looking at government spending around the globe, it's almost as if they are wanting this to happen sooner than latter.

 

[Timmy]

We have been provided with false propaganda.

Here is what we have all been taught.

When it is more like this.

I would take issue with anarchy, however. For it is anarchy that leads to tyranny in pretty much every case.

How is the far right “total freedom” ? That’s a joke .

Take gay marriage . You have to admit that being able to marry any gender is more freedom that being able to only marry the opposite gender . Yet the far right is against gay marriage.

 

[Timmy]

Speaking of racism as a globalist construct, this article about Lebron comes to mind.

Analysis | LeBron James ‘would never sit across from’ Donald Trump, who he says is using sports to sow division

So basically globalists/Left wingers are free to do anything despicable that they want. However, if anyone calls them out on it, that person becomes divisive or a racist.

Case in point, NFL players who kneel for a national anthem. Naturally, people view this as disrespecting the flag and nation, something that can be seen as despicable. However, once Trump calls them out on it, all of a sudden he is the racist divisive one.

Well it if racist when you hate people for protesting police brutality against minorities. Are you for police brutality?

 

[Votto]

We have been provided with false propaganda.

Here is what we have all been taught.

When it is more like this.

I would take issue with anarchy, however. For it is anarchy that leads to tyranny in pretty much every case.

How is the far right “total freedom” ? That’s a joke .

Take gay marriage . You have to admit that being able to marry any gender is more freedom that being able to only marry the opposite gender . Yet the far right is against gay marriage.

You are confusing what is called far right with the spectrum I provided.

The state should not even be in marriage. What on earth did I do to earn a marriage license? What on earth would I care what the secular state had to say about me getting married? Why should anyone be given government perks for getting married? Why should polygamists be arrested for getting married? Why should married folk have anymore rights than single folk?

The whole system is insane.

No, the state should get out of the marriage business altogether. When they do, two things will happen. Divorce lawyers will have to apply for food stamps, and the only people getting married will be those who are religious and care about their union in the sight of God, thus sending the crazy high divorce rate to next to nothing.

But the best part of all, political idiots from all over the country can shove it when it comes to their views on marriage and the divisive poo it brings to the table.

 

[Votto]

Speaking of racism as a globalist construct, this article about Lebron comes to mind.

Analysis | LeBron James ‘would never sit across from’ Donald Trump, who he says is using sports to sow division

So basically globalists/Left wingers are free to do anything despicable that they want. However, if anyone calls them out on it, that person becomes divisive or a racist.

Case in point, NFL players who kneel for a national anthem. Naturally, people view this as disrespecting the flag and nation, something that can be seen as despicable. However, once Trump calls them out on it, all of a sudden he is the racist divisive one.

Well it if racist when you hate people for protesting police brutality against minorities. Are you for police brutality?

You don't protest something despicable by performing a despicable act to get attention.

Get it?

 

[Timmy]

Speaking of racism as a globalist construct, this article about Lebron comes to mind.

Analysis | LeBron James ‘would never sit across from’ Donald Trump, who he says is using sports to sow division

So basically globalists/Left wingers are free to do anything despicable that they want. However, if anyone calls them out on it, that person becomes divisive or a racist.

Case in point, NFL players who kneel for a national anthem. Naturally, people view this as disrespecting the flag and nation, something that can be seen as despicable. However, once Trump calls them out on it, all of a sudden he is the racist divisive one.

Well it if racist when you hate people for protesting police brutality against minorities. Are you for police brutality?

You don't protest something despicable by performing a despicable act to get attention.

Get it?

Kneeling is not despicable.

 

[Kondor3]

We have been provided with false propaganda.

Here is what we have all been taught.

When it is more like this.

I would take issue with anarchy, however. For it is anarchy that leads to tyranny in pretty much every case.

How is the far right “total freedom” ? That’s a joke .

Take gay marriage . You have to admit that being able to marry any gender is more freedom that being able to only marry the opposite gender . Yet the far right is against gay marriage.

In the narrow context of your example, the Right is against sexual deviancy and perversion (a.k.a. homosexuality).

 

[Thinker101]

We have been provided with false propaganda.

Here is what we have all been taught.

When it is more like this.

I would take issue with anarchy, however. For it is anarchy that leads to tyranny in pretty much every case.

How is the far right “total freedom” ? That’s a joke .

Take gay marriage . You have to admit that being able to marry any gender is more freedom that being able to only marry the opposite gender . Yet the far right is against gay marriage.

Not to worry Timmy, you can marry any gay person you want...no one will care.

 

[Timmy]

We have been provided with false propaganda.

Here is what we have all been taught.

When it is more like this.

I would take issue with anarchy, however. For it is anarchy that leads to tyranny in pretty much every case.

How is the far right “total freedom” ? That’s a joke .

Take gay marriage . You have to admit that being able to marry any gender is more freedom that being able to only marry the opposite gender . Yet the far right is against gay marriage.

In the narrow context of your example, the Right is against sexual deviancy and perversion (a.k.a. homosexuality).

If perverts bothered you so much you wouldn’t vote for Trump .

 

[koshergrl]

*Nationalism* as the nazis viewed it included a vision where the entire world was under nazi rule. Globalism likewise sees the entire world under a single rule..a marxist rule.

 

[Votto]

We have been provided with false propaganda.

Here is what we have all been taught.

When it is more like this.

I would take issue with anarchy, however. For it is anarchy that leads to tyranny in pretty much every case.

How is the far right “total freedom” ? That’s a joke .

Take gay marriage . You have to admit that being able to marry any gender is more freedom that being able to only marry the opposite gender . Yet the far right is against gay marriage.

In the narrow context of your example, the Right is against sexual deviancy and perversion (a.k.a. homosexuality).

We have been provided with false propaganda.

Here is what we have all been taught.

When it is more like this.

I would take issue with anarchy, however. For it is anarchy that leads to tyranny in pretty much every case.

How is the far right “total freedom” ? That’s a joke .

Take gay marriage . You have to admit that being able to marry any gender is more freedom that being able to only marry the opposite gender . Yet the far right is against gay marriage.

In the narrow context of your example, the Right is against sexual deviancy and perversion (a.k.a. homosexuality).

There is a big difference saying that something is sexually deviant and saying that you should be arrested for it.

As Ben Franklin said:

It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right — Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison."

In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.

Franklin understands two things here. He understands that he does not have all the moral answers, so why pretend to say he does and force others to comply?

However, he seems to also understand that the Constitution can only survive because it grants freedom and freedom can only survive if the people are moral.

And it makes sense. How can an amoral society be free? If you had a nation of convicts all that can be done is build a wall around them and hire a warden to try and maintain a civil society. That is why I think Left wingers are at war with morality in society. They see that the key to more government control is a society that is unable to control themselves, so the government must be forced to do it for them. An amoral society is the key to a police state. At the same time, the Founding Fathers broke free from a society where the church was a state institution as politicians spoke through the pulpit with no dissent allowed. Both are intolerable and lead to tyranny.

As a citizen, I will yell from the highest roof tops that sexual deviancy is not a good thing, whether it is an adulterous relationship or trying to screw the neighborhood dog. I will also plea with them to adhere to what I view as the source of all moral conduct and submit themselves to it, but I cannot and should not force them.

 

[Votto]

*Nationalism* as the nazis viewed it included a vision where the entire world was under nazi rule. Globalism likewise sees the entire world under a single rule..a marxist rule.

Well the Nazis were globalists, they just fell short of their mark in conquering the world.

 

[Timmy]

We have been provided with false propaganda.

Here is what we have all been taught.

When it is more like this.

I would take issue with anarchy, however. For it is anarchy that leads to tyranny in pretty much every case.

How is the far right “total freedom” ? That’s a joke .

Take gay marriage . You have to admit that being able to marry any gender is more freedom that being able to only marry the opposite gender . Yet the far right is against gay marriage.

In the narrow context of your example, the Right is against sexual deviancy and perversion (a.k.a. homosexuality).

The right wants to control what people do
In their bedrooms . Gay or straight .

Still want to chalk that up to “freedom loving “. Pun intended .

 

[Votto]

We have been provided with false propaganda.

Here is what we have all been taught.

When it is more like this.

I would take issue with anarchy, however. For it is anarchy that leads to tyranny in pretty much every case.

How is the far right “total freedom” ? That’s a joke .

Take gay marriage . You have to admit that being able to marry any gender is more freedom that being able to only marry the opposite gender . Yet the far right is against gay marriage.

In the narrow context of your example, the Right is against sexual deviancy and perversion (a.k.a. homosexuality).

The right wants to control what people do
In their bedrooms . Gay or straight .

Still want to chalk that up to “freedom loving “. Pun intended .

Again, stop using the fake spectrum by placing it on the correct one.

Just because you call them "right wing" does not mean they are for decentralization of governmental power. In fact, the Catholic church was very much totalitarian at one point as they controlled a theocracy. People were burned at the stake, placed in ghettos and rounded up and killed, all because they conflicted with church doctrine. However, because they were "religious", no doubt you would describe them as right wing, even though they had a collectivist mentality.

The big lie is, the Left wants the government in the bedrooms. In fact, they demand it.

For example, polygamists will be arrested if discovered. There are only certain types of state sanctioned sex that the state approves of and will give perks for.

Too bad that polygamists are by in large religious folk who are deemed "conservative" Otherwise maybe the Left winged state would give a damn about them, but they don't and never will.