What are your non-racial retorts to globalism or the "all humanity should unite" meme?

What are your non-racial retorts to globalism or the "all humanity should unite" meme?

Personally I'd just ask the claimant to tell me if he could converse with an Indian sweatshop worker for more than an hour.

The nation-state is the most stable form of government in the world today.
It is not feasible to have a global government due to the vast differences of opinion, goals, and culture among the peoples of the world.
The United States has large political, economical, and cultural divides and cannot unite a mere 300 million people; no global government could unite 7 billion people.

I question the quality of this thread as this is one of those "What's your opinion/explanation of X topic?". It may end up good but I caution the outcome.

A tribe of people is unique.
They have a unique culture.
To blend them in the way of globalism is to erase those unique cultures, and that's a travesty.
Think of soccer teams, they each have their own people, with their own in jokes, culture and whatnot.
They might compete, but that doesn't mean they want to war with or wipe out the others.
I view tribes of men, nation-states, etc, the same way.
We can have a united global world without erasing cultures.
The purpose for this type of system is simple: If we use the false song of globalism, what exactly do you think will happen in the future when we try to spread that false song to space?
It will simply be impossible to maintain over such distances.
However, if we allow people to retain their tribalism, and place on top of that an uniting force BURN THE XENOS then with such a system, we can maintain a galaxy-spanning empire without it tearing itself apart in futile attempts at absolute cultural unity across distances too great for that to even work.

My two cents, anyhow.

Lurk moar

I'd tell him he's a filthy commie with grandiose visions of the world which are impossible in reality

If he's dressed like an idiot I'd tell him he's a filthy hippy and spit on him

Your picture is stupid it pisses me off. This thread is terrible.

"It's being done in the form of corporatism instead of from a humanistic view. Instead of preserving the varied races and cultures of the world it's looking to turn everyone into a gray, cultureless consumer."

Nice and subtle. I've used it several times.

...

Am I also too explain why AIDS is bad for you without mentioning the immune system? If whoever you're trying to debate can't handle race talk, you need to change their mind on that first or just not waste your time.

...

Boy, those kike genes have really helped the royal visage, huh?

Also race is essential and can't be compromised. Sage.

Can you Brits turn your note into a whale sucking a knob?
Didn't think so, we win again Bongs!

fucking aussies

Humantiy is and always has been at odds with each other, just like all animals, sure we stay with our pack (country) and of course with our race (you don't see apes and wolves hunting together), but for the most part it's survival of the fittest, and uniting together under one banner is only going to cause more friction between all of us, self-sustaining countries that don't rely on others for anything don't instigate unneeded conflict, nationalism hurts nobody so long as we ARE separate, as we should be.

Humantiy is and always has been at odds with each other, just like all animals, sure we stay with our pack (country) and of course with our race (you don't see apes and wolves hunting together), but for the most part it's survival of the fittest, and uniting together under one banner is only going to cause more friction between all of us, self-sustaining countries that don't rely on others for anything don't instigate unneeded conflict, nationalism hurts nobody so long as we ARE separate, as we should be

Fuck you codemonkey, I thought posting errors were a thing of the past

Go back to Holla Forums, kid.

...

...

That if you really value diversity, you MUST oppose multiculturalism, which only serves to mix every world culture into a single, "global monoculture".

That is as leftist-friendly an answer as you can give to this question, yet it is still completely true, and in line with our values.

Racist!

Racist!

This is basically arguing on the same level as somebody who shouts, "Racist!"

God damn, user.
However, the "humanity always at odds" part works for non-idealists.

I don't think you can really engineer much better than this

If you also add how, "Globalism's 'freedom of movement' (open borders) allows bad actors to increase tensions and move the world towards war by engaging in terrorism", then you demonstrate how both major priorities of globalist policy (peace and social justice) are self-defeating.

This is how Trump fights, and its how you should too. Drop redpills everywhere, but only expose your power level only to people you trust until the world changes.

too much power for an elite few

Just remove the part about race from my post then, the sentiment is still the same, nationalism hurts absolutely nobody when we are all truly seperated

Fuck off, useless faggot. You don't deserve to be paid.

Tell him to live with inuit and on an inuit diet and see how well he'll take that.

Then ask him if he would think that uniting humanity in inuitland would be just as good as anywhere else since the inuit have no problem living there.
And since everyone is equal, nobody else should, too.

"humanity" is a false premise, we aren't one.

top kek

If all humans are equal, globalism is the logical position. But they aren't. This isn't a thought experiment, this is the reality we live in.

Differences matter even on a cultural level. To at least make a globalist think about this, ask what they believe was wrong with colonialism. Odds are they'll regurgitate a bunch of stuff about white supremacy and abuse of natives, but subconsciously they'll pick up on what you're about to say because at some level they already know it's true: the real problem with it, and the reason it was always doomed to failure, is that people of a unique culture can never successfully be ruled by foreigners. Inevitably, the ideas of the ruling group will clash with those of locals, whether it be on government style, policy, or culture itself. Indeed, probably the largest single cause of war in human history is people living in countries ruled by a culture that doesn't match their own (cite current events examples like Ukraine; if your opponent is historically well read cite numerous historical examples).


False, because democracy brings with it its own brand of tyranny: that of the majority. The modern form of cultural oppression isn't one of overt disenfranchisement, but simply marginalizing minority views. Consider the plight of Hong Kong in China, Scotland in the UK, Quebec in Canada, etc. These people are heavily outnumbered by others in the country, so their voices are drowned out and they realistically don't get to decide how their lives are run. That is the fate of dozens (indeed most) countries in a globalist world: population giants like China, India, and soon Nigeria will dominate a democratic system, and the rest of the world will be forced to go along with whatever they decide. A "global democracy" is just 1800s imperialism with different people in charge.

ISHYGDDT

...

...

...

...

Australians are the best shitposters

just substitute culture, culture is primarily the result of race, even with mass media and things like the semitic religion of Christianity taking over Europe thanks to the printing press, you can't completely override the influence race has on culture.

we can't have globalism because (((some people))) are unwilling to give up their culture, it's a simple problem of pragmatism. the benefits aren't nearly worth killing tons of people so in a few generations we can have a bunch of mulattos that STILL hate each other (this kind of conflict doesn't just go away; fuck, just look at the Jews, they'd still burn Rome if they could get away with it)

...

People cannot be completely united without erasing their differences.
Humans are tribalistic by nature, and will have preferences towards certain types of people. For example, westerners would rather associate themselves with those with similar beliefs (or at least cultural similarities) than with foreigners which they cannot relate to. Due to this, even if borders were erased entirely, cliques and groups would still form. The same problems of disunity would occur, however, without the existence of nation sates there would be far greater disorder.
Therefore, the only way to overcome the formation of groups would be to erase all cultural, ideological, and even physical (including racial) differences. This, quite clearly, would be enough to deter most people from supporting global government ideology.
However, some may claim that erasing all of our differences is a necessary price worth paying to ensure global peace and stability.
To counter this argument, you could point out that variation proves essential in nature to ensure natural selection can take place. True to nature, a society based on competition requires people to have differences in order for said competition to take place.

...

every single time