Globalism vs Statism
-
[x:26h4pds0][/x:26h4pds0]So I've noticed a trend the past few years that is bubbling over in this general election.
In one corner we have an american natioanlist against globalist policies like TPP and wants to enforce border control.
In the other we have a career politician who is bought off and answers to the $, loves globalist "gold standards" like TPP and wants to import millions of people with an incompatible culture.
-
We are all one. The longer we maintain our tribal divisions, the longer our illusion of separation endures. The sooner we pull off the bandaid by coming to terms with the endemic inequality created by the systems of our ancestors, the sooner we can balance that inequality out.
That said, none of our current American candidates present a path toward that future. All of them present hurdles that must be overcome: continuations, in one form or another, of failed structures of the past.
"Choose ye an island" works well to get your particular individuality working at prime efficiency in relation to all of the others. It works less well to get your chosen group of "like-minded individuals" to prevail over someone else's chosen group of "like-minded individuals" (see: any war, ever).
-
Ahh I remember why I haven't posted here in years.
@Gnosomai: that sounds quaint. I'm talking about consensus reality and the fact our democracy is actually controlled by an elite donor class.
@hermitas: given that she endorsed it 56x and has just once given a politicians backtrack, it's fair to assume given her history of confabulation and relegating blame to others that if she's president it will pass: www.cnn.com/2016/07/27/politics/hillary-clinton-trans-pacific-partnership-terry-mcauliffe
Trump is a business man and does business in many countries. The way the game is set up you have to produce overseas if you want to stay competitive otherwise you end up going bankrupt selling shitty made in USA t-shirts like American Apparell. Are his policies nationalist? Does he push for closed borders, renegotiated trade deals, the abolition of a financial junta overseeing our economy and is his panel backed by ex-military nationalists? Is he against looking for reasons to war other countries? Yes to all. His platform ticks off about every box on the American nationalists platform so your point doesn't stand.
Again, where do you stand? Do you think globalization run by the anonymous financial elite is preferable to the new rise in nationalism?
-
@Mercurius said
"
Tell me friends, which side appeals to you more? I think "Nation" and "choose ye an island!" pops into my mind. I myself am quite skeptical of globalist agendas."
Are you talking about AL 3:4 New Comment? I don't know who is holding this secret or whether it's one of AC's more non sensical imaginative moments. The thought the whole idea of magic is that you rise above political trends.
-
@Mercurius said
"Ahh I remember why I haven't posted here in years.
@Gnosomai: that sounds quaint. I'm talking about consensus reality and the fact our democracy is actually controlled by an elite donor class."
This is the forum of Temple of Thelema, isn't it? Or did I open the wrong Tapatalk tab?
The answer is in your question. Our democracy is controlled by an elite donor class. Therefore, the flaw is in the system. All of the candidates are a part of that system, reinforcing tribalism, otherwise known as patriotism, isolationism, American nationalism, etc.
If you want to talk "consensus reality" you might be better off asking Facebook or Reddit. Here, I tend to attempt actual answers rather than ones that already confirm to the asker's preconceived notions.
-
Seems to me that Nationalism attracts more war in spite of its reluctance to get involved. Sure, the U.S. may have the resources to go it alone, but other countries don't. Just take WWII for instance. Overtly, we didn't want to get involved, but other people wanted a piece of the pie. Seems to me that when we make ourselves indispensable to these other guys through trade, they feel much less froggy about getting into it with us.
Take China for example. They're really happy with our loan payments. Status quo is good for them. Sure, they don't like us, but they like those loan payments. Some say, "well, what if they got pissed and wanted all their money? They own us." Okay, China, we'll crank up that press and print you some dollars - like a flood. Here you go. Now, there's so many dollars, they're basically worthless - inflated into worthlessness. China would be sitting in a pile green paper saying, "Yay! Look at all these dollars!" Not worth a dime. So, like I say, they like their steady loan payments. That's worth way more than being stupid about it. Don't eat the chicken; eat the eggs. It may be ugly, but that relationship keeps things more predictably beneficial for both of us than telling them, "Go away! We don't need you." That's what lights the matches. Better to have a mutually beneficial relationship with them.
Anyway, I think Gnos is on to something. I think Nationalism, for all its warm feelings of self-reliance, ultimately makes us more vulnerable than it seems like it would. Counter-intuitive like that..
Final thought: Germany lost its Nationalist campaign when it cast out the same Jewish minds that came up with atomic fission first. Nationalism just can't escape its inherent racism, and racism fails because of its rejection of the benefits of diversity and broad inclusion of diverse minds. The organism that is humanity functions best and strongest with the inclusion of all its diverse parts