>>39332
I think the greatest irony is that, barring spectacular collapse, we are now always going to be in a globalist age, it's just dependent on what flavor you want. Poltards are themselves globalists. I'll never forget the absolute irony of a bunch of poltards coming to an international discussion board to sling their shit about how butthurt they are and demanding a pan-global nationalist alliance (like what the fuck?) Apparently their board now has flags like KC /int/ did.

So it's really imho up to the flavor of globalism you want with the sole alternative being anarcho-primitivism which I've stated elsewhere is what I truly believe to be the coming alternative edginess that'll be embraced by kids who are like 10 year olds now, with the pandemic and global warming likely only to fuel such sentiments.

The only other sole competitors would be one of the at least two religions which posit a globalism eschatology--Islam and Christianity--taking on a primitivist flair, which would itself be ironic because both of them are universalist ideologies and thus de facto globalist ones. Thus the only alternatives to primitivist sentiments are the competitors of "globalism"--that is to say, the global centre right neoliberal order of the international Capitalists--are the other globalist ideologies of Islam, Christianity, and Socialism.

Now if you'll excuse me I think I'll get dressed and put on my gas mask to go buy curtains and lottery tickets before the 24/7 Walmart is closed for plague curfew.

>>39442
They're an excellent crystallization of why most aspects of right wing reactionary movements run anywhere from completely retarded to dangerous, and more often both. The only people capable of matching their level of stupidity or just flat out mental illness and self absorbed denial of reality are trannies.

>does it discredit it

Well to answer the question that OP posited I would say that yes, it certainly does. Moreover it shows the futility in it because virtually all the last batch of right wing leaders from Bolsonaro to Boris Johnson to Trump are themselves neoliberals anyway, and all their economic plans ultimately rely entirely upon globalism with the only difference being their appeals to populism and half baked notions of increasing local industry because of sheer greed. Like what do you think is going to happen to all that Brazilian timber? Or Made in USA industrial goods? None of those things are explicitly for internal markets but rather finding ways of dealing with foreign trade imbalances.

Moreover it has also explicitly revealed how dangerously retarded they all are for us to now be in the middle of a global pandemic, with them wishing to reap the fruits of globalism while doing fucking nothing to shield us from the fallout. Trump actively fucking us with his minor spending cuts to literally the only nice things we have like the CDC, NASA, scientific particularly global warming related budgets such as his moronic dick waving with the weather service all of all things, while giving tax cuts to the exact same globalist billionaires such as himself and ballooning our entirely globalist oriented military, is as very nice shining example of that. It should be noted that Trump in particular is a globalist who has properties all of the world and has been counting on the sheer ignorance of rubes with his lies and emotional appeals while enriching himself and his family with globalist deals all of the world from China to Saudi Arabia to Scotland.

So do these things utterly discredit reactionary movements? Of course they do. Because these are the movements reactionaries tend to give us and I find it no smaller irony that the very people putting these neoliberals into power literally don't even realize that "neoliberal" is literally another word for a brand of Capitalism and that they're doing all this while shitposting on an international imageboard. What it ultimately is saying is that globalism of sort or another is completely inevitable and the only differential is in which ways you've chosen to interface with it, which in their case is being as pigshit ignorant bydlo as possible and massive hypocrites to boot.

So like I said, yes it is inevitable and the only real reactionary alternative left is becoming a primitivist of one sort or another. In a similar vein, I would say that "degeneracy" is not inevitable however that is likewise no small irony that people on f'ing 4chan of all places should actually sit there to bitch about degeneracy while themselves being active participants in it, wherein the only real alternative to being a degenerate would clearly not to be to frequent an utterly morally debased community that was practically founded for jerking off to Japanese cartoons and that has been one of the sole lines of continuity of 4krebs to this very day. So I would likewise posit that in order to actively reject such degenerate behavior and thinking necessitates you actively disengaging yourself from it, in like manner as to take a truly reactionary and anti-globalist position requires you to not be a participant in it. As such, the entirety of /pol/ exists as essentially an amoral morass of largely self absorbed and psychopathic individuals that has come to represent a form of radical establishmentarianism for stupid people. Those that are in power know this and know that said stupid people are always going to be vanguard for their establishment and a wellspring of easy exploitation and diversion from the actual problems inherent in the structures of the system itself.

I would lastly like to point out that quite possibly the funniest thing to me in all this is that a large degree of their sentiments and points of view could generally be considered leftist, except through a wildly self absorbed and racist lens and that has been successfully diverted into the aforementioned radical establishmentarianism rather than them ever becoming an actual legitimate threat to the current global order which would require their correct identification of the problem as being a Capitalist one, or of actually organizing themselves into a genuinely threatening force of organized subclasses who have totally rejected the establishment elites altogether, of which Johnson, Trump, Soros, Bolsonaro, Gates, Bezos, Adelson, Blair, King Abdullah, Putin etc are all members. As such it has fractured and demoralized them enough for it to never have occurred to them that a religiously based reactionary movement would be the far more threatening and dangerous one, although clearly it is not uncommon for them to have had the cognition that basically the only problem they even have with Islam and Shariah law is because they hate brown people and associate it with them, alongside the other frequent sentiment which is their utter hatred and disdain for Christianity that was likewise shared by the Gitler and lamentation that it is both intrinsically Jewish as well as being "soft" and of a more compassionate bent than a conquering ideology like Islam that theyve wanted, although either of them taken to its logical pure form is likewise a total rejection of this system and much of the things they hate, with the sole issue besides Judaic origin being that it literally requires them to not be a bunch of self absorbed sociopathic fucking assholes.

>>39444
I'd take you much more seriously if you weren't so small minded and spiteful despite your pretenses of being erudite and sophisticated. You so desperately want that snarky put-down that will totally humiliate a perceived enemy because you're an imageboard guy with an imageboard personality. Lots of people who hang out on imageboards for as long as we have do, but you're not fooling anybody.

Russia was onto something when calling these posts out as "polshit" because it features the same blindered fanaticism just from a different angle. Imageboard politics has become an exhausting exercise in rhetorical flexes that go nowhere except to flatter the vanity of the communicator and perhaps keep up with the latest talking points. Of course, imageboards may never have been good forums to discuss complicated ideas, but anyway...

Your thesis that right-wing thinking self-discredits by putting neoliberals into power ignores that the same phenomenon also afflicts the presumed left just as much. A good share of the self-described leftists (communists, socialists and anarchists) were quite invested in seeing Barack Obama get elected as a way to undo the legacy of the Bush Administration, but then immediately turned on him when he turned out to be Black Bush with insurance companies pulling his strings rather than Halliburton. That's not to say he was completely awful, but he effectively continued Bush's policies. Likewise, many got quite despondent and "black-pilled" after the Green Scare decimated green anarchists and Occupy Wall Street fell flat on its ass. After awhile, you learn to cope and work with the systems you have because impotent whinging doesn't pay the bills and obscurity sucks shit. The revolutionary left forms the same impotent padding for the people like the aforementioned Barack Obama or Justin Trudeau. To me, it's often the fate of these self-described radicals that grow tired of being disenfranchised and marginalized that they'll accept anything to get "their guy" into office because it'll move the needle even just an inch towards their goals.

The stuff about nationalists on the internet smacks of the same smugness from Conservatism Inc.'s, "You complain about capitalism on an iPhone." Even if true, it's a clumsy thing to say that only the speaker finds clever.

>through a wildly self-absorbed and racist lens

Which is to say particularist, something you can't admit without likewise admitting nationalism is a genuine antagonist to internationalism, which is not inevitable. When people people say "impossible," they mean "disagreeable" or "undesirable."

It's strange hearing someone I presume is a socialist (or perhaps a social democrat) complain about others' "self-absorption" as though socialism wasn't supposed to be the working classes asserting their interests over the ideological conditioning imposed on them by the bourgeoisie; I leave you to make the comparison.
Of course, it's selfish; it's supposed to be. Anyone who tells you you're obliged to spend your life serving others before yourself doesn't give a shit about you; only their sense of moral self-satisfaction or some sick abstracted "you" that only exists inasmuch as it's part of the proletariat, the public - or the nation.

It's these reasons I, above everything else, consider myself an individual. No, "individualism" and "collectivism" aren't permanently locked in a state of perpetual war. The two can actually meet and even compliment each other, but that's an entirely different discussion.

>>39064

>which I "knew" was sent by satan to suck my soul in

That's what made it so terrifying for me, too. It wasn't just that I saw something and couldn't move-but I could also sense a real "presence"- and an evil intention. That doesn't happen to me in ordinary dreams. It's interesting that even though your conscious mind doesn't believe in those things, the religious narrative still occupies a part of you're unconscious mind. I think we all have some instictive awareness of the "unseen world" as children. and gradually learn to frame that awareness in common religious/cultural terms. Even if those terms aren't completely accurate, they're still how we try to understand these experiences, and how we later describe them.

>>39065

>your conscious Will during sleep

Yeah, I don't think you could be corrupted, or make a bargain with/surrender to an evil spirit while you were asleep. You would need to be fully aware for that.

>>39082
That sounds terrifying, ernst.

>>39085
I'm not sure what to make of this. My first thought was that she was drugged with something that would leave her awake, but immobile-but if that happened then how did she eventually gain the abilty to move? Sleep paralysis would seem to fit that detail, with her being caught between waking and sleeping, but then was there someone there or not? To me it seems either sad(if it was real), or rage-inducing(if it wasn't).