/int/ – No shittings during wörktime
„There is no place like home“

Currently at Radio Ernstiwan:

Animumusik by Yuno


File (max. 4)
Return to
  • Allowed file extensions (max. size 25 MB or specified)
    Images:  BMP, GIF, JPG, PNG, PSD   Videos:  FLV, MP4, WEBM  
    Archives:  7Z, RAR, ZIP   Audio:  FLAC, MP3, OGG, OPUS  
    Documents:  DJVU (50 MB), EPUB, MOBI, PDF (50 MB)  
  • Please read the Rules before posting.
  • Make sure you are familiar with the Guide to Anonymous Posting.

No. 39307
144 kB, 1191 × 670
Is the end state of globalism inevitably a single world nation?

As an east-coaster I am physically just 8 hours away from my English friend. Mentally? I can talk to him all day if I want.
Everything we understand is built out of information. If everyone around the world is drinking from the same well of information, what does that say about culture?

Increasingly, everyone is speaking the same language of iphones, mcdonalds, Hollywood films, and coca-cola. Regionalism is on its death bed in the west, and cultural celebrations are being reduced to symbols.
Language and distance are the two largest barriers, and they are too eroding.
Religious belief facilitates unique cultural identity, but globally religion is becoming more liberal and atheism continues to rise.

As cultures step into the information age, they lose what made them unique. Because these things are not efficient. Participation in the global chain of capital and demand necessitates that people give things up to stay competitive. Grass skirts are given up for denim pants and bland vernacular cuisine is usurped by hyper-efficient and monstrously calculated fast food joints.
No. 39310
>Is the end state of globalism inevitably a single world nation?
If we assume the Weltgeist will unfold out of a globalised late stage capitalism which you described and its crisis via a world revolution or maybe less drastically by dialectical mechanism between an uprising China and its rivals or maybe even later after the downfall of our current empires and the rise of new ones, then yes.

However I'm not so optimistic as to say it's inevitably due to such factors as climate change, devastating pandemics, nuclear war, gamma ray bursts or the hit of a large meteor.
No. 39311
I think it's just that human history is destined to be that way, even if we might just crash and burn first (which is incredibly likely and plausibly one of the worst Great Filters). But, at the same time I'm pretty sure even a cursory examination of history will show you that the world is always gonna keep balkanizing and reuniting under one empire or another particularly so long as it doesn't impinge on peoples daily lives too much. I think it's with any hope that our progressive future would be one of increasingly large consolidations until it is basically just us shitflinging first across planets in the solar system a la The Expanse and finally into our entire solar systems becoming those large relatively functional power blocs vying with one another. Of course, the likelihood of us ever actually colonizing other star systems successfully is quite dim, however that being stated I guess that should we ever find a way to reliably do so that would mean we had some breakthrough like the aerojet and telnet to keep things functional. But of course, it's also not likely we will ever remain United into any kind of large power bloc without distinct peoples, languages, and cultures for long. Even if you did homogenize people they will tend to fracture.

I find it perhaps most interesting how much the internet itself became some weird nationalist shitfest the minute bydlo, boomers, and various forms of neurotypical scum got online. We are always going to have a vanguard of intellectual elites proceeded almost immediately by a bunch of mercantilists, politicians and other power hungry narcissists and exploitative opportunists, and finally the vast legions of the fucking retards of humanity at such a time as it is now considered "civilized." I'm pretty sure both we and Russia had essentially the exact same thing at points in our history except they expanded East and we went Wect but it was basically that dynamic until all the expansion was done.

I just hope to God I can find some way to flee these fucking people into a new frontier now that theyve managed to permanently disfigure and ruin the internet also.
No. 39312 Kontra
Every day I feel EC is become more and more /pol just with longer posts
No. 39313
No one is talking about polshit anywhere in this thread Boris.
No. 39317
>climate change, devastating pandemics, nuclear war, gamma ray bursts or the hit of a large meteor

I would argue that the first two are potentially harmful to states. But to the global consciousness? To the welfare of the information age? I don't think so.
The third case is simply not possible anymore. All states are so co-dependent:
When the discussion in the cold war was around the 'capitalist' world attacking the 'soviet' world and vice versa, there /were/ more or less two worlds. Now? The global supply chain relies on every power. M.A.D. is truer than ever.
As for the last two cases, I think they're far too unlikely to matter in the near future.

>it's also not likely we will ever remain United into any kind of large power bloc without distinct peoples, languages, and cultures for long. Even if you did homogenize people they will tend to fracture.

I would argue that because of the unprecedented circumstances of global information and capital transfer, we will see fewer and fewer authentic people groups. That is to say, what separates us is going to become increasingly mitigated.
Without real things to separate people, and with loosening separation of capital transfer, I think that the idea of "cultures" in plurality will fade.

No, I'm not arguing against the case or taking a reactionary or 'right-wing' stance. I'm just discussing whether this case will be the state of the world under our current system of global capitalism.

I don't think that I'm very pol-tier. For me the term is synonymous with low-quality. Could you tell me how you found the post as such? I don't want to pollute.
No. 39318
>The third case is simply not possible anymore.
That's by assuming everyone will act rationally. But if something goes wrong in the system, like it happened before, there are not even 10 minutes to decide on what goes on. And if you think about Dr. Strangelove there is the whole thing of humans not acting rationally at all.
No. 39319
>Without real things to separate people, and with loosening separation of capital transfer, I think that the idea of "cultures" in plurality will fade.

In Germany we say: "Totgeglaubte leben länger."
I rather think that the globalisation will rather lead to reactionary shift among the countries and people. At least in the short term.
Cultures are still alive and will be even more alive at least in Europe with the differences in lifestyle, language, religion etc. between single ethnicities will be more than evident.
I think that before we saw immigration from african and arab countries in Europe, we were actually on a way unto cosmopolitanism. But it was the arrival of those very immigrants that, almost as Napoleon did, led to a revival of patriotism and conservatism. Obviously the immigrant arrival is not a monolithic reason, there is as well a culture of excessive liberalism and hedonism, that's pretty much backlashing now.
But actually feeling the cultural and ethnical differences between people might be the most influential reason.
Also I'd like to quote the cultural historian Jacob Burckhardt and his saying of "das Königsrecht des Bestimmten gegenüber dem Unbestimmten"(the king's law of the definite over the indefinite). Cosmopolitanism is indefinite, as long as there is no outside force (literal aliens) I don't believe that it will ever bloom among the masses. Group think is ingrained way too deeply in human nature for such a thing to happen.
No. 39320
>almost as Napoleon did, led to a revival of patriotism and conservatism
No. 39321
I meant to say that it might be an event of similiar gravity and unifying/identity-establishing potential to the German people as the napoleonic wars, not that Napoleon was a conservative.
No. 39322
If you talk about "rise of nation from ashes/mediocority" to superpower it's mostly happen after accidential big victories combined with understanding of leaders what they doing. Like Brits who made victory over spanish armada or Prussia who won over Austria and then France and united germany.

not readed posts above
No. 39326
Is globalism a single process? Could we think of globalism**s** and why shouldn't globlistic processes be canceled e.g reverted or abborted? WW1 had that kind of effect e.g.
Regionalism is not on its deathbed, capitalism is crushing traditions but that does not mean that new regional cultures emerge. I think in the 2000s there was some talk about hybridity and translation. Africans or europeans do not just copy american culture but translate it, which is in the end an alteration of culture. The chinese technique of Shanzai is a good example. You don't just copy an iphone but alter that product, make things different you think are more suitable etc.

Information is a universalism, yet will it universalize? Does universalism give rise to new particulars?

Also it's shortsighted to just say distances erode.
Because for whom do they erode and why? Class, race and gender play a signifcant role concerning the ability to move around the globe also what movement? work? family? what kind migration? Tourism?

>Is the end state of globalism inevitably a single world nation?

You first have to deal with what gloablism actually is before you tackle the question of one nation. Is it even useful to speak of a nation then? Why do we have ti imagine it as a nation? In German at least nation is different to a state, the former being more patriotically connoted I'd say.
We already have one big organizer, a structure, which is capitalism.
No. 39327
110 kB, 700 × 368
The end state of globalism is the digital concentration camp with human "chicken factories".
No. 39328
It is polshit. Whole board now with "let's talk our opinions about political topics on imageboards". And don't call anyone by ""names"" like that, it's just stupidity, nobody will call you "uncle Joe" or something stupid like that.
No. 39332 Kontra
419 kB, 1280 × 1281
Globalism is not per se polshit. But can, like everything, be politcally charged in that direction.

Indeed OPs first sentence seems to allude to the speculation of a globalist elite regime, a pyramid eye watching us enslaved humble men (kek), who are now unfree under the terror regime of political correctness, every opinion is valuable and needs to be heard by everyone regardless.
But the next sentences are quite tame and often shared thesises about globalism.
No. 39437
So OP answered his own question. Globalism will lead to two factions. pol who dominates imageboards and normal people who don't care and do useful things. In the end normal people will just stop paying for the servers so pol will die.
No. 39440
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.
No. 39442
Well, you can say that people from /pol/ are globalists if you want. But does this really discredit right-wing thought as an alternative to globalism? Because often it seems to me like you just equate /pol/ with all kind of reactionary thinking movements.
No. 39444
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.
No. 39450
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.