Globalism vs. Nationalism: The Most Important Issue of our Time

Racists are scarcer than hen's teeth. May as well go after Tinker Bell. You are so blind you want everyone to be your target because you don't know where it really is.

 

No....

 

In my mind, globalization = free trade; globalism = one world government. We exist as a republic for one reason - no other form of government was possible given the full breadth of our geographical expanse. Today, no militarized force is capable of commanding 300 million people, let alone the world's seven billion. Globalism also completely ignores evolution, such things as identify, the mechanics of human interaction, political structure, power structure, the eventual nation-state.

Obama's globalism is theft, that's all it is - the continued attempt by elitists to consolidate wealth.

 

Although it is nature to not get along with other groups or people of other opinions, is it possible that a common belief will be able to create a loose union of the majority of countries. We don't have to like each other but for a common good that benefits the group, we can tolerate each other enough to be united in a way.

 

I understand your point, and its real.

However, my point is that Americans can agree upon their most prime rights despite the fact they may not know it is in the constitution. The most important factor is to exit the adversarial environment where dominance means more than anything.

Most Americans outside of their attitudinal commitments will have no problem agreeing and declaring that these are their definitions of prime constitutional intent even if they do not know what's in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

As a Citizen of a state of the united states for America, do you
understand, agree and accept then DECLARE it is constitutional intent
that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or
abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

As a Citizen of a state of the united states for America, do you
understand, agree, accept then DECLARE it is constitutional intent
that the ultimate purpose of free speech be to enable the unity
adequate to effectively alter or abolish government destructive to our
unalienable rights?


Basically it would not be too difficult for American state Citizens to create a mass of agreement adequate to lawfully use the 9th amendment to lawfully amend to make preparation for Article V law. They could do that and NOT EVEN KNOW IT! After all, Article V states all amendments must have constitutional intent, and the 9th gives the right to define rights not enumerated to the people not the states or the federal government.

 

When has it ever been put into practice?

 

As described by Marx and Engels, you are correct. The problem is the theory will not work for large areas and populations like a country, which is why all "communist" countries have iron-fisted central governments. It only sometimes works in small settlements, but usually not there either. Plymouth was a communistic colony and they starved until they got a leader.

 

Not unless you ignore the MSM and start thinking for yourself. If you are really interested in gaining more knowledge I highly recommend reading as many syndicated columnists (most are on www.creators.com) as you can. There is so much insight in these columns its mind boggling.

The best conservative columnists in my opinion are Walter E. Williams, Pat Buchanan and Thomas Sowell. The best liberal columnists in my opinion are Ted Rall and David Sirota.

You can find a list of them with links to all their columns way at the bottom of this site:
http://www.theamericannationalist.com/

 

I don't disagree with your first statement but in addition to generating hype to sell advertising, they clearly report in a biased manner. Read Brent Bozell's syndicated columns and you will get all the proof you need.

To some extent I think it is expected that the media would report the news in a biased manner. If I am an NRA member and an advocate of gun rights for protection of my family/kids, If I were a reporter I would surely report the NRA and guns in a favorable way. So of course the tree hugging reporter is going to report that the end or world is coming because of global warming, I mean climate change.

Because there is a natural bias by the reporters and news agencies, you (we) have to seek out alternate viewpoints (in the news) to get all the information needed to make our own decision. That includes conservative talk radio for you liberals.

 

On a large scale, to my knowledge never. Nor will it ever be. It would be chaos, anarchy. There will always be a gov't to enforce the laws of a community.

 

And, IMO, the larger the community, country, world, the larger the gov't to control the flow. The world is shrinking. Something needs to control how all countries interact. Like it or not.

 

Trump is a nationalist because his policy proposals put America first. This is exactly why I am for Trump.

Hillary is a globalist (not imperialist like some here are confusing it with) because her policies do not put Americans first (unless you are a one percent-er). In my opinion, 90% of the Republicans are also globalists. Globalist Democrats (including hillary) and Republicans are responsible for the decimation of the American manufacturing industry.

There is no difference between the globalist Rebumblicans (90%) or globalist demoncrats (100%) which is why for the last 30 years we got the same result regardless of who has been in power - stagnant wages and average household income, record trade deficits and record national debt.

 

I don't blame you one bit.

 

I don't think it matters all that much. For if you really read and comprehend all the sources from each side you point out. You'd not be so biased in your viewpoint. IMO.

I'm not a global warming person, per se, but I do think man has an impact on the environment. And that includes the climate.
Wiping out rain forests has an impact on weather patterns.
Spewing pollution from factories has an impact on climate.
7B cars has an impact on climate.
What percent as an overall, I don't know. But if we can start water on fire, it has an impact. If people in the far east, china, taiwan, etc, feel the need to wear masks, man has an impact.

 

"Won't work" for who?

Who in the "many countries" are the ones wanting the same capitalist outcome? If you haven't noticed, average household income hasn't budged since the 70s. Also, if you haven't noticed, there a lot of people not happy with Capitalism (Bernie Sanders supporters) because is not benefiting everybody in America.

 

If one wants to get right down to it. Globalism stated back in Christopher Columbus days or before. After all, those explorers were expanding the world to find trade in further and further places. Bringing in more commerce. More of the world.
Globalization has been going on for 100s and 100s of years. Maybe since the dawn of man.
With technology, it is moving a break neck speed.

 

Mostly in the USA. I knew back in the 1990s when the so called free trade agreements were being negotiated. We were going to have to level the wage playing field between the USA and the 3rd world countries. Eventually, wages will level out. What happens after that happens, is anyones guess.

Our gov't and corps had to know what was going to happen. They shouldn't be that naive. So welfare went up to ease the pain to the bottom or drop off. Whatever your pleasure.

 

I am glad you posted your definitions because there is definitely disagreement here on how these terms are defined.

Globalism to me is not reference to the kind of government. Globalism is the opposite of nationalism and in my opinion is a term that refers to economics and culture.

A nationalist policy would be - secure borders, one language (i.e.english), culture and protect American jobs.
A globalist policy would be - open borders, multiple languages, multi-culturalism, and caring more about immigrant labor or foreign labor than American labor.

 

True If you didn't have an opinion one way or another but for most things we all have opinions. I have studied most issues extensively and I am very biased because of it.

I DO NOT WANT TO START A GLOBAL WARMING THREAD HERE, BUT TRY TO ANSWER THESE TWO QUESTIONS, ASKED BY WALTER WILLIAMS IN ONE OF HIS COLUMNS (hint: there is no answer for these questions):

1. What is the correct temperature of the earth and why? (we know that Earth has been hotter in the past)
2. How do you explain the previous several (post ice-age) heating cycles that occurred on earth before man invented the SUV?

 

I can't. Which is why I say man has an impact, but I don't know how much.
We don't have enough historical data to make an informed decision.

 

It's really not volumes of Knowledge that I seek.

 

My definitions in part, I think, are derived of Davos, the original World Economic Forum, from which Clinton fashioned his Global Initiative. Everything floated on this mantra of one world government.

 

No, it doesn't. Individual countries working independently works just fine -- better than a central authority trying to make the millions of decisions that the countries/states/individuals make.

 

When trade issues arise. Some governing power will sort out the issues.

 

How? In favor of which country? What if a country doesn't like how it is sorted out and tells the governing person to shove it?