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

you apparently didn't follow my point. The earth has gone through several heating and cooling cycles in its history BEFORE man created the engine. Therefore you cannot say man must have an impact.

 

Then why are you on this forum? Take the blue pill, believe whatever you want to believe and get yourself a guitar.

 

Interesting. My definitions are based on what I have heard on talk radio and what I have read in political syndicated columns. Pat Buchanan for example often writes about nationalism and globalism.

 

This statement explains many of the previous statements you have made.

the Constitution, in Article I Section 8 assigns a (required) duty of Congress to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations ..."

The governing body in charge of American trade issues is the US congress.

 

Not in favor of a country. But by laws that govern international trade.
All this being discussed is fantasy land, for we can't predict the future. It is all opinion.

 

I can say man has an impact. How much, I can't say.
I know it's gone through many heating and cooling cycles.
I heard a few years back of plants etc showing up in the mountain of Peru, I think, that hadn't been seen in 5K yrs.

I also know chopping down rain forests will impact weather, which impact climate.

 

At this time. Things change and evolve. No country has remained the power, neither will we.

 

So you say things you can't prove and don't use simple logic to develop your viewpoints; no reason to respond to any more of your posts.

 

LOL. So you chop off responses and say I don't use anything to develop a viewpoint.

Good riddance. It is a waste of time with you. You only want to listen to what your have boxed in your brain.

 

I like quality... not sure why I am on this forum.

 

I am starting to question why I am on this forum as well.

If you want quality without much effort, read Walter E. Williams weekly syndicated column. You can find it on www.creators.com and many newspapers. Almost every column is insightful and will make you question what you (think you) know.

 

I see globalism as a distinct term granted life by those such as George Soros and his minions. Globalization is something that started in the 60s as the very first Japanese pajamas first hit our markets. Although initially sized incorrectly, Americans bought the cheaper product nonetheless, and it was not long before our clothing manufacturers were competing to stay alive. Cheap imports was an issue raised by the American worker in the 60s, certainly by the early 70s, but it was another twenty years before such things gained voice amongst so-called "conservative" politicians like Buchanan. Unfortunately they still lack forward vision. Look, since its earliest inception in the 1620s, America has striven to import wealth, such that some amongst might capture it in the creation of this thing called economy. Ultimately of course creating an economic superpower. But we no longer import wealth; we have a trade deficit. And that wealth which is generated from the sale of cheap imports immediately filters to the top; it is removed from circulation, hence the need for ever greater "stimulus." And who benefits from the manufacture of money? Well the bankers do.

The vision of those such as an Obama, or Hillary, is one in which we have a) enslaved the entire world to the manufacture of our cheap products, b), expanded the market through ever increased immigration, to the benefit of elitists, and c), reduced the American worker to deriving all support, in one form or another, from the Federal government. What this allows them to do is consolidate wealth and power, and exert ever greater pressure on our standard of living, which at this very moment, is wholly propped up by the ready availability of cheap products. And the continuous refresh of the money supply.

Hillary in the past debate indicated she had participated in a number of these trade deals, and indeed she has; Columbia might be one example. She also said that we increased the number of jobs in the 1990s; that is an absolute lie. I live in one of the most prosperous regions of the country and I can tell you within just miles of my home, we lost, at minimum, 300,000 jobs in the 1990s.

Trump is 100% spot-on.

 

Well as the great Dr. Michal Savage says:

Borders, Language, Culture.

 

Brexit was a knee-jerk reaction to globalization by voters ill informed and anxious over its immediate impacts on their lives. I suspect eventually Britain will recognize Brexit as a mistake and redeem themselves, though it may take several decades.

 

I hardly call it knee jerk. Europe needs England so Europe will make the accommodations. The latest is the major bank in Germany has serious problems. Survival is not a given.

http://www.german-way.com/travel-and-tourism/banks-money/top-german-banks/

 

Mark Steyn warned us all.



[video=youtube;PLT57-6ufHE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLT57-6ufHE[/video]

 

You couldn't be more mistaken. In the reality of the ever changing world, we're seeing more flaws with Globalization then with the protection the Nation-State offers. Such as Obama himself finally admitted that Globalization had created a mass inequality among the masses. At the same time, he tried to meekly defend the broken system, saying that reforms should be made while not "retreating" from the world.

This comes from the same man who openly stated in 2011 that "those jobs won't be coming back". So, what "reforms" can be made without "retreating" from the world? Globalism is broken, and it's honestly beyond repair. As far as Britain is concerned, it can conduct trade deals with other nations, just as it had done prior to any global mechanisms taking place.

But let's talk about the actual history that led us to this point in history. From NAFTA and the WTO, America had severely lost its manufacturing base. Hillary openly admitted in the Democratic primaries, her war on coal. These things undermined and destroyed the American economic engine. To such that even the Far-Left opposes Globalism.

Yes, that surprises you I'm sure. Look at Democratic Underground. Bernie Sanders was the Left version of Donald Trump, and early on spoke about protectionism before it became unpopular with Hillary being the candidate she is. Meanwhile, in real-time in 2008, the US financial crisis had become a financial crisis that affected Europe. As many noted, that every sovereign government is compelled by debt to the tune of billions(at least) and that bubble hasn't changed whatsoever.

Indeed, there can be said no defense for Globalism. The actual facts scream to the poison destroying the US/World economies. Hillary herself, unwittingly gave the argument against this poison when she mentioned in her book Hard Choices(Chapter 12 I believe) about the Global Economy and the need for a Global Middle Class that hereto doesn't exist, and it's lack of existence is a huge reason for our trade deficits. They can't afford to invest here at home, or to buy expensive US goods.

In Hillary's mind, the solution to the flaws of Globalism is to promote this strengthening of the Global Middle Class. I wouldn't mind the strengthening of the Global Middle Class. But it cannot be accomplished through undermining the US Economy. But instead, through the vitalization of the individual countries themselves. Indeed, Nationalism promotes the basis for every country's growth. The US's and everyone else's.

This is not an old problem. This is a historic problem of human civilization. Ulysses S Grant put the terms in perfect context, when he said that only the developed nations would want to be a free trade country. This is because the developed nations could afford(as the US could afford at the height of her wealth) to trade to the developing nations. But the developing nations wouldn't(and couldn't) trade back to the wealthy nations.

In reality, it must be balanced trade. In reality, we must have a structured economic ground inside the nation in order to promote growth. Not only here, but everywhere. The US cannot be the soil to fertilize the rest of the world. Perhaps the world could fertilize itself, if it was conscious enough to equally trade everything of equal value.

But the US cannot put the wealth of the nation at risk, for the idea that perhaps the world will follow suit.(And given our deficits, we can clearly see that an equal trade amongst the world isn't there yet.) So therefore, by even the most optimistic view of Globalism, it is dead. Perhaps something in the middle can be created, but globalism is an all-time failure, ignoring the economic realities of the various countries.

 

Because the muslim invasion is a good thing?

 

Excellent, that makes two of us on this forum who has any idea who he is.

 

Great post.

When Pat Buchanan ran for President, he was considered an outsider in the Rebumblican party because he held nationalist views. I have been reading his columns for at least 10 years. Buchanan is and has always been, as far as I can remember, a nationalist in favor of Tariffs to protect American manufacturers and in favor of limiting immigration to protect American workers. The free trade Rebumblicans shunned him and ran him out of the party.

Hilliary and the establishment free trade promoting republican party are responsible for cheap products, the destruction of made in america goods and lowered standard of living of the american blue collar worker.

The wealth doesn't "filter to the top"; the system is rigged just like Trump has eluded. Executive compensation packages at publicly traded corporations are developed by executive compensation committee's that are made up of business executives at other companies, who would obviously want the executive pay scale to rise. Radio talk show host Michael Savage coined this "interlocking corporate directorships." and it is what is causing huge CEO salaries and income inequality. It is explained more here:
http://www.theamericannationalist.com/archivepages/our-opinion-income-inequality.html

 

That is EXACTLY RIGHT. Nationalism is not the same thing as isolationism. We will still participate and contribute to the world, but we will put America's interests first (specifically the American worker) when doing so.

 

Ive always been a Pat Buchanan fan but he can never win because his character is kind of weak. He let a black woman, Ezola B. Foster be his running mate to show how unracist and politically correct he is to the far left. He is also way too religious but he is spot on for most things, especially race subjects.

 

Globalization is all about business, business that runs the economy,
and the economy which supports the nationalist.

 

excellent post

- - - Updated - - -

Excellent post

 

Absolutely.

The economy of WHICH COUNTRY?

Before the mid 1970's it was about the American economy, post mid 1970s it started to become about enriching the corporate executives (see my post #145 on this thread for details) which meant that it became about enriching foreign countries.

In case you are not paying attention, there are 45 million people on food stamps and below the unbelievably low poverty line. The people are getting fed up waiting for capitalism to work for them. Socialist Bernie Sanders would be the Democratic nominee if it weren't for the dirty tricks of the DNC that helped hillary win. You are one election away from socialism; I suggest you and the other conservatives start looking at this issue closer.