How isn't Globalism entirely anti-American?

a reply to: enlightenedservant

This post was meant to be framed all around the pro-globalism + anti-nationalism stance that ave been the big noise lately. I edited it help remove the confusion, but your long post you might have already been busy writing while I was doing that. So apologies for not being clear from the get and have you waste your time if that was the case.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
What does any of that have to do with the points in my posts? How is wanting all Americans to have equal rights a "big govt, central planning, utopian fiasco"?

All Americans DO have equal rights.

Seeing you work across the thread it really looks like you've been working hard to derail. If so that's very disappointing.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Then advocating for collectivism is not "progress." Collectivism is an old idea that has failed all over. So I fail to see where the progress is there. Indeed forcing people to collectivize actually holds individuals back from being able to progress because they are tied to the collective and not free to advance on their own under their own initiative.

Collectivism, now that's an odd twist on all the multiculturalism progressives also champion! I suppose that would fit properly somewhere in here in the direction I had hoped this thread would go.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

This explains where they are going.

In order to get there, they must tear us apart and tear us down and eradicate everything from our past that held us together. The current multi-culti and tribal approach is how they are doing it. It is shearing apart family, faith, identity in all the old ways and setting man against man.

They're even working against gender now by trying to teach children that there is no such thing as "boy" or "girl." They've already pretty successfully inculcated the idea that there is no truth or good or evil.

The idea is to set each person afrift in space with no anchor. Then they elite TPTB step in a mold what they want with most of us left being no better than slaves with nothing to tell us we were ever otherwise or anything else.

But in the short term, each tribe and identity group is a collective in and of itself where individuals take value from belonging, not their own expressions of self. You are encouraged to find your value in your indentity groups, not your own self as a person.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Get a kick out of the use of word "Progressive" kind of like being"turned out" in prison,and in reality no difference

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: enlightenedservant

This post was meant to be framed all around the pro-globalism + anti-nationalism stance that ave been the big noise lately. I edited it help remove the confusion, but your long post you might have already been busy writing while I was doing that. So apologies for not being clear from the get and have you waste your time if that was the case.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
What does any of that have to do with the points in my posts? How is wanting all Americans to have equal rights a "big govt, central planning, utopian fiasco"?

All Americans DO have equal rights.

Seeing you work across the thread it really looks like you've been working hard to derail. If so that's very disappointing.

To be fair, I don't think enlightenedservant was trying to derail. I believe he's been as level headed and thoughtful as he always is (from my point of view anyway).

I think this has been a sturdy debate from both sides, really.

Being of the Paleo-Liberal, Proto-Conservative, Anarcho-Capitalist (what the heck am I?) bent, I love it when we can all take a break from the Trump/Clinton circus and actually talk about what really makes us tick. These issues are never really discussed at length anywhere. These are true philosophical debates, and they're productive and good.

There is a ton of noise out there. It's not productive and it makes people angry and I don't think they really know why. I think it's because the root issues become clouded (on purpose, probably) by the personalities.

It all boils down to one thing for me. Is the role of government to convince, or coerce?

I used to be steadfast in my reluctance to believe the Earth is warming. When I looked at myself honestly, did I really believe the science to be a lie, or did I just have a problem with the solutions being presented (by the very same folks that caused the problem, mind you)? My answer to that question came after a hard look in the proverbial mirror. Yeah. It's getting hotter, but taxing us to death and killing industry is not the answer.

Point is, I can be convinced. Just don't ever try to coerce me. It won't end well.

What does that make me?

a reply to: MOMof3

Zbigniew Brzezinski?

a reply to: TomLawless

I used to be steadfast in my reluctance to believe the Earth is warming. When I looked at myself honestly, did I really believe the science to be a lie, or did I just have a problem with the solutions being presented (by the very same folks that caused the problem, mind you)? My answer to that question came after a hard look in the proverbial mirror. Yeah. It's getting hotter, but taxing us to death and killing industry is not the answer.

See. My take on it is even a bit different than yours.

Is it getting hotter? If it is, given that we know the way the climate has changed both much hotter and much colder, sometimes changing drastically in very little time, in the past. How do we know for certain that we had much if anything to do with this? how do we know this isn't part of a natural cycle? Right now, we're basing a lot of this on computer models that are very flawed.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
The Fed would be the best bet to take this on and deliver it to the willing world outside.

The executive branch would have that power, yes. Of course it's up to the people of the foreign nations to accept or reject, not the governments of those nations.

Sorry if my last post seemed harsh, I just much prefer it when people I respect debate the topic instead of brush it off.

No offense taken, no harshness interpreted. This is the internet, we can't assign emotions to what we read. We can only take them at face value and ask for clarification if needed.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
I chose those examples of American progressive policies specifically because it counters your BS about us simply wanting central planning and big govt. Conservatives are the ones pushing for big govt and central planning when it comes to women's reproductive rights, fighting solar energy, and a living wage.

It's not big government to say the states have the right to regulate medical procedures, determine what their power infrastructure is, or what they choose as the bottom floor for wages.

It *is* big government to say the federal government has those discretionary powers when they actually do not.

Progressives want individual women to make the choice because it affects them personally. But conservatives want big govt to pass and enforce legislation that prevents individual women from doing that.

Having sex affects them personally. Having an abortion affects the unborn child terminally.

Progressives want individual citizen workers to be able to live quality lives while only working 1 full time job. That's literally the point of a "living wage".

So progressives want to control how people work now? I know a very well accomplished woman at work who is a full-time SAP/GBS technician, runs her own photography business on the side, and acts as IT support for a few other businesses in her home town.

Oh yeah, and she never went to college.

THAT'S America right there, my friend.

You know what the problem of living wage is, at it's core? Lack of risk. Lack of motivation. Lack of incentive. It tells people they can suck at their job all they want, they will still get paid. It's like the federal government and debt, who cares how much they waste, they can always print more.

That's not America.

But conservatives are the ones who always side with businesses over the individual citizen workers. And isn't the whole point in a businesses to centralize planning and operations? So who's supporting central planning then?

The point in a business is to make money so that the business is sustainable.

Even if I were to agree with your definition of a business (and I'm not) a business is a private entity not the federal government.

Progressives always generally want solar power to be cheaper so all citizens can generate our own electricity and thus bypass the central power grid. But once again, it's conservative lawmakers who keep trying to crush solar power initiatives, which literally favors the power companies (central planning). Conservative Republican lawmakers in both Oklahoma and Nevada have already done this, and many other Republican controlled states are threatening to do this.

If a person wants to put panels on their roof or in their back yard, that's all on them.

It's not the place of the federal government to 'invest' billions of tax dollars into the technology to try and jump start it. Nor is it the place of the federal government to mandate how the states generate power in their own infrastructures. That's not how we advance our technology.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: TomLawless

I used to be steadfast in my reluctance to believe the Earth is warming. When I looked at myself honestly, did I really believe the science to be a lie, or did I just have a problem with the solutions being presented (by the very same folks that caused the problem, mind you)? My answer to that question came after a hard look in the proverbial mirror. Yeah. It's getting hotter, but taxing us to death and killing industry is not the answer.

See. My take on it is even a bit different than yours.

Is it getting hotter? If it is, given that we know the way the climate has changed both much hotter and much colder, sometimes changing drastically in very little time, in the past. How do we know for certain that we had much if anything to do with this? how do we know this isn't part of a natural cycle? Right now, we're basing a lot of this on computer models that are very flawed.

I don't necessarily disagree with your assertion.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: MOMof3

Zbigniew Brzezinski?

You're awesome.

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: enlightenedservant

That is easy.

Anyone who wants to see a Progressive Utopia can look no further than the movie "Demolition Man" from 1990.

Yeah, what's up with them seashells? lol.

Good example, tho.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: infolurker

And if you want to see a conservative utopia, check out "Elysium".

en.wikipedia.org...(film)

Funny, I saw that as another out of control progressive society with even a hillary look alike protagonist.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I'm a person of few words.

Globalism is just "communism" being rebranded.

*drops mic*

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Yep, it is completely in line with the article I linked to in my post above. In the case of Elysium, the power elites of the humanist, progressive world order have even gone so far to replace the idea of God that they have tried to literalize the magic men in the sky by putting themselves in that role. They are the magic men in the sky living in Elysium.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Respecting your intelligence, especially viewing you as an apparent moderate, I'd really love your take on the actual OP...

It's not anti-american because pretty much every country is involved in some way... the ones that aren't? Are pretty much the ones most destabilized by the extremists found within them.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Globalism is characterized by networks of connections that span multi-continental distances. That is one characterization of Globalism that is widely accepted.

Another definition would be A national geopolitical policy in which the entire world is regarded as the appropriate sphere for a state's influence. The development of social, cultural, technological, or economic networks that transcend national boundaries.

Your characterization of it seems like it is only accepted in your small circle of peers.

Market globalists include the ideology of neoliberalism, but I don't see how progressivism fits in like you claim.

The things you are talking about don't make any sense to me because you seem to be trying to redefine things that already have solidified meanings so your rant reads like jibberish to me. Unless you are just trying to falsely label people which may work out for you here.

Good response (well that it's actually direct to the OP), although that bit at the end there I dont know that I warranted it in my inquiry here.

#A: Sounds like the Internet to me. Which by the way thanks to it we do have the whole "Global Village" thing already in place. Why that isn't good enough, why cultures have to be battering rammed toether, and why progressives seem to think they have to tell us not only how to act around them but ALSO how we're supposed to think in light of all this is a real mind job (one that my mind resists such external forces telling it how to operate).

#B: Sounds an awful like like global scale imperialism (or rather NEO-COLONIALISM) to me. I'm opposed to imperialism in general (see end of above sentence). It's my understanding progressives are supposedly against imperialism / colonialism. Is that true? Whether it is or is not, how isn't this "Globalism" thing such?? There's probably not too many others in the history of this board that have made anti-imperialism such a focus of their 'work', over such a long duration, and from where I sit, with this "Globalism" thing that's all I even see.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: enlightenedservant

From a progressive standpoint, I could not have said it better.

Don't you love it when conservatives and non-progressives on this thread try to tell us how we feel and think?

I'm sure you couldn't have. Do note across the entire thread he didn't address a single talking point in the OP!

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
You're talking about a "one world government", not globalism.

Really? Then please do EXPLAIN.

What's wrong with wanting Turkey to stop cracking down on dissidents...
What's wrong with wanting Saudi Arabia to stop beheading people...
What's wrong with wanting China to do away with slave labour...
What's wrong with wanting to put an end to Corporate tax havens...

You can want all the puppy dogs and unicorns you want. But to go in there in tell them from afar what they need to do,that's a number of things such as authoritarianism, imperialism, and so on. Now if YOU want to go show up over there and from the street level try and get a social movement going, that's a different story, but good luck with that!

To be honest even if we were to have a "one world government"...
What's wrong with having the whole planet live under COTUS rule...

Infinite things. Here's one: Crony corruption at echelons where the perpetrators are utouchable. Progressives did get the Occupy Wall Street thing going right? You all agreed corruption BAD? Right? I do! You guys had the right idea going... UNTIL the radicals got bored and made the activities on the street level become all about pushing mutliculturalism and the Occupy Movement imploded with no clear results that I have ever heard about. Well other than the Age of SJW, that was started then.



Way to go 'Gotta Shove Multicultural Race Theories & Obscure Gender Studies Crap Down Everyones Throats Movement (GSMRTOGSCDETM)'.