A few more thoughts on globalisation’s end game

Bay Area Guy’s last post raised several interesting points on the pernicious effects of globalisation and I thought I’d add a few more. Despite flowery rhetoric about tolerance and global prosperity, globalization’s end game is essentially globalism, the unhindered movement of capital and labour across the world. This dystopic vision necessitates the dissolving of national borders which in turn requires the destruction of nationalism – this would begin logically with the demolition of the family unit.

We’ve already witnessed an unprecedented propensity to outsource and that propensity seems to be intensifying with the continued evolution of technology. Online platforms like Upwork have made it easy to outsource work to the lowest bidders who typically reside in the third world. I’ve pointed out before that our services based economies require an ever expanding market to sustain them. During the days of old school colonialism where economies were still manufacturing based, western powers conquered foreign countries and turned them into dumping grounds for their economic surplus (captive markets).

Since Western nations manufacture virtually nothing today and have instead foolishly reconfigured their economies along a services based model, they’ve run into a quagmire of declining consumption. Since one cannot export a service (barring some exceptions) it stands to reason that the old school colonialism paradigm no longer suffices. The only way to alleviate the problem of declining consumption is to therefore import consumers within a nation’s borders. Third world immigrants are consumers/employees first and citizens last. The only way to naturalize cultural aliens within ones borders is to do away with the host culture altogether. Thus globalism is the very antithesis of nationalism.

‘People of color’

The term ‘people of color’ succinctly encapsulates the globalist mindset – allotting the masses hollow and artificially constructed identities devoid of any meaning grounded in historical context. It cannot be overstated that this term is essentially a Marxist one. Non-whites certainly do not see themselves as belonging to a monolithic class with common goals and overlapping interests. Persians, Indians, and east Asians have traditionally defined their identities on their own cultural terms as opposed to some hollow alliance in opposition to whitey. ‘People of color’ only makes sense when one views this class as inherently opposed to the class of whites. Only in Marxism do we see artificially created classes pitted against other equally artificially created classes.

In reality, most non whites in North America have extremely weak cultural as well as religious identities. Identities grow organically in their indigenous domains. Divorce the former from the latter and the former is forever compromised. Most second and third generation Asian Americans (and Canadians) have little idea of their cultural heritage. They be able to study their civilisations via textbooks but that is not the same as living the culture. A third generation American Chinese is practically a different species from his counterpart in mainland China. Despite this reality, a North American Chinese person intuitively recognises his gap from the mainstream (ie white) and thus joins the people of colour coalition.

This is primarily why I shake my head in amazement when people think that Islam will take over the west. Such an undertaking would require an enormous act of will and cultural power that North Americans Muslims clearly lack. Muslims have not even been able to implement Sharia law in Pakistan where they are 97% of the population. They double down on their religion because their ethnic identities have become diluted. This is the true reason why our elites don’t fear Islam – they realise that Muslims too can be effortlessly herded into the ever burgeoning POC category alongside Asians and South Americans. While leftists fawn over POC, the category exists for the sole purpose of diluting their identities and hence weaponizing them against whites.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to A few more thoughts on globalisation’s end game

  1. Helmut Schmidt says:

    No. This is not what globalization is about. It is about control.of natural resources and the division of the world’s polities in toothless Catalonia states that are autonomous in.cultural and ethnic matters but are not militarily or monetarily sovereign.

    You need merely look at the first UN conference or read the Prospect for America: Rockefeller Panel Reports. Also look at how so-called far right leaders like Le Pen are calling for something like Keynes Bancor.

    Globalization is about the rootless international clique of giant capitalists never having to face Germany or Japan again. To do that it takes extreme divide and conquer, which is what immigration is about. Once enough pressure is there, we convenient saviors like Trump.

  2. MawlanaKhayyam says:

    This might be true to some degree but its blatantly wrong when it comes to globalization achievements. Thanks to the Liberal Order we live in the best moment in human history. Less poverty than ever, less wars than ever, less illiteracy than ever, more rights than ever,.. this order might have plenty of flaws but still there is no less bad option out there. What you guys propose will leave a huge vacuum behind that will eventually lead to instability, wars and the coming back of spheres of influence.

    Anyway this is a pointless debate. Western nations are in decay, liberalism is dying and so is the Liberal Order. G-Zero World is around the corner and it won’t be that nice.

    • Bay Area Guy says:

      G-Zero World is around the corner and it won’t be that nice.

      I agree. Since the death of liberalism is inevitable, we might as well get it over with now, and try to rebuild this broken planet while we still have some time left.

      • MawlanaKhayyam says:

        Our planet is not broken, sir. Our planed is advancing successfully toward modernity. once people get richer they will start having more interest toward democracy. But it will be a system adapted to their cultural and social needs, not this Western liberal democracy imposed on them by Uncle Sam.

        In general we should be thankful to the Liberal Order for all the wealth, progress and benefits that has brought to the mankind. But nothing is good forever so this current system is dying. I seriously believe spheres of influence are around the corner but thanks to the Liberal Order, once again, that we have all this nuclear deterrence, all this complex interdependence, all this growing common values, and so on. Its by far much better than what you guys want: isolationism and nationalism.

  3. Christopher says:

    Muslims are taking over the west, at least Western Europe, though their high birth rates. Muslims in the west jealously guard their Muslim identity because of the fact that they are a minority at present and hence view themselves as being outsiders.

    As far North Anerica, I hope they do a better job of protecting themselves from Islam then Europe has done. We give them all the accommodation they could possibly want and yet all we get in return in rape gangs, terror attacks and whinging.

    Someone from North America who hasn’t spent a few years in Western Europe would never understand this.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s