|
|
Post by kj on Mar 10, 2023 19:10:00 GMT
A very interesting post from a devout Biblicist of my acquaintance online, whose faith in Christ is beyond question. Can't say he's wrong, really, in terms of the way things are going. Nice paragraph at the end about human nature. Curious as to people's thoughts.
"I AM A GLOBALIST. (setting aside cosmology and focusing purely on political definition) This is globalism defined as: "I could not care less about national sovereignty and I want a unified world government."
Nationalism is fundamentally racism/ethnocentrism. There is actually no way to have a nationalism which is not racist. A nation has no definition without a distinct identity. Racist/ethnic discrimination is absolutely necessary to maintain a distinct national identity. If there is no racist/ethnic discrimination, then there is no national identity to distinguish the nation from any other.
If Japan were to allow enough mass immigration from India, the day would come when the Indian immigrants would outnumber the Japanese and Indian ethnicity would become the dominant national identity and political power. If enough intermarriage of the Indian immigrants and the native Japanese occurred, eventually the Japanese would totally cease to exist as a distinct nation, they would be assimilated. So the Japanese, not wanting to become a minority or to cease to exist, maintain very strict immigration laws. These laws are indeed a form of racist/ethnic discrimination. In fact, all laws of any nation which in any way give preferential treatment to the citizen over the foreigner do constitute racist/ethnic discrimination.
To oppose racist/ethnic discrimination then is to be a globalist. Most people do not comprehend that, but it is true. The result of the USA discarding its old national identity as white Anglo race/ethnicity is that the USA no longer has any identity. The USA is a melting pot they said with pride, not realizing that the ultimate conclusion of a melting pot was that the USA would lose all distinct identity completely. The USA is now everybody from everywhere on earth, with no distinct identity to differentiate it as a unique nation. The same has of course occurred in Britain, France, Australia, Canada, etc. As everybody from everywhere arrives in mass immigration, the old distinct national identities must cease to exist. To preserve the distinct national identity would require racist discrimination.
So as I do not support racist discrimination, I then am in support of the inevitable destruction of distinct national identities. Eventually as enough people go to and fro intermarrying, and as technology advances destroying linguistic barriers, then humanity unites in shared culture and eventually unites under unified world government. This is absolutely inevitable, and the only way to stop it is with racist discrimination.
But something else that I believe is that humanity is evil by default. So will the developing globalist culture be righteous? Of course not. The developing globalism of the West is represented by the wicked LGBT rainbow flag, the symbol of a new unified culture, a religion even, which is flown in London, New York, Paris, Los Angeles, etc, cities which are now so ethnically diverse as to be all basically the same globalist culture. What distinct culture defines any of these cities now? The landmarks are different, but that's about it.
But I remain a globalist. I will not seek to retreat into some version of racist ethnocentrism as a reactionary. But while my globalism rejects racist discrimination, it does not reject religious discrimination. I look forward to the coming of a one world government where only one religion is legal. King Jesus Christ is coming to bring a righteous globalism, and no one can stop Him."
|
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Mar 11, 2023 18:23:01 GMT
I hate the idea of globalism but I can't really muster any arguments against it from a Christian perspective. Souls are immortal, cultures and countries are transitory.
|
|
eala
Full Member
Posts: 229
|
Post by eala on Mar 12, 2023 21:07:05 GMT
A keyword here is probably discrimination. Does he mean judge negatively, or make a distinction. Presumably he'd want to discriminate between someone from a nominally Christian society running that Christian cultural software and someone for Saudi running Wahhabism.
The point of such discrimination (seeing difference and favouring certain difference) isn't skin pigmentation or nose shape or whatever, it's not preferring race (to the degree race is a useful category which is debatable). 'Christian culture' is being discriminated for. Your friend in cheering for Christianity must surely be cheering for a Christian culture, which is ... well... discrimination, at least one meaning of the word, seeing difference or preferencing or pre judging one over the other.
Early Christians talked about a 'gens' I think it was. Christians were born again as a people or race or some such. But if you've an ingroup of Christians, you must by definition have an outgroup, as the history of Christianity shows. Also the idea that if Christians were everywhere there wouldn't be interneccine discrimination among themselves is belied by a cursory look at Christian history.
|
|
eala
Full Member
Posts: 229
|
Post by eala on Mar 12, 2023 21:17:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Mar 13, 2023 9:31:04 GMT
I think we could also distinguish between resistance to globalism based on ethnicity or culture, and resistance to globalism without reference to those things.
For instance, people who emphasize the sovereignty of the individual states in America don't necessarily care about the ethnic make-up of those states.
Brexit happened after decades of multiculturalism in Britain, and I understand plenty of people from ethnic minorities voted for it.
Culture is where it's at for me, but I can definitely see the value of preserving different centres of power, for its own sake. It doesn't stir the blood, but it may be a brake against the tyranny of a global elite class.
|
|
|
|
Post by Antaine on Mar 14, 2023 13:10:57 GMT
I do enjoy how, in the example of India and Japan, he acknowledges that Japanese identity will be wiped out, while conveniently brushing over the fact that India will still be Indian. Preserving your country's racial identity is not racist. Indeed, what is more racist than trying to damage the racial demographics of a country? It's a rather vile hypocrisy that is starting to wear itself thin.
Furthermore, America is increasingly becoming a hell-hole. Black people riot and commit crime almost with impunity, and the Hispanics are being weaponised as a voting block. There is open hostility towards Whites, not just in the streets, but on television too. And when it's not blatant, it's done in a subtle way that puts shame on Whites for victimising the same demographics who commit disproportionate crimes, violence, and are unashamedly racist.
That is not Christian.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Mar 14, 2023 14:44:06 GMT
I do enjoy how, in the example of India and Japan, he acknowledges that Japanese identity will be wiped out, while conveniently brushing over the fact that India will still be Indian. Preserving your country's racial identity is not racist. Indeed, what is more racist than trying to damage the racial demographics of a country? It's a rather vile hypocrisy that is starting to wear itself thin. Furthermore, America is increasingly becoming a hell-hole. Black people riot and commit crime almost with impunity, and the Hispanics are being weaponised as a voting block. There is open hostility towards Whites, not just in the streets, but on television too. And when it's not blatant, it's done in a subtle way that puts shame on Whites for victimising the same demographics who commit disproportionate crimes, violence, and are unashamedly racist. That is not Christian. The generally accepted view when I was growing up, and indeed well before that, was that race doesn't matter. I still hold to that view, even though both right and left today seem to have developed a preoccupation with skin colour. The Proclamation of the Irish Republic is generally seen as the blueprint of our state and that says: "The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and of all its parts, cherishing all the children of the nation equally, and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien Government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past." In my view, we should concentrate on preserving traditions and culture, not genetics. I think you might overstate the situation in America, as well. Most Americans passionately love their country and wouldn't want to live anywhere else, not to mention all those who want to get there. For every race riot, how many ordinary everyday acts of cooperation and harmony are there? |
|
|
|
Post by cato on Mar 15, 2023 9:44:23 GMT
I do enjoy how, in the example of India and Japan, he acknowledges that Japanese identity will be wiped out, while conveniently brushing over the fact that India will still be Indian. Preserving your country's racial identity is not racist. Indeed, what is more racist than trying to damage the racial demographics of a country? It's a rather vile hypocrisy that is starting to wear itself thin. Furthermore, America is increasingly becoming a hell-hole. Black people riot and commit crime almost with impunity, and the Hispanics are being weaponised as a voting block. There is open hostility towards Whites, not just in the streets, but on television too. And when it's not blatant, it's done in a subtle way that puts shame on Whites for victimising the same demographics who commit disproportionate crimes, violence, and are unashamedly racist. That is not Christian. A large proportion of black Americans are well educated middle class who do not correspond to the stereotype. There is a large black underclass categorised by drug use, family breakdown and criminality but it is only one side of a coin. Many black people are highly patriotic and loyal proud US citizens. |
|
|
|
Post by kj on Mar 16, 2023 9:00:44 GMT
I think the original post is of value because it does pin it to people concerned by mass immigration (myself included). For me, if two non-Irish people come to Ireland, have a kid who grows up speaking English with an Irish accent, goes to an Irish school, considers themselves Irish etc then that kid is as Irish as me or anyone born here ever. So if you agree with that, then what exactly is it one fears? Loss of religion? Soulless materialism? Other things?
I think it's a useful exercise to focus the mind, rather than the usual throwing-one's-hands-in the-air general despair.
|
|
eala
Full Member
Posts: 229
|
Post by eala on Mar 16, 2023 9:32:43 GMT
I think the original post is of value because it does pin it to people concerned by mass immigration (myself included). For me, if two non-Irish people come to Ireland, have a kid who grows up speaking English with an Irish accent, goes to an Irish school, considers themselves Irish etc then that kid is as Irish as me or anyone born here ever. So if you agree with that, then what exactly is it one fears? Loss of religion? Soulless materialism? Other things? I think it's a useful exercise to focus the mind, rather than the usual throwing-one's-hands-in the-air general despair. Roughly speaking I see culture as software and people as hardware. The children of immigrants can run Gaeilge 1.0, and the red freckly people can run Kardashian 2.0 or viceversa. While different skin colours probably have preferences seated in biology (in group out group stuff), the most important thing to me is the software running. Maybe greater focus on leitkultur is an answer. Though that's probably racist. |
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Mar 16, 2023 10:02:14 GMT
I think the original post is of value because it does pin it to people concerned by mass immigration (myself included). For me, if two non-Irish people come to Ireland, have a kid who grows up speaking English with an Irish accent, goes to an Irish school, considers themselves Irish etc then that kid is as Irish as me or anyone born here ever. So if you agree with that, then what exactly is it one fears? Loss of religion? Soulless materialism? Other things? I think it's a useful exercise to focus the mind, rather than the usual throwing-one's-hands-in the-air general despair. Roughly speaking I see culture as software and people as hardware. The children of immigrants can run Gaeilge 1.0, and the red freckly people can run Kardashian 2.0 or viceversa. While different skin colours probably have preferences seated in biology (in group out group stuff), the most important thing to me is the software running. Maybe greater focus on leitkultur is an answer. Though that's probably racist. Well, my fear is not so much multiculturalism as anti-culturalism. That having so many people together who DON'T have a common history, ancestry, background, etc. will increase social alienation and lowest-common-denominator relationships. That both the indigenous Irish AND the immigrants will lose their cultures. On the other hand, it's happened, it's happening, and I don't really see the point of fighting it any more. Ultimately, human beings are more important than cultures. I wouldn't say to someone's face: "I don't want you here, I wish you were somewhere else". So it would be hypocritical to say it away from their face. From a Christian perspective, every human being is the image of Christ and that identity is more important than any other. And who knows, perhaps something MORE than lowest common denominator is possible. Perhaps a new synthesis, a meaningful one, might arise. It happened in America. And anyway, just sharing the same space, the same institutions, etc. does lead to a certain amount of solidarity. (I enjoy watching "Reeling in the Years" for this very reason.) |
|
|
|
Post by cato on Mar 16, 2023 12:44:12 GMT
Has anyone read The Return of The Strong God's by R Reno ?( of First Things fame)
Its a very interesting explanation of globalism and the Open Society and why it is causing huge social division.
Apologies if we have already discussed it. I strongly recommend it. One of those books which makes you think at a subject in a fresh way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Mar 16, 2023 12:45:41 GMT
Has anyone read The Return of The Strong God's by R Reno ?( of First Things fame) Its a very interesting explanation of globalism and the Open Society and why it is causing huge social division. Apologies if we have already discussed it. I strongly recommend it. One of those books which makes you think at a subject in a fresh way. I don't remember it ever being mentioned before. |
|
|
|
Post by hilary on Mar 16, 2023 14:15:25 GMT
I think the original post is of value because it does pin it to people concerned by mass immigration (myself included). For me, if two non-Irish people come to Ireland, have a kid who grows up speaking English with an Irish accent, goes to an Irish school, considers themselves Irish etc then that kid is as Irish as me or anyone born here ever. So if you agree with that, then what exactly is it one fears? Loss of religion? Soulless materialism? Other things? I think it's a useful exercise to focus the mind, rather than the usual throwing-one's-hands-in the-air general despair. I think for a lot of people it's the arrogance of the government and the unwillingness of the media to facilitate a discussion - gaslighting us the whole time. |
|
|
|
Post by Antaine on Mar 17, 2023 11:59:04 GMT
No doubt not every single Black person is a criminal/rioter/etc. However, Blacks in America do make up about or sometimes more than 50% of violent crimes. Furthermore, it's not just wannabe "gangstas" who are anti-White. There is absolutely no shortage of educated or "intellectual" Blacks who push anti-White rhetoric. These are the kinds of people you will see on tv talking for 5 minutes, but saying absolutely nothing of actual intelligence, but are simply there to talk about "Whiteness" - which, of course, is a bad thing. Or if not on tv, the college campuses, which is where a lot of this seemed to start in the first place (from my own experiences).
Furthermore, and I don't suppose it's been discussed on this board yet, there was a survey of sorts done recently in the US, and one question was "Is it ok to be white?" Of the Blacks who answered this question, I believe it was just under 50% said they either didn't know or it wasn't. So nearly half of all Black people. And really consider what's being asked here - not is it better to be White, not even is it good to be White, just is it ok to be. Nearly half of all Blacks surveyed said "no" or "not sure". Well, White people exist, and obviously race is something you can't change. So if you're a White person, and you being White isn't ok, what exactly does that mean for you? The question posed is simply a politer, less aggressive way of asking "Is it ok that White people exist?" If anyone disagrees, I would like to hear the reasoning. You can make an argument about how the results are only this way because of the particular Black people they just happened to ask, but that argument goes two ways.
A cartoonist, Scott Adams, then reacted to this by saying Whites should stay away from Blacks. Guess which of these two things the media decided to focus on.
In terms of the "Hardware vs Software" analogy, keep in mind that not all Software is compatible with every type of Hardware. Many functions of Software are dependant on the capability of the Hardware. This may come across as a bit extreme, and I agree this example of mine may go too far. However, I'll put it like this. A Windows vs Mac computer. They can both do a lot of the same things, in some ways they are very similar, but there are also differences between them in terms of what software they can or can't use, etc. I don't think human beings are so different that it's utterly impossible for us to co-exist, but the argument that we can replace one race with another and get the same results is just wrong. But even to humour this notion for a moment as being correct, I still have no idea why I, as a White man, should feel any obligation to preserve anything for a group of people that seems keen on displacing and replacing my own. What do I have to gain from that, exactly? Am I supposed to believe the mouthy Black girl with her Nigerian flag on Twitter is going to preserve Ireland as we know it? Nonsense.
Maolsheachlann, I appreciate you and I have different views and priorities on the topic, but I find your attitude of "I don't really see the point of fighting it any more" to be too defeatist. This is basically why the Government does whatever it wants in this country. Even concerning things that matter to people, the modern Irish attitude seems to be a shrug of the shoulders, and an "Ah, well, sure what can we do about it now?" God forbid if our own ancestors had such an attitude concerning the British occupation of Ireland. But to respond to something else you said in your comment:
"Ultimately, human beings are more important than cultures."
This is exactly my point. Well, the difference is I don't think culture is actually all that separate from people. I think different people create different cultures. I think the Arab Spring did a good job at showing that. But that aside, again, why should I see a culture as being more important to me than my own people? Why should my people have to pay the price for others to create their utopia on Earth? I fail to see why, at a time when every other race is paraded around on a pedestal for spouting the most shamelessly racist rhetoric imaginable, it is somehow a crime for me as a White person to simply not want my people to die and be wiped off the face of the Earth?
|
|
