Globalism, Nationalism: Definitions Matter

You can't fight what you don't know.  You can't aim at something you don't see.

 

Just this morning, someone had shared a screenshot with me of a lady cheering about how nice it was that they as nationalists had international allies.  The sharer's comment was how the lady wasn't using words correctly.

 

The sharer was an idiot.

 

He was conflating "international" with "internationalism", and thus equating it with "globalism".  Any attempt at pointing out how he himself was conflating words was just "being autistic".

 

Definitions matter.  There's a reason why liars actively attempt to stretch words past their definitions into an unrecognizable shape, because it allows them to quickly shift away from any lie they've told.  "Now see, when I said ABC I really meant XYZ, so you can't really get so mad at me."

 

Clearly defining goals means you can actually, factually achieve them.  Vague goals remain constantly out of reach no matter how far you progress, while clear and defined coals are within possibility.  It may take a journey of a thousand miles but you can reach it eventually.

 

Defining who your enemies are allows you to defeat them.  You don't spend time faffing about with whether certain person is really actually on your side or not, nor do you spend time and energy attacking people who are not actively working against you.  Having clearly defined enemies is an aspect of the Geneva Conventions for a reason, and it's why guerrilla tactics are so frustrating because then it becomes almost impossible to define who's an enemy without including the entire population, and thus genocide.

 

Knowing the definitions of your ideology and of competing ideologies remains just as equally important, as not only do you have a clear goal to progress towards, knowing competing ideologies gives you a guideline on how not to slip into their concepts.  Take the Conservatives in America.  They have no actual guidelines, no core fundamentals, and it shows.  The entirety of their accomplishments has been telling the Liberals, "Yes, but just not so fast".  Exactly nothing has been conserved because they have no ideology other than "Well I liked things 20 years ago, but I can compromise".

 

If you know yourself and know your enemy, you will win 100% of your battles.  Definitions.  Matter.

 

So to define what the sharer got wrong, Globalism is the effort to make every nation the same.  No borders, no restrictions on travel.  They believe that all nations can profit together, all the time.  And the reason why they do this, the end goal, is for one governmental entity to control as much as possible.  Idealistically, this means one government that controls the world.  Somehow this huge entity will put the entire world's resources to good use and do cool stuff like colonize Mars, or make all wars redundant, and never ever be corrupt and tyrannical.

 

Nationalism, amusingly enough, is only particularly defined in dictionary.com as being either patriotic feelings, or when you try to hold your country as being more important than other countries.  Realistically, to understand nationalism is to understand what a nation is, and why it's different from a state.  There's a reason why "nation-state" is a concept and not just a redundancy after all.

 

A nation is a group of genetically-related people.  Always has been.  The Cherokee Nation IS the Cherokee tribe.  From small to large, it goes from you, your family, your tribe/nation.  If you're genetically related, you have a large group of people that look like you for the most part, and act like you for the most part.  That's powerful for building an identity, and an identity is crucial for mental stability.

 

The state is simply the government in charge of an area.  When Rome had occupied Israel around Christ's time, they were the State.  They definitely weren't genetically related to the Israelites.  Empires are made up of many different nations of people, but the empire exerts power over them to bind them together as long as possible.  That empire is the state.  Thus, the nation-state is where a nation governs itself, and not others.  Easy enough to understand.

 

Nationalism thus, in contrast to globalism, understands that not all nations can profit together all the time, and if you have to make a choice whether it's the other group or your group, your group comes first.  Because if you don't place your group first, other groups certainly won't.  It's hard to be non-identitarian in a world full of identitarians, after all -- you eventually wind up dying out.

 

Nationalism thus, in contrast to globalism, believes that one world government will never work, and every nation needs to govern themselves.  No one will know their own nation as well as their own nation.

 

Germany for the Germans, France for the French.  America, for the Americans.  You know Americans, right?  That genetic group of people who don't feel that incessant urge to hyphenate their ethnicity before the word "American"?

Status update...

I'd actually completely forgotten about this.  I've been busy with making a game and this completely slipped my mind.

Haven't had the need to rant about much lately I suppose.

"Toxic Masculinity"

A feminism favorite, Toxic Masculinity is one of those big bad evils that everyone needs to be on the lookout for.

What exactly is it?  Besides a buzzword full of noise and no content, that is.

Whenever men do evil, it is chalked up to "Toxic Masculinity".  It's not chalked up to humanity, it's linked to men, because only men fight, abuse, rape in the feminist's mind.  Women are always the victim, so thus men are always the perpetrator.

And if it's a lesbian couple?  Well, one of them was acting too much like a man then.  Easy-peasy.

Of course, you saw the shift in language that happened in that last sentence, correct?  It changed from "evil that men do, from too much machismo" to being "evil because of being like a man".  The former is what sane people think when they hear of the term Toxic Masculinity for the first time, but the latter is what it is in effect.
Machismo is, by effect, too much masculinity in the first place.  The latter effect is different in that it's not excess, but any trace of Masculinity is Toxic. 

Of course, there's the argument of "What does too much masculinity look like in effect anyway?  Just assuming it's bad and there's too much is dumb, like assuming that too much femininity is bad in the first place."  In this argument we can see the essence of Feminism distilled - pure femininity doesn't commit acts of terrible things, but pure masculinity does, thus we should do away with the masculine.  This completely misses the point of femininity being reactive, and masculine being active.  By shifting from masculine to feminine, nothing gets done, and as evidence just simply look around you at any beta schlub -- they're always waiting for something to just happen to them, whether it's the Love Of Their Life, their next promotion at work, or anything else that carries a modicum of risk.

So in the end, it's really about men supplicating themselves, as anything masculine IS toxic, and to make it more confusing, feminine traits get rebranded as masculine.  Subservience, not action in face of risk, is suddenly masculine.  Saying yes dear constantly like a whipped dog is suddenly masculine.

It's a running gag with false ideologies, the constant inversion of reality in order to preserve their core conceits.  It's perverting reality because reality is distasteful to them.

Who Is My Neighbor?

The story of the Good Samaritan is one used very often to encourage immigration, by pointing out that the outsider Samaritan was a neighbor when Jews who should have been merciful were not.

In the book co-authored by Vox Day and John Red Eagle, Cuckservative, the authors tackle this by pointing out the Samaritan did not move the man into his home, force the government into paying for everything, and allow the man to move in his entire family as well.

While an excellent point, this rebuttal misses the point of the verse which already proves the immigrationists wrong.

²⁵ On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
²⁶ “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
²⁷ He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’^[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’^[b]”
²⁸ “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
²⁹ But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
³⁰ In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. ³¹ A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. ³² So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. ³³ But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. ³⁴ He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. ³⁵ The next day he took out two denarii^[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
³⁶ “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
³⁷ The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

Luke 10:25-37

Everyone, without fail, places themselves in the feet of the Samaritan, and so intuit that the point of the story is to be like the Samaritan and help foreigners even if they hate you.

No, Jesus was answering the question of "who is my neighbor?", so that the believers may keep the Law which says "Love your neighbor as yourself."  As Jesus was very likely addressing a crowd of Jews, they were expected to put themselves in the place of the man, not the foreigner.

Jesus is telling them, the person you must love is the one who shows mercy to you, for they are your neighbor.  The priest and the Levite did not, so they were not the man's neighbor!  It's absolutely clear the only one the expert of the law was commanded to show love to was the one who had shown mercy to him, even if it was a Samaritan.

In nowhere is it commanded to give love to those who do not show mercy.  Why then, are we giving love to those who have shown no mercy to our Christian brethren in the Middle East, burning, raping, killing them?

At the very least, the Parable of the Good Samaritan in no way endorses mass immigration from people who are not neighbors, who show no mercy.

The Case for Syrian Refugees

There is none.

Fullstop.

The only reason why we should do it is "feels".  Logically, there are no pros, there are only cons.

At best, the 'refugees' which are invariably a very solid majority young men are deserters, fleeing their homeland when it got tough.  With that amount of morals and convictions, would you really want them as citizens in your nation, when they'd flee again when times got hard instead of working harder to fix it?

And at worst, they're active combatants, whether it's ISIS, one of the other various Islamic terrorist cells, or just waging cultural war by making America into West Pakistan.

Spergs

There's something about those people who pick out a small unimportant detail of something and obsess over it.  Colloquially they're known as spergs, or sperglords, because their obsession over trivialities completely misses basic social principles, very much like Asperger's Syndrome.

While I'm not entirely sure if those with Asperger's are naturally sperglords, it does appear to me that not all spergs have Asperger's.  Seemingly a pointless triviality, sure, but there are enough differences to make the remark worthwhile.

Practically by definition those with Asperger's (Asperger's sufferers?  Natural Spergs?) just simply do not instinctively understand social situations and social behaviors.  For them to improve in social ability they have to train themselves in the minutiae - it's not so much a simple "Oh I get it now" that normal people get when they connect the dots. 

Meanwhile, sperglords can be an otherwise adjusted person who can make friends, but there's something off or untrue in their understanding of reality.  In many ways, their amygdalae are underdeveloped (re: r/K selection theory) and they are oversensitive to things that are "suggested" if they notice it or think it's there.  If they don't notice it, it takes an extremely large amount of effort to do so.

Sperglords aren't so much completely unknowing of social situations, they're just extremely focused on things.  And in many cases those things are very unimportant, so their priorities get completely screwed up.  They keep on a topic and stay sensitive to said topic for a long time.

What's common between the two is a lot of rationalizing that happens.  Spergs aren't the hyperlogical rationale-robots they'd like you to believe, they're people who make decisions based on their emotions and rationalize it away after the fact.  Asperger Drones also completely misunderstand something, take offense, and then start rationalizing after-the-fact.

It kills me how many of them sit there thinking they're completely rational... when they aren't.  It makes conversing with them completely impossible if you attempt to do it via pure logic, which is what you'd think would be the correct method in dealing with autistics.  No, you have to hammer them with hatefacts, facts laden with triggering rhetoric so that they are persuaded even as their rationalized mind attempts to grapple with the dialectically true facts.

My current working theory is that the current bumpercrop of spergs come from having a naturally logically-bent mind built on faulty concepts of life and relationships, with the number one problem amongst spergs (universally men, sperglike women are just... women) is a faulty understanding of the masculine and the feminine.  So many lies have been spread about what women find attractive, what masculinity is, what femininity is, all because of a poisonous ideology that thinks if only we could have men and women acting like each other everything will be just grand.

Yes, I'm blaming the current surplus of spergs on feminism.

Thought Experiment: Great Literature

As I grow older, I realize that a number of the great literature really are great.  Not altogether sure if it's due to a maturing mind, or if it's simply that when I was younger I was still mired in the falsehoods being taught. 

If the latter, great literature is still useful for teenagers as long as they aren't wallowing in a false reality (re: Feminism).  If the former, then English classes would be greatly improved by not trying to trudge through dreary poetry with "important" ideas, but rather something more akin to fables - entertaining stories that still have important concepts to discuss and swallow.

Literature classes might better be mixed with philosophy classes, anyway.