The Globalist Agenda - -

[attofishpi]

1. Loss of Sovereignty:
Globalism often involves the pooling of sovereignty or decision-making authority at supranational levels (like international organizations or agreements), which can lead to concerns about national governments losing control over their own affairs. Some fear that decisions affecting their country could be made by distant and less accountable entities.

Another way to look at loss of sovereignty is increased degrees of separation between citizens and decision makers, military, legislation and enforcement. Nations themselves were one consolidations of power and the unifying of smaller groups, include minority ethnic groups, minority religious groups and so on. When international bodies and governments over national governments arise, the next step in this distance increase takes place.

My point on this one was Brexit. The main reason people wanted Brexit IMO was to start to make moves at getting control back for our sovereign judicial process..rather than having final say in a European court overruling the UKs.
TBH that was the only real reason I thought mmm, I hope Brexit gets the vote after seeing that a hate preacher (I think he was of the Islamic faith ) it went through to the Supreme court where deportation was the decision - but no - it was overruled by a European court.
I think he did eventually get booted back to the land of hate where he belongs.

RE Military - sure, like I can envision some European consolidated Navy or Army - it's all weakening rather than strengthening IMO.

The thing is, diversity of cultures is important and belief in your own nation is important -- expecting diverse nations to all comply with some legislature that can't truly represent each individual culture is daft.

[Alexis Jacobi]

So it is founded then

No, it is not. The wide concerns of many sectors of the populations of Europe (for example) are real and valid concerns. They are not imagined stories as you attempt to portray it.

You wrote:

You are describing the need some people have to make up stories that explain away their feelings of inadequacy by attributing their dashed expectations to nefarious invisible schemes.

And I clearly explained exactly what I meant previously.

[Iwannaplato]

Thus what is needed is simple: rebalancing. And I advocate solely for that.

So, what is that, for you. How does that play out?

I would focus on the question that FishPie seems concerned about: 1) the *reverse colonization* by Islamic peoples into Europe, and 2) the issue of immigration, or excessive immigration in a general sense, that has been referred to as *replacement*.

OK, but you brought up the issue of the college and restrictions there. I responded to that. It was also in the context of the thread where a least some of your posts have been focused on how people are communicating.

But fine, there's no need to use the subjunctive: "I would focus." Focus on immigration. I did watch the video you linked. What's your position?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Thus what is needed is simple: rebalancing. And I advocate solely for that.

So, what is that, for you. How does that play out?

To allow in all the various types and levels of opinion, view and idea that are now intensely suppressed. That is where “rebalancing” needs to happen.

Make sense?

But fine, there's no need to use the subjunctive: "I would focus." Focus on immigration. I did watch the video you linked. What's your position?

In my opinion — absolutely — Islamic immigration into Europe needs to be halted. And encouragement to repatriate to home countries to be encouraged.

My ideas here connect to a range of desires for European awakening. I have written a great deal about this.

However, if the truth be told, I am not very optimistic.

[Gary Childress]

The issue is that there is a great deal -- in political theory certainly -- that is excluded from the university curricula (according to the video author and Michael Millerman). Thus what is needed is simple: rebalancing.

And I advocate solely for that.

It's been a long time since I attended. Which philosophers are universities excluding (or "cancelling" perhaps) these days that is causing the problem? Do they not teach the phenomenological/continental tradition anymore (Heidegger, Derrida, Ricœur and others)? They did when I attended. Has that changed since the 1980s? Is Replacement Theory something that you would like to see taught in universities (assuming they don't)?

If I express frustration know that it is sham frustration. I believe I understand what the issues are. The frustration is due to the fact (my impression) that you are outside of the loop of understanding *what is going on today* and *why*.

The 3 videos that I recently submitted deal, effectively, on the issue I consider to be most salient, most important. Ronald Beiner, a professor at Uni of Toronto, refused to work with PhD candidate Michael Millerman because, one presumes, he did not approve that Millerman studied Alexander Dugin and had an interest in other political theory, which he certainly does, and dropped him from his committee.

Beiner wrote a book during that time or after: Dangerous Minds: Nietzsche, Heidegger, and the Return of the Far Right. Here is the blurb:

Following the fall of the Berlin Wall and demise of the Soviet Union, prominent Western thinkers began to suggest that liberal democracy had triumphed decisively on the world stage. Having banished fascism in World War II, liberalism had now buried communism, and the result would be an end of major ideological conflicts, as liberal norms and institutions spread to every corner of the globe. With the Brexit vote in Great Britain, the resurgence of right-wing populist parties across the European continent, and the surprising ascent of Donald Trump to the American presidency, such hopes have begun to seem hopelessly naïve. The far right is back, and serious rethinking is in order.

In Dangerous Minds, Ronald Beiner traces the deepest philosophical roots of such right-wing ideologues as Richard Spencer, Aleksandr Dugin, and Steve Bannon to the writings of Nietzsche and Heidegger—and specifically to the aspects of their thought that express revulsion for the liberal-democratic view of life. Beiner contends that Nietzsche's hatred and critique of bourgeois, egalitarian societies has engendered new disciples on the populist right who threaten to overturn the modern liberal consensus. Heidegger, no less than Nietzsche, thoroughly rejected the moral and political values that arose during the Enlightenment and came to power in the wake of the French Revolution. Understanding Heideggerian dissatisfaction with modernity, and how it functions as a philosophical magnet for those most profoundly alienated from the reigning liberal-democratic order, Beiner argues, will give us insight into the recent and unexpected return of the far right.

Beiner does not deny that Nietzsche and Heidegger are important thinkers; nor does he seek to expel them from the history of philosophy. But he does advocate that we rigorously engage with their influential thought in light of current events—and he suggests that we place their severe critique of modern liberal ideals at the center of this engagement.

You are not grasping, it seems to me, that there are intense political and ideological battles going on, and that it is the Left-Progressive faction that has turned into a repressive, censorious, political power with enormous *agenda* (as the common phrase goes). To all appearances, they will do anything to arrest the circulation of ideas that they do not like. And they say that they are defending democracy.

If 'replacement theory' is not theory but a real occurrence -- and I have examined enough material to have concluded that it certainly is a real thing -- then the issue is not so much should it be studied, but to what degree it is something of real and darmatic consequence. First, it has to be identified as such. The entire topic needs to open up to rational, careful conversation.

Now, I know, but I am not sure that you know, that you Gary are constitutionally incapable of getting to the point where you could even examine the issue carefully. I have outlined in various posts why I think this is so in your case. In this sense you are one who 'welcomes replacement'.

Examine the type and quality of rhetoric that Flash uses. It is there, part of the record. Not because I want to shed any particular light on him, he is only relevant up to a point, but because he demonstrates how such twisted rhetoric is employed.

The forces of human migration are stronger than all of us put together. People have been "replacing" each other since the dawn of time. However, I'm still here. You're still here. No one is going to kill us and "replace" us unless we threaten to kill them first. Our children and their (immigrant) children will grow up together and, yes, compete for jobs and political positions and slowly blend into each other.

We live in liberal democracies here in the West. People are literally drowning in the process of fleeing the hell holes they are fleeing in order to get to our liberal democracies. The fact that we are liberal democracies means that no ethnic group can assume ultimate power and subjugate all the rest.

But wait. We have thousands of whites looking to Heidegger and other inspirations of the Nazis to save us from immigrants by introducing anti-liberalism into the West? It sounds like insanity to me.

Make the West an illiberal ethno-nationalist hell hole in order to expel or block people who are coming from ethno-nationalist hellholes. How is that teaching immigrants the value of democracy and liberty? How is that going to integrate the people coming into our countries into the process of liberal politics and values? That is utterly insane. We may as well point guns at our feet and fire them as a warning signal to would be invaders. It is collective insanity.

[Age]

Thus what is needed is simple: rebalancing. And I advocate solely for that.

So, what is that, for you. How does that play out?

To allow in all the various types and levels of opinion, view and idea that are now intensely suppressed. That is where “rebalancing” needs to happen.

Make sense?

But fine, there's no need to use the subjunctive: "I would focus." Focus on immigration. I did watch the video you linked. What's your position?

In my opinion — absolutely — Islamic immigration into Europe needs to be halted.

Why?

What is wrong with "islam", for you?

And encouragement to repatriate to home countries to be encouraged.

Do you also believe that "christian" migration should be encouraged to repatriate back to home countries, to be encouraged?

If no, then why not?

My ideas here connect to a range of desires for European awakening.

Like 'what', exactly?

I have written a great deal about this.

Where, and when?

However, if the truth be told, I am not very optimistic.

Well if 'you', and 'your religion', were being encouraged to repatriate back to 'home countries', then should the ones encouraging you to repatriate be anymore optimistic then you are here?

[Alexis Jacobi]

The forces of human migration are stronger than all of us put together.

Wrong. Hence all that followed is wrong as well.

[Gary Childress]

The forces of human migration are stronger than all of us put together.

Wrong. Hence all that followed is wrong as well.

I give up trying to talk sense into you. You're hopeless.

[Age]

1. Loss of Sovereignty:
Globalism often involves the pooling of sovereignty or decision-making authority at supranational levels (like international organizations or agreements), which can lead to concerns about national governments losing control over their own affairs. Some fear that decisions affecting their country could be made by distant and less accountable entities.

Another way to look at loss of sovereignty is increased degrees of separation between citizens and decision makers, military, legislation and enforcement. Nations themselves were one consolidations of power and the unifying of smaller groups, include minority ethnic groups, minority religious groups and so on. When international bodies and governments over national governments arise, the next step in this distance increase takes place.

My point on this one was Brexit. The main reason people wanted Brexit IMO was to start to make moves at getting control back for our sovereign judicial process..rather than having final say in a European court overruling the UKs.
TBH that was the only real reason I thought mmm, I hope Brexit gets the vote after seeing that a hate preacher (I think he was of the Islamic faith ) it went through to the Supreme court where deportation was the decision - but no - it was overruled by a European court.
I think he did eventually get booted back to the land of hate where he belongs.

RE Military - sure, like I can envision some European consolidated Navy or Army - it's all weakening rather than strengthening IMO.

The thing is, diversity of cultures is important and belief in your own nation is important -- expecting diverse nations to all comply with some legislature that can't truly represent each individual culture is daft.

So, 'we' have a "hate preacher" here, (i think of the "christian" faith), telling others that, 'belief in your own nation is important'.

Could things get 'dangerous' here?

Was a "hate preacher" telling those of the 'same nation' that, 'Belief in your own nation is very important', not how "nazism", itself, started, and begun?

[Alexis Jacobi]

The forces of human migration are stronger than all of us put together.

Wrong. Hence all that followed is wrong as well.

I give up trying to talk sense into you. You're hopeless.

I understand your dilemma. It is based in the fact that you feel you have right and justice on your side. Therefore, anything that is contrary seems metaphysically wrong. Evil in fact.

[FlashDangerpants]

So it is founded then

No, it is not. The wide concerns of many sectors of the populations of Europe (for example) are real and valid concerns. They are not imagined stories as you attempt to portray it.

You wrote:

You are describing the need some people have to make up stories that explain away their feelings of inadequacy by attributing their dashed expectations to nefarious invisible schemes.

And I clearly explained exactly what I meant previously.

Their concerns may well be valid, at least in part. The world is changing around us and it's inarguable that people have a habit of inheriting expectations from their parents and grandparents. Many of those expectations were accurate in their day. Examples include that if you go to college and get a good degree you are guaranteed a well paid job. that was very true for your grandad, and probably true for your dad as well. But it stopped being true. Today lots of people with good qualifications can't get into their chosen field, and some of those degrees are pretty much useless outside of the field in question.

Or there's all those impoverished pensioners who believe they followed all the rules, worked 40 years for the same firm doing the same job all that time. Do they feel rewarded for their loyalty when the firm runs into problems and lays them all off, and then it turns out their pension money was placed into that firm's own stock so that they lose their job and their pension goes belly up at hte same time? Probably not.

So all these people feel they carried out their part of the contract, and then somehow got robbed, so they look for who robbed them, which is when a slaesman like you comes to tell them about globalism. But there was no contract, the universe doesn't issue them, there's no heavenly agent that countersigns these deals. No commitment was ever made that as it has been for the last 60 years, so will it be for the next 60 years.

At this point, if you had anything to do with actual philosophy you would recognise the problem of induction has crept in. The chicken that saw the sun rise every morning, and then the farmers wife came to feed him formulated an expectation that every time the sun rises, it must surely be followed by the delivery of food. One day the sun rises and the farmers wife comes not to feed the chicken but to wring his neck, as the lights go out, the chicken realises that a more sophisticated understanding of inductive reasoning would have been beneficial.

You sell the myth that there's this specifiable thing called globalism. But that's just an umbrella term for a rough collection of effects and byproducts of standard economic activity just as it is prqactised today. The inter-governmental agreement parts, and transnational money flows are all just part and parcel of how commerce works once it gets scaled up to the current size.

There isn't even any actual plan for antiglobalism. If you come up with one all it will offer is poverty. You need most of this "globalism" stuff if you want to continue to enjoy your current standard of living, and in all likelihood you will get a double portion of whatever you schoose to label "globalism" if you get to enjoy that other promise everyone just sort of assumes has been made that successive generations enjoy greater wealth than the previous ones.

[Gary Childress]

Wrong. Hence all that followed is wrong as well.

I give up trying to talk sense into you. You're hopeless.

I understand your dilemma. It is based in the fact that you feel you have right and justice on your side. Therefore, anything that is contrary seems metaphysically wrong. Evil in fact.

I'm just not seeing how undermining liberalism is helping anyone including you.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I give up trying to talk sense into you. You're hopeless.

I understand your dilemma. It is based in the fact that you feel you have right and justice on your side. Therefore, anything that is contrary seems metaphysically wrong. Evil in fact.

I'm just not seeing how undermining liberalism is helping anyone including you.

Unfettered immigration is not ‘liberal’, Gary. Please stop mixing categories.

I think you are mixed up because you do not understand how the world really works. Here I mean the power that runs it, effectively.

I believe the import of this man’s revelations has relevancy.

It is too long but super interesting.

[Iwannaplato]

My point on this one was Brexit. The main reason people wanted Brexit IMO was to start to make moves at getting control back for our sovereign judicial process..rather than having final say in a European court overruling the UKs.

Yes, the EU can use courts and legislation to make decisions that previously member nations could and would make themselves.

TBH that was the only real reason I thought mmm, I hope Brexit gets the vote after seeing that a hate preacher (I think he was of the Islamic faith ) it went through to the Supreme court where deportation was the decision - but no - it was overruled by a European court.
I think he did eventually get booted back to the land of hate where he belongs.

RE Military - sure, like I can envision some European consolidated Navy or Army -

Which might well mean that it becomes a direct extension of the US military. Of course there's Nato already, but it's a tightening these nations and then on down to the citizens, into decisions, and potential decisions they will have even less influence over. And this will also be around banking, finance, international trade laws, and more

it's all weakening rather than strengthening IMO.

There are specific scenarios where it might be strengthening, but I think this is outweighed the loss of individual power and influence and how precipitous it makes everything.

The thing is, diversity of cultures is important and belief in your own nation is important -- expecting diverse nations to all comply with some legislature that can't truly represent each individual culture is daft.

[Iwannaplato]

To allow in all the various types and levels of opinion, view and idea that are now intensely suppressed. That is where “rebalancing” needs to happen.

Make sense?

Sure, and it's easy at that level of abstraction. But, yes, I think it should be possible to express any political view on any political topic in a university setting. And I am using the term political in the broad sense of anything that arouses strong opinions. I'd be interested to hear what you thought about a university regulating style of discourse and specific terms and images. I would think, for example, that someone could argue that women should have traditional roles and only traditional roles - say, in some sociology class - but I could see asking them to leave the room if they said things like 'Well, if you believe that little missy, you're just a whore.' I'd also want rules in relation to threats, while what gets interpreted as a threat would be much stricter than today's evaluations of what is a threat. I could imagine situations where I'd think the university needs to in situations where minority and minority position holding people are harassed in group stalking ways - though I think this area gets very complicated.

Transition in the directions I'd be rooting for would have to take time and a lot of PR and even, perhaps training of people. Right now a sudden shift in expectations would, I think, lead to chaos. Not arguing that chaos is right or wrong particularly, but I think it's to be expected, when suddenly what some consider crimes and life threatening suddenly becomes accepted behavior -which will of course be interpreted as not simply now allowed but approved positions.

But fine, there's no need to use the subjunctive: "I would focus." Focus on immigration. I did watch the video you linked. What's your position?

In my opinion — absolutely — Islamic immigration into Europe needs to be halted. And encouragement to repatriate to home countries to be encouraged.

My ideas here connect to a range of desires for European awakening. I have written a great deal about this.

However, if the truth be told, I am not very optimistic.

Reduction in immigration has happened in some countries. Targeted reduction in immigration based on religion, that I think is unlikely to happen.