Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If Brexit was a battle between the forces of globalism who aim for a one-world government, open borders, multiracial society, and parochialism describes people who are attached to what the globalists would call "anachronisms" such as tribal identity, cultural memes etc which camp do you necessarily fall into?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jimbob564)
    If Brexit was a battle between the forces of globalism who aim for a one-world government, open borders, multiracial society, and parochialism describes people who are attached to what the globalists would call "anachronisms" such as tribal identity, cultural memes etc which camp do you necessarily fall into?
    It isn't. Brexit under this government will exacerbate globalisation (with benefits and negatives ) twofold. Also Communitarian is probably a better and less pejorative word than parochialism for what you are trying to describe.


    I'm certainly a globalist (or internationalist) - Mainly on the basis that I think there are universal laws which we should all be subject to ( More or less the UDHR) and that there are universal truth's which come before any cultural attitudes. Technological innovation (In particular automisation and the internet) are removing the previous need for the as you put it 'tribal' mentality.

    Open Borders- Certainly between so called first world states and if there is growing equality and norms with the rest of the world then sure. I'm not a fan of the idea of states in any case.

    Multi-racial; Personally I don't give a damn. I used to be racist a long time ago but changed my mind after (Among other things) seeing the Jeremy Kyle show. I think the mind is for the most part a blank slate and whilst there are genetic differences, i don't think they constitute anywhere near the level of constituting superiority. Also, with advances in gene manipulation etc as well as continued evolution down the line who knows what we will end up looking like!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Britain wants to be a global trading nation on its own terms. That's quite different from submitting to a one-world government. I think the ultimate aim of the globalists even if they don't know it in their own minds is to have a global set of standards and rules by which all human being live, whether you live in a mud hut or a mansion. In fact with the globablists you'll have 99% living in mud huts and the elite 1% living in mansions because most of the wealth will be redistributed in an equal manner. The proles will also be a lot easier to control that way.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jimbob564)
    Britain wants to be a global trading nation on its own terms.
    You talk to Britain on a regular basis do you?


    That's quite different from submitting to a one-world government. I think the ultimate aim of the globalists even if they don't know it in their own minds is to have a global set of standards and rules by which all human being live, whether you live in a mud hut or a mansion.
    The horror...

    In fact with the globablists you'll have 99% living in mud huts and the elite 1% living in mansions because most of the wealth will be redistributed in an equal manner. The proles will also be a lot easier to control that way.
    please seek help.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)

    please seek help.
    You've never heard of the hour glass economy I take it? That's just the start.
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by jimbob564)
    If Brexit was a battle between the forces of globalism who aim for a one-world government, open borders, multiracial society, and parochialism describes people who are attached to what the globalists would call "anachronisms" such as tribal identity, cultural memes etc which camp do you necessarily fall into?
    I would support parochialism. The reason why I voted leave was because I was afraid that the EU was taking us towards globalism. In my opinion, we need to remain separate countries so that each country can check the power of others. If there had been one "World country" and Hitelr had become leader of it, there would have been no other countries with the means to wage war on and therefore depose him. That is what concerns me about globalism.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jimbob564)
    You've never heard of the hour glass economy I take it? That's just the start.
    I had but

    A) It is reversible and not endemic eg USA vs Finland and is hardly a conspiracy but various decisions made by governments who want to 'cut red tape'

    B) although inequality has deepened (the gap between the poorest and wealthy) the standard of living is virtually utopian compared to previous Generations. I fail to see how we would be reduced to living in mud huts.

    The pint at which we would become a world state would be the point the government such as it were would be as tiny and as localised as possible for the most part. The biggest problem would be checks and balances on corporate power but I think nation state models would be ( and are) far weaker equipped to deal with this than some form of global (or more realistically regional) power.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Platopus)
    I would support parochialism. The reason why I voted leave was because I was afraid that the EU was taking us towards globalism. In my opinion, we need to remain separate countries so that each country can check the power of others. If there had been one "World country" and Hitelr had become leader of it, there would have been no other countries with the means to wage war on and therefore depose him. That is what concerns me about globalism.
    See above- IE technological innovation would for the most part make government obsolete as would collective norms in global society (this is not the same as making everyone the same but by livings to the same standards eg Japan and the UK)

    If there was a global government of any significant power -which I doubt- that could still well work to humanity's advantage in the long run. If the dictatorship fell (which would be inevitable) then humanity would be free as an entirety not partly free pending in where you are born now.
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by Davij038)
    If the dictatorship fell (which would be inevitable) then humanity would be free as an entirety not partly free pending in where you are born now.
    Hmm. With no checks and balances, why would this be inevitable?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Platopus)
    Hmm. With no checks and balances, why would this be inevitable?
    All dictatorships fail. In fact, when you think about all systems of government. What people like OP say about current nation states is what people said about empires and feudal kingdoms. No form of government is a particular end point of human civilisation. A world stage would only potentially occur I estimate in at least four centuries. When you consider how improbable, terrifying, absurd if not heretical the Notion of walking on the moon would seem back then the notion if a world without borders seems quite plausible for the future and u think will be of great benefit for all.
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by Davij038)
    All dictatorships fail. In fact, when you think about all systems of government. What people like OP say about current nation states is what people said about empires and feudal kingdoms. No form of government is a particular end point of human civilisation. A world stage would only potentially occur I estimate in at least four centuries. When you consider how improbable, terrifying, absurd if not heretical the Notion of walking on the moon would seem back then the notion if a world without borders seems quite plausible for the future and u think will be of great benefit for all.
    All dictatorships thus far have fallen, largely because other countries have had the power to put a stop to them. A world with only one single country would be a dictatorship unlike any we have seen before and I do not see who/what would have the ability to topple it.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I voted for Brexit and i'm a moderate globalist...

    In contrast to Davij I'm very skeptical of the UN and international law in general and only really care about what our allies think (the US and France mainly), while i'm sympathetic to the idea of universal laws i find the notion that those laws should have input from nations i deem culturally inferior to be repugnant, i'm something of a western supremacist.. I tend to agree with him that the tribe mentality can be damaging however i tend to one that embraces human nature and tribe mentality is in my view part of that. I'm uite happy for large federations to form, i just think i'd rather be one with the US than the EU.

    While i believe in states i'm also somewhat libertarian with regards to my view on immigration however i would add the caveats that free (ish) movement should only occur between western states and i don't share the belief that we need to fill the country with minorities. Polish and Canadians will do me just fine, hence i don't object too much to Trump keeping Muslims out in the US and am alarmed with regards to the refuges being allowed to pollute our country. They are not one of us. .

    I'm mildly opposed to a multi-racial Britain. Going back to my point above, i've never really understood what advantage these people bring us that Australians don't. I bear those of a different ethnicity or religion no ill way but we have near enough a billion white Christians/atheists to choose from.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    B) although inequality has deepened (the gap between the poorest and wealthy) the standard of living is virtually utopian compared to previous Generations. I fail to see how we would be reduced to living in mud huts.
    Mud huts perhaps not, but this morning:

    Young suffer while pensioners prosper
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36826166

    For decades the solution to poverty has been to get people into work. Now that everyone is in work, they still can't afford to live. Well done Tories!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I voted for Brexit and i'm a moderate globalist...

    In contrast to Davij I'm very skeptical of the UN and international law in general and only really care about what our allies think (the US and France mainly), while i'm sympathetic to the idea of universal laws i find the notion that those laws should have input from nations i deem culturally inferior to be repugnant, i'm something of a western supremacist.. I tend to agree with him that the tribe mentality can be damaging however i tend to one that embraces human nature and tribe mentality is in my view part of that. I'm uite happy for large federations to form, i just think i'd rather be one with the US than the EU.

    While i believe in states i'm also somewhat libertarian with regards to my view on immigration however i would add the caveats that free (ish) movement should only occur between western states and i don't share the belief that we need to fill the country with minorities. Polish and Canadians will do me just fine, hence i don't object too much to Trump keeping Muslims out in the US and am alarmed with regards to the refuges being allowed to pollute our country. They are not one of us. .

    I'm mildly opposed to a multi-racial Britain. Going back to my point above, i've never really understood what advantage these people bring us that Australians don't. I bear those of a different ethnicity or religion no ill way but we have near enough a billion white Christians/atheists to choose from.
    You've got me wrong on that front- I'm certainly no fan of the UN which as you rightly sees North Korea as legitimate and puts the Saudis in charge of human rights etc etc. international law is too broad to be easily defined but I agree with the UDHR.

    Your point about western supremacy: I think its not a western thing (although it obviously began with the west) - Japan, South Korea, Ghana, Tunisia etc are all following the western model and are comparatively thriving compared to their neighbours.

    I think from s geo political point our biggest problem is the Middle East and containing and checking Russia I think both the EU and the U.S. Have a part in that and we need to be actively involved with both.

    As per migration - would you rather have say an American labourer move to this country than say an engineer from Ghana?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Platopus)
    All dictatorships thus far have fallen, largely because other countries have had the power to put a stop to them. A world with only one single country would be a dictatorship unlike any we have seen before and I do not see who/what would have the ability to topple it.
    Dictatorships in the contemporary error all share the same charexteristic of blaming domestic problems on external issues hence often military aggression as a way of moving the goal posts as well as keeping their biggest potential rival (the military) busy: in a welll educated and globally connected society such as ours it would be next to impossible.

    I'm not a conspiracy theorist, the answer is we don't know. Many people made the same arguments against democracy and over time we have more or less worked with it.

    But, do you think it is possible that we are in fact living under a dictatorship now and that different states and borders are merely an illusion? When you consider the reach of TNCs eg Microsoft I don't think it's too hard to imagine. If there was a NWO it would be far more visible and exposed under a one state planet and unlike in the multi state dictatorship idea above would be far more accountable.
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Dictatorships in the contemporary error all share the same charexteristic of blaming domestic problems on external issues hence often military aggression as a way of moving the goal posts as well as keeping their biggest potential rival (the military) busy: in a welll educated and globally connected society such as ours it would be next to impossible.

    I'm not a conspiracy theorist, the answer is we don't know. Many people made the same arguments against democracy and over time we have more or less worked with it.

    But, do you think it is possible that we are in fact living under a dictatorship now and that different states and borders are merely an illusion? When you consider the reach of TNCs eg Microsoft I don't think it's too hard to imagine. If there was a NWO it would be far more visible and exposed under a one state planet and unlike in the multi state dictatorship idea above would be far more accountable.
    You're right of course, we don't know. I just find the idea of so much power being concentrated in one person/body worrying. Historically, whenever this has happened on a smaller scale, that power has been abused. I shudder to contemplate what would happen if a madman such as Hitler gained control of the entire world.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Dictatorships in the contemporary error all share the same charexteristic of blaming domestic problems on external issues hence often military aggression as a way of moving the goal posts as well as keeping their biggest potential rival (the military) busy: in a welll educated and globally connected society such as ours it would be next to impossible.

    I'm not a conspiracy theorist, the answer is we don't know. Many people made the same arguments against democracy and over time we have more or less worked with it.

    But, do you think it is possible that we are in fact living under a dictatorship now and that different states and borders are merely an illusion? When you consider the reach of TNCs eg Microsoft I don't think it's too hard to imagine. If there was a NWO it would be far more visible and exposed under a one state planet and unlike in the multi state dictatorship idea above would be far more accountable.
    I'm not so sure that's always true and it implies you believe that all cultures are equal. I don't consider most of the Arab World capable of self governance for example.

    The level of influence from lobbyists largely depends on how powerful the state is in combating corruption.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Globalism means none of those things though. It's pretty much entirely regards global capitalism and economics. It otherwise cares not race, or open borders beyond trade, or necessarily one-world government.

    I fall into the camp of "I like democracy and I don't think tying the UK down to a rapidly declining and imploding economic/trade bloc is necessarily in our long-term interests".

    Also many Remainers already tried to paint opposition to Brexit as "Little Englanders" and it merely undermined their desired outcome by being an ugly and hollow generalization, so probably best to move past that.

    For my part I find it weird that "Little Europeans", with their overly emotional argument born of a perverse eurocentrism, would suggest Brexit is a retreat from the world, when there's more to the world than Europe.
    Certainly my argument isn't informed by nationalism (even some weird embryonic nationalism being artificially cultivated for a whole continent).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I support the establishment of a techno-communistic one world government with a democratic foundation.

    The idea of sovereign nation states is outmoded: issues such as terrorism, poverty, global warming do not care about your artificially constructed boundaries.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Studentus-anonymous)
    Globalism means none of those things though. It's pretty much entirely regards global capitalism and economics. It otherwise cares not race, or open borders beyond trade, or necessarily one-world government.

    I fall into the camp of "I like democracy and I don't think tying the UK down to a rapidly declining and imploding economic/trade bloc is necessarily in our long-term interests".

    Also many Remainers already tried to paint opposition to Brexit as "Little Englanders" and it merely undermined their desired outcome by being an ugly and hollow generalization, so probably best to move past that.

    For my part I find it weird that "Little Europeans", with their overly emotional argument born of a perverse eurocentrism, would suggest Brexit is a retreat from the world, when there's more to the world than Europe.
    Certainly my argument isn't informed by nationalism (even some weird embryonic nationalism being artificially cultivated for a whole continent).
    Dress it up how you how you want, but accept your globalist leanings.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 19, 2016
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.