Best arguments against multiculturalism/globalism?

(((I am NOT a jew)))

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Dec 14, 2022
There's a guy I've gotten into a couple debates with recently who is pretty much the embodiment of everything wrong with the modern world. He loves multiculturalism and thinks that all wars and tribalism are just examples of humans choosing to be ignorant and biased, that whiteness is a social construct and that the idea of nationalism always leads to genocide. Of course, he couldn't really argue how he'd create a world of complete unity without the kind of genocide he bitches about, where every group of people has the same standards/morals and where those standards would come from.
I know the correct answer is to not give a shit and move on from someone arguing in bad faith, but I really do want to present multiple objective points to where he'd actually have to fully admit to his entire worldview being retarded.

So what are some of the best objective arguments against diversity/tolerance/globalism?
How insular do you think cultures should generally be?
Also can you be nationalist and be in support of international trade/import?
And is any nation adopting different customs/innovations from others an argument against nationalism?
 
There is literally no point trying to argue a case with someone like this. Unfortunately these kinds of people are the type who have to physically experience something multiple times before it actually sinks in just how bad things are.
Very true but I'd like to at least have a solid argument that could at least make him stare into the void and droll for a couple minutes because it would be nice to actually see. I don't go around online starting debates about stuff like this. This is just one insufferable fuck that I'd like to see realize he's full of shit once with the "facts and logic" he claims to espouse.
It would also be nice to just have a decent thread of information I can remember the next time I want to remind myself of when I hear anything equivalent of this shit again.
 
Have you already told him that globalism leads to outsourcing of jobs overseas as well as importing immigrants from poor countries, which in turn leads to decline of wages and living standards for local working class people?

Also, said immigrants often have a pretty bad opinion of women's rights and gay rights?
 
Wow funny you made this thread because I was JUST thinking of why segregation would be a good thing.
Humans split up into groups form their own cultures, identities, religions, etc. that shapes who they are and what their people are like. When you force everyone to become 1 singular group, what culture do you have left? What identities do you have when everyone is expected to just "get along"? You're just "the human race" and not much else, and that becomes a lot less interesting. I'm sure something like this is one of the reasons why we're facing an identity crisis in first world countries with pronoun/gender shit in vogue right now.
Relevant 'toss comic below that illustrates my point.
1699295219658.jpg
 
Have you already told him that globalism leads to outsourcing of jobs overseas as well as importing immigrants from poor countries, which in turn leads to decline of wages and living standards for local working class people?

Also, said immigrants often have a pretty bad opinion of women's rights and gay rights?
Yes.
His cope was eventually Singham could make a company that could employ white people and that while it might not be management position, it would be something at least (ignoring that Signham would probably bring in more pajeets).
Of course me asking why there wasn't a need to just employ/train people here he didn't have an answer for.
And me basically pointing out "You know every other group in the world pretty much hates faggots more than we do and have no plans on changing that" his best cope was that "Well at least a couple generations down they'll be more tolerant if they're in our nation".
Which I replied "So they'll be whitewashed."
Which again he couldn't answer for.

I hate these people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CloverKitty
You want an easy one? One that punts it automatically for fucking lefties? Point out how Multiculturalism and Globalism absolutely fucks the developing world. There is literally no defending this from a leftist perspective, and it forces them to focus on the consequences of their own worldview, so it's a great way to cause them to shift gears without the clutch.

What open borders means is that anyone who had the means to do so fucking leaves to come to places where they see themselves as having more opportunity. This, in and of itself, is not a bad thing, but it means that anyone who could potentially improve life in their home country will fucking leave. Anyone who has the ability to become a doctor, or engineer, or mechanic, will be doing so in a brand new country and only their immediate family, if *anyone* in their homeland, actually will benefit from it. This means these countries pathologically lose their best and brightest to us, holding these countries back and effectively guaranteeing an endless downward spiral.

And it only gets darker from here.

Many of these countries are run like complete dogshit - openly corrupt, utterly impoverished, and with minimal will to actually fix anything, since the government itself benefits. In Mexico, for a long time, the government was actually printing and mailing out pamphlets describing in detail how to emigrate to the US - it would not at all surprise me if they still do. This may seem unusual, but in reality it makes perfect sense: by encouraging people to expatriate, they essentially kick the can down the road and guarantee that no one will ever fucking fix the problems in their home country - since those that can will leave. No need to ever worry about a populist upswell like you've been seeing in the west or worse, a revolution over the government's incompetence and indolence when anyone can just fucking leave for a better life in America. This is economically devastating for the countries that routinely send people here and further guarantees that the situation will never, ever improve.

As dark and as tragic as it is, if he genuinely cared about people abroad, he'd have been for locking down the border a long fucking time ago. Everyone suffers because of it. Americans suffer because the incoming newcomers drag wages and benefits downward by diluting the labor pool and forcing everyone to compete for a massively decreased pool of resources when it comes to social services. The newcomers themselves suffer because they're being openly exploited, both by the government they came from and the government they're going to, and the governments of both genuinely don't care if they get scapegoated. The fucking only groups that genuinely benefit long term from this are the governments of both countries, who enact it at the expense of their own populace.
 
Wow funny you made this thread because I was JUST thinking of why segregation would be a good thing.
Humans split up into groups form their own cultures, identities, religions, etc. that shapes who they are and what their people are like. When you force everyone to become 1 singular group, what culture do you have left? What identities do you have when everyone is expected to just "get along"? You're just "the human race" and not much else, and that becomes a lot less interesting. I'm sure something like this is one of the reasons why we're facing an identity crisis in first world countries with pronoun/gender shit in vogue right now.
Relevant 'toss comic below that illustrates my point.
View attachment 6327056
I understand and agree with your point but this comes off as incredibly shallow, as if national identity exists merely to provide entertainment to foreigners, lest they grow bored and decide to racewar.

I agree with "globalism" in the sense that contact between different nations and cultures is healthy, but to homogenize every culture into a soulless, historyless monoculture designed by committee is short-sighted, not to mention retarded.
 
Last edited:
Why do they provide for migrants, but don't invest into kindergardens and child support?
My theory- because migrants have way lower standarts for raising children there is no point in investing.
While white people would delay or cancel having children because the support infrastructure isn't there for them, migrants won't care if their children run around, doing whatever they want. Birth numbers go up, government covers up who is keeping the numbers up and average IQ slips by a few points down every year.
Child support infrastructure is one of my personal biggest questions to globohomo.
 
Very true but I'd like to at least have a solid argument that could at least make him stare into the void and droll for a couple minutes because it would be nice to actually see. I don't go around online starting debates about stuff like this. This is just one insufferable fuck that I'd like to see realize he's full of shit once with the "facts and logic" he claims to espouse.
It would also be nice to just have a decent thread of information I can remember the next time I want to remind myself of when I hear anything equivalent of this shit again.
Zimbabwe and South Africa. Zimbabwe went from being the "breadbasket of Africa" to "1 in 3 children struggle with food insecurity."

Here is the GDP per capita vs life expectancy chart. South Africa, along with other nations with very similar GDP per capita figures, are highlighted.
Screenshot_20240820-040615.png

Simply put, different groups have different "cultures," and not all of those are compatible, and it is not an inherently good thing to mix those groups. I would prefer to not live next to people that bash people's heads open with rocks because a witch doctor on the radio told them there was gold in there. Similarly, I do not think it is reasonable to import people that want to make their batshit insane religious pedophile laws the law of the land, have religious "judges" decide family and property matters, force religious conversion, extort non believers for extra taxes, beat people to death with rocks, light women on fire, and murder people for leaving the religion.

Reminder, the "moderate Muslim" is a myth. Even our allies in the Muslim world, that like Westerners, would try to impose their will on us and torture, kill, and destroy us if they lived here and believed they could get away with it.
gsi2-chp1-3 (1).pnggsi2-chp1-5 (1).pnggsi2-chp1-6 (1).pnggsi2-chp1-8 (1).pnggsi2-chp1-9.pnggsi2-chp1-11.png
 
Last edited:
This links to "Where have All the Antibiotics Gone?" While there might be a link between lesser interest in antibiotics and importing muslims in this article and I'm just too gay to read it, I think it's more likely that you accidentally linked the wrong thing.
If not then disregard me, I suck cocks.
 
This links to "Where have All the Antibiotics Gone?" While there might be a link between lesser interest in antibiotics and importing muslims in this article and I'm just too gay to read it, I think it's more likely that you accidentally linked the wrong thing.
If not then disregard me, I suck cocks.
Yeah I just posted the wrong link from my clipboard because I'm a retard. Thank you for helping me fix it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tablet County
Perhaps the most pervasive bias in The West is the assumption that the rest of the world fundamentally wants the same things we do. Press him on that.
The very same set of assumptions that let so many Americans justify toppling regimes in the name of "liberty" are the ones he's expressing when he insists that their culture is somehow compatible with our own.

Be careful not to get him into full defensive mode or you won't get anywhere. But gently set up the punchline that the only reason he thinks these people belong here is because he, himself, doesn't respect their culture and the things that make it so different from ours.
 
He ....thinks that all wars and tribalism are just examples of humans choosing to be ignorant and biased
And he is correct. What he doesn't acknowledge is that this is completely normal. - Humans are by nature tribalistic because that's how cultures, societies and nations form. It is absolutely normal for people to want to live, work and associate with others who share their values and way of life, and people who have those things in common with you probably look like you.
But Leftists live in a fantasy world where people Should Be a certain way, rather than as they actually are.
 
If multiculturalism is so great then why does it have to be forced, why doesn't it just happen organically?
How's putting a bunch of niggers in racist white Europe and Murica make them any less racist, sounds like a race war waiting to happen?
Did he ever thought the reason why niggers live in dictatorships is because they are backwards and savage and need a boot on their necks at all times?

And last but not least, does your friend actually believe that shit or is he just virtue signaling because he believes he won't have to ever interact with said niggers? Because he will, be sure to remind him of that
 
Last edited:
So what are some of the best objective arguments against diversity/tolerance/globalism?
It will devolve into a survival of the fittest scenario where different ethnicities and cultures will be forced to complete. Cultural competition is not a problem wrt morality because some cultures are prima facia morally superior but wrt cultural products art and media it will be because the productivity and monetary strength of different communities will be different, forcing some cultural products to outcompete others and eventually forming monopolies. When it comes to ethnic competition, it will certainly inevitably lead to jealousy and violence due to ethnic monopolization and the people who feel wronged will construct the most nuanced sophistic arguments that it will be near impossible to combat them through discourse, an unstable society. Not just that but the cultural incompatibility will definitely bleed into public life as each ethnocultural group will try to fight for dominance of public life, leading to enclaves and oppressed/oppressor dichotomies. All of this without mentioning institutional politics which will surely be a complete shitshow. Think about it like animals, if you introduce the wrong animal in the wrong environment, chances are it will kill off the local species without foresight or hindsight.
How insular do you think cultures should generally be?
Generally to the point where they are different and map onto ethnic groups/regions. An ethnicity is a race of people endemic to a region who practice a certain culture. So culture should be confined to ethnic and land boundaries but not to the point where the morality of the culture becomes convoluted (the Middle East) and capable of causing humans rights violations.
Also can you be nationalist and be in support of international trade/import?
Generally yes because its a game of resource negotiations, some people win some some people lose some on the assumption that all countries act equally. However there can be instances where the international trade is full of unfair play, monopolization and exploitation through manipulation (US gayops around the world), blockades and sanctions to force institutional changes in foreign countries (USA, Israel, Britain with SA/Rhodesia), all negotiations through the state (China, Middle East), extrajudicial groups of conglomerates (All US companies) and many other chicanery. Ultimately the resource negotiations game is just like a gambling game, there are some wins some losses, people tend to cheat a lot and the cheaters get away cause they got armed bodyguards.
And is any nation adopting different customs/innovations from others an argument against nationalism?
Depends on if the custom/innovation carries with it moral implications. If yes then its not. If no then it is. If a custom or innovation causes a violation of human rights then yes its something which should be excised. If its undesirable but ultimately harmless then no, it deserves to exist. If it objectively improves the quality of life then definitely yes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CloverKitty
Back