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?
Because multiculturalism is the ultimate genocide, just like that comic posted on the first page shows. A multicultural world is one of homogeneity, where every city and country are the exact same. At most, they're just theme park versions of each other. Everyone in multicultural world speaks English, they live in the same glass box apartment or generic Western-style house, they watch and consoom the same goyslop media, and they eat the same goyslop which is a bastardized mix of all the world's cultures. Countries are nothing but economic units which must compete with each other by adopting the exact same policies and laws devised by a room of corporate elites in Davos. People too are nothing but economic units that move about according to whims. Tradition, cultural, history, everything gets lost in this.
Notice I haven't even mentioned race yet. I don't need to. Multiculturalism and globalism isn't just white genocide, it's black genocide, Asian genocide, Jewish genocide, everything genocide. Multiculturalism by intention destroys diversity. Multiculturalism and the associated policies required for it demand that any sort of distinction in humans is eroded, from our skin color to our languages to our race, and that's where you get promotion of sexual deviancy and so-called "anti-racism" laws. It inevitably destroys nations. Multiculturalism is essentially just old-school colonialism rebranded, except now every nation is a colony of trans-national globalist finance elite and is subject to the exact same practices used in governing colonies. When historians say globalism started in the 1500s, they aren't exaggerating or lying. It's ironic those same historians are usually full supporters of modern globalism, despite modern globalism being nothing but a continuation of the exact same forces that gave us things like the trans-Atlantic slave trade or the extinction of literally thousands of cultures in the Americas, Africa, Australia, etc.
Now I don't think opposing globalism is totally anathema to international trade. That sounds like a strawman. International trade goes back to the root of humanity. All opposing globalism means is that rich countries won't flood poor countries with cheap goods (i.e. giving away clothes for free fucks up African economies because they can't even establish a domestic market for sweatshop products which would actually improve the lives of their people) and that poor countries won't flood rich countries with cheap labor. There's still plenty of things that would be necessarily imported and exported. For instance, a lot of free trade (not the WTO globalist garbage) is good because it gives people in rich countries cheaper goods while raising the standard of living in the third world.
Nations adopting the customs and innovations of other nations isn't globalism either. Even in the Stone Age we can see there were different cultural areas based on tools and such, and modern Stone Age cultures like Australian Aboriginals have the same thing. Yes, it was spread in similar ways to modern globalism (trade, war, diplomacy, etc.), but overall it isn't the same as the deliberate engineering of societies to become multicultural and globalist just so rich multinational elites can profit. It was an organic affair done at a horizontal level, and there were sharp barriers between these different spheres even when they regularly traded. Like Rome and Persia traded, but Roman culture and Persian culture was very distinct and only at the border regions did you have anything approaching a fusion.
A lot of the leftist doctrine that underlies modern globalism is actually just as useful for dismantling it as an idea. There are some Marxist texts that are definitely relevant to how globalism works like ironically some of that by Antonio Gramsci, the founder of cultural Marxism himself. Even some modern leftist theories like world systems theory are very good for analyzing how globalism works (like when rich white Westerners force Africans and Muslims to legalize gay marriage and have gay pride parades). Hell, even the idea of cultural relativism beloved by leftists tells us that there's nothing wrong when a Muslim wants to throw gays off a rooftop, ergo why force our culture onto them?
The reason why the opponents of globalism aren't Marxists today seems to be solely because the Western left became nothing but useful idiots for globalism. That, and Marxism neglects fundamental truths regarding the natural inequality between people (including by race, sex, and class)--when you realize we're all different and can never become equal no matter how many revolutions you have, it makes it a lot easier to accept the globalist program isn't working as we were told it would.
The Dunbar limit is probably the most compelling reason why multiculturalism isn't even possible, regardless of the demographics involved:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number
TL;DR it is hypothesized that the number of people your average person can cognitively account for is limited at around 150. When you try to go beyond that, we default to compressing people into stereotypes according to their various traits. The aim of multiculturalism is to allow as many demographics to coexist as possible without the use of stereotyping, but it simply isn't cognitively possible whatsoever.
That's not entirely true. Some Native American tribes were hunter gatherers and wandered around living in tents, but they were actually fairly multiethnic. Their nomadic tent villages would have people of a bunch of different tribes, some of whom were personal servants of the chief, some were the wives or even husbands of the people of the tribe, and pretty much everyone spoke 2 or 3 languages because that was the language of the nearby tribes they'd trade with. Is that multiculturalism?
On the other hand, Native Americans were also very racist to each other and each tribe had an endless number of stereotypes. The Shoshone were pretty funny since they don't even have names for other tribes, they just referred to every other Indian tribe by the stereotypical food they ate. It's like if we had no word for "French" or "Italian" or "Chinese", they were just "Frog-Eaters", "Pasta-Eaters", and "Dog-Eaters."
