Nationalist spergs: why do you do it?

[Randall Fragg]

Kiwifarms has historically been populated by what most of you will recognize as "weenz" or "A-logs"; people desperate to feel good about themselves, no matter the cost, and do so by endlessly heckling, mocking or otherwise gossiping about outrageous personalities they found on the internet. They only taste the vicarious thrill of normalcy by stomping on acceptable targets, completely oblivious to the irony that they tend to be just as pathetic as their muse (and, in many cases, nowhere near as likable.)

For the first time in human history, adding antisemitic white supremacists to a population has actually made it better.

Nigger you've been here for less than 3 months.
You have no place talking about how KF used to be you utter sped.

 

[Jimmy Durante's Ballsack]

You should never forget where you come from. Anyone that isn't proud of their homeland should not be trusted.

My country is fucking great and I want to make it even greater. And you should think your country is fucking great and you should want to make it even greater as well.

 

[Marissa Moira]

I mean, there's nothing wrong with liking your country and being proud of it, and while I do think nationalism is another Democrat boogeyman word now, I think it's a dangerous road to go down as it's when you start resulting into believing sketchy and plain out wrong sources in general. You see it all the time with Kiwi newfags posting some cringy anti-globalist meme they find on Gab/Twitter on certain threads they think "THIS PROVES THE ELDERS OF ZION!!!! JEWISH TAKEOVER!!1!", which, in itself has been proven to be a lie and forgery, yet is still said by the spergiest of spergs to be the spoken word. Nobody with half a brain cell likes political correctness and sounding like a total robot, but I think some boogeyman in a room somewhere, which often said to be (((them))), isn't the reason for this shit. People connecting separate and totally unrelated facts, and somehow making them true doesn't mean anything.

I guess all I want to know is, why our ultra-nationalist newfags do it?

Because Skyrim belongs to the nords.

 

[V0dka]

I think the main reason nationalism persists is that globalization hasn't yet found a way to give the masses a political voice, nor an inspiring vision for them to unify around. The economic, political, and technological benefits to globalization are obvious, but the lack of a uniting political force capable of breaking down the various ethnic, linguistic, and class differences across the globe continues to be a major limiting factor in convincing the people to get on board with it.

Globalization means the masses have no political voice, it's purely in the interests of economics and corporations, you are told what stances you hold now. EA is LGBT friendly, buy their stuff. The new Disney Movie made the main protagonist gay and gave them a sex scene, super woke, go see that, multiple times. If you do, you are fighting Nazis. Paying us money will fight Nazis. Oh BTW Nazis are whoever isn't doing what our marketing department is telling them, punch them.

 

[Slap47]

A nation is merely a larger interest group. It is in my interest to have an interest group that looks out for its own interests instead of autistically committing to suicidal internationalism.

Nigger you've been here for less than 3 months.
You have no place talking about how KF used to be you utter sped.

2019 posters are idiots. Back in my day people had common sense.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

Globalization means the masses have no political voice, it's purely in the interests of economics and corporations, you are told what stances you hold now. EA is LGBT friendly, buy their stuff. The new Disney Movie made the main protagonist gay and gave them a sex scene, super woke, go see that, multiple times. If you do, you are fighting Nazis. Paying us money will fight Nazis. Oh BTW Nazis are whoever isn't doing what our marketing department is telling them, punch them.

I think you're missing the forest for the trees. It is true that globalization is primarily being driven by economic and corporate interests, but one could quite credibly point towards this fact and use it to argue for an increasingly globalized polity to help to counteract it. How would you respond to that?

 

[Recoil]

Someone from the UK has no pride for their nation?
DO TELL.

 

[V0dka]

I think you're missing the forest for the trees. It is true that globalization is primarily being driven by economic and corporate interests, but one could quite credibly point towards this fact and use it to argue for an increasingly globalized polity to help to counteract it. How would you respond to that?

Whos going to organize this globalized policy when corporate interests can drive the governments to globalization? Governments are more tools of Corporations than Corporations provide economic security for nations, these days. If a corporation doesn't like how things are going in one country, they'll hire a thousand Indians for a fraction of the price, corporations have no loyalty to nations or populations.

Why would corporations want the masses to have a voice? They want to tell people what their voice is, it's much more efficient that way, much easier to steer voters to candidates friendly to profitability.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

Whos going to organize this globalized policy when corporate interests can drive the governments to globalization? Governments are more tools of Corporations than Corporations provide economic security for nations, these days. If a corporation doesn't like how things are going in one country, they'll hire a thousand Indians for a fraction of the price, corporations have no loyalty to nations or populations.

Why would corporations want the masses to have a voice? They want to tell people what their voice is, it's much more efficient that way, much easier to steer voters to candidates friendly to profitability.

I really don't understand your objections here. If you can recognize the power that globalization offers private capital, then surely it makes sense that our governing bodies should have access to the same advantages? You clearly recognize that disjointed regional governments are invariably ineffective at holding international corporations to account, but you stop short of recognizing the obvious way forward.

 

[V0dka]

I really don't understand your objections here. If you can recognize the power that globalization offers private capital, then surely it makes sense that our governing bodies should have access to the same advantages? You clearly recognize that disjointed regional governments are invariably ineffective at holding international corporations to account, but you stop short of recognizing the obvious way forward.

Because governments are to serve the people (at least in theory). Private capital is to exploit and serve themselves. Why should I give a crap that some corporation has slashed it's operating costs and increased profit projections because it decided to fire another 10,000 workers and moved 2 factories to Thailand to pay them 10 cents an hour?

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

Because governments are to serve the people (at least in theory). Private capital is to exploit and serve themselves. Why should I give a crap that some corporation has slashed it's operating costs and increased profit projections because it decided to fire another 10,000 workers and moved 2 factories to Thailand to pay them 10 cents an hour?

You are still failing to recognize the obvious. If governments exist to serve the people, then surely the people would be better served if their government wasn't inherently limited by geographical boundaries in ways that private capital isn't? I find it interesting that you claim you don't care about the harmful business practices of international corporations. Where does that leave your opposition to globalization?

 

[ConfederateIrishman]

You are still failing to recognize the obvious. If governments exist to serve the people, then surely the people would be better served if their government wasn't inherently limited by geographical boundaries in ways that private capital isn't? I find it interesting that you claim you don't care about the harmful business practices of international corporations. Where does that leave your opposition to globalization?

They don’t though, what makes you believe they do? Or are you cynically claiming they do so you can set up your premise, hoping the other person does believe that so they are convinced by your logic?

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

They don’t though, what makes you believe they do? Or are you cynically claiming they do so you can set up your premise, hoping the other person does believe that so they are convinced by your logic?

I think that if someone is going to start from the premise that governments exist to serve the people, then they should have a convincing reason to argue why this somehow doesn't hold true for multinational political unions, and if you are going to argue that this premise doesn't hold true at all, then what difference does it make what level governments operate at?

If governments by their very nature only exist to serve the vested interests of the rich and powerful, then a national government isn't going to be meaningfully different to a multinational one.

 

[ConfederateIrishman]

I think that if someone is going to start from the premise that governments exist to serve the people, then they should have a convincing reason to argue why this somehow doesn't hold true for multinational political unions, and if you are going to argue that this premise doesn't hold true at all, then what difference does it make what level governments operate at?

If governments by their very nature only exist to serve the vested interests of the rich and powerful, then a national government isn't going to be meaningfully different to a multinational one.

Right, just noticed the guy you were debating with did claim governments were for the people and you were merely responding to his claim

Mea Culpa

 

[V0dka]

If governments by their very nature only exist to serve the vested interests of the rich and powerful, then a national government isn't going to be meaningfully different to a multinational one.

Will they? You think having a centralized global government will make things if not the same, then better, for generally everyone? I sincerely doubt it. If you aren't happy with economic. living standard or social conditions in a country, where do you go? Whos the competitor? Who you are going to complain to, the global government? Why should they make things better for you? Where you gonna go?

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

Will they? You think having a centralized global government will make things if not the same, then better, for generally everyone? I sincerely doubt it. If you aren't happy with economic. living standard or social conditions in a country, where do you go? Whos the competitor? Who you are going to complain to, the global government? Why should they make things better for you? Where you gonna go?

I don't necessarily have a strong view on whether a centralized, global government will be better or worse, I just know that it would be much more powerful, and if this power were directed in positive ways, then it could be a tremendous improvement for us; if not, then it could be a dystopian nightmare the likes of which the world has never anticipated. The deciding factor will be how such a system might be set up, and how political accountability might be built into it. Power is a double-edged sword, after all.

The point I would like to stress here is that what I am alluding to is hardly hypothetical. Globalization is already very much a reality from an economic standpoint, and our political institutions are going to have to play catch up if they want to retain any kind of serious influence in the future. The question is: which of these futures would you rather live in? One where political influence is gained through shady, backdoor deals with unaccountable, private organizations, or one where it has to be earned through a transparent, democratic mandate?

 

[V0dka]

The question is: which of these futures would you rather live in? One where political influence is gained through shady, backdoor deals with unaccountable, private organizations, or one where it has to be earned through a transparent, democratic mandate?

As you said, things are already moving into the former anyway. Maybe I'm just not as optimistic as you and believe as soon as people have absolute power, they are absolutely corrupted, the always need checks against them, even if it's something as simple as competing nationstates to avoid them becoming complacent and exploiting their own population with no blowback.

 

[Drunk and Pour]

I don't necessarily have a strong view on whether a centralized, global government will be better or worse, I just know that it would be much more powerful, and if this power were directed in positive ways, then it could be a tremendous improvement for us; if not, then it could be a dystopian nightmare the likes of which the world has never anticipated. The deciding factor will be how such a system might be set up, and how political accountability might be built into it. Power is a double-edged sword, after all.

The point I would like to stress here is that what I am alluding to is hardly hypothetical. Globalization is already very much a reality from an economic standpoint, and our political institutions are going to have to play catch up if they want to retain any kind of serious influence in the future. The question is: which of these futures would you rather live in? One where political influence is gained through shady, backdoor deals with unaccountable, private organizations, or one where it has to be earned through a transparent, democratic mandate?

It would be much, much worse. Yes, a global government would be much more powerful, and no, they would not direct it in positive ways. Globalism is a reality and it's kind of scary. It's also pretty convenient that people that are pro-globalism claim globalism is an anti-semitic conspiracy that should be ignored.

 

[Rand /pol/]

All you brainlets ITT understand that nationalism isn't just doing what's best for your country and that nations and countries are totally different things right?

 

[CitizenJane]

I fucking hate retards like the OP of this thread. He's probably some mocha mistake of non-specific racial origin who wouldn't fit in anywhere and thus feels the need to defend the destruction of ethnic homelands.

This is the kind of person who thinks the suffering of untold generations of ancestors is meaningless and that any plot of land should belong to whatever immigrant is allowed into a country. He's the type that would deny racial differences and thinks Japan would be the same country 100 years from now if they allowed in a steady stream of Africans every year. He's so deluded by Cultural Marxist beliefs / Jewish lies that he thinks anyone who talks about Jewish power is a conspiracy theorist.

People like this are basically the dregs of society that should be sterilized. Luckily many will breed themselves out by fucking niggers or whatever.