Leadership and Globalism - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Mild necroposting has been permitted because it has always been mild but since it is growing into a bane it will no longer be tolerated.

Moderators are therefore advised to initially move necroposts into stand-alone threads and for repeat offenders to hand out official warnings if said posters continue the practice.
All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

User avatar
By Hong Wu
#14785708
Image

These people lack what it takes to lead, no matter how much they cry about globalism and technocracy, the latter just being a materialist form of aristocracy and not what it presents itself as being because politicians already employ the advice of experts when making decisions.

To lead you need to be able to lower yourself to other people's level sometimes. These people appear to do it never.

To lower yourself to their level and get their respect, you need to be somewhat like them. This is why we need nationalism, there is no such thing as a global identity.

Sometimes a leader has to do things no one will like. You see this work out in "backwards" nationalist countries because few people feel like they are being screwed over by a different set of people.

You don't get to pick and choose or imagine what defines a set of people very easily, it happens due to factors largrly outside of our control and people can tell when it's forced or faked.

Globalism is fundamentally incapable of bringing about environmentalist change because no one effected by the economic cuts likes it, if it does happen only an alliance of nationalist states could do it.
User avatar
By mikema63
#14785718
I see very little evidence that nationalistic leaders are not hypocrites. Most nationalist leaders I can think of live or lived in palaces much less mansions.
User avatar
By Hong Wu
#14785735
mikema63 wrote:I see very little evidence that nationalistic leaders are not hypocrites. Most nationalist leaders I can think of live or lived in palaces much less mansions.

I'm not talking about a specific leader here though, I am presenting a theory. Environmentalism will never be popular and I don't think anyone but nationalists would have a chance of pulling it off. Currently nationalists don't wish to do it but they are also struggling to gain or hold power at the moment. After their leadership settles in, environmentalism might find its way back onto the table and unlike the globalists, I imagine they would have at least a chance of being successful at it.
User avatar
By Hong Wu
#14785806
mikema63 wrote:http://www.gallup.com/poll/1615/environment.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/190010/conce ... -high.aspx

Environmentalism is actually quite popular among the America public with about 2/3rds being concerned about global warming and 56% saying it should be a higher priority than economic issues.

There you go using irrelevant data to dodge a point again. The public is afraid of climate change due to propoganda but this obviously doesn't translate into support for policies that address it. We saw this as recently as this election. People will say lots of things about what they are willing to do but what they actually do (or vote for) is not always going to be the same.

To put this another way, you actually believe people won't need to be forced into suppressing their own economies? You think unfirm, guilt-tripping, hypocritical and alienated leaders could be universally successful in forcing something like this?
User avatar
By mikema63
#14785831
There you go using irrelevant data to dodge a point again.


You claimed it wasn't popular, polling data on the question seems perfectly relevant to me.

The public is afraid of climate change due to propoganda


Whether or not this is actually true isn't the question right now. Why they believe it doesn't have any bearing on whether or not they do.

but this obviously doesn't translate into support for policies that address it. We saw this as recently as this election. People will say lots of things about what they are willing to do but what they actually do (or vote for) is not always going to be the same.


A single election in a representative democracy seems far less relevant as proof that the public is secretly not interested in one particular issue. Thousands of factors go into a vote for president, it wasn't a climate change referendum.

To put this another way, you actually believe people won't need to be forced into suppressing their own economies?


I think people would be forced to, which is why neither I nor most liberals advocate doing so to fight climate change. You may be confusing us with hard greens. I think that any real tackling of enviromental issues are going to involve more research on alternative energy, changing over our energy grid in the next few decades (for some of us which I'm included in we also want to use nuclear as a steeping stone towards renewable energies), creating a more efficient grid (smart grid, etc.), and some more general research that would help additionally around the margins (materials research, geoengineering, carbon capture, in vitro meat, etc.) None of which would require "suppressing economies". I agree that people will not sacrifice their economic positions en masse to help the enviroment.
You think unfirm, guilt-tripping, hypocritical and alienated leaders could be universally successful in forcing something like this?


It doesn't need to be forced, and besides hypocritical and alienated leaders are pretty much a given in any society.
User avatar
By Donald
#14785891
mikema63 wrote:I see very little evidence that nationalistic leaders are not hypocrites. Most nationalist leaders I can think of live or lived in palaces much less mansions.


Politicians become hypocrites when they ask the public to adopt an austere lifestyle while they themselves do not. Nationalist leaders, no matter how wealthy or morally unscrupulous they are, do not enter the condition of hypocrisy until they start telling the public how to live their lives.
User avatar
By Donald
#14785894
Vasili Blokhin wrote:@Donald Literally every modern nationalist leader does that.


Not in the West. Our nationalist leaders are magicians who unleash the will to power of the people. Do what thou wilt!
User avatar
By Donald
#14785897
Vasili Blokhin wrote:@Donald Which people? Whites or the soon to be majority minority?


DO WHAT THOU WILT!
User avatar
By Donald
#14785903
Vasili Blokhin wrote:So Europe will cease to exist then.


Probably. I have a feeling that the Eurocrats will show their true colours this year and cheat out the far right. The stakes are actually very high, not only for the political establishment but also the entire stability of the continent. If Le Pen or Wilders win, the situation could become chaotic very quickly.

The Anglosphere, however, will become staunchly nationalist, and all the more so since these countries did not dabble in fascism during the 20th century. The Anglo-Saxon has only known his free-born, providential nature.
User avatar
By Donald
#14785914
@mikema63 is that Swedenborg in your avatar?
User avatar
By Hong Wu
#14785943
If we presume that environmentalism is a purely scientific issue, doesn't that mean that most of the policies that liberals/globalists are pushing are unnecessary?

Either there's a need to push things through that the globalists are incapable of pushing, or else there is no need and they are pushing these things for no reason.
User avatar
By Hindsite
#14785968
mikema63 wrote:Environmentalism is actually quite popular among the America public with about 2/3rds being concerned about global warming and 56% saying it should be a higher priority than economic issues.


I have no problem with sensible protection of the environment. But global warming has been proved to have been a hoax.

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/opinio ... is-a-hoax/
User avatar
By mikema63
#14786069
@Donald it's Hume

@Hong Wu regulations on industrial pollution are a common Target and is a good way to bridge the gap between now and the implementation of new energy systems. The main problem is the constant fight with the lobbies for energy businesses that would necessarily go out of business if we changed over. They oppose funding new technologies, research, and subsidies at every turn to protect themselves. Also, not everyone uniformly agrees with me on what I think is the most viable path out of the rabbit hole we are in.

@Hindsite since I don't know your specific beliefs on the topic I'll just leave this here and let you find your particular beliefs in the list. The responses will be pretty close to what I would level.

http://grist.org/series/skeptics/

So Trump is co-opting what Iraq has been slogging […]

I am sure that last sentence is yours and not fro[…]

And yet Obama has the ability to increase the deb[…]

Bin Laden wanted to kill the entire Saudi royal f[…]