The Great Replacement Isn't Real - General

[QUOTE=Killuah;52456549]Based upon it has always happened as people and ideas, you know, tend to move.[/QUOTE] again, why is it inevitable? you gave me no argument beyond "its happened before" again you also give no reason as to why its somehow inherently irrational to oppose globalization

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52456560]again, why is it inevitable? you gave me no argument beyond "its happened before" again you also give no reason as to why its somehow inherently irrational to oppose globalization[/QUOTE] Oh no you don't get to turn this around [QUOTE=Killuah;52456263]Do you have any factual arguments aside from those empty phrases ? Globalisazion has happened ALL throughout human history, there would be no history without globalization, it just didn't happen as fast. Where do you think your parents came from? And their parents? And the paents of the cashier you saw last week?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Killuah;52456562]Oh no you don't get to turn this around[/QUOTE] its disingenuous to compare the modern day globalization (where the entire world is connected together with massive volumes of trade and people going between them) where merchants travelling to china constitutes a fraction of the economy and population moving around. until the 19th century most people got the bulk of their stuff from where they lived and sold locally as well. it wasn't possible for most of the population to eat fresh food imported from a hot country on a regular basis (or travel in massive numbers very cheaply to pretty much anywhere) until very recently. even then, just because something happened in the past doesn't mean it's going to happen in the future. the process can (and has in the past) gone into reverse or sideways before

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52454886]losing control over your ancestral homeland, culture, language, etc the natives of the americas are very much sidelined as a result of european [B]colonisation[/B] for instance, and must exist within the confines of a society changed/created by the majority [/QUOTE] Either you're trying to compare colonization to immigration or you just defeated your own point.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52456575]its disingenuous to compare the modern day globalization (where the entire world is connected together with massive volumes of trade and people going between them) where merchants travelling to china constitutes a fraction of the economy and population moving around.[/QUOTE] Who is disingenuous here? [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder#Mainland_Europe[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porcelain[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compass[/url]

[QUOTE=Killuah;52456581]Who is disingenuous here? [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder#Mainland_Europe[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porcelain[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compass[/url][/QUOTE] these inventions took centuries to diffuse over the continent you're the one being disingenuous by ignoring the fact that globalization is an extremely different thing today until about the 19th century, trading in silk and porcelain and people travelling to other countries was the exception, not the norm. until then the bulk of people lived by agriculture and rarely moved great distances

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52456588]these inventions took centuries to diffuse over the continent you're the one being disingenuous by ignoring the fact that globalization is an extremely different thing today until about the 19th century, trading in silk and porcelain and people travelling to other countries was the exception, not the norm. until then the bulk of people lived by agriculture and rarely moved great distances[/QUOTE] I hope when China makes a cure for cancer that people like you don't withold it here because it's not British enough because I need one after reading your posts.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52456588]these inventions took centuries to diffuse over the continent [/QUOTE] Hence why I said [quote] Globalisazion has happened ALL throughout human history, there would be no history without globalization, it just didn't happen as fast.[/quote] About the people moving... [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period[/url]

-snipe-

[QUOTE=pedrus24;52456648]Guys, can't you see that Sobotnik needs to be reassured. His xenophobia is altering is view on the world and he's obviously scared of what's gonna happen in the future. You will be okay man, no one will take your culture or your language. These brown people don't have magic powers to suck up the culture out of people's mind. Quite the opposite, you might end up with a richer culture.[/QUOTE] Learn from my stupid mistakes in the past, I think we should have a more respectful tone. Same for some of my posts up there btw.

Almost every highly-developed Western country today has a culture that is the culmination of a fusion of different peoples and cultures and traditions and values. Britain wouldn't be British without curry from India or tea from China. America wouldn't be America without the German hamburgers, Mexican burritos, English protestantism, French ideals of freedom, Spanish customs of the cowboy and ranchero, blah blah blah blah. I wouldn't even recognize my home state if you dropped me into a version that was 100% white English European. Culture and values change inevitably and the people who share them at any given time usually value these evolved customs and traditions. Muslims won't take over Europe, but Middle Eastern people will undoubtedly influence European and North America culture and the generations of people who come after us will appreciate these new cultures and treasure them like we treasure our cultures now. It's almost never a bad thing, just a different thing.

[QUOTE=Killuah;52456692]Learn from my stupid mistakes in the past, I think we should have a more respectful tone. Same for some of my posts up there btw.[/QUOTE] Fair enough.

[QUOTE=Killuah;52456636]Hence why I said[/quote] you're not getting the point that the globalisation of today is /fundamentally/ different to give an example, about 80% of all the worlds ties these days are produced in a small cluster of towns in southeast china - this is similar for many other products throughout the world (people buy and sell things globally, not locally anymore) until about the 19th century, most people did not earn their living by producing stuff for export to the other side of the world. 80-90% of the population supported themselves by agriculture and a tiny/fringe amount of total economic activity was concerned with global trade. the bulk of economic activity took place locally as people would eat most of what they grew and then preserved the rest or sold it locally (and virtually all industry prior to the industrial revolution was local in scope and scale) [quote][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period[/url][/QUOTE] a few tens of thousands of goths settling thrace is nothing like millions of migrant workers from China or Mexico going to other countries to find employment or settle down. my point is that you can't equate the globalization of the past to the globalization of today [QUOTE=DiscoInferno;52456614]I hope when China makes a cure for cancer that people like you don't withold it here because it's not British enough because I need one after reading your posts.[/QUOTE] this makes literally no sense whatsoever [QUOTE=Vodkavia;52456579]idk man maybe when humanity's ability to transfer information, products and themselves around the world improves as a result of an ever present economic demand it invariably continues because all of these interests and drivers have no sign of going poof over night and are pretty powerful? Saying globalization isn't inevitable is like saying automation isn't inevitable, sure if you're some sort of neoamish you could stave it off with legislation for a time, but see how well that goes. Or in the case of globalization being isolated diplomatically and not benefiting from nearly as much from international trade. Working out reaaaaaal good for Russia ohwait[/QUOTE] globalization is economically viable at present, but it may not always be (largely because its benefits are overblown and the downsides of it are hidden until later)

Sobotnik, atleast explain how you believe modern globalization can be undone or reversed. [editline]11th July 2017[/editline] I'm genuinely curious because I see it as a result of technology getting advanced enough, and technology advancing is certainly inevitable.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52456866] a few tens of thousands of goths settling thrace is nothing like millions of migrant workers from China or Mexico going to other countries to find employment or settle down. my point is that you can't equate the globalization of the past to the globalization of today [/QUOTE] You don't even know the massive significance if the Migration Period. The sheer amount of ignorance in phrasing it "a few tens of thousands of goths settling thrace "... This comes off a bit smug but how on Earth do you think you can form a valid opinion about modern migration patterns and implications if you can't even bother to learn about the past ones?

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;52456975]Sobotnik, atleast explain how you believe modern globalization can be undone or reversed. I'm genuinely curious because I see it as a result of technology getting advanced enough, and technology advancing is certainly inevitable.[/QUOTE] mostly it's due to the fragility of the system globalization requires the entire basis is that as the world is integrated into a single market and economy, this means in turn that local production of goods and services will generally tend to decline and will be replaced with production centralised in fewer areas due to reasons of both geography and economies of scale. the upside of this process is that production can be done on a truly massive scale due to the concentration of skills, capital, infrastructure, etc making it possible. the downside of this process means capital, skills, etc leaving places (the rural countryside, rustbelt towns, etc) for the big cities due to the opportunities therein. the problem globalization has is that by doing this on a global scale, you slowly shift these resources (skills, technology, capital, etc) to certain parts of the world. its why loads of western companies find it profitable to outsource labour to say china (or china to africa) because the scale of manufacturing is such that what would be a trivial sum to the small business would end up profitable to a large business. the consequences of this is that the entire global economy is now incredibly interlinked and interdependent. some countries will need to import virtually all of one good in order to manufacture another, others need other countries to export to in order to keep their economies running, etc. the more this process continues, the more interdependence is brought about. much of this only really benefits the companies involved in the process (people who lose their jobs through outsourcing or being undercut by foreign markets don't really benefit) now what do you suppose happens say a random event such as a war, disease, or revolution breaks out and it affects a particular country or area or industry crucial to the entire supply chain of another? you get stoppages and slowdowns and the entire system can grind to a halt and you get various resultant problems. given that the problems of global warming are mounting, environmental degradation is worsening, we face resource shortages, and inequality is growing. these are all stressors which a complex system can only handle up to a point. it's my view that an overly globalized system won't be able to bear that and could very well collapse [QUOTE=Killuah;52457016]You don't even know the massive significance if the Migration Period. The sheer amount of ignorance in phrasing it "a few tens of thousands of goths settling thrace "...[/QUOTE] the migration period wasn't millions of peoples moving all in tandem. it was armies (tens of thousands in size) that marched around europe carving out kingdoms from the decaying husk of the empire. the kinds of population movements we have seen in recent times (jews leaving europe to settle israel, the forced migrations within the soviet union, mexicans moving to the united states in the literal millions, etc) are completely different and it's stupid to compare the two as though they are the same [quote]This comes off a bit smug but how on Earth do you think you can form a valid opinion about modern migration patterns and implications if you can't even bother to learn about the past ones?[/quote] should ask the same of you tbh

[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;52455265]BTW guys, Globalization will not destroy tradition. Look at Europe for example. Their countries migrate to other countries all the time, pretty much everyone speaks English, and they're under an umbrella government. But their cultural traditions are wildly different. Sweden, Germany, and Italy have wildly different cultures even though they're basically stacked on each other (I know Austria and Denmark divide them but you get my point). What I'm trying to say is, Globalisation isn't the opposite of tradition.[/QUOTE] I mean there is some kind of gradual homogenisation that's been happening throughout history. Italians and Swedes kinda wear the same clothes, have a similar way of life, listen to the same music, etc. Of course there are still differences but if you were an Italian man going to Scandinavia in like 1000 AD you'd probably be in for a far greater culture shock. It's also a thing on a country level, like how virtually everyone in France speaks the same language, but this wasn't the case until fairly recently in the grand scheme of things. I don't know if that's a good or bad thing but anyway it's definitely not something that can be stopped (at least not in a way that's not tyrannical).

Sobotnik, may I ask your opinion in regards to build up of power in non-ethnicly centered or dominated groups (corporations, certain interest groups, etc) that came directly from the expansion of globalism?

[QUOTE=gufu;52458013]Sobotnik, may I ask your opinion in regards to build up of power in non-ethnicly centered or dominated groups (corporations, certain interest groups, etc) that came directly from the expansion of globalism?[/QUOTE] get rid of them

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52457720]mostly it's due to the fragility of the system globalization requires the entire basis is that as the world is integrated into a single market and economy, this means in turn that local production of goods and services will generally tend to decline and will be replaced with production centralised in fewer areas due to reasons of both geography and economies of scale. the upside of this process is that production can be done on a truly massive scale due to the concentration of skills, capital, infrastructure, etc making it possible. the downside of this process means capital, skills, etc leaving places (the rural countryside, rustbelt towns, etc) for the big cities due to the opportunities therein. the problem globalization has is that by doing this on a global scale, you slowly shift these resources (skills, technology, capital, etc) to certain parts of the world. its why loads of western companies find it profitable to outsource labour to say china (or china to africa) because the scale of manufacturing is such that what would be a trivial sum to the small business would end up profitable to a large business. the consequences of this is that the entire global economy is now incredibly interlinked and interdependent. some countries will need to import virtually all of one good in order to manufacture another, others need other countries to export to in order to keep their economies running, etc. the more this process continues, the more interdependence is brought about. much of this only really benefits the companies involved in the process (people who lose their jobs through outsourcing or being undercut by foreign markets don't really benefit) now what do you suppose happens say a random event such as a war, disease, or revolution breaks out and it affects a particular country or area or industry crucial to the entire supply chain of another? you get stoppages and slowdowns and the entire system can grind to a halt and you get various resultant problems. given that the problems of global warming are mounting, environmental degradation is worsening, we face resource shortages, and inequality is growing. these are all stressors which a complex system can only handle up to a point. it's my view that an overly globalized system won't be able to bear that and could very well collapse the migration period wasn't millions of peoples moving all in tandem. it was armies (tens of thousands in size) that marched around europe carving out kingdoms from the decaying husk of the empire. the kinds of population movements we have seen in recent times (jews leaving europe to settle israel, the forced migrations within the soviet union, mexicans moving to the united states in the literal millions, etc) are completely different and it's stupid to compare the two as though they are the same should ask the same of you tbh[/QUOTE] Yes, that is what globalisation is, the question that has been asked of you is how would you suggest to end globalisation, which has been creating immense interdependency between states for more than a century? More than just on a corporate or business level with the resources needed to make particular products, you need to explain how we go from the present, where there is no basically feasible way to feed everyone in most individual western countries with solely the food they could produce themselves. Then, you have to consider how many states in the west depend on resources that they wouldn't be able to produce for themselves period, because as it happens, noone in Europe has anything approaching the 268 billion barrels of oil reserves that Saudi Arabia has. Its all well and good identifying that a country and the businesses within a country need imported resources that aren't produced locally, but you can't magically conjure up a deposit filled with those resources if they simply do not exist locally Tl;dr how do you beat the Malthusian trap? How do you dismantle the current global financial system ? I'm sure someone else could explain in detail why that is far from a simple problem to solve Final question: assuming you are ambitious enough to try stop globalisation, how do you support the current and otherwise increasing levels of consumer-product innovation and production? The way I see it, globalisation has serious drawbacks, but interdependency heavily incentivises states to work together and to not engage in petty wars. On balance, the reasons that make the current system necessary far outweigh the drawbacks.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52458018]get rid of them[/QUOTE] Um... perhaps a little more in depth explanation would be interesting?

It's kinda scary how many people like Lauren's video. I feel like 10 years ago this type of video would be bombarded with dislikes, but maybe I just remember things differently or something. [img]http://i.imgur.com/eBPLxrv.png[/img] The comments on her video are also pretty insane too.

[QUOTE=Mr Nagasaki;52458231]It's kinda scary how many people like Lauren's video. I feel like 10 years ago this type of video would be bombarded with dislikes, but maybe I just remember things differently or something. [img]http://i.imgur.com/eBPLxrv.png[/img] The comments on her video are also pretty insane too.[/QUOTE] You're not imagining it. 10 years ago something this racist wouldn't have even been made at this high quality. It wouldn't have gotten this much exposure. I blame both sides. Obvious the racists and xenophobes are in the wrong, but both sides vehemently HATE the other. We need to see that these are real people. They have real fears. Instead of dismissing them we need to engage with them and make them question those fears in a logical way.

[QUOTE=Jack32;52452016]White people are having less children than the unlimited number of people who are flooding into Europe. There's no way to work around the fact that statistically this means that Europeans will be a minority in their native countries by the end of this century, that's just basic math.[/QUOTE] this is like seeing 20 people enter a house for a party and going "within a year, over 7000 people will live here!"

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52457720] the migration period wasn't millions of peoples moving all in tandem.[/quote] Who said that though? [quote] it was armies (tens of thousands in size) that marched around europe carving out kingdoms from the decaying husk of the empire.[/quote] No it wasn't. Can you at least bother to read the wiki article? [editline]11th July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;52457720] should ask the same of you tbh[/QUOTE] just wow [editline]11th July 2017[/editline] Also you succesfully shifted the discussion from your ridiculous [QUOTE=Sobotnik;52453174]the people becoming minorities in their own countries presumably?[/QUOTE] to you defending "globalization=always bad" Which is quite counterproductive. Globalization does have great dangers, mainly giving capital more power and producers less, but your valid criticism of it gets lost as you chose to use it in defense of "the great replacement". Duuuude.

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;52458475]I like how his explanation of why Globalization is fragile is actually a reason why its not. If the production of x y z products is centralized in different places that [I]prevents[/I] war from happening because it gives everyone a vested interest in seeing their neighbors and their neighbors industries not collapse.[/QUOTE] The whole economy thing he tried to explain there is pretty wrong to begin with as the "war, catastrophe and so on" example would have even worse effects in a secluded economy.

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;52458475]I like how his explanation of why Globalization is fragile is actually a reason why its not. If the production of x y z products is centralized in different places that [I]prevents[/I] war from happening because it gives everyone a vested interest in seeing their neighbors and their neighbors industries not collapse.[/QUOTE] you're undermining your entire argument by saying this. that makes it more fragile, not less it makes wars rarer but more deadly when they blow up (loads of people were predicting that WW1 wouldn't happen for exactly the reasons you described) that's the entire point [QUOTE=Killuah;52458502]The whole economy thing he tried to explain there is pretty wrong to begin with as the "war, catastrophe and so on" example would have even worse effects in a secluded economy.[/QUOTE] a country that imports a lot of its food (ww2 britain for instance) is at greater risk of hunger in the event of war if you have attacks on merchant shipping/blockades. one of the massive downsides to being reliant on international shipping is the fact that events like world wars and blockades and raids on shipping can happen if the country is able to produce more of its basic resources (food for instance) domestically, then the impact of a blockade won't be as crippling [editline]11th July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=gufu;52458061]Um... perhaps a little more in depth explanation would be interesting?[/QUOTE] break up corporations that reach too big a size, ban them from offshoring, heavy restrictions on outsourcing labour, force them to hire within the country if they are headquartered/based there. i know this will impact some economic efficiency (maybe the price of ball bearings goes up 3% or something), but its to deter them from taking small cost-cutting measures that have a disproportionate impact (their profits grow slightly while jobs, skills, and communities are damaged and lost at home)

Question for everyone that's worried about their culture dying and getting replaced by immigrants. How do you feel about gentrification? I mean, if you're super against new people coming in and changing your culture, you should be rallying against gentrification right now.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52457720] the migration period wasn't millions of peoples moving all in tandem. it was armies (tens of thousands in size) that marched around europe carving out kingdoms from the decaying husk of the empire. the kinds of population movements we have seen in recent times (jews leaving europe to settle israel, the forced migrations within the soviet union, mexicans moving to the united states in the literal millions, etc) are completely different and it's stupid to compare the two as though they are the same [/QUOTE] This is such an unbelievably historically ignorant perspective that I don't know where to start. You're trying to say that the Great Migration was just "armies carving out kingdoms," ignoring that [I]it necessarily involves migrating and displacing other ethnic groups.[/I] The French people today [I]wouldn't fucking exist[/I] if Gaul hadn't been conquered by the Romans, and then overthrown by the Franks. Should we return France to the ancestral Celtics, as they were the "original" group? Or only the neanderthals who populated it before we killed them off? You don't seem to like that the Jews took over a state occupied by another ethnic group. Where should they go, then, if you want purely ethnonationalist states? Who should give them that land? If we put them in, say, Germany, what about the Germans already living there? Why should they be forced to move? Where do you put the Roma and the Jews and these other groups with no defined homeland if you're going to define everything by ethnicity? What about African-Americans, who were taken during the slave trade and forcibly removed from their homeland? Should you just dump them back in Africa, where they belong, since they're not "really" American? Should we kill all the white people in America and split it back up among the Native American tribes? You seem to think that voluntary migration is a [I]terrible horrible thing[/I] that needs to be stopped, but you have no problem with historical migrations involving [B]massive[/B] warfare and bloodshed. It's a fantastic thing that populations are free to move around and that demographic shifts can occur in peace - because historically, that almost exclusively occurred when one ethnic group busted in and started killing the locals. It's your pick, though - a return to ethnonationalist imperialism and colonialism, or "oh no they're outbreeding us!" [editline]11th July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;52458642]you're undermining your entire argument by saying this. that makes it more fragile, not less it makes wars rarer but more deadly when they blow up (loads of people were predicting that WW1 wouldn't happen for exactly the reasons you described) that's the entire point a country that imports a lot of its food (ww2 britain for instance) is at greater risk of hunger in the event of war if you have attacks on merchant shipping/blockades. one of the massive downsides to being reliant on international shipping is the fact that events like world wars and blockades and raids on shipping can happen if the country is able to produce more of its basic resources (food for instance) domestically, then the impact of a blockade won't be as crippling [editline]11th July 2017[/editline] break up corporations that reach too big a size, ban them from offshoring, heavy restrictions on outsourcing labour, force them to hire within the country if they are headquartered/based there. i know this will impact some economic efficiency (maybe the price of ball bearings goes up 3% or something), but its to deter them from taking small cost-cutting measures that have a disproportionate impact (their profits grow slightly while jobs, skills, and communities are damaged and lost at home)[/QUOTE] You know that one major side effect of globalization is that countries are [I]less likely to go to war[/I] because they have stakes in other countries around the globe? If you're importing all your food, you aren't able to declare an imperialist war on your neighbors, because then you have no food. So you don't even do it. Do you know why we don't have many blockades anymore? Because resource disputes are solved through legal dispute settlement mechanisms through the WTO and other ITOs instead of sending young men to die with a rifle in hand. Ethnonationalism would increase warfare, end of. If you're a self-sustaining state who doesn't require trade with other states, and you get into an argument with another self-sustaining state over a newly-discovered offshore oil drilling site, what do you do? You fight over it, since you don't rely on that state for anything. In a globalized society, you trade with that state, and you recognize that a military dispute over a single oil platform wouldn't be worthwhile compared to the revenue lost from trade. So, you argue in court, you debate, maybe make a settlement, nobody dies.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;52459557]It's a fantastic thing that populations are free to move around and that demographic shifts can occur in peace - because historically, that almost exclusively occurred when one ethnic group busted in and started killing the locals.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't say it's peaceful. Sure, locals aren't being killed. But in a lot of instances, most notably in California, people are getting forced out of their homes against their will due increased CoL that come from an influx of immigrants. Instead of subcultures declining quickly with bloodshed, they're declining slowly through our global economy. Obviously it's your opinion as to whether or not it's bad. I've experienced this firsthand (I was born and raised in the SF bay area) so I think it's bad. It sucks to have friends you've known your entire life be forced to move across the country.