The nation state model is completely obsolete in the 21st century and it causes more harm than good i.e whenever a state fails it causes a humanitarian crisis as people flee and have to beg for asylum elsewhere.
The solution is not to become a reactionary supporting the return of imperialism but rather pushing for decentralization, open borders and the dissolution of state structures until the world becomes a patchwork of anarchist communes freely trading goods and allowing the free passage of peoples amongst themselves, ensuring the maximum amount of human freedom.
This is the next step in the political evolution of humanity and international relations.
Sounds like a one-way ticket to being subverted by corporations who would persist by virtue of their own bureaucracy being essential to function on a global scale. They'd just replace the disbanded national institutions with a commodified service indistinguishable from paying taxes.
Which I guess is all right if you're an AnCap.
People dont live in communities anymore. People don't even know their neighbours. How are these kinds of people supposed to form "anarchist communes" especially when youre throwing in open borders thats just going to increase collective distrust and tribalism? (people fight over resources)
Why do people type out retarded tranny delusions like this? I know all my neighbors and we watch out for each other's property when someone leaves town. Do you live in some gated suburb full of homosexuals from California?
>why do social spergs who at best only hang out with other social spergs on the mongolian basket weaving forum think everybody is as isolated as they are
>Do you live in some gated suburb full of homosexuals from California?
Most people in modern America live in low trust urban areas or atomized suburbs. Rural areas and whatever tight-knit suburbs still exist are nice but its ridiculous to act like most people live in those places nowadays. Its not the 50s anymore.
This is one of my criticisms of anarchism, although decentralization of power might be nice, if you rely on collective identities (any form of "the people" that isn't just people) and "the community" rather than humanity, tribalism won't lose any ground
Feudalism couldn't have come into existence without Rome laying the foundations, what we need back is tribes and tribal confederacies, the natural organisation of man. Romecucks destroyed tribes in Europe and the Roman Cuckolic church finished the job. Warlords are inevitable even in today's world, you can't escape warlordism post agriculture unless you don't count tribal chiefs leading their people to glory.
Thats weird because there are places all over asia that had economic and social organization that were extremely similar to feudalism. Rome never went there as far as I can tell.
Serms like we agree that anarchist communes built on free association arent really very realistic at all.
Well most if not all of these feudal lands were initially united under an Empire that destroyed tribal identities, such as in India or Persia. In MENA feudalism did coexist with Tribalism but it was a natural consequence of tribal people conquering Imperial lands like what we saw with Germanics conquering West Rome. As for the anarchist communes thing tbh I don't know enough about how past attempts played out but I feel as though theymight be able to work if the whole world were made up of them, though I could see it being vulnerable to personality cults or tribalism.
Well whatever comes next will also be coming out of a giant globohomo empire, so theres that.
I think your thoughts on the vulnerabilities of anarchist communes are very warranted.
westerners are raised to worship shitty fucking societies because "big colour map show big border"
roman empire was fucking evil, british empire was fucking evil, spanish empire was evil, the ottoman empire was evil
they all fucking sucked and good fucking riddance to their existance
lenin and trot where right, schopenhaur was right, sarte was right, derrida was right, deleuze and the unwrittable name friend of his was right, emil fromm was right
The Spanish Empire wasn't evil.
Rome was proto-globohomo, spreading foreigners in Europe and forcing a middle eastern religion onto it, having a shitty trade balance with the east (getting rid of important resources like iron in exchange for worthless crap like silk), kidnapped heirs to regions they wanted to conquer or get tribute from, etc.
Brits claimed to spread civilization but really it was the time's equivalent of waging wars for Wall St (not that it was the only empire to work for the rich, but with Spain for example at least people could move to the New World to start over instead of rotting in Europe, meanwhile Britain's only colonies that had that to any decent degree were the ones from before the empire save for Australia/NZ). Who got to benefit from subduing Africa and India, for example? Unlike Spanish colonization it didn't even improve people's lives back at home with new crops and it was the first pajeet outsourcing bonanza to top it off.
Ottomans I don't think I need to go on about, anyone in a history board should know about them.
So why do you think the Spanish were evil? Some black legend bullshit about how they grinded babies for breakfast or something? Meanwhile it was with them that notions of human rights first came about and those other empires were unspeakably more brutal with conquered peoples. Maybe you're one of those retards who act as if they had a lab dedicated to biological warfare to target indians they didn't even know were there before arriving?
>Meanwhile it was with them that notions of human rights first came about and those other empires were unspeakably more brutal with conquered peoples
All that happened literally because the first -and subsequent - Spanish that arrived in the Americas started abusing the fuck out of the locals to the point that even other Spaniards were disgusted by the treatment lol
Wow it's almost like not everyone in a major endeavor like colonization is the same lovey dovey kind of person! Almost like they sent a bunch of soldiers who were veterans from fighting muslims for centuries or something. Even then, it was they who came up with the notion that things had to be done differently, regardless of whether you think the idea of converting the injuns was noble it was done with the argument that they had a soul as well and therefore shouldn't be subject to those things. Meanwhile killing injuns was just another Monday in British colonies, they didn't give two shits about it and made movies glorifying it until only a few decades ago at the same time they called Spaniards genocidal maniacs. The only way to claim British colonies were morally superior is if your guiding light is racial purity (or however else you want to call it) since that was basically their modus operandi. And that's not talking about how brits had literal state sanctioned pirates but then had the gall to claim they supported free trade.
Modern Caribbean populations have quite a bit of indigenous blood, certainly more than in the US where they were consciously targeted for genocide, including through things like killing bisons so they had no game to hunt. Comparing purposeful targeting with disease as a result of bridging previously unconnected populations back in a time when people had no idea that would happen until it did is ignorant at best and dishonest at worst. Spain never promoted hunting Caribbean injuns down to the last man, destroying their food sources or anything like that.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Spain never promoted hunting Caribbean injuns down to the last man, destroying their food sources or anything like that.
I get the feeling Bartolomé de Las Casas would disagree with you there, chief
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Enslaving != killing
And even then notice how some of them worried about that system and wanted to change it, no such thing happened in the British colonies for centuries
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Modern Caribbean populations have quite a bit of indigenous blood >Quite a bit
Lmao most Puerto Ricans have a decent portion of ancestry, and a tiny fraction of Cubans in the same boat. But aside from them there are only trace percentages found in blacks and rarely in whites. In fact most Cubans with native blood get it from Mestizos/Mesoamericans who moved over across the Gulf.
Phillipines are catholic but they're still distinct from Italy, which is itself distinct from Mexico, which is itself distinct from France.
Christianity isn't actually about global homogeny.
It is spiritual-philosophical truth, simple as. It's prototypes are already in pagan religions.
Is it "globohomo" when every country has a system for plumbing and internet?
Before the introduction of christianity there would be no reason to, for example, welcome a Syrian in Gaul. Later that foreigner would be a "christian brother". Universal religions generally spearhead the dissolution of ethnic groups (not using the term ethnostate here since Gaul obviously wasn't one, but think of the example I mentioned to illustrate it - someone from the Middle East arriving in there before they were christian and without being brought by Rome)
>Meanwhile it was with them that notions of human rights first came about and those other empires were unspeakably more brutal with conquered peoples.
Most Andeans post contact died not from disease or warfare but from being forced into gold & silver mines in brutal conditions and worked to death. Spaniards also forced European style serfdom upon the Amerindians and you should already know about what they did to the Taino, even contemporary Spanish priests were writing in horror about it. You will never be white, Pablo.
Americans can't understand this sentiment because you didn't get your rump state yet. But everyone gets their rump state eventually
What would the American rump state even be? The former colonial states? Washington DC and nothing else?
After America is balkanized decades in the future they'll be vghing about what it must have been like to have one united states from coast to coast.
>After America is balkanized decades in the future
Ah thirdies and their delusions
The nation state model is completely obsolete in the 21st century and it causes more harm than good i.e whenever a state fails it causes a humanitarian crisis as people flee and have to beg for asylum elsewhere.
The solution is not to become a reactionary supporting the return of imperialism but rather pushing for decentralization, open borders and the dissolution of state structures until the world becomes a patchwork of anarchist communes freely trading goods and allowing the free passage of peoples amongst themselves, ensuring the maximum amount of human freedom.
This is the next step in the political evolution of humanity and international relations.
Sounds like a one-way ticket to being subverted by corporations who would persist by virtue of their own bureaucracy being essential to function on a global scale. They'd just replace the disbanded national institutions with a commodified service indistinguishable from paying taxes.
Which I guess is all right if you're an AnCap.
People dont live in communities anymore. People don't even know their neighbours. How are these kinds of people supposed to form "anarchist communes" especially when youre throwing in open borders thats just going to increase collective distrust and tribalism? (people fight over resources)
Why do people type out retarded tranny delusions like this? I know all my neighbors and we watch out for each other's property when someone leaves town. Do you live in some gated suburb full of homosexuals from California?
>why do social spergs who at best only hang out with other social spergs on the mongolian basket weaving forum think everybody is as isolated as they are
>Do you live in some gated suburb full of homosexuals from California?
Most people in modern America live in low trust urban areas or atomized suburbs. Rural areas and whatever tight-knit suburbs still exist are nice but its ridiculous to act like most people live in those places nowadays. Its not the 50s anymore.
This is one of my criticisms of anarchism, although decentralization of power might be nice, if you rely on collective identities (any form of "the people" that isn't just people) and "the community" rather than humanity, tribalism won't lose any ground
Whats gonna stop a return of feudalism and warlords once states have been gotten rid of?
Feudalism couldn't have come into existence without Rome laying the foundations, what we need back is tribes and tribal confederacies, the natural organisation of man. Romecucks destroyed tribes in Europe and the Roman Cuckolic church finished the job. Warlords are inevitable even in today's world, you can't escape warlordism post agriculture unless you don't count tribal chiefs leading their people to glory.
Thats weird because there are places all over asia that had economic and social organization that were extremely similar to feudalism. Rome never went there as far as I can tell.
Serms like we agree that anarchist communes built on free association arent really very realistic at all.
Well most if not all of these feudal lands were initially united under an Empire that destroyed tribal identities, such as in India or Persia. In MENA feudalism did coexist with Tribalism but it was a natural consequence of tribal people conquering Imperial lands like what we saw with Germanics conquering West Rome. As for the anarchist communes thing tbh I don't know enough about how past attempts played out but I feel as though theymight be able to work if the whole world were made up of them, though I could see it being vulnerable to personality cults or tribalism.
Well whatever comes next will also be coming out of a giant globohomo empire, so theres that.
I think your thoughts on the vulnerabilities of anarchist communes are very warranted.
Dumb and idealistic.
ok homosexual, let me in your house I need asylum.
>naggers move to your commune and take all of your shit
Enjoy your "freedom"
kill yourself, like immediately
It's just the sunk cost fallacy.
> shitty land
meh 😐
> shitty land which you had in the past
zoom zoom! XD
westerners are raised to worship shitty fucking societies because "big colour map show big border"
roman empire was fucking evil, british empire was fucking evil, spanish empire was evil, the ottoman empire was evil
they all fucking sucked and good fucking riddance to their existance
lenin and trot where right, schopenhaur was right, sarte was right, derrida was right, deleuze and the unwrittable name friend of his was right, emil fromm was right
Why even post on LULZ if you dont give a shit about history?
The Spanish Empire wasn't evil.
Rome was proto-globohomo, spreading foreigners in Europe and forcing a middle eastern religion onto it, having a shitty trade balance with the east (getting rid of important resources like iron in exchange for worthless crap like silk), kidnapped heirs to regions they wanted to conquer or get tribute from, etc.
Brits claimed to spread civilization but really it was the time's equivalent of waging wars for Wall St (not that it was the only empire to work for the rich, but with Spain for example at least people could move to the New World to start over instead of rotting in Europe, meanwhile Britain's only colonies that had that to any decent degree were the ones from before the empire save for Australia/NZ). Who got to benefit from subduing Africa and India, for example? Unlike Spanish colonization it didn't even improve people's lives back at home with new crops and it was the first pajeet outsourcing bonanza to top it off.
Ottomans I don't think I need to go on about, anyone in a history board should know about them.
So why do you think the Spanish were evil? Some black legend bullshit about how they grinded babies for breakfast or something? Meanwhile it was with them that notions of human rights first came about and those other empires were unspeakably more brutal with conquered peoples. Maybe you're one of those retards who act as if they had a lab dedicated to biological warfare to target indians they didn't even know were there before arriving?
>worthless crap like silk
>Meanwhile it was with them that notions of human rights first came about and those other empires were unspeakably more brutal with conquered peoples
All that happened literally because the first -and subsequent - Spanish that arrived in the Americas started abusing the fuck out of the locals to the point that even other Spaniards were disgusted by the treatment lol
Wow it's almost like not everyone in a major endeavor like colonization is the same lovey dovey kind of person! Almost like they sent a bunch of soldiers who were veterans from fighting muslims for centuries or something. Even then, it was they who came up with the notion that things had to be done differently, regardless of whether you think the idea of converting the injuns was noble it was done with the argument that they had a soul as well and therefore shouldn't be subject to those things. Meanwhile killing injuns was just another Monday in British colonies, they didn't give two shits about it and made movies glorifying it until only a few decades ago at the same time they called Spaniards genocidal maniacs. The only way to claim British colonies were morally superior is if your guiding light is racial purity (or however else you want to call it) since that was basically their modus operandi. And that's not talking about how brits had literal state sanctioned pirates but then had the gall to claim they supported free trade.
And the indigenous people of the Caribbean, where are they now?
Modern Caribbean populations have quite a bit of indigenous blood, certainly more than in the US where they were consciously targeted for genocide, including through things like killing bisons so they had no game to hunt. Comparing purposeful targeting with disease as a result of bridging previously unconnected populations back in a time when people had no idea that would happen until it did is ignorant at best and dishonest at worst. Spain never promoted hunting Caribbean injuns down to the last man, destroying their food sources or anything like that.
>Spain never promoted hunting Caribbean injuns down to the last man, destroying their food sources or anything like that.
I get the feeling Bartolomé de Las Casas would disagree with you there, chief
Enslaving != killing
And even then notice how some of them worried about that system and wanted to change it, no such thing happened in the British colonies for centuries
>Modern Caribbean populations have quite a bit of indigenous blood
>Quite a bit
Lmao most Puerto Ricans have a decent portion of ancestry, and a tiny fraction of Cubans in the same boat. But aside from them there are only trace percentages found in blacks and rarely in whites. In fact most Cubans with native blood get it from Mestizos/Mesoamericans who moved over across the Gulf.
Phillipines are catholic but they're still distinct from Italy, which is itself distinct from Mexico, which is itself distinct from France.
Christianity isn't actually about global homogeny.
It is spiritual-philosophical truth, simple as. It's prototypes are already in pagan religions.
Is it "globohomo" when every country has a system for plumbing and internet?
Before the introduction of christianity there would be no reason to, for example, welcome a Syrian in Gaul. Later that foreigner would be a "christian brother". Universal religions generally spearhead the dissolution of ethnic groups (not using the term ethnostate here since Gaul obviously wasn't one, but think of the example I mentioned to illustrate it - someone from the Middle East arriving in there before they were christian and without being brought by Rome)
if it's true, it's true.
global muttification isn't a christian problem it's a free market problem.
shut the fuck up Mexican you will never be white
>Meanwhile it was with them that notions of human rights first came about and those other empires were unspeakably more brutal with conquered peoples.
Most Andeans post contact died not from disease or warfare but from being forced into gold & silver mines in brutal conditions and worked to death. Spaniards also forced European style serfdom upon the Amerindians and you should already know about what they did to the Taino, even contemporary Spanish priests were writing in horror about it. You will never be white, Pablo.
>The Spanish Empire wasn't evil.
>muh black legend
>muh evil Brits
OK, brownoid.
Oh my Science, if I could give you all my updoots!