Why Democracy, Nationalism, And Globalist Economics Can’t Coexist

As several writers of ROK have pointed out, binary oppositions can trap people into ways of thinking and acting that lead to that other real or potential options are neglected. It might concern for example politics, culture and economics.

With regard to the latter, an obvious mistake is to think that the balanced option between capitalism and socialism is the Third way, the political-economic model promoted by scholars such as Anthony Giddens and popularized by not the least Scandinavian Social Democrats and the Tony Blair and Bill Clinton administrations in the early 1990s.

Of course, the Third way adherents make some good points on the benefits and flaws of Western capitalism and socialism and that one can combine elements from both, but it also solidifies the globalist narrative and its results has largely been devastating. Not just economically, since economics, politics and culture tend to go hand in hand. The same who promote the Third way do also cherish large-scale immigration and third-wave feminism.

Some might say that other available options already exist—for instance Buddhist civilizations have ideas that go beyond the Western binary opposition—but for Westerners, nation states, globalism and democracy are the general main factors that have to be taken into account, since those are largely what our curent world hinges upon, whether one likes it or not.

A scholar that can offer some guidance in this respect is the Turkish economist Dani Rodrik, especially his book The Globalization Paradox (2011). As a Harvard University economist he surely has intellectual limitations, but his vast knowledge about world economic history, in conjunction with many reasonable viewpoints, can help one to overcome at least some of the most basic false dichotomies.

Plus, these ideas are good to refer to when one discusses with pro-globalists who actually think that democracy and nation states also are two good things. But it seems that they have to choose, and people might as well be informed about that.

What is the globalization paradox?

A large share of Rodrik’s book is about economic history and some of the failures and success stories of the past. The failures include for instance Latin American countries during the 1970s and 80s that were based on neo-financial liberalization theories, and the success stories focus on for instance the Four Asian tigers (Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong).

Some of these are already well-known facts, but the general reader can likely learn a great deal from this book. He also mentions the Bretton Woods system and its benefits, which historically represents the ”smart globalization” that Rodrik promotes:

The imbalance between the national scope of governance and the global nature of markets forms the soft underbelly of globalization. A healthy economic system necessitates a delicate compromise between these two. Give to much power to the governments, and you have protectionism and autarky. Give markets too much freedom, and you have an unstable world economy with little social and political support from those it is supposed to help.


So we have to make some choices. Let me be clear about mine: democracy and national determination should trump hyperglobalization. Democracies have the right to protect their social arrangements, and when this right clashes with the requirements of the global economy, it is the latter that should give away. We need smart globalization, not maximum globalization.

Rodrik appears to be insightful when he explains the so-called political trilemma of (world) economy:

In particular, you begin to understand what I would like to call the fundamental political trilemma of economy: we cannot simultaneously pursue democracy, national determination, and economic globalization. If we want to push globalization further, we have to give up either the nation state or democratic politics. If we want to maintain and deepen democracy, we have to choose between the nation state and international economic integration. And if we want to keep the nation state and self-determination, we have to choose between deepening democracy and deepening globalization.

Can a light version of globalization be a realistic option?

Rodrik’s alternative narrative might not help anyone to escape the binary trap between nationalism and globalism, but it still sheds light on some of the major problems that the deepening of globalization implicates. Plus, it offers a balanced view on the current world and some fairly realistic and available pathways for Western nations.

Anyone who is at least slightly informed on world economic history knows that the balanced globalization of the past has been beneficial for peaceful material development, at least in the West and East Asia, and if one values democracy and national sovereignty (and in fact, some authoritarian nations, such as China, will get a pass because it is too difficult to let democracy flourish there, and it is hard for anyone to change this fact).

The “hyperglobalists” might want to go in another direction and it is indeed very difficult for most people to do something about where things are heading. But normal and sane people who want to have a balanced perspective on economy and politics (not too much globalization, not too much immigration, but some globalization and immigration etc.) can still propose smarter views on these significant topics, and to be smarter than the elites is at least worth something.

Read More: 5 Steps For Saving The American Economy

145 thoughts on “Why Democracy, Nationalism, And Globalist Economics Can’t Coexist”

  1. Globalization does not work, under any circumstances. Why would anyone think that having a one world government be a good thing? Say it happens magically, and everyone is hunky dory under one roof. That may be fine, for a short time, but like the old axiom “absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Eventually, some tyrant will come into power. What then, do we go to live on the moon? What would be the recourse?

    1. Right on, fuck all this NWO bullshit. Outer space travel and colonization would throw off centralized control which is why it isn’t funded anymore. Means you can’t bow down to Soros Rockefeller Rothschilds Kissinger etc when you run your own planet /asteroid/ whatever, and that is an absolute no-no, we must bow down to our globalist pig dog masters…. not

      1. “Outer space travel” is one of the biggest ways they screw us to fund crap like NASA which has no practical value and is just there to buy votes and politicians and make govt contractor wealthy for pie-in-the-sky Mars colonization fantasies…but oh, those beautiful pictures of super novas and Mars rovers!

        1. Agreed.
          Real space travel would be nothing like the movies and nothing like the colonization of America.
          There is simply no comparison between the distance of the Atlantic from shore to shore and the distance between earth and mars let alone between earth and the nearest star.
          It’s funny how people romanticize a trip to mars but would NEVER look at living on board a nuclear sub for months (let alone decades!) that way.
          Yet that is exactly what life would be like aboard any spaceship to take us there.

        2. Space colonization is the only long term prospect for the survival of mankind unless you believe in the Rapture non-sense. Moreover the race to the stars spurred the development of a great number of technologies. It has a lot more practical value than an Autonomous cars where your every movement will be monitored, stored and analyzed, a machine over which you will have zero real control.

        3. It’s a great relief that my ancestors didn’t think like you. Otherwise we would have followed the path of China and gazed at our navels for millennia.

        4. Space colonization IS government religion. You are the one who believes in “the Rapture” if you think that the world will end and we must colonize planets or mankind will die…that is Rapture/Doomsday talk.
          “Moreover the race to the stars spurred the development of a great number of technologies.” This is more Govt/NASA/Defense Contractor propaganda. Name me ONE technology that we would not have had without wasteful space programs.
          “It has a lot more practical value than an Autonomous cars where your
          every movement will be monitored, stored and analyzed, a machine over
          which you will have zero real control.”
          Ha! You trust the government to put you on a Space Ship to Mars! Yeah, go ride the Challenger and Columbia.

        5. Space colonization IS government religion. You are the one who
          believes in “the Rapture” if you think that the world will end and we
          must colonize planets or mankind will die…that is Rapture/Doomsday

          Either you believe the Earth has infinite resources or that our consumerist lifestyle is sustainable, (or want a return to the life standards of the ancient world) otherwise you cannot believe your own crap. Moreover there are many circumstances that guarantee most of the bloodlines alive today will not make it to the 2100. It’s not mumbojumbo it’s just common sense. Even counting out the man-made disasters (wars, bio-terrorism, a elite-run global depopulation plague gone awry, chemical pollution aka real pollution) natural disasters can do us in very easily (supervolcanoes, meteors, etc.)

          “Moreover the race to the stars spurred the development of a great
          number of technologies.” This is more Govt/NASA/Defense Contractor
          propaganda. Name me ONE technology that we would not have had without wasteful space programs.

          CAT Scanners, cordless tools, joystick, LEDs, smoke detectors etc. etc.

          Ha! You trust the government to put you on a Space Ship to Mars! Yeah, go ride the Challenger and Columbia.

          You are the one who put the government in this. Moreover space exploration still beats developing apps to facilitate porn habits or creating more realistic sexbots , more efficient autonomous cars or giving welfare to single mothers, regardless of race.

        6. If there ever was a crude device to implement faster than light travel or space warping then distance wouldn’t matter, but all the outer space tech that the NWO seems to care about is surveillance, they’ve effectively created a shield around this planet where they can see everything that happens anywhere. NASA, which is a shit show now, talks and talks about their dreams to do this and that but all their programs are revolving around a liberal’s interpretation of space diversity. Space ‘travel’ has never really been invested in with enough time and money as other aspects of outer space, even space living.

        7. I don’t know how many resources the earth has…and neither do you or anyone else. 

When I was 10, I remember that we were supposed to run out of oil between 2015 and 2020. In 1798, Thomas Malthus predicted that around the 20th century there would be mass starvation because population increases geometrically and the food supply increases arithmetically…so we need population control and other government dominance of our lives.

If we are “running out of resources” why are petroleum, copper, etc. at record low prices? Why is it cheaper to mine bauxite and make aluminum than it is to recycle existing aluminum?

          All Doomsday predictions are an excuse for more government control.

”Moreover there are many circumstances that guarantee most of the bloodlines alive today will not make it to the 2100″
          Guaranteed by who? God? Your prophet? Nostradamus? Some government Ph.D?
          I DO NOT believe the Western consumerist lifestyle is sustainable. Why? Because it is based on fiat currency i.e. money printing and debt…not because the earth is “running out of resources.”

          “CAT Scanners, cordless tools, joystick, LEDs, smoke detectors etc. etc.” would have all existed anyway…and at lower cost to society, without stealing money at the point of a gun via taxation so that government contractors can enrich themselves and buy politicians and votes.

Much real innovation is invented by private individuals and companies and stolen by govt and their cronies…(Tucker who developed fuel injection, disc brakes, etc. vs. GM/Ford/Chrysler, the intermittent windshield wiper, etc. etc.)

          Space exploration = government subsidies and tax extortion. 

I certainly did not “put the government in this”

Do you think Elon Musk is going to send you to Mars without a dime of taxpayer money? Dream on. If it wasn’t for taxpayer money, none of his businesses would be viable.
          If Elon Musk thinks that humans can live in an extremely cold place with no oxygen and no water, well, good for him. He can spend his own money to pursue that goal.
          If people want to spend their own money on “apps to facilitate porn habits and more realistic sexbots” then that is their right and privilege.
          The second that NASA or Elon Musk or anyone takes extorted taxpayer money to pay for their Mars fantasies and wet dreams, then they are no better than single mother welfare recipients, regardless of race.


If we are “running out of resources” why are petroleum, copper, etc. at record low prices? Why is it cheaper to mine bauxite and make aluminum than it is to recycle existing aluminum?

          Our extraction technology has improved. However the point is what is the “real” cost is, taking into account former arable lands now unusable for x amount of years due to chemical pollution, how many underground water sources were destroyed in the extraction process thus reducing the amount of fresh water people has at disposal, etc. etc. This real cost is not normally taken into account in the cost calculations, these are called in economics externalities, there’s no equivalent to the logistics concept “Total landed costs” for mining. By the same token the “prices” of foodstuffs have sunk, so to speak, however so have its nutritional values….


”Moreover there are many circumstances that guarantee most of the bloodlines alive today will not make it to the 2100″
          Guaranteed by who? God? Your prophet? Nostradamus? Some government Ph.D?

          By human nature. Look if you believe humans will not use weapons of massive destruction in this century, I have a couple of bridges to sell you in Hamburg. Actually UFO sightings are more credible than your silly conviction.

          I DO NOT believe the Western consumerist lifestyle is sustainable. Why? Because it is based on fiat currency i.e. money printing and debt…not because the earth is “running out of resources.”

          Not only that. It’s not sustainable due to our industrial practices with a penchant to pollute water and soil unnecessarily spreading substances whose effects on human biology are not completely known and which are wreaking havoc on wildlife (xeno-oestrogens anyone?) not because our lack of resources.


Do you think Elon Musk is going to send you to Mars without a dime of taxpayer money? Dream on. If it wasn’t for taxpayer money, none of his businesses would be viable.

          Elon Musk is likely running a scam. However my humble proposal was something way simpler…i.e. make the government offer a reward for anyone who discovers a reliable device to enable artificial gravity for the crew in spaceships at a reasonable costs and within the limits of our propulsion technology, thus making long-distance space travel feasible for human beings. Something similar was done in order to discover Longitude, the British empire in the 1700 hundreds offered thousands of pounds. This very webpage ran an article on the topic http://www.returnofkings.com/109297/how-john-harrison-solved-the-explorers-problem-of-longitude

          If people want to spend their own money on “apps to facilitate porn habits and more realistic sexbots” then that is their right and privilege.

          Which proves why most people were denied the right to vote by the Founding Fathers of your country.

        9. I love this comment, it really strikes me. I am going on the record as saying “fuck Buddhist monks”
          My guess is that on career day in Nepal when they are like ok, you can be a yak herder, you can summit the mountain with rich white people who need guides or you can sit around and chant all day that it is fairly easy to figure out who has the longest line.
          The abject fear of action found in Buddhist dogma is anathema to everything that is good about America. I hate to no true Scotsman but sometimes it is actually correct and in this case very clearly so. No true American can be a Buddhist. There is a spirit of exploration and action, a spirit of invention and creativity, a spirit of discovery and conquest that permeates every aspect of American life and has no room for the cowardly weakness that is Buddhism. Manifest fucking destiny baby

        10. America, fuck yeah! We’re coming again to save the mutherfuckin’ day.
          The idea that spirituality means crushing down our power to impact and change the world truly is counter to the American soul. It comes down to this: life is either good, or life is evil. If you believe that life is evil, you will be a low-impact waste-oid, filled with ongoing critique of everything in the world. If you believe life is good, you will boldly press out into the world to be a part of it. That is the American character recognized by the world, whether they like it or they dislike it.

        11. Look into the word Ephemeralization – the principle of containtly doing more with less via technological breakthroughs, e.g original telephone cables were over an inch thick copper, fast forward to now and we are doing so much more with fibre optics and wifi.

      2. No, not that reason, most countries technologically aren’t even of the medieval era to say the least. Space can only be conquered only by the most developed nations, the rest should stay here forever, with soros be sure they could make a small colony for them to live if things here become too bad and dangerous for them to stay.

      3. Outer space colonization? We haven’t even colonized Antarctica. And there’s only about 700,000 people in Alaska, which is more than double the size of Texas. Australia is also pretty much uninhabited, as is the Sahara Desert. When these places are teeming with human life, I’ll be more convinced of our will to colonize Mars.

        1. Don’t know if the weak brand of humans being produced nowadays will have the gusto to inhabit extremely unforgiving terrains like those. The will to spread to those areas may not even surface for a long time, maybe it never will. A collective human will to colonize another planet has no place now because there is no definite proof of other life-bearing planets. I don’t care about earthen bullshit politics, the idea behind the exploration of the stars as a feat of human ambition is something as old as the Bible, and it is inspiring to say in the least bit.

        2. Most of the ocean floor if THIS planet is still uncharted.
          Like that Devil-guy said in “Childhood’s End”:
          “the stars are not for man”

    2. I see a new philosophy which simultaneously holds tribalism on one hand (for identity and feelz) and globalism on the other (for economic b.
      Nation-states? They’re seeming more irrelevant. Many are artificial creations, such as Iraq and Yugoslavia and Spain, so their days may be numbered.

    3. Knowledge is power. If and when new systems kick in, any system which tracks your spending and accumulation of wealth or your identity in any manner has the potential for corruption.

    4. We already have that one world government: IMF, world bank and United Nations. ALL the feminist-gay shit comes from there. Check 1995 Beijing’s UN women conference.

    5. I don’t think the author is working under the same definition of globalization as you. It appears you think globalization means one world government. It doesn’t. OWG is just one possible outcome. The author is suggesting smart globalization, I assume because we are already globalized. To get rid of that we’d need to about face to an extremely protectionist point of view and national lifestyle.
      I think smart globalism puts the globalist agenda third according to this hierarchy, thus allowing nationalism to take a more prominent place than globalism. That would be a step in the right direction right now as the current factual situation is tha t, in the west, and in our governments, on average, globalism takes first place compared to the other two options listed above.
      I would suggest not being so quick at discounting something that is a step in the right direction, maybe, just because it doesn’t appear perfect. No solution will ever be perfect (until Jesus returns of course).

    6. “laws progressively lose their impact as the government increases its range,
      and a soulless despotism, after crushing the germs of goodness, will
      finally lapse into anarchy”. (Kant)

  2. Globohomos are up in arms all over the world because Trump won. However, they also realize that their EU and other groups are also losing the cultural war. Keep up the great meme work fellas!
    My latest contribution:
    I left it on an MSNBC article about the Women’s Protest March in DC. hahahahahahahha. Haven’t checked to see if it was deleted yet, but it should have sparked fire works.
    We have to realize that there is NO REASONING with the sheople who have allowed themselves to be brainwashed. They can’t see outside themselves. They are the far left’s ideological mind slaves. To do with as they please.
    So, thrust the shiv of traditional, and ancient, Western cultural philosophy as deep as an porn star impaler does to feminist “actresses” in strong and independent films. (Pornos for you puritans out there!)

      1. The thing that boggles my mind: the best dirt on him they could dig up was “grab em by the pussy”- even I was stunned that was the best they could do, surely there were more egregious things on his resume. Nope! Women still latched onto this, like they never talk about a man’s dick size…

        1. They are now gumming up the works in mid-town Manhattan.
          Madonna just said she had thoughts about blowing up the Whit e House…nothing to see there, she can potentially inititate something, no big deal…

        2. Stefan Molyneux is calling out a bunch of different incidents that have happened because of these “protestors” in general.

        3. I know youre a Canadian candy ass, but they just mentioned Madonna being there on the MSM, no mention of her talking of blowin up the WH….lies of omission, lies of omission…turn off your TVs…

        4. This Canadian candy ass didn’t believe you at first so I looked it up… @4:25 she says she wants to blow up the White House. lol who bitch this is? I listened to her for five minutes straight and I swear I have no idea what she is protesting.

        5. You have a selective memory. He’s shown a clear pattern of sexual predation.
          I’m the first to call bullshit on manipulative psycho women like Jackie Oakley, and I’m also the first to call bullshit on assholes like him. His pattern is obvious to anybody with a pair of eyes or ears. Even if half of them are lying (possible), it’s clear what kind of guy he is.
          Educate yourself:

        6. It’d be nice if the FBI or Secret Service show up at (one of) this poor, downtrodden woman’s residence.

        7. NY Mag is far from neautral here. I have no doubt that trump was a grand scale womanizer, but there is nothing that speak Speaks to being a sexual predator. Mick Jagger was much worse. Hell, most rock stars are. Frankly I am not much better

        8. Did you sss them roaming the streets drunk as shit looking for dick after? I saw This in several spots

        9. Im a B n T guy, member? I did see a few heading for the subways into the city, dumb pink condom hats on their domes

        10. Ha I figured you would see those but the funnier ones were the ones who decided to go out drinking after their day long of marching around in the cold for no particular reason. They all looked desperate and sad and drunk.
          I might be leaving the island and heading into queens to visit an old friend next weekend.

        11. An official investigation has been opened up on her. Probably won’t draw charges though.

        1. Ernest Belfort Bax’s descriptions of 1st wavers are virtually identical to those of today (minus the blue hair).
          “Thus the “Suffragettes” deliberately adopt a policy of scrimmages and rough-and-tumbles and then whimper about impossible “indecent assaults” on the part of the wicked men-stewards whose function it is to resist their efforts at disorder-”
          Hmmm, who does THAT remind you of?

        2. We need to bring back doctors who treat for hysterics. These ugly cunts would be Much more relaxed if they went in for treatments

        1. It’s so damn sad what modern comedy has devolved into. They don’t make em like they used to.

        2. Back to School was one of the greatest comedies ever and today not only would it not get made but you probably would go to jail for writing the script

      2. Yeah, the fucking Period Parade wasn’t absurd. I mean even the occupy Wall Street cunts (who I violently opposed here in NYC) were kind of asking for something. The Mensies March was just a bunch of women who haven’t been fucked right walking around saying they hate trump.
        The best part though, here in nyc, by 11pm the bars were filled with sloppy drunk bitches carrying signs looking to get their pussies grabbed. I saw it in several places and it was confirmed by a bartender I know whom I texted. So as soon as they were done mulling about and chanting it looks like they went bar hoping and looking for cock

        1. The question is: Were these wenches “feminine” or looked like the extra-sized creatures portrayed in the image?

        2. No they were fucking hideous. But the girl I was on s date with and I had a fantastic time laughing out asses off. In that perfect little Romanian accent which sounds like a Slavic girl lived in Paris too long she is commenting on these women’s shoes and clothes and General grooming. It might have been the first time a woman has got me to laugh to tears on a date intentionally

        3. At one point I was sitting with my date who is a nearly perfect physical specimen and dressed to just kill and we are next to s table with a guy about my age with his shrew of a wife who is on and on about whatever. Also in the bar are like 12 ugly drunk post march bitches.
          Heard at my table
          Ohmygod (this is all one word), what eze dis thing some kind of cawnvention with some ugly wimin and ugly shoes?
          The guy at the table next to me made the horrible mistake at chuckling and got caught by his wife. They left soon after. That poor fuck.

        4. I’m not surprised by that in the least. “Yeah we told them!”
          Told them what exactly?

        5. So my 69 year old mother (45 yr long marriage), happily married 35 yr old sister (red-pill husband works as construction supervisor and hates Trump), and my 65-yr-old Catholic schoolteacher aunt WERE ALL marching in DC because they were bar hopping and looking for sex.
          Give me a fucking break. I honestly thought you were smarter than that. Some commenters here are dumber than a sack of hammers, but I thought you were different.
          Were there nutty blue-hair marchers? Sure. But my family are normal, middle-class people. No hipsters, no feminists. And we don’t want to see our country taken over by a radicalized piece of dangerous shit like the Asshole-in-Chief, who literally lied about the rain this weekend. The RAIN.

        6. No, your 69 year old mother, 65 year old catholic school teacher aunt and 35 year old sister were probably marching for other, equally moronic reasons. They took the whimsical floats out of a parade and had a little get together where they vented off some annoyance and complained like children that their team didn’t win. If it wasn’t already clear that women aren’t responsible adults who should be treated as if they had agency then this idiot parade ought to have sealed the deal.
          Hating trump is one thing. That is fine. But this Ovulation Demonstration was just fucking idiotic. I would laugh if so many people didn’t take it seriously.
          Too many years of being mollycoddled by the government and the country has forgot what it means to not get an award for participation. Let me remind you how this works. A democratically elected president will do what he does and then in four years there is a referendum on the job that he did…it is called an election. We are going to try it this way for a bit. In a few years you get to think about whether or not it made things better or worse and then vote again. Stop being such a baby. And all those cunts marching around in circles yelling slogans are just disgusting, indicative of a culture that has gotten so feminine and wussified that they can’t stand not being pandered to. Make no mistake…this little walk of theirs was about one thing and one thing only…a bunch of fucking children crying that they were told that they can’t have a cookie.

        7. oh, and yes, your mother, sister and aunt while chanting and doing whatever they were doing at this dumb ass parade were, in fact, thinking of getting fucked. Sorry bud, AWALT

        8. You’re almost as big a dick as GoJ about this.
          Nice job attacking my family. Fuck off.

        9. I am not attacking them. AWALT means AWALT. Not AWALT except for my grammie. Your mother and my mother are both women and, essentially, at their core, no different than all other women. The only difference is in the level they are controlled by a man and how good of a man that is. Don’t take it personally. I think that all men should come to the conclusion, eventually, that their grandmother slobbed a few knobs and had some jizz on their faces. It helps to just admit it.
          Also, I am not the one being a dick. You have gone all unhinged at the very mention of trump. Look at your comment, you thought I was smart until I said a bunch of women with no clear purpose gathering around to cry about whatever women are crying about and then going out for a bar crawl was an absurd waste of time and the act of petulant little babies. I don’t like trump. However, he has made a few good moves already since being in office and hasn’t fucked things up to badly.
          In every election there is a winner and a loser. The losing side works just as hard as the winning side and there are a lot of people that are very invested in it. But one side wins and another side loses. The winning side has 4 years to show his supporters (and his detractors) that he was, indeed, the right man for the job. And in four years the public gets to decide to keep him or not. It is patently absurd to lose and then spend 4 years crying like a little child. DOn’t get so triggered jammy. We have a new president. Let’s see where it takes us and you can go vote again in 4 years. A little bit of growing the fuck up would do a lot of people a lot of good.

        10. “Growing up” for you means doing no politicial activity for four years. Everybody just sit down and shut up thinking. Maybe YOU are uncomfortable with political activity, in your hermetically sealed life in Manhattan. The rest of us are thrilled to actively oppose the Asshole-in-Chief.
          Dude, America is founded on the idea that we can PROTEST. We don’t have to accept the outcome of an election. In fact, we have tools at our disposal such as
          1) recall election
          2) ballot initiative
          3) referendums
          to fight sitting incumbents and legislatures.
          Protests have a long history in our country. Colonial protests against John Jay’s flubbing of the treaty with England. Against Vietnam War. Against Reagan’s firing of air traffic controllers. Until Saturday, the biggest protest in history was against Bush’s Iraq War in 2003. A professor in Connecticut added up all the protests and found that there were 7 million people marching against Trump globally this weekend.
          We really hate this guy. We really really really hate this guy. I’ve never hated a politician the way that I hate this orange would-be fascist. He’s a crazy train, crashing every day into something new, and we’re not going to let him drive our society into more wars, greater poverty, etc.
          So, no, I’m not going to sit down and shut up, particularly here on RoK, where strongman worship runs deep, as well as the belief that if it’s an alpha male it must be good for society. Alpha is great for attracting women but it’s not necessarily admirable. Look at the thousand of other shitty leaders in the world who destroyed their countries. They were all alpha males.
          This is an open comments section. You can skip my comments if you want.

        11. This wasn’t a protest. There was no point to it. It was just a bunch of women who were upset with an election result. Trump won this election. He did it because of the gross arrogance of the democratic party along with a few other factors. If you want to be politically active then do so. Support politicians who oppose him in the house and in the senate. Donate money to whoever you think shold run against him. Donate time or whatever skills you have to the next election. This isn’t any of that. This is just being a fucking baby. “We don’t like trump.” Ok, great. Well, he is president. Start working on the next election. Proof read his statements and call him on his lies..there will be plenty. Be active in your community. Sure, do what you like. But crying about losing is what is going on. This isn’t protest, this isn’t opposition, this is just childishness. The number of people who turned out to boo hoo and socialize and eat cookies and go for a bar crawl all in the name of not liking Donald Trump is meaningless. 7.7 million people tuned in to watch 2 Broke Girls the other night. That is 700k more than that showed up at the cry baby parade.
          If you want to know why your opinion isn’t taken seriously, nor are the opinions of any of those harridans who were walking around saying their pussy grabs back, look no further than your own statement:
          “We really hate this guy. We really really really hate this guy. I’ve never hated a politician the way that I hate this orange would-be fascist.”
          This is the whole ball of wax Jammy, this is it. You hate this guy. You have no logic, no disagreements, no positions…you just don’t like him….you hate him. The attacks are emotional. You are all acting like pubescent girls and while your emotions may be strong there is no one with a brain in this world that will ever take it seriously. At best you will get pity.
          Further, I didn’t tell you to stop commenting. Comment all you like. However, your comments show an emotional and not intellectual or logical beef and, I am telling you now, it simply wont be taken seriously. Every single time the news shows a bunch of idiots “protesting” with absolutely no clear mission statement other than “we don’t like him waaaaahhhhhhh” the chances that you get a candidate to beat him in 4 years goes down. The nation spoke and they saw the DNC platform as an arrogant and out of touch group of cry babies….crying louder is not going to fix that issue for you in four years.
          So no, I would never say just sit down and take it. But maybe some kind of real internal reflection on behalf of the left where they ask themselves how they have fucked up so badly that an absurd game show host was elected president might be good. Most successful people, upon failure, will look at where their flaws are and try to remedy them. This would be a good place to start.

      3. “The Women at The March Are Expected To Be 5 Times Larger Than The Women at Trump’s Inauguration.”
        There, fixed it for accuracy.
        Looking at that pic would seem to confirm this.

        1. That’s a hell of a zinger-5 times is perhaps being a little generous with these bloated, disgusted sacks.
          An Australian politician, Pauline Hanson, also made a very similar yet hilariously pithy observation vis a vis the insane girth in that pathetic rally also.

  3. “As a Harvard University economist he surely has intellectual limitations”
    Might be true, but Is that a joke, or a genuine criticism?

    1. The feminist move to take a reasonable point and expand it to insanity seems contagious. Case in point:
      Back in the 80’s when there was actual rampant gay bashing in the city…gangs just walking up on fags and beating them within an inch of their life, people came out and demanded safety. After all, fag or no, walking up to someone minding their own business and beating them senseless is not cool. I can understand that. The sjw takes this small win and says “everyone who isn’t a fag is evil”
      Same with race. Yes, stringing up blacks for being black is bad. Hiring blacks to be inclusive over better qualified whites not so much.
      Now our side is doing it. They take the simple and understandable idea that just because you went to Harvard doesn’t mean you know what’s what. That’s true. I can name a dozen people I know who went to Harvard are total morons.
      But they have escalated to “going to Harvard makes you dumb” which is just fucking moronic as Harvard is still home of some of the best and brightest of our nations youth

        1. Yeah it was a big thing. If it was today I’d say it was being blown out of proportion but I honestly remember a time when guys in bars would legit up and say let’s go beat some fags and then go down to gay neighborhoods like the west village. The homos were walking in buddy system for a whole.
          The point, however, is that while that may be wrong taking it and running with it until some absurd extreme is the sjw game play

      1. I just couldn’t work out what it meant. There are number of good universities that have gone kind of nuts – in England the Oxford and Bristol student unions have completely SJW for instance – and sometimes the faculty have joined in that. I think Harvard is a bastion of liberalism / neo-liberalism, and it seems he may have been alluding to that – see above comment. As your comment suggests though these are still seriously clever people, and the fact that absurdity may hide within their ranks doesn’t change that

        1. Agreed on all counts. However, there are students that are there for an enducation who are ignoring the politics. despite what it seems like at times they don’t zap you with the liberal faggot ray gun at orientation. Yes, in an unscrupulous manner a lot of faculty members will set influence over already impressionable young minds but it doesn’t work on everyone.

        2. I don’t think students should necessarily be ignoring the politics except to remember that they there to learn something not to pontificate or – unless they have very good reason ‘change the world’. Faculty have always influenced, or even ‘recruited’ students to their politics and perspectives but there was always a clear sense even when that happened that their job was to pass on the knowledge and critical thinking skills that would enable young scholars to make up their own minds. With the rise of social justice / progressive politics that sense of impartiality has gone in part if not in whole. It started with the smaller more radicalised institutions and has now spread to the worthy institutions. Student unions are a big part of the problem, but so are a lot of the faculty

        3. You are probably right.
          I was at one of the most liberal schools in the country (though by today’s standards it would probably be considered middle of the road) but I just ignored. I didn’t participate in school organizations that were political. Even as a philosophy major I just shrugged it off. Most of the guys i hung out with were jocks. We would see campus protests or signs or hear faculty members talking about the evil of trickle down economics too but I was too busy getting good grades, working and banging women to be bothered.
          I remember on our quad there was a big peta protest and a bunch of guys went there with bacon cheeseburgers and did a “sit in” where we sat right near their meat is murder sign and scarfed burgers. That was the one and only “political” protest I ever went to but really it was just pre internet trolling mixed with eating burgers.

        4. mine was fairly staid at the time, certainly compared to now. There were still quite a few marxists left over from the sixties, but mostly bogstandard lefties. The radicals tended to be poseurs rather than acutely psychotic (as now). Maybe I didn’t notice that much as I was fairly left wing myself. I remember one right wing professor who believed in race theories or something and who had a hard time of it, but it didn’t amount to much. Things started to change over the course of the 90s and when I did some psychology in the 2000s I really noted the change in the way teaching was done (at least with some courses). Having seen what it was like before it was very clear that the material and the viewpoints were intended to indoctrinate.
          Did you check those burgers weren’t made of quorn?

      2. The problem with our Harvard friends ( on average) is not that they are ignorant (or stupid), but that the know so very much which isn’t so.
        Said another way pursuing ideaology (over truth) can make even the brilliant unwise.
        Maybe there is some good in currently assuming anyone trained or hired at Harvard may adhere to unwise doctrines which obscures their likely brilliance.
        Example in point. The only person I know whom went to Harvard had over a 4.0 in high school. Very clever gal. Totally buys into all the crap she heard at Harvard even though she was raised conservative. Not an ounce of wisdom in her at this point. Is that everyone at Harvard? No, but in this time, it appears to be most. Thus I advocate being unimpressed by a Harvard degree until the person demonstrates their merit.

        1. What you say is absolutely true of some. The danger is then to assume it is true of all. I would advocate splitting being “unimpressed with MERELY a Harvard degree” out of the larger picture. It is, in fact, impressive to get into and do well at that institution. It is also impressive to win a gold medal in fencing at the olympics. On its own it is not s measure of a man for sure, and there are plenty of fencers and Harvard grads who are more useless than nipples on a t shirt, but this doesn’t mean that it goes for all of them

      3. ” I can name a dozen people I know who went to Harvard are total morons.”
        Wonder how could they get into Harvard in the 1st place

        1. Of the ones I know personally? Most of them are excellent at test taking, hard workers and were involved with every possible extra curricular / community service project they could get their hands on. One is a legacy.

        2. I know one girl btw who is a Princeton grad and dumb as a doornail. She went to their fine arts program. She is some kind of violin prodigy. So there is always that method

    2. Not intellectual capacity but limited intellectual horizon, due to being trapped in the neoliberalism framework. Same with Steven Pinker and Niall Ferguson, two other prominent Harvard scholars.

      1. that certainly makes sense. I couldn’t have worked it out from the line in the article though.

  4. I see it as a battle between pure economics (gross GDP) v humanity.
    Conservatives would once have been inclined to the former, but there’s greater forces at play now. And it ties in to a lot what we talk about here.
    Want to know why “nice Emma down the road” has 3 illegitimate kids with 2 highly unsuitable partners?
    Because SHORT-TERM PROFIT. A de-facto whore who spends 30k on make-up, cocktails, and cock a year is more beneficial to the system than the chaste and thrift girl who grows her own potatoes, makes her own wine, and passes dresses to her daughter.
    Slatternry, bastardy, cuntism = short term profit, and long term extinction.
    Fight this shit. Fight it fucking hard!!!!!

    1. So true. A lot of it has to do with child care costs. The day care providers, along with feminists, lobbied for laws that promote expensive day care centers that are all over the place now. They are practically on every corner, in every small local hovel, and the like. Many women run them out of their homes. Each child’s parent is paying the equivalent of a small, to medium, mortgage payment. My son’s day care to the age of five was minimal 800/month. The younger they are, like under a year old, it is over a thousand a month. Add in private school after that, and many parents cannot afford to avoid their kid turning into a deranged, psychotic, man/self-hating feminist Nazi dumb ass.
      That is the point. You keep the family separated, therefore controllable to government, and still increase the tax base.
      It is as diabolical as it is evil. I can’t wait to give these monsters a taste of their own medicine. Feminists are going to go down like their fore-fathers of Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and Mussolini did last century. They will be a curse word for all time!
      “You worthless feminist!” will one day be fighting words. Calling someone’s mom a feminist cunt will be like calling her a whore back in the 80s or before. You will likely be killed.

    2. Nice way to put it.
      In one sense, this is a fight against Bigness. As corporations and governments consolidate together and get more and more powerful, freedom gets squeezed out of our hands.
      These are the fuckers that pushed Feminism on us for the same reasons. You can’t tax a stay at home mom.
      It’s also hard to control a society where values and truths are passed to children from parents that see them as inherently valuable human beings. And not economic resources to exploit.

  5. It is not that complicated. People want stable adequate income and promise of that continuing in the future.
    You can have hyperglobalisation, if you are smart enough to disperse it’s recipients of profit. Obama was smart enough to stimulate the economy, but not smart enough to disperse the thus emerging growth.
    And you should do it in an industrial way. Domestic defense expenditure is a good formula.

        1. Smh
          Right here in this graph produced by the DNC it shows that OBama was the best thing since sliced bread

        2. You have got to be fucking kidding. You cited Maddow, or it should be ‘Madcow’ as a source and expect to have this viewed with a shred of credibility/with a straight face? Colossal failure-that harpy is a known peddler of bullshit.

        3. CNN reports it too. http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/04/news/economy/jobs-under-obama/
          I suppose you’ll poison that well too, claiming that CNN is full of lies too. So here’s some other stats about Obama’s eight years:
          Homicides have dropped 13 percent, but gun sales have surged.
          The economy has added more than 9 million jobs, and the jobless rate has dropped to below the historical median.
          The number of long-term unemployed Americans has dropped by 614,000 under Obama, but it is still 761,000 higher than at the start of the Great Recession.
          Corporate profits are up 166 percent; real weekly wages are up 3.4 percent.
          There are 15 million fewer people who lack health insurance.
          Wind and solar power have nearly tripled, and now account for more than 5 percent of U.S. electricity.
          The federal debt has more than doubled — rising 116 percent — and big annual deficits have continued.
          That’s from factcheck.org. You’ll see their sources on this page:

        4. CNN has been proven incontrovertibly to be a merchant of fake news and an apparatchik of the DNC.
          Factcheck.org is also a mouthpiece of leftist chicanery and has ties to Bill Ayers and other similar domestic terrorists.

        1. Uh huh. The real unemployment rate is closer to 23% and even if you want to take your source as valid, it doesn’t count those +90 million Americans not participating in full time employment as either their benefits have expired or they have given up looking.

    1. “Domestic defense expenditure is a good formula.”
      A good formula for what?
      Taking tax money from productive people? Creating goods that have no real world demand? Adding to the national debt? Paying off politicians?

        1. GPS would have existed anyway…and at a much lower cost to society. Real businesses such as delivery companies would have wanted this anyway and they would have paid for it with money they earned…not taking it at the point of gun via taxation.
          “Defense” contracts (and NASA) are just vote-buying, political payoff machines. They are NOT necessary for technological development.
          In fact, the lack of competition in technology dominated by government forces the adoption of lower technological standards. For example, the Internet’s HTTP protocol is a clunky government standard that could have been much better, but we are stuck with it for now.

        2. No, GPS wouldn’t have existed without defense spending.
          NASA missions has been the main catalyst for technology companies to thrive. Starting with microprocessor applications in the Apollo missions, which stemmed the growth of the Silicon Valley.

  6. I believe the conservative economic paradigm has to change away from the 1980s “live and let live” mantra of screw or be screw so long as I’m self satisfied with bags of money to do what I want to do, whenever I want, to whom ever I want.
    Conservatives need to thoughtful address the notion of what values they want to see collectively in society. They have to move away from the atomistic model they see people just as units or things to used and dumped when no longer useful in a system called the economy.
    I don’t think it’s acceptable any longer for conservatives to smugly believe in the “I’m alright attitude” anymore. This was the attitude that let the rust belt develop while the elites in Washington and Hollywood looked the other way.

    1. “Conservatives need to thoughtful address the notion of what values they want to see collectively in society.”
      How about an actual culture of skepticism regarding mass media?

  7. The global economy can’t be avoided, you can run but you can’t hide, so the only real decision to make is do you want to be a winner or a loser?

    1. Yeah, I agree. I don’t think a guy at Carrier deserves a $22 an hour job if someone can do it for $5…any more than a French Fry maker/burger flipper deserves $15 an hour.
      It’s the world govt aspects of globalization that are harmful…EU, NATO, etc.

    2. Bullshit. Your language of inevitability reflects lazy thinking.
      Individual nations can negotiate trade deals that are mutually beneficial. We don’t have to acquiesce to supranational corporations owning and running everything.
      We’ve been doing that and know who the winners and losers are. Hint, ordinary people lose every time. I’m all for free markets, but global crony capitalism ain’t working friend.

      1. Toyota will manufacture trucks in texas and keep taking market share from american companies using american labor and working under american laws. Chrylser is controlled by Fiat. Ford uses parts manufactured overseas etc.

        1. That depends on what is negotiated in the trade deal with Japan. If you have patriots negotiating on our behalf – which has not been the case – we could expect better outcomes for American citizens.
          In any case, keeping that Toyota plant in Texas is much better than loosing it to Mexico.

        2. You’re still buying foreign but rationalize that way if you want. The employee parking lot at american car manufacturers has 50% foreign car brands. American workers won’t buy their own product but they want bail out.

        3. You seem to be more worried about the people sitting around the boardroom counting profits than the thousands of jobs involved with maintaining and operating an entire car factory.
          NAFTA, GATT, WTO, TPP…they all worry about the boardroom too.

        4. Americans buying a Toyota made in America by Americans is better than buying a Chevy made in Mexico. We will accrue more economic – and social – benefit.
          But like I say, if you want to kick Toyota plants out of America – and American plants out of Japan – you can negotiate that.
          It all comes down to the Art of the Deal so to speak.

        5. It is their own product. They made it in a plant that supports an entire American town.
          But under continued globalism – which your original post defended – we wouldn’t even have a choice. Everything would be made in China or Mexico.
          Trump’s plan is to have a small tariff to encourage production in America. I’m usually against taxes, but we’ve seen over 40+ years that globalism destroys the middle and working classes and enriches the big-government/big-corporate elite who could give a shit.

        6. Except that Japanese and German cars are already more expensive than american cars, but american workers at american car manufacturers still buy japanese and german car brands over cars they have built themselves. Adding tariff to foreign products won’t make american cars higher quality or give american cars higher re-sale value.

    3. We just need to get into a different line of work. If we can’t compete then move on to something else.

  8. The Globalists assume that there is a way to turn any and every human into something like an Englishman. Some can, but not all Englishmen are nice (Artful Dodger), and the best require more intelligence and education.
    Magic Dirt doesn’t work. Moving the 3rd world into a 1st world neighborhood results in a 3rd world neighborhood, or worse since they have MacBooks, don’t have to work, and can spread radicalization.

  9. Could you just imagine the smell at these anti-Trump women’s marches today?
    When will these dumb snowflakes realize that the world doesn’t revolve around them and their ridiculous problems?
    Our spiritual traditions teach that we don’t live for ourselves and for our selfish hedonism – and especially not women. Women find their fulfillment in bearing and nurturing new human life to keep the species in business, not in becoming aging sterile cat ladies who work in corporate HR departments. You don’t have to believe in a god to see that these traditions recognize a tragic truth of the human condition that doesn’t go way just because feminist ideology tells you to reject it.

  10. Protests here in Denver. Was delayed on my way to the gym by all of these dykes and pussy whipped faggots. Not only do I hate everything they stand for, they cut into my swole time and that is unacceptable.

    1. Should have crushed them en route-could have got a nice burn before really hitting the weights.

  11. The problem with globalization is that it cannot coexist with ANYTHING. It turns everything it touches, all cultures and identities into decadent monoculture.

  12. YES. We need to begin — actually BEGIN — to assert our identity as a nation state, especially against Islam. We at least have SOME hope with DJT.
    Donald Trump’s presidency will expose Muslims to increased scrutiny. Because adherents to Islam are disproportionately hostile to Western European values, it’s difficult to argue how something like an Islamic registry — done judiciously, for prospective citizens — is a bad thing. We advocate, for example, routine colonoscopies for middle-aged men because of their susceptibility to cancer; we shouldn’t play games when a life is at stake. Likewise, a devout Muslim puts many lives at stake by merely existing in an environment opposed to their own Islamic values. This is understandable. But to not periodically investigate her would be statistically negligent. Ideally, this investigation would take place before her emigration from a Disney-esque principality like Sudan or Somalia and intensify until her compatibility with the West is confirmed..
    I’m not going to argue that Western values are superior to Islamic values. That’s not why I’m here. I will, however, argue that every Muslim immigrant should be ethically audited to determine their compatibility with European lifestyles. To not do so is gross negligence for the sake of pompous virtue-signaling or the protection of feelings; a philosophy that has enabled the exploitation of the Western world by Islamists (as an r strategy) for over a decade. Instead, the immigrant experience should be a competitive and challenging one — like a potential employee, they are subjected to extended interviews and the applicant-pool slug fest..
    Critics designate Islamic registries as a ‘slippery slope’ precipitating our society’s descent into Orwellian social stratification. But there really is no connection between the two; Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, Agnostics and Atheists have proven themselves to be unilaterally trustworthy. They don’t need to be watched because here is no statistical justification to do so. If Muslims don’t want to be investigated and monitored, they should not come here — of course, they are always welcome to try, but not without due scrutiny. Why imperil our citizens and their wealth for the sake of ideologically opposed outsiders who, half of the time, have no interest in assimilation?
    The progressive’s answer is inadvertently platitudinous: “What about ‘Give us your poor, hungry, etc’”. This argument is merely sentiment; translated into adult, it means ‘Because helping poor, benighted people makes me feel noble’. Perhaps this mawkishness was acceptable two centuries ago when America needed immigrants, but it’s aged poorly. Trump, denounced as a bigot, has the better answer: “[We need a] total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” Of course the world at large has branded him a bigot.
    How is figuring out what is going on a bad thing? Can anyone tell me why we need more Muslims entering the United States? It’s like taking a girl out on date after date, paying for her dinners and picking her up, and instead of fucking you, she spits in your face. Let’s start ‘nexting’ immigrants. Why would you consider wasting resources on a person who gives back nothing, or less than nothing?? “Becaaaaause, that’s not who we areee” is NOT a valid answer — it’s sentimentality. And even if it’s not who we are, why isn’t it who we should be?

  13. The problem with globalism is that it cannot coexist with anything. Everything it touches, all cultures and identities turn into decadent monoculture.
    Btw, the whole “going beyond polarities” idea is basically globalist/feminist narrative (gender differences is typical but not the only example). Nationalist, traditionalist and other life – affirming philosophies are generally speaking perfectly fine with polarities and dychotomies of life.

    1. There is a distinction between balanced globalization and hyperglobalization. There are middle ways and the position that Rodrik suggests is preferable to both isolationism/too protectionist and hyperglobalization.
      Even traditional polarities do partly overlap in the real world. It is called science, my friend. I can give at least ten examples, only regarding the sexes.

    2. globalism spread depravity to destroy nationalism and took over, they need chaos to destroy the order in nationalism country. once they will have full control they will create their own order.

  14. The elephant in the room is world Libertarians spearheading freer trade globalization and strong localism in a world united by US Common Law, and the revived expansion of the US, what they call a ‘world of Floridas’… Works for me.

    1. Not to mention private-led space colonization and the project to develop a starship over the next 100 years.

Comments are closed.