I don't see any borders from here, do you? What has borders given us?

I don't see any borders from here, do you? What has borders given us?

Attached: Earth-Western-Hemisphere.jpg (2048x2048, 550K)

>What has borders given us?
Structured and organised societies.

human skin is the border u c
and maybe some split-mind collectivism based on organisation, activities, logic(lack) etc

borders havent worked for me personally, nor intellectually, but i know people that read these words will do worse like its some blackmailed threat to explain it to them or else but nah no thanks, id compromise the point

States are constructed bottom up (by the people that make them up) not top down from some divine supervising entity. Multiple nucleation points and inability for a single state to enforce itself globally lead to boundaries between different states.

We're just about at the stage where technology would permit a one world government to realistically function, now it's just a matter of jumping over the wall of this metastable multi-national solution into a global union. Barring civilization collapse it's gonna happen one way or another.

slant can't see properly, even preschooler knows that.

Attached: mata sepet lawak.jpg (1200x1600, 229K)

I do

Attached: us canada border.jpg (1600x1000, 616K)

nothing good

Yeah , i don't see any pakis from over there either

They say you can see the Chinese great Wall from the moon

Liberals btfo

Wealth inequality and therefore technologic and social devolopment. No king can reign without a servant.

Attached: Screen_Shot_2017-06-09_at_4.34.34_PM.jpg (600x566, 32K)

meh, we are still 100-200 years away from an one world government

Borders make no sense in a world that is communicating together. If people did not want globalism, they would not speak English. It's as simple as that really.

The British Empire was the start of globalism and it was glorious.

I said it is technologically feasible and has been for a few decades not that it's gonna happen tomorrow. A century is not that long on macrohistorical timescales. It took 200k years to reach this point.

>thinking the world can be ruled by a single government

Attached: RegalFondGyrfalcon-size_restricted.gif (327x251, 1.64M)

I completely agree, the border walls should be made far higher so we can see them from space

>thinking a one world government is impossible with global instant communications and potential travel times measured in hours to any point on the planet
it was literally more challenging to rule France in 1700 than it would be to rule the entire world right now. The only thing standing in the way are existing actors with their own self interests to overcome.

What makes you believe this?

it's always these race mixed freaks with no sense of nationality that want globalist shit

>States are constructed bottom up
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Read about how the Romans set up client states or the formation of African and Middle Eastern countries. In fact just read the history of nation building in the Americas and be done with it. The unification of China would also help.

Why don't you open your doors and windkos of your flat to everyone? After all, they're basically smaller borders.

>States are constructed bottom up (by the people that make them up) not top down from some divine supervising entity. Multiple nucleation points and inability for a single state to enforce itself globally lead to boundaries between different states.

Ya, let us skip the fragments of history where empires fragment because of centrifugal forces generated by the diverse elements under their rule. Which is exactly what will happen if you creat muh global gubmint.

You can't even run a UK-sized country w/o a core population generating consensus that other groups then conform to.

>Barring civilization collapse it's gonna happen one way or another.
>muh right side of history

The rate of balkanization will always be too rapid past a certain point, even with perfect communication and connectivity. Only way it'll happen is through morons like you forcing it, using "muh rite sayd" as mandate, then having it rapidly devolve into an authoritarian clusterfuck, then collapse.

Alternatively if somehow that ciscus keeps on chugging humanity will get extinguished by the power elite since finally there are no external competitors and therefore no pressure to maintain anything. I guess that'll happen one way or another too, assuming any amount of stability under a global regime. After all automation outperforms people consistently, right side of history and all. Finally a fully realized class warfare, courtesy of Marxist retards. State apparatus vs everyone else.

And where did Rome come from you utter moron? Aliens?

Can't be cucks like Canadians and Europe.

>empires constructing client states
That's irrelevant because the nucleation event of the empire was still a band of individuals getting together at some distant point in the past.

I'm not talking about the myriad permutations and interactions a state can undergo when it has already sprung up, only the initial kickstart. There was no state to begin with, people formed it. And people make it up.
>right side of history
You didn't read or understand my post you fucking moron. I don't say what's right or wrong, just that right now, a single world government is possible, and it would be a lower energy state than having hundreds of nation states with duplicate structures.

In the long run it's military, economic and administrative feasibility that dictates the form of human societies. It's just that these processes are often bloody and take centuries or millenia. But just like nation states rendered feudal power structures obselete so will supranational government render nation states obselete. It just takes time and random catalysts to break through the barrier out of the local minimum any given system has settled in.

>empires constructing client states

Thats not something I wrote, take your pills, you're in amok already.

> I don't say what's right or wrong,

I didn't either. Your kind believes in historical determinism where everything will happen the way you want it to. like prophet Karl divined it in his crystal ball. Thats the "right side of history" people keep referring to, believing their ideology represents the future on account of it saying so.

>In the long run it's military, economic and administrative feasibility that dictates the form of human societies.

The run was quite long and you're still not inside of Russia, even though you live on the same macro plain. Underestimating culture and cross-class identity is a consistent theme in Marxists. a Hand me down from western liberals who from their vantage point of being decadent gentry simply assumed everyone's identical to them, just with a different hat. Likewise socialist intellectuals that aspired to the same position adopted the same perspective. Well civilization types are no hats, as you will quickly realize whenever an integration block like EU lose cultural coherence by absorbing enough alien elements.

>But just like nation states rendered feudal power structures obselete so will supranational government render nation states obselete.

Ah ah ah. Missing a lil' step there. We didn't arrive in the nation state from feudalism. We had unitary states way before that. usually imperial ones at that. Nationalism in their context functioned only as state or monarch allegiance.

In fact it is the expirience from those despotic, absolutist and parlimentary monarchies and multiethnic republics that gives rise to ethnic, that is group oriented, nationalism and other movements that seek to align statehood with population character. Your dreamboat of a state existed mostly in 18th century.

>It just takes time and random catalysts to break through the barrier out of the local minimum any given system has settled in.
>only problem is legacy institutions, I swear!

Separatism isn't a huge factor now, so lets not take it into account when modeling a future where we amalgamate 120+ state organisms into one and let 4 billion illiterates roam the earth Mad Max style. Yeah, why not.

>I dont see any borders

said the thot

>returns with her head missing.

I dont see anything now..lol

Attached: Pepe Jihad.jpg (225x225, 10K)

PS Can you bring your cosmic Marxist art of statecraft to places like Scotland or Spain? They barely hold together at times. The establishments there would pretty much suck your dick if you relieved them of the spearatist risks they're having.

Also stitch Sudan back together while you're at it, thanks.

The CA expert, I need you help. I wrote the letter to Trudeau and still haven't get an answer. Why Canadians don't like Russians?

next time tell him you are indian immigrant and bolsheviks are oppressing your female rights

Seperatism will always be a thing and has always been a thing. You think all the tribes that got subjugated, all the feudal noble families and free cities that got dispossessed, all the smaller ethnicities that got assimilated went willingly?

I am not ignoring separatism, I am saying it doesn't really matter. Or rather, there's no point in taking this particular kind of idea and abstracting it out seperately from the overall picture of actors acting on incentives. It's whether or not an entity can militarily control an area at a cost it can sustain that matters. It's whether or not there are economic or other incentives for separatism and whether they are stronger than the incentives for integralism.

You're thinking on short timescales and you're not thinking generally enough, because you are attached to your particular national identity and a presupposed vision of the future that distorts your ability to generalize.

Poland is just a fluke of history and a convenient local minimun for human social structure in the area for a while. It's nothing permanent. It will not exist in 10 thousand years. Neither is any other human social construct on biological or geological timescales. An eddy in a river. There will be new things like it, that will also disappear one day. There will be empires, there will be seperatists. There will be wars and there will be collapses. But given the overall technological state the average form of governance human societies now tend to converge to is already a supranational block. Organization at the order of millions of people and discrete blocks of turf in a connected world of billions is simply no longer competitive.

>marxist
If you can read what I wrote and think it's the opinion of a Marxist you are completely retarded.

>spain scotland whatever
What of them? They've been part of much larger social organization blocks for much of the past couple of millenia. Scotland was literally part of the largest single state in the world for like 2 centuries just decades ago. It was until very recently a part of a supranational block encompassing all of Europe and slowly concentrating the powers of a national government. Spain is still in that block. I already told you I don't give a fuck about short term fluctuations, I am talking about the broad convergence trends. A civil war, a collapse, does not unmake the overall trend or change the fact that the average, typical social organization unit is different now than it was 10 thousand years ago, and it's gonna be different in our immediate future than it was during the concert of Europe or the 1920s.

Canadians literally ignore me.

Attached: ap-doctor-sexual-assault-michigan-state.jpg (1000x695, 432K)

black hands typed this in a white country

Quality of life.

>You think all the tribes that got subjugated, all the feudal noble families and free cities that got dispossessed, all the smaller ethnicities that got assimilated went willingly?

You think the modern state relies on the same power dynamic as a khagnate. O, I am laffin'. Every technological gain that allows easier administration also enables greater group coherence.

Maybe you're Russian, thats one of the few cultures that is authentically still stuck in that mentality of complete prostration to the state so you can't really conceptualize what will happen with others.

>It's whether or not an entity can militarily control an area at a cost it can sustain that matters.

The cost will be full blown military occupation in perpetuity. What are the political costs of suppressing whole swathes of the planet, can you tell? Not to mention you will never arrive at the point where you can even operate from the position of planetary hegemon. Other integration blocks or singular countries will aid the separatists. This happens already.

>It's whether or not there are economic or other incentives for separatism and whether they are stronger than the incentives for integralism.

First of all there's inherent eioeconomic inequality so there's always an incentive to tell the badly connected/developed shithole regions to fuck off and keep your money.

Secondly its ludicrous to assume economic incentives are the prime movers for separatism. Thats not how these movements evolve and its not how politicians calculate. Populations react tpo all kinds of pressures like clashing communities, alienation from unresponsive governing body etc. Political leaders mainly operate to acquire and maintain power and will absolutely take a hit to the local economy if for nothing else than for power itself.

>You're thinking on short timescales and you're not thinking generally enough,

Hello, kettle.

>because you are attached to your particular national identity and a presupposed vision of the future that distorts your ability to generalize.

Nothing of what I actually wrote reflects that, pure conjecture.

>Poland is just a fluke of history (...)

Poland was founded by a dynasty that most likely took the old Polan pre-migratory identity and retroactively claimed a large swath of terrain with the mandate that this common memmory gave it. This isn't common knowledge but unique genetic markers suggest West Slavs are the old Polans of modern Ukraine migrating West. The Piast seat of power was one of the least suited areas and with no preexisting state tradition, not even a tribal federation which were present in other regions. What happened is instead of being deterministically absorbed by HRE individuals changed the course of history and generated a pervasive cultural presence in the region that outlived any imperial expansions. Actually a great example of how your econ conception of history is naive. history is built on "flukes" and bound in cultural trappings like the Hellenic world, the Ummah, the West etc.

>I don't see any borders from here
you can see the chinese wall from there. get rekt

*geoeconomic inequality

cont.

>It's nothing permanent. It will not exist in 10 thousand years.

Don't pretend this is the timescale you were operating under up to this point. At least have some dignity.

>Neither is any other human social construct on biological or geological timescales.

Which are irrelevant to civilizational processes which only ever gain pace. I leave it to you worrying about granite formation in the mantle and how it affects muh global state. Meanwhile the question of there even being any intelligent life within heliosphere will resolve itself within 200, maybe 300 years. If we can't mesh with our own creations enough to keep control of its;evolution as well as maintain control over the state/s we will either nuke ourselves into the stone age (with generous help from all the globalists I bet. Division is scary, lets stage hundreds of massive political upheavals and suppress a billion different groups to avoid nukes from going off, guys. Don't mind all this time we had MAD and survived. Lets fuck shit up for the greater good) or get phased out. Then the hotdog making MCDonald ASI that choked out all life on earth via terraforming can worry about the granite.

>But given the overall technological state the average form of governance human societies now tend to converge to is already a supranational block.

I don't see tech and econ being primary drivers for integrism as of now. In fact the people pushing for it the most are supremely disdainful of maintaining any kind of growth. They're very comfortable to cause crisis scenarios and then propose integration as solutions.

>Organization at the order of millions of people and discrete blocks of turf in a connected world of billions is simply no longer competitive.

They're the most competitive thing besides a corporation. There are no competitive blocks that recently integrated at all. You don't even have multilateral countries where a single group doesn't dominate the system, be it Muslims, Hans or Hindus.

Meanwhile nearly every econ success story is a nation state. Japan, Sweden, Germany etc. basically nothing you say is rooted in observable reality. You simply WANT it to be.

>If you can read what I wrote and think it's the opinion of a Marxist you are completely retarded.

A commie, a proglodyte with a commie sentiment. Tomeyto, tomato.

>What of them? They've been part of much larger social organization blocks

They were modular feudal fixtures there that sometimes answered to higher links in the feudal chain. I thought you wanted to transition from feudalism

>for much of the past couple of millenia. Scotland was literally part of the largest single state in the world for like 2 centuries just decades ago.

And that was then and today we have now. Again, you think you can just apply Attila the Hun logic to the present and the future when if they decided to leave there isn't a political will to stop them. And if there was one it'd reside solely within the establishment. The public opinion would become demoralized and alienated and then the whole system would go to shit, separatism is king now and will remain so until you rape the representative system (protip: you shouldn't want to do it). Hello modern world, this is my friend Lithuania flag, he comes to us from 18th century.

It was until very recently a part of a supranational block encompassing all of Europe and slowly concentrating the powers of a national government.

Doing so around public opinion. If you also plan to keep the global regime a secret then ok.

Spain is still in that block. I already told you I don't give a fuck about short term fluctuations, I am talking about the broad convergence trends.

The broad convergence of trends is still division. you only have EU to jack off to.

> A civil war, a collapse, does not unmake the overall trend or change the fact that the average, typical social organization unit is different now than it was 10 thousand years ago

"...ergo I get what I want"-t. idiot

>and it's gonna be different in our immediate future than it was during the concert of Europe or the 1920s.

Oh you mean when there was a handful of multinat colonial and imperial blocks dick waggling at each other? Oh yeah... such different, much new. Truly, we ought to progress to the 1984 political stage and escape this dark past.

PS How is it that the market forces are so dominant in integrist block formation in the current capitalist system yet when you dig a bit you inadvertently find Altiero Spinelli and his goons, not a bunch of industrialist... Hmm, its a mystery, I guess.

PS2 But you'll say "oh but look, the coal and steel union". Yeah, but thats how they sold it to the public and part of the establishment that wasn't on board. Meanwhile since day one fucktards wrote about a superstate. Fascist commie ideologues garnering support for an econ front for a union by extolling the virtues of a unitary Afro-European state 100+ years ago is complete opposite of what you'd consider an organic shift towards the union we have today.

Borders didn't give us that, global trade did.

No, borders are entirely primitive and quite frankly I'm surprised that we as a race have still not moved past such savage ideas as tribalism.

Delusional European who thinks his continent is the world.

Hello, my fellow enlightened individual, care to help me out. I need you to gay marry me for Swiss citizenship. Don't be tribal now, ok?

Also, I need a place to crash for a couple months, I hope you won't regress to fencing off the corner of Earth that you call your private house.

>I need you to gay marry me for Swiss citizenship
Ok but you'll have to pay me
> I hope you won't regress to fencing off the corner of Earth that you call your private house.
We obviously not if we're a married couple