[Svara]

It would indeed solve a lot of problems.

Quote:

Political Eurasianism is usually understood as a geographical concept, mostly revolving around Alexander Dugin’s philosophy. However, as geography is obviously becoming more and more irrelevant to our interconnected world, nowadays Eurasianism is more about the growing cultural and economic proximity between North America, Northern Europe and East Asia.

With the rise of China since the beginning of the 21st century, we have seen an increase in global free trade, and the need for more open borders and global standards has been growing.

However, the concept of “globalization” has been so far limited by the negative side effects of open borders and international migrations.

Those negative side effects of immigration are mostly the result of non-White, non-Asian immigration of people from Central and South America, Africa and the Moslem world (what we could broadly generalize as the “biological” Southern Hemisphere of our planet), who share a very different set of cultural values and generally have a much lower IQ and behavioral standards.

In other words, the current failure of multiculturalism and global free circulation of goods, capital and persons comes from the mistake of wanting to integrate the “biological South” at all costs. The impossible task of having to “integrate” those people is unfortunately going to lead to a generalized and blind backclash against “globalization” in the coming years and decades, fueled by the anger of the local middle classes.

Yet things could have gone a different way – and still can evolve that way in the near future, as the nations of the Western and Eastern “biological North” share more common values between each other than they do with their respective South.

An obvious alternative to total globalization would therefore be to economically unite the innovative and dynamic jurisdictions of the Western Northern Hemisphere (North America and Northern Europe) with those of the Eastern Northern Hemisphere (East Asia).

An Economic Union of the Northern Hemisphere (EUNH) build on the model of the European Union would therefore allow for a much faster and efficient economic, scientific and technological integration than the one which seeks to integrate with the “biological South”, while avoiding almost all the negative side effects that come with having to integrate that “biological South”.

Uniting economically the Western Northern Hemisphere and the Eastern Northern Hemisphere, while establishing strict controls over the migration of people from the Southern Hemisphere seems to be the ideal solution to reap all the benefits of globalization, without its negative side effects.

The low-wage workers from the Eastern Northern Hemisphere (overwhelmingly, Chinese) would be more than enough to fulfill the needs for cheap labor of the Western Northern Hemisphere. The flexibility, dynamism and entrepreneurial spirit of East Asian economies would also help to revigorate the sluggish economic life of the West.

On the other hand, integrating China economically with the US and EU would allow for better standards and practices in China, helping to curb corruption and environmental degradation – which in turn would translate in increased economic wellbeing for all.

Everyone would win in such a situation.

Free movement of goods, services, financial flux and people should be entirely allowed within the “biological North”. The Chinese worker masses could easily provide all the cheap labor that the West needs, with a much higher productivity than is obtained now by employing Hispanics, Moslems and Blacks.

On the other hand, the enormous costs associated with crime, welfare and population explosion – and all ills generally associated with “globalization” – would simply not happen if the Brown workforce of the West was replaced with Chinese workers.

The simple idea of an Economic Union of the Northern Hemisphere would therefore solve most of our current immigration and economic problems at once! The “Wall” of Donald Trump should be built (electronically and legally) along the borders of the whole “biological North”, while we should rather tear apart all legal borders between those nations and jurisdictions that belong to the Union of the Northern Hemisphere.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership was one decisive step in this direction, although the US has now withdrawn from it, due to the populist policies of the current US presidency. Most of the opposition to this ideal solution of the Economic Union of the Northern Hemisphere comes from the frustrated middle classes that feel thay cannot compete on a global basis and need to “protect” their borders (and jobs that will anyways be soon destroyed or transformed by automation), and from the political conservatives, who basically always reject any kind of innovation.

The other jurisdictions that are part of the Treaty however, are going to continue their economic integration without the US. Apart from the economic aspects however, we need to push for the cultural integration of the “biological North”, to make sure that the future Union develops around a commonality of interests and civilization, instead of being directed only by purely economic considerations.

https://asianaryanism.com/building-the-e...emisphere/

[The Beast1]

I find it hilarious they exclude Italy and Spain, yet include Greece in this so called union. Italy has a stronger and more diversified economy than Greece!

Same goes for China yet we're excluding India.

Why are we also including south east asia?

This makes no sense and is a foolish idea.

[SamuelBRoberts]

This is a painfully retarded idea.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

EU is a failure, so let's expand it! Great idea, my (((man)))!

[Paracelsus]

(10-22-2017 12:28 AM)Svara Wrote:  

It would indeed solve a lot of problems.

For the globalists, absolutely. Not so much for everyone else.

Hail Mercantilists, influencing idiot popular movements since the dawn of feminism!

[Leonard D Neubache]

Never underestimate the willingness of assholes to double down on a failed bet when they're gambling with the lives and livelihoods of other people.

[iop890]

(((Belgians)))

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

(10-22-2017 08:36 AM)iop890 Wrote:  

(((Belgians)))

[godzilla]

Author probably needs some history and geography lessons. Northern Italy is one of the wealthiest parts of Europe and Milan and Turin are still home a bunch of large industrial companies.

[Mage]

Yeah let's include Cambodia and exclude Italy.

I don't know what this is but it is something made by a stupid person.

[El Padrone]

This is your second thread from that autist site. We should volunteer better sites for OP to visit when online. I'll recommend 1. Quora.com 2. BoredPanda.com 3. Amazon's bookstore page. 4. WestIndianArchie.com. I hope you take this in good faith.

[h3ltrsk3ltr]

I'll support it if we can change the color to red white and blue.

..and exclude greenland. Why even put that place in an economic map?

[iop890]

Can we trade Papua New Guinea for Italy?

[BlueMark]

Delete (realized I don't have enough posts for politics forum)

[The Beast1]

Ouch! OP was banned.

[Emancipator]

Myanmar? North Korea?

[Lunostrelki]

Reminds me of an economic version of this:
http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/N...iance.html

Quote:

A striking thing about the great existential military conflicts of the industrial age, from Napoleon's wars to the Cold War, is that the principal nations involved were European or East Asian. Let's take a hint from my friend and consider these nations all together: the EuroSinoNippons, or (very loosely speaking) the Arctics.

From the perspective of 2007, the intra-Arctic nature of all 19th- and 20th-century major conflict really is striking. I recently went to look something up in Niall Ferguson's fine book about World War One. I got to browsing in it, and found myself reflecting on how unthinkable such a clash of nations would be today, if the nations were all Europeans. You can even throw Vladimir Putin's glowering Russia into the mix: a great existential war between Europeans is simply not going to happen again. Who thinks it is? Who even talks about it?

Can the same be said more broadly of the Arctics? People do talk about, and I suppose even worry about, a war between China and the U.S.A. I am not one of those people. There is simply no sufficient casus belli. A Chinese blockade of Taiwan, or even an attempted invasion, would outrage Americans, but I very much doubt there would be any real support for going to war. China is not — trust me — going to make a grab for Alaska or Hawaii.

Other possibilities — a Russo-Chinese war for resources in Siberia, a Sino-Japanese war over... what? — seem to me equally remote. The inclination of the modern Chinese is to buy what they need, with at worst some diplomatic browbeating of competitors, and covert support to willing but undemocratic supplier regimes. To the degree that the U.S.A. remains an Arctic nation, I see no prospect of future intra-Arctic conflict.

The Temperates and the Tropicals are a different matter. Taking the Temperates to be the swathe of peoples from North Africa, through the Middle East, across Pakistan, north India, and Bangladesh, we are already in a state of conflict or serious tension with several nations, on account of the fact that this is the primary zone of Islam. Whether the current conflict is an existential one is a matter of opinion. Norman Podhoretz thinks it is, but many of us disagree with him.

Islam is a factor in the Tropicals, too — the nations of sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia — but not such an essential one, even in Indonesia. (I am assuming throughout that the Latin Americans will continue to vegetate in inconsequentiality as they did through the last century.)

The determinants of geopolitics over the next few decades will be:

- The degree of intra-Arctic solidarity, our nations united in a common concern about demographic collapse, and in common anxieties about threats from Temperates.
- The degree to which Europe, the U.S.A., and the old British dominions (Canada, Australia, New Zealand) can maintain their identity as Arctics while their populations of immigrant Temperates and Tropicals swell.
- The ability of Arctic nations to maintain their edge over Temperates and Tropicals in intelligence and creativity. (Lynn and Vanhanen's comprehensive studies suggest a gross mean IQ of over 100 for the Arctics, about 90 for the Temperates, less than 80 for the Tropicals.)

Perhaps it is time that we Arctics resolved to sink our minor differences and address our common problems, beginning with those demographic ones.