What is a globalist? The working definition thread

[Iamwhomiam]

Well, I'm a globalist, I suppose. One ship, one captain. If a captain is necessary at all. Perhaps one body of representatives instead, with local bodies administering the same government locally. Just as long as the peon in Bolivia or Bangladesh, the US, Nigeria or elsewhere have equal rights protected by law and the opportunity for redress of violations.

I think most consider global corporatists who seek control over one aspect of industry globally to be "Globalists." World wide control over an essential industry or all industry.

[Sounder]

Well, I'm a globalist, I suppose. One ship, one captain. If a captain is necessary at all. Perhaps one body of representatives instead, with local bodies administering the same government locally. Just as long as….

At least you and Dr. Evil are open and honest about it, thank-you.

This may be used to illustrate a philosophical difference I have with certain aspects of liberal thinking. There is an elitism involved in modern thinking that demands for us ‘peons’ to take the word of an expert class to solve our problems. But there are logical inconsistencies generated by taking this tack. The first is that experts are intellectuals whose self identity is created and maintained by at least a basic adherence to our dominant narrative. They may be good at analysis but intellectuals do not very often ‘think for themselves’. Second, society is not likely to develop in a vibrant, honest or organic manner if the general population is taught to keep quiet and let the smart people direct things.

We need more ‘centers of authority’, not fewer.

‘Just as long as…’ is a big if.

[Iamwhomiam]

Well, I'm a globalist, I suppose. One ship, one captain. If a captain is necessary at all. Perhaps one body of representatives instead, with local bodies administering the same government locally. Just as long as….

At least you and Dr. Evil are open and honest about it, thank-you.

This may be used to illustrate a philosophical difference I have with certain aspects of liberal thinking. There is an elitism involved in modern thinking that demands for us ‘peons’ to take the word of an expert class to solve our problems. But there are logical inconsistencies generated by taking this tack. The first is that experts are intellectuals whose self identity is created and maintained by at least a basic adherence to our dominant narrative. They may be good at analysis but intellectuals do not very often ‘think for themselves’. Second, society is not likely to develop in a vibrant, honest or organic manner if the general population is taught to keep quiet and let the smart people direct things.

We need more ‘centers of authority’, not fewer.

‘Just as long as…’ is a big if.

Hi Sounder. You're welcome.

Whether elitist or peon, life itself is always a big "if" though, isn't it? But why take my words out of context by abbreviating my words?

"Just as long as the peon in Bolivia or Bangladesh, the US, Nigeria or elsewhere have equal rights protected by law and the opportunity for redress of violations."

Do you feel differently, that one segment of society should not have the same rights as any other?

Unless I'm attempting to be humorous or sarcastic, I am always honest. I should also say I believe that most here are more well read than I am. I doubt anyone would consider me to be an "intellectual," or "smart." I'm certainly not well read. I really only know little, having been focused on very few areas of interest. So I do know a lot about little.

I presume you are of the belief that I am a liberal? Or at least, that I think like a liberal? That may be true for you, but I really don't believe my Republican Town Party would have nominated me as their candidate for Town Supervisor were that actually true. (But hey, who knows what those crazy Repubs really think these days, right?)

There is an elitism involved in modern thinking that demands for us ‘peons’ to take the word of an expert class to solve our problems.

I really have no idea what "modern thinking" is, I only know what I think. I certainly understand what an "elitist" is. Usually, at least in my limited experience, elitists seek control over the behavior of others. While your statement may be true to your life experience, it is false to mine and at to least some others.

Take, for example, the expert white social worker who sees the inequality that exists within a minority community that is far different from their own life experience and wants to bring about meaningful change through individual and group empowerment. Their assistance is rejected by the community or individual they seek to help because they are not of the community. The community or individual has the power of self-determination and has all along, and is more than capable of determining what they feel is the best course of action, (if any action is required at all), for the community or individual.

Expert sent packing. Unwelcome, unwanted and rejected.

This I do agree with, "society is not likely to develop in a vibrant, honest or organic manner if the general population is taught to keep quiet and let the smart people direct things."

However, if I become ill, I'll choose visiting an expert physician for help and advise, rather than asking the bus driver. Experts do have their place in society, and they needn't be elitist, nor great intellectuals. If I wanted to better understand quantum physics, I wouldn't ask my car mechanic to explain it, even though he is an expert at repairing automobiles, I would seek out an expert mathematician or physicist and ask them.

It is quite disturbing to read any one here call for more control over society and the individuals that it's made up of.

[DrEvil]

Well, I'm a globalist, I suppose. One ship, one captain. If a captain is necessary at all. Perhaps one body of representatives instead, with local bodies administering the same government locally. Just as long as….

At least you and Dr. Evil are open and honest about it, thank-you.

This may be used to illustrate a philosophical difference I have with certain aspects of liberal thinking. There is an elitism involved in modern thinking that demands for us ‘peons’ to take the word of an expert class to solve our problems. But there are logical inconsistencies generated by taking this tack. The first is that experts are intellectuals whose self identity is created and maintained by at least a basic adherence to our dominant narrative. They may be good at analysis but intellectuals do not very often ‘think for themselves’. Second, society is not likely to develop in a vibrant, honest or organic manner if the general population is taught to keep quiet and let the smart people direct things.

We need more ‘centers of authority’, not fewer.

‘Just as long as…’ is a big if.

I'm not sure I would call myself a globalist in the traditional sense. I'm in favor of breaking up all countries with more than 10 million people or so into smaller countries of about 5-10 million people each, but I also support a strong and heavily reformed UN with a narrow and well-defined mandate (keep countries from fighting and guarantee some basic human rights).

I also think it's a good idea to listen to experts exactly because they're experts. They've spent their lives studying a specific topic, so obviously they know more about it than some random schmuck off the street (see various non-expert fucktards pontificating about global warming for how badly ignoring the experts can go).
Of course there's exceptions (humans are human, after all), but as a general rule I think it works pretty well.

[American Dream]

So are we at all on the same page in terms of basic definitions of concepts such as Globalism, Neoconservatism, Neoliberalism, Paleoconservatism, Liberalism etc.?

If so, I wonder who are the members of the ruling class who are not globalists? Is it mostly reactionary nationalists?

It seems to me that what is really going on is that an a dogmatic belief in "NWO" theory is assumed as a given- and that is a fucked up mix of weird and backwards beliefs, not based on solid evidence and clear reasoning but more than anything on the fantasies of far right white dudes, especially "christian patriots", racists, and other such misguided fanatics who don't have much of any idea of what is really going on, beyond the truly bizarre right wing propaganda which they swallow whole.

[Iamwhomiam]

Everyone needs a Christ to crucify, how else to appease one's prejudices in order to elevate themselves above those who are different? I mean, besides being in a nefarious cabal working to bring about order in the world as they desire.





i mean.

[tapitsbo]

Who is using the term NWO?

I see AD objecting to ideas that there is anything particularly bad about Anglo-American or Zionist imperialism as opposed other flavours.

It's certainly not just far right white dudes who would identify something uniquely amiss with these power blocs and their near global reach, though.

Anyone interested in pluralism around the planet, even fierce opponents of so called reactionary nationalism, would be obliged to look critically at the Anglo-American and Zionist track record, often overlapping on certain areas, and to identify it as not being particularly worthy of apologetics and defensiveness.

Empirically describing these power blocs, or any others is not conspiracy theory by any stretch of the imagination.

I agree with AD that rejecting one side is not allying with another. There is disinformation and distortion being applied here as well as meaningful DISAGREEMENT about basic definitions.

Global corporate governance is indeed frightening - what powers have created bulwarks against it in practice?

We are left wondering what the international law we would like to see would look like - would it deny recognition to entire ethnic groups in the name of vague and arbitrarily applied holistic goals? Would it resemble treaties like the TPP and happily partner with regimes like the Saudis? These should be unambiguously undesirable things...

I don't have the energy or expertise to set matters straight here but I can say that you guys should be ripping into the hardly impartial or progressive "globalism" being defended here with a little more ease and audacity.

[American Dream]

To focus on competing moralities is to miss the point to a large degree. People have to work across borders because none of our bosses and the system they represent is any good. It's not Putin or Assad vs. Obama- they all represent bad things such as killing innocents because you're making Machiavellian deals for political power. Fuck em.

[Harvey]

A globalist is one who successfully defers the real costs of his own activities upon somebody else.

Edit: In that sense, there are no long term globalists.

[AlicetheKurious]

A globalist is one who successfully defers the real costs of his own activities upon somebody else.

Edit: In that sense, there are no long term globalists.

Wait, that's the definition of a Zionist....um.

[Harvey]

Well there you are...

[Harvey]

A globalist is one who successfully defers the real costs of his own activities upon somebody else.

Edit: In that sense, there are no long term globalists.

Wait, that's the definition of a Zionist....um.

And note that I prick myself first with that barb, since hardly anyone in a 'western democracy' can claim to be incurring the costs of their own activity, on a scale of more culpable to less culpable. I'm definitely as far to toward less culpable as it is possible to be in the west, and I can indeed back that assertion up, but nevertheless, I am not exempt, only less culpable.

[tapitsbo]

To focus on competing moralities is to miss the point to a large degree. People have to work across borders because none of our bosses and the system they represent is any good. It's not Putin or Assad vs. Obama- they all represent bad things such as killing innocents because you're making Machiavellian deals for political power. Fuck em.

We should indeed focus on AD's morality since it is the elephant in the room. Those of us who disagree with them, almost all of the posters here it would seem, also work across borders and do not allow "bosses" to determine our priorities yet we often struggle against bosses who walk and talk like AD. Certainly in Canada and elsewhere they do (including in places like Greece.)

The guilt of prosperous Westerners such as Harvey may well be assuaged with the onset of war and poverty resembling the devastation taking place in other regions.

You don't need to be a literal follower of Assad to understand that he is painted as public enemy number 1 - curiously by AD as well as the press of the actual "bosses" - for effectively fighting Al-Qaeda (not "Obama".)

Groups like Al-Qaeda and IS are interesting for all sorts of reasons but opposing them violently should not be a curious choice and it is curious that people are getting browbeaten here for doing so. Well actually it's not curious...

[Harvey]

I'd say conscience rather than guilt but you have a point. For the record, I've spent five of the last dozen winters without any heating or hot water. I've been emaciated, nearly died of treatable infections for lack of money, spent most of the last five years homeless, even while I posted here from time to time at the public library, lived on windfall, walked more than fifty miles in a day on no food, and don't consider myself particularly avaricious. Worn rags, walked miles in snow and rain with shoes that kept my feet wet more than dry. Even so, I know I'm more fortunate than many for so many reasons. That doesn't alter the fact that we make our world by what we demand or what we've been taught to expect from it. None of which speaks to how we are where we are and where we go from here, admittedly. So, a working definition of a globalist. Do you have one?

[tapitsbo]

Why do we need to use terms like globalist or NWO? How global are globalists really?

It is desirable and inevitable that some institutions will cover the entire planet. These have been used inevitably as a cover for multiple agendas of course.

There is absolutely a false dichotomy between "ethnostates" and a "borderless world" going on in this thread, that in reality is complicated by many, many, many factors.

I guess Alice has pointed out that international law is conceivably, hopefully more global than corporate globalism.

Guilt and conscience are still both appropriate at this point, I am fortunate too, more fortunate than you it sounds like. Many friends of mine have become homeless, etc. in recent years but still fortunate as you point out. Of course this homelessness is directly related to the coasting/collapsing by design/controlled demolition of the economy

What would be fortune indeed would be a new constructive direction for people to rebuild. This has happened in some places, but as I understand it usually drastic divide and conquer measures and other debilitating tactics haven't helped.