What is a globalist? The working definition thread

[Joe Hillshoist]

american dream wrote:

It sounds to me like "globalist" is just a very sloppy term representing very sloppy thinking about the power elite- as conflated with Neoliberalism and counterposed to those thoughtful and balanced nationalists who hate refugees, people of color, jews, muslims, leftists, feminists and queers, mostly...

I think I have just about heard it all now. People that don't want to be bombed or starved out of their homes, neighborhoods, or country, or think it is wrong to bomb other people out of their homes, and be forced to "migrate", or flee, or be a refugee, or whatever you want to call it, hate these refugees, people of color, jews, muslims, leftists, feminists and queers, mostly...

What an enormous crock of bullshit that is. What a waste of good oxygen molecules....people that love their neighborhood or country and don't want it bombed into the stone age are thought criminals. What will you come up with next?

edited for my normal typing flaws....

i don't think thats what he said mate.

[Sounder]

I respect any peoples' wish to resist their oppressors though non-violent civil disobedience if that's how the revolution started.

That big 'if' seems to absolve the naive 'first adopters' from blame when the weapons are later introduced.

I obviously wouldn't support one power faction wielding a group of people as a weapon to be used against another power faction.

But isn't this precisely what NED and other NGO's do. They bolster discontent and use it and the people as a weapon to displace an existing non-approved power faction.

Sometimes that's a little difficult to gain perspective on if you're in it and your hand isn't being greased directly, but I think that revolutionaries need to stay philosophically grounded in practice and action and remain vigilant of outside influences trying to impress upon them any sort of undue weight.

To me, revolutions do not cut the cheese. They revolve around the same power narrative that fostered the discontent to begin with. But the 'need to stay philosophically grounded in practice and action and remain vigilant of outside influences' does apply.

My way to try to do this is to not manipulate others and try to mitigate the effects of others attempts to manipulate me.

Of course, I come up on the loser end of things oftentimes in this Machiavellian world, but my compensation is less stress and better interpersonal relations than what I observe as being the life-style of most people.

[Joe Hillshoist]

I obviously wouldn't support one power faction wielding a group of people as a weapon to be used against another power faction.

But isn't this precisely what NED and other NGO's do. They bolster discontent and use it and the people as a weapon to displace an existing non-approved power faction.

That might happen sometimes but its highly unlikely that any NGo could motivate a population to do that unless they were already on the verge of doing it anyway.

To me, revolutions do not cut the cheese. They revolve around the same power narrative that fostered the discontent to begin with. But the 'need to stay philosophically grounded in practice and action and remain vigilant of outside influences' does apply.

My way to try to do this is to not manipulate others and try to mitigate the effects of others attempts to manipulate me.

Of course, I come up on the loser end of things oftentimes in this Machiavellian world, but my compensation is less stress and better interpersonal relations than what I observe as being the life-style of most people.

You don't live in a third world puppet state. People don't randomly revolt for shits and giggles. They understand the points you are making. Revolutions rarely happen without either years of instability or years of oppression or both. if people are satisfied that they will be able to raise their kids in a safe environment that gives them a future then they won't consider revolution.

[American Dream]

It seems like the definition of "globalist" is kept intentionally vague, so that there is a bit more wiggle room. I'm beginning to out it together in my head however:

This mythical globalist is the Other to the real revolutionary subject: "us" (white?) nationalists. "We" are reactionaries. "We" don't like big federated government because it tends to enforce cultural and political standards that are more centrist/liberal than our local boys would. "We" glue ourselves together by a shared dislike of the Other people, be it Africans, Pakistani, Latin, queer, anarcho-communist, New York liberals, Muslims, Arabs, Jews, etc.

A real downside of this mentality is that it promotes a cross class alliance where all the more extreme reactionaries are supposed to be lumped together. Despite the populist rhetoric, this means that ruling/owning class elites- masters of the universe types and their top assistants- are somehow supposed to have the same interests and agenda as rank and file reactionaries. The fallacy should be obvious.

So, if somebody who serves the interest of the bourgeoisie, say an FBI or Military Intelligence officer comes along who really is racist, really does hate leftists, and offers some frothing at the mouth hater "a job", well you guess the rest. If they are an agent of the Putin regime, it might also be acceptable to trade service for money, etc.

Ultimately, the populist rhetoric falls kinda flat because the value system is inherently flawed.

[Sounder]

That might happen sometimes but its highly unlikely that any NGo could motivate a population to do that unless they were already on the verge of doing it anyway.

Hey, don't leave NED out of it. Here's a clue, NED and associated NGO's do not bring democracy, they bring chaos.

And if they can't tip it, mercenary armies and assassinations will. Except when the people unite, then the loser NGO's and their sycophants lose as they are doing now.

[Sounder]

This mythical globalist

Are you suggesting that there is no such thing as a globalist?

Do you have a better way to characterize the sub-set of the power-elite that wishes to abolish self determination of nations so as to facilitate corporatist takeovers?

Or is this a null set and something that is only allowed to be considered through the lens of right-wing reactionaries, (and thereby neutering progressive folk of their critical thinking faculties.)

[American Dream]

Despite what certain leftists (Hardt, Negri et al) may claim,the Nation-State is alive and well, most especially as far as the bigger fish go (USA, China, Russia, UK, etc.). Formerly colonized peoples are of course "free" to compete in our new, improved world:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolibera ... balization

Globalization
In practice, less developed nations have less developed rights and institutions, resulting in greater risk for international lenders and businesses. This means that developing countries usually have less privileged access to international markets than developed countries. Because of this effect, international lenders are also more likely to invest in foreign companies (i.e. multinational corporations) inside a country, rather than in local businesses,[148] giving international firms an unfair competitive advantage. Also, speculative flows of capital may enter the country during a boom and leave during a recession, deepening economic crises and destabilizing the economy.

Both of these problems imply that developing countries should have greater protections against international markets than developed ones and greater barriers to trade. Despite such problems, IMF policy in response to crises, which is supposed to be guided by neoliberal ideas such as the Washington Consensus, is to increase liberalization of the economy and decrease barriers, allowing bigger capital flight and the chance for foreign firms to shore up their monopolies. Additionally, the IMF acts to increase moral hazard, since international involvement will usually result in an international bailout with foreign creditors being treated preferentially, leading international firms to discount the risks of doing business in less developed countries[149] and forcing the government to pay for them instead.

The view of some that international involvement and the imposition of "neoliberal" policies usually serves to make things worse and acts against the interests of the country being "saved", has led some to argue that the policies have nothing to do with any form of liberalism, but hide some other purpose.[150] The most common assertion given by opponents is that they are a form of neocolonialism, where the more developed countries can exploit the less developed countries. However, even opponents do not agree. For example, Stiglitz assumes that there is no neoimperial plot, but that the system is driven by a mixture of ideology and special interests, in which neoliberal fundamentalists, who do not believe that neoliberalism can fail, work with financial and other multinational corporations, who have the most to benefit from opening up foreign markets. David Harvey, on the other hand, argues that local elites exploit neoliberal reforms in order to impose reforms that benefit them at the cost of the poor, while transferring the blame onto the "evil imperialist" developed countries,[89] citing the example of Argentina in 2001.

[divideandconquer]

"the sub-set of the power-elite that wishes to abolish self determination of nations so as to facilitate corporatist takeovers"

Thanks Sounder! Perfect definition!

[American Dream]

What is the standard by which we can know who is on or off that list?

This was supposed to be a thread that proposes a working definition, after all...

[jakell]

"the sub-set of the power-elite that wishes to abolish self determination of nations so as to facilitate corporatist takeovers"

Thanks Sounder! Perfect definition!

That is a good one. Even though I'm not a fan of trimming defs to the bone, we could possibly remove that last bit about their motivations for this.

Among other motivations there is the Satanist/Luciferian one, popular amongst Christian truthers, which you may be personally familiar with. (I wouldn't mention it otherwise).

[American Dream]

So if an ordinary type working person reads the corporate press and decides they support "free trade", they are not a globalist but if a big capitalist keeps millions or billions inn off-shore accounts, they are?

[Sounder]

What is the standard by which we can know who is on or off that list?

Ah, thanks AD. (Even though I do realize that am on your ignore list) See I don't do lists, but if you must, in general people that support and facilitate the destruction of nation states are on that list.

This was supposed to be a thread that proposes a working definition, after all...

Yes after all... I (accidentally) provided a working definition. Do you have any comment on that?

And that is why we are interested in your working definition or do you consider it as being an insidious category, not to be used; if so please tell us why.

[American Dream]

The "working definition" I see cited describes it as a subset of the elite, so there is a big contradiction unresolved there. I am still trying to understand the world view that sees the U.N. and the NWO (whatever that really means) as big bugaboos.

My sense is that the thinking is still rather sketchy, but I'm open to being proven wrong.

Left theorists Hardt & Negri (who I have mixed feelings about) have proposed somewhat similar ideas about the ascension of a post-national regime that supersedes the Nation-State. "Bifo" Berardi did too. I'm not totally into any of those folks, as I find them to be overly complicated and theoretical.

Near as I can tell, the Nation-State is still running strong. China, Russia and the USA are all vying for power, and I don't see why choosing Russia over the U.S. is particularly rebellious at all.

Same shit, different package.

[Sounder]

The "working definition" I see cited describes it as a subset of the elite, so there is a big contradiction unresolved there.

Could you please identify the contradiction?

[Sounder]

Near as I can tell, the Nation-State is still running strong. China, Russia and the USA are all vying for power, and I don't see why choosing Russia over the U.S. is particularly rebellious at all.

So where is your sympathy for the rest of the nation-states that are not running quite so strong? Is it a-OK for them to be crushed all for the greater good of your boundary hating pretenses?


Oceania has always been allied with Eastasia in a war against Eurasia, but our version may yet take a rather different turn.