The Globalist Agenda - -

[Alexis Jacobi]

This all gets out of hand because there is no meaningful definition of "globalism" nor any hope that one could be furnished for such a nebulous notion. Simply look at the "anti-globalists" and you will see an array of unrelated contrarians each fighting a different monster. It goes beyond the left and the right (two nebulous objects in themselves that really don't mean anything specific either).

One way to understand this problem and the dilemma of those who seek out dissident political positions, is perhaps to consider the view that at least some of them subscribe to: That being the notion, or the fact, that 'the Left" and 'Progressives' dominate most cultural institutions. The 'long march through the institutions' is the turn of phrase employed.

I have referred numerous times to this video where the political bias in a Canadian university is discussed by former students.

What this means is that the parameters of acceptable thought in academic institutions certainly, and by extension in numerous other institutions, and certainly in governing institutions, only allows a limited range of ideas. We have all been raised up within such a limiting environment and I think we all know just where the limits of speech are. To think, to talk, to write on themes deemed forbidden -- to the degree that one has some sort of *position* in society -- not only can but will result in repressive retribution.

This must be seen and acknowledged. If it is then the conditions of the present, and what really operates in the present, can be talked about.

True, that the term *globalism* like so many fighting words these days is an abbreviation. But why do such abbreviations exist? There are a few possible answers:

1) That fighting words make rallying behind some position, whether 'nebulous' or 'concrete', easier. Such abbreviations are extremely common in popular discourse today.

2) That those who use such open terms are those who grope around for basic, intelligible terms which, though imperfect and short-hand, give them some purchase within a conceptual realm that they may not dominate very well, or badly, or even at all.

3) That a word such as *globalism*, used pejoratively, is an "interpretive beginning". For example, if someone feels that all of a sudden their community is overrun (as they might say it) with foreigners and the quality of life they formerly enjoyed has been disrupted and they are distressed, dismayed and angry, they are forced to resort to down and dirty, and accessible, interpretive terms. And there is a logical connection between what the 'globalists' do or are understood to do (open borders, encourage immigration, etc.) and what this person notices in their town. They seek a way to grasp it and use a term of abbreviation.

4) The other usage is for purposes of political activism. When *fighting words* are employed they may be inaccurate, misleading, not particularly fair, but in the Culture Wars this is the name of the game.

an array of unrelated contrarians each fighting a different monster.

But the important thing is to notice that there is a perception of something -- a monster (this is your negatively-inflected abbreviation BTW) -- being fought. As well as *worthy of being fought*. So these definitions involve many levels of valuation.

Let me be clear and direct Flash: Your discourse, from top to bottom, is shot through with terms that clearly and directly indicate that you believe that all such opposition and dissidence is *bad* and *evil*. Your views are condemnatory straight across the board.

And this, naturally, is par for the course today! You exemplify the way that limited and limiting discourse functions. Your views, the way you conduct yourself in the realm of ideas, results in banning, banishments, de-monitization, loss of employment positions, and the destruction of reputation.

You play a very hard game. And this is done intentionally. The desire behind it is to do as much damage as is possible. You and people like you who use these tactic can be said to be *drunk* with the power over others it provides to them. That is why these terms continue to be used so frequently: they work.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Myself, I am waiting for Ibn-Wilbur al-Boneman’s definitive assessments on these matters.

[Iwannaplato]

Invalidating the old phrase, "Soup to nuts," is easily accomplished by serving a first course of Nut Soup. Stepping Into the grander scheme, if the subsequent philosophical meal can be tasted or completely polished off down to the bones, then at a civilized table the feast appropriately finishes with either nuts, or the nut house.

That was fun.

I enjoyed it, though I have to say it went over my head. Or perhaps I expected it had a symboIic side when it didn't. Either way, carry on.

What it means is: a philosopher who takes philosophy to the limit must land in the nut house, because he will be so at odds with whatever power structure he offends that rules the circumstances of the situation.

Thus the necessity of integrating what philosophy hath wrought, back into the weave of the environment, which few in philosophy address.

I thought you knew this, seeing as how it's bigger for the individual than even "globalism," since it universally applies to every social situation, as defined by two or more transmitting and receiving.

That I'm aware of. I just didn't get the soup metaphor. And I was messing around with soup as a metaphor for muIticuIturaIism, so moving into your post...Iost.

Iambiguous certainIy writes about bringing things into practicaI Iife, but there are other obstacIes there.

In any case some cIear points about what in GIobaIism is bothering peopIe wouId be a step in this thread.

[Iwannaplato]

I have referred numerous times to this video where the political bias in a Canadian university is discussed by former students

I'm not sure that's GIobaIism, though anything can connect to gIobaIism, or be connected....

That said what shouId, if anything, be off Iimits in a university setting discussion. Either at the topic IeveI, the word IeveI, or the rhetoric IeveI. But the Iast, for exampIe, shouId there be any Iimits on the heat of the exchanges in a cIassroom, there, or on campus.

I wouId guess everyone has some taboos/Iimits. But what wouId yours be if any?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'm not sure that's GIobaIism, though anything can connect to gIobaIism, or be connected....

My point had to do with the limits of acceptable speech.

The mass-control of populations — what they think, what is allowed, how their thinking is corralled — is as issue that the original video creator is concerned about.

And certainly FishPie, in starting this thread, has his concerns. I regard them as completely valid.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I wouId guess everyone has some taboos/Iimits. But what wouId yours be if any?

Well we live in a culture and time when there are hardly any limits at all. I’ve been exposed to everything over the course of my life, so in that sense I have been contaminated.

When Liberalism morphs into Hyper-Liberalism it seems that all limits are transgressed. That becomes normalcy.

Are you asking me to theoretically design a Republic?

Isn't Plato’s Republic the fascistic model?

[Iwannaplato]

I wouId guess everyone has some taboos/Iimits. But what wouId yours be if any?

Well we live in a culture and time when there are hardly any limits at all. I’ve been exposed to everything over the course of my life, so in that sense I have been contaminated.

When Liberalism morphs into Hyper-Liberalism it seems that all limits are transgressed. That becomes normalcy.

Are you asking me to theoretically design a Republic?

No, it was specificaIIy in the coIIege setting. In other words those students feIt/thought they were stopped from even discussing certain things. Are their any Iimits you wouId set, ought to be set, in a university setting? If so, what are they? I mentioned Iimits around content, styIe and I'd add to the finaI one words and images. What Iimits, if any, wouId you consider correct for a university to set for cIassrooms and pubIic campus?

I'm trying to move it from ''they censor'. To what if anything wouId you and others have ruIes against?

The reason for this shift is that in my (rather Iong Iife) I have experience no go topics from both conservative educators and IiberaI ones. So, for me pretty much everyone has taboos in form and content of communication in educationaI settings. Of course, there are differences in what is off Iimits. There's the rub. But my sense is this moves the debate from X are (impicitIy asserted or overtIy) bad peopIe (and we're not) to a discussion of what is taboo. Of course if one poIiticaI group has more power over education, then that is important to go into. But my sense is the debate is more cIear moving from a noII starting point. Then compare and justify.

[attofishpi]

In any case some cIear points about what in GIobaIism is bothering peopIe wouId be a step in this thread.

..this might piss some types off - but I asked the AI yesterday for a bit of research on the subject..

Concerns about globalism typically arise from several perspectives:
1. Loss of Sovereignty:
Globalism often involves the pooling of sovereignty or decision-making authority at supranational levels (like international organizations or agreements), which can lead to concerns about national governments losing control over their own affairs. Some fear that decisions affecting their country could be made by distant and less accountable entities.

2. Economic Impact:
Globalism, particularly in the form of global trade agreements and economic integration, can lead to economic benefits such as increased trade and investment. However, it can also result in job losses in certain sectors as industries face global competition. This economic restructuring can be disruptive to local economies and communities.

3. Cultural and Social Impact:
Increased global integration can bring about cultural homogenization or the dilution of local traditions and values. Some worry about the erosion of cultural identity and social cohesion as global norms and practices become more prevalent.

4. Environmental Concerns:
Globalism can exacerbate environmental challenges such as pollution and resource depletion, as increased economic activity and global supply chains impact natural resources and ecosystems across borders.

5. Inequality and Power Imbalances:
Globalism can widen inequalities both within and between countries, as economic benefits may not be evenly distributed. There can also be concerns about powerful global actors (such as multinational corporations or international financial institutions) exerting disproportionate influence over national policies and priorities.

6. Democratic Deficit:
Critics argue that global governance structures often lack democratic accountability and transparency compared to national governments. Decision-making at the global level may be perceived as less responsive to the concerns and interests of ordinary citizens.

7. Security and Stability:
Increased interdependence through globalism can lead to vulnerabilities, such as economic instability spreading rapidly across countries or security threats (like terrorism or pandemics) transcending national borders more easily.

While globalism can bring about positive outcomes such as economic growth, cooperation on global challenges, and cultural exchange, the concerns mentioned above underscore the complex trade-offs and challenges associated with deeper global integration. As such, discussions and debates on globalism often revolve around finding a balance between the benefits of international cooperation and the need to preserve national sovereignty, identity, and stability.


On the sovereign aspect - that's the key to Brexit being voted for IMO.

[Alexis Jacobi]

No, it was specificaIIy in the coIIege setting. In other words those students feIt/thought they were stopped from even discussing certain things.

In reference to the video I submitted (University of Toronto) the issue is actually manifold. A few things happened which you would not know from just that video. First, the narrator of that video, in his university setting, and with the ideas he had, was reprimanded and then interviewed by officials who were acting like censors and cultural commissars. There are two of his videos where he talks about the entire issue:

1

2

Are their any Iimits you wouId set, ought to be set, in a university setting? If so, what are they? I mentioned Iimits around content, styIe and I'd add to the finaI one words and images. What Iimits, if any, wouId you consider correct for a university to set for cIassrooms and pubIic campus?

That is not the question that I would pose right now. I think one would have to linger over a whole group of different questions and considerations about the sort of society we desire to live in before we, and before I, could make statements about what ideas should or would be limited.

I'm trying to move it from ''they censor'. To what if anything wouId you and others have ruIes against?

Yes, I notice. But again that is not exactly what the issue is. The issue is that there is a great deal -- in political theory certainly -- that is excluded from the university curricula (according to the video author and Michael Millerman). Thus what is needed is simple: rebalancing.

And I advocate solely for that.

The reason for this shift is that in my (rather Iong Iife) I have experience no-go topics from both conservative educators and IiberaI ones. So, for me pretty much everyone has taboos in form and content of communication in educationaI settings. Of course, there are differences in what is off Iimits. There's the rub. But my sense is this moves the debate from X are (impicitIy asserted or overtIy) bad peopIe (and we're not) to a discussion of what is taboo. Of course if one poIiticaI group has more power over education, then that is important to go into. But my sense is the debate is more cIear moving from a noII starting point. Then compare and justify.

I would focus on the question that FishPie seems concerned about: 1) the *reverse colonization* by Islamic peoples into Europe, and 2) the issue of immigration, or excessive immigration in a general sense, that has been referred to as *replacement*.

[Gary Childress]

The issue is that there is a great deal -- in political theory certainly -- that is excluded from the university curricula (according to the video author and Michael Millerman). Thus what is needed is simple: rebalancing.

And I advocate solely for that.

It's been a long time since I attended. Which philosophers are universities excluding (or "cancelling" perhaps) these days that is causing the problem? Do they not teach the phenomenological/continental tradition anymore (Heidegger, Derrida, Ricœur and others)? They did when I attended. Has that changed since the 1980s? Is Replacement Theory something that you would like to see taught in universities (assuming they don't)?

[Alexis Jacobi]

The issue is that there is a great deal -- in political theory certainly -- that is excluded from the university curricula (according to the video author and Michael Millerman). Thus what is needed is simple: rebalancing.

And I advocate solely for that.

It's been a long time since I attended. Which philosophers are universities excluding (or "cancelling" perhaps) these days that is causing the problem? Do they not teach the phenomenological/continental tradition anymore (Heidegger, Derrida, Ricœur and others)? They did when I attended. Has that changed since the 1980s? Is Replacement Theory something that you would like to see taught in universities (assuming they don't)?

If I express frustration know that it is sham frustration. I believe I understand what the issues are. The frustration is due to the fact (my impression) that you are outside of the loop of understanding *what is going on today* and *why*.

The 3 videos that I recently submitted deal, effectively, on the issue I consider to be most salient, most important. Ronald Beiner, a professor at Uni of Toronto, refused to work with PhD candidate Michael Millerman because, one presumes, he did not approve that Millerman studied Alexander Dugin and had an interest in other political theory, which he certainly does, and dropped him from his committee.

Beiner wrote a book during that time or after: Dangerous Minds: Nietzsche, Heidegger, and the Return of the Far Right. Here is the blurb:

Following the fall of the Berlin Wall and demise of the Soviet Union, prominent Western thinkers began to suggest that liberal democracy had triumphed decisively on the world stage. Having banished fascism in World War II, liberalism had now buried communism, and the result would be an end of major ideological conflicts, as liberal norms and institutions spread to every corner of the globe. With the Brexit vote in Great Britain, the resurgence of right-wing populist parties across the European continent, and the surprising ascent of Donald Trump to the American presidency, such hopes have begun to seem hopelessly naïve. The far right is back, and serious rethinking is in order.

In Dangerous Minds, Ronald Beiner traces the deepest philosophical roots of such right-wing ideologues as Richard Spencer, Aleksandr Dugin, and Steve Bannon to the writings of Nietzsche and Heidegger—and specifically to the aspects of their thought that express revulsion for the liberal-democratic view of life. Beiner contends that Nietzsche's hatred and critique of bourgeois, egalitarian societies has engendered new disciples on the populist right who threaten to overturn the modern liberal consensus. Heidegger, no less than Nietzsche, thoroughly rejected the moral and political values that arose during the Enlightenment and came to power in the wake of the French Revolution. Understanding Heideggerian dissatisfaction with modernity, and how it functions as a philosophical magnet for those most profoundly alienated from the reigning liberal-democratic order, Beiner argues, will give us insight into the recent and unexpected return of the far right.

Beiner does not deny that Nietzsche and Heidegger are important thinkers; nor does he seek to expel them from the history of philosophy. But he does advocate that we rigorously engage with their influential thought in light of current events—and he suggests that we place their severe critique of modern liberal ideals at the center of this engagement.

You are not grasping, it seems to me, that there are intense political and ideological battles going on, and that it is the Left-Progressive faction that has turned into a repressive, censorious, political power with enormous *agenda* (as the common phrase goes). To all appearances, they will do anything to arrest the circulation of ideas that they do not like. And they say that they are defending democracy.

If 'replacement theory' is not theory but a real occurrence -- and I have examined enough material to have concluded that it certainly is a real thing -- then the issue is not so much should it be studied, but to what degree it is something of real and darmatic consequence. First, it has to be identified as such. The entire topic needs to open up to rational, careful conversation.

Now, I know, but I am not sure that you know, that you Gary are constitutionally incapable of getting to the point where you could even examine the issue carefully. I have outlined in various posts why I think this is so in your case. In this sense you are one who 'welcomes replacement'.

Examine the type and quality of rhetoric that Flash uses. It is there, part of the record. Not because I want to shed any particular light on him, he is only relevant up to a point, but because he demonstrates how such twisted rhetoric is employed.

[FlashDangerpants]

1) That fighting words make rallying behind some position, whether 'nebulous' or 'concrete', easier. Such abbreviations are extremely common in popular discourse today.

2) That those who use such open terms are those who grope around for basic, intelligible terms which, though imperfect and short-hand, give them some purchase within a conceptual realm that they may not dominate very well, or badly, or even at all.

3) That a word such as *globalism*, used pejoratively, is an "interpretive beginning". For example, if someone feels that all of a sudden their community is overrun (as they might say it) with foreigners and the quality of life they formerly enjoyed has been disrupted and they are distressed, dismayed and angry, they are forced to resort to down and dirty, and accessible, interpretive terms. And there is a logical connection between what the 'globalists' do or are understood to do (open borders, encourage immigration, etc.) and what this person notices in their town. They seek a way to grasp it and use a term of abbreviation.

4) The other usage is for purposes of political activism. When *fighting words* are employed they may be inaccurate, misleading, not particularly fair, but in the Culture Wars this is the name of the game.

You are describing the need some people have to make up stories that explain away their feelings of inadequacy by attributing their dashed expectations to nefarious invisible schemes. It's the 21st Century equivalent of looking for a which because your goat died. I am sure it is all very understandable, but that's no reason to pander.

It may well be the case that lots of people have a squishy feeling that the world has changed and they aren't getting as much respect or something as they imagine their grandad did when he worked his one job for the whole of his working life. But we don't need to postulate a giant global conspiracy simnply because a lot of people have a bad case of rose-tinted nostalgia and a little bit of performance anxiety.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You are describing the need some people have to make up stories that explain away their feelings of inadequacy by attributing their dashed expectations to nefarious invisible schemes. It's the 21st Century equivalent of looking for a which because your goat died. I am sure it is all very understandable, but that's no reason to pander.

This is pure opinion. And it is unfounded and unground-able in reality. However, there are indeed some people who might match what you are describing. So on that level what you say is true.

Your prejudiced view, a type of reduction, is so much at the core of yourself, and to you seems undoubtably true for the broad group you wish to criticize, that opposing your position is virtually useless.

And at some point the Reductio ad Hitlerum will suddenly appear. Or the danger seems to exist …

However, if your intention is to make statements to the audience here, very well, that is legitimate.

Audience? You know how Flash interprets things.

My views of present social and political conflicts are extremely different than yours. At the very least I have years reading the material. That could be part of the reason why.

[FlashDangerpants]

You are describing the need some people have to make up stories that explain away their feelings of inadequacy by attributing their dashed expectations to nefarious invisible schemes. It's the 21st Century equivalent of looking for a which because your goat died. I am sure it is all very understandable, but that's no reason to pander.

This is pure opinion. And it is unfounded and unground-able in reality. However, there are indeed some people who might match what you are describing. So on that level what you say is true.

So it is founded then

[Iwannaplato]

1. Loss of Sovereignty:
Globalism often involves the pooling of sovereignty or decision-making authority at supranational levels (like international organizations or agreements), which can lead to concerns about national governments losing control over their own affairs. Some fear that decisions affecting their country could be made by distant and less accountable entities.

Another way to look at loss of sovereignty is increased degrees of separation between citizens and decision makers, military, legislation and enforcement. Nations themselves were one consolidations of power and the unifying of smaller groups, include minority ethnic groups, minority religious groups and so on. When international bodies and governments over national governments arise, the next step in this distance increase takes place.