[Allen Farber]

So I asked what a globalist was and the definition given was "a person who advocates the interpretation or planning of economic and foreign policy in relation to events and developments throughout the world" first off, I don't really get what interpretation means in this context. For the definition of interpretation, I get "an explanation or way of explaining" so it's a way of explaining policy? If so, what is there to explain about a policy? And as for "events and developments throughout the world", what does developments mean in that context? Only thing I could find about development was something in the process of being finished, but once again, it makes no sense in the context. And finally, how do they explain and plan the policy in relation to events and developments in foreign countries?

And then another definition read "a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper sphere for political influence" what is meant by political influence in that context? and furthermore, how is it a national policy if it's affecting foreign and international countries?

[smoothy]

In the real world a "globalist" is someone who thinks the entire world should follow (more like being imposed upon them) lock-step with THEIR perspective of how everything should be, when in reality as an example. What works for us in the USA won't work in some other countries, and what might be common in other countries would be completely unconstitutional here... Globalists also tend to believe everyone is wrong but them and their way is the only way, and would be completely opposed to it if some other groups vision of how everything should be done would be the methodology.

Unfortunately its not quiet as simple as it might appear because Globalism in just the first step towards one world rule, for a small scale version of what's wrong with it is look at the European Union. Couple countries basically telling everyone else how everything WILL be done... resulting in a lot of resentment because most countries rightfully have their own way of doing things, usually hard won.

As far as the Policy goes... another example... extreme but really not out of line. How would anyone feel about the North Korea way of doing things being imposed globally? Or Russia, Or Syria, etc, etc.

They sugar coat it, and BS you with fancy language and try to make it sound more appealing, but the deeper and more seriously you look at it, its really just Socialism repackaged along with world domination.

[Allen Farber]

All right, but what is meant when they say that it's the interpretation of policy in relation to the developments around the world? I somewhat have a grasp on what globalism is but I'm trying to understand what their explanation of it is. And I don't get how it's a national policy if it's influencing countries internationally

[Allen Farber]

Also, one more thing. There was this political commentator that I was watching who shared a lot of the views you and I have about globalism and he was calling out why it isn't that good of an idea. He said that liberals like globalism because it centralizes government and makes it easier for them to take control and persuade people to rule in their favor as opposed to if government was decentralized. I didn't really get what he meant by centralized. Like in what context? As in there's no state government and the federal government controls everything or where all countries are under one government? Either way, I don't know how that would make it easier for liberals to persuade people into becoming liberals

[joypulv]

It's a topic that is defined in different ways and is argued from all sides.
Some see it as saving the world, unifying good in the world, making economies easier across boundaries.
Others see it as ''We are here to help you and we know what's best for everyone.''

I myself don't get too concerned about it as a concept or even as a reality. There's plenty of ebb and flow around it, and I don't envision some sort of takeover by one evil power or group of powers. YES, there's the G8 and all that to be aware of. Be aware. I might listen to those who rant of doom, and consider them valuable in any part of society, but take what I want from all of it.

You can look at the EU as a form of one gov't... good and bad, as usual. I read about one tiny detail of some rule from the EU that adversely affected the glass blowers in Murano. Why does the EU need to ruin their business when there was no reason for it at all? Yet in other ways, the EU has helped Europe. It's like anything... you decide.

[smoothy]

You have a lot of people who feel its good as long as its done THEIR way. Which of course means everyone else isn't going to like it for any or all reasons.

Because every country is different, has different needs and priorities, and even within a country those vary too.

The human race is not homogeneous in thinking, current or future needs, and certainly not in any other way as well. And because of that Globalism is an idealistic dream of a group who overlooks the obvious and trivializes reality and the needs of individual groups.

Certain groups feel they are entitled to the fruits of someone else's hard work, such as THEIR stuff and THEIR money (usually people who didn't take education serious, made sacrifices or worked harder than they needed to)... while obviously those who worked hard to earn it having it taken away by any means( working hard getting education, working hard to gain skills and advancement) rightfully get upset because THEY earned it.

Centralized means in effect.. (Visualize what Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin or Mao among many others set out to do) the biggest Bully in the room forcing everyone else to do everything THEY demand. Been tried by many over the course of recorded History... and it will always be doomed to fail because it NEVER has everyone's best interests in mind. Because everyone does not share a common need OR want.

In effect it boils down to... the more you TRY to cater to everyone's needs... the the further you get from achieving Anyone's needs. Globalism serves one small groups desire of world domination, at the expense of the vast majority.

[ma0641]

Centralized. Think of North Korea. Do the people have a voice or do they blindly follow "Rocket Man".

[Allen Farber]

All right, so now I get what you mean by centralized. But even then, I don't get how that guarantees that the left is going to get their way. The dictator/de facto leader could be on the opposite side of the spectrum.

[smoothy]

And it all depends on the perspective of the person making the claims. Yes the left can claim the Right wants to do that... but historically the right has proven itself to not want it or any part of it and know its never possible to achieve without complete and total oppression and tyranny of MOST of the planet.

Socialism (and Communism) do have such goals... (as well as ISLAM via Sharia). Look at how the Republik of Kalifornistan does things in recent years.. and a lesser degree any other number of historically Blue (Democrat majority) states. You see many of those same goals on a smaller scale at work.

A good analogy

This bogus Paris agreement (it was NEVER a legal treaty) is a prime example of every reason Globalism will never work. Some places get off scott free (India, China among others) while others are expected to pay for almost EVERYTHING in a hugely disproportionate way...(The USA) by punishing those who make the right choices over time and achieve success, to subsidize all those who have historically made bad choices....or took the easy way through life.

They don't want to ACTUALLY treat everyone equally...the want to drag everyone who does well down to their level via fines and other punishment rather than actually elevate those who have done poorly to make better choices.

Ever see a bushel basket of Blue crabs. You don't NEED a lid because those who try to climb out are nearly ALWAYS pulled back in by the others.

Its true and actually does happen...because we have those in stores locally during crab season..you can google up videos to see it yourself.

Success is not a zero sum gain thing...meaning someone DOES NOT have to fail for someone to succeed. Globalists believe it is..so want to punish success to reward failure and mediocrity.

[talaniman]

There is no set definition of globalists. It doesn't matter because very few people have the POWER to influence markets and economies around the world. Those that do have that power will call themselves anything to achieve those ends while general populations argue over labels and propaganda.

[joypulv]

The people who rant and rave about GLOBALISTS are usually POPULISTS. Many of them rant about the left, about science, about the Federal Reserves, about The Rothschilds and George Soros and anyone else who might have a lot of money and be on the more liberal side of politics.

[Allen Farber]

So the people that do have the ability to influence international markets and economies, how do they influence them and how are they able to do it?

[talaniman]

MONEY (Or WEALTH if you prefer) is power, influence, and enough leverage to sway the thinking of any man. It's been that way since the beginning of time.

[joypulv]

How do they do it? As tal says - MONEY. Money markets, hedge funds, international loans on a huge scale, it would take all day.
There's globalism meaning something ominous, and there's global economy, meaning the world is more connected is every way, socially, financially, production, all of it.
Some of it is good, some bad.
Those who can manipulate world money have to do so without rocking too many boats, so in some respect they are being 'helpful.'
In doing so however they get what they were counting on earning them a good profit.
Again as tal said - nothing new. Just on a bigger, faster scale.