Globalism

One of the more intriguing words in use, today. The first thing to note is that the connotations attaching to the term today are not reflected in the dictionary definitions. For example:


 * Dictionary.com defines globalism as "the attitude or policy of placing the interests of the entire world above those of individual nations."


 * Merriam-Webster.com defines globalism as "a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper sphere for political influence."

The Merriam-Webster definition strikes me as more intriguing as well as more ambiguous. The foreign policies of America's neo-conservative governments would qualify, for example, as would that of the progressive governments (and there are those who would point to the historic origins of neo-conservatism from the progressive movement). The progressive movement has always had global ambitions, especially following upon the theories of Thomas Malthus, Francis Galton, Friedrich Nietzsche, and others concerned with population control and eugenics.

The global elites might be a little uncomfortable with this definition, however, due to its association with what might be construed as nationalism. They would most likely prefer the Dictionary.com definition. This definition is more appealing to folks who are (or, at any rate, appear to be) in a panic over what they call "climate change".

They are also many who are very concerned about erasing national boundaries so that "oppressed people" and "economically downtrodden" and "threatened people" can find safety in nations that are better off. Unfortunately for their projects, people in these nations that are doing well and operate according to some version of democratic, rule-of-law principles feel threatened by unrestricted immigration. They would prefer to close borders and to regulate immigration in order to preserve the stability of their economy and their polity. Obviously if such instabilities arose around the world, the globalists would propose world government as a solution, regarding global stability as more important than national stability. Such a global government would, of course, be best left to elites who understood (so they would claim) the dynamic tensions involved and how to move populations in the direction of global harmony and mutual understanding and respect.

In short, (as students of Rousseau, Marx, Mao and many others) they are convinced they know how to bring about the long-sought-after New Eden. This is, of course, a recurring fantasy in the human psyche. It is also, by its nature, food for global ambitions. Alas, the "true believers" are pawns in the hands of folks with more vain ambitions and the cunning of history's worst tyrants.