It doesn’t only mean “Jew”. It can also mean “climate change believer”.
“Globalist” means anyone or group with a capacity to control others by some nefarious means either directly or indirectly.
Almost always used in the context of a conspiracy theory.
Ultra Right Fascists (Nazi’s) scapegoat Jews for this all the time.
Ultra Left Progressives do the same with Corporations.
It is really just a term that differs depending on who you ask (if you’d even want to).
I had two college professors who had a lot of coursework on Globalists and Globalization, One seemed to be fairly neutral in politics but she called all Capitalists Globalists as well as every Banking corporation, and the other was very far to the left and he used “Globalists” to describe corporate interests with far reach, deep pockets and heavy consequence (Monsanto, Microsoft, Oil Companies etc…)
It means whatever you want it to mean I suppose.
And I thought it was how crazy right-wingers say Jew.
Though if you have a cite for where you found your opinion, I’d be happy to read it.
It did start out as a positive term, though not one exclusively associated with progressives. In 1953, for example, Brittanica Book of the Year defined “globalist” as “one believing in the world-wide distribution of U.S. troops as a defence against Communism”. In the 1960s, the term was basically neutral; globalist/globalism could be used of any approach to a problem or issue which argued that could only, or most effectively, be addressed on a global scale.
The Zionists are perhaps the most nationalist group in history(ok top 3), so it wouldn’t make sense. Not that it has to.
OTOH, zionists could advocate for the US govt to be globally oriented in order to benefit their ultra-nationalist project. This seems to be the case.
So much wrong with this I don’t know where to start … 
First, I guess, and most fundamentally, “Jews” are not the same thing as “Zionists”.
Um, that’s not something wrong with what I said, because I didn’t say that. Since you failed on your first attempt, would you like to try again?
She’s mocking the people that claim globalist means Jew, so I wouldn’t come that as a cite.
I thought it indicated that someone needed a hug.
My wife is convinced that it is in a sentence that includes “Globalist Gary Cohn”. Just a reminder. On the other hand, it is likely that anyone opposing the tariffs is, literally, a globalist. But then it shouldn’t be necessary to use the word. I’m inclined to think she is right.
I like the tweet I saw that said something like, “I’m half-globalist on my mother’s side. My wife isn’t, but she likes the holidays. We’re raising our kids globalist.”
Let’s call it a semi-whistle.
-
That’s true. However, calling people alt-right who don’t consider themselves so is often done by people on the left. Even though alt-right was coined by people claiming to be it, it’s not particularly clear exactly what it means or who it encompasses. But it has a generally negative connotation, a ‘bad boy’ connotation even by those attaching it to themselves. So in the game (both sides play with words) it makes sense for the left to spread it around more widely.
-
Likewise there I’d say it’s more like their plausible deniability on the left to imply ‘globalist’ means Jewish, plausible to deny they know it doesn’t generally mean that.
The predominant use of ‘globalist’ is an epithet aimed at conventional conservatives or the GOP ‘elite’ as populists like to call conventional conservatives, those anyway who hold pro-free trade and relatively ‘liberal’ views on immigration. An epithet broadly hurled by GOP populists, not particularly by the ‘alt right’, nor particularly at Jews. It’s commonly applied to the prevailing views and policies of Bush II and earlier GOP admins and ‘conventional’ GOP conservative Congresspeople and pundits now, with no particular regard to their religious background. It can apply to a Democrat (which Cohn is nominally) but mainly it’s an intra-party insult.
I believe it’s more plausible to claim the term ‘neocon’ has come to be aimed at Jewish conservatives in particular than ‘globalist’. Which is one reason it’s used so much less.
*"Many argue that the invocation of the term “globalist” carries an undertone of anti-Semitism for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that it was originally deployed by Bannon, who has a much larger record of dabbling in anti-Semitism.
In general, the idea that Jews in particular are not loyal citizens is a longtime anti-Semitic trope. And it seems noteworthy that in the initial round of globalist versus nationalist arguments, Bannon’s main antagonists — not just Cohn but also Kushner and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin — were mostly Jewish. "*
It’s not much of a step from hurling invective at “globalists” to targeting “international bankers” and “Rothschilds”, which gets well beyond dog whistles and into a piercingly audible range.
As for related conspiracy theories, the shadowy figures said to be perpetrating them are commonly Jews.
And people on the right love to use the term 'leftist". It’s not like putting labels on people you disagree with is a new tactic.
Uh, why on earth are you going on about “Zionists” in a thread that is about terms used for “Jews”?
Globalist is the new socialist. It means everything and nothing simultaneously, and everyone who uses it just means “someone who I don’t like” but wants to sound more sophisticated about it.
It’s like going on about triangles in a thread about shapes.
Zionists are nationalist Jews. Nationalism is anti-globalist. Is that so crazy to mention in a thread about how “globalist” might be a dog-whistle for “Jew”? I think maybe you’re confused.
Which would be a silly thing to go on about, if the thread was about the term for “shapes”.
The fact that triangles are a subset of shapes would make as little difference or sense in that context as the fact that (some) Zionists are a subset of Jews make in this one.
First, not all Zionists are Jewish. In the US, for example, a good many are Christian.
So your statement is simply factually incorrect: Zionists are not nationalist Jews. Some Zionists are nationalist Jews. Maybe even most Zionists are nationalist Jews. But they aren’t synonymous, a fact of considerable importance, particularly in the US, where non-Jewish Zionists wield considerable influence.
It is no contradiction to the use of the dog-whistle “globalist” to point out that some Jews embrace a nationalism of their own, any more than it is to point out, with equal truth, that some Jews are American nationalists, Canadian nationalists, or whatever - those using the dog-whistle will just scoff that they don’t mean those particular ones, but rather, a tendency within Judaism generally.
Or worse, such people could claim that the “globalism” the dog-whistlers are complaining about “really” serves the ‘national’ interests of those pesky Jews.
Sort of like the following argument:
If someone said that “quadrilaterals” was really a term for “shapes” and I mentioned triangles, I don’t think it would be too wild, but I’m kinda laid back about what people choose to talk about.
I disagreed, which is why I said it. Similar to how you are now discussing something that is a slight digression from the OP, my post was also a slight digression. Let’s just chalk it up to the fact that you really wished I said something that I didn’t say so that you could score some type of semantic point.
Yes my second post was factually incorrect as phrased. See, we can both be wrong and it’s still ok.
No, this isn’t important to my point. My point was that since Zionism is Jewish nationalism, and a large number of Jews are Zionists, it would be erroneous for a dog-whistler to suggest “globalist”=“Jew”. Not that this fact would stop a dog-whistler from making such an equivalency.
It is a contradiction. Simply because the dog-whistler scoffs at those points does not mean it isn’t a contradiction. I think you overestimate the power of the scoff.
The “globalism” (or “internationalism” or “Wilsonianism”, to pick less charged terms) that the dog-whistlers complain about serves the interest of Zionists, not “pesky Jews”. That’s what my argument actually stated. Your summary, which included that unfortunate epithet, was an attempt to smear me, which is something I’m quite used to. Do you find that simply substituting an epithet for another term is effective in an argument?
Do you disagree that the postwar international posture of the US government has been helpful to the maintenance of the Jewish nation in Israel?
Dog whistle? Is “the article” suggesting that people can actually have a useful conversation while all sides chose to make up their own definitions for commonly defined terms? That may be what you actually said, but we know what you actually mean. blah, blah, blah. :rolleyes:
*globalist
noun [ C ] uk /ˈɡləʊ.bəl.ɪst/ us /ˈɡloʊ.bəl.ɪst/
someone who believes that economic and foreign policy should be planned in an international way, rather than according to what is best for one particular country :
He is a globalist, whereas we are nationalists who will put our country first.*