You are relatively new so please accept this guidance. Please familiarize yourself with the rules of the forum. Personal insults are not allowed. Calling someone dense in this fashion would typically merit sanction. Don’t do this again.
Typically we allow the type of generalized group insult depending on context. Given the context of this discussion, it’s difficult to separate the general from the specific posters. This type of thing doesn’t further discussion in any way. Dial it back.
There is a part of me that hopes the USA goes full bore into accepting anti-globalism. That way the rest of the move world can move on, while the USA declines in international importance. To some degree, I think that would be a good thing for the world, and maybe for the USA too. The only problem is I’m not comfortable with the powers that would rise. A dominant Germany would be ok. A dominant China, not so much.
:dubious: You might have an easier time getting that point across if you hadn’t chosen to title your thread “The new political dichotomy? Globalism vs Patriotism”.
I just finished this book. Democracy is in doubt and under threat by many actors, who are finding each other on the internet, and manipulatiing each other by social media.
Full bore anti globalism would be a disaster for democracy, and it would be a domino effect. Everyone would be affected and freedoms would be curtailed.
In the first place, “bigotry” doesn’t refer only to racial bigotry. Trump has made his anti-Muslim religious bigotry very clear in the quoted remarks.
In the second place, Trump has also often exhibited specifically racist forms of bigotry, including discrimination against black applicants for rentals in his real estate business, describing would-be immigrants from Nigeria as living in “huts”, calling a Hispanic pageant contestant “Miss Housekeeping”, and so forth.
I am absolutely confident that when Trump refers to ‘globalism’ he’s talking about the Jewish deep state conspiracy theory. Your failure to see this doesn’t impress me or change my mind. Your failure to respond to the cite I gave you explaining the history of the term also doesn’t impress me or change my mind.
If you want me to use some non-racist definition of the term “globalism”, provide one. If you want me to use Trump’s definition, I’ll use term’s actual definition - the racist dogwhistle one.
What the enemy is is far less important than having an enemy here are a few quotes from Eric Hoffer’s book The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements
“Hatred is the most accessible and comprehensive of all the unifying agents. Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a god, but never without a belief in a devil.”
“The quality of ideas seems to play a minor role in mass movement leadership. What counts is the arrogant gesture, the complete disregard of the opinion of others, the singlehanded defiance of the world.”
“The enemy—the indispensible devil of every mass movement—is omnipresent. He plots both outside and inside the ranks of the faithful. It is his voice that speaks through the mouth of the dissenter, and the deviationists are his stooges. If anything goes wrong within the movement, it is his doing. It is the sacred duty of the true believer to be suspicious. He must be constantly on the lookout for saboteurs, spies and traitors.”
Trumps statement:
Is related to positioning himself to single-handedly be in defiance of the world with the promise of returning to a mythical earlier golden era that never existed.
No dude, this is weak. YOU posed the debate, you say what it means. No one is going to plow through Trump’s meandering incoherent speech to try to figure out what Jim Peebles thinks globalism is. It’s very poor form to expect them to. You’re talking about it so surely you must have some idea what it means. Why can’t you give a two or three sentence description.
You get upset when people say anti-Globalism is just anti-Semitism in code words, but how can you blame them for using that definition when you fail to provide them an alternative.
And yes, I realize this post will either be ignored or evaded, but I thought I’d give it one final go.
…our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, gave a speech today at the UN as well. And it addressed the issue of globalism, so I think some of what she said is relevant to this thread.
I’m very proud of my Prime Minister for making this speech, and very proud that she is standing up and sticking up for principals that I hold dear, and I’m very proud of my country right now as well. I grew up in the 80’s as well. The protests against apartheid, the fight against nuclear testing in the Pacific: those were touchstone moments for me as well, they helped shape the way I am today. We’ve always punched above our weight. Its never been more important to hear these words being spoken right now.
So I guess that makes me patriotic.
And if “globalism” means not blaming nameless faceless “others” and not feeding into insecurity, and if “globalism” means not retreating into greater levels of isolationism, and if “globalism” means that we don’t forget that the process may have harsh consequences for some people and that we need to both acknowledge those consequences and seek to fix them, then I’ll cast a vote for this version of globalism as well.
Huh. I suppose that makes me a patriotic globalist.
No, it is all about Trump’s proposed dichotomy. I have already objected to his word choice, and the falseness of dichotomies. See my last post dispelling the anti-semitism nonsense as well: Trump is clearly not anti-semetic.