5 ms·

Please excuse my ignorance with modern political parlance, but I always got the feeling that "globalists" was actually dogwhistle codeword for Jew. Is that the

by zht 9y ago

Please excuse my ignorance with modern political parlance, but I always got the feeling that "globalists" was actually dogwhistle codeword for Jew. Is that the case?

lliamander 9y ago
Interesting, that's never been my understanding. More refers to anyone who desires world government (or the diminishing of local governments) and who finds the desire to preserve one's culture, community, and national identity as backwards and unenlightened. I suppose it could be used by some as a dogwhistle, but it seems there's also a meaningful set of ideas that can be represented by that term.
- pvg 9y ago
  Refers to anyone who desires world government (or the diminishing of local governments) and who finds the desire to preserve one's culture, community, and national identity as backwards and unenlightened. That's not what 'globalist' means outside of the fringes. It's certainly not the way the linked article uses it.
  - lliamander 9y ago
    Well, I'll have to re-read the linked article. In any case, while I probably did not phrase it in the language that globalists themselves would use, but would they flat out refute my definition? Or would they merely nuance it?
    - pvg 9y ago
      Yes, yours is the Breitbart definition. Just google 'globalist', look at the wikipedia page, etc. If I defined 'libertarians' as, say, 'people who won't answer the question "How often do you beat your spouse?" with a simple yes or no', it would be just inaccurate and loaded, not something libertarians would want to 'nuance'.
      - lliamander 9y ago
        First of all, Breitbart may use a definition like the one I provided, but I think so would the rather more mild-mannered Front Porch Republic[0], which should be noted has contributing members that identify more with the communitarian left than anything right-wing. As for your suggestion to "just google" it, I decided to take you up on it. The first result I got was a definition from Wordnik: "A national geopolitical policy in which the entire world is regarded as the appropriate sphere for a state's influence." That seems to match up quite well with the first clause of my definition. Does Steve Bannon own Wordnik or the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language? I doubt it. Wikipedia doesn't really go into detail about specific ideological commitments. How about the second clause? Well, certainly the phrase "backwards and unenlightened" implies that I perceive globalists as haughty and vain. What of it? I don't think they're evil incarnate. I've met a fair few. They seem decent enough. Nonetheless, I think that if you believe that national boundaries should go away, and you come from a relatively high educational background (which many globalists seem to) then, in a dispassionate way, "unenlightened" is exactly how you are going to view those who insist on maintain local hegemony based on traditional institutions. > If I defined 'libertarians' as, say, 'people who won't answer the question "How often do you beat your spouse?" with a simple yes or no' It wouldn't be a terribly bad start. By not identifying with either Conservative or Liberal your making it clear that you reject binary politics and false dichotomies. [0]http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/ http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/
        pvg 9y ago
        "A national geopolitical policy in which the entire world is regarded as the appropriate sphere for a state's influence." and "Anyone who desires world government (or the diminishing of local governments)" do not 'match up'. It's not the same ballpark, it's not even the same game. There is absolutely nothing in the former that implies or suggests a desire for world government. There really isn't any serious mainstream political movement or ideology that really desires a world government and there never has been - this is pure Bircher stuff, never mind Bannon. I am honestly at a loss how you see this as supporting your definition at all. If you are keen on making up some political ideology full of people who are chomping at the bit to give up national sovereignty and culture, by all means. If you want to call them 'globalists', ok fine, that's your personal definition of 'globalist'. But to pull out a definition that says 'entire world is regarded as the appropriate sphere of a state's influence' and declare it equivalent to 'desire for world government', that is just at odds with, I dunno, words, meanings of things, logic. It wouldn't be a terribly bad start. By not identifying with either Conservative or Liberal your making it clear that you reject binary politics and false dichotomies. I don't know what any of that means. Misdescribing someone doesn't somehow become right or a virtue simply because you are 'rejecting binary politics and false dichotomies'. It's still plainly and factually wrong.
Blackthorn 9y ago
As a Jewish person: yes it is. It really should not be used by any legitimate publication anymore because of the dogwhistle status it has gained.
AndrewKemendo 9y ago
That's the first I've heard of that connection and it seems like a pretty rocky connection based on what I just read [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_antisemitism#Anti-globalization_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_antisemitism#Anti-globaliz...

by zht 9y ago

Please excuse my ignorance with modern political parlance, but I always got the feeling that "globalists" was actually dogwhistle codeword for Jew. Is that the case?

lliamander 9y ago

Interesting, that's never been my understanding. More refers to anyone who desires world government (or the diminishing of local governments) and who finds the desire to preserve one's culture, community, and national identity as backwards and unenlightened. I suppose it could be used by some as a dogwhistle, but it seems there's also a meaningful set of ideas that can be represented by that term.

pvg 9y ago
Refers to anyone who desires world government (or the diminishing of local governments) and who finds the desire to preserve one's culture, community, and national identity as backwards and unenlightened. That's not what 'globalist' means outside of the fringes. It's certainly not the way the linked article uses it.
- lliamander 9y ago
  Well, I'll have to re-read the linked article. In any case, while I probably did not phrase it in the language that globalists themselves would use, but would they flat out refute my definition? Or would they merely nuance it?
  - pvg 9y ago
    Yes, yours is the Breitbart definition. Just google 'globalist', look at the wikipedia page, etc. If I defined 'libertarians' as, say, 'people who won't answer the question "How often do you beat your spouse?" with a simple yes or no', it would be just inaccurate and loaded, not something libertarians would want to 'nuance'.
    - lliamander 9y ago
      First of all, Breitbart may use a definition like the one I provided, but I think so would the rather more mild-mannered Front Porch Republic[0], which should be noted has contributing members that identify more with the communitarian left than anything right-wing. As for your suggestion to "just google" it, I decided to take you up on it. The first result I got was a definition from Wordnik: "A national geopolitical policy in which the entire world is regarded as the appropriate sphere for a state's influence." That seems to match up quite well with the first clause of my definition. Does Steve Bannon own Wordnik or the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language? I doubt it. Wikipedia doesn't really go into detail about specific ideological commitments. How about the second clause? Well, certainly the phrase "backwards and unenlightened" implies that I perceive globalists as haughty and vain. What of it? I don't think they're evil incarnate. I've met a fair few. They seem decent enough. Nonetheless, I think that if you believe that national boundaries should go away, and you come from a relatively high educational background (which many globalists seem to) then, in a dispassionate way, "unenlightened" is exactly how you are going to view those who insist on maintain local hegemony based on traditional institutions. > If I defined 'libertarians' as, say, 'people who won't answer the question "How often do you beat your spouse?" with a simple yes or no' It wouldn't be a terribly bad start. By not identifying with either Conservative or Liberal your making it clear that you reject binary politics and false dichotomies. [0]http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/ http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/
      - pvg 9y ago
        "A national geopolitical policy in which the entire world is regarded as the appropriate sphere for a state's influence." and "Anyone who desires world government (or the diminishing of local governments)" do not 'match up'. It's not the same ballpark, it's not even the same game. There is absolutely nothing in the former that implies or suggests a desire for world government. There really isn't any serious mainstream political movement or ideology that really desires a world government and there never has been - this is pure Bircher stuff, never mind Bannon. I am honestly at a loss how you see this as supporting your definition at all. If you are keen on making up some political ideology full of people who are chomping at the bit to give up national sovereignty and culture, by all means. If you want to call them 'globalists', ok fine, that's your personal definition of 'globalist'. But to pull out a definition that says 'entire world is regarded as the appropriate sphere of a state's influence' and declare it equivalent to 'desire for world government', that is just at odds with, I dunno, words, meanings of things, logic. It wouldn't be a terribly bad start. By not identifying with either Conservative or Liberal your making it clear that you reject binary politics and false dichotomies. I don't know what any of that means. Misdescribing someone doesn't somehow become right or a virtue simply because you are 'rejecting binary politics and false dichotomies'. It's still plainly and factually wrong.

Blackthorn 9y ago

As a Jewish person: yes it is. It really should not be used by any legitimate publication anymore because of the dogwhistle status it has gained.

AndrewKemendo 9y ago

That's the first I've heard of that connection and it seems like a pretty rocky connection based on what I just read [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_antisemitism#Anti-globalization_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_antisemitism#Anti-globaliz...