I have long appreciated the image of Collectivism as a multi-headed, dragon-like beast. Some intriguing similarities to the creatures described in the books of Daniel and of Revelation.

But I’m curious why none of the dragon-like heads on the beast are labeled as “GLOBALISM”, when that is one of the most — arguably *the* most — toxic and dangerous manifestations of Collectivism in our time. Especially compared to “NATIONALISM”, which can be evil, benign, or some mixture of the two.

Is the omission of globalism just an oversight, or do the heads reflect an intentional ranking of various “isms” according to some ideological criteria?

too many moons ago, I simplified mine to village idiot centrist in that arena....

yeah, gts, I'm in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person prose...I love 'em all....

(07-23-2021 09:25 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I have long appreciated the image of Collectivism as a multi-headed, dragon-like beast. Some intriguing similarities to the creatures described in the books of Daniel and of Revelation.

But I’m curious why none of the dragon-like heads on the beast are labeled as “GLOBALISM”, when that is one of the most — arguably *the* most — toxic and dangerous manifestations of Collectivism in our time. Especially compared to “NATIONALISM”, which can be evil, benign, or some mixture of the two.

Is the omission of globalism just an oversight, or do the heads reflect an intentional ranking of various “isms” according to some ideological criteria?

The heads of the hydra are arranged left to right along with their left to right correlations. The far left and the far right appear more dangerous but they're just as dangerous as the middle. Globalism would be an awkward fit and the ambiguous definition of it is another problem. I'm OK with globalism defined as travel and trade with everyone, entangling alliances with no one. I'm not OK with globalism defined as global government a la the European Union, WTO, WHO, etc. Globalism wouldn't neatly fit tucked in with Nationalism either because Nationalism tends to skew right for its agenda whereas Global government tends to skew hard left for its agenda.

(07-24-2021 12:01 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  The heads of the hydra are arranged left to right along with their left to right correlations. The far left and the far right appear more dangerous but they're just as dangerous as the middle.

Thank you for that explanation. That makes a lot of sense, but I admit I never thought of that, in all the times I glanced at the picture. BTW, are you the artist? Who created this?

Quote:Globalism would be an awkward fit and the ambiguous definition of it is another problem. I'm OK with globalism defined as travel and trade with everyone, entangling alliances with no one. I'm not OK with globalism defined as global government a la the European Union, WTO, WHO, etc. Globalism wouldn't neatly fit tucked in with Nationalism either because Nationalism tends to skew right for its agenda whereas Global government tends to skew hard left for its agenda.

I understand the “awkward fit” problem, although I think the definition is probably less ambiguous than you do.

If we could define Globalism with a list of its most prominent/powerful proponents and avatars, I would go with:

Bezos
Clinton (him and her)
J. Epstein. If he does not attend the first meeting, the other members may nominate his replacement.
Bergoglio (a/k/a Pope Francis)
Juncker
Macron
Merkel
Obama
Romney
Soros
Xi Jinping

Now, if we could agree on that list as a kind of symbolic definition of “Globalism”, where would it rank on the left/right axis shown on hydra’s heads? I would put it between “Social Justice” and “Nationalism”. And if we have to delete one category in order to make room for a new one, Nationalism is the one I would remove.

(07-24-2021 02:27 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  hank you for that explanation. That makes a lot of sense, but I admit I never thought of that, in all the times I glanced at the picture. BTW, are you the artist? Who created this?

I do not know who the artist is. I saw the image as a meme on a Jordan Peterson meme subreddit, but with far different captioning. I redid it with what you see there and Jordan Peterson tweeted so I figured I had done a pretty good job creating a JP meme if the man himself loved it. Been happy to keep it around since.

(07-24-2021 02:27 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I understand the “awkward fit” problem, although I think the definition is probably less ambiguous than you do.

If we could define Globalism with a list of its most prominent/powerful proponents and avatars, I would go with:

Bezos
Clinton (him and her)
J. Epstein. If he does not attend the first meeting, the other members may nominate his replacement.
Bergoglio (a/k/a Pope Francis)
Juncker
Macron
Merkel
Obama
Romney
Soros
Xi Jinping

Now, if we could agree on that list as a kind of symbolic definition of “Globalism”, where would it rank on the left/right axis shown on hydra’s heads? I would put it between “Social Justice” and “Nationalism”. And if we have to delete one category in order to make room for a new one, Nationalism is the one I would remove.

I'd put Juncker and Obama and Clinton and Mittens and Xi in there for sure. And the three are collectivist "we know how to run your life better than you do" macrogovernment micromanagement ********. Being under their rule is a fast way to lose your liberty. Accepting that some are more naked evil and beyond redemption (Xi) than others could perhaps be just proficient pavers to hell with their good intentions.

I'm atheist so I view the Catholic church as an anachronism I don't pay attention to beyond knowing they have some ugly skeletons in their closet.

When I hear the Soros stuff it's hard not to hear the inverse of progressives crying over Koch money. I'm perfectly fine with Koch money and typically encourage where it ends up being spent. I know he funds a lot of the hard left but then so does Bloomberg. So long as they keep pouring money into a drain let them pour. I largely haven't paid attention in depth to any Soros stuff. I was probably turned off on investigating at the outset by Glenn Beck in his late tin foil Fox News days when he talking incessantly about him. It was like the Anti-Streisand Effect for me. Thou doth protest too much.

What are Bezos' politics?

Anyway ... to the question itself ... I'd want to put it near where Socialism is, because again that group you listed is a hard left group. Okay, Xi may be so hard left he's popped up as a straight up authoritarian on the right. The rest are broadly speaking part of the regressive left. Most of the time you see naked out and out nationalism is more authoritarian rightish. Authoritarian regimes tend to also have a religious element to them. So if anything I'd make another hydra head somewhere near socialism.

(07-24-2021 02:47 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  When I hear the Soros stuff it's hard not to hear the inverse of progressives crying over Koch money. I'm perfectly fine with Koch money and typically encourage where it ends up being spent. I know he funds a lot of the hard left but then so does Bloomberg. So long as they keep pouring money into a drain let them pour. I largely haven't paid attention in depth to any Soros stuff. I was probably turned off on investigating at the outset by Glenn Beck in his late tin foil Fox News days when he talking incessantly about him. It was like the Anti-Streisand Effect for me. Thou doth protest too much.

I don’t begrudge Soros the right to spend his money how he likes. I don’t even — really — begrudge him the right to spend that money through proxies and other so-called “dark money” channels, even though that is precisely the sort of thing a lot of his pet candidates pretend to oppose.

But my point in listing him here is not to analyze his tactics. Rather, simply to put a name on the ideological direction Soros is leading us (or seeks to lead us). I think the word “Globalism” fits the bill nicely, just as the word “Libertarian” does for the Koch Bros.

Note: to this moment, I never understood Glenn Beck’s fame or popularity or why anyone ever paid any political attention to him. He struck me as part-Drama Queen, part-Carnival Barker from Day 1. Then he seemed to go away.

Quote:What are Bezos' politics?

May we fairly assume he agrees with the overall editorial stance of the Washington Post?

Quote:to the question itself ... I'd want to put [the “head” of Globalism] near where Socialism is, because again that group you listed is a hard left group.

Fair.

Quote:Okay, Xi may be so hard left he's popped up as a straight up authoritarian on the right.

Let’s not conflate tactics with ideology. “Authoritarian” swings both ways.

Quote:Authoritarian regimes tend to also have a religious element to them.

Same with “religious”.

Are you trying to have a non-surface level discussion in here? Quick -- let's see what CNN thinks.

LOL — it’s the medication. Guess I got carried away!

But seriously, the avatar is a great image. And for those who seek a more pro-individualist society, it actually does give some idea (symbolically) of what we’re up against.

(07-24-2021 02:27 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-24-2021 12:01 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  The heads of the hydra are arranged left to right along with their left to right correlations. The far left and the far right appear more dangerous but they're just as dangerous as the middle.

Thank you for that explanation. That makes a lot of sense, but I admit I never thought of that, in all the times I glanced at the picture. BTW, are you the artist? Who created this?

Quote:Globalism would be an awkward fit and the ambiguous definition of it is another problem. I'm OK with globalism defined as travel and trade with everyone, entangling alliances with no one. I'm not OK with globalism defined as global government a la the European Union, WTO, WHO, etc. Globalism wouldn't neatly fit tucked in with Nationalism either because Nationalism tends to skew right for its agenda whereas Global government tends to skew hard left for its agenda.

I understand the “awkward fit” problem, although I think the definition is probably less ambiguous than you do.

If we could define Globalism with a list of its most prominent/powerful proponents and avatars, I would go with:

Bezos
Clinton (him and her)
J. Epstein. If he does not attend the first meeting, the other members may nominate his replacement.
Bergoglio (a/k/a Pope Francis)
Juncker
Macron
Merkel
Obama
Romney
Soros
Xi Jinping

Now, if we could agree on that list as a kind of symbolic definition of “Globalism”, where would it rank on the left/right axis shown on hydra’s heads? I would put it between “Social Justice” and “Nationalism”. And if we have to delete one category in order to make room for a new one, Nationalism is the one I would remove.

I would argue most of those people are corporatists and not globalists. And some would say they're the same, and they're not completely wrong because I think they'd agree on a lot of things when it comes to trade but not everything. Corporatists are fine with protectionism and subsidies that helps their bottom line. There's also our wasteful military procurement system which is really more a feeding trough for defense contractors than it is about making our military strong. That's definitely corporatism and something individualists, globalists, and nationalists should all oppose.

I also get why Nationalism is one of the heads because I consider myself a Nationalist. Not in the sense of wanting to conquer other countries or be the policemen of the world (no ****ing thanks) but in the sense of wanting to get our supply chains back from overseas and my general contention we won't win this century from the Chinese by putting money and power in the hands of woke corporate interests that don't really have the best interests of the country at heart.