(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.