You're right it does mean different things to different people.

I'm not here saying all aspects of social liberalism are bad.....like most situations it's less about the politics and more about the people who enact them....what political version of that political banner they operate under.

For example, while I disagreed with Tony Benn's politics I always had the impression that his intentions were honest and heartfelt....not borne of self interest as with many politicians. Similarly Thatcher didn't hide her confrontational politics much....I like conviction politicians because they tell you straight and lead....rather than use warm words and duplicitousness.

What I can say for myself is that I regard globalism, which is a neo and social liberal consensus amongst elites as a net negative for both the working and middle classes. Its increased power to unelected bodies and corporations are something I'm instinctively against. Yes, I'm a nationalist...but a kind of left wing one that thinks each country needs a little nationalism to have cohesive fairer societies. I don't see globalism enacting that...in fact I see it creating less trusting societies and increasing wealth disparities not reducing them.

Edited by Stirlingsays (02 Feb 2022 12.46pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Here we have another word, "Globalism", which means different things to different people (see below), being stated as having just one meaning.

[Link]

Interestingly this one meaning seems to chime pretty well with this, found in the above:-

"The term is now frequently used as a pejorative by far-right movements and conspiracy theorists."

Appears to be true, doesn't it?

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

You seem to think that you can dismiss anything by calling it a 'conspiracy theory' or by name checking the 'Far Right'.

You are seriously going to deny globalism? A reality which you have claimed was inevitable and unstoppable in previous posts.

Taxi for Wisbech.

Of course, I don't deny globalism! How ridiculous. What I deny is the construct placed upon it as "a neo and social liberal consensus amongst elites". That's not the meaning understood by me nor, I believe, by most people.

That description is the type used, as suggested in Wiki, by the far-right and conspiracy theorists. Maybe it's one you like too, but that doesn't mean anything.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

You do understand that Wiki much like the rest of media is run by Leftists like yourself.
Of course, they persist with the same old Leftist tropes.

Globalism is perpetuated by capitalism, which itself is now dominated by multinational companies. Those companies are run by people, people who have an increasing influence over governments and public perceptions.
There is no need for the illuminati in any dystopian novel sense. These elites influence thinking to further their own interests. That's all capitalists ever do, and now they have the means to control us like never before.
It's not a conspiracy theory. It is a fact of modern life.

That is precisely what it is.

Try watching a recent Tony Blair speech and maybe you'll update your nostrils by sniffing its coffee.

In truth I think you know precisely what it is but the difference is you like it as you exploited its benefits while avoiding its negatives.

Edited by Stirlingsays (02 Feb 2022 3.16pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)