As some of my readers might recognize, I invest in "globalism" as a term, given it's out of fashion at the moment, meaning few are using it for anything positive, which leaves the field to risk takers like me. TV personalities get to sneer when they say globalism, as if we all share the same meaning. I find their sneering attitude on the incomprehensible side sometimes.
If anyone is gonna carry on with the "globalist" label, it oughta be a guy like me (right?), with an expat background and massive exposure to the Dymaxion™ product line aka the Bucky stuff.
Our family even had United Nations passports there for a bit, when dad took a job with UNDP vis-a-vis Manila Bay reclamation and associated projects. I'm a product of international schools, a poster child for "growing up around the world" (yes, there're a lot of us).
So how does a globalist react towards nationalism?
Firstly, we need to pluralize. Just as we have many religions, not one religion, we have many flavors of nationalism and globalism, and they're not all logically interchangeable.
So let's speak of nationalist and globalist mindsets with respect for variety.
We have "nationalisms" and "globalisms" to compare and contrast.
Let's look at two Telegram messages I put out there recently, in random conversation:
Nations have always been virtual and dependent on networks. The power of the British Empire gave us a last opportunity to agree on borders for classroom globes. Those days are done.
And:
...the supranational corporations showed how immense power and wealth may be secured using networks of campuses versus contiguous borders and the age of “diaspora nations” (network nations, virtual nations) was born.
Given telecommunications, air travel and so on, it's not science fiction fantastic to think in terms of Virtual Nations (VNs), as another name for Diaspora Nations or Network Nations.
That's why I'm more likely to advocate for global dispersion and regrouping as a way of handling the Gaza crisis: New Palestine University is about curating, preserving, and establishing the new patterns associated with global living and citizenship in the VNs.
The new NPU campuses will in theory be outside the radius of menacing ethnic enclaves armed with WMDs. I've been brainstorming about having one or more in Cuba.
As for classroom globes, any teacher with historical awareness and an understanding of current affairs has to bring all kinds of caveats to bear when sharing a political map of the world, whether flat or spherical.
Calling the political layer a "data layer" and recognizing its virtual nature, bespeaks my globalist approach to Google Earth type projects. Users get to pick their skins.
In Moscow, the newly federated oblasts show up in the Russian Federation already. In London, they might disallow such skins for classroom use and still show Crimea as part of some British-Roman Empire or whatever.
In my School of Tomorrow, we flip through skins from around the world, showing there's no United Nations consensus reality (CR) anymore, as we might have once enjoyed under Pax Americana (remember Pan Am?).
Then we zoom back and understand there has rarely been any kind of consensus reality regarding borders. Sovereigns simply claim territory, and some may get enough agreement to then sell it, as the French did to the USG (Thomas Jefferson et al), of Louisiana and environs (the so-called Louisiana Purchase). Napoleon needed the dough.
CR and NCR (non-consensus reality) come from Process Work and the Process Work Institute here in Portland. Check out Quantum Mind by Dr. Arnold Mindell.
At the coffee shop yesterday, in addition to speaking up for Palestinians who want to voluntarily leave Gaza (a hell hole, who wouldn't want to leave at this point?), I cast aspersions on the kind of nationalism that keeps people penned in even when their local situation is untenable.
Seeing nations as open air prisons that only privileged elites are allowed to escape from, thanks to having the right Grunch credentials, is characteristic of many nationalisms I've encountered.
Ultimately, I'd say my flavor of globalism is compatible with some flavors of nationalism.
If you see the human animal as highly programmable, and see the political layer as a way of conditioning reflexes, creating civilized pockets and polite societies, a layer characterized by the rule of law and diplomacy, then we see somewhat eye to eye. Pax Americana was better than Pax UK or Pax Rome in my view. We improved our powers to co-exists, thanks to growing literacy, communication skills and, dare I say it, shared global perspectives.
Better "social engineering" -- I know, I know: people fear that term, but it's somewhat inevitable given etymological meanings, plus it adds a spin or bias (weight) to "engineering" that's potentially Silicon Forest compatible -- is always a possibility.
We (the forestry engineers -- solarpunk influence) have room to let people hold on to their "bag of beliefs" whatever the bag. Live and let live. One needs cognitive frameworks, simply to get out of bed.
Why go around shooting down others' belief systems if the true believers seem satisfied with their lifestyle? This liberal attitude applies to belief in nation-states as well. Let them believe in their Caesars.
Why turn it into a story of "us against them" especially when we (the globalists) seem highly outnumbered? Lets even nurture the best nationalist fantasies, and have our nations get along! Idealism has its place as a morale booster.
The influence of Star Trek and the Prime Directive is also coming through (thank you Anthropology Department) meaning it's not necessarily my job and/or business to talk people out of their programming, even if I had the wherewithal. You've got your bag, I've got mine.
My primary guinea pig is me, and if that means if I "talk funny" (or use "silly skins") then maybe I've been making some headway.tions, virtual nations) was born.
