Could be, but I get the feeling there could also be, in effect, a globally coordinated governmental agenda without there being a single ruler. Not quite sure how it could work, but, speculatively, my mind goes to whoever has the most economic pull.this is where you lost me. global regime implies there's a king of the world, a supreme leader running a single world government dictating laws on a global basis. that's clearly not what you're talking about, right?
This is kinda what I;m trying to get at, just not sure how to reconcile this with the appearance of separate ruling bodies with conflicting interests.We are already in a globalist regime ran by both media and corporate conglomerates. This is the case regardless of who is in power, surely.
And do you think this has much to do with tapping into mass libidinal energies? Not just sexual per se, but also cravings for greatness, excellence, etc.No, it literally means they don't win. Sanders didn't in the US, Corbyn got the boot here. With the latter, I find it hard to imagine a different outcome. The Left don't win.
We are already in a globalist regime ran by both media and corporate conglomerates. This is the case regardless of who is in power, surely.
Yeah, I suspect so. I think the Right mobilises that kind of libidinal excitement. The left can do it as well, there was definitely a bit of collective euphoria around Corbyn at first - idk. Still thinking, feeling, this out. But the exciment of the Trump rallies, the HULK SMASH factor and identtifying with that seems like the point. Policy and pronouncements seems secondary in that arena.And do you think this has much to do with tapping into mass libidinal energies? Not just sexual per se, but also cravings for greatness, excellence, etc.
that's not a global regime, though. it's a number of independent entities with similar goals who tend to collaborate on ways to maximize their profits. there's no king of the world dictating global law.
The economy is all that exists now. Companies are powerful enough that they can dismiss international law. Look at how Facebook can basically overthrow marginal governments.
Who is more powerful, the English government or Amazon? They don't opt into tax schemes and effectively implement below living wage sweatshop warehouses.
I think we're already there and the myth is actually the historical concept of government.
Not sure how nuanced an understanding of globalism we need in the case of these corporations. Would it just consist of any agenda involving markets across the globe?
Probably a question you can't have an intelligent conversation about.