According to one definition globalization is the process of international integration that stems from the exchange of products, ideas and cultures. Globalization is not a modern phenomenon. It can be traced as far back as the 3rd millenium BC.  The International Monetary Fund identifies four aspects of globalization; trade and transactions, capital and investment, migration and movements of people, dissemination of knowledge. Academics divide globalization into three or five areas. The three that all agree are: economic, political and cultural. Some add military and environmental globalization to these.

There are two extreme circumstances regarding globalization. The first calls for one World Government, one Religion, one Currency and free movement of people, goods and capital all over the world. The other is isolated politically, ecomomically and culturally countries. There are two naïve, superficial, narrowminded and extreme opposite approaches. The one says that globalization is all good and the other that it is all bad.

Nowadays lots of people hold views on globalization that are one dimensional or black and white. There are instances where black or white is the best stance. We will examine this more. To give an example in the case of child molestation there is no place for grey area. Usually though a shade of grey is better than black or white. Some people think that globalization is all good while others consider it all bad. This is rugged thinking and leads to polarization.

More refined thinking is better, fine tuning is required. Balance requires more elaborate thought process. Not all aspects of globalization are good or bad. Globalization has existed since ancient times. There was transfer and blend of ideas and customs. This is a fact whether someone likes it or not. The development of technology and especially internet has caused this to happen at a much faster pace. There has also been a lot of mixture between people and races.

Globalization has several aspects. On each aspect there are several positions between two extremes. Therefore there are literally infinite stances on the matter of globalization. Very often in every issue there are winners and losers. There are very few instances where there are no losers. Let’s take two examples. There are definitely winners and losers in the case of free trade. On the other hand there no losers on establishing an international language that will be the second official language of the countries that will agree to accept it.

There is much talk about the New World Order. Which New World Order are we taking about? Everybody defines it in a different way. There are several opinions among proponents and opponents. New World Order and globalization are related but not the same. A New World Order will emerge partly due to globalization and other factors as well. The New World Order is the outcome and globalization is the process and one of the many factors that will determine the outcome. The New World Order should be by the people and for the people and not by the elites and for the elites.


We are for global cooperation, coordination and harmonization. We are against oppression, enslavement and exploitation. We are for globalization and strongly against THIS globalization.

We want a fair globalization by the people and for the people, not by the elites and for the elites. We wish to find the best balance among conflicting interests. The conflicts of interests can be between

  • countries
  • industries
  • social, economic, professional, age, groups



There are some aspects where we do have a strong positive opinion such as;

  • communication and understanding among nations and religions
  • transfer of ideas
  • cosmopolitanism or some common ground in ethics and values
  • common global Language, second to native languages


Socrates have said “I am not an Athenian or a Greek but a citizen of the world”. Something similar is reputed for Diogenes of Sinope. Nevertheless, they both did not travel much. Socrates was very satisfied in Athens and found no reason to visit other places. They had cosmopolitan views but not cosmopolitan practices. On the other hand we are more skeptical towards aspects;

  • Movement of people, products, services, capital
  • Common Markets
  • Common Currency
  • Supernational organizations
  • Political and military intervention into other countries


We are not negatively positioned on these issues but only with skepticism. We wish to examine them further and discover the global public opinion on these.

Scroll to Top