Multidimensional strategy

Multidimensional strategy

Ultraglobalists' opponents around the world are also on the left, although generally opposition to ultraglobalists is stronger on the right. In US, it is more a left vs right think but Bernie Sanders was critical of ultraglobalization and some Republican politicians are supporters. In Europe many center-right parties support EU and ultraglobalization while other are against it.

In France, not only Le Pen (right) but also Melenchon (left) oppose ultraglobalization. In Italy, Five Star Movement is defined as Big Tent but is probably more to the left than the right. In UK, former Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn was not very enthousiastic about EU which is part of ultraglobalists' plan. The list goes on and on. So although ultraglobalists are stronger on the left of the center and opponents are stronger on the right of the center, ultraglobalists vs opponents is not clearly a left vs right confrontation.

Before World War II, in US and Britain there was a free-market system while in Russia communism. The Nazis were at their core socialists as their name implies (National Socialist German Workers' Party) and against both systems. In World War II, Americans and British probably did not like very much Stalin and the Soviets. Nevertheless, they managed to coordinate with them. We can not know with certainty what the outcome of the War would be with out the Soviets but most likely Allies would not succeed.

There is a different World War going on, without using weapons so far. We can not spare anyone. All opponents to ultraglobalization are useful regardless of their ideology. So a multilevel or multidimensional strategy is needed in order to win the war against ultraglobalists. There should be a left vs right dimension but also another one; ultraglobalists vs opponents.

There have been some odd alliances, usually not visible, regarding the election result. Center-right parties have allied with left parties while center-left with right. The Alliance USA – Britain – Russia in World War II, was a very odd alliance in terms of ideology but it worked well because there was a common enemy, the Axis. We mentioned two levels or dimensions so far. Another could be added regarding countries’ alliances. Since more can be found, we call it a multi-level or multi-dimensional strategy instead of three-level, three-dimensional.  

A party’s stance on globalization is definitely not the only issue but it does affect other issues like the economy, immigration, crime. The number one issue is to stop ultraglobalists because if they succeed, none will not be able to have a position other than their views. They will impose their ideology and their positions on the World. They may have some variations to give the illusion of democracy. In reality it would be a hidden dictatorship, a pseudo-democracy where the voters can choose between two or more ultraglobalist parties with similar but not entirely same views.

Not everyone on the anti(ultra)globalist alliance has to communicate with everyone. Suppose A communicates with B and C, B with D and E, C with F and G. Then A communicates indirectly with D, E, F, G. Not everyone has to be in direct communication with everybody else but some coordination is necessary in order to win the war against ultraglobalists. Another way is to assign some intermediaries in the anti(ultra)globalist alliance.

After the war is won, an alternative nice and easy mild globalization will be decided among the winners. Americans, British and the Soviets fought the war to stop Hitler. Dividing Europe in spheres of influence was the consequence, not the goal. Of course there is another possibility. A compromise with ultraglobalists before they lose the war but this is up to them. If the Nazis had agreed on a compromise, they wouldn't have to surrender with no conditions (unconditional surrender).

Scroll to Top