GLOBAL/NATIONALISTIC OR LOCAL? ___________________________________________ Definitions:     Global: that which encompasses the whole planet.     Local: that which encompasses a personal part of it.     earth: the planet upon which we live (not the same as World).     World: the earth as the animal 'Man' has created it (not the same as earth).     Nations: groups of people with titles such as, British, American, Slav and so forth.     Nationalism: a sense of being part of a Nation.         It seems to me, that we are being led to view the World in global terms. I have a worry about this, which has prompted me to write this essay.     Whilst I recognise that we may need to see the World in such terms, for particular reasons, the worry is that we are being led on this path, for reasons that are, to say the least, spurious and by those who proclaim it, even more spurious.     One thrust of my argument is that we are being led away from personal perspectives and actions and, one way or another, to give those over to others which some people elect to manage for them.     I believe the reason for this is to make people feel, not individualistic, or even Nationalistic but Globalistic. What this does, insidiously, is to take away the individualism which created a perhaps, better part of the World. The only people who want this are the controllers, who, with their warped psychologies and perverse behaviours, feel the need and get a 'buzz' out of 'managing' large groups of people for their own ends. These controllers want a static World that they can control. Individuals have little or no place in it because they could usurp them (given greater brain-power but lesser ballistic notions).     This view is highly cynical, of course. It is a view, however; I'm not going to a war over it.     What I would, like to do, is to get people to understand that a global view is one over which they can have very little or no control as individuals. And individuals are what make up societies, of whatever they comprise and however large or small.     An analogy to describe the two methods of thinking (Global/Nationalistic v. local) is easy. None may be total, of course. That is to say, it will never be one thing or the other; that would be unfair to both sides. The notion is that there is an intertwining and continuum.     Scenario:        As individuals, a man and his partner have a house. They also have a small garden at the front. They live in a street where other people also have a small front garden.     Over time, these gardens have become rather droll and uninteresting. Some have been let go and do not present an aesthetic view of nature.     Let's say our man's name is John (and his partner is Mary).     One day, the sun is shining, the birds are singing and there's nothing much to do.     Says John: "You know, Mary, that front garden could do with some work on it."     Says Mary: "Dear John, you are so perceptive. Now I know why I stay with you."     So they arm themselves with the accoutrements of  gardeners and set forth upon their little patch of garden.     Some time goes by before they have finished. They have made a lovely job of it and they are proud of their little achievement.     Later, Doris and Bill, their neighbours come by, walking their little dog, which they call Weeweeupatry.     Says Doris: "Oh, Bill, look what John and Mary have done! Doesn't that look great?"     Says Bill: "Brilliant! Maybe we should do something like that?"     And so it goes on. Other neighbours then see Mary and John's and Doris and Bill's, (perhaps more modest), efforts, and they begin to see that they would like to do the same; so they do.     Within a few short weeks, the street now looks entirely different; lovely and well-cared for. All's right with the World.     Now, a number of things are implicit here. If you've grasped what I said earlier, they may be explicit, in which case you are ahead of me, good stuff!     However, I will say this, anyway.     What is happening here? Is it Global/Nationalistic or local?     Correct. It's local.     Where was it local?     Correct again. It was at John and Mary's house.     What was its effect?     Correct! Well done! It was the effect it had on other locals in the street. Aside: This was a positive effect, seen and done.     The hard question:     What might the effect be on the next street?     Brilliant! And correct. Other streets might take on their own gardens, in their own way.     Result? All gardens in the neighbourhood are now lovely gardens that they can share in their 'community spirit' or otherwise (as they so please). 'Community spirit' is local, of course.     What might we conclude from all this activity? (We are looking, remember, in terms of global/nationalistic and local.     Is this a Global/Nationalistic activity?     Correct. No.     Is this a local activity?     Correct. Yes.     How local? (More difficult)     Correct, yes, there are more than one answers! Well done!         Answers:         Local (to individuals)         wider local to even more individuals                     (Community).        Now, before I go on, is John and Mary's thinking (given the scenario above) a Global/Nationalistic one, or a local one (to them)?     Correct, yet again! It's local to them.     How do we construe this? Are they thinking of themselves, the street, the Nation, the  World?     How do you do it? Correct again. They are thinking (not selfishly) of themselves. The effect is passed onto others who act upon it. (Except those people at Number 38, they didn't bother...no sense of pride....)     Now, is this personal pride or National pride (or even Global pride)?     Well it could be all three, couldn't it? But it's probably the first one, personal pride. But what it could lead to is National pride, or even, Global pride. It's a question of which comes first and what's publicised later (and by whom).     I'll expand that. Who knows about John and Mary's garden?     Multiple choice: a) John and Mary b) The neighbours c) People living in another town d) People living in another country e) People living in another galaxy     There is no correct answer. There are, however, probabilities. Those are that a) and b) are probably correct. c), d), e), maybe correct if the publicity of their achievement were made known to the World in some way and others acted upon it. In that even, the same philosophy would apply, is it local or National or Global?     The object of this exercise is to show that pride in one's personal achievements can only be local to start with. How others see it, is their own concern. You may see John and Mary's achievements as personal, or that they had National or Global pride and that's why they did it.     What I am also saying is that we can only have an effect on others if we act locally. They see, feel, hear and so on, as individuals. What happens afterwards is up to them that follow.         At present there is little, if any, 'feeling at a distance' only killing at a distance. That is, I'm developed enough to kill you with a bomb when I'm hundreds of miles away, although I can't sense you but I am unable to make you feel happy when I'm hundreds of miles away and can't sense you.     John and Mary are not leaders (that's a spurious afterthought). They are only followed (perhaps) by others. What's missing in John and Mary's dialogue in the front garden, is their reason. This dialogue is missing because it was not part of the conversation. If it had been, the scenario would be useless.     You can see John and Mary's act as local or however. Their reasons are their own; this is crucial. Their actions were not part of a so-called 'government's' edict. It was a conscious act to better their lot. They didn't steal the shovels they used. They didn't beat up an old lady for her shopping basket to put the weeds in. Their pride was their own. Others 'took that on-board' as they say. It's another person who attributes the actions of individuals and then claims they are part of a National or Global pride but it's their (John and Mary's) decision as individuals that matter.     The problem we have is that those people without a personal pride insist on making their own failings the part of a Global/Nationalistic network of lies, prejudices and fake living, which they not only foist upon but bully people into behaving as they do.     Thinking globally, where we can have no personal control over events, is a notion of those who haven't got a clue about personal pride or personal control. They might claim that they do but their actions preclude an understanding of this.     Humans require personal response, not response at a distance.  Personal is eye-to-eye contact.     Response at a distance requires measures of communication that are always impersonal.

Return to CONTENTS page