Is Global-speak the New Esperanto?

By Ray Brimble, October 31, 2017

Let’s go back to a time, three generations ago, before WWII, Bretton Woods, WTO, NAFTA, even before the secret global Illuminati started conspiring against us all while sipping hot buttered rums after a day of skiing at Davos. During the period between the Great War and World War II, a time that is generally known for the rise of protectionism and during which the original “America First” was coined, there was also a vibrant globalist culture and philosophy and many people around the world, whether they be communists who’s main political tenet was the inevitability of world government, or of other political persuasions, thought that the best way to progress humankind was to break down international barriers. The concocted language of Esperanto was a mix of many different languages and sentence structures designed to be easy to learn and understand, no matter what your native tongue. It was seen as a useful bridge, which if spoken by enough people in the world, would contribute to world peace and understanding. If only we could talk it out, the world would be a better place. During the 1920’s and 30’s, several hundred thousand people spoke Esperanto, and there are still an estimated 10,000 NATIVE Esperanto speakers in the world today, including financier, George Soros.

The attached newspaper clipping is from the New York Times in 1936.The small man on the left wearing the shorts is my mother’s second husband, Vincente Gregorio, an Argentine who road that bike with his friend from Buenos Aires, to New York City, all the while promoting Esperanto, world peace, and generally, everybody “just getting along”. It should be noted that fellow Argentine, Che’ Guevara, plotted to ride almost the exact same journey on a motorcycle (see the movie, “The Motorcycle Diaries”), but only made it as far as Cuba. The rest is, as they say, “history”.

It should be noted that fellow Argentine, Che’ Guevara, plotted to ride almost the exact same journey on a motorcycle (see the movie, “The Motorcycle Diaries”), but only made it as far as Cuba. The rest is, as they say, “history”.

The attached newspaper clipping is from the New York Times in 1936. The small man on the left wearing the shorts is my mother’s second husband, Vincente Gregorio, an Argentine who road that bike with his friend from Buenos Aires, to New York City, all the while promoting Esperanto, world peace, and generally, everybody “just getting along”. It should be noted that fellow Argentine, Che’ Guevara, plotted to ride almost the exact same journey on a motorcycle (see the movie, “The Motorcycle Diaries”), but only made it as far as Cuba. The rest is, as they say, “history”.

Vincente and Victor thought they were promoting better communication, but this is how they addressed a young female reporter when asked about the trip: “Kiss me, Toots, OK. Don’t mention it. Tomorrow. Goodbye.” Most likely they were in a bit of a flirtatious mode, but they were also trying to adapt their Esperanto to English in a way that ended up being both comical, and probably not very effective. Perhaps Esperanto gave them a false sense of security that they could communicate with anyone, anywhere, no matter what language the other spoke.  One-size-fits-all things are often security blankets that only seem useful when you don’t really need to use them.

Globalization-speak (“Global-speak”) is something like that  Like Esperanto, it’s a combination of concepts, terms, and buzzwords which have been used over the years to create a sense of international unity and security. As an example, here are just a few words, plucked from a speech given by IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde, on April 12, 2017.

“fostering human relations”, “steadfast commitment to international cooperation”, “more resilient global economy”, “sustainability, durability, inclusive growth”, ‘more equitable growth”, “advanced economies”, Emerging economies”, “cooperating across borders through a multilateral framework”.

What do all of these words mean? It depends on who is doing the talking and who is doing the listening. Take the first example, for instance: the agenda setter, Director Lagarde, uses the word “foster” to indicate stewardship. But the product of the foster care system in Texas, working in a factory in Houston, might hear something entirely different, and might think Lagarde was suggesting some form of disenfranchisement. Look at the last example, “cooperating across borders through a multilateral framework”. Who gets to “cooperate” and who is the subject of that cooperation within what framework, and how is that governed?  Talk to the small corn farmer in Mexico about that one.

It’s implied that this is all well thought out, universally equitable, and bullet-proof. Global-speak depends on one size fitting all, when in actuality, one size fits none. It all works, until it doesn’t: Somebody blows up a rail station; a hacker steals your credit card, a foreign power gerry-rigs an election, a businessman bribes a foreign official, a refugee pleads for medical attention in a desert camp. We assume that trade brings peace. Countries that trade with each other are less likely to make war on one another.  That may actually have turned out to be true, so far. However, it is clear that war is being waged, nevertheless, not only by a few nation states, but by non-national actors who are empowered by technology, connectivity, fluidity, transparency and audacity. In the borderless world, I have personally worked to help create all my life, we all find ourselves joined at the hip and some of those adjoined, are not characters one would want to be attached to.

I started out, and have always been a Globalist. I do not see it as a choice, but rather as the philosophical expression of world reality. We cannot, nor should we wall ourselves off. Trade is generally beneficial. International relationships facilitate. The planet and its climate are a closed system and all of us are its stewards.  However, the problem I have with global-speak is that it often uses words which are, at best, no longer meaningful, and at worst, representation of out-of-touch elitist agendas hatched decades ago. Sometimes, global-speak can give the speaker a sense of security, just like ole Gregorio thought he was “killin’ it” when he spurted out a few lines of English by way of his Esperanto. Globalists, we need some new words, not just those from the swiss-army-knife language dictionary we have been using to describe how it should all be, since 1945.

“Global-speak is the language of platitudes and orthodoxy. Global speakers see their words as seductive, but they are so only to each other.”

Imagine Lagarde addressing a townhall meeting- pick the country, it does not matter. We all know how that would go. Isn’t that part of the problem? This challenge reaches beyond miscommunication. It is NO communication. Until somebody steps up and consistently explains the benefits of globalization, we are going to continue to witness a populist uprising against it all over the world.

It’s not that globalization is evil, it’s just that the Esperanto of global-speak is utterly inarticulate.

Responsible globalization is as important as it is in need of an update. We cannot go back in time. The Genie has not only left the bottle but sometimes appears to be drinking heavily from it.  So we are left with a “Reformation” of sorts in the same way that religious “rebels” in seventeenth century Europe sought to simplify and demystify very big Christian concepts which had been considered orthodoxy for over 1,000 years.

How do we “think global, talk local”? What words might be added to the global-speak mix to humanize the context of the discussion? Are there concepts which could demystify Globalization and make it more relevant to common men and women all over the world? You suggest we insert isolation, esteem.

I invite you, dear reader, to start this dialogue. The new Esperanto global speak- what words would you use?