Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, I'll have to re-read the linked article. In any case, while I probably did not phrase it in the language that globalists themselves would use, but would they flat out refute my definition? Or would they merely nuance it?
Yes, yours is the Breitbart definition. Just google 'globalist', look at the wikipedia page, etc. If I defined 'libertarians' as, say, 'people who won't answer the question "How often do you beat your spouse?" with a simple yes or no', it would be just inaccurate and loaded, not something libertarians would want to 'nuance'.
As for your suggestion to "just google" it, I decided to take you up on it. The first result I got was a definition from Wordnik:
"A national geopolitical policy in which the entire world is regarded as the appropriate sphere for a state's influence."
That seems to match up quite well with the first clause of my definition. Does Steve Bannon own Wordnik or the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language? I doubt it. Wikipedia doesn't really go into detail about specific ideological commitments.
How about the second clause? Well, certainly the phrase "backwards and unenlightened" implies that I perceive globalists as haughty and vain. What of it? I don't think they're evil incarnate. I've met a fair few. They seem decent enough.
Nonetheless, I think that if you believe that national boundaries should go away, and you come from a relatively high educational background (which many globalists seem to) then, in a dispassionate way, "unenlightened" is exactly how you are going to view those who insist on maintain local hegemony based on traditional institutions.
> If I defined 'libertarians' as, say, 'people who won't answer the question "How often do you beat your spouse?" with a simple yes or no'
It wouldn't be a terribly bad start. By not identifying with either Conservative or Liberal your making it clear that you reject binary politics and false dichotomies.
