Why The Term ‘Centralizer’?
Read these articles first, if you haven’t already:
Now, moving forward:
- They are not all elites
- They are not all part of the ruling class
- They are not all part of a managerial class or a political elite
- They are not all globalists. They are only globalists when it is convenient for centralization or social relationship behavior
- They are all working in their own interest, which aggregates into specific, different behavior (research reductionism versus emergent theory)
‘Elite’ prescribes to them an undue prestige and position that they do not deserve. Neither are they all a part of the “ruling” or “managerial” class. Many are disparate sympathizers, external supporters, or near supporters. They are also only globalists when it is convenient for them. Should the situation change, they will abandon globalism as fast as they had taken it up.
There are no words currently that I can find or know of which explain what they are and include all of them into one cohesive group. Thus, ‘centralizer’ was born.
Whether one of them is an “elite” is irrelevant, whether they are in the ruling class directly or not is irrelevant, whether they support globalism is irrelevant. But they all support centralization of power in their own interest. They all seek more power for themselves, in whatever group they are in. So, they are all centralizers. They may also be an elite, or in the ruling class, or a globalist, but they are a centralizer first. And even if their involvement in other descriptor words is changed, they will always remain a centralizer.
I also did want to overcomplicate it with an ambiguous word. “Centralizer” is rather obvious upon first reading it. Or at least, it appears so to me.
We didn’t have a word to sufficiently describe them.
Now, we do.