After U.S. President Donald Trump's statements, which blatantly rejected the doctrine of globalization at the UN General Assembly, so to speak, the debate on globalization has once again been fueled. My colleague Özlem Albayrak highlighted the sociological dimension of these debates with her column titled, “Is it the end of the global world?" Albayrak underlined the fact that Trump did not refrain from making statements along the lines of intervention with respect to the developments in many countries and regions of the world while he rejected the doctrine of globalization, which was the most remarkable inconsistency of Trump's speech.

When I first heard these words, I couldn't help but ask how he would stop globalization as the U.S. president. Arabesque singers in the late 70s (or was it the beginning of the 80s?) used to cry out:

”Stop the world, my head is spinning.”

Trump’s chances of stopping globalism are as strong as the arabesque mentality’s chances are of stopping the world.

Trump, however, reveals in the following part of his speech what the globalization doctrine, that he claims to deny, means to him: " Around the world, responsible nations must defend against threats to sovereignty ... We are only going to give foreign aid to those who respect us and, frankly, are our friends. " Without ever questioning how on earth he could associate globalization with his advice on all countries defending themselves, or that he would determine allies and enemies based on different criteria from now on, everybody is in a flurry: Globalization is ending!

However, as we have explained above, globalization is not a process that started with the U.S., and it cannot be ended due to restrictions by the U.S. It is a concept that best describes the transformation and sociological state of the world we live in. It is not about opposing or accepting it.

No matter how much some people oppose this, these people surely notice that they are condemned to live with it. For these, such an awareness can only be experienced as the emergence or the recognition of the tragedy.

Whatever it is, globalization is the state of the world that is reshaped by the means of technique. In the 60s, media theorist Marshall McLuhan approached the phenomenon with the reality of the world shaped by the means of communication. According to him, the facilities offered by media and communication had transformed the world into a global village. The concern that the parties which control news sources could dominate the world by means of deceptive communication followed this assertion; however, as communication and media tools were increased and became widespread, the monopolies over this media, and even the dominant powers in these areas, have gradually become more and more common among a large number of actors.

The communication environment has become more democratized with each passing day. Today it has become an area where everyone can easily access and conduct activities thanks to new media tools. This communication environment undoubtedly affected our culture of privacy, individuality and personality. It transformed our lives, and turned our traditions upside down. There is neither any sense nor any need to argue that everything is getting better.

This is not the point. The point is to understand what has happened to us before. What we do and will understand is that the world we live in is not the same as the world of the past. The world is turning and simultaneously making our heads spin. Because we are not aware of the world, moment, time, and history.

In order to claim the authenticity of everything, we cannot avoid making references to the past. The world we live in has its own conditions and we are tested with this world, not the one of the past. We have no responsibility to return to the world of yesterday; anyway it is impossible. As a matter of fact, this is what Zionists try to do. We all witness what they have done to the world. Isn't it enough to be a case in point?

Globalization did not begin upon the decision of someone as it has been assumed. For instance, all the great religions have a notion of the globe, earth, and world. Our antecedents referred to it as Nizam-ı alem (world order in Ottoman Turkish). In a similar vein, it was referred to as "Until there is no disorder on earth..." in Kitab-ı Mübin.

Mankind possesses an ambition which wants to reach out to the entire world, and it has searched for money and goods that will dominate the globe and be easily distributed and circulated. It was Muslim society that first developed a global economic market, which allowed a cheque that was written in Baghdad, Khorasan to be valid and liquidated in Andalusia.

Today, globalization has become the structural form of our world that no one can forestall due to the technical level reached by man. It cannot only be attributed to the United States. Especially while living in a world where the increase or decrease of FED's interest rates by a quarter-point is inevitably affecting the economy of the whole world.

Interestingly, the fact that sociologists began to recognize and discuss globalization intensively is not due to the opportunities that emerged with globalization, but due to the catastrophes that surpassed the transnational level. The radiation emitted by the Chernobyl explosion and the AIDS disease, along with their transnational effects have been the cases that triggered globalization discussions.

Today, we can say that the U.S. serves as a similar case not due to being a country that controls globalization, but because the disasters it causes have a global impact. Every act by the U.S. has a global impact. Even saying that it will give up globalization creates a global wave. But this does not necessarily mean that the U.S. is an initiator of globalization or that it can stop it at will.

Nevertheless, the fact that the United States acts as the patron and ruler of globalization is no different than its claim to having a kind of divinity. However, it might just be its deluded opponents which give it the audacity to proclaim divinity. They unwittingly dignify it by means of opposing globalization just because it represents U.S. hegemony. Due to such flattery, albeit merged into hostility, a U.S. president can step forward and say that he could actually stop the world. And that president was Trump…

What's there to stop him from next saying that he can make the sun rise from the west?