You’re right that identifying and understanding the multitude of dynamics is essential. But the final steps in the analysis are to spot the most important variables and reduce the complex to simple form. Most analysts are not strong on this last point.
Globalism aspires to hide itself by splintering into many small pieces, like the broomsticks of Fantasia, but globalism’s fatal error is in its flawed perspective. This is the real world, not Disneyland.
The monolith of globalism is unable to hide itself, no matter how many online posters it recruits as playwrights. One day it will be splintered, yes. But it will be dead.
“But the final steps in the analysis are to spot the most important variables and reduce the complex to simple form.”
This is the wrong way to go about it. As a veteran of messing with complex technical systems this is not at all a valid approach. There is no “simple form”. Design Problem A isn’t likely to be downstream of Problem B, though it could be, or maybe Problem C interacts with B but can independently bite you regardless. Not simple, nor simplifiable.
“Globalism” isn’t an entity. It does not “hide itself”. It doesnt “think”. What you want to reduce into simplicity, or personalise, is a very large number of diverse, independent actors responding to incentives created within their mileu by contingent factors, such as changes in technology, etc.
Some prominent people expressing their whimsy or fatuity for the sake of their vanity or status within their subculture does not make an entity. You can explain them very well with Thorstein Veblen.
Personalising this is useful both for propaganda purposes and to offer a degree of comfort. But in either case it is wrong. Fantasy, Disney, is all about assuming that theres a black hat.
A far more realistic way to see these conflicts is the sociological approach of Angelo Codevilla.