I don't know anything about alt-right symbolism. I do have an aversion to essentially calling someone a Nazi for expressing what appears to be, at face value, a legitimate opinion.

Free speech is under more and more pressure every year, and unless you have been living under a rock you are aware of the mounting evidence of that. Right here, one thing that seems evident is that the way to win any argument, or shut anyone up, or in other words essentially censor them is to call them a racist or a Nazi.

Maybe you're not wrong, and I hope I am not enabling anyone to spread hate, but I guess my gut feeling is that I just want to express an opinion that we should be very careful about labelling people or ideas as basically racist or Nazi-esque without hard evidence they are as such, because we otherwise easily censor them--I don't believe there is any better way to do so? Right now it appears it is perhaps too easy to accomplish this.

I think people have a right to freedom of expression and I don't want to see that go away.

Benjamin Netanyahu is a jewish nationalist. George Soros is a jewish globalist.

There are two survival strategies for groups of people. The first is to live in an ethno-state where only your own people are favored. Examples of this strategy are self-evident. The second is to rule over another group of people as an ethnic minority. The Normans in England are an example of this. They maintained a distinct racial identity for centuries. They were of 'noble blood' ie: a genetically distinct ruling class. (Also the Brahmin in India) If you can't rule, then you will advocate liberal and tolerant treatment of your group, at least as long as you are a minority. For example, many muslims in America bitterly criticize when they are discriminated against because of their chosen religion (islamiphobia), while at the same time want to throw people in jail for criticizing Muhammad. Clearly many muslim majority countries are not tolerant of non-muslims (christianity is often illegal), but they demand tolerance when living in the west as minorities.

Nationalism and globalism respectively happen to be two methods of promoting and justifying these long-term strategies. I'm not making a judgement, just an observation.

Today, globalism is being most successfully pushed not by any ethnic group, but by multi-national corporations who just want to increase short-term profits without caring how demographic changes will affect long-term stability and productivity.

So globalist does not mean jewish.

No it isn't. It refers to supporters of globalism rather than nationalism, and in some cases it refers to the elites who push the globalist agenda - who may or may not be Jewish.

What fraction of people using the word intend it in that sense, and what fraction do not, and how are we ever to discover these numbers?

I saw this rhetorical move once before, where someone complained that the concept of "SJW" -- as in "Social Justice Warrior" -- was racist, as Nazi forums used it to mean "SJeW" (whatever an "SJeW" is). In that particular case it was obvious the obscure meaning was basically unknown. In this case it's slightly less clear, but I still suspect most people using the word "globalism" have something like its obvious meaning in mind: globalisation, open borders, etc.

Which groups equate 'globalist' with 'jew'? I hadn't ever heard of alt-right until very recently, out of Clinton's campaign.