(And, as far as the political noun "liberal" goes, the Swedes beat the Spanish, as Johan Norberg has explained.)
Second, you write: “An equivalent semantic shift is now happening over ‘globalisation’… [O]ver the past decade or so, it has taken on a new meaning. A ‘globalist’ is now someone who wants the world to be ruled from Davos or Brussels.”
But globalisation and globalism are two different words. An advocate of globalization is not necessarily a globalist.
The difference has been explained by multiple liberal authors:
Minding semantics is most welcome, especially for the words treated here.
I agree on “liberal,” except, contrary to what you indicate, the word “liberal” did not enter our political lexicon from the Hispanic world in the early nineteenth century. Rather, it entered our political lexicon in the 1770s from Adam Smith and others. This fact, which Hayek affirmed, is now well established: https://elibrary.duncker-humblot.com/article/74903/ldquoliberalrdquo-as-a-political-adjective-in-english-1769thinspndashthinsp1824.
(And, as far as the political noun "liberal" goes, the Swedes beat the Spanish, as Johan Norberg has explained.)
Second, you write: “An equivalent semantic shift is now happening over ‘globalisation’… [O]ver the past decade or so, it has taken on a new meaning. A ‘globalist’ is now someone who wants the world to be ruled from Davos or Brussels.”
But globalisation and globalism are two different words. An advocate of globalization is not necessarily a globalist.
The difference has been explained by multiple liberal authors:
https://capx.co/donald-trump-should-fight-globalism-not-globalisation
https://www.theconservative.online/globalisation-yes-globalism-no
Also, the globalists want the world to be ruled from “anywhere,” not only from Brussels and Davos.