While this post's title is an old play on words and somewhat humorous to some, the stakes in what is currently playing out is not.
Source: Watcher.Guru tweet on X
The stakes could hardly by any higher nor the topic any more sober and serious. In our ever shrinking world, there are few who would claim the outcome has no effect on them or their future.
How did we get here and what is at stake?
Historically: Trend toward Globalism
Dr. Henry Kissinger's secret trip to China in 1972 has been endlessly written about. What was the objective?
Source: Global Times post on "The Prelude to China-US Relations"
Also endlessly written about, the most commonly stated public version was along the lines of this trip resulting in welcoming China to enter into a closer association with the rest of the world. With the hope that the increasing commercial and financial interdependence of countries on each other would reduce the chance of future conflict.
One indisputable outcome of this was a massive restructuring of the world's manufacturing base. Resulting in far too much of it ending up in China. Which, in turn, strengthened a worldview focused on global domination.
So, Dr. Kissinger, how has your big play worked out in the +50 years since?
"Not well" would be my answer. Whether the original intent was to undermine nationalism, in favor of globalism, can be endlessly debated. That an increasing majority of people across the planet would agree with me cannot.
What is actively being played out before us is what might be referred to as the work-in-progress alternative.
Currently: Trend away from Globalism
Was it purely coincidental, while much of the industrialized world's manufacturing base was being transferred to China, that national sovereignty deteriorated? Combined with all sorts of various mind games along the way about becoming global citizens?
Source: Creator Clker-Free-Vector-Images on Pixabay
In the early stages, I would argue it was all relatively subtle. On the surface, by design, it was typically made to appear to be a very appealing and enticing prospect. What could possibly go wrong?
Plandemic Pandemic anyone?
In my recent post, I mentioned the recent COVID-19 plandemic. While we're still waiting to find out the truth on the extent of it, that China played a major role is indisputable.
Given the incalculable global consequences, what was the 2021 theme of the powerful elite World Economic Forum's annual summit in Davos, Switzerland? What became commonly known as, "The Great Reset."
As part of this, can a case be made, if there ever was any subtlety to the trend toward globalism, that changed? As a part of that, many of us experienced dramatic increases in totalitarian or authoritarian impositions on our freedom?
In this same post, I referenced Newton's Third Law:
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
To this Silver Blogger, it is unmistakably clear we are now living through a global reset. The Great Reset, Round 2, if you will.
Leverage: Tug of war!
Who will "win?" Why will they "win?" At the end of it all, will there be any questions raised about what it even means to "win?"
However this struggle ultimately plays out, the word leverage will almost certainly play a key role.
Clashing worldviews
Who would argue against the Americans view of what is right or wrong, good or evil being at odds with what the Chinese view is of the same? At least the majority view of the American people, as supported by the outcome of their recent election versus the heads of the Communist Chinese Party and People's Liberation Army.
It is oversimplified to distill this down to the differences between two men - President Donald J. Trump and President Xi Jinping. This post will not be detailing the differences between the two worldviews represented by each of them. This author believes that is self-evident.
A key word is clashing. Why? Is there still some pretense that these two world views can peacefully coexist? Based on any concept of maintaining a balance of power between the two, with at least something of a win-win argument to support it?
Leverage to move the world!
Aristotle's famous quote anyone?
"Give me a place to stand, and a lever long enough, and I will move the world."
[Source: Archimedes Quotes]
In this struggle for supremacy, neither side is going to voluntarily concede much of anything. The maximum leverage each thinks they have to impose their will on the other will be applied. On the surface, the use of tariffs is the publicly stated choice for one of them.
Whether that will work remains to be seen. Each nation individually has a considerable amount of leverage by itself. While other nations have less, which worldview they choose to side with, in settling the trade imbalances currently shaking the world's financial structure
Whatever the final outcome, the leverage of using tariffs could reasonably be considered an act of war. An economic war, with only "treasure" at stake.
Source: Creator Mohamed_hassan on Pixabay
If so, did this war just start? Or has a "soft" war being underway for quite some time? And we are all experiencing the late stages of this phase of the war?
If so, will negotiated settlements be reached to achieve a peace agreement acceptable to both sides?
Source: Creator geralt on Pixabay
Or will negotiations ultimately fail and this "soft" war becomes a "hard" war, with "blood and treasure" at stake? Resulting in a descent into an all-out global conflict for the first time since World War II?
It is unimaginable to this author that anyone reading this post does not have an opinion about what is at stake. Please feel free to share it, in the comments below.
Who's vision or more accurately what worldview will ultimately end up in the driver's seat?
Source: Creator Yamu_Jay on Pixabay
I do not pretend to know. What I believe we can all know, with considerable confidence, is the outcome will be global in its consequences. And we will all be living with them for a long time to come.
For the record, I will clearly state I am opposed to globalism. As part of that conviction, I think the course correction now underway is long overdue. Therefore, the cost is going to be considerably higher than it needed to be than if it had been addressed sooner.
Is suffering and sacrifice an inevitable part of this cost? If so, what role will the depth of conviction, of those holding either worldview, play in the final outcome?
What is your view? All viewpoints, reasonably stated, are welcome.
Best wishes, until we meet again,
QT
👋❤️👋
🤝 Partnership Pledge! 🤝
• 10% of Post Payout to Comments• 1 HSBI to the Best Comment
🥲 Pledge Not Honored! 🥲
• Not due to a change of heart.
• Pledge offer declined.