End of Globalisation (3)

Melaka 2025 (11 years after).

Adding over the two previous texts (Kochi, India, the previous one), about that historical juncture: on what appears to be the Nexus; the concentration of elements and forces which formed and brought about what we know nowadays as “Globalisation”. (no need in this one to elaborate again on trade and the archaeology of the term globalisation). Simply to merely put a reference point:1517. By then the elements; the players and the dynamics of what hitherto has been known to us as Globalisation seem to have come to the convergence point: the closing of a circle; of that sphere of influence, dynamics and energies which would propel it until now.

If Kochi was the first European fort in Asia, and so its significance as a landmark of globalisation. Melaka reflects the substantial change brough about by globalisation. Melaka with Mosques next to Hindu temples; Synagogues and Christian churches, reflection of that previous trading world, prior to the nowadays “globalised world”; declined as an indirect effect of the the emergence of Singapore British colonial port. The importation into Asia of European conflicts; disruption of the trading system, etc.

The Europeans reached India in (1498), and so they entered the largest maritime trading system. The first European fort in Asia was founded at Kochi, India, in 1503 (from where I wrote my previous text on this same topic).  Meanwhile, (the same juncture), the Ottomans were expanding in the Levant, finally taking Egypt in 1517, and in doing so, inherited the European – Mameluke conflict in Asia, clashing and converging with the Europeans in the Asian context. The Red Sea became the navel and bindu of such a mandala of elements. And with it, the circle closed: the Europe – Ottoman wars in the eastern part of Europe had been exported to a new scenario: Asia, the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf (soon it expanded to Japan, China, etc).

From the Atlantic to the Pacific (through Africa), the conflict had found its head and tail and started eating everything within. Later, by extension of the European impulse, the Americas found a role under the same forces that had wrapped Eurasia, as later in time it can be seen with the British Golden Triangle: from the Caribbean to China passing through India; also the Americas’ gold and silver helped funding European wars between the same nations that had exported their religious and regional wars globally. Etc. Etc.

But as the Battle of Diu did not mean that the entire trade was diverted to Portugal at once, neither that the land routes automatically stopped running, nor that the prevailing relationships between the existing players of the trading system ceased to exist; a nowadays conception of the end of Globalisation does not signifies a moment marked but a sole event which collapses the entire structure …………….

The Battle of Diu (2 of them) simply changed the dynamics of the entire trading system to a European military dominance in the entire ocean-trade. And from then onwards, it represented a slow shift from South Asian, South-East Asian, Arabic and Mediterranean peoples dominance to a European dominance. What in fact, spear-headed and facilitated the arrival and deeds of The Dutch and the British Empire (a direct logical consequence).

Well, in emerging-evolutive-phenomena, only in the rare occasions it is a matter of one single event which instantly reshapes and redirects the entire structure and course of a phenomenon.  

Conceivably, an End of Globalisation does not precisely imply a regressive world of State-Nations trading and consuming their own production, only; or region-wise only (as if the State – Nation were not a mere invention of the same “modernity”, from which Globalisation is a product, too). It could simply mean the dissolution or the end of the governing – dynamics which conceived; formed; propelled and gave the prevailing phenomenon (and term) its own essential characteristics.

Exempli Gratia

Should The United States of America lose the Pacific;

and if almost 50% of the world trade flows through the Pacific Ocean; the entire dynamics of the world trade would change. World trade would certainly continue, as there is an innate interdependence (not created /designed or engineered), but the bigger piece of the cake would go to one particular player, as it is a game of power, not of trade; and the intrinsic detriment that such practice and policy have always brought about to the human lot would be upon the rest of players (not in equal parts, of course), for Modern China is a copy & paste of the West (most of all of the USA) and Modern China is here with ambitions of supremacy and dominance. But that does not seem to be a problem for business people or businesses because as it is said: “only conducting pacific business” is China’s entire raison  d’etre.

But such an apparent loss would not be because U.S. – Western colonial / post-colonial / neo-liberal impoverishing policies in the global south, for China’s copy & paste of them (with “Chinese characteristics”) ultimately is bringing the same results. But somehow China understands better the intangible cultural dynamics. Many countries in the area have a Sinic background or variations of that culture, which by design have a profound proclivity to compliancy. China knows that, and does how it works with Chinese too: a little bit of loud voices; of display of coercion and a bit of pressure; and such a soul having been trained for centuries to submit to parents and authority simply yields. The reason why China applies such a level of surveillance and coercion in its own society is not as how the Western foolishly think (mental projection of their own western societies), but because it is the only way Chinese keep a relative order inside of China. They know that China has 3k years of unifying and easily breaking apart, it easily breaks apart: it is inscribed in the internal pressure that their existential values execute to the inside (inwardly looking too) and the stiffness of their cultural values and foundations; stiffness they exhibit, from the individual nervous state to their social positions. it is inherent, almost as part of their genetical heritage. And so, politically, it is as if Modern China’s government stood on the traditional Chinese archetype that if you treat a Chinese amicably, pleasantly and relaxingly, they will abuse the free and relaxing relationship; profiting until they cannot more and ultimately to appropriate. Their use of extreme coercion and surveillance upon their own population is based on the traditional history-long archetype (not individual cases). Do the Chinese know their own people?

But this is something The Western World love at a geopolitical level, too: the Global South authoritarian leader with a hard grip on its own people. It has been their guarantee for cheaply accessing and extracting resources from a country (including labour, the human resource).The “local leader” whom hitherto, since European Colonialism, the West empowers and installs through conspiratorial and servile alliances; fraudulent election; regime change; democratic movement leaders; puppet presidents, etc. And they have also evolved in the register of terms if not so much in their function in the western playbook: from that “oriental despot” of the colonial period to the nowadays “dictator”, etc. Beautifully, most of them have recently been made in Oxford, Cambridge and in The United States Government’s offices and facilities. And so, since 1971 they have loved their own profile of Global South Ruler apparently reflected in the Chinese leaders. Keeping its own people down, cheaply manufacturing for the West (good old fashion colonialism / neo liberalism), and granting Western people privileges over local Chinese people, in China itself. But as with Imperial Japan, Westerners are short-sighted people who cannot understand the underlying intangible dynamics of the local culture. The perceived submission, which the Western eye enjoys seeing in front of them, has nothing to do with a Western submission. And the cohesion of a collective culture is something Westerners cannot comprehend, only abstractedly conceive through theories and ideas of “the other” (from their own western understanding, not the reality). Like those rather ridiculous events during the Opium incidents in Canton when British commanders used to show banners written in Chinese or shout to the Chinese people that “they were not against the Chinese people; only against their government”. As if Chinese culture were a Western culture believing in separation of powers…………. For Chinese the Government is an extension of the Chinese people. The fact that even South China Morning Post published an article arguing that the Chinese looking person from thousand years ago looks quiet the same as the Modern Chinese person, does not only reveal the intrinsic seclusive nature and essence of the Chinese culture (mentality too), but the fact that the racial aspect is not something that it is learned at school but rather the essence of the Chinese culture. “Chinese” is only through race, not through any other abstract notion of grouping humans. And the reason why the Chinese Government somehow expect submission to mainland authority and government from any Chinese around the world. Yes, this partly reveals why ethnic Chinese in the rest of the Pacific are a platform for China to access and infiltrate countries, not without the usual bribes or guanxi in the Chinese all-times fashion, but also closing this circle is the mobilisation of Chinese nationals to countries where they have already accessed. A sudden mass of Chinese nationals start invading the neighborhoods, and we must even include the groups of tourists, who simply add to create an overwhelming Chinese presence in a given place, what indeed alienates the local but it creates the desired effect of overwhelming and intimidating through numbers. The inclusion of mafia syndicates is part of that mobilisation of people, too, as they help accessing the local mafias and the low circles. But their ease in the Pacific is the similarity of culture with the Sinic culture. The shared submissive and collective factor of the cultures; including the racial one and the resented relationship they all have with The West and Western people (an admiration full of resentment). 

One wonders why China has the most problems with The Philippines: the less Sinic; less Buddhist type of people in the area; the more “Latin” sort of people around there. Although, less economically developed than many other Southeast Asian nations who have simply submissively yielded to China; they are the only ones mounting a resistance. But one may argue that for business people and global corporations, it is not profitable or convenient that The Philippines defend themselves at this moment, and even less until the last consequences. Global Businesses are founded on principles or slavery, degradation, humiliation and genocides of peoples. But perhaps soon, and thanks to good money making businesses, the USA is going to lose the access to their remaining facilities in there.

Because if the USA thought that with China it was going to be very different than with Imperial Japan (in its own world dynamics of the time), the inherited ignorance of the Western cannon on world knowledge may have already expired by now. But that certainly the ignorance of the intangible cultural element is overpowering the business – driven US young idiosyncrasy (rather than culture), it is validly arguable. Or as spoke supra, perhaps that eternal capitalist seek for cheap resources around the world drives the business-idiosyncrasy, which would actually close the argumentative circle by the fact that a business-driven sort of culture is ignorant of many other greater dynamics and realities at play. And which, at certain moments in time, catch with certain line of action that has seemingly cut through them. But that is like the planetarian realities: the fact that we can strike the ambience and we do not get any consequence right way or even for a generation (very short time in planetarian terms) , it is not an absolute event which signifies that such a trespassing can be perpetuated; but it is rather only a question of time, until the consequences rightly and logically come. Well, that “all-times” problem of the merchant & technical classes in power. But it had to come a time for them. The BUSINESS ERA is here.

The BUSINESS ERA is now. Not as a providential hierarchical state which had to come-to-be, but……perhaps by sheer “convergences of some forces and elements that come at certain juncture, steering the dynamics in certain direction………..(too much already supra).

And already here, in the Business era, Mr. Donald Trump’s attitude made emerged a human characteristic long settled in humans during this Business era: a sort of Human Indicator under the modern, globalised, business-led paradigm / era:

SUBMISSIVENESS

Mr. Trump has proved to the world that any leader, any nation can simply be yelled at; insulted upon; treated as kitchen cloth, and they would indeed meekly come to lick hands, shily waving the tale to the negotiating table to fetch crumbles. The capacity to correspondingly respond it is already impaired; the natural impulse of answering in equality of tone, numbed. The castrated globalised man. As if indeed, the Medieval man was more sovereign; enjoyed a larger capacity of vitality and response (or not fear to lose, perhaps?)

Contemporary Humans are more submissive than the Medieval man

(and a shame to their own ancient predecessors. No wonder why China has emerged in these times)

Submissiveness: a contemporary characteristic which emerges with clarity; but it is not that this globalised man is more “morally sensitive”, nor more “humanly aware”. For contemporary 2025 humans, as a lot, appear to be worse than medieval and ancient ones in those two matters.

An Unscrupulous greed for maximising profits: a conscious affirmation of semi-slavery and human degradation as “human nature”. A developed high admiration for business and money-making opportunities above any human and living concern (humans seems to be and obstacle for the Business-era man) as “human development”. A cannibalistic hunger for recognition; willing to step on any human in his/her aim-oriented professional drive as “self growth”, etc. And despite all the boisterous ruckus in the public square about “human rights”…, human intentions, etc. (inexistent in previous human eras). For indeed, the gap between values and human deeds / what is said and what is done / the culture and the planet / mental beliefs and the physical reality MUST increase during this time: as the cries and voices of values get louder, the deeper the corruption of the instincts is. And such characteristics, appear proportionally to the individual status-level, in this Business-era. But above all, and clearly evident:  Submissive; from where the tendency to admire, revere and follow such stereotypes is born. Fearful, as all submissiveness conceals deeply inside.

A fearful creature afraid of losing what in their current scale of values represents “achievement”. As if achievements (in this era) would be the higher things that humans could have reached and gained in history. But it seems that humans as a lot, are standing on one leg only, nowadays. So, it is not about achievements and gains; it is about loss. And not particularly and only the fear to lose what it has gained, but fear of “not-losing” the only balance left.

Already into the realm of submissiveness and Mr. Trump revelation, perhaps the Swiss displayed to the world the higher level. Swift to lick hands in less than 24 hours. Their supposedly efficient reaction to the U.S sanctions, merely showed the level of submissiveness. The Swiss soul is one of the most existentially frightened; terrified to lose what they have gained through profiting of war, human suffering and genocides.

Fostering the Loss ?

It is no surprising why China emerged in the Global Stage in these Business of Business and ………… China could have only globally emerged in an era like the current Business-focused-era. China could not have globally emerged in an era like the early modern; the incapacity to deal with world powers competing on the seas and land for global dominance is/was too much for the Chinese inward-looking culture and such a tendency had left them secluded in their own Middle Kingdom mental syndrome (which the West had not yet understood), until a Western coalition brought the reality of that world to their belly bottoms (that early modern forced openness is what is chasing the West now). China could not even have emerged during the Middle Ages: they actually were sent back to China by the Abbasids, at the height of Talas, in one of the most important battles in recorded history and from where the printing technology came to be known and spread by Islam to Europe and the world. It was the defeat of China in battle; by no means any “stolen” or smuggled technology by the any other culture. And so had the Han expanded already until that part of the world almost 700 years before and which, by no means, was a pacific adventure or an explorative expedition which discovered the “silk route”, but a massive military campaign by China into the Fergana Valley in search of resources: horses. But always the internal struggles of China broke the internal cohesion, as the internal forces of Chinese culture which produce an immense pressure to the inside (as it is in Chinese individual with their tension inside and the nervous tension they carry), produces that breaking point inside at certain juncture. It is not only a conceptual abstraction about the inward-looking eye, but an entire cultural and vital force directing things and events. The expansion that China is having now would never have been possible (by cultural design) in previous eras and times when cultural, social, military and identity factors were more solid and strong: more solid humanity; a stronger soul.

But certainly, in an era like ours, this business-era in which Mr. Trump has simply brought about the clear emergence of what was already obvious, and of which the First World is the First example and sample: that submission is a characteristic highly trained by the contemporary financial-focused human; then Cultures like that of the Chinese, thrive. And we must include here that historical fact already elaborated supra: “that The West in their delusion of superiority (and an existential need already) they need and love to see submission to them (even when it is fake and unreliable). And not only the hard-handed ruler which would allow them the extraction and use of cheap resources, but even submission at a general level of existence: people who apparently look up to them, the white-western-man”, as a Buddha sort of person.

But in fostering that sort of “world ambience” (or ambience for their business) is to ultimately foster an ambience of conditions in which the opposite is going to thrive. Because it means to create a propitious ambience from which the other observes absorbs and ultimately takes over, for in the end, it is the ambience in which they thrive. And as the natural resentment accumulates, for submissiveness forms and accumulates it against the object which looks down upon them, the ultimate end is inevitable. The issue is not if one shows submissiveness (or courtesy); the conflict is, if at the other end, the other believes his role of “superior”, and as such he behaves.

The Fiction of superiority needs a fiction of inferiority; one of the main diseases deriving from such a sick human nature is that in natural terms, trust is never forged in submissiveness; neither in the apparent equality that such a sick position manifests at the other end of it.

On the other hand, the USA approached China in 1971, after that Ping – Pong tournament in Japan ………………………..And not taking into account the fact that Mao had spoken about accepting the USA invitation after having taken his sleeping pills (orders were that any uttered word after the ingestion of the sleeping pills “did not officially count”), in the eyes and scale of values of the Chinese: the USA approached them, not China approached the USA. Of course, to any educated eye it is the underlying old “Middle Kingdom” pantomime inscribed in the Chinese mind-set (and product of the their cultural DNA) where, for foreign rulers, the kowtow was a diplomatic gesture between two nations who wanted to conduct trade. But in the Chinese mind, it was about foreign nations coming to kneel in submission to them. MaCartney’s supposed “failure” during the first British ambassadorial trip to China, was due to his rejection to kneel and kowtow; a merely “symbolic” gesture for the modern, secular, professionally educated western person, but also the reason why in these days European leaders are scorned with apparent little attitudes on their visits to China, becoming the laughing stock on the Chinese social media (what makes a strong cohesion inside of China and what Western leaders are good for), but such little gestures is what ultimately emboldens China into concrete actions in world trade and expansion; for Chinese, in their seclusive mindset, they are encouraged when those “symbols” pertaining to their scale of values are fulfilled (the world is indeed as how they believed it to be: it is the right action). It is the right action indeed, because the Business-era has fostered & created the conditions for the materialisation of certain values and for favouring certain principles; it has activated the submissive instinct of humans thus required by old symbols. And certainly, in this business era, thebusiness elite in its fearful eagerness not trying to lose, are impotent to reciprocate equally, for the stupor of its opposite: themaximisation-of-profits drive, blinds them in ignorance on how to deal with such values…..with the intangible. The reason why during long periods of high politics in history, merchants were relegated to duly oversee trading matter, only; not policy or military matters.

But one could also argue that for a culture with such stiff old flows in their canals (Chinese), MacCarthy’s attitude would certainly still work nowadays. His attitude simply reflects the values and policy mindset of that time and era, an which ultimately led the Western front to unite. The USA “professional-modern business attitude” has lead to dependence, absorption and perhaps ……………….

Because in fact, the rise of the USA as the Global Power after World War II (pushing Germany down; Russia out; and themselves IN) it has been, on the whole, a setback for the entire human lot in political, economic and human issues, etc. After centuries of colonialism USA perpetuated the same underlying policies; after two major global wars, USA perpetuated war around the world; after centuries of human degradation the HR declaration was signed, but the USA concretely has perpetuated and supported racial humiliation and human degradation, etc. Metaphysically speaking, it could be said that the USA had always been between worlds, between currents; but their compelling choice was / has been the Old World, the old path. Modern China, actually, is a product of the USA becoming the World Power. USA, the Democracy that approached and made a Communist declared country Great! These two, if somehow connected in the current dominant structure of the world of good money-making enterprises and profits (which started by European Colonialism and solidified by the USA dominance after WWII), it is the USA who does not have the upper hand when it comes to Business-only.

The USA only brought their antecedents and allies into dependence of China, and with it, it simply aligned the entire lot of their historical peers in values, in the descending path of the cycle. Becoming, apparently, the tail and last chapter of such a historical impulse. Namely, it seems that the USA simply brought about the zenith of the Western Chapter: they broke the Western cohesion pushing Russia out to the East. They brough war to European soil; brought Europe under Chinese dependence too (now they do not trust Europe). And should the USA lose the Pacific, their allies and partners would similarly endure a good amount of ………shock. As it appears, the Western world, hand-in-hand with the USA business driven idiosyncrasy, was brought to its zenith.

Well, the time seems propitious; the conditions have been made possible, the moment is ripped, it transpires. The dynamics already set.