The Future of Globalization

Globalism was made possible by Western domination. Generations of the world's people came of age knowing white Christians were the rulers, and that they brought salvation, technology, and medicine to whomever they conquered or held dominion over.

It was comparatively easy for the world to live under white leadership because whites are relatively good when compared to other conquering groups. It's easy to imagine the shock of an undeveloped race defeated by the British, Americans, French, or other Westerners after the victorious whites declined to rape their woman or genocide their men. Even more shocking was the passionate desire of whites to invite conquered people into their religious system and help their sick and starving. While these benefits could never fully eliminate the sting of being ruled by foreigners they certainly softened it. How much can you really hate the people who cured your ailing child? It's also hard to hate people who passionately believe they're trying to save your soul from eternal suffering. Even if you think they're insane you have to suppose they want what's best for you.The tendency of northern Europeans not to intermarry with conquered natives was probably another factor that took some of the edge off white leadership. Nothing is more infuriating than seeing racially other men stealing your people's women.

The combination of overwhelming white power, wealth, and technology combined with Christian benevolence created the possibility for globalization to arise. When the world's people are already familiar with your leadership and benevolence it's easy for them to passively tag along with whatever scheme you devise.

The decline of Western power, however, and it's detachment from the benevolent guidance of Christianity has led to a backlash against globalization in formerly conquered populations as well as Western people themselves. Nationalism is rising across the globe, and popular elections demonstrate it. The election of Donald Trump and the British vote to leave the European Union are two Western examples. The revitalization of Russian and Chinese nationalism, both cultural and economic, and the rise of Muslim fundamentalism and anti-Muslim ethnic cleansing in Myanmar are four more. Most signs suggest the West will continue to decline in the near future, and nationalism will continue ascending.

If there's to be a future for globalization a suitable replacement for its Western center must be found. Many now look to China as a possible candidate. There are, however, major challenges to China replacing the West as global leader. Firstly, China will probably never have the wealth and technological superiority the West utilized during its most active imperial period. Secondly, China is a traditional power that is not as benevolent as Western Christendom. China is self-interested, and everyone knows it. The Chinese don't have the ability to conquer militarily, and they don't bring enough enrichment for people to voluntarily accept their leadership. China might be able to recreate a kind of Mongel Empire, but it would be nothing more than a resented veneer inspiring rebellion at every opportunity. A Chinese empire might actually destroy globalization by inspiring animosity and international distrust. Many of China's neighbors are already reacting this way.

The transition from British to American hegemony has sometimes been compared to a theoretical future transition from America to China. This comparison has been criticized by many, however, and with good reason. Britain and America share a common religious, ethnic, linguistic, cultural, philosophical, and legal identity (America is a colonial extension of Britain). America and China share none of these things. America and China share nothing in common except a large economy, and they hail from entirely different civilizations that often can't understand each other.

Its difficult to envision a scenario in which China is able to inherent Western globalization and successfully take leadership of it. Its difficult even to imagine a world in which China is able to exorcise hegemony status without getting incinerated in a nuclear war with any of the numerous powers who have already developed rivalries with it. [1] India and the United States are particularly relevant, but future conflicts with Russia or a remilitarized Japan are also possible. The future will see more states acquiring nuclear capability, and this will result in less hegemony for superpowers and more sovereignty for smaller actors. A global leader like China will increasingly be forced to rely on soft power to coerce other states, but with a slowing economy and an aging population China's ability to do this will probably never increase to the necessary level to secure overwhelming leverage.

At the bare minimum, globalization, as Westerners now understand it, is the product of a uni-polar world. Over the last several centuries that single pole has been the white West. Even during the Cold War the two superpowers were both Western and white. If China cannot become a uni-polar hegemon, and cannot create one, then globalization must almost inevitably decline in coming decades and centuries.

Furthermore, China has no religion or worldview capable of displacing Christianity or Islam. Unless it comes to embrace one of these, or creates its own compelling alternative, it will never be seen as a legitimate cultural center by huge parts of the world's population. Neither of these possibilities seems likely, however, because the Chinese government has repeatedly doubled down on its restriction and criticism of religion. As studies demonstrate, even atheists don't trust other atheists, [2] and China's atheism has not translated well on the global stage. China, therefore, has neither the military power nor the cultural power to justify hegemony. It has money, but money is not enough in a world where numerous countries are developed and many more are rapidly developing (a description which includes most of China's geographical neighbors). Modern China is culturally weak, and it has nothing to export except a couple ancient books and the strange practice of synchronized public dancing. Where is the Chinese cultural alternative to Japanese anime or American sitcoms and Hollywood? By abandoning Christianity, and its accompanying moral system, the West has already damaged its credibility worldwide, but China doesn't even really pretend to have a governing moral system outside vague empty signalling towards Western liberalism. Islam at least has the ability to claim it can fill the spiritual vacuum left in the wake of Western debauchery, but China can only offer a cheap knock-off variation of the same Western garbage. In short, China has no moral legitimacy. [3]

If China cannot maintain or accelerate globalization then it appears the only possibility for its continuation is a deep and sustained Western revival. Demographic, economic, and cultural trends suggest this isn't going to happen. The West is collapsing on itself from internal rot, and the emergence of religious, racial, cultural, linguistic, and ideological diversity in all Western countries suggests it may enter a period of civil war. However, if the West is able to purify itself and unite into a single civilizational force than globalization will probably continue in a new form, and the white West will dominate humanity for the next millennia.


[1] China is among the only countries in the world more hated than the United States and this animosity is likely to increase.

[2] Gervais, Will. Everything is Permitted? People Intuitively Judge Immorality as Representative of Atheists. University of Kentucky. PLos One. September 20, 2013.

[3] The question is not whether China will become the world's most powerful state, which is another question, but whether it will be able to exorcise enough power to continue globalization (as that term is now understood).