The Fate of the Anglosphere
Things have an innate nature (性), are governed by natural principles (理), and in this comes about their “lot in life,” destiny or fate (命). What is the Anglosphere’s fate?
Let us begin with beginnings. The Anglosphere begins as the British, a country, then the British Empire, which transitions to (its descendent, former colony) the American Empire, which is now in decline with no Anglo successor. Note to define terms: the dictionary lists “Anglo-” to mean “of English/British origin,” not white.
Britain was never really a big economic thing unto itself, not relative to China, it’s too small; its bigness was its empire. And while America became an economic powerhouse, it too quickly became dependent on empire and its economic production reverted to China. From the Opium war to the MAGA war — the Anglos keep focusing on empire and consumption. Then they become indebted to China (trade deficit/debt), because China makes actual stuff. The Anglos pay money for that stuff, then they start a war and steal it back. History repeats!
Note the Opium War is also called the “Anglo-Chinese War,” which is a truer name. The current conflict in Trump/Biden era is just a continuation of such for the same economic and cultural reasons — economically it is driven by demand for Chinese goods, trade imbalance, and then forced trade—socially it is driven by Anglo-supremacism (ego). First Opium War.
“Lindy effect proposes the longer a period something has survived, it is also likely to have a longer remaining life expectancy. Longevity implies a resistance to change, obsolescence or competition and greater odds of continued existence.”
So where does this leave us? In the previous thread we looked at relevant trends in China’s (longer) socioeconomic history, and now we’ve looked at trends in the Anglo’s (shorter) history. And, we’re operating on the principle that trends have momentum and “want” to persist.
We could maybe say Chinese are the producing and trading people, and Anglos are the financial buying and administrating people? And maybe we could say there is some sort of symbiotic relationship here? But there’s a big problem with forecasting this as a stable relationship. Anglo supremacism culture will NEVER recognize, or respect, this or any other form of symbiosis. Anglo-supremacism is a very simple philosophy of “we are superior” and “winning” (voiced by D.C. think tanks as “America does not tolerate peer competitors”). “Us or them,” period.
How can the Anglosphere move forward then? We see posturing from conservatives (“withdraw our troops and rebuild society”) and liberals (“white supremacy is bad”), but this is falsified as they align behind more imperialism and racism directed at China. Again, Lindy Effect! The idea of sovereign countries existing and the world going on outside of its control is just too much for Anglo culture to accept. Empire seems to be what Anglo culture is? Its nature. As Biden said “it’s who we are” (in context: we can’t NOT be supremacists/bosses).
For forecasting the Anglosphere’s economic place, there’s really no stable macro history here to forecast from. Calling a “return to the mean” was easy for China. But there is no mean for the Anglosphere, because most of it never existed before recently. It’s new; unsettled.
But culturally, I think it’s easier to forecast because we have a longer history and deeply imbedded philosophy to work off. I’d forecast a continuation of the cultural mean — supremacism, imperialism, genocide. It’s literally how these societies were birthed; their nature. And it worked. Why would they change now?
And so we end this thread as we ended the last one — how does the Anglosphere grow up and find their natural place in the world, in a way that respects other civilizations’ existence? Global supremacism is not tenable. But if they can’t change, what will the world do?