6 ms·

The World Order Reset

52 points by Melchizedek 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
uejfiweun 4y ago
This was a great and enjoyable read. I think whoever runs this substack ought to consider renaming, as the name "The Upheaval" kind of conjures the image of some far out conspiracy website, like "A Storm Is Coming" or the like. When in reality, it's some really solid geopolitical and historical analysis.
- thematrixturtle 4y ago
  The site's logo is the Chinese/Japanese character 乱, usually glossed "disorder" or "chaos" but often larger in scale than the English words imply: many events we'd call civil wars are 乱 in Japanese and Chinese. Which seems appropriate: the blog post here is forecasting some serious geopolitical turbulence that's about to hit economic turbulence, with unpredictable but highly likely unpleasant consequences. And it doesn't even mention a potential civil war (乱?) in the US, which is starting to move from unthinkable to merely unlikely.
andrenth 4y ago
Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31204738 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31204738
comex 4y ago
It started with some interesting analysis of the war in Ukraine. By the time it started trying to parse out the hidden meaning behind Biden's reference to a "new world order", I was getting a little suspicious. Then it started complaining about censorship, making an argument I'm sympathetic to but which seemed largely irrelevant. (Meanwhile it picked Hillary Clinton of all people to quote.) And then it pivoted all the way to full-scale complaining about wokeness. Edit: In particular, the article quotes Biden claiming that "democratic progress is under assault" in "so many places, including [..] the United States." Biden is presumably trying to make a point about domestic issues ranging from the January 6th riot and Trump's attempt to contest the election results to Republican voter suppression laws – all issues on which there can be debate, but which are clearly related to democracy or the lack thereof, and not directly related to 'wokeness'-type social issues. But the article uses the quote to support the proposition that: "it has to be Woke. Otherwise it is not a real Democracy, but something else." Sigh. That's Substack for you.
- hemreldop 4y ago
- johnny22 4y ago
  it made sense to me. If they make human rights as the main talking point to push this realignment, it'll certainly involve rights for marginalized folks. If their definition of democracy requires rights for all, then you can't be a democracy and not be "woke". I certainly agree with that. Of course by that definition i am of course "woke" myself.
  - JakeAl 4y ago
    Wokeness explicitly applies and relies an ideology of Marx's Conflict Theory, a paradigm that divides the world into oppressors and the oppressed and focuses on framing individuals as members of a group to label them as such. The woke are incapable of making important distinctions and treating people as individuals outside of such groups. Distinction is the basis of rationality. Equality requires that, and demands that individuals supercede groups in the application of law and opportunity. That's why wokeness does not focus on individual equality, but group equity, putting the collective ahead of the individual and exiling individuals when they stand for themselves and not a given group. Democracy as Aristotle explained, is the majority ruling over the minority. In other words, mob rule. Democracy is only good when it is not ruling and making decisions that serve everyone, and not just the majority, equally. This he called a polity. "The right kind of democracy, if you will, is a polity: An ideal democracy that governs for the interests of all, not just the leadership." https://fs.blog/aristotles-politics/ https://fs.blog/aristotles-politics/
    - johnny22 4y ago
      if it makes you feel better, define it however you want. I'm not interested in engaging in a conversation about how you choose to define it. Telling me your definition didn't actually add anything to what i said.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
jacknews 4y ago
Russia still offers China one very valuable capability, it's nuclear arsenal. China can 'help' to wield that threat without risking sanctions by actually making nuclear threats itself.
- IIAOPSW 4y ago
  China has its own nuclear arsenal with about 400 active warheads (compared to about 1500 for the US and just over 2000 for Russia). China could easily make more if they wanted to, but for now the official Chinese doctrine is deterrent only / no first use. Furthermore the haphazard use of the nuclear threat has never actually been a cause for sanctions, nor for that matter has it been a threat that yields concessions. China doesn't need Russia to threaten to melt the world over some Pacific Islands or for calling Taiwan a country or whatever. The threats not credible.
  - jacknews 4y ago
    I'm well aware China have their own nukes, and their policy around them. Would they invade Taiwan, and use a nuclear threat to cover it? Almost certainly not. Yet. But Russia would, and have, in the case of Ukraine, and it has worked, in terms of preventing direct military intervention, whether it's 'credible' or not.

52 points by Melchizedek 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

This was a great and enjoyable read. I think whoever runs this substack ought to consider renaming, as the name "The Upheaval" kind of conjures the image of some far out conspiracy website, like "A Storm Is Coming" or the like. When in reality, it's some really solid geopolitical and historical analysis.

thematrixturtle 4y ago
The site's logo is the Chinese/Japanese character 乱, usually glossed "disorder" or "chaos" but often larger in scale than the English words imply: many events we'd call civil wars are 乱 in Japanese and Chinese. Which seems appropriate: the blog post here is forecasting some serious geopolitical turbulence that's about to hit economic turbulence, with unpredictable but highly likely unpleasant consequences. And it doesn't even mention a potential civil war (乱?) in the US, which is starting to move from unthinkable to merely unlikely.

andrenth 4y ago

Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31204738 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31204738

comex 4y ago

It started with some interesting analysis of the war in Ukraine. By the time it started trying to parse out the hidden meaning behind Biden's reference to a "new world order", I was getting a little suspicious. Then it started complaining about censorship, making an argument I'm sympathetic to but which seemed largely irrelevant. (Meanwhile it picked Hillary Clinton of all people to quote.) And then it pivoted all the way to full-scale complaining about wokeness. Edit: In particular, the article quotes Biden claiming that "democratic progress is under assault" in "so many places, including [..] the United States." Biden is presumably trying to make a point about domestic issues ranging from the January 6th riot and Trump's attempt to contest the election results to Republican voter suppression laws – all issues on which there can be debate, but which are clearly related to democracy or the lack thereof, and not directly related to 'wokeness'-type social issues. But the article uses the quote to support the proposition that: "it has to be Woke. Otherwise it is not a real Democracy, but something else." Sigh. That's Substack for you.

hemreldop 4y ago
johnny22 4y ago
it made sense to me. If they make human rights as the main talking point to push this realignment, it'll certainly involve rights for marginalized folks. If their definition of democracy requires rights for all, then you can't be a democracy and not be "woke". I certainly agree with that. Of course by that definition i am of course "woke" myself.
- JakeAl 4y ago
  Wokeness explicitly applies and relies an ideology of Marx's Conflict Theory, a paradigm that divides the world into oppressors and the oppressed and focuses on framing individuals as members of a group to label them as such. The woke are incapable of making important distinctions and treating people as individuals outside of such groups. Distinction is the basis of rationality. Equality requires that, and demands that individuals supercede groups in the application of law and opportunity. That's why wokeness does not focus on individual equality, but group equity, putting the collective ahead of the individual and exiling individuals when they stand for themselves and not a given group. Democracy as Aristotle explained, is the majority ruling over the minority. In other words, mob rule. Democracy is only good when it is not ruling and making decisions that serve everyone, and not just the majority, equally. This he called a polity. "The right kind of democracy, if you will, is a polity: An ideal democracy that governs for the interests of all, not just the leadership." https://fs.blog/aristotles-politics/ https://fs.blog/aristotles-politics/
  - johnny22 4y ago
    if it makes you feel better, define it however you want. I'm not interested in engaging in a conversation about how you choose to define it. Telling me your definition didn't actually add anything to what i said.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago

jacknews 4y ago

Russia still offers China one very valuable capability, it's nuclear arsenal. China can 'help' to wield that threat without risking sanctions by actually making nuclear threats itself.

IIAOPSW 4y ago
China has its own nuclear arsenal with about 400 active warheads (compared to about 1500 for the US and just over 2000 for Russia). China could easily make more if they wanted to, but for now the official Chinese doctrine is deterrent only / no first use. Furthermore the haphazard use of the nuclear threat has never actually been a cause for sanctions, nor for that matter has it been a threat that yields concessions. China doesn't need Russia to threaten to melt the world over some Pacific Islands or for calling Taiwan a country or whatever. The threats not credible.
- jacknews 4y ago
  I'm well aware China have their own nukes, and their policy around them. Would they invade Taiwan, and use a nuclear threat to cover it? Almost certainly not. Yet. But Russia would, and have, in the case of Ukraine, and it has worked, in terms of preventing direct military intervention, whether it's 'credible' or not.