The Vacuum
Written on 7 April 2025.
The Vacuum
In the current geopolitical climate, the idea of a "vacuum" has taken center stage in discussions of global trade and power dynamics. As tariffs return and long-standing globalist systems falter, the question arises: what fills the gap? This vacuum, created by intentional disruption of global supply chains and trade agreements, is celebrated by some as liberation, but seen by others as a void with no guarantee of renewal.
Alex Jones, during his April 6th, 2025 broadcast, framed this shift as a triumph of American populism over globalist tyranny. He championed Trump's new tariffs and economic policies as a decisive blow against the "New World Order," applauding the collapse of globalism and portraying Trump as the architect of a new American-led order. According to Jones, over fifty countries have approached the United States to strike zero-tariff bilateral deals, validating the strategy.
But viewed from outside the U.S., particularly from nations like Sweden, the perspective shifts. Factories like Volvo or SSAB do not exist as abstract globalist evils; they are local employers, community builders, and critical players in national economies. If American tariffs reduce Swedish steel or car exports, this is not an attack on the global elite—it is an economic hit to real people. This is where the vacuum becomes tangible.
While Jones sees tariffs as a weapon to dismantle a corrupt elite, for trading nations they function more like a blockade. The hope is that the United States will rapidly build up its own domestic production to fill the space left by foreign imports. But this process takes time. Industrial infrastructure cannot be reconstituted overnight. Training workers, building plants, securing supply chains—these are multi-year projects.
So what happens in the meantime? Prices rise. Markets shake. Global partners are sidelined. Jobs are lost.
In theory, this vacuum should become fertile ground for innovation and sovereign renewal. In practice, without a coordinated plan or international cooperation, it risks becoming a black hole that destabilizes entire sectors.
Jones rightly points out that many foreign nations have offered to remove tariffs in kind. A zero-tariff global reset—if honest and mutual—could be beneficial. But that is not guaranteed. The reality is still murky, and American populist strategy does not always include assurances for allies. For non-U.S. citizens, this American-first approach often looks like unilateral self-interest masked as revolution.
As the U.S. attempts to unhook itself from the globalist machine, the rest of the world is left watching, wondering, and recalibrating. The vacuum is real. Whether it becomes a space for something better or a void of missed opportunity depends on what—and who—fills it.