Dr. BRICSLove or: How Alt-Media Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the NWO

Since its inception, a common theme running throughout the entries here at Stateless Homesteading has been the notion that the “East vs. West” dialectic presented in both mainstream and off-mainstream media is not an organically-manifested conflict, nor does it represent the end of Globalization, but is instead a managerial shift from from a “unipolar” World Order to a “multipolar” New World Order.

Yet despite my best efforts in demonstrating, with primary sources and documented evidence, the “ties that bind” East and West in globalized efforts as varied as Agenda 21 or the gradual emergence of the SDR’s multi-currency basket as the preferred “One World Currency” of both China and the Anglo-American Establishment, the onslaught of propaganda proclaiming that the BRICS/AIIB construct is to spell “death to the Western banking empire” continues to grow.

Seemingly immune to the inaccuracy of the unsourced “predictions” being churned out by the “BRICS World Order” rumor mill, fantastic fairy-tales of White Hats and White Dragons fly unabated, despite the breakdown of the BRICS Saviour meme at its core. While these pundits prognosticate about the end of Agenda 21 in the East, official statements from both Jin Liqun (former Vice President of the Asian Development Bank, now AIIB President) and Xi Jinping completely contradict this narrative. So, too, do the notions espoused surrounding the Yuan/RMB attaining world reserve currency status stand in stark contrast to the macroeconomic reality we now face: A China whose currency has been accepted into the SDR basket (as predicted by myself and others). A PBOC that has begun issuing Chinese reserves denominated in SDRs. Anglo-American think tanks proposing not a gold-backed RMB as so many have foreseen, but a “pseudo” gold-backed SDR, and a Chinese Central Bank head all too willing to comply.

The real tragedy of this disconnect between fiction and reality, however, is not merely the perturbing dismissal of primary sources, but that in the abandonment of uncomfortable Truths for reassuring fiction, those alt-media aficionados who believe the Chinese-led Eastern coalition to be in opposition to Globalism find themselves in unwitting support of the next phase of the New World Order, euphemistically marketed as “multipolarism.”

While the above may seem a contradictory statement to those still mired in the “BRICS World Order” PR pumpage, the afterbirth of the Rhodes Roundtable known as Chatham House has done us all a great favor in the publication of its November 2015 policy paper, “International Economic Governance: Last Chance for the G20?

International Economic Governance: Last Chance for the G20?

Not that the “Royal” Institute for International Affairs has undergone some profound outpouring of empathy for human freedom and autonomy – though I doubt you were expecting that, Reader. They have, however, demonstrated succinctly that the rhetoric surrounding the rise of the East in Globalist circles is virtually identical to the “Asian exceptionalism” being propagated throughout alternative media today.

Save for one key distinction, of course: The Chatham House version of events in no way implies some cartoonish overnight disappearance of the structures of national and global governance, but instead, an assimilation of regional powerbrokers into a Globalized financial order. Not only does this article series seek to demonstrate that a “World Federalism” of distributed power blocs like the BRICS and AIIB is the “transformation” of Globalism being sought in the 21st Century, but to show, within the context of history, that this has been a linchpin in the gambit for global governance for at least half a century.

Goodbye Pax Americana, Hello New Multipolar World Order

A central element of the “BRICS Saviour” meme, in addition to the geopolitical and financial rise of Asia, is a corresponding end to American (and thus Dollar) hegemony. The funeral pyre of “The West” will inevitably serve as fertilizer for the Phoenix of Eastern multipolar institutions like the BRICS and AIIB, and here, many an alternative media blogger and Chatham House are in complete agreement:

Screenshot from 2016-05-16 12-33-22

In keeping with the G20-centric title of the paper, Chatham House decries not only the unipolar U.S.-led global coalition, but its chief “old World Order” working group, the G7; as an organization set up in 1973 and designed expressly to support the mechanics of floating currencies inherent with the petrodollar, the G7, like the unipolar American Empire it represents, must make way for the “new working group on the block.” And what better working group to lead the charge in a “multipolar world of more dispersed economic power” than the “inclusive” G20, of which China takes the reigns later this year?

G20 Logo

The logo for the 2016 G20 meeting in Hangzhou, China – complete with all-seeing eye symbolism. Cue Alan Parsons Project.

Doubtlessly, Chatham House has high hopes for President Xi’s coming G20 stewardship, with such grandiose aspirations as “improving global governance” and “implementing the UN’s 2030 development agenda” already pledged by the would-be Chairman:

From Chatham House publication "Towards a More Effective G20 in 2016," published in March of this year

From Chatham House publication “Towards a More Effective G20 in 2016,” released in March of this year

Yet despite Chatham House’s full acknowledgement and support of the new multipolar world now emerging, a critical element in furthering this agenda has yet to come into play: The IMF’s Christine Lagarde refers to it as the “Great Reset.” Many alt-media soothsayers use the same terminology, appending any number of personal delusions (from the end of Globalism to the playing out of Biblical Prophecy) to this pending event. It is known to the RIIA simply as a “Bretton Woods moment:”

Screenshot from 2016-05-16 12-36-36

Like the public relations onslaught from various “BRICS Saviour” authors, Chatham House expresses a certain amount of frustration in the lack of a fundamental restructuring of the global economy post-2008 – the lack of this “Great Reset”. The commonalities in narrative regarding the presence of such a monetary event on the horizon, however, aren’t damning in and of themselves – after all, the “deep changes in the world economy” referenced above are becoming increasingly known to even the layman. What is disconcerting is the synchronous manner in which Chatham House and various segments of alt-media view the world – and in part, how they view the New World:

Screenshot from 2016-05-16 12-37-34

This is where things get particularly interesting; Chatham House overtly decries the “US-dominated world economic order” represented by the IMF, World Bank, and various “Anglo-Saxon” economic institutions as “unfavorable” and an “imposition.” This unipolar old order, being inherently opposed to the new multipolar one being promoted therein, must be restrained in order for the agenda at large to progress – in both the eyes of Chatham House as well as the “Eastern exceptionalists” in our midst:

Screenshot from 2016-05-16 12-39-36

Much to the chagrin of many a BRICS PR agent, Chatham House appends the much-lauded buzz-word of the “New World (Economic) Order” not to the Pax Americana discussed previously, but to emerging markets, specifically China. This New Order, Chatham House proclaims, must no longer allow the United States to project its power through Globalist institutions. “King Dollar,” too, Chatham House deems to be an unnecessary unipolar burden, having outlived its usefulness.

The above passage has profound implications. From the mouth of the Anglo-American Establishment itself, it is emphatically declared that the American Empire is not now and never was the “New World Order,” but a mere stepping stone towards regional federationism, the “true” face of global governance! What’s worse, vast swaths of the “resistance” have somehow come to the fallacious conclusion that the death of American hegemony is the end of Globalism.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Screenshot from 2016-05-16 12-40-16

Chatham House goes out of its way to establish that the sacrifice of the United States and its influence over international organizations pales in comparison to the survival of “the system” itself. The transformation to a multipolar system, they say, is an inevitability. After over half a century of being used by the Globalists as a blunt instrument of imperialism, usury, and terror, the proverbial pitbull of the old Order must be put down in favor of the multilateral puppy mill headquartered in the East.

For those disparate souls still ensnared by the belief that the “BRICS World Order” will somehow spell the end of Bretton Woods institutions like the IMF and World Bank entirely, this author is here to inform you that this is simply not the trajectory the world is on. As opposed to the machinations of Globalism and its governing structures vanishing with the flick of Eastasia’s magic wand, an altogether different sleight of hand is set to debut on the world stage: The handover of these Globalist institutions to the East.

Screenshot from 2016-05-16 12-42-18The message from Chatham House to America is unabashed: “You are no longer the driver of economic Globalism. Step out of the vehicle (the IMF) and allow Eastasia to finish the cruise towards Technocratic Neofeudalism.” Growing increasingly impatient with even the ghost of “representation” known as Congress, the implementation of increased voting rights at the IMF for the BRICS/AIIB nations and thus, an end to American veto power, can’t happen soon enough in the eyes of the RIIA. In the meantime, though, Europe and America must not wait to act – the World Bank and IMF head must represent this newfound multilateralism, declaring that Lagarde’s potential replacement could (and it is implied should) be Chinese. The installation of Globalist puppets like Zhou Xiaochuan or Jin Liqun to such a position would certainly herald the beginning of this handover in earnest. Chatham House also suggests that America should “show support for the AIIB and other emerging-market initiatives (read: BRICS),” though I suspect the “Good Witch of the East vs. the Wicked Witch of the West” dialectic is far too useful a propaganda initiative in selling the changeover to the global populous to be abandoned just yet.

All of this, of course, is a radically different outcome from the almost Utopian bill of goods sold by alt-media authors publicizing the “Great Reset” as a quick (albeit painful) end to Free Humanity’s woes. Some have already begun to subtly modify their stories to integrate these inconvenient facts, proclaiming that globalism itself is not the genesis of our problems, but that we merely have a “bad King.” Still embroiled in the paradigm of competing nation-states, too many have forgotten Globalism’s true nature as a multinational Superclass with little to no national identity to speak of.

The end of Pax Americana, the regionalization of the globe, a federalized global government under which all these seemingly disparate regions will be bound – these aren’t ideas cobbled together since 2008 in some floundering attempt to retain the current model of Western imperialism, nor are they a tacit acceptance of the “unforeseen” rise of the Second World. This plot has existed, in various forms, since at least the establishment of the post-War institutions the East is set to inherit.

The Multilateral World Order: An Old Plan Comes to Fruition

For the student of forensic history, ruminations about the “multilateral” and “multipolar” era we’re now on the cusp of are not difficult to find – even among some of the most frequently cited works in alt-media. Take, for example, the oft-mentioned 1997 book by Zbignew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard. While best known for the establishment of the “Brzezinski Doctrine,” (the encirclement of the Eurasian Heartland as opposed to its direct invasion) The Grand Chessboard includes many references to a multilateral world structured in regionally-administered blocs – specifically citing the economic rise of Asia:

The Grand Chessboard by Zbignew Brzezinski, pg. 153

The Grand Chessboard by Zbignew Brzezinski, pg. 153

In the chapter entitled, “The Far Eastern Anchor,” Brzezinski makes note of Asia as the new engine for world economic activity; and how does he suggest the Anglo-American Establishment best direct this synthetic “Eastern miracle”? Through the establishment of “multilateral structures” prevalent in the West that, as of 20 years ago, did not formally exist in the East. The Asian “working groups” (and the Asian Development Bank that supports them) as they existed at the time were not satisfactory in the eyes of Brzezinski.

In retrospect, however, it’s clear that Brzezinski’s aforementioned “web of multiltaeral and regional cooperative ties,” as confirmed by Chatham House, the United Nations, and the AIIB itself, have begun to emerge in the form of the dual Chinese-led development banks:

From the Chatham House policy paper, "International Economic Governance."

From the Chatham House policy paper, “International Economic Governance.”

Just this past week, a prominent alt-media commentator declared, “That [the rise of the AIIB] is a quantifiable way to show that China is taking a different direction than the Zbignew Brzezinski Grand Chessboard model.” This statement stands in such stark contrast to the actual text of the book in question that I’m forced to question whether people have truly digested and internalized these primary sources or are merely parroting one another’s unrealities.

Brzezinski is hardly alone among the cadre of Globalist “luminaries” promoting this multilateralism, nor is he the first – another protege of the Rockefeller family, the infamous Henry Kissinger, is not to be excluded in tracing this meme’s origins. From 1956 to 1960, Nelson Rockefeller hand-selected a then-youthful Kissinger to head up what was known as the “Special Studies Project.” The Commission was staffed with the task, as stated on pg. 35 of the Project’s literary adaptation, of “helping to shape a New World Order.” Its complete findings, published in 1961 as Prospects for America: The Rockefeller Panel Reports, are nothing short of a guidebook towards the multilateral future we now face.

I recommend this excellent blog post for a more thorough background on Prospects for America, but a select few passages deserve mention here; chiefly those regarding (you guessed it) the development of regional multipolarism in the East:

regional189

In discussing the topic of “multinationalism,” a regional bloc structure organized globally is a foregone conclusion to Rockefeller’s Special Studies Project. And how does the Kissinger-led, Rockefeller-commissioned panel suggest these “regional arrangements” should be made?

regional190

Not only should regionally federated blocs be organized worldwide, the latter “suggestions” given by the panel are almost universally at play in the East. Joint efforts in “economic development, common markets, and free trade areas” are exactly the purpose served by the BRICS and AIIB in our modern era, especially as these “regional agreements” are being rapidly integrated into the Globalist borg:

AIIB Secretariat Jin Liqun signs a cooperation pact with the World Bank - from China Daily

AIIB Secretariat Jin Liqun signs a cooperation pact with the World Bank – from China Daily

The “join accord on monetary and exchange agreements” are also quickly progressing within these new Eastern blocs; Zhou Xiaochuan, a longstanding member of the Bank for International Settlements and head of the People’s Bank of China, has been in support of such a joint accord in the form of the SDR for nearly a decade now. With the acceptance of the RMB into the SDR basket as of last December, we continue to see (as with the AIIB) the integration of regional blocs into globalized structures, exactly as the Project foresaw half a Century ago:

Zhou Xiachuan pictured w/French Finance Minister Michel Sapin, vowing to broaden SDR use earlier this year - via Xinhua

Zhou Xiachuan pictured w/French Finance Minister Michel Sapin, vowing to broaden SDR use earlier this year – via Xinhua

These supranational institutions are readily constructing the mechanisms by which the East will be fully integrated with the Anglo-American Establishment’s longstanding goal of global governance. Beginning in earnest with Nelson Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, and Richard Nixon’s Neomercantile “opening of China” briefly after Prospects for America‘s initial publication, the timing is hardly coincidental. The trade imbalances globalism has wrought upon the people of Western society, too, are now a matter of the historical record – all as dictated back in 1961:

china75b

Conclusions

Despite this author’s dour take on the state of alternative media analysis regarding the BRICS/AIIB construct, not all alternative commentators don rose-colored glasses when gazing Eastward. There are any number of alt-media websites that examine the “East rising” meme within the full context of history.

Among these ranks is Catherine Austin Fitts. A former insider at both Dillon, Reed & Co. and the H.W. Bush Administration, Ms. Fitts is a whistleblower whose credibility is matched by few in our field. Perhaps due to the insider information yielded by her connections in a previous life, Catherine offers the most succinct breakdown of the “multipolar World Order” I’ve yet to come across when she says:

“What’s been happening is when Snowden came out with his revelations and they got publicized, you had a reaction in the BRICS nations to say, ‘These systems have no integrity. We need to build our own systems. Whether they’re internet and digital communications systems, payment systems, or clearance systems – and we need to be able to transact without going through the dollar. We need to build currency swaps and interaction.’

Now I think that ultimately what’s happening is that you started a process in 1995 where the United States tried to build out a global empire leading towards global governance, and the U.S. has stalled in many different fields and for a variety of reasons. They’re pregnant halfway, stuck in the mud, everybody mad at them, and it just wasn’t getting done. And if you look at what Snowden and Putin and the BRICS are up to, I think that’s Mr. Global deciding that the U.S. needs a little competition – that we have a better chance getting to a global currency and global governance through the Hegelian Dialectic of competition between Plan A and Plan B.

Catherine Austin Fitts

And therein lies why the “East vs. West” pseudo-conflict as currently portrayed is so disheartening to watch: One of the oldest tricks in the Globalist playbook, the Hegelian Dialectic, is being actively fomented in order to advance the cause of a “multipolar New World Order”… and a significant portion of alt-media has taken the bait.

It’s easy to see why so many people have relegated themselves to the belief that the post-“Great Reset” world led by the BRICS nations will end all transnational woes – the idea that “everything will be fine due time” is quite alluring bait, indeed. But in accepting the external, supranational synthetic “saviours” offered to us, our attention is drawn away from the internal, localized organic solutions that can thwart the machinations of Globalism at their core, be they Eastern or Western.

My intention in destroying the “Noble Lie” of this dialectic is not to instill hopelessness; far from it, Reader! It’s an attempt to empower – to acknowledge the true potential in the coming “Bretton Woods moment.” Despite the best efforts of the Machiavellian schemers mentioned throughout this article, the “Great Reset” will by no means be a completely orderly transition. While it may be true that we’re already well along the path outlined by the Brzezinskis, Kissingers, and Pickfords of the world, its success still depends upon our compliance.

As is the modus operandi of the ruling class, significant economic hardship is almost certain to be a key factor in coercing humanity’s consent for the multipolar World Order. In true Ordo ab Chao style, any number of top-down solutions will be offered (with weighty concessions) to “make the pain stop.” But what if, in ripping off the Band-Aid of our engineered “world economy,” people found the wound far less debilitating than the media talking-heads proclaimed? What if local trade, agriculture, and energy production were resilient enough on a wide scale to compete with multinational trade deals? What if individuals chose their own currencies and were in a position to reject the SDR-denominated system to be foist upon them?

Doubtlessly, we are still far from this vehemently decentralized vision of the future – and perhaps we always will be. Perhaps Free Humanity is simply not prepared for the hard work of genuine autonomy this time ’round.

But I do know this: We’ll never attain these lofty goals by pretending some external force will do it on our behalf.

18 thoughts on “Dr. BRICSLove or: How Alt-Media Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the NWO

  1. Peter

    Rusticus, Im planing to writte own blog.Topics will be exotic for todays man while looking too far to the furure.I will touch things like who controls globalists,is bible historic blueprint of globalist,written by man ,aproved by man as dogma,where will technocracy end,how rapid homosexuality rise today Is controled by media programing,Rfid chips and its coraletion with cell phone towers,what I will writte will be backed by research.If we know that propaganda Is mainstreem and alternative media then truth Is somewhere else broken to the pieces and spreaded all over places

    Reply
    1. Rusticus

      That’s excellent to hear, Peter! I can’t wait to read your stuff. I haven’t touched much on the Transhuman gambit or the more occult/religious aspects of Globalism, so I’m quite pleased to hear you’ll be tackling these issues with your unique perspective.

      Have you listened to Aaron Franz’s podcast series The Age of Transitions by chance?

      http://theageoftransitions.com/podcast

      He’s best known for creating the documentary of the same name, but given your interests, I think you’d really enjoy it.

      Reply
    2. Joshua Roberts

      Why chip people when you can get them to camp out overnight and pay out of their own pocket to carry around a microwave transmitter and computer platform 25k times more powerful than what we used to put men into space.

      Reply
  2. Jake

    Great article, Rusticus.

    Somewhat unrelated to the article, but: I am beginning to get the impression that Globalist forces have a desire to deliberately “fan the flames ” so to speak and spark a civil conflict in the USA.

    The current election here in America almost seems designed so as to deliberately provoke as many people as possible, whether they are politically on the right or left. No doubt the Globalists are aware of the desire of some groups to violently resist/fight against the tyranny of our system. So, why not manipulate things so that we fight each other in a Yugoslav-style conflict rather than against one common enemy? Practically every kind of divide-and-conquer tactic is used by the media, increasing the chance we will fight each other. “They” also have literally unlimited money and resources. Any groups fighting in a “genuine” uprising against the government could not expect ANY material assistance whatsoever from any other nation, as well. They are all on the same team. I am not trying detract from the importance of standing up for your rights, but it would be a tough fight to say the least..

    The globalists are definitely working things from multiple angles, obviously with the same grand synthesis to bring about what they have always desired in the first place. I do not think it matters what con we fall for, since there are plenty more dead-ends and wrong paths for us to choose from. If people sheepishly accept everything, no problem for them. Likewise, no big deal if citizens of the world’s nations launch a premature rebellion or are manipulated into one. Life really is a big test.

    One final thing: Humanity has been living under the “one-world order” since at least the days of Ancient Sumeria. Although some might find the idea highly discomforting, I actually felt better when I learned this. The mainstream and “alt”-media love to peddle non-stop doomporn stories to their readers, often with apocalyptic undertones. Knowing that we live in the NWO actually greatly diminishes the pervasive sense of hopelessness and despair I once felt. Time moves on, history will NOT come to an end. While these are trying times, it could always be worse. Don’t let the parasites at the top of pyramid feed on your fear.

    Not referring specifically to you, Rusticus. 😉 Just to anyone in general.

    Reply
    1. Rusticus Post author

      Thanks for your considered response, Jake – I agree with your sentiments wholeheartedly on virtually all fronts. The fomentation of conflict between “Right” and “Left” political castes over the past few years, both in America and the “Eurozone,” has become so prevalent that it’s hard to conclude it’s not to a large extent by design. The last time Fascists and Communists were duking it out in the streets of Europe didn’t exactly bode well for anyone involved, and as Antony Sutton documented before his passing, were at least in part synthetically manifested.

      While I haven’t written (and don’t currently plan on writing) about the “Trump phenomenon,” it’s a perfect example of the multifaceted attack you mention above – agendas within agendas. Dan Hopsicker has done some very intriguing research connecting Trump’s Florida real estate developments to the Saudi arms dealer implicated in Iran-Contra, Adnan Khashoggi:

      http://www.madcowprod.com/2016/03/09/donald-trump-palm-beach-homies/#more-11478

      …as well as the more publicized potential Cabinet member for a Trump administration, Carl Icahn, who’s also been implicated running bogus airlines in Florida that turn up planes full of CIA cocaine. All this is without mentioning his “good friend” Dicky Haas, long-time CFR president.

      Same game, different players.

      Certainly, voting for a “representative” of any kind is one of the many dead-ends you speak of, as is the proverbial rat’s nest of disinformation of all flavors in off-mainstream media – but I’m just one dude with a blog and incapable of whacking down so many gophers on my own! Stateless Homesteading was always meant to be a synthesis between the research of Deep State atrocities I come across and the solution to them: A withdrawal from “The System” in as many ways as possible for individuals to act upon.

      Unfortunately, I’ve failed at this goal so far insomuch as I’ve not yet documented the process of building my own house, growing as much of my own food as possible, producing my own power, and navigating the maze of building and zoning codes that stand in the way of doing so. I need to do a better job of that going forward, as such a lifestyle renders many such “dead ends” inert.

      It doesn’t matter much if you believe the BRICS, Trump, or aliens for that matter are coming to save you if you’re actively participating in such solutions. If, for example, all the folks who believe the BRICS and AIIB are going to end Agenda 21 worldwide or that “Black Budget” free energy was right around the corner wired up their own 12-volt systems in the meantime, their “external Saviour” delusions wouldn’t be nearly as problematic!

      I also agree that the “Great Work” has been in progress for millennia at this point, but modern technology is reaching an apex with the potential to create a global society more completely devoid of freedom than any iteration yet documented (potential ancient civilizations lost to the annals of time notwithstanding). This process (as opposed to some doom-laden “event” always on the horizon) drives me to write more than anything else.

      You’re right, though – if you accept this shift as simply the next phase of a seemingly eternal globalized effort as opposed to its singular emergence, it makes it much easier to filter out the “noise,” so to speak, and put the mind at ease. Things could indeed be worse – and whether they turn out that way or not during our brief time on this planet, it’ll certainly be quite the spectacle to witness, making these “interesting times” to exist, indeed, and for that I am grateful!

      Reply
      1. Joshua Roberts

        Full Spectrum Dominance, mastering the human domain – one can think of it like a convenience store cooler display case, with endless varieties of beverage to choose from, one for every possible, conceivable taste!

        And this works in other areas as well, elections for instance.

        The Great Work’s endgame is a hellraiser nightmare of post-humanism – transhumanism is the mystery school of people for whom a bastardized occult (a hypertrophying of mystery schools and sacred geometry, etc.) serves as the metaphysical basis for their system of domination.

        Reply
    2. Joshua Roberts

      14k+ years of enslavement by elites.

      This is our central problem.

      Its underlying metric is the manipulation of perception – a majority of the herd must be convinced their prison is nice enough – that is all that is required. With that it is the end of history and we are racing, headlong into a post-human technopanopticon and borg beehive.

      Reply
  3. Joshua Roberts

    One of the finest articles ever penned by any human to inhabit the planet thus far. A geopolitically savvy and savage tour de force.

    I impart upon it the highest commendation I can possibly bestow, the act of shutting up.

    I have so little to add here it would actually detract from the masterwork you see before you.

    Reply
  4. Joshua Roberts

    The comments are almost as good as the article.

    Submitted everywhere, not sure how many people will run with it though.

    The ostensibly awake community is actually full of mostly-still-asleep people who are afraid to jeopardize their audience traction running such hardcore truth journalism as this. :/

    Reply
    1. Rusticus Post author

      You truly are too kind, man, despite your insistence otherwise! Just shot you an email, hope to hear from you soon.

      Reply
  5. Pingback: “Primary Sources and Documented Evidence” – An Outsider's Sojourn II

  6. alan2102

    A few comments on your piece:

    “One of the oldest tricks in the Globalist playbook, the Hegelian Dialectic, is being actively fomented in order to advance the cause of a “multipolar New World Order”… and a significant portion of alt-media has taken the bait.”

    If it is the oldest trick in the globalist playbook, then the globalists have not been around for long. Hegel lived in the early 19th century.

    “It’s easy to see why so many people have relegated themselves to the belief that the post-“Great Reset” world led by the BRICS nations will end all transnational woes – the idea that “everything will be fine due time” is quite alluring bait, indeed.”

    Alluring bait that is accepted by… who? I’ve been reading about this stuff for a long time, and I cannot recall a single person who thinks that everything will be fine. Except perhaps for some (not all) of the the technophile/singularitarians. My impression is that the people who believe in a “great reset” — an apocalyptic end of the dollar and etc. — do not think that everything will be peachy afterward. They think that everything is distorted and wrong up to that event, when it will all end. What comes after is up for speculation. The most common speculation among “great reset” types is that the West, and the U.S. in particular, will enter a long period of retardation to third-world status.

    That’s viewing things from a nationalistic standpoint, or from the standpoint of the West. Globally, the decline of the West would be accompanied (as it already has been, to an extent) by the rise of the East. And the rise of the BRICS and the East presages a new and somewhat different, and somewhat better, new world order than the one concocted by the West. China’s now-clear path toward development of the whole Eurasian continent, and beyond (Africa), bodes well indeed. They are doing this without war, without violence, without the heavy-handedness that characterizes Western global projection. This is good. The Chinese are hardly perfect, and this does not mean that “all woes are ending”, but it bodes well.

    From a global standpoint, viewing things as a citizen of the whole world, things are looking somewhat better on at least some fronts. The development of heretofore underdeveloped nations and regions, fostered by China, is a good thing. The development of China itself, recently lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty, is a good thing. The development by China of a global ultra-high voltage power grid — a fabulous, recently-announced project — is a good thing. India’s heavy commitment to solar energy is a good thing. Russia’s move away from GMOs and toward organic farming is a good thing. And so on. There’s quite a bit of good stuff going on. All woes are not ending, but a lot of stuff is good.

    “But in accepting the external, supranational synthetic “saviours” offered to us, our attention is drawn away from the internal, localized organic solutions that can thwart the machinations of Globalism at their core, be they Eastern or Western.”

    Maybe I’m deluded, but I am not seeing the BRICS or the East as being globalists with the objective of empire. I see them as committed regionalists with the objective of economic and general development of themselves and their neighbors. China has ventured into Africa, but not in imperialistic, dominator fashion; rather, as collegial partners in development. (This in stark contrast to the West’s entire miserable history on that continent.) So, although there has historically been plenty of (evil) machinations of Western globalism, I do not see the (evil) machinations of Eastern globalism. Am I missing something?

    “Despite the best efforts of the Machiavellian schemers mentioned throughout this article, the “Great Reset” will by no means be a completely orderly transition. While it may be true that we’re already well along the path outlined by the Brzezinskis, Kissingers, and Pickfords of the world, its success still depends upon our compliance.”

    The Brzezinskis and Kissingers of the world are of course full-on Western chauvinists. Where are the Brzezinskis and Kissingers of the East? Does the East or the BRICS have comparable imperialistic chauvinists? If so, please name them.

    “What if local trade, agriculture, and energy production were resilient enough on a wide scale to compete with multinational trade deals? What if individuals chose their own currencies and were in a position to reject the SDR-denominated system to be foist upon them?”

    A pleasant idea. Maybe it will happen.

    “Doubtlessly, we are still far from this…decentralized vision of the future – and perhaps we always will be. Perhaps Free Humanity is simply not prepared for the hard work of genuine autonomy this time ’round.”

    Hard work indeed! And we all have to ask: is this really what we want? Do we want “genuine autonomy”? Or rather, do we want to pay the high price for it? Autonomy goes with individualism and the desire for limitless freedom. This is the West’s big dream. And we lived it for a while, for several centuries. But our day is rapidly passing. A new world is coming into view, dominated by collectivistic ideas. Autonomy, and liberal individualism, will still be possible, but the price will be much higher than it has been in recent centuries. I doubt if many will be willing to pay it. We’ll see.

    Reply
  7. alan2102

    I wrote: “China’s now-clear path toward development of the whole Eurasian continent, and beyond (Africa), bodes well indeed. They are doing this without war, without violence, without the heavy-handedness that characterizes Western global projection. …. although there has historically been plenty of (evil) machinations of Western globalism, I do not see the (evil) machinations of Eastern globalism.”

    Interesting passages from Jeff Brown:

    http://ahtribune.com/world/asia-pacific/1198-rise-of-china.html

    Thanks to an anomalous, 500-year change of fortunes between the colonial, expansionist West and China, starting in the 15th century, until now, the European races can be forgiven if they think being masters of the world’s 85% dark skinned people’s and their natural resources has always been their divine right. But now, with China’s freedom and independence from Western tyranny, starting in 1949, they are going to have to wrap their heads around getting back to China’s “old normal”, of being humanity’s leader. As long as the CPC stays in power, and I think they will for 100 or more years, China will continue to claim economic supremacy on Planet Earth.

    This is welcomed by the vast majority of humanity, since they are the ones who have been pillaged, raped and massacred by the West, for thousands of years, starting with Alexander the Great, in the 4th century BC. But China as the world’s “big dragon” is also very positive for citizens of Eurangloland. Western wealth, all its monuments, museums, skyscrapers and broad boulevards, was and is being stolen from underdeveloped countries. It is all built on the blood and bones of at least a billion souls, who have been and are continuing to be slaughtered and exterminated by Eurangloland and Israel. Our standard of living is thanks to ongoing racism, colonialism, imperialism and war across the planet.

    Not at all true for China. The Chinese have never been hegemonic, colonial, nor imperial. For thousands of years, the Chinese expanded their nation out to their natural borders. They had many opportunities and were centuries ahead in the technology department, to be an Asian Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Andrew Jackson or King Leopold II. However, it’s just not in their cultural and political DNA to dominate and exploit other peoples – regardless of all the Western propaganda to the contrary.

    You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see that the West’s global empire of colonialism is starting to collapse. World War I and II were the clarion calls of decline and the hundreds of other wars and the violation, if not destruction of most of the planet’s countries and their governments, since then and ongoing, are the harbingers of doom.
    ……………………..

    ALSO:

    http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/09/the-economic-resurrection-of-china/

    Chinese Admiral Zheng He made seven voyages to Asia, Indonesia, Arabia and Africa, 1407-1421, a full three generations before Christopher Columbus’ history changing voyage to the Bahamas and Hispaniola, in 1492. Zheng He’s first voyage consisted of 317 ships, carrying 27,870 crew members. How significant is 27,870 voyagers? It represents half the total population of the city of London, in 1407! China’s ships were titanic in size, up to 135m long, with 7-8 main masts and compartmentalized hulls and advanced rudders and rigging, whose innovations were centuries ahead of the West.

    Compare this to Columbus’ “armada”, which consisted of three Lilliputian ships, the biggest and best that Europe had at the time, and the largest of which was only 19m in length, while sporting three main masts. His three boats would have made good kitchen ships for Zheng He, carrying only a combined total crew of 90. For years, pirate Columbus had to beg from royal court to royal court, to finance his first 1492 voyage. This confirms the relative wealth and prosperity of Europe and China, in the 15th century.

    Technologically, the Chinese had already invented gunpowder in the 9th century and by the 14th century, had their invention of guns, grenades, rocket propelled grenades, mortars and flame throwers. This, while Europe was pulling itself out of the Dark Ages, killing each other with pikes, maces and later, crude muskets.

    Did Zheng He massacre local natives? No. Was genocide a policy (The Canary Island Model)? No. Did he cut off tongues, noses, ears, arms, heads and dismember helpless children and women? No. Did Zheng He send packs of ravenous dogs to chase down escaping natives, to be eaten alive? Burned at the stake? Slowly roasted alive over simmering coals? No. Did his Chinese sailors, business people and dignitaries burn, pillage and rape everything and everyone they could get their hands on? No. Did they steal local natural resources and enslave the masses? No.

    In fact, local leaders were invited to send emissaries with the fleet, to sail back to China, for diplomacy and trade. Zheng He’s people had the finest of Chinese goods and merchandise to trade with each country, as well as silver to buy local goods at negotiated prices.

    For at least 3,000 years, China had the fabulous wealth, technology and military superiority to take over the world. But they didn’t, unlike the West, which poured over Planet Earth, like an evil spawn, killing and enslaving billions of people and stealing trillions in natural resources. It’s just not the way the Chinese look at the outside world, which definitively confirms President Xi Jinping’s platform of “win-win” trade and development. Nothing has changed about the Chinese for millennia.

    [image] The voyages of Zheng He, who was one of the greatest admirals in history. Unlike all the marauding, 15th-17th century European pirates, whom we mythically call “explorers” and “settlers”, the Chinese traded goods, technology and diplomacy everywhere they sailed, not committing genocide, rape, slavery and theft. (Image by Rochester.edu)

    Reply
    1. Rusticus Post author

      Alan, please don’t take affront to this statement, but you’re the type of guy I’d love to sit down and have a drink with to discuss our clear ideological differences and certain rift in interpretation of forensic history. You’re also the type of guy I hate discussing these things on the internet with, as our disagreements are so significant in terms of both governing (or lack thereof) ideals and forensic history that this is destined to turn into a lengthy comment thread at best and a shit-slinging match at worst.

      Nor do I have time to respond to each of your points individually. But I’ll try my best to remain civil and keep it brief.

      The crux of my thesis is not that any of the things you state about “Eastern exceptionalism” are bad per se, but that this is merely marketing buzz. Much of the Third World found American imperialism preferable to the British model initially, too, but of course that didn’t last long. Were China set on a path of re-creating the “good empire” (an oxymoron in the long run of any imperial force) of the early Ming dynasty, there would be no impetus for them to work with the IMF, BIS, and World Bank. Were the East merely setting up parallel, competing structures, my conclusions would be quite different and more in line with the rest of alt-media. But they’re not.

      Just ask the Mongolians, who’ve been strip-mined by China in a nearly identical model as the West used in Africa for over a century.

      Chatham House’s prognostications on this front are particularly important if one understands their historical position within the Rhodes Roundtable but utterly meaningless to those without this context. Have you read Tragedy and Hope by Professor Carroll Quigley of Gerogetown, or the work of Stanford’s Antony Sutton on these matters?

      China is doing virtually the same thing America did after the British “handover,” albeit in the Sinosphere. Did the people of the UK suffer greatly after relinquishing the role of pitbull for global governance? Yes. Will the American people suffer a similar, if not worse fate, when the dollar empire comes to a sanctimonious and deserved end? Certainly. Did the machinations of globalism end after either of these events? At least of the first, history tells us they did not.

      As my ancestors who lived through the “Meiji Restoration” would have told you, there is quite a bit of difference between pre and post-Western contact with closed Eastern societies. Is the spirit of Zheng He alive and well in modern China after so much opium, so many years of bloody internal strife, so much monetary debasement in the 1920s and equally as much Western capital injection after the “Opening of China” in the early 70s? As stated previously, from a marketing perspective, this is clearly how CCP has chosen to project its international aims. But I don’t believe China to be an autonomous Nation-State so much as they are a colony of global governance, the aforementioned chain of historical abuses against the people of China being just some evidence of their captivity.

      But even in the realm of Eastern philosophy, I suspect we have great ideological differences, as the Daoist in me recoils at the thought of modern Confucianism.

      Were you to peruse the offerings on this site, you’ll note that I’m in firm opposition to Anglo-American imperialism in all its forms, the CIA’s work earning a great majority of my blogging ire… much of which is original research. So I must scoff at your notion that I’ve been “brainwashed” by them. If anything, I question your ability to discern propaganda from political agenda, as your statement:

      “Most intelligent people of good will on this planet have similar high hopes. The UN’s 2030 sustainable development agenda is an excellent outline of global goals. I cannot imagine a sane objection to them. For example, ending poverty and hunger, protecting the environment, ending war. Who could possibly find this objectionable?”

      …is an utterly ridiculous one. For all your rhetoric about Russia and India breaking free of GMOs and the petrodollar as being positive developments, have you personally ever tried to grow non-GM food in the numerous areas of the States where it’s disallowed by law, as per the Rio ’92 development plans? Have you ever tried to install non-grid tied solar and wind in States like Vermont where it’s been deemed illegal? These should be complementary development platforms, yet only the centralized model is allowed. But now we’re back to those ideological differences again.

      A Huxleyan “Brave New World” society was devoid of war. THX-1138, too, was devoid of war, as was “Logan’s Run” and any number of bad sci-fi. With the exception of imperial battles they were dragged into largely against their will, the Communist China of olde was devoid of war! War is easy to get rid of when everyone’s a serf.

      As a homesteader who’s done all of the things listed above, some with great resistance from a local ICLEI affiliate, I’ve experienced firsthand the confused nature of “ecologically-friendly development.” Permaculture farms raising animals ethically and propagating native plant species being shut down as “invasive” as factory farming continues unabated, even in my small rural county. Is this much different than the Chinese government, who pay vast lip service to the ideal of the “Smart City” as they pump pigs and chickens full of antibiotics in horrific conditions?

      As a programmer by trade, too, I am against “Sustainable Development” as it’s a closed-source system wrought with fraud, statistical manipulation, and spyware passed off as “data analytics.” It’s as easy as adding a def, tying it to a plotting API, and passing functions with altered variables to spoof “carbon emissions.” Hell, it’d take me a couple days to write a prototype app for an “Internet of Things”-based relay controlling electricity to someone’s house, write a web scraper to scan keywords in their social media profiles, and ration their daily power consumption based on their personal beliefs.

      That’s not some outlandish idea, that’s an actual program that the Chinese Communist Party is working to implement. Is living in Blade Runner preferable to being a peasant dirt-farmer? In some ways, sure. But to call it “good” is a bit of a stretch.

      To paraphrase JFK, I’m not looking for “Peace in Our Time, but Peace for All Time.” If the BRICS nations move us significantly in the latter direction, I’ll gladly admit my faults, hang up my blogging hat, and join the economic Renaissance. I just don’t see it playing out that way. Chronos will prove one of us right.

      Reply
  8. alan2102

    I felt moved to reply in more detail to the body of your post:

    “in the abandonment of uncomfortable Truths for reassuring fiction…alt-media aficionados who believe the Chinese-led Eastern coalition to be in opposition to Globalism find themselves in unwitting support of the next phase of the New World Order, euphemistically marketed as “multipolarism.””

    Well, I can only speak for myself. I find myself in WITTING support of the next phase of the new world order. I am sick and tired of the old phase, and so are most of the world’s billions. The old phase — Anglo-American-centric — was vicious, brutal, genocidal, and oppressive. Countless millions were killed before their time.

    “the G7, like the unipolar American Empire it represents, must make way for the “new working group on the block.””

    Yes! And it is high time! The entire world is waiting for this, and it is a good thing. The unipolar Anglo-American empire must fall. It is and was an evil empire. What replaces it — as is now coming into view — will be better. NOT IDEAL; just better.

    “[Some proclaim that] globalism itself is not the genesis of our problems, but that we merely have a “bad King.””

    That is certainly a major part of our problem. We indeed have a bad king. The new kings of the East will not be ideal, will not be wonderful, just BETTER, as they have already demonstrated.

    “Still embroiled in the paradigm of competing nation-states, too many have forgotten Globalism’s true nature as a multinational Superclass with little to no national identity to speak of.”

    The “multinational superclass” of which you speak is largely a Western and corporate concoction.

    “Doubtlessly, Chatham House has high hopes for President Xi’s coming G20 stewardship, with such grandiose aspirations as “improving global governance” and “implementing the UN’s 2030 development agenda””

    Most intelligent people of good will on this planet have similar high hopes. The UN’s 2030 sustainable development agenda is an excellent outline of global goals. I cannot imagine a sane objection to them. For example, ending poverty and hunger, protecting the environment, ending war. Who could possibly find this objectionable?

    “Chatham House overtly decries the “US-dominated world economic order” represented by the IMF, World Bank, and various “Anglo-Saxon” economic institutions as “unfavorable” and an “imposition.” This unipolar old order, being inherently opposed to the new multipolar one being promoted therein, must be restrained”

    Yes, of course it is an imposition on the rest of the world, and it must be restrained! How could anyone disagree with that? Anyone, that is, not in the grip of Anglo-American hegemonic psychopathy, and CIA propaganda.

    The Chatham House sounds quite sane to me.

    “From the mouth of the Anglo-American Establishment itself, it is emphatically declared that the American Empire is not now and never was the “New World Order,” but a mere stepping stone towards regional federationism, the “true” face of global governance!”

    No, they are not saying that. No one denies that the American Empire was indeed the new world order, for the 20th century at least. And there were many attempts to shore it up and extend its hegemony well into the 21st century; e.g. the “Project for a New American Century”. Brzezinski’s Grand Chessboard, and his thinking as of the late 1990s, was all about maintaining the West uber alles. (Although recently he has changed his view and now admits that Western hegemony is not sustainable.)

    This stuff about “mere stepping stone” is too fantastic to be given credence. And besides, it is unnecessary. The reality is that the Anglo-American empire can no longer be sustained. It is falling apart from over-reach, over-indebtedness, and a dozen other deep issues and contradictions. It is not necessary to posit a grand conspiracy behind the decline of the West, when the structural forces impelling same are plenty strong enough to constitute a complete explanation.

    “The transformation to a multipolar system, they say, is an inevitability.”

    Yes. They are right. It is an inevitability.

    “After over half a century of being used by the Globalists as a blunt instrument of imperialism, usury, and terror, the proverbial pitbull of the old Order must be put down in favor of the multilateral puppy mill headquartered in the East.”

    Yes, and thank God! The pitbull of the old order must indeed be put down, and the sooner the better. It would be hard to do worse. But we don’t have to think about that, much, because we will almost surely do better in the new multipolar world in which BRICS and other nations are at least at parity with the West.

    “The message from Chatham House to America is unabashed: “You are no longer the driver of economic Globalism. Step out of the vehicle (the IMF) and allow Eastasia to finish the cruise towards Technocratic Neofeudalism.””

    You’ve got it upside down, I think. The cruise toward technocratic neofeudalism was concocted and conducted (and still is being conducted) by the West. “Neofeudalism” is actually a pretty good word for the system toward which the West in general, and the U.S. in particular, is moving. I use that word myself, often. In contrast, what China and the BRICS are doing does not resemble neofeudalism. If anything, the opposite. They are lifting masses of people OUT of feudal hell.

    “Chatham House also suggests that America should “show support for the AIIB and other emerging-market initiatives (read: BRICS),” though I suspect the “Good Witch of the East vs. the Wicked Witch of the West” dialectic is far too useful a propaganda initiative in selling the changeover to the global populous to be abandoned just yet.”

    When you put it in extreme terms like “good witch, bad witch”, it sounds silly, because nothing in the real world is that clearcut. Nevertheless, that general picture is accurate. The West has been a “bad witch” of sorts; it has done some good things, but the good was overwhelmed with bad. The East represents much that is very different, and has for most of history (see my posts above). You call this a “propaganda initiative”, but it is more likely that you have yourself been too steeped in CIA anti-communist sinophobic russophobic propaganda for so long — as have most Americans — that your vision is clouded. And don’t think that I blame you, much; it takes YEARS to dig yourself out of this brainwashing, and few are capable of it.

    “Take, for example, the oft-mentioned 1997 book by Zbignew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard. While best known for the establishment of the “Brzezinski Doctrine,” (the encirclement of the Eurasian Heartland as opposed to its direct invasion) The Grand Chessboard includes many references to a multilateral world structured in regionally-administered blocs”

    Yes. Even back then, 20 years ago, Brzezinski was smart enough to realize that ABSOLUTE Anglo-American hegemony, and iron-grip control over everything, was not a serious possibility.
    As I noted above, Brzezinski has continued to evolve in recent years, and now largely rejects Western hegemony as an attainable goal. He was FORCED to this view by onrushing global realities, in particular China’s massive economic growth. At this moment, you would have to be an idiot to be promoting Western hegemony as it was known and advocated, say, 30 years ago. The world has changed too much for that. Brzezinski the old imperialist bastard would LOVE for the West to remain on top, but it is no longer possible. Old imperialist bastard he may be, but he is not stupid.

    “Brzezinski’s aforementioned “web of multiltaeral and regional cooperative ties,” as confirmed by Chatham House, the United Nations, and the AIIB itself, have begun to emerge in the form of the dual Chinese-led development banks”

    Yes, of course. What do you expect? What would you suggest? Would you suggest that the Chinese NOT establish development banks? Those banks are essential for the development and upliftment of the entirety of non-Western humanity. Raising the under-developed world up from poverty is a massive undertaking, and it requires financing, development banks. Likewise, most of the cooperative and regional efforts to which you refer — in which you see nothing but the evil hand of globalist schemers — are essential for the economic and general development of civilization, and for the making of decent, becoming lives for billions of people who would otherwise remain in feudal impoverished darkness. Is it possible, in your view, for any organization or institution to do anything that is not merely reflective of evil globalist machination? Is EVERYTHING a satanic conspiracy?

    “Just this past week, a prominent alt-media commentator declared, “That [the rise of the AIIB] is a quantifiable way to show that China is taking a different direction than the Zbignew Brzezinski Grand Chessboard model.” This statement stands in such stark contrast to the actual text of the book in question that I’m forced to question whether people have truly digested and internalized these primary sources or are merely parroting one another’s unrealities.”

    The statements you are now making are, to my eyes, in stark contrast to the actual text of the book in question, which I read. The Grand Chessboard model is a model of WESTERN HEGEMONY, and China and the BRICS are very clearly taking a “different direction”. That direction may not be one that you are happy with, but it IS clearly a different direction.

    “These supranational institutions are readily constructing the mechanisms by which the East will be fully integrated with the Anglo-American Establishment’s longstanding goal of global governance.”

    The Anglo-American establishment has had a longstanding goal of global DOMINATION, not “governance”. The “governance” thing is just a fall-back position, in the event of failure of domination — which is of course what is happening.

    You seem not to be seeing what is happening before your eyes — before all of our eyes — which is the decline of the Anglo-American empire. The evidence for this is everywhere, and it is increasingly undeniable.

    I’m not saying that the NEW new world order, with the center of gravity in the East, will be a utopia. This is where we get to your language about “everything will be fine” and “the end of all woes”. It is not that good. Everything will NOT be fine, and all woes are NOT ending. However, things will be better. The wicked witch of the West, so to say, is starting to melt away, and the new leaders are better. Not perfect, not ideal, not great, just better.

    Reply
  9. Pingback: Dr. BRICSLove or: How Alt-Media Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the NWO - The Daily Coin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *