Jump to content

Is Russia part of the New World Order?


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, EnigmaticWorld said:

Anglos, it's time for philia. Start working together or you're finished because of this genocidal maniac.

  

Anglos working together is prevented by calling it white supremacy and far right. It's not just one maniac involved, I've got you and numerous other folks to thank for showing me that over the years. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/8/2024 at 9:35 PM, EnigmaticWorld said:

Same goes to Fluke, as I think he's a Putinist and he obviously knows I'm not, but I don't sense that he's trying to wind me up so I have no issues with him

Correct I'm not trying to wind you up, and always interested to read your thoughts. However while I did fall into to the Putin trap for a brief time.

 

I'm certainly no putinist. 

 

I too am conscious of the infaltration of "west bad Putin good". I was just having a debate with my dad regarding this in which I referred to the yuri bezmenov interview that I've researched 10 times over. However at this stage I think it's good we are actually having these conversations with foreign presidents.

 

The interview itself was interesting. And I did think it was a nice touch tucker at the end asking directly to give the American journo back. Despite who you think, or what is funding tucker. 

 

I also don't believe it's redundant for people in the west to be envious of how Putin conducts himself and speaks. Good example would be that interview.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the icke's headlines page:

Putin ticks all the boxes: Praises Elon Musk – there is ‘no stopping’ him – Donald Trump and even says that Boy George Bush wasn’t stupid...

Putin praises Elon Musk saying there is 'no stopping' the tech mogul - but warns of AI development moving too fast and calls for worldwide regulations

By Bethan Sexton For Dailymail.Com

Published: 00:40 EST, 9 February 2024 | Updated: 03:34 EST, 9 February 2024

Vladimir Putin said there is 'no stopping' X-owner, Tesla founder and Neuralink-creator Elon Musk as he gushed over the 'smart' tech mogul.  

The Russian leader heaped praise on Musk during a sit-down with Tucker Carlson that was released on Thursday night.

Putin was asked by Carlson about whether an 'AI empire' is on the horizon, pivoting the conversation to Musk whose Neuralink company has reportedly implanted a microchip into a human brain.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13064299/Putin-Elon-Musk-Tucker-Carlson-interview-AI-technology.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/12/2024 at 8:20 PM, Macnamara said:

 

 

He says that the Russians created ISIS as an excuse to go into Syria (problem-reaction-solution) and that the alt media were lying when they said it was the CIA who created ISIS.

 

The timeline shows that the US started bombing ISIS in Syria within days of Congress refusing to authorise military action that was intended as retaliation for the fake chemical weapons attack. Russia got involved two years later.

 

Seems like it was the Americans who were looking for an excuse to go into Syria, just like the alt media said.

 


August 2013
There were new calls for international military action in Syria after suspected chemical weapons attacks in the suburbs of Damascus killed hundreds.

 

U.S., British, and French leaders denounced the use of chemical weapons and made it known that they were considering retaliatory strikes against the Assad regime. Russia, China, and Iran spoke out against military action, and Assad vowed to fight what he described as Western aggression.

 

The prospect of international military intervention in Syria began to fade by the end of August, in part because it became evident that majorities in the United States and the United Kingdom were opposed to military action.

 

September 2013
The United States and a coalition of Arab states expanded the air campaign to strike ISIL targets in Syria.

 

Summer 2015
In the summer of 2015, Russia began to take a more-active role in the conflict, deploying troops and military equipment to an air base near Latakia.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Syrian-Civil-War

 

 

In response to the chemical weapons attack, the Obama administration signalled that the president was considering “limited” military intervention in Syria.”

 

In early September, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee advanced a proposal granting Obama the authority to take some military action against Syria. But momentum for a full Senate vote on such a resolution soon faded, and Congress never authorized Obama to use force.

 

Not yet working in government, Donald Trump took to Twitter to urge Obama to warn against involving the United States in the conflict.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/timeline-united-states-response-syria-civil-war-237011

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, bryan said:

He says that the Russians created ISIS as an excuse to go into Syria (problem-reaction-solution) and that the alt media were lying when they said it was the CIA who created ISIS.

 

he's actually saying that there isn't really any difference....

 

 he said that our western leaders are working against us which he described as 'horrifying' and i agree with him

 

just look at how our countries are being sabotaged from the inside out. In this thread we have explored the idea of the 'perestroika deception' where russia never really stopped being communist and is just pretending to be a christian, democracy. Certainly Putin is an ex KGB agent and seems to be a permanent fixture.

 

So the picture here is that these globalist forces are working from both within and without to destroy 'the west' and part of that is cultural degeneracy so that russia can then point at the west and say how morally degenerate it has become whilst another part of it is physically and economically exhausting the west through sucking them into endless wars

 

Biden is handing the wealth of the US away left right and centre. The interest on the US national debt now exceeds that spent on defence. The southern border is totally porous and the US is culturally going down the pan due to moral relatavism and cultural marxism.

 

he's saying we need to defend ourselves but that our own 'authorities' (if you even acknowledge them as such) are actually working against us. It's a desparate situation and some see false hope in various places for example they think trump or putin or elon will save them but they are all surrounded by chabad lubavitch people who are lurianic kabbalists just as the sabbateans who drive the 'left wing' cultural marxism side of the conspiracy are.

 

The same lurianic supremacists are controlling both the 'right wing' zionist side looking to bring in the messianic age AND the 'left wing' woke (neo-marxist) side of the conspiracy

Edited by Macnamara
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dumbcritic said:

Many will never wake up to this. Instead they like indulging in ''based saviour'' fantasies. But make no mistake, this is the reality!

 

ddd.jpg

 

Arseholes like you speak garbage because of infantile tendencies of being wrong and resort to the state of compulsive lying deceiving nonsense of the grey ghey area, agenda much? wef much? defeated much? can you explain much? only you will never wake up to this much? this is the reality! much? EW much? BOLLOXS!!!

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1767506/boris-johnson-book-fuhrer-king-spt

 

 Quote:
'Boris Johnson described himself as 'führer and king' to aides, new book claims'

 

debfak.webp.0015ef85e517635f563d961ce102bb1b.webp

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/14/2024 at 7:15 PM, Macnamara said:

 

he's actually saying that there isn't really any difference....

 

 he said that our western leaders are working against us which he described as 'horrifying' and i agree with him

 

just look at how our countries are being sabotaged from the inside out. In this thread we have explored the idea of the 'perestroika deception' where russia never really stopped being communist and is just pretending to be a christian, democracy. Certainly Putin is an ex KGB agent and seems to be a permanent fixture.

 

So the picture here is that these globalist forces are working from both within and without to destroy 'the west' and part of that is cultural degeneracy so that russia can then point at the west and say how morally degenerate it has become whilst another part of it is physically and economically exhausting the west through sucking them into endless wars

 

Biden is handing the wealth of the US away left right and centre. The interest on the US national debt now exceeds that spent on defence. The southern border is totally porous and the US is culturally going down the pan due to moral relatavism and cultural marxism.

 

he's saying we need to defend ourselves but that our own 'authorities' (if you even acknowledge them as such) are actually working against us. It's a desparate situation and some see false hope in various places for example they think trump or putin or elon will save them but they are all surrounded by chabad lubavitch people who are lurianic kabbalists just as the sabbateans who drive the 'left wing' cultural marxism side of the conspiracy are.

 

The same lurianic supremacists are controlling both the 'right wing' zionist side looking to bring in the messianic age AND the 'left wing' woke (neo-marxist) side of the conspiracy

This is irrelevant to what I said in my post. He's saying that the Russians are funding Islamic terrorism to target the west and that the alt media is 'scapegoating' the CIA for it.

 

Here's what he says at 54:20:

 

"Putin literally shipped 4,000 Russian citizens to Syria, knowing that they were terrorists, and he set up the leadership of ISIS, he created ISIS, and yet we have the alt media lying to everyone, saying it was the CIA that did it... to draw us into self-consuming wars, like in Iraq and in Afghanistan, where it saps out military forces, it saps out political will, it makes us a pariah nation, it makes the Middle-Easterners our enemies, artificially."

 

Where's the evidence that the Russians created and set up the leadership of ISIS?

 

At 1:10:48 he says "All I'm doing is putting out the facts".

 

Here are some facts that contradict his narrative in every way imaginable:

 

"Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) program to arm and finance the Afghan mujahideen in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1992, prior to and during the military intervention by the USSR in support of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. The mujahideen were also supported by Britain's MI6, who conducted their own separate covert actions. The program leaned heavily towards supporting militant Islamic groups, including groups with jihadist ties, that were favored by the regime of Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq in neighboring Pakistan, rather than other, less ideological Afghan resistance groups that had also been fighting the Soviet-oriented Democratic Republic of Afghanistan administration since before the Soviet intervention.

 

Operation Cyclone was one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever undertaken. Funding officially began with $695,000 in mid-1979, was increased dramatically to $20–$30 million per year in 1980, and rose to $630 million per year in 1987, described as the "biggest bequest to any Third World insurgency". The first CIA-supplied weapons were antique British Lee–Enfield rifles shipped out in December 1979; by September 1986 the program included U.S.-origin state of the art weaponry, such as FIM-92 Stinger surface-to-air missiles, some 2,300 of which were ultimately shipped into Afghanistan. Funding continued (albeit reduced) after the 1989 Soviet withdrawal, as the mujahideen continued to battle the forces of President Mohammad Najibullah's army during the Afghan Civil War (1989–1992)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

 

Edited by bryan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very refreshing to hear someone thinking clearly....it seems in such short supply these days:

The “they’re all in it together” rebuttal canard Multipolarity is a crock

Iain Davis
Feb 15, 2024
I am among a relatively small group of independent researchers and journalists who question the proposed multipolar world order.

One of the objections often thrown my (and our) way—by those who presumably support a new world order led by the BRICS+ group of nations—is that we critics of multipolarity are claiming, with regard to national governments, that “they’re all in it together.”

Having never once made that argument, constantly refuting it is very annoying. So let me outline why the “they’re all in it together” rebuttal is a canard.

Essentially the “all in it together” response runs something like this:

By only highlighting all the areas of agreement between East and West you are overlooking the very real geopolitical differences and conflicts between the two. You are claiming Putin is a WEF stooge and that Xi is a puppet of the White House. We only need to look at their statements and foreign policy commitments to know this isn’t true. Yours is a ridiculous argument, you stupid “they’re all in it together” proponent. Obviously you couldn’t be more wrong. 

While making this riposte suggests the defenders of multipolarity haven’t read anything we’ve written—or have deliberately misinterpreted it—it is a not a cogent argument in any event. It needs to be exposed.

The multipolar world order (MWO) is touted as a potential antidote to the current, claimed, international rules based order or system (IRBO). The IRBO emerged as the Western-led consensus on international relations under the “unipolar world order,” headed by the US / NATO alliance of nations states. The IRBO and unipolarity dominated geopolitics following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The IRBO—and the unipolar world order—is predatory and serves the economic and geopolitical interests of Western developed nations, at the cost of everyone else. It has allowed the West to instigate, sponsor and engage in conflicts all over the world. The IRBO aligned nation states pillaged resources, installed puppet governments and exploited weaker nations as they liked. The IRBO is little more than a neocolonialist project of a public-private empire. There are no actual rules beyond “might is right.”

On this we can all agree. There’s nothing worth defending with regard to the IRBO.

The problems begin when you start pointing out that the MWO is not, in fact, an antidote to the IRBO. It is the evolution of the IRBO. Multipolarity is virtually an enabling act for a new system of global oppression and the transition to a new global economic model.

The is flatly denied by MWO advocates. The argument between MWO backers and opponents appears to be rooted in a dispute over the nature of oligarchy.

Hitherto, the numerous attempts by a global oligarchy to construct a “new world order” (NWO) were fiercely criticised by almost the entire Western “independent media.” The “global” reach of oligarchs—who care little for nation states—was consistently exposed and reported. Thoroughly researched historical evidence was published, and frequently cited, demonstrating that global power networks, combining both public and private institutions, existed above and beyond national government control.

Now, in the West, some segments of the so-called “independent media” are claiming that oligarchs do not manipulate “all” nation states. Certain countries, such as China, India, Iran and Russia, have allegedly brought their oligarchs to book to reestablish politician-led governmental authority over their respective polities.

Instead, the MWO pushers claim, we are witnessing the “return” of political realism. Apparently, that realism no longer includes analysis of oligarch influence.

The BRICS+ led nation states are opposing the rules of Western oligarchs. This supposedly explains why they want a MWO founded upon adherence to an allegedly real system of international law and multilateral decision making. The governments of these countries are no longer willing to suffer the tyranny of the Western oligarch-led IRBO.

Or so we are told.

It seems like a dwindling number of us in the “independent media” maintain that a “global public-private partnership” (G3P), controlled by a global network of oligarchs, still exists and is still intent upon establishing its NWO. We are Luddites because we keep banging on about the “fact” that certain policy commitments are common to all countries. No matter which side of the IRBO/MWO fence they sit.

All governments, in all major economies, are avid enthusiasts of SDGs, biosecurity, digitalisation, tokenisation, the censorship of “disinformation,” CBDC (digital money), population surveillance and, most crucially, global governance under the auspices of the United Nations (UN). We who criticise multipolarity, suggest these policy commitments can be viewed as the pillars of the modern NWO.

Further, the tiny band of MWO critics point out that agreement on the pillars, insisting they are all necessary, is practically unanimous among UN member states. What remains appears to be horse trading over who leads the MWO and how pillar policies will be implemented in respective nation states. Evidently, what is never up for debate is not implementing the pillars.

This suggests oligarchs exert external influence upon international relations, potentially leading to conflict. There is evidence of supranational sovereignty and political authority being exercised, right now, by a global network that operates beyond the reach of national governments.

“No, no, no” proclaim multipolarity’s advocates. No such evidence exists. Such oligarch control may occur but it only impacts the West.

All we need do is look at Ukraine or the the Middle East to see the very real conflict between East and West. When we look at the statements of people like Vladimir Putin, it is obvious that he is among the global leaders who oppose the Western-led IRBO and global control by “Western” oligarchs. The realpolitik tensions between adversarial nation states couldn’t be clearer. The BRICS+ nations are opposed to oligarchy. The MWO proposed by Putin and his fellow BRICS+ leaders is intended to deliver a better world.

MWO defenders absolutely deny that nearly all governments want to implement the pillars of the NWO and support the same global governance system, regardless of how blatantly obvious it is. And if it is true, they say, it doesn’t matter anyway. The MWO is how we will all defeat the IRBO—which is all that matters—and build a global community of sovereign nations states who will make fairer, multilateral global governance decisions.

The idea that “they’re all in it together” is preposterous, they claim. East and West are fighting each other for heaven’s sake, you fool. Get behind the right political leaders promising peace and stop doubting the good guys.

This rebuttal is like claiming that professional boxers beating each other to a pulp proves the pugilists are determined to resist the international boxing federation. It is tantamount to asserting that boardroom backstabbing is evidence that the corporate executives, enriched by the success of the company, are intent upon undermining the corporation they all profit from.

putin-medvedev-650x366.jpg?x53001

Not only is this geopolitical analysis predicated upon the idea that some politicians are suddenly trustworthy, and everything they say somehow constitutes evidence, it completely dismisses everything we have learned from historical researchers like Norman Dodd, Antony C. Sutton, Carrol Quigley, G. Edward Griffin, Patrick Wood and many more. It is as if history is no longer relevant.

No one who criticises multipolarity denies the reality of geopolitical competition; none of us think violent conflicts and wars between nation states and their proxies aren’t real; not a single voice, warning against the MWO, thinks people aren’t being killed as governments fight for supremacy and no one is arguing that governments are “all in it together”—assuming “it” refers to the creation of a multipolar world order.

Quite evidently, there is very real and bitter conflict between nations and it is causing immense suffering. In fact, one of our chief concerns is that the transition to a MWO will cause significantly more suffering.

What we are saying is that there is no disagreement on the pillars from any quarter. But this is no claim that national governments are “all in it together.” On the contrary, the fact that there is both conflict and, at the same time, global agreement on the pillars, suggests a “geopolitical reality” that no member of the multipolar fan club seemingly wants to discuss.

Agreement on the pillars does not suggest all national governments are of one, single hive mind. It suggests that governments do not control the global governance system. They are subject to it, just like the rest of us. The best they can achieve is “partner” status. And they are not senior partners.

The pillars did not originate with national governments. The pillars were mapped out by public-private globalist think tanks and international organisations that serve the interests of oligarchs.

As the Chinese government openly declares:

China maintains that for the world, there is only one system, which is the international system with the United Nations at its core, that there is only one order, which is the international order based on international law, and that there is only one set of rules, which is the basic norms governing international relations based on the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. China actively participates in and leads the reform of the global governance system.

This “leadership” is transitioning the world to precisely the global governance system, replete with its SDGs, CBDC (digital money), surveillance, censorship and centralised global control of all nation states, that the oligarchs want. It is a bid to install the latest iteration of the “New World Order.”

This is also the global tyranny that, until very recently, nearly every Western commentator in the “independent media” was warning against.

Now, a growing chorus is suggesting we should accept the MWO because it will allegedly defeat the IRBO. This is a false dichotomy and a propagandist trap.

The IRBO is undoubtedly on its way out, but global oligarch networks haven’t suddenly vanished. Far from it. We only need look at recent events to see who is actually profiting from them. The IRBO’s demise is necessary for the birth of the MWO, and through it, establishment of the oligarch’s NWO global governance technocracy.

The irony is that the Eastern independent media—where it exists—continues to question the oppression of global governance and remains highly critical of it. Yet some in the Western independent media seem pathologically averse to even acknowledging, let alone reporting, criticisms made by Russian independent commentators, for example.

As multipolar advocates claim that none of this is true, then I ask them to provide some evidence of one major economy that is not erecting the pillars. Can the MWO campaigners please explain how it is possible that all leading economies are pursuing the same policy platforms, simultaneously, without centralised, global coordination and policy control?

As multipolar supporters rightly point out, governments from East and West are evidently at loggerheads on numerous issues. They do not agree and they are not “all in it together.”

So why are they all implementing the same pillar policies? Where is the global policy coordination coming from if not from antagonistic “sovereign” nation states?

We who question multipolarity do not believe that any system of global governance can possibly serve the interests of humanity. Such as system is, by default, designed to benefit oligarchs, not the people.

Yes, the conflicts are all too real, but they are clearly battles for position within one, agreed and accepted global governance system. The NWO pillars are already being put in place in nearly every nation state because governments are beholden  to their oligarchs. While oligarchs occasionally disagree amongst themselves, the global network of oligarchs want their NWO technocracy above all else.

Criticising the MWO is met with denial, refusal to debate and strawman arguments. It is false to allege that the critics of multipolarity assert that all governments are “in it together.” Governments are subservient to a global governance hierarchy they don’t control.

The oligarch’s NWO is being sold to us as the multipolar world order and, for some reason, it is receiving widespread support from sections of the Western independent media.

You can read more of Iain’s work at his blog IainDavis.com (Formerly InThisTogether) or on UK Column or follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his SubStack. His new book Pseudopandemic, is now available, in both in kindle and paperback, from Amazon and other sellers. Or you can claim a free copy by subscribing to his newsletter.

https://off-guardian.org/2024/02/15/the-theyre-all-in-it-together-rebuttal-canard/

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, bryan said:

This is irrelevant to what I said in my post. He's saying that the Russians are funding Islamic terrorism to target the west and that the alt media is 'scapegoating' the CIA for it.

 

please see my post above for the wide angle context of this issue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/17/2024 at 7:30 AM, bamboozooka said:

 

raqqas dirty secret

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/raqqas_dirty_secret

 

a secret deal that let hundreds of IS fighters and their families escape from Raqqa, under the gaze of the US and British-led coalition and Kurdish-led forces who control the city.

"Abu Fawzi and dozens of other drivers were promised thousands of dollars for the task but it had to remain secret.

 

Great pains were taken to hide it from the world. But the BBC has spoken to dozens of people who were either on the convoy, or observed it, and to the men who negotiated the deal."

 

Putin is so much better at keeping secrets than the British and the Americans!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/17/2024 at 6:20 PM, Macnamara said:

Very refreshing to hear someone thinking clearly....it seems in such short supply these days:

The “they’re all in it together” rebuttal canard Multipolarity is a crock

Iain Davis
Feb 15, 2024
I am among a relatively small group of independent researchers and journalists who question the proposed multipolar world order.

One of the objections often thrown my (and our) way—by those who presumably support a new world order led by the BRICS+ group of nations—is that we critics of multipolarity are claiming, with regard to national governments, that “they’re all in it together.”

Having never once made that argument, constantly refuting it is very annoying. So let me outline why the “they’re all in it together” rebuttal is a canard.

Essentially the “all in it together” response runs something like this:

By only highlighting all the areas of agreement between East and West you are overlooking the very real geopolitical differences and conflicts between the two. You are claiming Putin is a WEF stooge and that Xi is a puppet of the White House. We only need to look at their statements and foreign policy commitments to know this isn’t true. Yours is a ridiculous argument, you stupid “they’re all in it together” proponent. Obviously you couldn’t be more wrong. 

While making this riposte suggests the defenders of multipolarity haven’t read anything we’ve written—or have deliberately misinterpreted it—it is a not a cogent argument in any event. It needs to be exposed.

The multipolar world order (MWO) is touted as a potential antidote to the current, claimed, international rules based order or system (IRBO). The IRBO emerged as the Western-led consensus on international relations under the “unipolar world order,” headed by the US / NATO alliance of nations states. The IRBO and unipolarity dominated geopolitics following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The IRBO—and the unipolar world order—is predatory and serves the economic and geopolitical interests of Western developed nations, at the cost of everyone else. It has allowed the West to instigate, sponsor and engage in conflicts all over the world. The IRBO aligned nation states pillaged resources, installed puppet governments and exploited weaker nations as they liked. The IRBO is little more than a neocolonialist project of a public-private empire. There are no actual rules beyond “might is right.”

On this we can all agree. There’s nothing worth defending with regard to the IRBO.

The problems begin when you start pointing out that the MWO is not, in fact, an antidote to the IRBO. It is the evolution of the IRBO. Multipolarity is virtually an enabling act for a new system of global oppression and the transition to a new global economic model.

The is flatly denied by MWO advocates. The argument between MWO backers and opponents appears to be rooted in a dispute over the nature of oligarchy.

Hitherto, the numerous attempts by a global oligarchy to construct a “new world order” (NWO) were fiercely criticised by almost the entire Western “independent media.” The “global” reach of oligarchs—who care little for nation states—was consistently exposed and reported. Thoroughly researched historical evidence was published, and frequently cited, demonstrating that global power networks, combining both public and private institutions, existed above and beyond national government control.

Now, in the West, some segments of the so-called “independent media” are claiming that oligarchs do not manipulate “all” nation states. Certain countries, such as China, India, Iran and Russia, have allegedly brought their oligarchs to book to reestablish politician-led governmental authority over their respective polities.

Instead, the MWO pushers claim, we are witnessing the “return” of political realism. Apparently, that realism no longer includes analysis of oligarch influence.

The BRICS+ led nation states are opposing the rules of Western oligarchs. This supposedly explains why they want a MWO founded upon adherence to an allegedly real system of international law and multilateral decision making. The governments of these countries are no longer willing to suffer the tyranny of the Western oligarch-led IRBO.

Or so we are told.

It seems like a dwindling number of us in the “independent media” maintain that a “global public-private partnership” (G3P), controlled by a global network of oligarchs, still exists and is still intent upon establishing its NWO. We are Luddites because we keep banging on about the “fact” that certain policy commitments are common to all countries. No matter which side of the IRBO/MWO fence they sit.

All governments, in all major economies, are avid enthusiasts of SDGs, biosecurity, digitalisation, tokenisation, the censorship of “disinformation,” CBDC (digital money), population surveillance and, most crucially, global governance under the auspices of the United Nations (UN). We who criticise multipolarity, suggest these policy commitments can be viewed as the pillars of the modern NWO.

Further, the tiny band of MWO critics point out that agreement on the pillars, insisting they are all necessary, is practically unanimous among UN member states. What remains appears to be horse trading over who leads the MWO and how pillar policies will be implemented in respective nation states. Evidently, what is never up for debate is not implementing the pillars.

This suggests oligarchs exert external influence upon international relations, potentially leading to conflict. There is evidence of supranational sovereignty and political authority being exercised, right now, by a global network that operates beyond the reach of national governments.

“No, no, no” proclaim multipolarity’s advocates. No such evidence exists. Such oligarch control may occur but it only impacts the West.

All we need do is look at Ukraine or the the Middle East to see the very real conflict between East and West. When we look at the statements of people like Vladimir Putin, it is obvious that he is among the global leaders who oppose the Western-led IRBO and global control by “Western” oligarchs. The realpolitik tensions between adversarial nation states couldn’t be clearer. The BRICS+ nations are opposed to oligarchy. The MWO proposed by Putin and his fellow BRICS+ leaders is intended to deliver a better world.

MWO defenders absolutely deny that nearly all governments want to implement the pillars of the NWO and support the same global governance system, regardless of how blatantly obvious it is. And if it is true, they say, it doesn’t matter anyway. The MWO is how we will all defeat the IRBO—which is all that matters—and build a global community of sovereign nations states who will make fairer, multilateral global governance decisions.

The idea that “they’re all in it together” is preposterous, they claim. East and West are fighting each other for heaven’s sake, you fool. Get behind the right political leaders promising peace and stop doubting the good guys.

This rebuttal is like claiming that professional boxers beating each other to a pulp proves the pugilists are determined to resist the international boxing federation. It is tantamount to asserting that boardroom backstabbing is evidence that the corporate executives, enriched by the success of the company, are intent upon undermining the corporation they all profit from.

putin-medvedev-650x366.jpg?x53001

Not only is this geopolitical analysis predicated upon the idea that some politicians are suddenly trustworthy, and everything they say somehow constitutes evidence, it completely dismisses everything we have learned from historical researchers like Norman Dodd, Antony C. Sutton, Carrol Quigley, G. Edward Griffin, Patrick Wood and many more. It is as if history is no longer relevant.

No one who criticises multipolarity denies the reality of geopolitical competition; none of us think violent conflicts and wars between nation states and their proxies aren’t real; not a single voice, warning against the MWO, thinks people aren’t being killed as governments fight for supremacy and no one is arguing that governments are “all in it together”—assuming “it” refers to the creation of a multipolar world order.

Quite evidently, there is very real and bitter conflict between nations and it is causing immense suffering. In fact, one of our chief concerns is that the transition to a MWO will cause significantly more suffering.

What we are saying is that there is no disagreement on the pillars from any quarter. But this is no claim that national governments are “all in it together.” On the contrary, the fact that there is both conflict and, at the same time, global agreement on the pillars, suggests a “geopolitical reality” that no member of the multipolar fan club seemingly wants to discuss.

Agreement on the pillars does not suggest all national governments are of one, single hive mind. It suggests that governments do not control the global governance system. They are subject to it, just like the rest of us. The best they can achieve is “partner” status. And they are not senior partners.

The pillars did not originate with national governments. The pillars were mapped out by public-private globalist think tanks and international organisations that serve the interests of oligarchs.

As the Chinese government openly declares:

China maintains that for the world, there is only one system, which is the international system with the United Nations at its core, that there is only one order, which is the international order based on international law, and that there is only one set of rules, which is the basic norms governing international relations based on the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. China actively participates in and leads the reform of the global governance system.

This “leadership” is transitioning the world to precisely the global governance system, replete with its SDGs, CBDC (digital money), surveillance, censorship and centralised global control of all nation states, that the oligarchs want. It is a bid to install the latest iteration of the “New World Order.”

This is also the global tyranny that, until very recently, nearly every Western commentator in the “independent media” was warning against.

Now, a growing chorus is suggesting we should accept the MWO because it will allegedly defeat the IRBO. This is a false dichotomy and a propagandist trap.

The IRBO is undoubtedly on its way out, but global oligarch networks haven’t suddenly vanished. Far from it. We only need look at recent events to see who is actually profiting from them. The IRBO’s demise is necessary for the birth of the MWO, and through it, establishment of the oligarch’s NWO global governance technocracy.

The irony is that the Eastern independent media—where it exists—continues to question the oppression of global governance and remains highly critical of it. Yet some in the Western independent media seem pathologically averse to even acknowledging, let alone reporting, criticisms made by Russian independent commentators, for example.

As multipolar advocates claim that none of this is true, then I ask them to provide some evidence of one major economy that is not erecting the pillars. Can the MWO campaigners please explain how it is possible that all leading economies are pursuing the same policy platforms, simultaneously, without centralised, global coordination and policy control?

As multipolar supporters rightly point out, governments from East and West are evidently at loggerheads on numerous issues. They do not agree and they are not “all in it together.”

So why are they all implementing the same pillar policies? Where is the global policy coordination coming from if not from antagonistic “sovereign” nation states?

We who question multipolarity do not believe that any system of global governance can possibly serve the interests of humanity. Such as system is, by default, designed to benefit oligarchs, not the people.

Yes, the conflicts are all too real, but they are clearly battles for position within one, agreed and accepted global governance system. The NWO pillars are already being put in place in nearly every nation state because governments are beholden  to their oligarchs. While oligarchs occasionally disagree amongst themselves, the global network of oligarchs want their NWO technocracy above all else.

Criticising the MWO is met with denial, refusal to debate and strawman arguments. It is false to allege that the critics of multipolarity assert that all governments are “in it together.” Governments are subservient to a global governance hierarchy they don’t control.

The oligarch’s NWO is being sold to us as the multipolar world order and, for some reason, it is receiving widespread support from sections of the Western independent media.

You can read more of Iain’s work at his blog IainDavis.com (Formerly InThisTogether) or on UK Column or follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his SubStack. His new book Pseudopandemic, is now available, in both in kindle and paperback, from Amazon and other sellers. Or you can claim a free copy by subscribing to his newsletter.

https://off-guardian.org/2024/02/15/the-theyre-all-in-it-together-rebuttal-canard/

 

So the Russians created ISIS?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/15/2024 at 3:13 AM, sock muppet said:

 

Arseholes like you speak garbage because of infantile tendencies of being wrong and resort to the state of compulsive lying deceiving nonsense of the grey ghey area, agenda much? wef much? defeated much? can you explain much? only you will never wake up to this much? this is the reality! much? EW much? BOLLOXS!!!

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1767506/boris-johnson-book-fuhrer-king-spt

 

 Quote:
'Boris Johnson described himself as 'führer and king' to aides, new book claims'

 

debfak.webp.0015ef85e517635f563d961ce102bb1b.webp

 

 

What?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...