|
The MoA Week In Review – (Not Ukraine) OT 2023-156
Last week's post on Moon of Alabama:
—
Other issues:
European disunity:
Aukus:
Iran:
Non-disclosure:
Miscellaneous:
Use as open (not Ukraine related) thread…
Also from unitedworldint.com, a report from an April 29th Multipolarity Conference. The author says he has been pushing for this (multipolarity) for 30 years.
This is why I consider so positive what many observers, including a few ones inside the western elites themselves, are now becoming more and more certain of: The United States and the “Collective West”, instrument par excellence of the Empire of Finance, do not have any more the means, they cannot impose their domination on the planet. If they had such a possibility, they have it no more. The economic rise of a non-capitalist country like China and of other economic forces of the South, the military return of Russia, the constant and heroic resistance of the Serbs and of the peoples of the Arab and Muslim world, of the Iraqis, of the Hezbollah, of the Palestinians, of the peoples of Yemen, of Syria, of Afghanistan, among others have denied to Imperialism the opportunity to impose its power on the planet. The struggles of the working and popular classes of the West itself are also an obstacle to the drive of capitalist elites towards world domination, although, unfortunately, the reach of these struggles is limited, for the time being, by the corruption of the political and trade union leaders of those classes and their identification with Imperialism and by the massive pro-imperialist propaganda and the unprecedented control of nearly all media outlets and the “intellectual” class, exercised now for some decades already.
The objective lack of the possibility for global capitalism to impose its domination on the planet is the necessary – although not yet sufficient – condition to going to a situation of multipolarity. On the other hand, multipolarity seems now a necessary transitional stage if we are to go to the direction of a deeply democratic world, a world that would reduce inequalities, both within countries and between them, put productive forces and technology at the service of man and lead us to a civilization of harmonious coexistence with nature: what Hugo Chavez called socialism of the 21st Century.
It is important to underline the dialectic connection between the struggle against a western dictatorship on the world, against “unipolarity” and for “multipolarity” with the struggle for a new superior human civilization.
Firstly, because we don’t have just unipolarity – the quest of the USA and the big Financial Capital to dominate the world – to deal with. We also need a new culture to address the enormous problems of our world: indeed, we need a new civilization which will change the structure of consumption from individual to collective; which will place under public and international control the terrible technologies being developed now, technologies which will determine the very future of humankind, even our very survival as a species. Such technologies cannot remain under the control of very limited minorities of wealth and power without significant risks. We need an in-depth democratization of our societies, not in the sense of introducing and imitating a Western, to a large extent, pseudo-democracy, but in the sense of a real participation of workers and citizens, if possible, in all the decisions that concern them, with a system of generalized self-management at all levels, and social ownership and management at least of the greatest productive forces. Strategically, we don’t need a system of over-concentrated power (a dictatorship of the few) but a society of diffused intelligence, able to advance collectively towards a superior form of civilization and permitting what Marx called the transition from pre-history to history of humanity.
Some people will say that all that seem very “utopian” not realistic, as goals, especially in the light of the collapse of Soviet “socialism”. First of all this “Socialism” was not so much a “socialism”. At best it was a first step to the direction of such a society. Second, it is even more unrealistic and utopian to believe humanity is viable, sustainable, with its present modes of organization and dominant ideas.
https://unitedworldint.com/30120-multipolarity-the-positive-content/
=================================================
There is much more in the article, of course. But he does raise interesting issues. The hegemony of Big Finance has reached its limits. This seems true, although far too many seem to confuse it with ‘The US.’ Yes, Wall Street and DC have become the virtual capital of Big Finance for a while, but they are not an American project. It’s just that America was the growth engine of the industrial revolution since it was new territory that had the easiest journey to rapidly modernize, or rather build new infrastructure and indeed nation based on this new paradigm versus having to gradually convert well settled populations used to an earlier (feudal or theocratic) ones.
Times have changed. So multipolarity is needed to wrest dominance from the greedy grip of Big Finance – or GloboCap as C J Hopkins calls it. Because it IS global. Most of CHina’s main manufacturers enjoy significant Western ownership. China is the result of GloboCap investment – as well as the intelligence and industriousness of her own people and culture of course. The point is that they did not emerge in a vacuum nor without significant buy-in and regulatory assistance from the West, including unbalanced tariff policies which reduced US manufacturing and boosted China’s (for example).
But the author also recognizes that multipolarity is little more than a band aid, something repairing a fault but not addressing the underlying malady. And what will address that? He does not yet know, admits it’s a mighty issue and might even be regarded as yet another exercise in utopia-building. A polity needs bedrock values grounded in wisdom, true wisdom. Can this be achieved as a single polity for the entire world? It seems it has to be, that the days of individual nations with their own languages and customs is fast dissolving. Should it be? Have we allowed commerce-fueled technology to shrink the world too much such that the human journey is sacrificed at the altar of oligarchic wealth-generation? Quite possibly. But can anything be done about it? Probably very little.
The multipolarity movement right now, once it has wrested control from the US-based hegemon, will put in its place a One World Order, at first proclaiming equality for all, but soon morphing into a tyrannical behemoth. Then there will be a movement to separate, for nations and people to become distinct and sovereign again. And then each nation will have to learn how to be a good one, vibrant, uplifted, creative, just and so on. Or not. But I do not believe there is any way a single world culture can be created any more than one get a single family of only twenty members to agree on just about anything!
The world keeps rolling, on and on, blundering from one magnificence into the next, many of them catastrophes.
And so it goes.
Posted by: Scorpion | Jul 2 2023 14:57 utc | 7
This author, whom am encountering for the first time, shares my concern that the seeming conflict between East and West acts as cover for an ever-encroaching One-World system.
The fall from liberalism to global technocracy
A conversation with Moldovan journalist Iurie Rosca
by
EDWARD SLAVSQUAT
In May you published a truly fascinating essay titled “How to overcome the paradigmatic deadlock” [which everyone should read—it’s a real eye-opener — Edward]. You begin this article with a very provocative statement: “Despite major conflicts between various countries, they are all submissively following the same globalist agenda”. Can you explain how you reached this conclusion? In what ways are the world powers following the “same globalist agenda”?
By 2020, especially after Russia condemned the 2014 coup in Kiev and took control of Crimea, I hoped that the Putin administration had decided to end Russia’s unsettling status as a Western colony, as a banana republic of the globalist corporatocracy, as a supplier of raw materials to the rich countries of the West.
I even expected that there would be a purge of those who had been in control of the government’s economic and financial bloc, including the central bank, for over 30 years, and Moscow would offer a clear and distinct geopolitical alternative to the world.
But my expectations were in vain. The “Fifth Column” (the vast network of the Western-backed agents) remained intact in the state administration, and the mafia-type network of oligarchs continued to exploit Russia’s vast natural resources for their personal benefit, to the detriment of the country.
Donbass was abandoned for eight years, the assassination of the peaceful population in this region continued daily, and the Minsk agreements confirmed my fear that Russia did not have a leadership capable of manifesting itself as a real and effective alternative to the West.
The evolution of events in Russia has shown that in fact the Putin administration is only the docile executor of the orders of the “Russian plutocracy”. Under the current regime, the country could be called without exaggeration a “xenocracy” (rule by foreigners). And, as in all capitalist countries, the economic factor has subjugated the political factor, with statesmen being only puppets of capital.
The false pandemic launched in 2020 has confirmed beyond any doubt that Russia, like China and the other BRICS countries, are subject to a single command center.
This shadow world government imposes binding directives on all states through its command centers such as the WHO and GAVI. Global genocide, the destruction of the world economy, assassination by vaccine, the imposition of masks, the social distancing, lockdowns and self-isolation—these policies were met with resistance only in a number of African countries, whose leaders paid with their lives. Belarus and Sweden also partly resisted.
In the summer of 2020, Klaus Schwab released his infamous book “Covid-19: The Great Reset”, a manifesto of demonic technocracy’s reorganization of the world economy, liquidation of private property, genetic modification, and total surveillance of humanity. I called this new reality at the international level “the end of classical geopolitics”.
The false pandemic has exposed the total obedience of false power centers claiming to be an alternative to the “Collective West”, there are many more indications that those economic, diplomatic and even military conflicts between states do not cancel out, but only divert public attention from the existence of a single international agenda, valid for all countries without exception. The name of this agenda has been well known since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, which established a single development strategy for all the world’s countries. But even after three decades, many of us failed to detect this new geopolitical reality.
Since then, globalist circles have imposed the myth of climate change, the biodiversity trap, and the technocratic “Sustainable Development” diversion on all mankind. All of these initiatives have been launched against us with tsunami-like force—especially after 2020. I wrote about this common agenda for the whole of mankind in my last essay, which was published by Technocracy News.
So while Satanist forces have subordinated the whole world to them, promoting their agenda through the UN, you have to be blind or mercenary to not see that even after the beginning of the war in Ukraine, there was no change in the internal policy of the Putin administration with regards to Moscow’s ongoing implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development—not to mention the massive digitization of society, total supervision and control over citizens, the elimination of cash, and the policy of implementing digital currency, etc., etc.
https://edwardslavsquat.substack.com/p/the-fall-from-liberalism-to-global
He also tears into China later on. I think this is a valid concern moreover one that deserves far more analysis and commentary. If we are indeed leaving the lower circle of hegemonic hell and entering a more benign ‘multipolar’ higher realm, there needs be far more discussion about what it might be, how it might work, what are the underlying philosophical and/or implementational principles. This is not in evidence. Why not? Because it is a top-down initiative which makes it, therefore, highly suspect to any free-thinking person not caught in the trap of believing one side is all-bad and therefore any opposing it are ipso facto all-good.
I find the language in the many excerpts Karlov so generously keeps pasting in extremely bland and generic. Indeed, in more curmudgeonly moments I think of them as feel-good ‘platitudes for the massitudes.’
The diminution of the current ‘hegemon’ is an inevitable necessity, no question about it. But there are no guarantees that what follows will be an improvement, especially with the technicity developments in play which the author – and of course he is not alone – points out. Put another way: there is a lot more than multipolarity replacing the hegemon in the mix right now, but it is largely going unnoticed.
Posted by: Scorpion | Jul 2 2023 19:23 utc | 35
|
