A great summary. Also when the Soviet Union “collapsed” why weren’t there any trials of those who murdered millions of Russians under communism (hint those responsible were not ethnic Russians) or any public discourse/announcements/historical revisionism concerning such murders of millions. Why? Because they all belong to the same fucking team (tribe). It’s simply an internal dispute of international gang members for global domination. Call them the Illuminati, international bankers or whatever you like but they all have one thing in common genetically.
Who were they going to put on trial? The various corpses at the Kremlin necropolis? I ask since those still loyal to preserving the USSR at the moment of its demise (e.g. Dmitry Yazov, Vladimir Kriychkov, etc.) were themselves CPSU members. Should they have been tried?
We've all had the same inner journey in the face of this monumental illusion, or at least we Rurik-worshipping priests spreading the good word and paying our tithes.
What seems to be key here always brings us back to the most effective occult technology amplified by media techniques: the magick of words !
People would rather hear the words than see the deeds. As do women, hence the prevailing feminisation too. Analysing actions objectively and questioning oneself requires too much effort.
We have to admit that we can't influence this machine much by knowing too much and chatting, but if we all refocus on improving our immediate space with our personal means, then it can work. A lot of people struggle better in their day-to-day lives even though all these machinations are going over their heads, while others are just repeating things they've read elsewhere in front of their screens without doing anything productive. The aim is to keep people in this grey zone of despair, of ‘what's the point’, which prevents them from getting their act together and moving forward by integrating the new paradigm.
" That Putin had been given assurances by Washington that he would be allowed to conduct his SMO in Kiev in peace, (like Saddam with Kuwait), and that he had been led by the nose into a trap. "
Possible. Notice how the initial SMO mirrored the war in Georgia 2008 almost exactly; A mad dash to surround the capital with minimal forces , hoping for quick surrender.
That might be so, but the Russians thought they could repeat that maneuver again, little did they know ow thats exactly what the ZioWest was waiting for. In all probability, the ZioWest "fooled" him once again and pulled a Saddam on him ala Kuwait .
" In a now famous interview with the Iraqi leader, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam, ‘[W]e have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.’ The U.S. State Department had earlier told Saddam that Washington had ‘no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait.’ The United States may not have intended to give Iraq a green light, but that is effectively what it did.”
It's Coppa (or Capocollo), "The pronunciation gabagool has been used by some Italian Americans in the New York City area and elsewhere in the Northeast US, based on the Neapolitan language word capecuollo (IPA /kapəˈkwol.lə/) in working-class strata of 19th- and early 20th-century immigrants.[6]"
Perhaps it all makes no sense because the whole foundation is rotten. Like when the black monks can produce plenty of copies of our supposed history, but unfortunately lost the original source they coppied from in a fire. Who knows? There is an old Westfalen saying, you keep them dumb, I keep them poor. I recognize you as pope, you recognize me as Kaiser. Simple and you can replace the moniker to this day
This seems to be a squabble between gangs of yids over controlling the goyim. How is Chabad resolving it? Maybe the failure of the USA to adhere to it's agreements with the Soviet Union has less to do with the matter than we goyim are told by the Kremlin. Are there serious 'property' or 'methodology' disputes between the Trotskyist/Bankster/Neocon factions controlling the US and Europe and the old Soviet and Third World heavy handed 'crooks and spooks' methods of influence?
Are they still working towards One World society and politics, but have not reached the final stage of 'Convergence', but now compete using different methods of goy control to test what will be the best mix?
It looks as if the world's leading corrupt dictators are now gathering around XI and Putin to register their shift of allegiance from Washington and their expectations of handouts and head-pats from the new masters of the political, military and economic world. This is the old way.
It looks as if from about the Castro era those in charge of the USA behind the scenes started to use a new more psychological and technocratic scientific approach, controlling our minds without us noticing; although their recent use of Globalist institutions to push the vaxx for instance, shows that they may be too impatient, as they create resentment and awareness of them.
Here's an article about how easily the Trotskyists became Neoconservatives and then Democrats as they progressed in controlling American minds, and dumbed down education and culture.
Dr. Jack Kruse is a very intelligent, well informed and scientifically savvy American dissident who points out that the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex, steered by techny people not too far from the Jewish Mafia (less well known but more profitable than the Italian mafia) has pushed the use of blue-light emitting computer screens (and cancer-causing vaccines) etc because they have sub-conscious effects which are unhealthy and make people more sheep-like. This goes with their programs for social and intellectual degeneracy. (He doesn't seem to mention the Jews much, being more interested in the medical and technical aspects, as well as lots of assassination and skullduggery information; but we know , as the poet wrote 'the rats are underneath the piles, the Jews are underneath the lot').
Here's a VERY long video of him spilling many beans. The artificial blue light and the background of the people pushing it is around 40 minutes into the video. He appears in many other interviews which are also worth watching.
This raises more questions. RS in his Mozgovoi article said he took over an area by taking over the local spook HQ, before he was murdered by more spooks from Moscow. This may not work in the West, if the real controllers are elsewhere. When people's minds, identities and concept of self have been turned to mush by their voluntary use of technology which made it easier to accept propaganda, TPTB don't even need many spooks and bullies and the people deny that they succumbed to propaganda, because it was in their mother's milk, so to speak.
Please consider whether different methods may be in use, favoured by different gangs of yids and their shabbos goys. Maybe the desired 'Synthesis' has not yet been achieved and may be different from what the Soviets believed.
They are deciding and have conflicts amongst themselves which place will be the seat of their power the coming 100 years, a large faction of them want to stay and remain in the west and or Isreal while another part want rule the world from China, as it is already a perfect slave state with all the orwellian testing they have been doing there during covid. Also Asiatics are more obiedient and are less likely to rebel to their overlords.
Kazakhstan Pauses Prospective Application to BRICS
Sergey Sukhankin
Executive Summary:
Just days before the 16th BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia, Kazakhstan announced that it will likely not consider applying to join the group in the foreseeable future, citing the complexity of gaining membership and the bloc’s future prospects.
China and Russia, two key pillars of BRICS, have explicitly supported Kazakhstan’s potential bid, which some believe will convince Kazakhstan to change its stance in the future due to its strong ties with the two countries.
Russia responded negatively to Kazakhstan’s announcement, establishing bans on Kazakh imports. Kazakhstan has denounced this move as baseless and amounting to a trade war, indicating that Kazakhstan is likely not as reliant on Russia as it was in the past.
On October 16, Kazakh Presidential Spokesperson Berik Uali announced that Kazakhstan will likely not consider applying for BRICS (a loose political-economic grouping originally consisting of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) in the foreseeable future. Uali noted that this decision was based on the complexity of gaining membership and “other aspects pertaining to the prospects of and the future of this bloc.” He also highlighted that Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev sees the United Nations as the universal and “uncontested” organization where the most important international problems should be discussed in a manner befitting a just and fair world order, demonstrating that Tokayev perhaps views BRICS as infringing on that role (Tengrinews.kz, October 16).
Despite announcing that Kazakhstan will not be applying for membership, Tokayev is still attending the 16th BRICS summit on October 22–24 in Kazan, Russia. This grouping of countries has traditionally been associated with the growing importance of the non-Western world. According to Russian sources, the summit will be attended by 36 countries with 22 national leaders present. The most notable guests include Chinese President Xi Jinping, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and Brazilian President Lula da Silva. The event will also be attended by UN General Secretary António Guterres, Secretary General of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Zhang Ming, and Dilma Rousseff, the former Brazilian president who currently serves as the Chair of the New Development Bank (Vedomosti, October 22).
This year’s summit will be the first to include the bloc’s new members: Egypt, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, and Ethiopia (RG.ru, October 15). Saudi Arabia, which has not formalized its membership, is sending its Foreign Minister, Prince Faisal bin Farhan al-Saud, while the de facto ruler, Mohammed bin Salman, chose not to personally participate in the event (The Moscow Times, October 16). Despite the impressive list of guests and BRICS’s recent growth, Kazakhstan’s decision to refrain from applying for BRICS membership has arguably tainted the upcoming event. Kazakhstan’s decision to opt out of applying for membership appears particularly strange given the past year’s developments. For instance, in a speech on August 24, 2023, Tokayev praised BRICS, stating that “Kazakhstan would like to make its input in the development of BRICS as one of its members.” Mentioning that BRICS could become one of the platforms that ensure the promotion of global security and stability, Tokayev also called on the members of BRICS to join regional economic, trade, transportation, and investment projects such as the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route (aka the Middle Corridor) (TASS, August 24, 2023).
Prior to the upcoming summit, two key pillars of BRICS, Russia and China, explicitly supported Kazakhstan’s potential bid (Timesca.com, July 9; TASS, August 27). Despite this encouraging support, Kazakhstan still announced that it is unlikely to join the bloc in the near future. Moscow’s official response to this development was relatively parsimonious. Dmitry Peskov, Russia’s Presidential Press Secretary, stated that “Kazakhstan is [Russia’s] friend and a strategic partner, our ally, and we cherish our relations. Kazakhstan is absolutely free to make its own decisions about the format it wants to participate in various organizations” (Lenta.ru, October 16). Despite Peskov’s benevolent comments, Russia’s practical steps were far less friendly. Following Kazakhstan’s announcement, on October 17, the Russian Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Supervision (Rosselkhoznadzor) announced a “temporary ban” on the import of tomatoes, pepper, sunflower seeds, flax seeds, and lentils originating from Kazakhstan. The pretext, relatively common for Russia, is “phytosanitary concerns.” Rosselkhoznadzor cited 215 cases of phytosanitary regulation violations by Kazakhstan since the beginning of 2024, which is four times higher than the 2023 figure (Rosselkhoznadzor, October 17). Interestingly, this decision was merely a follow-up to a previously adopted restrictive measure before the current diplomatic row, when Russia essentially halted the transit and import of Kazakhstan-produced grain. Kazakh officials denounced this situation as amounting to nothing less than a trade war, calling Russia’s accusations “baseless” and disconnected from reality (T.me/moscowtimes_ru, October 3).
Kazakhstan’s decision to refrain from BRICS membership and the surrounding aggravation in bilateral trade and business ties should not have come as a surprise. Prior to these developments, Tokayev had openly expressed his discontent with internal developments in the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), a Russia-led international organization (see EDM, April 3). Specifically, the Kazakh President lamented that the EAEU is becoming increasingly divided, with Russia and Belarus forming a separate sub-bloc characterized by a much deeper level of political, military, and economic integration (The Moscow Times, October 17). Following the outbreak of Russia’s war against Ukraine, Kazakhstan has walked a very precarious line. Because it is strategically dependent on Russia in many areas, the country has maintained robust economic ties with its northern neighbor, which have boomed since 2022 (Eurasianet, March 4). While Kazakhstan has refused to introduce direct economic sanctions against Russia, it has still introduced the ban on 100 types of sanctions-related goods and export products and declared its commitment to respecting Western restrictions on Russian exports (Kommersant.ru, August 16).
In assessing Astana’s diplomatic move, Kazakh political experts have come up with diverging opinions. Political analyst Gaziz Abishev said, “Kazakhstan is still unlikely to become a member of BRICS. There is no vital need [for Kazakhstan] to do so. Kazakhstan is bound with Russia by close ties based on strategic partnership” (Lenta.ru, October 16). Andrey Chebotarev, an ethnically Russian Kazakh political scientist, suggested that Kazakhstan could still apply for membership during the upcoming summit. Noting that Russia’s—and more importantly, China’s—explicit support for Kazakhstan’s membership could become a “serious stimulus for the country to join the platform,” Chebotarev also theorized that later, Kazakhstan’s decision to join BRICS could be influenced by Türkiye’s and Azerbaijan’s determination to accede to the bloc (see EDM, October 16). Conversely, political analyst Marat Shibutov stated that he believes Kazakhstan will not join BRICS in the near future. He noted, “BRICS does not have functioning institutions. There are plenty of talks, but the actual work is not there” (Zakon.kz, October 16).
For now, Moscow—bogged down in Ukraine and needing Kazakhstan to alleviate the impact of sanctions—will likely abstain from imposing harsh coercive measures to press Astana to join BRICS. If Kazakhstan pursues more independent policies, refusing to import Russian oil and uranium or excluding the Russian Nuclear Energy Corporation, Rosatom, from the construction of Kazakhstan’s first-ever nuclear power plant, Russia’s approach may become much harsher.
I read it with a certain level of incredulity. The Birchers were warning of this shit 70 years ago but it's good now because it's not being proposed by the Anal-Saxonists. The inability to see the "Punch and Judy Show" always boggles my mind.
Well Putin and his 3rd world gang just wants to be a rival gang to the west. And that is all it really is, trade between Russia and America/Europe is still going on despite these sanctions(which are by passed via other countries). If Millions of Russians be wounded or killed so be it. There is no 4d chess plan and Putin the jew is not a Christian either. Same can be said for Trump who married his daughter off to a jew in the hopes it would save his head. If this was a real conflict Putin could cripple the west overnight by stopping the sale of Oil and strategic raw materials. Or a sneak missle attack at Ukraines leadership, he will never do it ofcourse, since then he will be killed by his handlers. Prigozhin rebelled probably because he saw the truth and could not live with it after 1000s of his men died or were maimed for life for some theatre spiel.
He was still on the lower levels, but he likely was heavily influenced by Utkin and other national socialists. Seeing where things were going it was the only thing he could do after the blatand provocations of the Russian military.
Kazakhstan are in the process of digitalisation aided by a shell British based company headed up by what appears to be a CIA asset. This is just one string being pulled in a series of them to carve them away from Russia and more and more towards the West.
It's the same playbook as with Ukraine just someone needs to decide if and when to press the button that is being prepared. Georgia is another example of unsolved conflict. Imagine if Georgia allied with Ukraine and things flared up there again. I don't think the Russian army has the strength just look at Kursk. But this would be too humiliating and too many Kissinger supporters would be against.
That is the plan, if Russia is not fragmented in a civil war from within then just encircle and contain it (North Korean style) Then apply proxy preasure aslong as neccecary to cause internal rebellion. But i doubt the west really wants to destroy Russia, they are also more afraid a radical or nationalists will take over from their insider pawn Putin. The Russian armies biggest advantage is that they can deploy alot of men and take alot of casualties but you can only substain those losses for so long before morale drops and rebellion/disillusion sets in, remember 1917 and the beginning of Barbarossa.
Nikola Mikovic has an interesting story about his recent visit and it is true that you cannot survive without apps and digital payments nowadays. I also spoke with a Kazakhstani Russian while on vacation in Turkey and he said Russians in Kazakhstan don't really care about the war or Putin.
" not cleaning out the 5th column, why they are not changing the colonial financial system, why industrialization is not being carried out, "
Very fundamental questions. In the early nineties Russia was in shambles with a high unemployment rate. Instead of focusing everything on its natural resources ( a gas station with nukes ) why didnt Putin pull a China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, etc and focus on attracting production to Russia ? Russia has many technically skilled engineers, programmers, scientists. Where are Russian PC's , chips, electronics, consumer goods ? I wont even go into its Rothschild joined financial system.
The reason is simple, Putin dutifully held Russia's development back intentionally, and made sure it mainly relied on income from natural resources, this insured Russia always had an " Achilles foot" as is shown now by the current situation ( Russia selling oil at a steep discount out of desperation. )
Finally, if one is able to figure out why the invitation below was given, one will be a step closer to understanding the bigger picture.
Hint: convergence
" UN Secretary-General António Guterres will also accept the Russian invitation to attend the summit."
If Putin stops selling oil it would sky Rocket oil prices overnight and crippling the west. Same can be said for fertilizers and strategic raw materials, which is currently still sold to the west.
China is a trading empire and it needs the western markets as a dumping ground for their cheap products. In fact China was setup as the world manufacturer by western elites. The Russo-Chino alliance is largely a facade and scam promoted by Zanon and Ziggers.
thanks for the good writing man - i certainly don't agree with some of your views or inferences (no need to list) but the quality of the writing is always excellent, and the analytical rigour and deep dives are unparalleled.
signed up just to see the metaphysical stuff, but renewed because it's rare to find an original voice with actual rigour, even if one doesn't always agree.
mostly the race stuff tbh. i fully get a desire to maintain cohesive social structures but tend to think it would be more useful to find common cause with all races / religions etc, to resist occupation / colonisation.
it only serves to weaken regular folks and is ultimately why mass migration is facilitated.
the old marxist chestnut 'What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own gravediggers' can equally apply imo, if instead of communities bickering amongst each other, they banded together to reject elite agendas.
for e.g. conservative white people these days have a lot in common with traditionally minded muslims in terms of cultural attitudes and behaviour, so could both support social arrangements that would be better than the liberal shit show we have now.
rurik is obviously not christian so he wouldn't likely care in that sense, and i have a lot of time for his thesis that abrahamic religions are foreign creeds imposed to weaken controlled populations, but all the same - these are all people under the same yoke, regardless of skin colour.
people should be building collective / community power, but also making cross community alliances if anything is to succeed.
it seems very self evident to me and i don't grasp the insistence on whiteness, but it doesn't detract from what are far more valuable and pertinent points
I love that summary and do agree with your thoughts it's all about divide and conquer. I am very interested in what could have been with Rhodesia as unlike SA it didn't have an Apartheid: https://youtu.be/cJ-NB2itNpg?si=cPvvb2uOc-nhD8y9
I do think though people who don't share the values of a nation need to be deported but what happens if that's a third generation migrant who doesn't have a passport for his families country of origin? A re-education camp or detention all sound a bit too totalitarian for my liking but what's the solution? Or when a race does have generally a lower IQ like Somalian's. What do you do with a population that doesn't want to integrate and what warrants as a suitable level of integration and who would set such rules? This conversation needs to be had constructively.
You should also check out the work of Maajid Nawaz on Substack and Ruble.
i know SA well, and it's an interesting comparison to make with Zim / Rhodesia.
the whole race essentialism and IQ based general brush strokes is not for me as it just doesn't chime with my experiences. i've met enough idiots from all races and have had enough engaging conversations as well. it's a wash imo - most people are retarded so it doesn't seem like a worthwhile metric.
but comparing SA and Zim, it's clear that very similar genetic profiles have vastly different outcomes in terms of levels of education and apparent intelligence. seems a very clear bit of evidence that intelligence can be vastly impacted by access to education and proper nutrition and healthy upbringing.
so apartheid and suppression clearly did a great deal of damage to millions of people and their descendants.
looking at IQ and judging a race as inherently this way or that is the tail wagging the dog. south korea was a backwater fishing outpost after WW2 and viewed very unfavourably and the people as inherently backward, and they massively transformed over the course of a single lifetime.
i'm more inclined towards civic, rather than ethnic nationalism with freedom for people to form communities on whatever basis makes sense to them, including ethnic if that's what people want to do. if we can agree on a limited form of shared values in terms of law and order, whatever arrangement people would want to make around property rights and all that, i personally don't care if other communities want to have different arrangements internally, even if they don't particularly want to 'integrate'.
where i live, the imperative to integrate is only extended to brown people, while certain tribes (in the rurik sense of the word) are very deliberately segregated from everyone else and no one seems to mind.
tbh i think we could all do with re-education given the state of the education system and the edifice of lies that our entire perception of reality is based upon.
Your new “Christian” admirer (whom LOVES to Hate you) sounds like a (bible) cult member because Christians ain’t supposed to Hate y’all. (Tolerance leads to understanding leads to love, as in, Love your enemies “) cognitive dissonance aside he probably can’t pin down what your getting at because a bible verse doesn’t immediately come to mind to validate or defy your point.
As for “multipolarity” sounds like controlled opposition (SMO?) “Our Democracy” is a two horse race & the oligarchy owns both horses, the track, the bar & restaurant, & all the bookies. Place your bets on the new multi coin, rival to the greenback, stealth CBDC.
If they were anyway serious about dissolving the dollar dominance they would issue a gold backed currency or get real & buy a million Bitcoin
But I do hate you, Rurik. The more correct you are, the more inarticulable my loathing becomes!
I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "Team Z" or "Zanon"; but I havent found the ideas you straw-manned to be particularly complicated -- nor even fully incompatible with your view.
> All I understood was that through some military tech sorcery, Russia was significantly superior in military tech to all NATO equivalent weapon systems.
Russia, China, and Iran have (i) hypersonic weapons, and (ii) national industrial capacity to produce large amounts of munitions -- Russia on its own appears able to outproduce the West. This is just observation of empirical fact. I speculate that the reason for this is that the primary goal of US weapons programs is monetary and political profit, while parallel institutions see the strategic defense goal as paramount. This difference can largely be attributed to complacency in the face of perceived dominance. None of this is relevant to the globalist thesis.
> I also never really understood why Putin’s speeches were allegedly so clever and so much better than the speeches of Western politicians.
Agreed.
> More interesting is the deeper discussion on what “multipolarity” even is, really.
This is the BRICS sleight-of-hand at work.
My etymological reading is that the "multipolar world" terminology is in reference to the "unipolar moment," a term that came to dominate foreign policy discourse following the collapse of the Soviet Union and which meant, in practice, that the US (or western globalist elites) can reshape the world as it (they) sees fit.
As such "Multipolar world" is often misused, in effect, to mean "whatever system comes to dominate if and when Western hegemony collapses." As such (1) the more narrow definition of many "poles" of influence is only one possible post-unipolar outcome and (2) as you rightly point out, it is an inherently globalist idea. "World" is in the name ffs. It's not called "the federated anarcho-commune post-national scenario." I never quite got it when people see it as an alternative to globalism - it's just a similar system but with different actors (I suspect you disagree on their being "different actors" - i address this more fully below)
> In fact, as I discussed before, “Multipolarism” is a term used to describe the literal opposite of what is actually being built.
The hope is that "whatever is after" will be better than what is happening now. If you live somewhere where the International Order is bending you over, then this is likely to be true. And if you believe the narrative that the US is going the way of Rome and pillaging the heartland for the purpose of military and oligarchic excess, then you are also going to believe that the alternative has a good shot of being better.
But it is still replacing one globalist elite with another, and hoping that the latter might be more principled, and might build institutions more able to resist being captured for a bit longer.
> The process to “multipolarize” the world is actually the process by which the world is globalized even further, and local elites deputized to carry out the globalization agenda in their own regions.
I guess I would quibble with "even further." The world is already fully globalized. The interests of the global elite - and the culture of the global elite - are dominant. The current elite has, however, fallen out of favor, and so it is appealing to want to swap them for a more desirable-looking set. This is BRICS.
I welcome some clarification on your point here. Do you mean increased centralization (world governance), increased totalitarianism (fully subsuming local elite interests to global ones), or something else? Could not a system of strictly bilateral national treaties still be suborned by an international oligarchy?
Anyway, my thesis is that the BRICS bruhaha is basically the desire and hope that there is a better class of elites out there. Maybe I am naive, but I cling to this hope. In fact I hope that most of them live in the US and come to dominate its politics, but failing that I will settle for BRICS.
But are they actually a different set of elites?
> Of course, all the proofs that we have in the media and on the ground, so to speak, are proofs that Putin is indeed pro-West, pro-Multikulti, pro-Israel and so on
> Thus, Putin is willing to fight back, but only in a limited way; the goal isn’t to topple Globalism though, but to negotiate a better place in the pecking order for the Kremlin and his buddies
I think you're trying to make the point that there is no substantive difference between Western elites (represented by Washington) and Eastern elites (represented by Putin).
The demonstrations given show that it is often in the interest of Eastern elites to align themselves with Western elites. Indeed, this is how the Western elite has grown during the unipolar moment (especially by toppling elites that didnt quite see their interests in this way).
But that is not to say that these interests cannot diverge. I am of the opinion that they have.
> This brings us full circle to the concept of Convergence again — the process by which the elite of East and West were supposed to converge into one globalist elite.
The "were" here is interesting. Not "are." Do you hold out hope that they may diverge?
Regarding military industry in Russia, I would refer you to my three part essay translations on “Why the SMO” where this idea is debunked. Actually it was Dr Livci but still.
As for what multipolarism really is that’s not my forte. I refer you to the interview I did with Iain Davis. He seems to be familiar with the literature. And Slavsquat goes into the details of how it is being rolled out in Russia. Perhaps 009 is also worth recommending because he also covers the same topic and seems to have done his homework.
On unipolarity vs multipolarity, I'm reminded of Adam Smith's description of capitalists as greedy and his notion that their main virtue was that they are constantly trying to undercut each other.
Let's say you had a Russian system run by greedy oligarchs. It still gives nationalists such as Hungary's Orban some breathing room as long as there's genuine competition between the different centers of power.
The real danger is if the real control rests with just one group. The US has a large number of resources to coerce all countries to follow US policies: including assassinations, military threats and "color revolution" threats.
A small group of people with unlimited resources can coopt all power to themselves. I read an article stating that the head of Iranian counter-intelligence and his staff just up and defected to Israel. Apparently they were working for Mossad for years. That's why they could assassinate anyone they wanted in Iran.
A great summary. Also when the Soviet Union “collapsed” why weren’t there any trials of those who murdered millions of Russians under communism (hint those responsible were not ethnic Russians) or any public discourse/announcements/historical revisionism concerning such murders of millions. Why? Because they all belong to the same fucking team (tribe). It’s simply an internal dispute of international gang members for global domination. Call them the Illuminati, international bankers or whatever you like but they all have one thing in common genetically.
Who were they going to put on trial? The various corpses at the Kremlin necropolis? I ask since those still loyal to preserving the USSR at the moment of its demise (e.g. Dmitry Yazov, Vladimir Kriychkov, etc.) were themselves CPSU members. Should they have been tried?
Finally, a one place free from pepe-shitscobarist multipolar bullshit triumphalism
We've all had the same inner journey in the face of this monumental illusion, or at least we Rurik-worshipping priests spreading the good word and paying our tithes.
What seems to be key here always brings us back to the most effective occult technology amplified by media techniques: the magick of words !
People would rather hear the words than see the deeds. As do women, hence the prevailing feminisation too. Analysing actions objectively and questioning oneself requires too much effort.
We have to admit that we can't influence this machine much by knowing too much and chatting, but if we all refocus on improving our immediate space with our personal means, then it can work. A lot of people struggle better in their day-to-day lives even though all these machinations are going over their heads, while others are just repeating things they've read elsewhere in front of their screens without doing anything productive. The aim is to keep people in this grey zone of despair, of ‘what's the point’, which prevents them from getting their act together and moving forward by integrating the new paradigm.
Sputnik V, biometrics, digital ID, WHO, BRICS. All the things we don't like.
All on Putin's watch.
" That Putin had been given assurances by Washington that he would be allowed to conduct his SMO in Kiev in peace, (like Saddam with Kuwait), and that he had been led by the nose into a trap. "
Possible. Notice how the initial SMO mirrored the war in Georgia 2008 almost exactly; A mad dash to surround the capital with minimal forces , hoping for quick surrender.
But Georgia was successful... They got south ossetia and abkhanzia and Georgia is still not fully pro west and anti Russian.
That might be so, but the Russians thought they could repeat that maneuver again, little did they know ow thats exactly what the ZioWest was waiting for. In all probability, the ZioWest "fooled" him once again and pulled a Saddam on him ala Kuwait .
" In a now famous interview with the Iraqi leader, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam, ‘[W]e have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.’ The U.S. State Department had earlier told Saddam that Washington had ‘no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait.’ The United States may not have intended to give Iraq a green light, but that is effectively what it did.”
The Sopranos edit of A. Wyatt Mann's cartoon is hilarious, I really want some gabagool now.
What even is gabagool? I thought it was just an expression like eyyy, capiche?
It's Coppa (or Capocollo), "The pronunciation gabagool has been used by some Italian Americans in the New York City area and elsewhere in the Northeast US, based on the Neapolitan language word capecuollo (IPA /kapəˈkwol.lə/) in working-class strata of 19th- and early 20th-century immigrants.[6]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capocollo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsBipoG22Nw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MKjKeV6R7o
Perhaps it all makes no sense because the whole foundation is rotten. Like when the black monks can produce plenty of copies of our supposed history, but unfortunately lost the original source they coppied from in a fire. Who knows? There is an old Westfalen saying, you keep them dumb, I keep them poor. I recognize you as pope, you recognize me as Kaiser. Simple and you can replace the moniker to this day
Hail the gods. And reason. Goog work Rurik
This seems to be a squabble between gangs of yids over controlling the goyim. How is Chabad resolving it? Maybe the failure of the USA to adhere to it's agreements with the Soviet Union has less to do with the matter than we goyim are told by the Kremlin. Are there serious 'property' or 'methodology' disputes between the Trotskyist/Bankster/Neocon factions controlling the US and Europe and the old Soviet and Third World heavy handed 'crooks and spooks' methods of influence?
Are they still working towards One World society and politics, but have not reached the final stage of 'Convergence', but now compete using different methods of goy control to test what will be the best mix?
It looks as if the world's leading corrupt dictators are now gathering around XI and Putin to register their shift of allegiance from Washington and their expectations of handouts and head-pats from the new masters of the political, military and economic world. This is the old way.
It looks as if from about the Castro era those in charge of the USA behind the scenes started to use a new more psychological and technocratic scientific approach, controlling our minds without us noticing; although their recent use of Globalist institutions to push the vaxx for instance, shows that they may be too impatient, as they create resentment and awareness of them.
Here's an article about how easily the Trotskyists became Neoconservatives and then Democrats as they progressed in controlling American minds, and dumbed down education and culture.
https://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=32905
Dr. Jack Kruse is a very intelligent, well informed and scientifically savvy American dissident who points out that the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex, steered by techny people not too far from the Jewish Mafia (less well known but more profitable than the Italian mafia) has pushed the use of blue-light emitting computer screens (and cancer-causing vaccines) etc because they have sub-conscious effects which are unhealthy and make people more sheep-like. This goes with their programs for social and intellectual degeneracy. (He doesn't seem to mention the Jews much, being more interested in the medical and technical aspects, as well as lots of assassination and skullduggery information; but we know , as the poet wrote 'the rats are underneath the piles, the Jews are underneath the lot').
Here's a VERY long video of him spilling many beans. The artificial blue light and the background of the people pushing it is around 40 minutes into the video. He appears in many other interviews which are also worth watching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiBFtwbyv44
This raises more questions. RS in his Mozgovoi article said he took over an area by taking over the local spook HQ, before he was murdered by more spooks from Moscow. This may not work in the West, if the real controllers are elsewhere. When people's minds, identities and concept of self have been turned to mush by their voluntary use of technology which made it easier to accept propaganda, TPTB don't even need many spooks and bullies and the people deny that they succumbed to propaganda, because it was in their mother's milk, so to speak.
Please consider whether different methods may be in use, favoured by different gangs of yids and their shabbos goys. Maybe the desired 'Synthesis' has not yet been achieved and may be different from what the Soviets believed.
They are deciding and have conflicts amongst themselves which place will be the seat of their power the coming 100 years, a large faction of them want to stay and remain in the west and or Isreal while another part want rule the world from China, as it is already a perfect slave state with all the orwellian testing they have been doing there during covid. Also Asiatics are more obiedient and are less likely to rebel to their overlords.
Kazakhstan Pauses Prospective Application to BRICS
Sergey Sukhankin
Executive Summary:
Just days before the 16th BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia, Kazakhstan announced that it will likely not consider applying to join the group in the foreseeable future, citing the complexity of gaining membership and the bloc’s future prospects.
China and Russia, two key pillars of BRICS, have explicitly supported Kazakhstan’s potential bid, which some believe will convince Kazakhstan to change its stance in the future due to its strong ties with the two countries.
Russia responded negatively to Kazakhstan’s announcement, establishing bans on Kazakh imports. Kazakhstan has denounced this move as baseless and amounting to a trade war, indicating that Kazakhstan is likely not as reliant on Russia as it was in the past.
On October 16, Kazakh Presidential Spokesperson Berik Uali announced that Kazakhstan will likely not consider applying for BRICS (a loose political-economic grouping originally consisting of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) in the foreseeable future. Uali noted that this decision was based on the complexity of gaining membership and “other aspects pertaining to the prospects of and the future of this bloc.” He also highlighted that Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev sees the United Nations as the universal and “uncontested” organization where the most important international problems should be discussed in a manner befitting a just and fair world order, demonstrating that Tokayev perhaps views BRICS as infringing on that role (Tengrinews.kz, October 16).
Despite announcing that Kazakhstan will not be applying for membership, Tokayev is still attending the 16th BRICS summit on October 22–24 in Kazan, Russia. This grouping of countries has traditionally been associated with the growing importance of the non-Western world. According to Russian sources, the summit will be attended by 36 countries with 22 national leaders present. The most notable guests include Chinese President Xi Jinping, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and Brazilian President Lula da Silva. The event will also be attended by UN General Secretary António Guterres, Secretary General of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Zhang Ming, and Dilma Rousseff, the former Brazilian president who currently serves as the Chair of the New Development Bank (Vedomosti, October 22).
This year’s summit will be the first to include the bloc’s new members: Egypt, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, and Ethiopia (RG.ru, October 15). Saudi Arabia, which has not formalized its membership, is sending its Foreign Minister, Prince Faisal bin Farhan al-Saud, while the de facto ruler, Mohammed bin Salman, chose not to personally participate in the event (The Moscow Times, October 16). Despite the impressive list of guests and BRICS’s recent growth, Kazakhstan’s decision to refrain from applying for BRICS membership has arguably tainted the upcoming event. Kazakhstan’s decision to opt out of applying for membership appears particularly strange given the past year’s developments. For instance, in a speech on August 24, 2023, Tokayev praised BRICS, stating that “Kazakhstan would like to make its input in the development of BRICS as one of its members.” Mentioning that BRICS could become one of the platforms that ensure the promotion of global security and stability, Tokayev also called on the members of BRICS to join regional economic, trade, transportation, and investment projects such as the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route (aka the Middle Corridor) (TASS, August 24, 2023).
Prior to the upcoming summit, two key pillars of BRICS, Russia and China, explicitly supported Kazakhstan’s potential bid (Timesca.com, July 9; TASS, August 27). Despite this encouraging support, Kazakhstan still announced that it is unlikely to join the bloc in the near future. Moscow’s official response to this development was relatively parsimonious. Dmitry Peskov, Russia’s Presidential Press Secretary, stated that “Kazakhstan is [Russia’s] friend and a strategic partner, our ally, and we cherish our relations. Kazakhstan is absolutely free to make its own decisions about the format it wants to participate in various organizations” (Lenta.ru, October 16). Despite Peskov’s benevolent comments, Russia’s practical steps were far less friendly. Following Kazakhstan’s announcement, on October 17, the Russian Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Supervision (Rosselkhoznadzor) announced a “temporary ban” on the import of tomatoes, pepper, sunflower seeds, flax seeds, and lentils originating from Kazakhstan. The pretext, relatively common for Russia, is “phytosanitary concerns.” Rosselkhoznadzor cited 215 cases of phytosanitary regulation violations by Kazakhstan since the beginning of 2024, which is four times higher than the 2023 figure (Rosselkhoznadzor, October 17). Interestingly, this decision was merely a follow-up to a previously adopted restrictive measure before the current diplomatic row, when Russia essentially halted the transit and import of Kazakhstan-produced grain. Kazakh officials denounced this situation as amounting to nothing less than a trade war, calling Russia’s accusations “baseless” and disconnected from reality (T.me/moscowtimes_ru, October 3).
Kazakhstan’s decision to refrain from BRICS membership and the surrounding aggravation in bilateral trade and business ties should not have come as a surprise. Prior to these developments, Tokayev had openly expressed his discontent with internal developments in the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), a Russia-led international organization (see EDM, April 3). Specifically, the Kazakh President lamented that the EAEU is becoming increasingly divided, with Russia and Belarus forming a separate sub-bloc characterized by a much deeper level of political, military, and economic integration (The Moscow Times, October 17). Following the outbreak of Russia’s war against Ukraine, Kazakhstan has walked a very precarious line. Because it is strategically dependent on Russia in many areas, the country has maintained robust economic ties with its northern neighbor, which have boomed since 2022 (Eurasianet, March 4). While Kazakhstan has refused to introduce direct economic sanctions against Russia, it has still introduced the ban on 100 types of sanctions-related goods and export products and declared its commitment to respecting Western restrictions on Russian exports (Kommersant.ru, August 16).
In assessing Astana’s diplomatic move, Kazakh political experts have come up with diverging opinions. Political analyst Gaziz Abishev said, “Kazakhstan is still unlikely to become a member of BRICS. There is no vital need [for Kazakhstan] to do so. Kazakhstan is bound with Russia by close ties based on strategic partnership” (Lenta.ru, October 16). Andrey Chebotarev, an ethnically Russian Kazakh political scientist, suggested that Kazakhstan could still apply for membership during the upcoming summit. Noting that Russia’s—and more importantly, China’s—explicit support for Kazakhstan’s membership could become a “serious stimulus for the country to join the platform,” Chebotarev also theorized that later, Kazakhstan’s decision to join BRICS could be influenced by Türkiye’s and Azerbaijan’s determination to accede to the bloc (see EDM, October 16). Conversely, political analyst Marat Shibutov stated that he believes Kazakhstan will not join BRICS in the near future. He noted, “BRICS does not have functioning institutions. There are plenty of talks, but the actual work is not there” (Zakon.kz, October 16).
For now, Moscow—bogged down in Ukraine and needing Kazakhstan to alleviate the impact of sanctions—will likely abstain from imposing harsh coercive measures to press Astana to join BRICS. If Kazakhstan pursues more independent policies, refusing to import Russian oil and uranium or excluding the Russian Nuclear Energy Corporation, Rosatom, from the construction of Kazakhstan’s first-ever nuclear power plant, Russia’s approach may become much harsher.
I saw a bit of news that said that participants in Kazan were encouraged to use dollars. Amusing if true.
When will we finally get the much-vaunted BRICS-bucks?
Kazakstan will be the new Ukraine or a second front if Ukraine still survives in the next 5 years.
Here's an article that I came across the other day:
https://didacticmind.com/2024/10/brick-by-brics.html
I read it with a certain level of incredulity. The Birchers were warning of this shit 70 years ago but it's good now because it's not being proposed by the Anal-Saxonists. The inability to see the "Punch and Judy Show" always boggles my mind.
Well Putin and his 3rd world gang just wants to be a rival gang to the west. And that is all it really is, trade between Russia and America/Europe is still going on despite these sanctions(which are by passed via other countries). If Millions of Russians be wounded or killed so be it. There is no 4d chess plan and Putin the jew is not a Christian either. Same can be said for Trump who married his daughter off to a jew in the hopes it would save his head. If this was a real conflict Putin could cripple the west overnight by stopping the sale of Oil and strategic raw materials. Or a sneak missle attack at Ukraines leadership, he will never do it ofcourse, since then he will be killed by his handlers. Prigozhin rebelled probably because he saw the truth and could not live with it after 1000s of his men died or were maimed for life for some theatre spiel.
Was Prigozhin for real? I'm really not sure. He was Jewish and a saturnist. So i imagine almost certainly an ulterior motive, but I'm not sure what.
He was still on the lower levels, but he likely was heavily influenced by Utkin and other national socialists. Seeing where things were going it was the only thing he could do after the blatand provocations of the Russian military.
" Russia responded negatively to Kazakhstan’s announcement, establishing bans on Kazakh imports. "
I see Russia is not a fan of freedom of association.
Kazakhstan are in the process of digitalisation aided by a shell British based company headed up by what appears to be a CIA asset. This is just one string being pulled in a series of them to carve them away from Russia and more and more towards the West.
It's the same playbook as with Ukraine just someone needs to decide if and when to press the button that is being prepared. Georgia is another example of unsolved conflict. Imagine if Georgia allied with Ukraine and things flared up there again. I don't think the Russian army has the strength just look at Kursk. But this would be too humiliating and too many Kissinger supporters would be against.
That is the plan, if Russia is not fragmented in a civil war from within then just encircle and contain it (North Korean style) Then apply proxy preasure aslong as neccecary to cause internal rebellion. But i doubt the west really wants to destroy Russia, they are also more afraid a radical or nationalists will take over from their insider pawn Putin. The Russian armies biggest advantage is that they can deploy alot of men and take alot of casualties but you can only substain those losses for so long before morale drops and rebellion/disillusion sets in, remember 1917 and the beginning of Barbarossa.
I remember it like yesterday. On a more serious note good points
Nikola Mikovic has an interesting story about his recent visit and it is true that you cannot survive without apps and digital payments nowadays. I also spoke with a Kazakhstani Russian while on vacation in Turkey and he said Russians in Kazakhstan don't really care about the war or Putin.
Where do I know that name? Can you share the link please?
Yikes, I didn't know it had snow balled so much. But they can't sort out their pollution.
https://x.com/nikola_mikovic/status/1849426717724606656 he's friends with Rurik, has been on Red List before
Yes of course. Now I remember. Slavic names though. Thanks
Somewhere in his timeline this summer he tells about his trip to Kazakhstan
It's much appreciated, really.
" not cleaning out the 5th column, why they are not changing the colonial financial system, why industrialization is not being carried out, "
Very fundamental questions. In the early nineties Russia was in shambles with a high unemployment rate. Instead of focusing everything on its natural resources ( a gas station with nukes ) why didnt Putin pull a China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, etc and focus on attracting production to Russia ? Russia has many technically skilled engineers, programmers, scientists. Where are Russian PC's , chips, electronics, consumer goods ? I wont even go into its Rothschild joined financial system.
The reason is simple, Putin dutifully held Russia's development back intentionally, and made sure it mainly relied on income from natural resources, this insured Russia always had an " Achilles foot" as is shown now by the current situation ( Russia selling oil at a steep discount out of desperation. )
Finally, if one is able to figure out why the invitation below was given, one will be a step closer to understanding the bigger picture.
Hint: convergence
" UN Secretary-General António Guterres will also accept the Russian invitation to attend the summit."
If Putin stops selling oil it would sky Rocket oil prices overnight and crippling the west. Same can be said for fertilizers and strategic raw materials, which is currently still sold to the west.
True, if he would, but he wont. Just like China could take down the US in a day by dumping all its US securities, but they wont either.
China is a trading empire and it needs the western markets as a dumping ground for their cheap products. In fact China was setup as the world manufacturer by western elites. The Russo-Chino alliance is largely a facade and scam promoted by Zanon and Ziggers.
thanks for the good writing man - i certainly don't agree with some of your views or inferences (no need to list) but the quality of the writing is always excellent, and the analytical rigour and deep dives are unparalleled.
signed up just to see the metaphysical stuff, but renewed because it's rare to find an original voice with actual rigour, even if one doesn't always agree.
Oh do list or at least list some. As a fellow Stalker I'd like to understand your thoughts.
mostly the race stuff tbh. i fully get a desire to maintain cohesive social structures but tend to think it would be more useful to find common cause with all races / religions etc, to resist occupation / colonisation.
it only serves to weaken regular folks and is ultimately why mass migration is facilitated.
the old marxist chestnut 'What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own gravediggers' can equally apply imo, if instead of communities bickering amongst each other, they banded together to reject elite agendas.
for e.g. conservative white people these days have a lot in common with traditionally minded muslims in terms of cultural attitudes and behaviour, so could both support social arrangements that would be better than the liberal shit show we have now.
rurik is obviously not christian so he wouldn't likely care in that sense, and i have a lot of time for his thesis that abrahamic religions are foreign creeds imposed to weaken controlled populations, but all the same - these are all people under the same yoke, regardless of skin colour.
people should be building collective / community power, but also making cross community alliances if anything is to succeed.
it seems very self evident to me and i don't grasp the insistence on whiteness, but it doesn't detract from what are far more valuable and pertinent points
I love that summary and do agree with your thoughts it's all about divide and conquer. I am very interested in what could have been with Rhodesia as unlike SA it didn't have an Apartheid: https://youtu.be/cJ-NB2itNpg?si=cPvvb2uOc-nhD8y9
I do think though people who don't share the values of a nation need to be deported but what happens if that's a third generation migrant who doesn't have a passport for his families country of origin? A re-education camp or detention all sound a bit too totalitarian for my liking but what's the solution? Or when a race does have generally a lower IQ like Somalian's. What do you do with a population that doesn't want to integrate and what warrants as a suitable level of integration and who would set such rules? This conversation needs to be had constructively.
You should also check out the work of Maajid Nawaz on Substack and Ruble.
i know SA well, and it's an interesting comparison to make with Zim / Rhodesia.
the whole race essentialism and IQ based general brush strokes is not for me as it just doesn't chime with my experiences. i've met enough idiots from all races and have had enough engaging conversations as well. it's a wash imo - most people are retarded so it doesn't seem like a worthwhile metric.
but comparing SA and Zim, it's clear that very similar genetic profiles have vastly different outcomes in terms of levels of education and apparent intelligence. seems a very clear bit of evidence that intelligence can be vastly impacted by access to education and proper nutrition and healthy upbringing.
so apartheid and suppression clearly did a great deal of damage to millions of people and their descendants.
looking at IQ and judging a race as inherently this way or that is the tail wagging the dog. south korea was a backwater fishing outpost after WW2 and viewed very unfavourably and the people as inherently backward, and they massively transformed over the course of a single lifetime.
i'm more inclined towards civic, rather than ethnic nationalism with freedom for people to form communities on whatever basis makes sense to them, including ethnic if that's what people want to do. if we can agree on a limited form of shared values in terms of law and order, whatever arrangement people would want to make around property rights and all that, i personally don't care if other communities want to have different arrangements internally, even if they don't particularly want to 'integrate'.
where i live, the imperative to integrate is only extended to brown people, while certain tribes (in the rurik sense of the word) are very deliberately segregated from everyone else and no one seems to mind.
tbh i think we could all do with re-education given the state of the education system and the edifice of lies that our entire perception of reality is based upon.
You're a smarter man then me it seems. But I'm glad we had this conversation and appreciate your detailed responses.
Your new “Christian” admirer (whom LOVES to Hate you) sounds like a (bible) cult member because Christians ain’t supposed to Hate y’all. (Tolerance leads to understanding leads to love, as in, Love your enemies “) cognitive dissonance aside he probably can’t pin down what your getting at because a bible verse doesn’t immediately come to mind to validate or defy your point.
As for “multipolarity” sounds like controlled opposition (SMO?) “Our Democracy” is a two horse race & the oligarchy owns both horses, the track, the bar & restaurant, & all the bookies. Place your bets on the new multi coin, rival to the greenback, stealth CBDC.
If they were anyway serious about dissolving the dollar dominance they would issue a gold backed currency or get real & buy a million Bitcoin
But I do hate you, Rurik. The more correct you are, the more inarticulable my loathing becomes!
I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "Team Z" or "Zanon"; but I havent found the ideas you straw-manned to be particularly complicated -- nor even fully incompatible with your view.
> All I understood was that through some military tech sorcery, Russia was significantly superior in military tech to all NATO equivalent weapon systems.
Russia, China, and Iran have (i) hypersonic weapons, and (ii) national industrial capacity to produce large amounts of munitions -- Russia on its own appears able to outproduce the West. This is just observation of empirical fact. I speculate that the reason for this is that the primary goal of US weapons programs is monetary and political profit, while parallel institutions see the strategic defense goal as paramount. This difference can largely be attributed to complacency in the face of perceived dominance. None of this is relevant to the globalist thesis.
> I also never really understood why Putin’s speeches were allegedly so clever and so much better than the speeches of Western politicians.
Agreed.
> More interesting is the deeper discussion on what “multipolarity” even is, really.
This is the BRICS sleight-of-hand at work.
My etymological reading is that the "multipolar world" terminology is in reference to the "unipolar moment," a term that came to dominate foreign policy discourse following the collapse of the Soviet Union and which meant, in practice, that the US (or western globalist elites) can reshape the world as it (they) sees fit.
As such "Multipolar world" is often misused, in effect, to mean "whatever system comes to dominate if and when Western hegemony collapses." As such (1) the more narrow definition of many "poles" of influence is only one possible post-unipolar outcome and (2) as you rightly point out, it is an inherently globalist idea. "World" is in the name ffs. It's not called "the federated anarcho-commune post-national scenario." I never quite got it when people see it as an alternative to globalism - it's just a similar system but with different actors (I suspect you disagree on their being "different actors" - i address this more fully below)
> In fact, as I discussed before, “Multipolarism” is a term used to describe the literal opposite of what is actually being built.
The hope is that "whatever is after" will be better than what is happening now. If you live somewhere where the International Order is bending you over, then this is likely to be true. And if you believe the narrative that the US is going the way of Rome and pillaging the heartland for the purpose of military and oligarchic excess, then you are also going to believe that the alternative has a good shot of being better.
But it is still replacing one globalist elite with another, and hoping that the latter might be more principled, and might build institutions more able to resist being captured for a bit longer.
> The process to “multipolarize” the world is actually the process by which the world is globalized even further, and local elites deputized to carry out the globalization agenda in their own regions.
I guess I would quibble with "even further." The world is already fully globalized. The interests of the global elite - and the culture of the global elite - are dominant. The current elite has, however, fallen out of favor, and so it is appealing to want to swap them for a more desirable-looking set. This is BRICS.
I welcome some clarification on your point here. Do you mean increased centralization (world governance), increased totalitarianism (fully subsuming local elite interests to global ones), or something else? Could not a system of strictly bilateral national treaties still be suborned by an international oligarchy?
Anyway, my thesis is that the BRICS bruhaha is basically the desire and hope that there is a better class of elites out there. Maybe I am naive, but I cling to this hope. In fact I hope that most of them live in the US and come to dominate its politics, but failing that I will settle for BRICS.
But are they actually a different set of elites?
> Of course, all the proofs that we have in the media and on the ground, so to speak, are proofs that Putin is indeed pro-West, pro-Multikulti, pro-Israel and so on
> Thus, Putin is willing to fight back, but only in a limited way; the goal isn’t to topple Globalism though, but to negotiate a better place in the pecking order for the Kremlin and his buddies
I think you're trying to make the point that there is no substantive difference between Western elites (represented by Washington) and Eastern elites (represented by Putin).
The demonstrations given show that it is often in the interest of Eastern elites to align themselves with Western elites. Indeed, this is how the Western elite has grown during the unipolar moment (especially by toppling elites that didnt quite see their interests in this way).
But that is not to say that these interests cannot diverge. I am of the opinion that they have.
> This brings us full circle to the concept of Convergence again — the process by which the elite of East and West were supposed to converge into one globalist elite.
The "were" here is interesting. Not "are." Do you hold out hope that they may diverge?
Regarding military industry in Russia, I would refer you to my three part essay translations on “Why the SMO” where this idea is debunked. Actually it was Dr Livci but still.
As for what multipolarism really is that’s not my forte. I refer you to the interview I did with Iain Davis. He seems to be familiar with the literature. And Slavsquat goes into the details of how it is being rolled out in Russia. Perhaps 009 is also worth recommending because he also covers the same topic and seems to have done his homework.
On unipolarity vs multipolarity, I'm reminded of Adam Smith's description of capitalists as greedy and his notion that their main virtue was that they are constantly trying to undercut each other.
Let's say you had a Russian system run by greedy oligarchs. It still gives nationalists such as Hungary's Orban some breathing room as long as there's genuine competition between the different centers of power.
The real danger is if the real control rests with just one group. The US has a large number of resources to coerce all countries to follow US policies: including assassinations, military threats and "color revolution" threats.
A small group of people with unlimited resources can coopt all power to themselves. I read an article stating that the head of Iranian counter-intelligence and his staff just up and defected to Israel. Apparently they were working for Mossad for years. That's why they could assassinate anyone they wanted in Iran.
Bravo, very simple and clear. Nothing complicated or confusing. Thanks for this.