Interrogating “Multipolarity”: A Response to “Understanding Power Dynamics”

Iain Davis & Catte Black

This piece is a response to an article originally published by UKColumn which challenges the position of OffG (and others) on the conflicts in Ukraine and Israel, maintaining that “traditional” geopolitics remains a vital topic for the alternate media, and that multipolarity continues to represent a positive alternative to Western Imperialism.

This response puts a second case, arguing that what some might call “multipolarity” does NOT represent any real alternative – and that neither “side”, whatever the depth of the objections to each other – have the welfare of ordinary people as their goal.

In the interest of fairness we will be publishing this response and the original by Piers Robinson and Vanessa Beeley simultaneously.


The article titled “Understanding Power Dynamics and Moving Beyond Divisions: Covid19 through to Ukraine and Israel/Palestine” is written by the eminently qualified propaganda and disinformation scholar, Professor Piers Robinson, and renowned journalist and activist Vanessa Beeley and is herein referred to as the “RB-piece”.

It presents a number of fascinating and well constructed arguments, as well as, we suggest, some rather weaker contentions and a few rather serious and glaring omissions and/or fallacies.

There is much that we agree with in the RB-piece, ie –

  • The identified lack of any kind of “functioning democracy,”
  • The need to oppose “demonstrably corrupt and unrepresentative power elites,”
  •  The importance of abandoning “the left-right paradigm,”
  • Recognising “the scale of the struggle we face” and building a world “united against an oligarchical tyranny. “

These are all points of agreement between us, and above all we agree that

In order to face that great power and to dismantle the projects with which it intends to destroy the world as we know it, we must form a cohesive and united Resistance front, one which is inclusive of East and West and everything in between. We must move beyond the left-right paradigms and understand that the rapacious predator class has no such limits or partitioning restrictions on its strategy. Neither should we.

Our only caveat is to clarify what an inclusive “East and West and everything in between” means.

If it means that humanity should be free from all forms of oppression, then we are in full agreement.

However, the subtext of the RB-piece apparently advocates that humanity could free itself via the proposed “multipolar world order”.

We respectfully and entirely disagree with this idea and, on the contrary, suggest we should oppose the multipolar world order just as vigorously as we might any other model of tyranny.

We hope this  response will explain why.

Overarching Concepts

The concept of “power axes” is key to the RB-piece. Seen through the lens of the policy derived destruction wrought by the “Covid-19 event,” the power axis that exploited this event to “concentrate power” is said to have a “distinctly international, or global, dimension to it.”

The associated notion of a “globalist technocratic agenda [. . .] that is propelling us into a globalised technocratic order” is identified, and this “technocratic agenda” is attributed to a global-public private partnership (G3P) power axis pursuing the global “technocratic order.”

The RB-piece defines this suggested G3P power axis as:

[. . .] multiple governments [. . .]”in particular, the US, China, UK and Germany/EU”, international organisations such as the UN and WHO, plus influential think tanks like the WEF as well as powerful banking and financial actors.”

The second identified power axis is the “Western Empire”—the US and its allies and its “so-called military-industrial complex (MIC).”

The Western Empire is described as driving “the continued projection of power by the US and its allies” through military aggression in places like Ukraine and Gaza.

The G3P, on the other hand, is described as pursuing the “concentration of power” in the hands of a so-called “elite” and is further clarified as:

an attempt to consolidate the biosecurity regimes trialled during the early phases of the Covid19 event.

The World Health Organisation’s (WHOs) push toward a global pandemic preparedness accord (treaty) and proposed amendment of the current International Health Regulations (IHR) is also cited as an example of the G3P’s “emerging biosecurity architecture.”

It is firmly asserted in the RB-piece that both the G3P power grab and the military exploits of the Western Empire

represent clear and present threats to the lives and well-being of people.

Based upon these offered concepts of two discrete power axes and their related processes, a number of theories are broached in the RB-piece.

Hypothesis 1 is that the G3P and Western Empire objectives and processes are aligned and consideration is given to the possibility that “the same elite power networks” are responsible for fuelling both the wars and the biosecurity regimes.”

Hypothesis 2 floats the possibility that the G3P, while committed to the concentration of power, has within it divergent national interests more concerned with “material and security interests”. This scenario implies that “major powers such as the US, China and Russia [are] pushing forward with the development of global biosecurity regimes whilst resource and security driven conflicts roll on.”

Hypothesis 3 proposes that the G3P, rather than being “global” is more closely aligned to “Western-centric elite power networks” and suggests that both the G3P power grab and Western military imperialism “might be explicable as part of Western Imperialism.”

It is this third suggested scenario of an essential conflation between the G3P (globalist) forces and “Western Imperialism” that provides the basis for the remainder of RB-piece’s analysis, and, while some brief consideration is given to the possibility that a more global network (G3P) is aligned with Western Empire, it is through said “Western Imperialism” and a “Western-based” cartel of public-private interests (W3P), that we are encouraged to understand the suggested global “power dynamic.”

The (undeniable) violent crimes of “Western Imperialism” are the piece’s focus.

And it is here, we suggest, that the piece’s internal arguments become strained and increasingly less credible.

Ukraine and the Middle East

Let’s begin this section by stating the obvious that empires are always evil and essentially anti-human. And the “Western Empire” has been no exception to this rule.

Let’s also make it clear that critiquing or examining other power structures in no way implies endorsement of empire.

We agree with RB that both their identified power axes “represent clear and present threats to the lives and well-being of people.” We agree that powerful public-private partnerships are “propelling us into a globalised technocratic order.” And equally we  agree that those pursuing “Western Imperialism” continue to slaughter the innocent.

However we suggest that the RB-piece’s over-simplified assertion of the ”Western Empire,” as essentially the sole driver of all evils, makes it hard for them to present a fully cohesive analysis of current events.
For example, it is suggested that the wars in Ukraine and the the ME (West Asia) are the result of

the continued projection of power by the US and its allies.

This is then juxtaposed with the following observations:

[. . .] whatever credibility the West possessed in the past is now being further, perhaps catastrophically, eroded.


[. . .] it is very difficult to imagine there being sufficient military, economic or ideational capacity necessary to win in the Ukraine or the Middle East, let alone engage any other major powers.”

Both of these observations are accurate, but the problem for the RB-piece is that they both fundamentally contradict their initial claim that these conflicts represent

the continued projection of power by the US and its allies.

There is clearly a problem in their reasoning here, because the 2022 war in Ukraine simply does not follow the previous pattern of “imperial conflict”.

For one thing – this phase of the longterm war in Ukraine was launched by Russia, who, in total refutation of its own past policy, invaded the territory of a sovereign nation – something hitherto in this century only ever undertaken by the Western empire and/or its satellites – and resulting in thousands of Ukrainian civilians being killed by Russian forces.

Of course Russia offered “justifications” for its actions at the UN, and some may find the “self-defense” argument persuasive in this case (though of course  the Western Empire has routinely used the very same argument to justify every bloodstained campaign it has ever undertaken).

But ultimately whether we accept the justification is irrelevant.

What signifies here is that the 2022 conflict in Ukraine was something new – an aggressive military campaign launched by Russia entirely abandoning its previous strategies in the region which it maintained over many years of gross provocation.

This sudden and dramatic policy shift  in itself, regardless of any other consideration, requires us to “update” our understanding of what forces might be at play.

While the US orchestrated Maidan coup and the following 8 year-long war in the Donbass was definitively a “projection of power by the US and its allies” it can be argued it was one of the last.

All the indications are that Russia is in the military ascendancy in Ukraine and that its “victory” is anticipated – with the Western legacy media propagandists now openly discussing their version of what Russia winning the war portends, and with the NATO arms supplies and funding for the Kyiv regime drying up.

Indeed it seems such a victory was never in much doubt. Speaking even before Russia shocked the world by entering the war in Ukraine, US President Joe Biden presciently said that Russia

[will] be able to prevail over time,

and added

militarily, they [Russia] have overwhelming superiority.

While there was much talk of making Russia pay economically for its military exploits, neither the US nor its NATO allies ever committed the necessary forces to actually defeat Russia in Ukraine. It looks as if, rather than aim for victory, the killing in Ukraine is prolonged by NATO drip feeding just enough support to enable “the war” to limp on.


Is this another example of Western Empire’s callous disregard for human life?


Is it anything as simple as “the continued projection of power by the US and its allies”?

We suggest  absolutely not.

Indeed it could be argued that what we witnessed in Ukraine could better be described as the “projection of power by the multipolar axis.”

If true – would this be a better state of affairs?

The hope, that Western Empire will cease its expansionist wars, is a heartening prospect, & there are many reasons, highlighted in the RB-piece, to welcome the end of the Western Empire’s projection of power.

However is it wise to assume “the erosion of the “Western Empire” will automatically lead to a better world?

Before we do that let’s examine the “multipolar axis,” its aims and objectives.

Are we looking at a simple binary here? Red versus Blue? East versus West? Unipolar versus Multipolar? Or is that very projection of simplicity something we need to be wary of?

In a section of the RB-piece, that we’ll cover in a moment, the subject of orchestrated “structural deep events,” i.e., manipulated major global events that have geopolitical and economic ramifications, are discussed. It seems Hamas’ Al-Aqsa Flood attack on Israel on October 7th was, at the very least, an Israeli LIHOP false flag attack.

That is to say, it appears to have been “orchestrated.”

If so, assuming Israel is part of the identified “Western Empire,” (a relationship that is apparently shifting) it could be argued that Hamas’ attack – lauded by many as a blow against Western tyranny – was in fact the “projection of power” by Western Empire.

Further evidence suggests this possibility.

It is unlikely that Hamas’ would exist in the form it does today without the support of the Israeli state. In addition, when US-led coalition sponsored an Islamist insurrection against the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad, Hamas backed the so-called rebels.

Essentially, Hamas aligned with US coalition and Israeli interests at the time.

Notably, the Hamas 7th October attack also served as a claimed casus beli for Israel. As pointed out in the RB-piece, its military response evidently “meets the criteria of genocide.”

Hamas isn’t actually mentioned in the RB-piece but the following is stated:

[. . .] the Israeli military action against Palestinians, introduce new dynamics. In recognition that conflict in Ukraine, Israel/Palestine and West Asia (alias the Middle East) is being driven by Western geo-political ambitions, not least of which concerns attempts to maintain US-led dominance of the global system.”

Once again, as in Ukraine, we are confronted with the apparently failed “projection” of Western Imperial power.

If this imbroglio is really an attempt “to maintain US-led dominance of the global system” it has been a strategic disaster from the outset, most notably through the overwhelming resistance it has faced in the United Nations (UN).

True, Israel has in the past been subject to censure following innumerable UN General Assembly resolution (A/Res) none of which it has ever been compelled to abide by. So, this condemnation is not entirely unique.

Nonetheless, the UN Secretary Generals condemnation of Israel’s military response to Al-Aqsa Flood at the UN Security Council was fairly remarkable.

Accusing Israel of operating a “suffocating occupation,” Antonio Guterres has effectively accused Israel of war crimes stating that nothing justifies

the collective punishment of the Palestinian people.

A subsequent UN resolution saw 153 countries unite against Israel’s evident genocide of Palestinians, demanding an immediate humanitarian ceasefire.

Meanwhile even the Western legacy media, such as CNN, MSNBC, ABC, Sky News and others were increasingly featuring the horrors of the Gaza slaughter & telling its readers that the US was looking “increasingly isolated on the world stage.”

Humanity has long understood that dying empires are dangerous beasts, but if the mass slaughter in Gaza was an attempt “to maintain US-led dominance of the global system,” it couldn’t have backfired more comprehensively.

For the RB-piece analysis to maintain internal sense, we have to assume at this stage that the strategic planners of Western Empire are, to say the least, catastrophically error prone and shortsighted.

This is, of course, entirely possible.

But the weakness of the RB-piece is that it offers the Western Empire as an all-powerful entity without serious opposition, which renders these abject failures as totally inexplicable.

How is it repeatedly failing at its own objectives?

Why does it increasingly appear like a demented and blood-soaked anachronism – when it allegedly has total control of how its actions are portrayed?

Why is it apparently incapable any longer of even giving itself consistently good press from its own controlled media?

We suggest this is not an accident.

We suggest there is very clear opposition to the continuation of Western Empire, not simply from its victims, but from within its own self.

We suggest the “multipolar axis” represent a rapidly emerging global power structure that has support, not only in the East, but from many of the most powerful stalwarts of the decaying Western Empire.

Offering A Different Analysis of the Global Power Dynamic

By omission, no criticism of the “multipolar global system” is offered by the RB-piece. We can therefore assume it is tacitly endorsed.

So, what is that model?

Recently, highlighting the danger of a declining Western Empire, the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, said:

[. . .] the West clings to elusive dominance, no one is safe from its geopolitical machinations. And such understanding is growing in the world. We feel this when communicating with partners in the international arena. Most of them agree with us that sooner or later our Western colleagues will have to accept the realities of a multipolar world, and then all issues will be resolved on the basis of a balance of interests.

The multipolar axis is led by the BRICS nations, including China, Russia, India and now with Saudi Arabia and Iran among them. Their shared objective is to construct a supposedly more “inclusive” model of “global governance.”

According to a joint statement issued by Presidents Xi and Putin, made less that 3 weeks before Russia officially entered the war in Ukraine, the envisaged multipolar world order, will establish a “a just multipolar system of international relations”:

Today, the world is going through momentous changes, and humanity is entering a new era of rapid development and profound transformation. It sees the development of such processes and phenomena as multipolarity, economic globalization, the advent of information society, cultural diversity, transformation of the global governance architecture and world order; there is increasing interrelation and interdependence between the States; a trend has emerged towards redistribution of power in the world.

There are some key multipolar concepts that we would like to highlight. The “momentous changes” are global and are considered part of the “rapid transformation” of humanity. This includes a “transformation of the global governance architecture.” In light of the “increasing interrelation and interdependence between the States,” this multipolar transformation is based upon a “redistribution” of global power, in all of its dimensions: political, military, economic, financial, social and cultural. The joint statement continued:

The sides [the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China] call on all States to pursue well-being for all and, with these ends, [. . .] protect the United Nations-driven international architecture and the international law-based world order, seek genuine multipolarity with the United Nations and its Security Council playing a central and coordinating role.

Essentially this is the same “world order” that has been until recently dominated by the “Western Empire.”

In the referenced Chinese and Russian joint statement, “mutipolarity” is claimed to be a better system of “global governance” because global problems will supposedly be

resolved on the basis of a balance of interests.

The lack of any notable divergence from the current “international ruled based order” (IRBO) is emphasised by the following elements of the joint statement.


[. . .] the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights set noble goals in the area of universal human rights, set forth fundamental principles, which all the States must comply with.

In multipolarity, the UN is the forum where the “balance of interests” will be judged. “All States must comply” with its balanced judgements.

How “balanced” it will be depends upon how you view stakeholder capitalism and public-private partnerships. The UN is a global governance organisation that is based upon both.

In 1998, then-UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan told the World Economic Forum’s Davos symposium that a “quiet revolution” had occurred in the UN 1990s:

[T]he United Nations has been transformed since we last met here in Davos. The Organization has undergone a complete overhaul that I have described as a “quiet revolution. [. . .] [W]e are in a stronger position to work with business and industry. [. . .] The business of the United Nations involves the businesses of the world. [. . .] We also promote private sector development and foreign direct investment. We help countries to join the international trading system and enact business-friendly legislation.

Manifestations of the UN’s “business-friendly” approach and commitment to public-private partnerships can be seen, giving just one example among countless others, in UN Resolution 70/224 which:

[. . .] reaffirms the [UN’s] strong political commitment to address the challenge of financing and creating an enabling environment at all levels for sustainable development particularly with regard to developing partnerships through the provision of greater opportunities to the private sector.

This commitment to a global governance system providing greater partnership opportunities for the private sector—a model of global fascism—is evident in our second quoted example from the joint statement:

Development is a key driver in ensuring the prosperity of the nations. The ongoing pandemic of the new coronavirus infection poses a serious challenge to the fulfillment of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. It is vital to enhance partnership relations for the sake of global [sustainable] development.

“Sustainable development” and fulfillment of Agenda 2030 SDGs, on the path to meeting Agenda 21, is a “key driver” in multipolarity. Partnerships are vital and all States must comply.


The sides reaffirm their focus on building the Greater Eurasian Partnership in parallel and in coordination with the Belt and Road construction to foster the development of regional associations as well as bilateral and multilateral integration processes for the benefit of the peoples on the Eurasian continent.

In the authors’ collective opinion, the “Greater Eurasian Partnership” is the dominant geopolitical “partnership” within of the “multipolar axis.” The Belt and Road Initiative is evidently an important component for the sustainable development of Greater Eurasian project.


The Russian side confirms its readiness to continue working on the China-proposed Global Development Initiative, including participation in the activities of the Group of Friends of the Global Development Initiative under the UN auspices. In order to accelerate the implementation of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the sides call on the international community to take practical steps in key areas of cooperation such as poverty reduction, food security, vaccines and epidemics control, financing for development, climate change, sustainable development, including green development, industrialization, digital economy, and infrastructure connectivity.

If this sounds like the same agenda you’ve heard from the talking heads of the Western Empire that’s because it is exactly the same agenda.

The only difference is that more “nation states” (meaning their appointed leaders of course, not the people) will supposedly have a say in the new “multipolar” version of global public-private governance.


The Heads of State positively assess the effective interaction between Russia and China in the bilateral and multilateral formats focusing on the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. [. . .] They will further increase cooperation in the development and manufacture of vaccines [. . .]. The sides have commended the work of the competent authorities and regions of the two countries on implementing quarantine measures in the border areas [. . .] and intend to consider establishing a joint mechanism for epidemic control and prevention [. . .] The sides plan to strengthen coordination on epidemiological measures to ensure strong protection of health, safety [. . .] The Russian side welcomes the work carried out jointly by China and WHO to identify the source of the new coronavirus infection and supports the China “WHO joint report on the matter.

The “Covid-19 event” is the only concentration of power “process” highlighted in the RB-piece. Consequently, the resistance to the “elite power networks” behind the reported power grab is named the “Covid resistance.” The “Covid-19 event” and the rollout of the biosecurity state was not restricted to the West plus China. It was a truly global power grab “process” in our view.

The “multipolar” governments of Russia, Iran, Israel, India, Brazil, South Africa and Hamas—the government of Gaza—also followed the same “globalist technocratic agenda” and are all committed to the same global “biosecurity state.” If the “Covid resistance” is going to be united then it needs to mount opposition to these governments too.


No State can or should ensure its own security separately from the security of the rest of the world and at the expense of the security of other States. The international community should actively engage in global governance to ensure universal, comprehensive, indivisible and lasting security. [. . .] The Russian side reaffirms its support for the One-China principle, confirms that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China, and opposes any forms of independence of Taiwan.

It’s a little ambiguous perhaps, but multipolarity appears to suggest a potential global security force of some sort, under the command of UN administered public-private global governance.

The apparent potential for a “world army” is seemingly mooted.

That multipolarity embraces the One-China “principle” is far less ambiguous. Taiwanese independence is not recognised by the UN. However, while we should be very wary of opinion polls, especially as reported by the legacy media, there appears to be considerable support for independence in Taiwan.

The Chinese government’s “principle” is a claimed right to incorporate Taiwan into its jurisdiction, by force if necessary.

Regardless of the merits or shortcomings of the Taiwanese independence argument, there is clearly nothing inherently “peaceful” about multipolarity in this instance.


The sides condemn terrorism in all its manifestations, promote the idea of creating a single global anti-terrorism front, with the United Nations playing a central role, advocate stronger political coordination and constructive engagement in multilateral counterterrorism efforts.

There is nothing in the concept of multipolarity that suggests an end to the “war on terror.” In fact the potential for a greatly expanded, global “counterterrorism” effort is raised by multipolarity.


The sides reiterate their readiness to deepen cooperation in the field of international information security and to contribute to building an open, secure, sustainable and accessible ICT [information and communication technology] environment. [. . .] yThe sides [. . .] support the work of the relevant Ad Hoc Committee of Governmental Experts, facilitate the negotiations within the United Nations for the elaboration of an international convention on countering the use of ICTs for criminal purposes.

The UN’s “ad hoc committee” (AHC) is working to develop an International Convention on Countering the Use of Information and Communications Technologies for Criminal Purposes: a so-called UN Cybercrime Treaty.

The “ad hoc committee” is not comprised of just “governmental experts.” The claim made in the joint statement is deceptive. The UN reports:

[. . .] non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council are invited to participate in the work of the Ad Hoc Committee [. . .], civil society organizations, academic institutions and private sector organizations [. . .] are also invited to participate in the sessions.

The list of “stakeholders” that are participating in the “ad hoc committee,” formulating a Global Cybercrime Treaty, include Microsoft, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC UK)—whose members include Deloitte, HSBC, IBM, AIG and the Bank of China—and Google.

The purpose of the envisaged UN Cybercrime Treaty is to criminalise the sharing of information that:

may have an adverse impact on States, enterprises and the well-being of individuals and society.

The Chinese government is among those eager to use the treaty to criminalise the “dissemination of false information.”

What constitutes “false information” will be decreed by “multipolar” public-private global governance.
Multipolarity embraces both stakeholder capitalism and global public-private partnership.

It advocates the control of information by the diktat of an allegedly preferable model of global governance.

The multipolar world order will determine when the spreading of “disinformation”—the dissemination of “false information”—constitutes a crime.

Public-private global governance, with the Greater Eurasian Partnership at the heart of the “multipolar axis” leading the way, will censor and prosecute accordingly, as it sees fit.

We have to ask – do the authors of the RB-piece really endorse this model for the future    of humanity?

Of course, there are also many positive multipolar selling points highlighted in the joint statement.

The offer of a more balanced distribution of global power, clear resistance to the military expansionism of “Western Empire,” a stated commitment to nuclear non-proliferation and a call to withdraw nuclear weapons from overseas territories and re-instigate nuclear and chemical weapons agreements are all suggested.

These are vitally important global issues of concern and the “multipolar axis” apparent wish to resolve them shouldn’t simply be dismissed.

But is the global prison implied by the whole spectrum of “multipolarity” really the only, or best, way to achieve an end to war and the threat of nuclear annihilation?

By conspicuous omission it appears the authors of the RB-piece believe this to be so.

This represents the primary divergence from the alternative analysis we offer here.

We do not believe that any form of global governance is either warranted or beneficial for humanity.

Further, we suggest that the idea that multipolarity represents any real divergence from the long-established power dynamics of the imperial West is severely challenged by the fact multipolarity is supported by many highly influential elements of “Western Empire.”

We suggest it is not distinct from the concentration of power “process” and that it is being promoted overtly by the East but also surreptitiously by elements in the West whose interests are also aligned with those of the multipolar axis.

We consider a multipolar world order to represent the fulfillment of the ambitions of a truly global-public-private partnership.

A G3P rather than a W3P.

The purpose of the “multipolar world order” is to exert oligarchical control over humanity through governments “partnerships” controlled by the United Nations (UN) which is, in our view, a global public-private partnership.

A historical perspective on Western-Centric Multipolar Partnership

There are numerous voices, especially among the so-called Western “elite,” that have long advocated what we would today call a “multipolar world order.”

For example the Anglo-American Establishment, whose activities were catalogued by Professor Carroll Quigley, reportedly sought to establish a post WWI “three power world.”

Similarly the Rockefellers, who were instrumental in the creation of the UN, commissioned their Special Studies Project, led by Henry Kissinger, which published its final Prospects for America Report in 1961. The UN global governance system it envisaged was the multipolar world order:

The hoped-for result is peace in a world divided into smaller units, but organised and acting in common effort to permit and assist progress in economic, political, cultural and spiritual life. [. . .] It would presumably consist of regional institutions under an international body of growing authority” combined so as to be able to deal with those problems that increasingly the separate nations will not be able to resolve alone. [. . .] The United Nations [is] the international organisation that today holds out the reasonable hope of being able to take over more and more functions and to assume increasingly large responsibilities. [. . .] The spirit and the letter of the Charter [. . .] gives more than lip service to the indispensable world order[.]
[PFA p. 26 & 33]

Both the World Economic Forum’s misnamed publication “Covid-19: The Great Reset” and the most hawkish Western policy think-tanks, such as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), promote the notion of a “regionalised” or multipolar world. For example, the CFR wote:

Regionalization has enhanced economic competitiveness and prosperity in Asia and Europe. It could do the same for the United States, if only it would embrace its neighbors.”

But perhaps the clearest “Western-centric” support for the multipolar axis’ plan is found among the global financial establishment. Speaking in 2019 at the Jackson Hole central bankers symposium, then governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney said:

Any unipolar [monetary] system is unsuited to a multi-polar world. We would do well to think through every opportunity, including those presented by new technologies, to create a more balanced and effective system. [. . .] [A] multi-polar global economy requires a new IMFS [International Monetary and Financial System] to realise its full potential. [. . .] Let’s end the malign neglect of the IMFS and build a system worthy of the diverse, multi-polar global economy that is emerging.”

Far from opposing a multipolar world order, there are powerful—including perhaps the most powerful—Western-centric actors who desire it.

They have collectively kept multipolarity in mind for generations.

As highlighted by Sergei Lavrov, the claimed “dominance” of Western Empire is definitely “elusive.”

Its apparent rank failure to “project” any kind of dominance in Ukraine, coupled with its resounding propaganda and political defeat in the Middle East, thoroughly contradicts the notion of its continued dominance.

But these aren’t the only examples of the Western Empire apparently bleeding out.

At an extraordinary meeting of the G20, in response to Israel’s attack on Palestinians, Vladimir Putin was among the global leaders, including UN general Secretary Antonio Guterres, to harshly criticise Israel. Putin stated:

Are you not shocked by the extermination of civilians in Palestine and the Gaza Strip today? Is it not shocking that doctors have to operate on children “do abdominal surgeries“ and use a scalpel on a child’s body without anaesthesia? Did it not shock you when the UN Secretary-General said that Gaza has turned into a huge children’s cemetery?”

Strong words, and well said. Which isn’t unusual for Putin. He is a highly skilled communicator. He continued:

Dramatic transformation processes are underway in the world. New powerful global economic growth centres are emerging and gaining strength. A significant portion of global investment, trade and consumer activity is shifting to the Asian, African and Latin American regions, which are home to the majority of the world’s population.”

That is exactly what we are seeing. It is an ongoing global “process” that is absent from the analysis of global power dynamics offered in the RB-piece.

Not just global investment but resources too, are flooding to the East and the South, and much of it is flowing from Western Empire.

It is hard to see how China’s economic miracle could have unfolded as it did without the foreign direct investment (FDI) it received from Western-centric “elites” and the governments, or rather the taxpayers, they own.

Given The RB-piece’ exclusive focus on the “Covid-19 event” they might find it instructive that, while there was a sharp decline in total global FDI during 2020 – it continued to rise in China. In fact, while FDI in other advanced economies collapsed, China benefited from FDI valued at $163 billion.

The 4% increase of FDI in China in 2020 saw it temporarily surpass the US as the world’s leading recipient of direct investment.

And the Western-centric “elite” have shown no less enthusiasm to invest in Multipolar China post-covid.

For example, BlackRock, and the Western oligarchs who invest through it, decided to make an sizeable investments in China’s “state-owned” hydrocarbon giant PetroChina.

The China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) is among the largest “fossil fuel” energy companies in the world. It deals in both gas and oil and PetroChina is its publicly listed arm.

But this is a global public-private partnership, and so BlackRock have also supported China’s oligarchs to invest internationally.

In 2019, Larry Fink, the chairman of BlackRock, the world’s largest investment firm, leading on the corporation’s Chinese investment strategy, told investors:

[. . .] the Chinese are looking for greater participation of global firms in their asset management space [. . .] We hope to have a majority-controlled asset management [business] in China and we are very engaged with the Chinese regulators.

Engagement with Chinese regulators was very profitable for BlackRock. It was the first to receive a license from the Chinese state to operate a wholly owned onshore mutual fund for Chinese investors.

While BlackRock acquiesced to pressure from US regulators to shut down its Chinese “offshore” fund, in an open snub to the US state, it reportedly stated that its investment commitment in China was “steadfast” and that it has no intention of terminating its “onshore funds that have raised money in China.”

The RB-piece’s exploration of public-private partnerships infers that they are “western-centric.” The suggestion is that the “elite power networks” responsible for managing the process of the “concentration of power” are more or less, exclusively Western.

The facts demonstrate clearly otherwise.

To be clear:

BlackRock currently operates a mutual fund in China enabling wealthy Chinese investors to actively engage in the suggested “concentration of power” process anywhere in the world:

The Fund follows an asset allocation policy that seeks to maximise total return in a manner consistent with the principles of environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing. [. . .] The Fund invests globally at least 80% of its total assets excluding cash and derivatives, in Collective Investment Schemes (CIS) and investment strategies which pursue a positive ESG objective or outcome.

The “Covid-19 event” is not the only power hungry process underway. Nor is the emerging “biosecurity state” the only envisaged social control mechanism.

For example, Sustainable Development, complete with its commitment to a global digital ID, alleged financial inclusion, and its avid promotion of national debt as a means of financing “sustainable development” in every country—especially the poorest—is another notable power grab “event” or “process.”

The RB-piece lacks any notable exploration of international finance and banking. There is no acknowledgment of the global rollout of CBDC (digital money), digital ID, SDGs, the 4IR, etc.

While we appreciate it is not possible to include an analysis of everything in the limited form of an article, to omit any mention of these “processes” in an investigation of global power dynamics is an oversight in our view. Again, speaking at the extraordinary G20 meeting, Putin added:

Market turbulence is on the rise. Chronic issues in the international financial sector, as well as energy and food security challenges, are intensifying. [. . .] Russia advocates restoring the spirit of open and mutually beneficial international economic cooperation based on the UN Charter [. . .] It is important to achieve an effective optimisation of the global economic governance system, in particular, to restart the WTO in its entirety, including its arbitration function. [. . .] We need to enhance the role of developing economies in international financial institutions, including the IMF and the World Bank.”

Just like Klaus Schwab and all of Putin’s Western political counterparts, Putin sees a “polycrises” in the world that can only be resolved with better global “economic governance” led by reformed institutions like the IMF and the World Bank. This should all fall under the collective authority represented by the UN’s model of public-private global governance.

Global stakeholder capitalism if you will.

A commitment to sustainable development, digital transformation, net zero, natural asset companies (“sequestration in forests.”), carbon trading, censorship (information security) and so on, is all apparently essential, according to the President of the Russian Federation.

To be explicitly clear:

We see no evidence to suggest any reason why Western-centric “elites” have anything to fear from a multipolar world order. Which may explain why many promote it today, just as their historical “networks” have for decades.

The “Subliminal White Supremacy” slur

The RB-piece several times references an allegedly “right-dominated Covid resistance”, which seems strange given:

a) that the authors were themselves part of the “covid resistance” but would not, we suggest, ever refer to themselves as “right-wing”

b) the authors themselves call for an end of such easy and misleading labeling and for a “united resistance”

This is yet another major internal contradiction of their piece that needs to be reconciled.

It would seem manifestly obvious that there is nothing inherently “right-wing” in questioning the pandemic narrative and we are astonished to see it suggested in this piece.

But sadly it doesn’t end there. Not content with invoking the very left-right divisive tropes it claims to deplore, the RB-piece then strays into incoherent vitriol with  the ultimate slur of “white supremacism”.

[. . .] the Palestinian people have priorities that need addressing that are more urgent than any emerging global-level political and economic structures. They are fighting for their existence in Palestine. Indeed, one could argue there is a level of subliminal white supremacism in the argumentation that conflicts in Ukraine and Palestine or the wider West Asia region are little more than distractions that will facilitate the Western-centric dystopian governance regime.

This attempt to smear by association  has no merit in our view.

It is also a textbook trick of legacy media propagandists.

There is literally NOTHING “white supremacist” about criticism of the “multipolar axis” or indeed about considering the possibility of war being used for purposes of distraction.

Nor does the possibility of lives being sacrificed for cynical and undeclared political ends in any way diminish the tragedy of their loss.

We hope the authors of the RB-piece rethink the inclusion of such silliness in an otherwise perfectly rational analysis.

On a connected but slightly less contentious note, the RB-piece suggests:

For Western-based writers and researchers, it is perhaps easier to engage with threats posed to their own lives and well-being and those of fellow Westerners. This might create a propensity to prioritise critique of the Covid19 event. But this should not be done at the expense of support for those at the receiving end of the Western Empire’s firepower in places such as Gaza and Syria.”

This offered advice appears to draw a distinction between “Western-based” journalists and what we might call the “on-the-ground” journalists reporting directly from places like Gaza and Syria.

A distinction can certainly be made. The courage exhibited by on-the-ground war correspondents isn’t required if you are presently analysing global power axes from the relative safety of, for example, London or Moscow, or Berlin, although it is perhaps a little odd that it seems only Western-based writers are singled out for this criticism.

However,  while “Western-based” journalists might prioritise any number of critiques over others, the inference that they per se can’t possibly understand suffering, or have no experience of it themselves, strays close to some highly speculative “virtue signalling.”

More importantly perhaps the RB-piece roots this  allegation in the a priori assumption that the Palestinian people face a “Western-centric dystopian governance regime.”

However, we have already presented an alternative analysis that suggests this is fundamentally inaccurate and that the ”dystopian governance regime” is multipolar, public-private in nature and not merely “Western-centric.”

To present one example very relevant to the RB-piece contention, the Israeli state has deployed a digital ID based surveillance grid against Palestinians. It is so draconian, in 2014, former members of Israel’s infamous Unit 8200 wrote a joint letter expressing their dismay to the Israeli government over its vice like control of Palestinian’s whereabouts and activities.

Many of the facial recognition cameras, and the associated “identification” software systems, used by Israel to oppress and target Palestinians are supplied by the “multipolar” Chinese majority state owned technology corporation Hikvision.

Amnesty international has called this surveillance operation “automated apartheid.” For its part in the Palestinian “lockdowns” and oppressive restrictions, and its complicity in the targetting of Palestinians, Hikvision-Israel states:

Hikvision is committed to serving various industries through its cutting-edge technologies of machine perception, artificial intelligence, and big data, leading the future of AIoT [artificial intelligence of things]: Through comprehensive machine perception technologies, we aim to help people better connect with the world around them.”

Israel’s state partnership with the Chinese state is restricting Palestinians movements, identifying them for both Israeli settler and state violence and cutting them off from “the world around them.”
Perhaps this partnership shouldn’t come as a surprise.

Israel is participating in the Chinese government’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). For example, the Chinese Shanghai International Port Group (SIPG) corporation built the enormous automated port in Haifa as part of the BRI.

Between 1992 and 2017 the volume of overall trade between Israel and China multiplied 200 times over.

Alongside Israel’s possession of its own nuclear arsenal, Israel’s role as a conduit for Western military and industrial technology transfers to China is perhaps one of the world’s worst kept “secrets.”

While occasional gripes from “Western Empire” have been aired, the fact that Israel is known to provide China access to this technology has never deterred the Western Empire from handing it over.

The Palestinian priority is indeed to survive, but they are “fighting for their existence” against a multipolar threat.

This multipolar threat is also the “emerging global-level political and economic” structure.

It is the overarching power axis and it is inextricably intertwined with, not mutually exclusive of, the threats faced by the Palestinians.

To point this out is not to “distract” from the appalling suffering of the Palestinians.

On the contrary, it is an attempt to highlight the totality of the power axes oppressing them.

Assuming that it is only the Western Empire that is subjecting them to tyranny is not only wrong, it runs the risk of “uniting the resistance” against a poorly defined adversary.

As Sun Tsu said:

[. . .] If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

The RB-piece alleges that much of the analysis presented in this opinion piece lacks historical context, is narrow and myopic, etc. Again, the vitriol seems strangely out of context, but misplaced accusations aside, one point is worthy of further, final reply.

There also appears to be little analysis of how people in so-called Global South nations actually feel about the global future or how they instinctively pivot towards the East, having suffered untold horrors at the hands of the West’s military-industrial complex for most of their existence. [. . .] [U]ntil we start to take full responsibility for the misery inflicted by historic strategies still supported today [by] Western regimes, we will never address key root causes of world subjugation. While we address what we consider to be a universal dystopian future, we must also simultaneously address the liberation of the nations we have enabled our governments to prey upon, destroy, rape and plunder. We can’t fight dystopia while dismissing, marginalising or ignoring those already living in it.

For Palestinians a “pivot towards the East” in the hope of at least some relief from the violence of Western Empire might be understandable – but given that the “East,” certainly in the form of China, is complicit in their present destruction, how much “liberation” will they actually be afforded by a multipolar “saviour”?

Is this not a rather crucial – if not THE crucial – question?

The Palestinian people gain nothing from our support if we refuse to engage with geopolitical reality.

And part of that reality is that the new “multipolar world order” is currently testing its control mechanisms on Palestinians—and many other people around the world—in “partnership” with Israel.

It is also “projecting” its military might in Europe.

To assume this “axis” will “liberate” anyone seems an extremely optimistic and wildly premature conclusion.

To not even acknowledge the existence of the “multipolar axis” or give any consideration to the the nature of the public-private global governance regime it is attempting to construct, leaves the analysis of global “power dynamics,” offered in the RB-piece, wanting.

We hope this opinion piece is part of the “start” to a dialogue that will genuinely contribute, in some small way, toward a “united resistance.”

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.


If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.

For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.

4.6 52 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jan 28, 2024 4:24 AM

You don’t really need to go past the Former Premier of Victoria (Australia), the Honourable Mr Dan Andrews. He signed Victoria up to BRICS, when Australia was strongly Unipolar, and then enforced the most ridiculous Lock Down on the Planet, that made every other nation state seem civilised.

Its simple:

The Uni Power Neo Conservative Order that took over form the Cold War Multipolar Order in the 90’s, has run up the biggest real estate bubble ever, and needs to be rescued by their old cold war buddies (multipolar system).

What is really needed is that the obvious con jobs of the 20th Century need to be exposed.

You may as well go all the way!!!!!!!!!

Space Force. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AUXpnB065o

Voltaria Voltaire
Voltaria Voltaire
Feb 3, 2024 12:44 AM

Great laughs are the best seasoning for the horror and makes it easier to confront the rotting reality. Space Force.

chuck fall
chuck fall
Jan 23, 2024 6:06 PM

I accept the criticism that looking toward a “multipolar” as salvation from Western domination is misguided. I accept that the UN and other global non-governmental agencies are effectively owned and controlled by a globalist elite and that ‘multipolarity’ misses the problem for domination by an elite class, but only moves the chairs on a sinking Titanic. I think a general critique of power and domination needs to be met with a call for an Egalitarian Revolution, but I will leave it up to the readers to explore this idea if they want. Here is a link to my green liberty site that provides links to John Spritzler’s substack where he argues for an E. R. https://greenlibertycaucus.org/in-solidarity-with-egalitarian-revolution/

Jan 23, 2024 3:27 PM

“I care not how many poles there are in the multi anything empire. As long as the BIS controls the issue of credit, digital or physical to the central banks of the world, it matters not a jot, and I control the BIS.” Lord Moneybags in conversation with himself.

j t
j t
Jan 23, 2024 12:06 AM

Interesting if painfully long, but for my part your saying, “But ultimately whether we accept the justification is irrelevant,” unfortunately makes your piece irrelevant. Why? Because you remove the absolute relevance of that justification in order to make your hypothesis relevant! Fine. Be that way. But you will, IMO, be proven to be out of touch with reality and irrelevant to what is coming.

Jan 21, 2024 8:09 PM

We hope this opinion piece is part of the “start” to a dialogue that will genuinely contribute, in some small way, toward a “united resistance.”

what resistance?

Sam - Admin2
Sam - Admin2
Jan 21, 2024 9:02 PM
Reply to  dominic

Resisting a narrative is to speak out against that narrative. In an Information Age, during an information war, perhaps this is more impactful than you’d think? If you want to organise your own movement or some other form of resistance, like a protest or a boycott or a pitchfork-weilding mob, knock yourself out! 🙂 You can update us of your progress here. A2

Turning Moment
Turning Moment
Jan 21, 2024 11:27 AM

The image that comes to mind reading these two articles…

Somehow six full grown bull elephants have been squashed into a living room. Person A is pressed against the old upright piano in the corner, person B is half impaled by an elephantine tusk against the window. Both are knee deep in excrement and the conversation goes something like this :
“I think that there is too much furniture in the room, that is the problem, too much furniture restricting our movements”.
“You might be right, but I tend to focus in the lack of ventilation, we need to open the window and let some air in”.

All parties seem to agree that the Left-Right paradigm is divisive and fruitless, yet the core arguments in these pieces are rooted in Leftwing conceptualisations (particularly around Israel and its relations to the geopolitical world).

Jan 21, 2024 11:18 AM

I had posted a critical comment the basis of which is why is no one mentioning the Horizon Scandal? ( It did not appear, whilst off topic I contend it was relevant.)

In Short
“The Horizon Scandal has all the makings of nicely encapsulating what the system has become and how it evolved from the 1995-96 procurement under Peter Lilley and through all administrations since.
I Checked on Off Guardian and there is no mention of it ever in the search terms I used.
Watching the ITV drama and the Panorama of 2020 is enough to get and keep “One” thinking.”

It is the perfect morality tale and one in which looking away is not a necessary knee jerk reaction such as say Terror or War or indeed lack of relatability with larger scale cases say Noel Edmunds and Lloyds Bank.

Geopolitics is of course important, Politics also is important and was actually relevant when it still existed. My question is this, does Geopolitics still exist?
For Domestic Politics there used to be a simple left right story, for geo politics then there was/is Neo-conservatism and Neo-Liberalism, Perhaps Globalism and Internationalism is a better binary for geo politics.

Have Geo politics and Local politics merged essentially Multipolarity or Globalist (US Hegenomy) seem to be hard to separate, in both domestic and international politics there is a Uni-Party. Has politics been replaced by factionalism.at both National and international scales?

British India Resources, Rise of Oil, and Middle East Control
During the British colonial rule in India, the country was a significant source of natural resources that fueled the British Empire’s economic growth. These resources included cotton, jute, tea, and spices, which were exported to Britain and other parts of the world.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the discovery of vast oil reserves in the Middle East, particularly in the Persian Gulf region, transformed the geopolitical landscape. The control of these oil resources became a strategic objective for major powers, including Britain, as oil became essential for powering industries, navies, and transportation.
Britain played a crucial role in securing access to Middle Eastern oil, particularly through its control over key territories such as Aden, Egypt, and the Persian Gulf. The British government established protectorates and alliances with local rulers to maintain its influence and protect its oil interests.
The rise of oil and the strategic importance of the Middle East had a profound impact on British foreign policy and military engagements in the region. Britain sought to maintain its dominance over these resources, leading to conflicts and tensions with other powers, such as the Ottoman Empire and later the United States.
In summary, British India’s resources, the rise of oil, and the control of the Middle East were interconnected factors that shaped the course of history and continue to influence global politics and economics to this day.

Whether the Multi or the Uni factions are winning out essentially Direct control of local populations is the name of the game, and thats CBDC, Iain Davis has written extensively on that.

Neglected examples of the failures of deterministic Central Control systems.

Aadhaar card in India.

Horizon System in UK ( Post Office scandal )

As a practical person my question is with two clear and ongoing failures of Tech Based governance, would it not be a good idea to show how far the real world has been degraded as the theoretical model continues to bewitch and demand more attention than perhaps they need to?

Lost in a dark wood
Lost in a dark wood
Jan 21, 2024 12:24 PM
Reply to  roger

My question is this, does Geopolitics still exist?

Yes, very much so. Indeed, there’s effectively nothing but geopolitics. It’s like asking the fish “How’s the water?” And the fish replies “What water?”

Jan 21, 2024 1:44 PM

There were previously different Goldfish bowls and now just an ocean, The different Bowls would denote a politics of choice between bowls, Now there is one large bowl with different currents (Factions) but no politics per se.
This is the sense that there is GEO but no Politics.
Is it a Multi Polar or a Uni Polar System it s all the same big bowl but these are all abstract theoretical frameworks in which ultimately pointless arguments continue.

Two Centralised Control systems Aadhaar and The Post Office Horizon System show that at large National scales centralised command and control does not work my point is just to say that no one has to theorise larger structures around those two real life failing systems, this is where I would start focusing efforts to get back to a working system Uni Polar or not does not really enter into that discussion but solving both of those questions will cancel out the larger theoretical picture.

Lost in a dark wood
Lost in a dark wood
Jan 21, 2024 6:54 PM
Reply to  roger

The Multipolar World Order is a rebranding of the New World Order – and Kissinger was tasked with the implementation. Schwab and Putin are both Kissinger appointees – and everything implemented by the WEF was directed by Kissinger. As reported by Riley Waggaman, Putin’s policies are exactly the same as Davos.

I describe this as “geopolitics” because it’s an agenda by a globalist power structure (the Monolithic & Ruthless Conspiracy – MRC) to shape the entire world according to their specified model. Moreover, it’s being implemented without any meaningful input from local or national populations. Other countries are also advancing the same policies, but they may have different lines of reporting into the MRC. For instance, Israel implemented the green pass and the medical database.

One of the key geopolitical policies of the MRC was to make Europe (esp. Germany) dependent on Russian energy. Hence, the blocking of alternative pipelines through Syria or the Caspian; the shutting down of German nuclear capacity following the incidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima; the shutting down of coal; and the construction of Nord Stream.

The US is the only effective resistance and road block to the MRC’s NWO – hence all the anti-US propaganda; the constant refrain of its impending collapse; and the divisive, polarising politics. The alternative to the NWO is Pax Americana – which Kissinger recently acknowledged as a reality.

The MRC had a sixteen-year plan to destroy the US – consisting of four consecutive terms of Obama and Clinton. However, a faction in the US military intervened and got Trump elected. Additionally, this involved a lot of behind-the-scenes work by Pence, Pompeo, and others.

In January 2021, Trump invoked Continuity of Government (COG) – hence the retention of the nuclear codes; the effective shutting down of Washington by 20k National Guard; the weird “swearing in” of Biden; and Pompeo confidently stating there’d be a “smooth transition to a second trump term”. COG is still continuing. Like everywhere else, most of the US apparatchiks are clueless as to the true origins of the orders they follow, and so they carry on unaware of COG. However, there’s a select few who have accepted a deal and are aware of the role they play.

If we look at the geopolitical policies which are currently being enacted (for instance, see post on the Black and Caspian Seas), we find they align closely with those set out by Pompeo in his June 2022 address at the Hudson Institute. This indicates that the Pompeo group is still running the show.

Holding court at the hotel bar will be Klaus Schwab’s mentor, Henry Kissinger. Incredibly, Kissinger, 99, has been attending Bilderbergs since 1957.

The St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) is an annual Russian business event for the economic sector, which has been held in St. Petersburg since 1997, and under the auspices of the Russian President since 2006. . . . The SPIEF forum has often been described as the ‘Russian Davos’; ie. the Russian analogue of the World Economic Forum that is usually held in Davos, Switzerland.

Moscow to prioritize Davos-endorsed plan to cattle-tag the planet
Source: Russian President Vladimir Putin
Edward Slavsquat (a.k.a. Riley Waggaman)
23 Dec 2023

May 26, 2023
Henry Kissinger Surveys the World as He Turns 100
The great strategist sees a globe riven by U.S.-China competition and threatened by fearsome new weapons and explains why he now thinks Ukraine should be in NATO.

Mr. Kissinger leaves no doubt that he believes in a Pax Americana and in the need “to defend the areas of the world essential for American and democratic survival.” But the ability to “execute it politically,” he says, “has declined sharply, and that is our overriding problem now.” He ascribes this political weakness to a decline in belief in the U.S. in its own historical ambitions and institutions. “There’s no element of pride and direction and purpose left,” he laments, as American leaders grapple with angst generated by events of “300 years ago.”

Almost nothing is known about the content of the plan and the specific effects of its activation. The secrecy in this respect appears grotesque. Even the simple fact of the plan´s implementation on 9/11 was concealed for months. After sporadic hints in the press the Washington Post finally disclosed some details in March 2002. In an article titled “Shadow government is at work in secret” it reported that about 100 high-ranking officials of different departments were working outside Washington as part of the emergency plan since 9/11. . . . After the first disclosure of these facts in spring 2002 leading politicians of the legislative immediately started expressing their astonishment. Soon it became clear that neither Senate nor House of Representatives knew anything about the activation of COG and the work of the “shadow government” in secret. The parliament had simply been ignored. Later the 9/11 Commission experienced similar executive secrecy. Though it mentioned in its final report the implementation of the plan on 9/11, it also admitted not having investigated the issue in depth. Instead the Commission had only been briefed “on the general nature” of the plan.

Michael Pompeo: War, Ukraine, and a Global Alliance for Freedom
Jun 24, 2022
Hudson Institute
Putin’s war on Ukraine is a pivotal event in post-Cold War politics; this unjust war seeks to annihilate the existence of a free and independent country. What does this portend for world democracies? How does it impact America’s ongoing top strategic priority that centers on the existential threat from China? Why should a machinist in Wichita or a schoolteacher in Des Moines care about what happens in the Donbas?
Hudson’s Distinguished Fellow, the 70th U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, will deliver a major speech to answer all these questions followed by a conversation with Distinguished Fellow Walter Russell Mead.
[see link for pdf transcript]

Lost in a dark wood
Lost in a dark wood
Jan 21, 2024 8:09 PM
Reply to  roger

I don’t know anything about Aadhaar, but with regard to Horizon, I think there are a few points worth noting. Firstly, there’s the usual white-elephant-ism of government projects. And secondly, there’s the drive to digitise the totality of life. The more important point, however, concerns the absence of due process. That is, a technocratic bureaucracy having the power to deprive people of liberty, and to generally mess up their lives, without being required to follow a defined and open procedure. In this case, due process would require the presentation of all relevant evidence – including the record of system errors.

Due process was effectively created with the Magna Carta. In an absolutist monarchy, the king has tyrannical power. In theocracies, it’s the church. But for a long time now, the west has been drifting toward technocracy – that so-called experts have the power to deprive people of liberty just on the basis of unsubstantiated opinion (think lockdowns and vaccine mandates). Alternatively, due process would require presentation of supporting evidence; being cross examined; and doing so under oath. Moreover, the decision would be in the hands of some sort of non-expert jury. For the last two centuries or so, that form of tyrannical power has been at the core of the psychiatric system – and the numbers affected vastly exceed those of the Post Office scandal. However, since very few people could give fuck, we are where we are!

Due process of law is application by the state of all legal rules and principles pertaining to a case so all legal rights that are owed to a person are respected. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects the individual person from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due process violation, which offends the rule of law.

Due process developed from clause 39 of Magna Carta in England. Reference to due process first appeared in a statutory rendition of clause 39 in 1354 thus: “No man of what state or condition he be, shall be put out of his lands or tenements nor taken, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without he be brought to answer by due process of law.” When English and American law gradually diverged, due process was not upheld in England but became incorporated in the US Constitution.

Jan 22, 2024 7:28 AM

Thankyou ,
for those two long responses to my question. i tend now not to include links to my comments as they are filtered then by default and may then not appear. My second post response above was in fact held pending even though i did not add any links.
Just to be polite , I am familiar with the shape of your explications, I remain Skeptikal of both polarities.

Aadhaar and Horizon effect people are relateable and people do care. In the UK
Where the issue is now front and centre and in India about Aadhaar, no reporting of Aadhaar has gained any traction in the UK and I assume that is also true of the US.

The Aadhaar silence is quite odd as the Chinese system is widely touted. My conclusion is what I suggest in my question are we really talking politics, I think not we are talking Governance, The end of history described by Francis Fukuyama, was perhaps more correctly the end of Politics.

Essentially that is my position, the Governance model , ultiimately CDBC based on Carbon rationing and austerity does not work, horizon in the UK, Aadhaar in India prove it. China as a communo fascist state should not concern our discussion constitutionally in the UK and India we are talking and coming from a different “Democratic”tradition.

I have little inclination to argue the toss online it is a waste of time. Ghandi is supposed to have said “be the change you want to see in the world” its really very sound advice.

Jan 22, 2024 10:19 AM
Reply to  Roger

Chronopolitics or Geo Politics is the end of history or the end of politics Fukyama. Governenence, Determinsism, Free will , Platonisism, Aristotelianism, Hereclitus and Paramenides. Hierarchies and Anthropology

Welcome to the Bikini Bottom Chronicles – where sea creatures and nuclear warfare collide! In this wild ride through the geo-politics of Spongebob Squarepants, we uncover the mystery of a post-apocalyptic undersea kingdom. From the City-State Theorem to the Kingdom Theorem and the enigmatic Apocalypse Theorem, we delve into the depths of Bikini Bottom’s political landscape.

But hold on, are we seeing shapes in clouds or unraveling a grand conspiracy? As we navigate through the rubble of this underwater society, one thing is clear – the spirit of resilience prevails. Despite the chaos, the denizens of Bikini Bottom persist, much like a cheese soufflé that just won’t quit.

So grab your invisible spray and join us on this whimsical journey through a world where optimism triumphs and a sponge’s laughter echoes for eternity. After all, in the words of Spongebob himself, “I’m ready, I’m ready, I’m ready!”

Let’s dive into the murky waters of chronopolitics and uncover the end of history – Bikini Bottom style.

Let’s talk about some interesting concepts like Chronopolitics and Geo Politics. Have you ever wondered about the end of history or the end of politics as Fukyama suggested? It’s fascinating to explore ideas around governance, determinism, and free will. We can also dive into philosophical thoughts from Plato, Aristotle, Heraclitus, and Parmenides. And how about discussing hierarchies and their impact on anthropology? There’s so much to unpack in these topics, and I’d love to hear your thoughts on them!

GoingDirect Paradigm

I have stopped working on this mindmap the links that do not work anylonger can usually be found on the way back machine internet archive.

Such as

Bourgeois resolution. A poem


Calliopsis or Magnesia where poets
slave to familiar rhymes and themes
Not golden or silver words but workmanlike
fashion hymns of safe iron and copper.


Globalisation Un-Entangled. (A FOUND POEM, CIPHER OF GLOBALISM )


Eliza with Rogerian inscrutability
hears the confession of the mal-contents
A mirror held up before cosmetic application
Globalisation and Internationalism confused
despotism´s nature is to abhor any say
save that of its own momentary pleasure;
it annihilates all intermediate situations
between boundless strength on its own part,
and total debility on the part of the people.
Our education can be Our? our, government.
Our reason can be our Judge, of the rivals;
Globalism, Authority, coercion and competition.
or Nationalism, Internationalism, Cooperation.
Are we to have free will and democracy
Will we have determined authority
A struggle of ideals an ancient quarrel
Parmenides or Heraclitus navigators both


Usury Hells Fuel and Mans oppressor.


the year was 1249 and the Captain on board ship ship was Marco Polo…”
”We lived in venice when Marco Polo returned
He told of Kubla khans riches.
Khans riches flowed from a strange Alchemy,
Money from Trees, Bark from Mulberry´s.
Denominated and sizes, under seal of the Khan.
Fein deafness to the khans bark on pain of death!
They serve as good as gold, a fraction of the weight.
All foreign merchants sell to khans monopoly,
the merchants trade with paper in the kingdom”
Such power as this with a twist of usury,
we innovate Marco Polos discovery.
Creating the money but not the means to meet the usury
all wealth guaranteed to flow back to the issuer.
Money newly grown on trees, with usury sportingly absent.
Surely a creature who´s Bark is not worse than its bite?
kings now borrowed for rivals to smite.
Bankers became emperors. Usury were the real fangs.´´


The courtiers of the Exchequer address the king;
We economists beholden as we are to the princes of usury and as the false prophets of usury.
We fit the horse foot to the shoe that suits us best. It matters not that the horse becomes lame and less furlongs are ploughed. As we deny the poison in our own usurious medium. We also deny that what ills our patient, could be from any panacea concocted in our own alchemists crucible.
Our unit of account, that is to say this store of value.
Not to leave unsaid, this medium of exchange.
Our scarlet pimpernel which no one quite pins down.
We say; ”we give you something , always the same
fungible with each the other. The one whole. Held in safe keeping, returned. What we call these claims or, definitions of claims. These bundles of demands, is money.
Insinuated into civil intercourse,
ubiquitous in the machinery of community,
deployed as a lever and pulley in affairs of state.
A measure of nothing, conjured to divine what’s important.
Counsel for the people charge usury of its crimes.This baron abstract that claims fruit.
This heavy invisible burden,
a yoke. Fashioned in language,
felt but never seen.
inflicting scars as deep as any lash,
claiming lives as real as any canon.
This nightmare device of imagination.
Who are the slayers of this mythical dragon?
Quiggly shewed the tragedy, little hope it seemed,
blind faith in capitalisms harlot. That babylonian whore.
At first a mere money trick for ragged trousered philanthropy. With usury, take away whats not even yet been paid. Ruskin would see wealth as that which is valuable in the hands of the valiant. Real goods sustain and wealth succours. Usurious money is but an unmade claim and worse. No banker has earned that newly minted note that hangs discordant in the air, as apt to rob as to pay.
How obscure this obscurant cult of mammon.
What smoke screened hall of mirrors.
How obese and gluttonous the leviathan of usury.
Austerity …

Jan 22, 2024 1:07 PM
Reply to  roger

Is Klaus Schwab the most dangerous man in the world?


Linked on the Mindmap.

The Going Direct Paradigm


Monopoly through WEF


FIRE, ( Super Imprialism)

Neo-Con v Neo-Lib. MIC-OGAM-FIRE. Commodity-Chartilist-Credit. G7-BRICS-BIS. BIG TECH = MIC =Technocracy= NEOCON. Vs Neo-Lib/OGAM= Brics Vs ? “Romani ite domum”

MARCH 31, 2022


New World Order emerging in the fog of Ukrainian war
by Thierry Meyssan
The war in Ukraine is only a bloody pretext, devised by Washington, to exclude Russia from all international organizations, weaken the European Union and, ultimately, preserve Anglo-American domination over the entire West. Don’t be fooled!

“Talk about cen­tral­i­sa­tion! The credit sys­tem, which has its focus in the so-called national banks and the big money-lenders and usurers sur­round­ing them, con­sti­tutes enor­mous cen­tral­i­sa­tion, and gives this class of par­a­sites the fab­u­lous power, not only to peri­od­i­cally despoil indus­trial cap­i­tal­ists, but also to inter­fere in actual pro­duc­tion in a most dan­ger­ous man­ner— and this gang knows noth­ing about pro­duc­tion and has noth­ing to do with it.”

See more at: http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/01/31/therovingcavaliersofcredit/#sthash.d4gs1dAX.dpuf

“But there be certain other confusions, which, being rooted in the balance, are of longer continuance, and of worse consequence; as, first, where a nobility holds half the property, or about that proportion, and the people the other half; in which case, without altering the balance there is no remedy but the one must eat out the other, as the people did the nobility in Athens, and the nobility the people in Rome. Secondly, when a prince holds about half the dominion, and the people the other half (which was the case of the Roman emperors, planted partly upon their military colonies and partly upon the Senate and the people), the government becomes a very shambles, both of the princes and the people. Somewhat of this nature are certain governments at this day, which are said to subsist by confusion.”

Excerpt From: James Harrington. “The Commonwealth of Oceana.” iBooks.

This same power in man that causes divisions
and war is called by some men the state of nature,
which every man brings into the world with
Here is disorder, therefore this subtle spirit of
darkness . . . tells the people, You must make
one man king over you all and let him make
laws, and let everyone be obedient thereunto.
W I N S T A N L E Y , Fire in the Bush (1650), and
The Law of Freedom (1652), in Sabine, pp. 493,

“The principles of government then are in the goods of the mind, or in the goods of fortune. To the goods of the mind answers authority; to the goods of fortune, power or empire. Wherefore Leviathan, though he be right where he says that “riches are power,” is mistaken where he says that “prudence, or the reputation of prudence, is power;” for the learning or prudence of a man is no more power than the learning or prudence of a book or author, which is properly authority.”

Excerpt From: James Harrington. “The Commonwealth of Oceana.” iBooks.

Jan 22, 2024 1:30 PM
Reply to  roger

Is Klaus Schwab the Most Dangerous Man in the World?

Jan 22, 2024 1:13 PM
Jan 22, 2024 2:15 PM
Reply to  roger

The Transnational Capitalist Class “Stake Holder Capitalism”

This week, January 15-19, the WEF syndicated crime extravaganza will go down in Davos, Switzerland. Approximately 3000 stakeholders will fly in private jets to attend the annual conclave. According to the WEF website, members will include:

  • 60 heads of state (national crime bosses)
  • all major international organizations (private control grid)
  • the Forum’s 1000 partners-in-crime
  • as well as civil society leaders (gangsters-in-training)
  • foremost experts (paid liars)
  • young changemakers (useful idiots)
  • social entrepreneurs (propaganda artists)
  • and the (always compliant) media

This transnational oligopoly of crime bosses will sit with Godfather Klaus Schwab.

Shadow Gate 1 & 2

Jan 22, 2024 4:12 PM
Reply to  roger

Counterinsurgency, PSYOPS and the Military Origins of the InternetDustin Broadbery1. The text discusses the military origins of the internet, tracing its development from DARPA projects to the privatization and commercialization of the internet.

2. It highlights the intersection of military intelligence, academia, and big tech, shedding light on the influence of intelligence agencies in the creation and evolution of major tech companies.

3. It emphasizes the impact of counterinsurgency tactics on domestic populations, particularly in the context of social media manipulation, propaganda, and surveillance.

4. The text raises concerns about the erosion of privacy, the influence of intelligence agencies on public discourse, and the potential implications for democracy and individual freedoms.

5. It underscores the role of psychological manipulation, fear-mongering, and social engineering in shaping public opinion and behavior, especially during times of crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

6. It calls attention to the consolidation of power within the tech industry, the intertwining of government and corporate interests, and the implications for global governance and individual autonomy.

Understanding Power Dynamics & Moving Beyond Divisions: Covid19, Ukraine & Israel/PalestineDr Piers Robinson & Vanessa Beeley1. The last four years have seen a significant shift in ideological alignments, with left-leaning individuals re-evaluating their stance and right-leaning individuals more open to engaging with left-wing perspectives.

2. The Covid-19 pandemic has played a pivotal role in shaping these shifts, with left-leaning individuals generally supporting official narratives and right-leaning individuals forming the Covid resistance, challenging the impact of measures on society.

3. The conflict in Ukraine and the Israeli military action against Palestinians have introduced new dynamics, leading to dissent from left-wing anti-imperialists and some divergence within the Covid resistance.

4. The power axes involved in the Covid-19 response and Western imperialism represent clear threats to global populations, requiring unified resistance against corrupt elite power networks.

5. It is essential to move beyond the traditional left-right paradigm and prioritize protecting people against both Western imperial belligerence and emerging biosecurity regimes, recognizing the shared enemy of corrupt and unrepresentative power elites.

Interrogating “Multipolarity”: A Response to “Understanding Power Dynamics”Iain Davis & Catte Black
The response challenges the idea that “multipolarity” represents a real alternative to the current global power dynamics. It argues that neither the “Western Empire” nor the “multipolar axis” have the welfare of ordinary people as their goal. The response highlights the need for a cohesive and united resistance front that transcends left-right paradigms and focuses on freeing humanity from all forms of oppression. It also questions the assumption that the “multipolar axis” will liberate anyone, given its complicity in the suffering of Palestinians and its projection of military might in Europe. The response emphasizes the importance of acknowledging the nature of the public-private global governance regime being constructed by the “multipolar axis.”

– The intertwining of technology, politics, and governance has created a complex landscape with profound implications for global power dynamics.
The relationship between tech giants like Google and the US government has raised questions about their influence on global internet access and geopolitical aspirations.
Pressures faced by organizations like WikiLeaks and the involvement of individuals with ties to the US government underscore the need for continued vigilance in protecting transparency and whistleblowing efforts.
– The emergence of a new kind of empire driven by digital influence and corporate power has reshaped traditional notions of geopolitics and local politics.
– Failures in tech-based governance systems, such as Aadhaar in India and the Post Office Horizon System in the UK, highlight the limitations of centralized command and control systems at large national scales.


I have no Idea why I have bothered to give this so much time, Obviously theres something about the subject that tells me its too important not to join the discussion.

Big Data Is Watching | Full Length Documentary

Erik Nielsen
Erik Nielsen
Jan 23, 2024 12:11 AM
Reply to  roger

Thanks Roger, interesting.

I were thinking when seeing the above video, about the sequence in Matrix where Neo fly to the machine city and discover there are too many sentinels, he has not sufficient power to hold all of them back.

So he push the steering stick to get up up up in heaven and fly over them.
Its the same way I see all the surveillance everywhere. We have mentally to just fly up and be above them.
Be mentally in heaven, and the attacks dont work.

Jan 23, 2024 6:21 AM
Reply to  Erik Nielsen

Hi Erik,
Yes we can all benefit from rising above the control matrix.
Best Wishes and God bless.

Jan 23, 2024 12:49 PM
Reply to  Erik Nielsen

A Blog on the Matrix Movie theme, Minority report etc.

Are We all “precogs” now.deterministic judges of future crime, serving as a metaphor for analytic prediction,
In The Minority Report, the movie the precogs act as deterministic judges of future crime this is a metaphor for analytic prediction, behavioral economics, and BF Skinner’s vision of utopia in his 1948 novel Walden 2.

Jan 21, 2024 8:10 PM
Reply to  roger

og dont like subversives

Sam - Admin2
Sam - Admin2
Jan 21, 2024 8:55 PM
Reply to  dominic

The sort of ‘subversives’ like yourself who post ‘fuck off’ in comments sections? That’s far too subversive for us. A2

Jan 21, 2024 10:14 AM

“united resistance” – now there’s a phrase!
Delingpole is calling out Devlin, loads leaving UKC for pastures new, despite all the christians are going to heaven anyway so they don’t care, Collective Consciousness are still in a field, NewAge are standing in the park, everyone hates Windows, Dodsworth and Fenton calling out the ‘anti-semitics’ in the ‘resistance’ … yeah, united opposition is somewhat problematic

Jan 21, 2024 9:43 AM

“the 2022 war in Ukraine simply does not follow the previous pattern of “imperial conflict”.”

OffG are too young to remember the runup to WW2. The very same Anglo Zio Capitalist countries — the very ones now arming Neo-nazi Ukraine to attack Russia, and supporting Israel’s genocidal activities in the Middle East — were then arming Nazi Germany to attack Soviet Russia, and supporting Anglo Zio Capitalist colonoliasm in the Middle East. Stalin proposed an anti-Fascist pact to Poland, France and England but they rejected it — the result was WW2. It was not the Western Allies that saved the people of Ukraine from genocide by the Wehrmacht; it was Stalin’s tanks.

Putin made 3 Peace Proposals over Ukraine: Minsk1, Minsk2 and Istanbul. All 3 were rejected, the West played him for a sucker while they went on arming the Neo-nazis of Ukraine. It was not the United Nations who saved the Russian speaking Ukrainians from genocide by the West’s expensively armed Uko-nazi army; it was Russia. Then, as now, it was Russia and Russian arms against global Capitalist Militarism around the world.

“Be slow to quarrel but, once in,
Let thy opponent look to thee” — Shakespeare, Hamlet.

Jan 21, 2024 6:06 AM

Ten. On why this article’s authors don’t appear to have a great grasp on history.

I’ve never deeply studied Chinese history but Chiang Kai-shek (the famous Chinese nationalist leader) was supported massively by the US in the final ten years of the Chinese civil-war against the communists that led to creation of China as we know it today. Taiwan was always, and still is, pretty much a US/Western proxy. The KMT was supported by the CIA during the Cold War and became an important covert supplier of heroin in the 60s-80s (this is all explained in McCoy’s The Politics of Heroin). When you add this to the most rudimentary knowledge of the longer history of Western imperialism in China (eg The Opium Wars) I think supporting Taiwanese independence is a very pro-Western/US position which is odd for alternative media. I thought it was not a controversial position to say there would be no Taiwan if it wasn’t for the US meddling in Chinese politics, but I may wrong. What does anyone think of my amateur potted history of Taiwan? 

So if my version of history is accurate you are kinda supporting Western imperialism

Jan 21, 2024 2:20 PM
Reply to  Seba

It is not accurate. Communists were also supported by western powers who decided communists victory over nationalists.

Jan 21, 2024 3:08 PM
Reply to  vanusha

Please share your source for this claim.

Jan 21, 2024 3:08 PM
Reply to  Seba

And explain which bit is not accurate specifically to help me learn

Jan 24, 2024 1:34 PM
Reply to  Seba

I can point to several sources which paint a different picture.One for example is https://candorintel.com/?p=347 It tries to explain Skull and Bones sabotage of the nationalists and hidden support of the communists. Another is https://isgp-studies.com/introduction, scroll to China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Russia. It explains early western globalists connections to the communists.

Jan 26, 2024 11:39 AM
Reply to  Vanusha

The first doesn’t support your view, it more supports the view it was a classic cold war conflict. The second doesn’t load.

 Communists were also supported by western powers who decided communists victory over nationalists.”

Western powers decided that the side they were supporting would lose!?!

You can think the moon’s made of cheese if you like

Jan 21, 2024 4:18 PM
Reply to  Seba

“there would be no Taiwan if it wasn’t for the US meddling in Chinese politics”.

Correct. In my schoodays I used to chortle over the UN seating Chiang’s tiny Taiwan regime at the table marked “China”. As though a billion Chinese did not exist on the mainland. The masquerade did not last long, though.

“A moderate house of cards, the greatest wit,
Though he can start it, cannot finish it” — Goethe, Faust (tr.Louis MacNeice).

Iain Davis
Iain Davis
Jan 22, 2024 11:07 AM
Reply to  Seba

It probably is odd. But here is no support for Taiwanese independence suggested in the piece. A number of facts are stated.

The UN does not recognise Taiwanese independence – largely due to the reasons you have outlined.The One China “Principle” – not “policy” – declares the right to reintegrate Taiwan into Chinese government jurisdiction by force if necessary.There appears to be widespread support for Taiwanese independence in Taiwan.None of these observations constitute declared support for Taiwanese independence. The only conclusion drawn is that this suggests there is nothing inherently peaceful about multipolarity as advocated, in this case, by presidents Putin and Xi

Jan 22, 2024 2:19 PM
Reply to  Iain Davis

Classic Iain.

It probably is odd.” agreeing his pro-Taiwan independence position is unusual

“But here is no support for Taiwanese independence suggested..” denying his pro-Taiwan independence position

He claims all he does is state “a number of facts” but he questions that Taiwan should be considered part of China and goes on to quote some opinion polls supporting this view.

But then says “no support for Taiwanese independence suggested” WTAF

Catte Black
Catte Black
Jan 22, 2024 3:14 PM
Reply to  Seba

Hello Sebastian, and welcome to OffG.

Below please see the section from our article that deals with Taiwan. Could you possibly indicate where in these words – as opposed to in your rather loose paraphrasing – you see anything that is not a statement of fact or any claim that Taiwan should not be part of China

That multipolarity embraces the One-China “principle” is far less ambiguous. Taiwanese independence is not recognised by the UN. However, while we should be very wary of opinion polls, especially as reported by the legacy media, there appears to be considerable support for independence in Taiwan.

The Chinese government’s “principle” is a claimed right to incorporate Taiwan into its jurisdiction, by force if necessary.

Regardless of the merits or shortcomings of the Taiwanese independence argument, there is clearly nothing inherently “peaceful” about multipolarity in

The actual point being made is that this version of “multipolarity” in no way implies a reluctance to impose force if deemed necessary.

Perhaps stop kicking the straw man and address this or some other point we actually make?

Jan 22, 2024 5:51 PM
Reply to  Catte Black

You don’t think quoting an opinion poll saying the people want independence, without mentioning anything about its complex history of it being a long-term US proxy, and a historical by-product of US involvement in the Chinese civil war, should be perceived as supporting the “claim that Taiwan should not be part of China“?

I do.

Catte Black
Catte Black
Jan 22, 2024 7:02 PM
Reply to  Seba

If you want to talk about what you THINK is IMPLIED then that’s your call. But you can’t accuse someone of actually articulating your perceived implication when they manifestly don’t.

Attempting to do this is even more speciously argumentative when both authors have made it clear no such implication was present in their minds & is certainly not inevitable in any reading of the text.

I sense you feel your best hope of “victory” is to focus on this very threadbare claim, but it just seems a little desperate.

Why not discuss what we DO say, not what you insist we “imply” when we’ve made it abundantly clear we don’t.

Carry on pushing this if you want, but there’s really no more to be said.

Incidentally, why do you keep saying “the authors don’t want to talk about failing US imperialism because it messes up their simple uni-conspiracy worldview” when “failing US imperialism” is central to everything we say?

And – are you ok with me publishing our email exchange?

Jan 26, 2024 11:47 AM
Reply to  Catte Black

You’ve said multiple things that are not credible in this article and the subsequent explanatory justifications.

One moment Iain is talking about ‘subtext’ which is fine if its a reasonable inference, and the next you are telling me mentioning a opinion poll showing the supposed popularity for the US imperialist position of an independent Taiwan isn’t suggesting support for that position.

Let’s leave that for the readers to decide.

I’m not sure publishing more on this will help your position, but your readers may like to hear alternative understandings of these terms for a change.

Jan 21, 2024 6:02 AM

Nine. Regarding there is only inversion of Multipolarity – the version defined here

I’ve studied many forms of international relations theory, and I find a Marxist approach called World System’s analysis very informative on these matters. This suggests that changes in the overarching structure of the world system only really come about after war or some cataclysmic events (eg. the fall of Soviet communism, the Second World War, Thirty Years War etc) so I believe the likelihood of a smooth transition to genuine multipolarity is miniscule. 

The only way any peaceful transition would happen as you argue, is if it is something planned by the global hegemon, the US supported by its Western (mainly European) vassal states (and possibly proxies in other parts of the world), but this would not really be multipolarity, because you need hegemony (in its most simple form power/ domination) to construct/maintain the system. The US-led system and its hegemony is falling apart. 

We live in a world system dominated by US-led Capitalism, which is the latest version of a European based system that has been exploiting the rest of the world for hundreds of years. This system is crumbling so clinging to the words of Putin or Xi on how they would like the current system to peacefully change to their liking is just not credible. I don’t believe the US will give up its position as global hegemon without a huge fight. What you talk about is IMO how the Western elites would like to change the furniture around and call it multipolarity. Genuine multipolarity will only happen when the US-led European power elite has either completely fallen apart of its own accord, or been beaten into submitting to a new genuine multipolar world order.  

So, IMO nobody really knows what an alternative multipolar world order would look like, but what you’re talking about is not even really multipolarity, it’s the continuation of US neoimperialism rebranded. 

Jan 21, 2024 2:21 PM
Reply to  Seba

Marx is a known fraud and a liar.

Jan 21, 2024 3:10 PM
Reply to  vanusha

This is almost comic genius. Why was he a fraud? and what did he lie about?
Have you ever read any of his work?

That’s one of the best lines I’ve read in ages

Erik Nielsen
Erik Nielsen
Jan 23, 2024 1:11 AM
Reply to  Seba

I have not read anything of Marx but my opinion is that he is a red communist who wants to steal all what I have been working for all my life, and Marx should not influence my children with his communist bs as I dont want none of my children to be red commies.
I want Marx out of America and go back to his Gulag camps in Sovjet where he can do all he want with his “Unite all vagabonds against the American Empirialistic Colonialistic Capitalists” books.

Jan 26, 2024 11:49 AM
Reply to  Erik Nielsen

Marx was a German living in the UK.

Iain Davis
Iain Davis
Jan 22, 2024 11:22 AM
Reply to  Seba

We are currently witnessing cataclysmic events. An alleged global pandemic and a wars in both Europe and the ME.We do not argue that the transition will be peaceful.You seem to be mixing up multipolarity and multilateralism. Multipolarity suggests multiple, regional “hegemons.”Yes, Putin and Xi advocate a peaceful transition to multipolarity. There is nothing in the article suggesting this is a realistic expectation.We know exactly what multipolarity is supposed to be. It is a geopolitical system of multiple, regional hegemons, with more localised supply chains, coordinated by multilateral global governance. This is discussed in numerous documents. Covid-19: The Great Reset or Putin for example.

Jan 22, 2024 2:32 PM
Reply to  Iain Davis

Some of our problems arise from having different understandings of the central concepts.

I think that polarity is about global hegemony, who has the power to control and direct the overall system.

If the system stays the same but people have some increased regional power, the US is still the global hegemon.

Multipolarity would need the US’s position as global hegemon, and architect and defender of the global system, to be seriously challenged to the point they can no longer dictate the structure of the system. Due to the neoimperial global system this would destroy Western economies as they are built on the continuation of colonial exploitation of the global south.

Multilateralism is a group of states working together, within whatever system, to achieve certain limited goals.

You have a very idiosyncratic definition of many popular concepts making it hard to understand what you are talking about much of the time.

Jan 23, 2024 6:41 AM
Reply to  Seba

Hybridised international elite.

Iron law of oligarchy

GoingDirect Paradigm

Jan 21, 2024 5:51 AM

I’ve got more, but it’s 2.30am here now, and I’m not sure my posts will not be censored. If not I’ll carry on in the morning.

Jan 21, 2024 5:47 AM

“But the weakness of the RB-piece is that it offers the Western Empire as an all-powerful entity without serious opposition, which renders these abject failures as totally inexplicable”

Eight. This is easily explained by historical knowledge. Since 1945 or 1990 US has been global hegemon, but now its power and control is slipping. The authors don’t want to talk about failing US imperialism because it messes up their simple uni-conspiracy worldview.

Jan 21, 2024 4:30 PM
Reply to  Seba

“The authors don’t want to talk about failing US imperialism because it messes up their simple uni-conspiracy worldview.”

Neither does OffG want to talk about U$ creation of Covid-19 GMO spike protein (U$ Patent App 2016) because it messes up their simple uni-conspiracy world view.

Sam - Admin2
Sam - Admin2
Jan 21, 2024 5:16 PM
Reply to  NickM

Many argue that occam’s razor doesn’t require a spike protein, when you have provably unreliable tests generating meaningless results, with no discernible pattern of serious disease or contagion save being old or having cold symptoms/zero symptoms. Have you seen much of Rancourt’s work? A2

Jan 22, 2024 7:57 AM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

Occam’s razor says you don’t need complex and “unreliable tests generating meaningless results with no pattern” in order to explain U$ Patent App 2016 to Moderna for improved GMO spike protein with furan binding site, when the same thing can be explained by simply reading the genetic code on the RNA strand.

I used to rub shoulders with molecular virologists in the 1970s, when Gene Sequencing was already standard technique and Luc Montagnier was on his way to getting the Nobel Prize. So in 2022, when I read that Chinese and French scientists had already sequenced most of the Covid-19 genome, I believed Montagnier when he exclaimed, This virus has seen the inside of a test tube!

A literature search soon revealed Moderna’s 2016 U$ Patent app for Covid-19’s unique GMO spike protein: the GMO binding site that turned a harmless bat virus into an avid binder to human bloodvessels.

Covid-19 is a Test Tube Baby and DoD is its Dad.

“Science advances slowly, slowly
Creeping on from point to point” — Tennyson, Locksley Hall.

Sam - Admin2
Sam - Admin2
Jan 22, 2024 9:56 AM
Reply to  NickM

That’s a non sequitur. Those patents require no explanation, since there is no solid evidence of more people than usual getting sick with anything unusual requiring explanation. If we go around aligning ourselves with the Covid myth because we’re searching for a problem to fit our preferred cause narrative, we’re falling into a trap.

Jan 22, 2024 10:40 AM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

“there is no solid evidence of more people than usual getting sick with anything unusual requiring explanation”

The other name for the virus of Covid-19 (Corona Virus Disease #19) is SARS-2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Distress #2). There was “solid evidence of more people than usual getting sick with something unusual” — namely, an outbreak of SARS in MaryLand, U$A — a few years before the first outbreak of SARS in Wuhan, China. The epicentre of that SARS outbreak was U$ DoD Bio-Warfare Lab in Fort Detrick, MaryLand.

That Frankenstein Virus Lab in MaryLand, U$A, was closed by public pressure, and moved to Wuhan, China. The Wuhan Lab is funded to this day by Dr.Fauci, the U$ Health Fund Czar.

“The Covid-19 virus is a test tube baby” — Luc Montagnier, Nobel Prize virologist.

DoD is its Dad. And a 2016 U$ Patent GMO spike protein is its genetic ID.

Sam - Admin2
Sam - Admin2
Jan 22, 2024 11:32 AM
Reply to  NickM

That’s certainly a story. It’s a story which happens to legitimise all the pandemic fear bullet points. So you haven’t really moved on from the Covid propaganda in this regard then. A2

Tilly Petersen
Tilly Petersen
Jan 21, 2024 9:19 PM
Reply to  NickM

Covid19 doesn’t exist.It was the flu with a new name Anyone who still pretends it does or who pushes those bullshit “lab leak” stories and Fauci emails is either a paid shill or a fucking idiot. Which are you?

Jan 22, 2024 8:01 AM
Reply to  Tilly Petersen

Bad language won’t improve your case.

“When you have the facts in your side, hammer it into the Jury. When you have no facts on you side, hammer the table” — Advice to a Young Advocate.

Iain Davis
Iain Davis
Jan 22, 2024 11:37 AM
Reply to  Seba

We agree with the both of the following observations in the RB-piece:

[. . .] whatever credibility the West possessed in the past is now being further, perhaps catastrophically, eroded.


[. . .] it is very difficult to imagine there being sufficient military, economic or ideational capacity necessary to win in the Ukraine or the Middle East, let alone engage any other major powers.”

That is we agree that the control of the unipolar US-led hegemon is slipping. We explicitly acknowledge and fully agree with the observation you claim we don’t want to talk about, despite the fact that we have discussed it in the article.

We add that the collapse of the US-led hegomonic power coincides with the rise of another current axis of power which we define as the “multipolar axis.” we further add that this axis can be seen to be actively opposing US-led hegemonic power in Ukraine and the ME.

We therefore submit that any analysis of global power dynamics should also recognise the multipolar axis and we state that this recognition is absent from the analysis in the RB-piece which only briefly mentions “other major powers” and the “multipolar global order” without analysing either. By omission, it seems multipolarity is endorsed in the RB-piece.

Jan 21, 2024 5:44 AM

“we have to assume at this stage that the strategic planners of Western Empire are, to say the least, catastrophically error prone and shortsighted.”

Seven. You don’t have to assume that, you could accept its a symptom of a falling empire. The authors don’t want to talk about failing US imperialism because it messes up their simple uni-conspiracy worldview.

Jan 21, 2024 4:41 PM
Reply to  Seba

“it’s a symptom of a falling empire. The authors don’t want to talk about failing US imperialism because it messes up their simple uni-conspiracy worldview.”

OffG likes to assume there is an invincible Global Bogeyman high up there controlling Total Dystopia.

“I wants ter mike yer flesh creep” — Charles Dicken, the Fat Boy.

They simply can’t see the obvious signs of internal corruption in a failing Empire: incompetence due to inbreeding and nepotism among the ruling classes (laughably referred to as “the Elites”).

Iain Davis
Iain Davis
Jan 21, 2024 10:33 PM
Reply to  Seba

So the Western empire is failing, collapsing in on itself, can’t secure military supremacy in Europe, can’t act with any kind of discernible “authority” in the ME.

It is NOT opposed by the other “major powers” who have formed many regional and bilateral alliances, trade ageements and mutual security pacts. These “major powers” DO NOT offer any “real” opposition to the presumable unipower.

Instead it is simply dashing itself to pieces on the rocks, of it own volition, while remaining globally dominant and unchallenged.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Jan 22, 2024 1:12 AM
Reply to  Iain Davis

I can’t agree or disagree with that jumbled mess of text, it makes zero sense to me as a whole. That’s one way to deal with your critics, the bark at the moon approach.

Piers and Vanessa attempted to have an intelligent conversation with you all, and your joint response is this car-crash of an article. I’m out.

Jan 22, 2024 8:19 AM
Reply to  Seba

Me too. It was nice meeting you.

Iain Davis
Iain Davis
Jan 22, 2024 11:51 AM
Reply to  Seba

I was trying to paraphrase your argument as I understand it. I’m disagreeing with it, not endorsing it.

As repeatedly highlighted in the article, we know Piers and Vanessa were offering an honest appraisal of global power dynamics and, also as repeatedly stated, we agree with much of it.

You, on the other hand, keep criticising statements or arguments we haven’t made and accusing us of and “uni-conspiracy” worldview – whatever that is supposed to mean – while insisting you are offering some sort of cogent critique.

Jan 22, 2024 8:18 AM
Reply to  Iain Davis

I don’t agree that the EU$A is “dashing itself to pieces on the rocks of its own volition”.

Quite the contrary: it was the presence of the Russian army which saved Syria from total occupation by NATZO. It is the Russian army which is saving the Ukraina from NATZO. It was the Syrian army which saved Lebanon from total occupation by Israel’s general Sharon; and it was Hezb’Allah who expelled the remainder of the Israeli army. It was Mao who saved China from the U$A.

“There was a stone in the middle of the road”. The stone was not “of the EU$A’s own volition”; in each case — China, Russia, Cuba, Syria and Lebanon, the stone proved a stumbling stone not a stepping stone.

“Justice comes from the barrel of a gun” — Mao.

Jan 21, 2024 5:42 AM

re: Israel genocide “If this imbroglio is really an attempt “to maintain US-led dominance of the global system” it has been a strategic disaster from the outset”

Six. This again shows how US power is failing. They can’t control Israel even when it’s a massive PR disaster. The authors don’t want to talk about failing US imperialism because it messes up their simple uni-conspiracy worldview.

Jan 22, 2024 8:22 AM
Reply to  Seba

Who says the EU$A wants to rein in Israel? The EU$A are the only countries in the world which do not want to stop the Palestinian Holocaust.

Iain Davis
Iain Davis
Jan 22, 2024 12:06 PM
Reply to  Seba

Of course empires can and have collapsed from within and, on each and every occasions, other “major powers” seize the opportunity and rise to challenge it. We are obviously seeing “opposition” to US imperialism and we suggest that opposition is coming from what we have called the multipolar axis.

I put it to you, that nowhere in any of your comments have you acknowledged this axis of power. According to you, all that is happening at the moment, from a geopolitical perspective, is that US imperialism is collapsing organically without any opposition whatsoever.

I speak only for myself here, but I consider your offered geopolitical analysis contrary to the evidence and the discernible facts. It appears to be based upon your beliefs not on any rational appraisal of the evidence.

Jan 21, 2024 5:35 AM

“Indeed it could be argued that what we witnessed in Ukraine could
better be described as the “projection of power by the multipolar axis.””

Five. This is upside down. The US/NATO wanted to project their power, but due to their failing power / hegemony, didn’t get any support apart form their vassal states in Europe, so didn’t hurt the Russian economy and cause Putin problems. The authors don’t want to talk about failing US imperialism because it messes up their simple uni-conspiracy worldview.

Iain Davis
Iain Davis
Jan 22, 2024 12:11 PM
Reply to  Seba

So Russia didn’t intervene and are not close to “victory” – achieving their military objectives. It is simply a failure of US imperialism.

Right, Got it.

(please see comment reply above.)

Jan 21, 2024 5:30 AM

“this phase of the longterm war in Ukraine was launched by Russia”

Four. it’s historically naive not to see that the Russians were essentially goaded into this by the actions of US/Nato over 20+ years. They do mention Maidan but its been going on longer than that, I feel Russia had next to no choice

Jan 21, 2024 4:44 PM
Reply to  Seba

“naive” ??!!

I would say outright perverted. See my post re weasel words.

“What’s the difference between a weasel and a stoat?”

“The one is weasely recognized and the other is stoatally different”.

Jan 21, 2024 5:26 AM

This is a very poor article for the following reasons.

“However, the subtext of the RB-piece apparently advocates that humanity could free itself via the proposed “multipolar world order””

One. It is arguing against ghosts, what it claims to be the subtext, this is a form of straw-man argument

“We respectfully and entirely disagree with this idea and, on the contrary, suggest we should oppose the multipolar world order just as vigorously as we might any other model of tyranny.”

Two.It erroneously claims there is only one possible multipolar world, this is circular logic, there is only one, the one we define, and that’s not very good

“the ”Western Empire,” as essentially the sole driver of all evils”

Three. They never say Western imperialism is the “sole driver of all evils” this another straw-man

Jan 21, 2024 4:51 PM
Reply to  Seba

Two straw-men in one narrative. That beats The Wizard of Oz for fantasy.

Iain Davis
Iain Davis
Jan 22, 2024 4:58 PM
Reply to  Seba

I speak only for myself here and use “we” in the context of our article, only to signify that it is a co-authored piece. These are my opinions and I do not speak for Catte. 

Without pasting the whole article here, let me explain why your allegation of “straw-man” arguments is unfounded. 

It is stated in the RB-piece that a cleavage of the right-wing Covid-resistance focused upon the “weakening/declining Western Empire and the rise of a multipolar global system.”

At this stage of the RB-piece the possible “multipolar global system” is acknowledged. The RB-piece then identifies “two processes in play and which can be linked to two distinct power axes.”

That “two distinct power axes” are: 

“[. . .] the power axis involved with the Covid–19 event [which] has a distinctly international, or global, dimension to it.”


“the power axis of the Western Empire.”

We have acknowledgement of the possible “multipolar global system” but two seemingly unrelated power axes. Let’s call them the “Covid axis” and the “Western Empire axis.”

Next “major powers” are mentioned. The US, China and Russia are listed. China is said to be part of the “Covid axis.” 

A subsequent hypothesis is ventured: 

“both the wars and the biosecurity regimes are largely a function of Western-centric elite power networks with support from factions within opposing nations that have infiltrated governance and public institutions including media. From this perspective, both processes might be explicable as part of Western Imperialism.”

“Opposing nations” are also acknowledged but, in this scenario, both the “Covid axis” and the “Western Empire axis” – the only two identified axes – are both part of Western Imperialism. 

It is then stated that both “power axes need to be resisted.” So we have two power axes that need to be resisted at this stage in the RB-piece. 

A discussion is presented about why people in the global south would understandably pivot to the East. “Major powers,” again including China, Russia and the BRICS + (including Iran and Saudi Arabia) are referenced in a quote as potentially collectively controlling 90% of the world’s oil supply.  

We are then advised: 

“Common ground can be found through recognition of the power axes in play”

OK, so that’s recognition of the “Covid axis” and the “Western Empire axis” because no other axis has been identified in the RB-piece. 

We are then encouraged to unite to resist these two identified power axis and the point is made: 

“[. . .] we must form a cohesive and united Resistance front, one which is inclusive of East and West and everything in between.”

As we stated in our opinion piece there is nothing we would disagree with in this analysis, to this point 

But we go further. That requires understanding the “subtext” of the RB-piece, which means analysing not just what is said, but what is implied and what is conspicuously omitted. 

You may think such analysis constitutes a “straw-man.” We disagree. 

We have an acknowledgment of “major powers” – China, Russia, BRICS +. in the RB-piece. These “major powers” are identified as “opposing nations” and, in addition, the rise of the “multipolar global order” is referenced. 

The RB-piece is offered as an analysis of global “power dynamics.” But there is no analysis of these other, opposing “major powers.” Instead we are encouraged to resist only the two identified power axes.

Therefore the omitted, yet described, “multipolar axis” is presumably not to be resisted. Do the authors consider it preferable? If so we strongly disagree. 

Perhaps Piers Robinson and Vanessa Beeley, will clarify this point. Perhaps the omission was not intended and they agree that the multipolar axis is equally deleterious. But we do not accept your allegation that we have in any way, deployed straw-man arguments. 

The question may arise does the “multipolar axis” exist? We think it is blatantly obvious that it does. We have cited the evidence demonstrating that it does. Indeed, it is clearly referenced in the cited Kennedy quote and in the RB-piece’s reference to other major powers and the “multipolar global order.” 

You claim that our interpretation of the RB-piece, suggesting that it identifies Western imperialism as “the sole driver of all evils,” is another “straw-man” because that is not explicitly stated in the RB-Piece.  

But Western Imperialism is the only identified geopolitical power axis to be resisted, according to the RB-piece. From the geopolitical standpoint, it is offered as the “sole driver of all evils.” 

We agree that the Western Empire axis should be resisted and we agree that it is oppressive, violent, racists and “evil.” 

But we do not think the “multipolar axis” is a viable alternative because that too seeks to oppress, exploit and control humanity. Nor do we have any reason to believe that it won’t be violent in pursuit of its own geopolitical and economic interests. 

So we come to your other claimed “straw-man” That we have incorrectly defined the “multipolar world order” and there are are other possible variations of multipolarity. So let’s be explicitly clear what we mean by “multipolar world order.” 

It is a system of global public-private governance based upon a globally regionalised power blocks. Each with more localised supply chains and each operating within a so-called global balance of power. The “blocks” or poles will adhere to a set of multilateral agreements under the monitoring and control of the United Nations. The pillars of this public-private global governance system are set to be global digital ID, digital money, SDGs that all countries must abide by—including control of all industry, commerce, development, finance and more; centralised technological control, pursuant with the 4IR, global surveillance of the worlds population (the prison planet) and, in keeping with Agenda 21, the centralised global control of all energy, food and water supplies and the global centralised administration of all land use.

This is what multipolarity is designed to achieve in our view. All the evidence that we are aware of points in this direction. This explains why so many powerful elements in the Western establishment support it, perhaps most notably the bankers, and this is the multipolar system we think should be resisted at all costs. 

You may disagree. Perhaps it portends something else in your view. So please tell us what you think the multipolar world order is and perhaps why you believe it would be a good idea. 

Austrian Peter
Austrian Peter
Jan 21, 2024 12:31 AM

An excellent analysis thank you and I agree with your conclusions. I wrote this week about the options people have to bypass this geopolitical takeover of humanity’s right to self-determination. If you can’t beat them, don’t join them, move to a safe hideaway and live off-grid by following my Plan ‘B’: https://austrianpeter.substack.com/p/the-financial-jigsaw-part-2-chapter-d30?r=hkcp6&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Jan 20, 2024 7:44 PM

Your hypothesis breaks down here:

“For one thing – this phase of the longterm war in Ukraine was launched by Russia, who, in total refutation of its own past policy, invaded the territory of a sovereign nation – something hitherto in this century only ever undertaken by the Western empire and/or its satellites – and resulting in thousands of Ukrainian civilians being killed by Russian forces.”

Wrong. The war began in 2014 with the overthrow of the Ukrainian government, the so-called Maidan Coup. Indeed, it can be argued that it began even earlier, in 2008 and the drive to get Ukraine into NATO. The objective, as ever, the overthrow of Russia and its dismemberment. All else follows.

Iain Davis
Iain Davis
Jan 21, 2024 5:17 AM
Reply to  Barovsky

Which is why we wrote “this phase of the longterm war” having previously noted:

[. . .] the US orchestrated Maidan coup and the following 8 year-long war in the Donbass was definitively a “projection of power by the US and its allies”

We maintain that Russia’s decision to directly intervene in Ukraine marked a new “phase” in the conflict which looks set to have defeated the “projection of power” by Western Empire.

Are you suggesting that Russia’s military entry into the war in Ukraine was simply part of NATO expansionism? We think it is very clear evidence of an opposing global power, able to thwart NATO expansionism.

We suggest this power is worthy of analysis too and shouldn’t be completely ignored in an analysis of global power dynamics. Especially when it is also said to represent a new model of global order.

Jan 21, 2024 8:50 AM
Reply to  Iain Davis

In 2008, The Russian Federation, under President Putin, laid out what the RFs position in regards to NATOs expansion and more importantly the strategic placement of nuclear weapons.

Let’s not forget in 1962 , the chief reason behind the Cuban missile crisis was the staging of the US’s Thor nuclear missiles aimed at the Soviet Union. The Russians take security issues very very seriously and with good reason!


Jan 21, 2024 1:16 PM
Reply to  Brianborou

“..staging of the US’s Thor missiles in Turkey aimed at the Soviet Union. “

Jan 20, 2024 6:35 PM

Perhaps the authors needed to include the good old “white supremacism” trope for their “left wing” readers. After all, anyone in America at least who criticized the “vaccine” was automatically considered a science denying Trump supporter even though Trump himself pushed the vax. Just another example of lazy thinking that reinforces the binary.

Besides that, anyone who sees that the whole power grab has NOTHING to do with West vs East or Right vs Left is defacto at least somewhat of a threat to the wonders of a benevolent global governance that will outlaw wars once and for all, completely eliminate poverty in all its forms, and will usher in an age of humanity where human rights are paramount.

Never mind that isn’t at all true, as the end of this article so well points out, why would anyone demand proof of that benevolence instead of just taking it at face value? Only a white supremacist would ask for proof, while a good humanitarian would never ask his betters to prove their intent. Just like with that vax, anyone who questioned the brilliance of Pharma on that is merely a science denying idiot or someone who is only interested in continuation of the current paradigm, more worried about losing their own privileges instead of being concerned for the future of the human race, right?

The Coming Revolution
The Coming Revolution
Jan 20, 2024 6:25 PM

There a schism taking place in the capitalist world; like a cell undergoing division. It happened to the Roman Empire; it happened to the Christian Church and characterises many other historical processes. The resulting two blocks will be weaker than the original as no one will have the strength to impose its own modus operandi on the other.

The NATO expansion towards Finland and Sweden has the goal of securing Europe from deserting the US into the other part. US fears no threat from Russia, or China. As it is asserted at the RAND Institute: Russia is a rogue but no peer; China as a peer but no rogue. So neither is both peer and rogue. What determinates war in the tradicional sense is a comparable economic advancement with fierce competition and tariff problems combined with a comparable military might that projects power. Neither Russia or China (soft power) combine both.

If there shall be any war; the most eligible candidates are US and EU; there is ruthless competition between them but, curiously, we don’t talk much about it in either media. However the EU has no industrial capabilities, the heavy kind that advances rearmament, comparable to the US.

There are hints nevertheless that the EU may be going the way Germany was going at the end of the XIXth century; towards a clash with Britain, now US; there is talk of reindustrialisation (the US always disapproved of) and rearmament; and of erecting a EU army presumably to protect itself from Russia (Trump did say to Von Der Leyen that if Russia attacked Europe, the US won’t come to the rescue; – US fears Europe turning East so keep the tensions), but I bet anything it is to rather to secure itself from the US which has become too suffocating with her resisting EU’s commercial trade with China. These things take a several years to cristallise.

IMO the EU will be the peer and rogue. Just give it time.

Iain Davis
Iain Davis
Jan 21, 2024 5:25 AM

Very interesting. Thanks.

Jan 20, 2024 4:23 PM

If this sounds like the same agenda you’ve heard from the talking heads of the Western Empire that’s because it is exactly the same agenda.

The only difference is that more “nation states” (meaning their appointed leaders of course, not the people) will supposedly have a say in the new “multipolar” version of global public-private governance.

Sorry, nation states = different cultures, not leaders. These “nation beings” will repopulate the world stage soon again, after being smeared by Hitler using the phrase ‘national-socialism’ and raping Germany’s soul to favor its ego. Socialism was the other victim of that thought frame, which the globalist Cabal than operating made sure of to propagate for decades. Using operation “Paperclip” to hide the transfer of experienced NAZIs into the FBI,CIA, NATO etc. they kept their agenda alive, till today. They keep opposing “nation states” by flooding them with immigrants in the West and promoting Global rule clubs like UN, WHO, IMF, BIS, IPCC etc. for both West and East. They tied economies on purpose.
Putin, Xi Jinping, Modi, even Biden, Scholz or Macron cannot function for long without mass back up in their own states, whatever tech surveillance they employ. It is a numbers game that the FEW will lose. Particularly when regional purchasing power goes through the respective floor, the game is up.

Erik Nielsen
Erik Nielsen
Jan 21, 2024 7:44 AM
Reply to  Austrian Peter

A short resume would have been appreciated. 😶 . There are many links.

Austrian Peter
Austrian Peter
Jan 21, 2024 8:21 PM
Reply to  Erik Nielsen
Erik Nielsen
Erik Nielsen
Jan 23, 2024 3:05 AM
Reply to  Austrian Peter

Thanks. I found out the link was not too bad and complicated as I thought :-D.

Austrin Peter
Austrin Peter
Jan 23, 2024 5:26 PM
Reply to  Erik Nielsen

Regrettably our society has become exceedingly complex and such that it is not sustainable. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-94137-6_6

Lost in a dark wood
Lost in a dark wood
Jan 20, 2024 3:47 PM

A question open to all.

Do you consider “The Monolithic & Ruthless Conspiracy” (MRC) to be valid as an identifier of a power centre or pole?

The Coming Revolution
The Coming Revolution
Jan 20, 2024 11:37 AM

Regarding Chinese and Israeli businesspeople striking deals while the government of the latter committing genocide. This is not a justification, it is an attempt at understanding, and it is an old, classic question. Just as we find ourselves, as private individuals (some would add with our real names in minuscule letters,) incapable, – and this is the bitterly lived experience, – of stopping an open air massacre of thousands of unarmed civilians, situations like China and Israel “happily” striking business together in the middle of all this tragedy is equally if no more baffling to the rational mind. That is why to understand is the only thing, as private individuals, we can do, concretely. Lucky are those who can do more.

We live in a system of social and economic relations and this is not a Marxist statement. That we are social beings, is an agreed upon statement, even for the diehard individualist who, to feel his or her distinctive identity, instinctively looks for other individualists, dead or alive, to socialise with. This system has emerged since about the XIVth century and has never stopped from evolving, complexifying, perfecting itself through its meetings with reality, through wars, blood and guts, starvation and death, but also, why not, joy, prosperity, and peace. Capital is all that. It has built everything to try to respond to human yearnings. It has built institutions, ideologies, cultures, to the end of rationally organising human societies. It is full of contradictions as, in it, the opposites cuddle each other, and our usual consciousness, while caught up in our daily living, doesn’t find these contradictions repulsive, doesn’t prompt action to address them; even if it is formally an aberration, such as when starvation and abundant food are close neighbours separated by a just a wall, or not even that.

The building of institutions by Capital, the rules by which they operate, their jurisdictions, the cases in which they intervene, etc, has been going for so long, innovating and perfectioning them. Our social and economic relations are mediated by these institutions, and many other objects in the sense that we do not enter into relations directly with each other as humans, addressing each other; we address each other in our respective capacity of buyers and sellers, citizens and foreigners, religious and laymen, judges and defendants, bosses and subordinates, writers and readers, as members of the institution of the family (as different from the family in the purely biological sense, just like the institution of the Church is different from the lived experience of the religious,) etc; we enter into relations with each other as persons fulfilling functions within the system, rarely as humans, and thus it is the institutions and ideas correspondent to our respective functions that regulate our dealings with each other; even more, our relations are mediated in a way that hides us from each other; our beings are most of the time never socialized, never coming into direct contact; our relationships are made possible only thanks to these institutions, objects and ideas, a situation which Marx called fetishism. Some would add that it is our legal fictions that interact with each other; those named with majuscule letters. And here, a word: there is nothing mysterious about these so-called legal fictions to the extent that they are consistent with the way our economic system with its institutions works.

[I was reading a book I can’t remember the title now, but in it was the transcript of a meeting of members of the British Cabinet about incidents that had just happened in Danzig, involving German troops (1939). When, say, the prime minister addressed or spoke of another member of cabinet using his full name, the name was transcribed in majuscule letters; to make it clear to the reader that what was spoken of is the individual in his capacity as member of the cabinet, as fulfilling a specific function and thus bound by obligations and responsibilities, as opposed to the individual free to obey or disobey.]

Thus, when the Chinese businesspeople meet with their Israeli homologues, they do so as businesspeople, with specific interests, with the inertia of previous meetings, with the language and the consciousness proper of these kind of meetings; and with specific goals that were in study times ago, having to do with the two economies and the welfare of their respective citizens; the concept of compartmentalisation is useful here. Their consciences are compartmentalised and sealed from considerations alien to the matter at hand, especially in the atmosphere of business meetings; the blood and guts spilled by the IDF silently goes to the background, obscured. The Israeli and Chinese capitalists may however acquit themselves from a moral obligation by wishing the war to stop promptly, but it is a formal procedure, a protocol, hurriedly disposed of before getting into “more important matters.” The reason is that both have the certainty that it is not their jobs to stop the war, or to meddle into anything having to do with it; the Chinese must think that steps are being taken through “proper channels”, the UN, ICJ, etc, and his government has already expressed itself against the genocide but has no other way than to “go through the channels of the system” too; that’s why they are in the first place. The Israeli must think that something along the same lines. The two businesspeople must think that whatever tragedies are going on in the world, their business will help improve things out by improving employment, purchase power, inflation, poverty, etc; to solve those tragedies is the job of others.

Do you think the above is drivel? Then the following may get the idea of this false consciousness, as it is a daily experience to many of us: when on our way home, on a cold rainy night, we find a homeless curled up on himself or herself, wet and cold, do we stop and help them get up and take them home to live with us forever? Well, do we? Of course we don’t. We pass by with indifference, perhaps even without noticing anything. Why? Because our consciousness is caught within the institutions and ideology of Capital: We don’t make contact with that homeless as an individual, in the truly sense of the term, but as a citizen with rights secured by the system through its institutions; a prospective guest to some home especially dedicated to take care of homeless people. We might even cast some guilt on the homeless for being bums and lazy; for not being smart enough to play along the rules of the game. And, anyway, we have our own problems to begin with; within Capital, anyone might find themselves a homeless even if the day before they were sitting carefree in their homes; so, sorry but I can do nothing to help. I can phone the institution to “report” the situation, though. It is not my job to do anything; the system will; these things have happened before and institutions have been created to this specific purpose.

The Coming Revolution
The Coming Revolution
Jan 20, 2024 11:38 AM

All our relationships are so mediated by the ideology, institutions, and concepts of the ruling class. In my work, I don’t obey the suggestions of my boss because I like my boss, because of a friendship; no, it is because our relationship is of boss and employee; each of us want something the other has, wage and labour; and it is these things that interact like iron and magnet, not the humans. There is no human relationship there. Many adopt false attitudes in situations because they want something from somebody, and under Capital, we all want something somebody else has, because our strongest drive is survival, and when it is about survival, everything else is eclipsed.

That is why tragedies are left to happen until the proper channels stop them. This is why every single soldier who participated in every war don’t like war, and nevertheless wars happen. Of course propaganda has a central role in this, but the deep sentiment of people is they dislike war. This directly connects to the emergent character of our way of living that has complexified so much that what happens at the individual level can never be expressed in the same terms as what happens at the macro level (society in general, institutions, etc). Just like the wellbeing of individuals can never be captured or described through the GDP, just like a molecule of water can never be said to be wet which is a feature at the macro level.

Jan 20, 2024 2:48 PM

Some thought-provoking points.

My guess would be that lack of real communication is a modern phenomenon, which the Internet has accelerated. I recall some older relatives that lived in a small village, where everyone knew exactly what everyone else got up to. That being no longer the world that we live in. How well does anyone know their closest relatives?

Re China and Israel, such matters start with a basic premise. For both China and Israel it’s that the land ultimately belongs to them. Basic axioms leading to future theorems.

In Israel’s case, it’s not giving up one iota/yod of the Promised Land. And why should it? It won it fair and square during the 6-day war. What victor ever gives back conquered land to the vanquished? “Land for peace” always was a myth.

Re tossing a coin to a beggar. There’s also the question of are you really helping them by doing so? I generally give to the most forlorn-looking; avoiding the semi-mugger types like the plague. Though maybe there are better policies. The rug can be pulled under anyone, as you indicate.

There also has to be some kinda money-system (or ‘Capital’) in the world, presumably. How would the world function otherwise?

The Coming Revolution
The Coming Revolution
Jan 20, 2024 5:38 PM
Reply to  Vagabard

“It won it fair and square during the 6-day war.”

It didn’t, unless you consider a country living in perpetual conflict, bombs, and wars with its neighbours and repudiated by half the world a win situation. Many a country that got its independence way after Israel imposed hers, in Africa for instance, enjoy more social and political stability. Were it not for the US, of which Israel was considered the 51th State already in the 1970s, Israel would have been a thing of the past. It only still exist because of military might, that is violence. So, shall it live forever a fictitious stability, its citizens constantly fearing attacks? And don’t forget something we don’t talk about much: reverse immigration. 

I didn’t mean tossing a coin; I meant making the homeless a member of the family, as one should have if our relationships were from human to human. If you get lost in some jungle, far away from “civilisation”, you will be given shelter and food and hospitality and made one of the group. That’s how the chronicles of the conquistadores of the “New World” described the natives anyway; simple minded, 
 and hospitable.

RE: money-system.

We didn’t always use money, nor sold and bought things, nor exchanged good, nor worked for a wage; therefore, it is to be expected that these historical categories shall disappear sometime in the future; not because some tyrant decrees so, but because they just cease to be useful, rather cumbersome. Just think thar currently, cash-form is working against the system.

Austrian Peter
Austrian Peter
Jan 21, 2024 12:46 AM
Jan 20, 2024 2:03 PM

If we do not identify the hierarchical structure of our countries’ “system of social and economic relations” then we cannot analyse it properly and more importantly, it prevents us from finding any real solutions to our problems? Other than a few places in the world (like Switzerland’s two cantons, Glarus and Appenzell Innerrhoden which use the ‘Landsgemeinde’ transparent, market-square, non-digital ‘direct democracy’ system) most of the world’s countries use a form of hierarchical representative system (whereby the people are subordinated to the policies made by the puppet-masters of our so-called ‘representatives’), and this is where the REAL problem lies? 

Almost all of the people in each country [with a representative system] are at odds with the plans of these puppet-masters who control our governments including vitally our local councils which disastrously gets overlooked by too many people (a commenter, rightly, wrote something similar about this here on OffG earlier). The only solution that is fair to the people is to bring-in the truly transparent, open and non-digital Landsgemeinde system into ALL of our countries (within small cantons inside our nations). Of course this system is only possible if we have a moral and truly informed population so all of our information/knowledge systems will need to be as open, transparent and free for everyone as possible as well as run with vigilance (against any form of corruption) by the people not just a self-appointed elite e.g. free and open media, libraries, archives, museums, and of course top-notch education more in the style of Eton for every child in the country (access to real knowledge not propaganda; genuinely effective learning styles and techniques including critical thinking; taught in extremely small groups with a more personal tutor rather than teachers for large classrooms,…). As in the past, all our knowledge should be shared to with the next generation imbued with morality. Parents taught highly effective home-schooling techniques for their children could be another option. Power should always be in the hands of every informed, moreal adult in the country not an elite because history shows human nature is selfish and can become power-hungry once at the top of a hierarchy,

Centralised systems that require bureaucracy (including hierarchical representative systems) are the real problem in this world because they are ripe for infiltration, subversion and corruption by the power-hungry eventually (even if they start off well with good intentioned people) and that is one of the main reasons I think ‘distributism’ is the better system than most other forms of capitalism, and all forms of collectivism (because all collectivist systems requires centralisation and bureaucracy to run of course) e.g. socialism and of course not forgetting our current tyranny as described in this brilliant article above: the UN Agenda 2030 sustainable governance system which is at heart a communitarian, technocratic, and corporatist system (note that corporatism is essentially a genuine form of fascism).

Jan 20, 2024 2:13 PM
Reply to  Ennes
  • should say: “Power should always be in the hands of every informed, moral adult in the country not an elite because history shows human nature is selfish and can become power-hungry once at the top of a hierarchy.”
The Coming Revolution
The Coming Revolution
Jan 20, 2024 5:55 PM
Reply to  Ennes

Amen to all that.

Interesting about the Swiss cantons of direct democracy; there are many voices now calling for constitutions written by the people and direct control and rotation and accountability of the elected. There are certainly hints of a turn back from expansion to retraction. The “Green” industry, even though IMO based on exaggerations, proves that the global industrial system needs downsizing, and we perhaps shall be forced to get back to manual agriculture.

How much of the ideas we have for the future we can implement and how much will be dictated on us by the circumstances?

The Coming Revolution
The Coming Revolution
Jan 24, 2024 9:21 AM

I have to make a correction about the transcript mentioned above of the British Cabinet meeting. After revisiting it, it was after all not the full names of its members that were transcribed in all-majuscules, rather the titles or functions they fulfilled and the rule had many exceptions. The full names were transcribed in the usual way. For instance:
“THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS said that his colleagues would have seen Telegrams Nos. 150, 151 and 152, of the 4th of July, 1939, from Sir William Seeds. [Ambassador to the Soviet Union and Brazil]”
So, I guess the all-capitalisation was used simply for emphasis. It remains true, as the empirical evidence shows, that our social relations are nonetheless mediated by bourgeois ideology, institutions, and concepts, which seek to justify the status-quo and perpetuate class division.

Jan 20, 2024 10:18 AM

This magnificent OffG thesis is too Abstract, too All-embracing and too full of Logic for me to digest. Instead, I shoot too tiny anecdotal arrows from the sidelines.

a. OffG says, “Let’s begin this section by stating the obvious that empires are always evil and essentially anti-human.”

Anecdote a: Oxford Prof.GH Hardy was demonstrating a proof on the blackboard. He wrote down something and said to the class, “From this it is obvious that …”

A student interrupted, “But Professor, I don’t see it is obvious”.

Hardy paused a while, then left the classroom. The students could see him through the windows pacing up and down the lawn in the Quad, deep in thought. After a few minutes he returned, said:

“It is obvious”, and continued his writing on the blackboard.

Anectdote b. In the 1920s leading physicists held a contentious meeting on the quantum being both a wave and a particle. Young Heisenberg declared the antinomy was purely mental:

“Logic obliges us to choose EITHER / OR between contradictory alternatives; but Nature imperiously commands us to choose both.”

Jan 20, 2024 2:15 PM
Reply to  NickM

Exactly. If the Covid experience has taught us anything at all, then it should be that what is termed ‘obvious’, ‘evident’, ‘beyond doubt’ should be questioned as the first point of call.

Erik Nielsen
Erik Nielsen
Jan 22, 2024 10:19 PM
Reply to  Vagabard

Only if the case is wrong. If the case is right it can be evident, obvious.
2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples is obvious and evident and we should not waste time and question it with relative idiots, that it could also may be -4 apples or 5 apples.

Tilly Petersen
Tilly Petersen
Jan 20, 2024 8:01 AM

This is very long and thorough. I think a condensed version of the major points that show multipolarity to be a globalist sham would be very helpful.

Like the “40 Facts” cribsheet but for globalism and issues of fake binary

Jonas Carling
Jonas Carling
Jan 20, 2024 11:41 AM
Reply to  Tilly Petersen

If you think it is needed, please feel free to go ahead and do your cheatsheet for those unable to process more than a tweet-long piece of text, anymore. I bet the OffG guys will be happy to publish it.

I am pretty sure that the target audience of Iain and Catte’s article was not the dumbed-down masses that get themselves informed with a spoonful of TL;DR.

And I am also sure that Iain and Catte would appreciate more your valued contribution than your unnecessary demands 🙂

Austrian Peter
Austrian Peter
Jan 21, 2024 12:50 AM
Reply to  Jonas Carling
Jonas Carling
Jonas Carling
Jan 21, 2024 9:34 AM
Reply to  Austrian Peter

Just for your info:

In your link, everything past the question mark (?) is useless tracking tags, so I am sure you would do everyone a great favour if you removed it when you share the links 🙂

Austrian Peter
Austrian Peter
Jan 21, 2024 8:42 PM
Reply to  Jonas Carling

Thanks for this Jonas and I am not technical so I think it is something Admin might address. Here’s his email: [email protected]

Jonas Carling
Jonas Carling
Jan 22, 2024 5:11 PM
Reply to  Austrian Peter

No Sir, you are in charge with you what you publish so you must address it. Besides, “I am not technical” is no good excuse to wash off your hands. I gave you the solution already: remove everything after the question mark. If you can write a comment here (and a full article in substack) you are able to edit it and remove the tracking.

If you still plead laziness, there are plenty of browser addons that remove tracking tags for you, e.g. this or this

Austrian Peter
Austrian Peter
Jan 22, 2024 9:02 PM
Reply to  Jonas Carling

Many thanks jonas I have added your recommendation to my FF, But I avoid Chrome like the plague! Go well friend.

fred victor
fred victor
Jan 20, 2024 6:53 AM

No October 7 does not “seem to be orchestrated.” It was real.

This information is ferociously suppressed in these environs.

For the sake of freedom.

Jan 20, 2024 6:50 PM
Reply to  fred victor

Considering Hamas was funded and created with at the very least assistance from the Israeli government as well as Mossad, how can one not at least consider that Oct 7 was at the very least a LIHOP? Do you think the US deep state had any reluctance at all to sacrifice US citizens on 9/11? Even IF that was a LIHOP and not a MIHOP, all one need do is look at the consequences of that to see if it wasn’t fully orchestrated, it sure as hell was used to implement not only endless global war, but the beginnings of a fully totalitarian state, and now global, governance. For the sake of freedom, wake up and realize this is a global power grab and those who are grabbing that power could not give one shit who they kill to do it, including their own people.

Jan 20, 2024 3:55 AM

However, the subtext of the RB-piece apparently advocates that humanity could free itself via the proposed “multipolar world order”.

We respectfully and entirely disagree with this idea and, on the contrary, suggest we should oppose the multipolar world order just as vigorously as we might any other model of tyranny.

Absolutely nowhere in their article do Robinson and Beeley propose a multipolar world order and to place that term within quotation marks as if it is a quote from their article is highly intellectually dishonest.

Given there are a lot of DB sycophants around here–as evidenced by their responses to the two articles–I’m not expecting much agreement with my comment. Oh well, I’ll just have to cry myself to sleep tonight. 😂

Tilly Petersen
Tilly Petersen
Jan 20, 2024 7:57 AM
Reply to  Elmo

Who or what is “DB”? Sorry if I’m being dense.

Jan 20, 2024 11:46 AM
Reply to  Tilly Petersen

I’m assuming that DB is Davis / Black as opposed to the referenced article ‘RB’ being Robinson / Beeley.

Iain Davis
Iain Davis
Jan 20, 2024 10:37 AM
Reply to  Elmo

They are scare quotes and are perfectly legitimate. This is emphasised by the preceding text “the subtext of the RB-piece.” There is nothing intellectually dishonest about their use. There is no claim made anywhere that this is a direct quote but it is argued that the “subtext” of the RB-piece is supportive of the notion of the “multipolar world order” which is a concept questioned throughout our opinion piece.

Jan 20, 2024 2:51 AM

Excellent points made. What’s missing is the importance of the 4IR being focused in exploited African countries by WEF etc, which are, in turn, controlled by CCP. The PPP-funded Biosecurity state is already well developed there, but is too often left out of these discussions. Sunak’s obsession with Rwanda isn’t a coincidence.

Jan 19, 2024 11:48 PM

Okay, respect where respect is due. Even though I haven’t been OffG’s most avid supporter due to its censorship of people’s comments including mine, I have to say this is an excellent article. Bravo, I hope many people read it and share it.

Also, what do people think of this: many of us know the establishment love their ‘gematria’. Using a particular gematria calculation ‘UK’ adds up as ‘5’. Could this mean that ‘UK Column’ also means ‘5th Column’? Wouldn’t surprise me in the least…

Jan 19, 2024 7:53 PM

Excellent debate. I would be less offended about the RB argument, which does rightly point out Western Empire’s unceasing neo-colonialism needing to be terminated.

In my mind, the real problem here common to both sides, but never directly identified, is the absolute and resolute objective of the world ruling elite: keeping the world’s 99% authority-less (without direct democracy) to decide it’s own future. Under every activity of the world since the Enclosure Movement and even the last 5,000 years, has been the ruling class’s denial of any real democratic Commons. Neutralization of popular culture being able to decide it’s own future. The attacks on any form of anarchism (anti-authoritarian self-organizing) by all the elite ideologies is revealing.

The US Constitution was one of their “mistakes”, forced by commoner demands, as was the Magna Carta giving us Common Law. But dealing with these “mistakes” has been as simple as just ignoring them and using instead their made-up-on-the-fly “rules based order” decision making. Their is no one to hold them accountable because We-the-People are not in authority to decide and oversee these assholes as they drive the world to the brink.

I am more a proponent of the OG argument, but see both essentially wanting the same thing. Liberation from capitalist ruling class warfare on the world’s 99%. We are and have been in a class war for 5,000 years. Politics, being the art of prosecuting “worthy” hidden agendas, is really just their method of prosecuting this warfare on Humanity. “Political power” is a ruse, like the RB hopium that the elite will somehow find a way of liberating Humanity. GIVE IT UP!!! IT’S NOT GONNA HAPPEN! The way out is for us to take all their authority and their excess disposable wealth and redirecting it back to the consent and decision making of the 99%.

We need to be creative and find a way to get to a system of a self-governing Commons by acceptable standards of consent, participation and oversight.

If we had the access to consent, would we not in the US: 1) bring back all 800 military bases and cut Military/State/Spy/Bankster Industrial Complex to 10%? 2) Tax excess unearned income by 90% and return it to a new vibrant Public Commons of needed domestic services? 3) place limits on the ownership of housing and land for the purposes of profit? 4) Socialize Banking, Utilities, Health Care, Transportation, and basic public services to serve the social needs of Humanity? These four changes eliminate the Rat Class from it’s ruling class castle in the sky and it’s ruthless worldwide schemes for authority.

We can do this. but not until us Commoners start brainstorming the path to self-governing. Solidarity!!!

Tom Larsen
Tom Larsen
Jan 19, 2024 8:58 PM
Reply to  sandy

Good post.

RE: the RB hopium that the elite will somehow find a way of liberating Humanity.

Can you point out where RB is saying anything like that?

Jan 19, 2024 9:33 PM
Reply to  Tom Larsen

In endorsing the multi-polar way they are hoping that the “other” ruling elite will do what our ruling elite will never do. Not gonna happen. 5,000 years of elite class supremacy has been in Humanity’s face for 5,000 years. It’s not gonna happen. That’s Hopium talkin’.

Tom Larsen
Tom Larsen
Jan 20, 2024 2:46 AM
Reply to  sandy

I don’t recall RB ever using the term “multi-polar.”

Tilly Petersen
Tilly Petersen
Jan 20, 2024 8:05 AM
Reply to  Tom Larsen

Whether they literally use the term “multipolar” or not, much of their argument is that the “western empire” is the driver of globalism and that the east and south may be natural opponents of it. What’s the point of quibbling about that?

Iain Davis
Iain Davis
Jan 23, 2024 10:55 AM
Reply to  Tom Larsen

“Within these cleavages, a key subdivision concerns diverging perspectives within the Covid resistance between those who emphasise the continuing drive toward technocratic global governance and those who focus upon the weakening/declining Western Empire and the rise of a multipolar global system.” 

Tom Larsen
Tom Larsen
Jan 23, 2024 2:17 PM
Reply to  Iain Davis

Thanks, I will reread your piece and check out the links.

Jan 19, 2024 7:32 PM

This all seems eurocentric. How many from the global south would share this contempt for the restructuring of international relations?

Also, the complete absence of Zionism in the analysis is striking.

Jan 19, 2024 5:39 PM

Oh god more division, division within division until we are splintered into a thousand pieces.

Jan 19, 2024 4:26 PM

My understanding of what/who “the State” is has changed over the last few years. I came across David Scott and Simon Elmer debating on Twitter whether the globalist forces were attempting to exert communism or fascism. This seemed as binary and exhausting as red v blue or left v right. If the power lies with a higher tier of management they seem to be able to take their pick of ideological tools depending upon circumstances.

Tom Larsen
Tom Larsen
Jan 19, 2024 6:46 PM
Reply to  Mike

Elmer makes a book-length argument that it is a new form of fascism. The idea that Blackrock, the BIS, Gates, Big Pharma, the US MIC, the WEF et al, are all populated by communists is absurd on its face as Simon points out. What people don’t get is that the Chinese Communist Party is a capitalist organization (they are a bunch of billionaires), it is just state dominated capitalism as opposed to corporate dominated capitalism. The vast majority of any population is fucked either way.

Jan 19, 2024 4:19 PM

The idea of ‘multipolarity’ is really just the Mackinder World Island for the 21st century.

As writer alludes this was postulated by Quigley well over 50 years ago so this idea of changes in the power balance is nothing new. It was the whole point of Kissinger’s visit to China to sow the seeds and enable the rise of China. We see the fruits of that today. AFAIK Kissinger was never challenged on that by any in the media

This change in the balance of power has its hallmarks in the Wall Street banks funding the Bolshevik revolutions and the rise of Hitler – both well documented by Sutton. All the time US kids were getting killed in Vietnam the Viet Cong were using Ford Engines supplied by the Russians.

The ‘internationalist’ bankers operate outside of normal views of the West or East and has been a mode of operation and reality for over a 100 years.

Since the end of WW2 when the 2 main winners were Communism and Zionism – really the same people funded by Rottenchild we have seen the decline of the West which was always the next phase of the plan.

Now that is almost complete with the US and EU/UK fast becoming basket cases in terms of solvency and homogeneity the hollowing out by the cancer within has reached epidemic proportions. That this has seen the rise of the BRICS is of course no coincidence.

There have been many raising awareness of the Talpiot program and Unit8200 and the tech transfer which has seen Israel becoming the Cybercrime hub. Irony abounds but cognitive dissonance means many aware fear raising objection lest they get hit with the AS slur.

But once the reality becomes apparent (though unlikely any time soon bearing in mind the Zionist grip on the media) perhaps the biggest shock for Brits and American’s will be to see their ‘ally’ Israel turn its back and embrace its new friends in the East.

Maybe then the penny might drop …

Tom Larsen
Tom Larsen
Jan 19, 2024 3:31 PM

I find it troubling that this counter argument piece is based on a perceived “subtext” and “assumptions.”

I don’t know why a very old form of analysis is not acknowledged to explain our current world: The whole world is capitalist, the ruling class seek to maximize profit and control but that does not mean they don’t compete with each other.

George Mc
George Mc
Jan 19, 2024 4:34 PM
Reply to  Tom Larsen

By “very old form of analysis”, I presume you mean Marxism. I am sympathetic to that idea however, even after 4 years of this covid crap, the nearest we ever got to such an analysis that had the decency to denounce the covid coup for what it was came from Simon Elmer. I don’t know if Simon would self-describe as a Marxist but he gave us an historical materialist analysis. This was something that Philip Roddis – definitely a Marxist – picked up on …. only to put it down again pretty damn quick! So much for Marx! Or at least what passes for Marxism now.

This doesn’t mean that there can’t be a Marxist analysis but it must acknowledge – as I’m sure Karl himself would – that even though the ruling class compete with each other, they also join together when a crisis calls for it. And indeed, this is what class warfare is all about. Under a looming crisis of unprecedented proportions, I have no doubt that the horizontal axis (competing ruling factions) gets shelved for the vertical axis (the class war in global terms).

Jan 19, 2024 5:03 PM
Reply to  George Mc

Particularly if the horizontal axis isn’t entirely horizontal, but one faction of the ruling class (in this case, the globalists) has a dominant position. It can then impose its agenda on the rest of the ruling class.

Tom Larsen
Tom Larsen
Jan 19, 2024 5:19 PM
Reply to  George Mc

Thanks for articulating my comment better than me!

RE: Joining together
To put it in concrete and contemporary terms, I would say that the biosecurity state is where various capitalist ruling classes “join together.” They all realize that (just like the value of war) that having their populations subdued and controlled by a constant threat, (fear campaigns work!), this one invisible and arguably non-existent – i.e. viral pandemics – is too good a social control and profit maximizing mechanism to pass up. The one argument you don’t see very often (which you point out) is the class nature of the biosecurity state, that is, the biosecurity state as class warfare.

RE: I have no doubt that the horizontal axis (competing ruling factions) gets shelved for the vertical axis (the class war in global terms).

I basically agree with this statement except I would use the term prioritized rather than “shelved.”

However, Iain seems to be saying that this competition doesn’t exit or is illusory, and Piers is saying that it does exist and has real world consequences. It seems like an argument between either/or and both/and. Frankly, I am not sure that resolving this question is that important. That’s my take so far.

Tom Larsen
Tom Larsen
Jan 19, 2024 6:03 PM
Reply to  Tom Larsen

After thinking about it, I think I would substitute the word subordinated for prioritized.

George Mc
George Mc
Jan 19, 2024 6:26 PM
Reply to  Tom Larsen

Since the Mighty Covid landed I have been feeling more and more that a lot of these arguments amount to bickering over relative trivia. This isn’t “Either/Or” nor even “Both/and” but as you say prioritizing or subordinating as the need arises.

Tom Larsen
Tom Larsen
Jan 19, 2024 8:48 PM
Reply to  George Mc

RE: prioritizing or subordinating as the need arises.

Yes! And that “need” can be either structural or geopolitical or both at the same time.

I can’t stop remarking on how the Israel/Gaza issue (geopolitics) got the Right supporting censorship (essential for the bio-security state) – in a matter of days – just like the Left has been doing for the last 3 years. Global totalitarianism cannot exist without massive censorship. Now it can claim “bi-partisan” support.

Jan 19, 2024 11:13 PM
Reply to  Tom Larsen

I happen to agree with your and George’s highly intelligent exchange, which has helped clarify my own thoughts on the matter and manner of elite rivalry and cooperation. Something that had already occurred to me was the way in which emperors, kings, princes, et al. fought tooth and nail one another for dominance thoughout history and yet the moment a peasant’s revolt threatened, united their forces to crush it. And I couldn’t see why that basic principle might have changed.

That said, I’m also impressed and reassured by the level of intellect (and civility, with the exception of the clumsy reference to “white supremicism”, a black spot of Woke) shown by both articles and their authors.

George Mc
George Mc
Jan 20, 2024 6:56 AM
Reply to  StStephen

I too am sick to death of chronic references to racism, white supremacism, and especially antisemitism. The few Marxist articles I’ve read that call out the Covid crap seem steeped in this “racial discourse” stuff.

In this day and age I reckon there is very little real racism. Frankly few would dare unless they were paid up trolls. Of course racism has always benefitted the rulers and, when they could no longer stir things up directly, they could do so indirectly by complaining about a racism no longer present. Consequently, these drones about racism remind me of Little Britain’s “only gay in the village”, stuck in yesterday’s battles.

Terje M
Terje M
Jan 19, 2024 12:34 PM

The OffG Telegram account states that the censorship now extends to that social media company too. A bit more info on this would be appreciated.

“Btw – we are now HEAVILY censored on Telegram as well as all other social media (questioning the multipolar binary is the ultimate taboo apparently), so if you think our output is worth it please share it in as many ways as you can – via social media, email anything – to try to stop them silencing us!”


Jan 19, 2024 12:20 PM

Multipolarity is as much of an illusion as media diversity:

Why is she everywhere?

Bankers and bloodlines.

Danny O'Thebes
Danny O'Thebes
Jan 20, 2024 9:15 AM
Reply to  Edwige

I read “Federal Reserve Bank of Pedophilia” 😂

Lost in a dark wood
Lost in a dark wood
Jan 19, 2024 12:17 PM

Russian Air-Defence Successfully Neutralise Ukrainian Drones

Two Ukrainian UAVs destroyed over Bryansk region — governor
Emergency response services are working on the spot
BRYANSK, January 19. /TASS/. Russia’s air defense forces have shot down two Ukrainian unmanned aerial vehicles in the Bryansk Region, Governor Alexander Bogomaz has said in his Telegram channel.
“An attempt by the Kiev regime to commit a terrorist attack with fixed wing UAVs was thwarted. Two Ukrainian drones were destroyed by the air defense forces of the Russian Defense Ministry on duty over Pogar and Unecha districts,” Bogomaz wrote.
Emergency response services are working on the spot, the governor added.
Earlier on Friday, Russia’s electronic warfare units suppressed an Ukrainian drone over the region. Ammunition was dropped on an oil depot causing fire. There were no immediate reports of casualties. A fire-fighting train was commissioned to help extinguish the fuel tanks.

Russian oil depot catches fire after Ukrainian drone downed
The Times and The Sunday Times
Jan 19, 2024
Oil tanks at a storage facility in the town of Klintsy in Russia’s Bryansk region caught fire after the military brought down a Ukrainian drone, Alexander Bogomaz, the regional governor, said on Friday.
According to preliminary information, nobody had been hurt in the incident, Bogomaz said, adding that the fire was being put out by firefighting teams.
“An aeroplane-style drone was brought down by the defence ministry using radio-electronic means. When the aerial target was destroyed, its munitions were dropped on the territory of the Klintsy oil depot,” Bogomaz wrote on the Telegram messaging app.
Bogomaz said a further two Ukrainian drones had been shot down over other parts of Bryansk by air defence units.

Clutching at straws
Clutching at straws
Jan 19, 2024 12:04 PM

Is this the fluffy side of Davos ?

Argentinian President Javier Milei extolling the virtues of freedom and capitalism.

Interesting considering the theme this year is “building back trust”,

Tom Larsen
Tom Larsen
Jan 20, 2024 7:38 AM

Fuuuuck. Wow, I thought our propaganda was bad!

Tom Larsen
Tom Larsen
Jan 22, 2024 7:12 PM

The most important aspect of this talk I would say is not its content but rather its context. This is happening at the WEF, the old boys club of concentrated monopolistic capitalist power, from states to non-state authoritarian institutions like NATO and the WHO to oligarchic power like the Gates and Rockefeller foundations all who “distort the free market”, a term this Argentinian libertarian might use. The WEF is not a democratic institution that provides robust debate on controversial issues. It is the opposite of that, it is rather the public center of ideological conformity (some would say the architect of the “collectivist” ideology the speaker decries) and propaganda that radiates its views (instructions?) around the world. So, the question I have is why is the WEF giving this guy a platform? Is it that the “liberal” version of the Great Reset, is coming up against resistance and they are putting out a trial balloon for a “libertarian” version of the Great Reset? (Which they also will control.)

Jan 19, 2024 12:00 PM

Here’s a book on ‘dynamics’ written by one of Fauci’s ambush of demons:


‘We notice that his book nowhere mentions Sweden, which went on with daily life while eschewing the global virus control machinery at every turn, and with excellent results. He cannot stand to think of that so it has disappeared from his

Jan 19, 2024 11:39 AM

Excellent article. Both of you are treasures for humanity. To think there is a truly “multipolar” world one has to be either blind, brainwashed by a QAnon like op or paid to lie. So this is what I think of so called multipolars. Still we are far behind any meaningful resistance to the so called globalists because people tend to think only in horizontal terms and still don’t do their own research. Cited documents here are not beyond the reach of ordinary people, but they still fail to research and think for themselves. The globalist entity is still well hidden behind public globalist organizations, corporations and pawns to obscure its identity and to inject complexity so that we don’t know who the enemy is really. But even on the level of corporate cooperation and “just follow the money” things are quite obvious.

Jan 19, 2024 10:33 AM

Truly the mask slipped during ‘Covid’.

There is no left/right, NATO/BRICS, Western/Eastern…

There are only psychotic parasites and Us.

Jonathan K X
Jonathan K X
Jan 19, 2024 3:48 PM
Reply to  Lance

Yes, this. It was very eye-opening to see people wearing the same masks and being subjected to the same lockdowns and “social distancing” requirements in Russia, China, Venezuela and Cuba that the PTB in the US and western Europe were imposing on their citizens. Not only were virtually all of the world’s governments shown to be a sham, but also almost all of the “medical professionals” in the world showed themselves to be little more than crooks and charlatans when they didn’t call out the absurdity.

Jan 19, 2024 11:07 PM
Reply to  Lance

Exactly.. we live in a global pathocracy.

Lost in a dark wood
Lost in a dark wood
Jan 19, 2024 10:17 AM

We must form a cohesive and united Resistance front

Emilio Estevez
Emilio Estevez
Jan 19, 2024 10:05 AM

Will Robinson and/or Beeley have the courage to face the volleys of fact that totally destroy their contentions? Will they reply? Admit their screaming errors?

Jan 19, 2024 9:08 AM

Some minor quibbles but generally this is soundly reasoned imo.

No article can cover everything, as the authors say, but I would point out that missing the universal advance of depopulation is to miss the central plank of the meta-agenda. Just this week China announced a major population decline. There’s no “pole” where population is doing anything but decline. The transnational elite have hardly concealed their long-standing desire for drastically fewer people in this world.

One part of the new power structure that wasn’t mentioned but is very much currently in play is the ICJ. There’s clearly something going on with the SA case against Israel. My guess is their case will win, the US will sabotage any consequnces and this will become a “oh, isn’t US unipolarity dreadful – let’s have a world court with teeth” argument. Somehow no Israelis will ever quite manage to end up in it (although they’d throw Netanyahu under the bus if it really came to it) but we’ll find leaders who resist Sustainability Goals or pandemic preparedness appearing in show trials. A world court has long been part of the globalist agenda – I can’t remember if it’s in Wells, House or Birkenhead (most probably it was Wells) but it’s in some of their earliest texts. It’s exactly what Putin and Xi argue – they want a world court that doesn’t give the US and its allies a free pass. People must realise that their very understandable sentiment of wanting to see war criminals like Bush and Blair arraigned has been weaponised against us.

underground poet
underground poet
Jan 19, 2024 11:34 AM
Reply to  Edwige

There are still more people being born each day than dying, this is not depopulation, if anything its a reduction of the rate of population increase.

Erik Nielsen
Erik Nielsen
Jan 19, 2024 4:30 PM

How do you know that? Have you been heavily around with your “swing”.

underground poet
underground poet
Jan 20, 2024 2:25 AM
Reply to  Erik Nielsen

They publish a growth chart and as of now it shows no signs of reversal, only a slowdown which would be expected in a high price environment.

Tilly Petersen
Tilly Petersen
Jan 20, 2024 8:11 AM

Do you automatically believe any chart that gets published?

There are charts about the rise of covid too.

And global temperatures.

Charts are easy.

Tom Larsen
Tom Larsen
Jan 19, 2024 5:46 PM
Reply to  Edwige

RE: depopulation

This is important. There appears to be a coherent depopulation agenda. I still don’t grasp it fully. The jabs are only a small part of it. There’s vaccines (which if they only caused autism, autistic people don’t tend to have children), there’s environmental toxins, and there’s ideology. For example I know young couples today that say that they won’t have kids because they don’t want to add to “their carbon footprint.” Also, Trans ideology is anti-reproduction. There’s also the role of economic insecurity which doesn’t seem to be decreasing with time (as people get older), and child rearing does need a certain amount of financial stability. That’s just off the top of my head…

I recently heard that in South Korea, for every 100 adults, there are only 4 children. That is an extinction ratio.

Jan 20, 2024 7:33 PM
Reply to  Tom Larsen

You do grasp the depopulation agenda very clearly, IMHO. It is a convergence of factors, as you point out.

The vaccines, which in far too many cases not only cause death but long-term illness, big cash cow for Pharma in that and it came along for them right as they were indeed losing profitability.

Environmental toxins function much the same way, they cause not only death but again, long term illnesses that require expensive “treatments” while the true cause of that illness is NEVER even investigated. (Obviously here our medical establishment is not taught to look for causes of illness, only to push treatments that many times make the actual illness worse, of course, part of the overall dumbing down which in its own way contributes to depopulation.)

Trans ideology is definitely anti-reproduction in many ways, but it too requires massive amounts of pharmaceuticals as well as other “treatments,” for life.

Accelerating poverty is, of course, another part of depopulation as well as creating dysfunction, crime, illness, division, etc. and our owners have used that for eons.

Then there’s the ideology of not adding to one’s “carbon footprint” which functions as another facet in long term population reduction as well as acceptance of that attitude as a good thing.

All these pieces are working for a long-term depopulation agenda, and really that is the only way our owners can get away with this without fully showing their hand, for now. That does not mean they can’t go full throttle at some point and release something that kills many much faster, or just drop a few nukes and call it good, but for now they’d like to avoid the chance of a full-on revolt, so they’ll go slowly until the need to go all out arrives.

Jan 19, 2024 9:05 AM

Excellent response from Mr Davis & Ms Black. I read the article by Robinson and Bealey and was a little dismayed at the vitriole in some of its attacks. A response was needed and this is timely. I do hope it will further discussion on this important issue.

Tom Larsen
Tom Larsen
Jan 19, 2024 5:49 PM
Reply to  Hannah

RE: the vitriole in some of its attacks

Huh? What vitriol and what attacks?

Matt Black
Matt Black
Jan 19, 2024 8:47 AM

I see you got the comms on furthering the divide.

“Not a single announcement will reach the public without our control, only lies printed, to excite or to tranquilize the public mind on political questions, to persuade or to confuse, printing now truth, now lies, facts or their contradictions”

There is nothing more dangerous to the Kabal than personal initiative, don’t vote, don’t follow any movement, be a lone wolf, seek out methods of sabotage, don’t engage with their systems.

underground poet
underground poet
Jan 19, 2024 11:36 AM
Reply to  Matt Black

If you leave him alone long enough he will derail his own train, no sabotage needed.

Erik Nielsen
Erik Nielsen
Jan 21, 2024 8:18 AM
Reply to  Matt Black

Sovjet has been through this before.

Jan 19, 2024 8:07 AM

comment image