Why doesn’t Vladimir Putin fire all the Globalists in the Russian government? Rurik Skywalker asks. Because Putin is a dedicated Globalist himself.
The BRICS countries’ governments have been chosen to be their local satrapies, he says. “The process to “multipolarise” the world is actually the process by which the world is globalised even further, and local elites deputised to carry out the globalisation agenda in their own regions.”
Ultimately, it is a “convergence” of the East’s oligarchs and the West’s oligarchs so they become a single global oligarchy.
The following is extracted from an article written by Rurik Skywalker, a pseudonym for Rolo Slavskiy, published on his Substack page titled ‘ The Slavland Chronicles’. Click on the title above to read the full article.
I didn’t actually understand what “multipolarity” was and how it would be accomplished exactly. All I had was the vague notion that the dollar would be detonated by Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping somehow at some point. Even now, I don’t understand what it really means.
The news that has been dominating the cycle the last week has been this Kazan conference [a BRICS summit being held in Kazan, Russia]. Otherwise, it has been a slow news week. There was confirmation of North Koreans training to deploy to Donbass, which was exciting I guess, and some villages swapped hands there too (I’m just guessing, actually), but other than that, all quiet on the Eastern Front.
I find the BRICS news stories to be very boring and rarely report on them, usually.
More interesting is the deeper discussion on what “multipolarity” even is, really. Like, for example, I just learned the other day that Boris Yeltsin claimed that he was building a multipolar world with his reforms in the 1990s.
We haven’t done a deep dive into Boris Yeltsin on the blog yet as we did on the other Soviet leaders from Stalin onwards, but I think most people know what a disaster Yeltsin was for Russia and how he essentially dismembered the country and made it into a Western satrapy. Even the current ZAnon narrative is that Putin tricked Yeltsin into making him president because Putin was a secret KGB patriot trying to save Russia. This is how they explain away the great betrayer Boris Yeltsin’s inexplicable decision to appoint a secret patriot who would go on to reverse all of his policy decisions and Make Russia Great Again.
Of course, Putin did no such thing, and he simply continued and solidified Yeltsin’s policies, but still, that is the yarn that I used to believe in as well and I got it from reading Saker 10 years ago.
Digression aside, while Yeltsin was acting as a puppet for Washington and destroying Russia, he claimed that he was ushering in a new multipolar world order.
Here are the relevant quotes that I found from a new blogger* here on the ‘stack:
I bring this up to point out that being pro-multipolar doesn’t mean that someone is a patriot or a nationalist or a defender of one’s own country against Globalism. In fact, as I discussed before, “multipolarism” is a term used to describe the literal opposite of what is actually being built.
What multipolarism actually is appears to be nothing more than the consolidation of globalism.
The problem is that political words do not mean what people think they mean. Like, “the Proletariat” isn’t a bunch of workers in overalls at the steel mill, really. Because in actual political history, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat ended up actually being a gang of Russian-speaking Jews from the Pale of Settlement, mostly.
For example, Trotsky, one of the richest men in the world who had never worked a day in his life considered himself and his comrades to be proletarians. Thus, when you read “Proletariat” in the official speeches and books of the Communists, you have to remember to switch the words out for their true meanings to understand what is really being said.
It is the same with “multipolarism,” really.
You need to swap the word out for “more globalism” and then the speeches and policy papers put out by the big international organisations start to make sense again.
What is being called “multipolarism” is nothing more than the delegation of enforcement responsibilities to forward operation bases that have been set up all over the world in the aftermath of World War II and the end of the Cold War. In other words, Globalism needs forward operating bases in Eurasia or South America, and they have chosen these BRICS countries’ governments to be their local satrapies. The process to “multipolarise” the world is actually the process by which the world is globalised even further, and local elites deputised to carry out the globalisation agenda in their own regions.
That is why there is no discernible difference between BRICS multipolar policies and globalism policies.
Even the aesthetic choices are the same:
Personally, I once accepted all of these ZAnon narratives about Putin and BRICS, and the Antifa anti-Globalist BRICS forces outsmarting the West and winning the great geostrategic chess game simply on faith and a desire to believe.
The only problem with believing in this narrative was that only the internet prophets like Saker and Martyanov and others had the inside track on things. There was no other way to independently come to these conclusions or to verify them. Luckily, ZAnon deigned to reveal bits and scraps of the master plan to their readers piece by piece, for which we were expected to be very grateful and generous with our donations.
Again, upon further reflection, it was simply a religion, this entire ZAnon movement.
In contrast, I decided to take the complete opposite approach with my writing and analysis on this blog.
I simply present what Putin and his government say or have said.
I also share what anti-Putin patriotic Russians say about the Kremlin. There is no convoluted shadow-war narrative here on my blog. People who write to me claiming that they don’t understand what I am saying are actually seeking psychological and emotional help. It is not that they cannot understand what I am saying, it is that they cannot accept what I am saying.
For example, a clip of Press Sec. Peskov popped up into my feed recently in which he explained that Putin is a committed Liberal ideologue (see HERE):
Some people abroad and in Russia think that Putin is a conservative, a statist strongman for whom “freedom” is a foreign word. But Putin is a total Liberal by his nature. He is far more Liberal than the pseudo-Liberals in the opposition. He is a total Liberal in his economic policies and his social policies. This is definitely true. We must understand this.
And in the spirit of clarity, I will review some of the most basic ideas that have been presented on this blog over the last 2 or more years. There have been many essays written to provide proof for these basic ideas and to furnish many examples and to flesh out the details from every angle conceivable. Perhaps there are too many foreign-sounding names in these essays, true, but again, the underlying ideas are quite easy to understand.
Let’s review the key points:
No comments:
Post a Comment