Multipolarism appears to be nothing more than the consolidation of globalism

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.

Why Doesn’t Putin Fire All the Globalists in Russia’s Government? Because Putin is a dedicated Globalist himself.

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:

This tripolar deal was struck in April 1997, between President Yeltsin and President Jiang Zemin who signed ‘The Russian-Chinese Joint Declaration on a Multipolar World and the Establishment of a New International Order’, addressed to the United Nations.

“In a spirit of partnership, the Parties shall strive to promote the multipolarisation of the world and the establishment of a new international order. The Parties believe that profound changes in international relations have taken place at the end of the twentieth century. The cold war is over. The bipolar system has vanished. A positive trend towards a multipolar world is gaining momentum, and relations between major States, including former cold-war adversaries, are changing.”

“Some are pushing toward a world with one centre,” said Yeltsin at the time. “We want the world to be multipolar, to have several focal points. These will form the basis for a new world order.” Yeltsin said the meeting between the one-time rivals had “a tremendous, perhaps even historic importance, because we’re determining the fate of the 21st century. Seeking to counter American clout and NATO’s eastward expansion, Russia is looking for new allies in Asia, with China foremost among them.”

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.

Further resources: Making Sense of Multipolarity w/ Iain Davis, The Slavland Chronicles, 4 February 2024

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.

Note from The Exposé: The word “liberal” is one of the most abused words in the English language.  The word “liberal” simply means, in short, “free.” In the context of liberal democracy, the word “liberal” refers to a set of principles and values that emphasise individual freedom, rights and protections.  In the USA, “liberal” is used to describe people on the political left and is frequently used the same way on social media by non-Americans who regularly follow American news sources.  In Canada, the Liberal Party is on the political left. In Australia, the Liberal Party is on the political right. And in Russia, although its history is more complex, it is now used pejoratively, implying a pro-Western, anti-Russian stance. It seems many Russians associate liberalism with attempts to undermine the country’s sovereignty and cultural heritage.

And then Colonel Kvatchkov, the man who personally tried to assassinate Anatoly Chubais, Yeltsin’s and Putin’s top economic guy forcing Liberalism on Russia, chimed in with his commentary on the clip:

Probably thousands and thousands of people are asking themselves why Putin is not really fighting the West, why he signed the Minsk agreement, the Gomel-Istanbul agreement, the grain deal and is now begging the enemy for negotiations instead of winning. Many are also asking themselves why they are not cleaning out the 5th column, why they are not changing the colonial financial system, why industrialisation is not being carried out, why the investigation of the seemingly most obvious crime in the case of the liquidation of Ernest and Goodwin is being swept under the carpet, and many, many other questions.

Unfortunately, people do not want to hear simple and understandable truths. Moreover, having heard them, citizens do not believe what they have heard and begin to construct various cunning plans in their heads, just so as not to start acting in accordance with what they have heard. But Putin’s press secretary gave an answer to all these questions a long time ago.

As Kvatchov observed, people will simply deny this observable reality because it is difficult for them to accept. They will always deny the visible and the obvious for a convoluted alternative narrative if that alternative is more “optimistic.” Of course, all the proofs that we have in the media and on the ground, so to speak, are proofs that Putin is indeed pro-West, pro-Multikulti, pro-Israel and so on. But this is simply ignored, or, better yet, this is framed as being political kayfabe or strategic maskirovka.

Putin is a secret patriot double agent who tricked the Globalists into making him president, after all.

Like Stieglitz, Vladimir Putin’s entire persona is based on a fictional USSR spy character.

I can spam them clips of Putin saying that he intends to run Russia as a for-profit corporation to no avail.

Related: Young Putin in His Own Words: “Russia Must Not Be Allowed to Have a Strong Leader!” The Slavland Chronicles, 5 October 2023

But the problem isn’t a complication on my part.  Nothing about this is complicated or convoluted in the slightest.  Not even a little.

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:

• Top Soviet spook Andropov hatched a plan to reform the USSR and merge it with the West using his KGB to eliminate all resistance to this Convergence agenda.
• Gorbachev (and Yakovlev) surrendered entirely to the West instead of enforcing the original terms of Convergence and becoming equal partners.
• Then we had Yeltsin, who oversaw the transition of Russia from a superpower to a resource colony of the West and the territorial dismemberment of Russia.
• (We have not covered the Yeltsin period yet in detail. It is next on the blog’s long to-do list.)
• Putin came to power as a hand-picked successor to Yeltsin and to solidify and stabilise the new satrap neoliberal model that Yeltsin had implemented with the help of Washington in Russia.
• Putin and his KGB people were upset that the West reneged on the power-sharing deal thanks to Gorbachev and sought to restore some of the privileges and power that was promised them under Andropov.
• This led Putin to start causing troubles for the West, to try and raise the costs for Washington and to convince them to return to the bargaining table and to bring the Kremlin back in as equal or senior partners at least of the Globalist world order.
• Thus, Putin is willing to fight back, but only in a limited way; the goal isn’t to topple Globalism though, but to negotiate a better place in the pecking order for the Kremlin and his buddies.

A good metaphor or analogy for the situation is the Italian mob as presented on American TV and cinema. In the mob movies, the wop gangsters are always whacking each other and feuding.

But when they do, does it mean that the guy getting whacked or doing the whacking is not a wop mobster himself? No, we as the audience understand that we are watching an internecine spat usually revolving around someone stealing too much from their boss or someone breaking the confidence of the group by snitching. We understand that the whacker and the whackee are both members of the mafia and that there is no “good guy” in the conflict really.

As regards foreign policy, I can also clearly and concisely explain what I see happening in the world:

• Washington routinely puts their puppets into power using wars, coups, colour revolutions, etc.
• Washington then routinely topples their puppets with wars, coups, colour revolutions, etc.
• Washington then puts new puppets into power who do nothing while the country implodes and careens into new wars, coups, and colour revolutions.
• Washington then supports new puppets and helps them get into power.
• Washington then supports the opposition to these puppets and plunges the country into crisis and chaos.
• Washington then topples the puppets that they put into power using war, coups, and colour revolutions, etc.
• Washington then …

I can back this thesis up with literally countless examples of American foreign policy playing out over the last century. But you only really need to look at the tragic story of Iraq or Afghanistan (something that my American readers should know something about) to see exactly what I am talking about.

Thus, again, just because Washington wants to topple a government or a leader, it doesn’t mean that this targeted leader is automatically a good guy or a patriotic leader or even resisting Washington seriously. In actual observable reality, Washington-appointed dictators have all folded like cheap suits when Washington came to topple them later.

Yes, there are a few examples of Washington-based puppets resisting their eventual toppling, but they are few and far between. Take Fidel Castro, for example, who was chosen by the CIA to topple Batista in Cuba. When it came time for him to pay the devil his due, Fidel dug in his heels and resisted dozens of assassination attempts and even a full-blown invasion followed by a full economic blockade to starve him out. Fidel managed to stay in power by getting serious and bucking his handlers. That being said, he also put thousands of Cubans into death camps and deeply impoverished his own people with his insane Communist policies. And that was the original purpose of the CIA backing Castro to begin with. That is what they seek to accomplish when they put these tinpot dictators into power. From Saddam to the Mullahs to Pol Pot to Castro and all the other psychos in between.

The purpose is simple: to weaken these countries from without or within.

Now, originally, I thought that Putin, a Washington-appointed puppet ruler of Russia, was going to pull a Castro. And that was the original thesis of this blog for almost the first year of my writing. I concluded that with the SMO, Putin was finally slipping his Washington-held chains – that he had seen how Washington murdered all of its former allies and realised that he was next unless he got serious. I even compared him to Stalin, who hardened up and dropped some of the worst elements of Communism and embraced nationalism to be able to survive the German invasion.

However, as time went on, no serious reforms were undertaken by the Kremlin and the handling of the war showed just how brutally disfigured the Russian military had become under Putin’s reign, I had to reconsider my framing of the situation.

It is clear to me even now that Putin is NOT getting serious and that this was NOT a bid for political freedom and the re-establishment of Russian sovereignty from the Globalist system. I realised that this was simply an inter-oligarchic spat that had gotten out of control. That Putin had been given assurances by Washington that he would be allowed to conduct his SMO in Kiev in peace, (like Saddam with Kuwait), and that he had been led by the nose into a trap.

A Slavic Afghanistan, if you will.

Once I was forced to accept this reality, I began to write essays about how Russia had been taken over by the Globalists and how we had gotten to this point where there is a foreign occupation government in Moscow, again. This brings us full circle to the concept of Convergence again – the process by which the elite of East and West were supposed to converge into one Globalist elite.