Is the Multipolar Alliance ‘Controlled Opposition’?
Print/DownloadOn February 4, 2022, Presidents Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin unveiled a 5000 word ‘Joint Declaration on the International Relations Entering a New Era and the Global Sustainable Development.’
The words “sustainable development” tied to “international relations” have obviously caused more than a few concerned citizens of western nations to gasp in fear that these two Eurasian powers who are apparently in a conflict with the unipolar death cultists managing the NATO cage, are in reality, simply controlled opposition.
“Sustainable development” is, after all the term coined by Maurice Strong and other misanthropic fanatics to promote a policy of depopulation, under the rubric of ‘de-carbonization’ of industrial civilization.
For many people who have become conditioned by nominalist habits of thinking, hearing figures like Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping using the same words as the leading priests of the liberal rules based order is sufficient evidence to leap to the judgement that they are all working together and that all multipolar resistance to the globalist cult is just an illusion.
But as I pointed out in my recent article ‘Communism, Capitalism and Feudalism: How Nominalism Makes us Fools’, two people can use the same word with two very different meanings associated with the common word.
I have come to notice that one of the most effective tools for making people easily malleable sheep is through something called “nominalism”. Nominalism can be thought of as a “rule of reasoning” governing which pathways our minds use as we move from ignorance to understanding on any topic imaginable. In essence, this school of thought presumes that real…
Read full story
What is more important than associating patterns, and definitions to words labelled onto processes is an understanding that processes themselves are given their value and essence by the intentions, designs and purpose of from the minds of those putting them into motion and not from any set of fixed definitions.
Fire in the hands of a sociopathic arsonist is a scary weapon while in the hands of a normal human is a great resource.
In the following essay, we will do what few black pilled analysts ever bother doing… we will explore at some length WHAT EXACTLY China and her allies are doing in physical reality.
We will review the physical economic, scientific, cultural and cognitive factors of the past, present and future trajectories of Eurasia as compared with the western states, and we will look for any evidence to support or reject the thesis that China, Russia, India and their allies are in cahoots with the supranational death cultists managing Davos.
Don’t be surprised if, in the course of this exercise, you discover that there is not one, but two diametrically opposing concepts underlying the term “sustainability” and “world order” currently at play.
The 2009 Sabotage of a Green World Government
Before we begin, it should be recalled that China and India were instrumental in sabotaging the December 2009 COP14 agenda in Copenhagen which had promised to establish legally binding emission target cuts to guide the de-carbonization (and de-industrialization) of much of society. Amidst a supposed pandemic and economic meltdown, puppet leaders like Sarkozy, Merkel and Obama championed a new era of green global governance and promised to consolidate a legally binding treaty to enforce decarbonization onto the nations of the globe. But it didn’t happen.
Why not?
The London Guardian had reported in 2009 that “Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful ‘deal’ so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame.”
The London Guardian continued:
“To those who would blame Obama and rich countries in general, know this: it was China’s representative who insisted that industrialised country targets, previously agreed as an 80% cut by 2050, be taken out of the deal. ‘Why can’t we even mention our own targets?’ demanded a furious Angela Merkel. Australia’s prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough to bang his microphone… The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point… China, backed at times by India, then proceeded to take out all the numbers that mattered. A 2020 peaking year in global emissions, essential to restrain temperatures to 2C°, was removed and replaced by woolly language suggesting that emissions should peak ‘as soon as possible’.”
Apparently China and India, along with African governments like Sudan (which had not yet been carved up on the careful watch of Rhodes Scholar Susan Rice) did not wish to sacrifice their industry and national sovereignty on the altar of climate change models and technocrats that had only weeks earlier been publicly exposed as frauds by East Anglia University researchers during the embarrassing Climategate scandal.
While China and India should be celebrated for having sabotaged this effort (and the subsequent efforts to impose legally binding treaties in 2021 or 2022), very few people have been able to hold this drama in their memory, and fewer still realize how this fight over sovereignty was tied to 1) the right of all nations to develop without engaging in culling their people, 2) supporting the right of sovereign nations to supersede edicts of globalist institutions and 3) a rejection of the New World Order script outlined by the likes of Bush Sr, Kissinger and Biden in 1992[1].
Imposing Limits to Growth onto Humanity: Derailing Nuclear and Space Economics
Under the post-industrial logic of the Trilateral Commission agents that took over the reigns of government in the 1970s, a full spectrum program was unleashed that shattered the spirit of progress that once animated a vibrant western culture. The creative momentum towards new breakthroughs in nuclear fission and fusion power, space tech and assisting former colonial people in their aspirations for industrial progress was systematically sabotaged as a new logic of scarcity management, population reduction and global governance was made the top priority for all US foreign and domestic policy.
Funding for advanced breakthroughs in space science was destroyed with the cancellation of the Apollo missions in 1973.
Where NASA’s ‘crash science’ methods formerly drove the entire economy towards nonlinear bursts of growth through expanding fields of new discoveries touching on every aspect of life[2], the funding collapsed by design from 4% of GDP/year in 1965, to less than 1% by 1975 [see graph].
Just as the limits to growth were imposed onto humankind’s quest to become a space-driven species on the macro scale, breakthroughs in atomic energy were also sabotaged with the cancellation of hundreds of new reactor builds in the late 1970s, while research and development into next generation reactors, nuclear propulsion for deep space exploration, fusion power, and closing the nuclear cycle using fast breeder reactors were cancelled under President Carter.
Fusion funding was cut so deeply during this time, that scientists were deprived of the means of building prototypes to test their ideas resulting in a deep demoralization and idiotic “truism” that commercial fusion power “would always be 30 years away”.
Heavy industry was outsourced under a new logic of “cheap labor” and the formerly economic independent nations of the west became ever more dependent upon sweat shops, child labor and increasing rates of unpayable debts.
Henry Kissinger pulled every string to ensure that the world would remain addicted to hydrocarbons which became the basis upon which a new era of asymmetric war and economic terrorism under the guise of the petro-dollar would be unleashed.
The only groups to benefit were those ‘stakeholders’ prancing about the Bilderberger or Davos who wished to transform once viable economies into speculative, hollowed-out time bombs whose detonation decades later would ensure a traumatic shock to the zeitgeist sufficient to usher in a new post-nation state world order.
As we saw in part two of this series, this was the trap which Kissinger, Soros and the Trilateral Commission imposed onto Russia and China, during the 1980s and which China began resisting in earnest in 1989.
