Dr. Strangeklaus, or How I learned to stop worrying and love the New World Order

"Ivermectin and “lab leaks” and natural immunity and “variants” and the dozen other deck chairs so many people spent two years assiduously re-arranging were not the issue.

The agenda was the issue. The lie used to sell that agenda was the issue.

In the end, the government didn’t care whether you thought masks worked, or exactly how long you self-isolated. They didn’t care if you thought they were incompetent, or heavy-handed or supported them wholeheartedly.

All they cared about was that you believed the pandemic was a genuine threat, and that something had to be done to combat it.

All they wanted was your participation in that one lie. And any story that helped promote this one lie was acceptable.

Anything short of questioning the most basic assumption underpinning the narrative can be tantamount to supporting it – maybe accidentally, maybe with good intentions – but supporting it nonetheless.

This is true of Covid and just as true of every headline, every other piece of breaking news. Including the war in Ukraine.

And it doesn’t just apply to Western establishment narratives either. All official stories need to be equally interrogated.

Yes, Russia has been on the right side of history before now – in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Crimea.

Yes, Putin’s government rescued the Russian state from the brink of collapse in the early 2000s, and likely saved millions of lives as a result.

Yes, the US empire, through NATO, has been ruthlessly expansionist and underpinned by a brazenly hypocritical monopoly on “legitimate” violence.

And yes, there are Nazis in Ukraine.

All of that can be true, without changing the fact Russia’s invasion of Ukraine may be illegal, or that it doesn’t appear to make tactical sense. Or that Western sanctions on Russia may have a more detrimental impact on their own economies than Russia’s. Or that Russia and China are pursuing the same globalist agenda being promoted in the West."

Kit Knightly on OffGuardian

At first blush the analysis above seems to hint at something either cravenly duplicitous, or deeply paradoxical. So which is it?

Are Putin’s actions in Ukraine illegal? I guess it depends whose side you take. Certainly they are no more illegal than the West’s invasion and destruction of Iraq or Libya or its genocidal attacks on Yemen which have killed over 100,000 and starved 17 million. Oh wait, Putin supports that war.

Let’s turn to Klaus Schwab. He really is a Dr Strangelove cartoon cutout, isn’t he? I mean, with the Darth Vader outfit and the overdone German accent – “You vil eet zee bugz!” - could they have made it any more obvious? I don’t think we should ignore him, but we need to at least realise that this 4IR/ Great Reset stuff is really mostly theatrics. On the other hand, something that is tangibly real is Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine designed to demilitarise (and denazify) its border state.

Given that Russia and China on the one hand seem to be in lockstep with the current global techno-fascist project, and on the other hand, Putin seems to be legitimately neutralising a Nazi threat while confronting an expansionist NATO – how do we make sense of what is going on?

The missing link is that we are in the middle of a paradigm shift, and what is happening in terms of international relations today cannot necessarily be understood in reference to the pre-2020 world order.

This is best summed up by Brzezinski .

“The Nation state as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state.”

Does this mean the nation state is irrelevant? Not at all. It still exists and still has influence. But it is no longer the principle force around which our world is organised. Love it or hate it, we are moving into the technocratic age. The new governing body, or rather governing architecture, already exists, in the form of a newly coined class of ‘stakeholders’. Beneath this layer of supranational ‘governance’ (as opposed to ‘government’) nation states will continue to operate as per normal.

The question we should really be asking is how do we navigate these murky waters?

Having been completely obsessed with grand strategy for such a long time, I surprise myself when I say that we need to start small. We need to oppose every little imposition on our day to day lives, form mandatory mask wearing to vaccine passports. We need to build polities that represent us. We need to build narratives that unite us. We need to try to influence things on a small level. Because there is no way of changing the main game.

But you know what? It might not be all bad news. In fact, aside from the part where we all become slaves, confined within automated smart cities, surveilled by robots and drones and autonomous spying insects, living from one injection of toxic goop to the next in a digital dystopia run by algorithms, I’m all down with most aspects of this project.

I love the part where Russia’s central bank pegs the ruble to gold at 5000 rubles per gram and starts demanding payment for energy in real money, effectively destroying the fiat system.

I particularly like the part where America goes bankrupt and has to dismantle its trillion dollar war industry in order to survive.

I don’t even mind the part where the world gets divided up according to ‘regional interests’ and ‘civilisational values’. Hell why not? I mean, if you want to live under Sharia law, or other backward ideas like, I don’t know, that only women can give birth, then that should be your prerogative. Liberalism is supposed to be about promoting individual liberty, not a proselytizing, triumphalist ideology that tries to bomb the rest of the world into accepting Starbucks and transgendered teens.

I’m laughing as I write this. Because I know the ruling class are psychopaths. But I also see the logic behind their grand strategy.

“China is the last citadel of westphalianism in the world” - Stephen F. Cohen

The New World Order was never meant to be monolithic. The Davos clique were never really ‘globalists’ at all. At least, not in the sense in which we understand globalism, that is, centralised command and control at a global level. They’re not trying to build a global superstate. In fact, having the world neatly organised into ‘spheres of influence’ works much better for them. The twin goals of civilisation building and technocracy are not mutually exclusive.

We’re in the middle of a tectonic shift. A realignment of global power. The world is being carved up in a way that better serves both regional interests and ‘stakeholders’. Which explains why Putin and Xi have been as fully onboard with the Covid plan as they are with sanctioning Ansar Allah in Yemen. Will we, the ordinary people, have a say in any of this? Probably not. But right now I’m far less worried about grand strategy than all those autonomous robot drones on the horizon. Not to mention the cytotoxic, gene altering injections which may or may not be responsible for the current wave of sudden unexpected heart attacks.

The punchline, for which you’ve all no doubt been waiting, is this. China and Russia may well be anti imperialist insofar as not wanting to be under the boot of the US and its dwindling alliance of blind devotees, which actually makes perfect sense; but in every way that matters, the multipolar world and the New World Order seem to be one and the very same thing. As for which parts of the agenda are real and which are merely deck chairs being rearranged at whim, I’d still avoid those injections (especially if you were ever planning on having kids, or concerned about the risk of heart attack or stroke), but I suspect the situation in Ukraine will have far wider reaching real-world consequences than anything we’ve seen so far.