“BRICS” has been around for over a decade. The term “multipolarity” on the other hand, has been bandied about for at least over half a century. “BRICS multipolarity” is sold as a counter-weight and dialectical response or solution to Western imperial globalism. But is it really?
It has been my belief for years that BRICS multipolarity is nothing more than the next logical progression and iteration of Western-directed globalism toward the long-planned and desired East-West convergence into a singular World Federation, World Government, and/or World State by the transnational class, which is principally stationed in the West, but has long-since penetrated the East. We are witnessing the onboarding of the East into the Western globalist-led one-world government, not the other way around.
For centuries the Third World or Global South have been disenfranchised by Western empire. Now has come the time to incorporate the Global South into the Western empire to at last complete the project for proper and total world empire.
There are no good guys here, no good actors. Every nation state is run by an oligarchic cartel and mafia, penetrated by the international class. Ask any average citizen of any country and many will tell you that yes, their government is corrupt and run by an oligarchy that extracts as much as it can for itself and cares nothing for its citizenry. That has been my experience living in America, Croatia, México, Kazakhstan, and visiting Russia.
The sleight of hand at play is to capitalize on the genuine feelings of righteous indignation, discontent, and disenfranchisement from the Global South as regards what Western empire has done to it for centuries, and provide them with a believable narrative and buy in where they’ll be convinced of their own accord to wittingly (or unwittingly) join the final sprint toward world empire and convergence of East and West. In other words, convincing them to buy the rope with which they’ll hang, along with the rest of us.
Dr. Martin Erdmann makes the case that we’ve remained under Roman rule for the past two millennia.
Following the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the early 5th century, the Eastern Roman Empire, centered in Constantinople, endured until 1453. It exercised enormous power over the known world at the time. It was replaced by an even more powerful empire ruled by the “New Romans,” as they called themselves. Their descendants continue to have a significant influence on world politics to this day.
Babylon became Rome followed by the Holy Roman Empire and Venetians (New Romans), morphing into the age of empires (e.g. Dutch, French, Spanish) and ultimately the British Empire (new global Rome). Pax Britannica gave way to Pax Americana (or the Anglo-American establishment) and today we might dub it the Anglo-American-EU Empire and/or latest iteration of Pax Romana. The CIA and State Department financed over fifty percent of European integration. We’ve come full circle.
Monnet’s Action Committee was also given financial backing by the CIA and the US State Department. The Anglo-American establishment was now committed to the creation of a federal United States of Europe.
What’s more, Austrian academic Wolfgang Streeck correctly points out that the EU is an empire.
The model for world federation and world government has always come from the West.
Erdmann continues making the case that we are under a new global Roman Empire.
During the war against the League of Cambrai, the Venetian oligarchy realized the futility of pursuing a policy of world domination from a tiny city-state in the middle of the northern Adriatic lagoons. On December 10, 1510, the representatives of the French king, Louis XII, and the Holy Roman emperor, Maximilian I, formed a league and signed an alliance treaty. Pope Julius II, Aragonese King Ferdinand the Catholic, Hungarian King Vladislav II, and English King Henry VIII joined the league. The league intended to destroy Venice’s claim to supremacy over the known world by annihilating its mercenary army. In response to this extremely threatening situation, the Venetian oligarchy transferred its family wealth, philosophical worldview, and political methods to states such as England, France, and the Netherlands. The Venetians soon concluded that England and Scotland were the most suitable locations for the new Venice, which would be the center of a new global Roman Empire based on military control of the seas. This policy required oligarchic rule and weakening the political system by eliminating all opposition.
If the British-inspired League of Nations was World Government 1.0, and the American-inspired United Nations was World Government 2.0., well then we’re on our way to World Government 3.0.
World Government 3.0 looks to be a global network state with its foundation in regions, in other words, a multipolar world.
The Soviet Union may have been a beta test of technocracy by the Anglo-American establishment (see the work of Anthony Sutton or Richard Poe on the Western-backed nature of the Bolshevik Revolution). In fact, the USSR was already running Davos-esque 15-minute “smart” or “scientific city” experiments.
Several Soviet architects envisioned a future where everyone would live in a district which resembles the current 15-minute city concept.
The European Union, which builds upon the model of the Soviet Union (Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky dubbed it “the New European Soviet), as well as the Western-backed Third Reich (Dr. Rath has exposed its “Nazi roots”), is the model technate for regionalism and blueprint for world union.
Mark Corner explains how once the EU is fully regionalized, the rest of the world will follow. In fact, the EU is helping to finance and advise policy in other regions in order to help them exactly replicate the EU model. We’ve seen the EU finance and advise the African Union project as well as ASEAN. The EU has just signed a massive trade deal with MERCOSUR which is part of that very birthing process, where Brussels serves as midwife.
We have seen countless leaders call for copying the model of the EU to their own region.
Former Mexican president AMLO called for copying the EU and making a North American Union.
Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador proposes the creation of a union in the Latin American continent like the European Union (EU).
AMLO considered, that as the European community was created and later the European Union, “so we need a kind of union and integration with respect to the sovereignty of all countries to strengthen us as a commercial economic region in the world.”
He went on to say that he will personally ask his U.S. counterpart, Joe Biden, to promote the creation of an ‘American union’ of all the countries of the continent, similar to the European bloc made up of 27 states.
El Salvador’s president Nayib Bukele has done the same for Central America.
“The time has come for us to unite Central America, with open borders or some kind of community of nations like the European Union,” Bukele said. “The new generation will make it happen because the divisions created 200 years ago no longer mean anything to them.
As have leaders in South America (e.g. Rafael Correa).
“With his victory, the four largest economies in Latin America for the first time in history will be led by leftist governments: Brazil, Mexico, Argentina and Colombia. That totally changes the geopolitical balance in the region. I am almost certain that with Lula CELAC will be strengthened and Unasur will recover. Lula is a great integrationist.
It is what we proposed 15 years ago, it is part of the new regional financial architecture that was one of the fundamental objectives of Unasur.
There is a traced path there, which is the European one. The European Union should serve as an example for us: there are 27 countries with different political systems, religions, culture, history and languages that killed each other by the tens of millions a few years ago and decided to unite. I always say that Europe will have to explain to its children why they joined and we Latin Americans will have to explain to our children why we took so long.”
Putin’s Eurasian Union is modeled on the European Union.
In 2015 the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) became the latest version of integration in the post-soviet space, bringing together Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Armenia and Kyrgyzstan in a Union, taking the European Union as its model.
Replication of the EU in the Middle East is currently underway.
If we go deeper into history, one can even argue that the United State of America was the initial occult and Masonic “New Atlantis” project (see Francis Bacon) and model for federation to be replicated to the rest of the world.
Kings, kingdoms, and monarchies had to be removed as forms of government as they were not conducive to the creation of a technocratic and truly world state. Instead, the “democratic” republican model was concocted by oligarchy as the new operating system for peoples and nations. Constitutional federated republics could then be replicated the world over with the end goal of the world itself rolling up into one final world federation. The electoral process may have always been under full control and management of the oligarchy.
In the 18th century Freemason George Washington declared:
“Someday, following the example of the United States of America, there will be a United States of Europe”
We can continue with further examples of how regional integration, which I can conceive as a synonym for multipolarity, has long been a project of the West.
The 1930s technocracy movement produced this 1940 map of a North American Technate.
It is possible that the Technate of America was intended to be the first, but was shelved due to setbacks, while WWII provided the oligarchy with the opportunity to launch the first technate in Europe as the EU.
In 1939 Clarence Streit proposed unifying North America and Europe into an Atlantic Union, which would serve as the first phase toward integrating the rest of the world into world union.
This movement is still alive and well, operating through The Streit Council. In fact, France’s Foreign Minister recently called for the implementation of Streit’s Atlantic Union by suggesting Canada join the EU.
A recent piece from The Streit Council brainstorms the challenge of integrating China into the “supranational federal republic (SFR)”. This is yet more evidence that the drive for globalist world government is coming from the West, not the East, and that the problem is the integration of the East. The crux of the matter is that any nation being absorbed and integrated by the Borg must not only relinquish economic but political sovereignty, which, once given away, cannot be clawed back.
Streit Council argues the West can threaten China economically in a bid to get it to assimilate politically, which is exactly what we are seeing Trump do with tariffs, in an attempt to get Beijing to integrate and give up political sovereignty.
The SFR could pursue a policy of gradual decoupling, by slowly raising trade barriers and repeatedly destabilizing the economic relationship in mild to moderate ways. But this is unlikely to force China, all at once, to adopt any set of rules.
In 1942 Maurice Gomberg self-published a regionalized map of a world commonwealth, in the vein of what the Anglo-American Rhodes Round Table was after.
In 1974 the Club of Rome published its map of a “multilevel model” of a regionalized “world system” divided into ten parts.
They argue that
“regionalization was made in reference to shared tradition, history and style of life… There exists a need for the establishment of larger communities of nations in the developing world to create a better balance of political and economic power as well as of cultural influence among the world-regions.”
Sounds very much like the BRICS multipolarity movement of today and its discussion of “civilizational states/commonwealths”.
Finally, former British Intelligence agent Nicholas Hagger, and proponent of world government, agrees with my thesis and argues in his 2023 publication The Golden Phoenix: Russia, Ukraine and a Coming New World Order that the Western New World Order, which he calls “the Syndicate,”
“sought to create a New World Order since Nelson Rockefeller called for world federalism in his book The Future of Federalism (1962).
The Syndicate has levelled down the West and levelled up the East to create an authoritarian New World Order.
The Syndicate, which control the central banks of both sides and all the oil and gas, want an authoritarian New World Order – the Chinese one with Russia and the West in it.
The Syndicate may have encouraged the US/EU, Russia and China to have their own separate New World Orders without sharing that these are to be combined into one authoritarian New World Order.
A Brief Look at BRICS & Multipolarity
The movement for world government has largely been driven by the European and Anglo-American establishment, as is clearly evident. It is my belief that the current driver’s seat of globalism is Euro-Anglo-American (Washington, London, Brussels), with the intention of bringing the Global South into the fold. The very nature of BRICS multipolarity is globalist, supranational, and part of the integration process of world federation, thus it is de facto part of the same program.
In 1877, Cecil Rhodes admitted to the conspiracy for world government AND incorporation of the Third World into it. Sound like the BRICS project yet?
“Why should we not form a secret society with but one object the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule for the recovery of the United States for the making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire.
To and for the establishment, promotion and development of a Secret Society, the true aim and object whereof shall be for the extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom, and of colonisation by British subjects of all lands where the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labour and enterprise, and especially the occupation by British settlers of the entire Continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the Islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the Islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malay Archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan, the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire, the inauguration of a system of Colonial representation in the Imperial Parliament which may tend to weld together the disjointed members of the Empire and, finally, the foundation of so great a Power as to render wars impossible and promote the best interests of humanity.”
British imperialist H.G. Wells, who moved in the same circles, was another major proponent of a “democratic socialist world state”.
Now to examine BRICS itself. Pentagonpedia (Wikipedia) states that “BRICS” is a Russian doctrine from the late 1990s, specifically the “Primakov doctrine” from 1998.
Primakov called for a “Multipolar World” and “New International Order (NIO)”.
Yet how different is his NIO from the “New International Economic Order (NIEO)” which was formulated via the UN by the Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, Ford Foundation, and Club of Rome?
One 1979 article suggests the construction of a fairer world order via the UN and a
“decentralized planetary sovereignty. The UN would be restructured…as the center of a functional confederation of international organization.
Others see the NIEO not as a turning point but as an adjustment in an established ongoing hegemony, the coopting or embourgeoisement of the Third World.”
BRICS essentially is the compromise between East and West for world integration, as stated above. It represents a victory by the East in the sense that the West understands it must capitulate on some elements of hegemony in which it has heretofore been reticent, and pool wealth and power with Eastern power centers. It is the “coopting” of the Third World (Global South).
The Soviets or Russians have always also been globalist minded. They are a competing faction for world government and/or simply want a good seat at the table of world domination. Something which former British Intelligence agent Nicholas Hagger also discusses in his writings, that there is a Russian and Chinese New World Order agenda, albeit which appears to be weaker than the Western Syndicate.
Primakov, together with other Russians, attended the Dartmouth Conferences which were all stocked with many Western globalists such as Brzezinski, Rockefeller, and Al Gore, through whom these Western ideas of global federation could permeate Moscow. Indeed, Moscow slowly began to liberalize and Gorbachev was eventually the catalyst to bring the entire Soviet edifice down. If you talk to many Russians, they’ll tell you they overwhelming believe Gorbachev was a traitorous Western agent tasked with this action.
I met Gorbi back in 2017 on a “citizen’s diplomacy” mission alongside 30 other Americans with Sharon Tennison’s Center for Citizen Initiatives. For the record, all expenses were paid out of pocket by myself! I saw it as a great opportunity to visit Russia, promote peace, love and understanding, and of course gain further authority for myself in my field as an educator, being a history teacher. We met other Russian luminaries including Vladmir Pozner. Unfortunately, I had only a brief personal minute or two with Gorbachev as did the other Americans, and was too nervous at the time to politely and directly ask him about how far along world government we were. The focus of the discussion with him had been the budding New Cold War.
Through his Green Cross International, Gorbachev was an advocate for environmentalism (now climate changeism, as I call it) which would serve as the pretext for the very world government he was subsequently proposing.
Integration of the Global South into world federation obviously would have to be sold to the Global South BY the Global South so as to defuse any suspicion of it being a Western plot.
The word “multipolarity” has been appearing in the preeminent publication and mouthpiece for globalism, the Council on Foreign Relations’ “Foreign Affairs”, since at least the 1970s.
In 1972, CFR laments Moscow’s lack of multipolarity:
This is not the code of behavior we would like Moscow to observe. But multipolarity is not Moscow’s game, or interest.
Any orderly international system needs a hierarchy. But the relations of the top to the bottom, and the size of the top, vary. In the future world order, these relations will have to be more democratic, and the oligarchy will have to be bigger.
Historically, what requires a new policy is not the passing of the bipolar era but the end of a unipolar one.
A single world system must still be the goal. Of course, in the new monetary order, there should be a modicum of decentralization.
Can an international system as diverse as this one function effectively without the active participation of all its members, even if one grants both the wisdom of “decoupling” the great powers’ contest from the internal tribulations of the developing countries, and the risks of paralysis, corruption, or waste present in more “democratic” world institutions? Can community-building proceed in such a way as not to seem a neocolonial device through which the rich and strong perpetuate their hold on the poor?
Tomorrow’s dialectic will have to be that of a complex balance, both global and regional, allowing for a fragmentation of the strategic- diplomatic contest under the nuclear stalemate, and an emergent community in which competition will, of course, persist, but where mankind ought, perhaps, slowly to learn to substitute games against (or with) nature for the games between what Erik Erikson has called “pseudospecies.”
In 1973, the CFR pushed a downsized United States and multipolarity:
The bipolar order is passing and defies restoration, though certain of its features persist- notably, the formal alliances and the habits of zero-sum strategic thinking. But recalcitrant allies, third forces and crosscutting institutions are too prevalent. So there remain the practical alternatives of a multipolar balance of power or a pluralism of unaligned states.
We are asking, then, whether the United States can live in a situation of general unalignment which its own conduct would materially help to establish.
In 1976, the CFR calls for multipolarity and bringing in the Third World (Global South):
…the acceptance of multipolarity, the need for preserving one’s guard, the recognition of the claims of the Third World.
The introduction of true multipolarity within as well as without the Western alliance must be acceptable, even welcome.
In 1979 the CFR stated it was America pushing multipolarity:
The early 1970s saw an American effort to nudge the world toward multipolarity.
In 1988 Nixon wrote “in what has become a multipolar world” and in 1989 CFR declared “the multipolar world [was] now emerging”.
In 1990:
The world after the Cold War will not resemble any world of the past. From a “structural” point of view-the distribution of capabilities-it will be multipolar. But the poles will have different currencies of power-military (the Soviets), economic and financial (Japan and Germany), demographic (China and India), military and economic (the United States)-and different productivities of power-demographic power is more a liability than an asset, the utility of military might is reduced, only economic power is fully useful because it is the capacity to influence others by bringing them the very goods they crave. Moreover, each of these poles will be, at least to some extent, mired in a world economy that limits its freedom of action.
There are many more examples in the CFR archives.
How is it possible that multipolarity is some “Russian Primakov doctrine” when we can see it has been germinating in the Euro-Anglo-American establishment for decades prior?
Then we have the actual coining of “BRIC(S)” which came after Primakov.
BRIC was purportedly coined by Goldman Sachs’ Jim O’Neill in 2001, but everyone fails to mention his 2003 report co-author Roopa Purushothaman who helped cement BRICs. Purushothaman is a WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM GRADUATE and YOUNG GLOBAL LEADER.
So which is it, a Russian plot or a Western globalist scheme? Or both?
James Corbett has also chimed in over the years.
Who is contending that the AIIB or the BRICS’ New Development Bank is in any way competitive with the Bretton Woods institutions (IMF/World Bank)? Certainly not anyone involved with any of these institutions.
No, these institutions do not view themselves as competitive. It is only various media pundits who have speculated that these new banks are in fact some sort of challenge to the so-called “Washington consensus.” What none of these experts has bothered to report (for obvious reasons) is the remarkable fact that the Vice President of the NDB is also an Executive Board member of the IMF, who then went on to pledge cooperation and joint action between the NDB and IMF. Also missing from this narrative is the fact that the NDB’s chief, Kundapur Vaman Kamath, is a former staffer of the supposed NDB “rival” Asia Development Bank. Or there’s Jin Liqun, widely tipped to be the head of the AIIB, who also happens to be a former Vice President of the Asia Development Bank and alternative Executive Director of the World Bank.
But even this is not as much of a challenge to the Bretton Woods institutions as it appears at first glance. Although Beijing is obviously seeking to bolster the yuan as an international settlement currency, this is not being done in an effort to make the yuan itself a world reserve currency in the same way that the dollar is today. Instead, this is being done in service of a policy goal outlined by People’s Bank of China Governor Zhou Xiaochuan in 2009 that is seeking to establish the “Special Drawing Rights” currency basket as the new world reserve currency.
The BRICS are an artificial creation of a US investment bank.
Thus, what does it even mean to ask whether the interests of “Russia” and “China” align with the interests of the “US”? Surely these nation-state entities do not have interests in and of themselves. The people in positions of power in those countries have interests, but we would be better served in narrowing the scope of the question by identifying them in particular. Do the interests of Gazprom and Rosneft align with the interests of BP or Royal Dutch Shell? Sometimes, in certain contexts, yes. In other contexts they would be rivals.
Similarly with JPMorgan and HSBC and the Bank of China, or the various central bankers at the Bank for International Settlements, or the members of the Trilateral Commission. Their deliberations have very little to do with amorphous national interests and everything to do with jockeying for personal position and control of the global economic and political chessboard…
In short, the rise of China as an economic and military power has been facilitated by a small group of oligarchical families working in close conjunction with businessmen, politicians and financiers representing oligarchical interests in the West, specifically in the US…
If what we are combating is, as I posit, essentially two (or more) gangs competing for turf, then it is self-evident that we gain nothing from supporting one gang over another other than the vague hope that the other gang will treat us more kindly.
He continues:
The BRICS are a phoney opposition literally created by Goldman Sachs whose pseudo-alternative institutions are run by the very same bankers and bureaucrats they pretend to oppose. The cold war of the 21st century is being engineered in the exact same way that the cold war of the 20th was. And, as always, whichever “side” wins this “fight,” the oligarchs and their systems of control will come out on top.
Riley Waggaman has painstakingly demonstrated how Russia is globalist through and through, while living in Russia. And as a result, he has been kicked out of Russia by the FSB!
If we step even further back in time, there is evidence to suggest modern China has had close ties with Western globalism since the outset.
The late Anthony Sutton had produced much material on this angle. A recent Substack article has done a wonderful deep dive and concludes:
To surmise, with the likes of Anthony Sutton already having covered the Skull & Bones prevalence in setting up China for its opening to US corporatism in the 1970s, this piece was intended to show that this was not just capitalist opportunism, but part of an agenda that goes back much further (further, even than the 1911 Xinhai Revolution, which Sutton also correctly points out the Yale connection to).
In this regard, it is the opinion of the author that the communist reign of Mao Zedong was but a business phase in a long-term plan, with Mao’s purpose being to enact nothing short of a mass cultural erasure project to sever China’s connection to its old world. This project, once carried out, made China ripe for the setup as a powerhouse on the global stage and to become the ringleader in today’s dialectic of BRICS vs the Liberal International Order. A dialectic which, if it is carried out in full, ultimately ends in a London-funded Belt and Road Initiative building a global smart city prison grid from the rubble.
To all the Cold Warriors and “Pentagon Active Measures & Influence Networks” as I refer to them (we’ll get to them in a moment), who argue the laughable inverse, that China and Russia are behind the plot for world domination, the evidence is to the complete contrary. Modern China and Russia have been backwaters economically and technologically speaking compared to the West. There is no snowball’s chance in hell Beijing or Moscow were in any capacity to plot world domination, except perhaps the Soviet Union at its peak, but even that is a stretch. Modern China had clearly been a backwater as a result of its civil war and Mao’s communist policies until it opened up to the West in the 1970s and received a massive technology transfer. The Chinese admit it themselves! And do not get me wrong, I’m not speaking ill of any peoples or civilization, I’m separating the historic Russian and Chinese civilization from their 20th century communist iterations.
In 2022, The Rio Times editorial board pointed out that Western globalism penetrated and made the East.
Anthony C. Sutton has also proven, based on facts, that it was Western bankers, corporate elites, and politicians through whose help the Bolsheviks were able to seize power in Russia. It is also proven that during the Cold War, the same elites maintained close relations with the Warsaw Pact states, giving both loans and material support.
These ties and cooperation between the Western and Eastern elites are increasingly forgotten today, and for some, it is hard to imagine that the West created its own enemies.
Mikhail Gorbachev, the leader of the Soviet Union who is widely credited with its disintegration and thus the creation of the “new Russia,” is an example of how, behind the curtain, elites from the East were pursuing the same interests in the form of a New World Order and centralized global government, as Western politicians such as former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, advisor to French President Mitterand and “discoverer” of Macron, Jacques Attali, and oligarch Bill Gates did and continue to do.
When we look at today’s alternative media, it is curious that the misleading East-West enmity has been so manifested, and the past cooperation of East and West has been forgotten.
There is no reason to speak of hostility between East and West.
Eastern governments are linked to and subject to the influences of the same globalist institutions as Western governments.
In the behavior of Putin, Xi, Nazarbayev, and other Eastern heads of state and politicians, an anti-globalist thrust is not discernible in any way. They all supported the agenda of the IGE and are quite visibly part of this grouping themselves.
It is time for people to realize that mere rhetoric is meaningless and the truth is much more likely to be: the New World Order will come from the East, and the collapse of the USA will be the final precursor for it.
What’s more, the Eastern globalist and supranational multipolar bloc is being used as leverage and as an excuse and pretext in the dialectic to argue that the West must now also integrate into a supranational bloc! I have even seen reports suggesting we must advance the Technate of America “because China”!
“We need to start thinking in a North American Region. We need that in order to confront China.” Solange Márquez Espinoza
The CFR writes
The United States now faces the prospect of an emerging Eurasian military-industrial bloc.
China and Russia use institutions such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the BRICS, a group named after its first five members—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—to provide a veneer of legitimacy to their plans.
The United States cannot ignore it. Washington must unify its alliances by investing in cross-regional ties.
The East Approves of World Government
For years I have been arguing that BRICS multipolarity is technically the recalibration, reconfiguration, and upgrade of global governance or world government. Then I came across this recent article in which the Chinese literally say it themselves!
Xi Jinping has even unveiled his own plan for world government known as the Global Governance Initiative (GGI)! Sounds very anti-globalist, doesn’t it?
What it’s ultimately about is giving the Global South a seat at the table of world government. The only qualm, as it often is between cartels or mafias, is determining who gets what size of the pie. Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, Lula, Modi, and the rest are fully globalist in mindset and ideology. We have seen how all the BRICS nations have been implementing technocratic totalitarian tyranny, just like in the West. There’s no Social Credit System in China say the China sycophants? That’s pure semantics. OK, fine, but in China there is an Algorithm Ghetto and Electronic Concentration Camp just like the one being installed in every nation on planet earth as we speak!
The Euro-Anglo-American globalist empire found it too time-consuming and physically taxing to literally take the entire planet. So they’ve switched strategy to penetrating the Global South (e.g. Confessions of an Economic Hitman), bribing and enticing it into cooperating, and thus delegating imperial responsibilities of the world state to each respective mafia cartel.
One High Priest of both Globalism and Multipolarism, Jeffrey Sachs, repeatedly has made the case for world government based on regions (multipolarity).
Jeffrey Sachs on May 3rd, 2025: “We need a global government, that’s the UN! We need a regional government, that’s the EU!”
Some of the projects BRICS World is promoting includes a common currency such as The Unit.
One of BRICS’ main cheerleaders, Pepe Escobar, describes it:
“Glazyev stresses the need to “ensure a full-fledged switch to national currencies in mutual trade and investment within the EAEU and the CIS, and further – within the BRICS and SCO, the withdrawal of joint development institutions from the dollar zone, the development of their own independent payment systems and interbank information exchange systems.”
When it comes to financial innovation – compared to the current structure of the international financial system – The Unit is in a class of its own.
The Unit is essentially a benchmark token – or an index token; a post-stablecoin, digital monetary tool; totally decentralized; and with intrinsic value anchored in real assets: gold and sovereign currencies.
Yet, The Unit is LITERALLY the re-branding of the 1940s Western globalist one-world supranational currency known as the “bancor”!
The bancor was a supranational currency that John Maynard Keynes and E. F. Schumacher conceptualised in the years 1940–1942 and which the United Kingdom proposed to introduce after World War II. The name was inspired by the French banque or (’bank gold’). This newly created supranational currency would then be used in international trade as a unit of account within a multilateral clearing system—the International Clearing Union—which would also need to be founded.
In fact, as soon as I heard about The Unit, bancor IMMEDIATELY came to mind. Then, other analysts confirmed it.
It most closely resembles Keynes’s proposed Bancor: a non-redeemable, basket-anchored settlement unit designed specifically for international clearing.
Multipolaristas, (Paid) Pied Pipers, & “Foreign (& Domestic) Influence Operations”
When I began my podcast first as Dissident Thinker in 2012, then as Geopolitics & Empire in 2015, I wanted to and still wish to speak with intellectuals from all walks of life beyond any Overton window. My few unwritten rules and guiding principles were that either they had to have some expertise on a subject I wished to know more about or that we tacitly generally agreed on at least one of my principles which include: anti-totalitarianism (e.g. communism, fascism, globalism, technocracy), anti-war, pro-free speech, pro-liberty, diplomacy, cordiality, etc. And yes, sometimes I would invite guests who held an ideology antithetical to mine. It is obscene to accuse anyone of subversion based on dialogue alone.
I have interviewed guests hailing from the Pentagon and Military-Industrial-Complex, politicians, diplomats, Russians, Chinese, Indians, wealthy investors, academics, journalists, authors, and dissidents, among others.
I have wittingly and unwittingly interviewed “Pentagon influence operators,” does that make me CIA? I have unwittingly interviewed potential “foreign influence operators,” does that make me a Russian agent? I have wittingly interviewed globalists, does that make me a globalist? Why not have an audience with an array of actors, including sometimes an ideological adversary? That way we can know where they’re coming from.
There is this Orwellian idea today being floated by the “Pentagon active measures” group that simply having a conversation with someone is “platforming” or “promoting” them. A framing I patently reject. I have been able to respectfully interview globalists who could at times give us nuggets of insight regarding the road they were taking us down.
In any case, during the day I was a high school teacher and university adjunct, often flying by the seat of my pants while learning the art of podcasting, which had been my moonlight passion project and hobby until 2024, when I ventured out on a limb to try podcasting full-time with the help of listeners and subscribers.
I discovered that large swathes of the new media and podcast space have become Laurel Canyon 2.0 (coined by Steve Poikonen, if I’m not mistaken), a realization that I have only fully come to terms with in recent years. Dave McGowan’s book “Weird Scenes Inside the Canyon: Laurel Canyon, Covert Ops & the Dark Heart of the Hippie Dream” suggests that the rock music scene of the 1960s and beyond was effectively manufactured by the Military-Industrial-Complex in conjunction with occult societies and the British Tavistock Institute, among other clandestine actors.
In fact, occultist and musician Jaz Coleman of Killing Joke, who I once saw perform in Chicago in 2003, admits to the fact.
“My whole perception of rock music has been influenced by people I’ve met who were involved with the Tavistock Institute. Basically the whole rock revolution was manufactured by the Tavistock Institute in the first place. They financed the first Beatles tour of America, to study the behavioural patterns of young people. The whole goal was to break up the family unit. I’ve given my life to the liberating possibilities of rock music and experimental music, but I have to also be aware that it was created by the Frankfurt School Of Psychiatry. The whole thing has been manufactured from day one.
But you have to see the first album in context…All those songs were written in 1979 but recorded in 1980, and two things influenced us. One was the house in which we met; it was psychiatrists who worked at the Tavistock Institute, so we had a good lesson in what was to come, from what they told us. The other big influence was Brzezinski’s book, Between Two Ages, which talks about the emergence of a technocratic state. These two influences affected day one of our recordings. The corporate takeover of the world was mapped out and planned by the CFR after the war. They could see the goal of world dominion, and now you’re witnessing the final stages of it. On that first album, you can see our fears of the new technotronic fascist state.
Here he is on the steps of Tavistock paying homage.
And in another revealing interview, he says:
“When I was an 18 year-old I read the book by Brzezinski that came out in 1970 called “Between Two Worlds”. And in this book, Brzezinski basically outlined the coming technocracy.
When I met Big Paul, it was in a house that was owned by The Tavistock Institute, and it was all Tavistock people in that house, and those people basically, they called themselves “industrial psychologists”. So we had a good idea of what was coming because of the people around us.
When our lives are ruled by corporations, this is fascism, this is the fascism my father fought against in the last war. And now it’s here. Rule by corporations is here with us. And I hate it. My life is over, so the thing that makes me dangerous now is I don’t give a f*ck. I’m glad that I’m moving to Switzerland…so I can be closer to Klaus!”
For the past few years, I’ve been pointing out how it was interesting that the rock scene died down in the late 1990s and early 2000s, just as the internet and social media were coming of age. My thesis is that social media and podcasting or “alternative media” (kind of sounds like “alternative rock” doesn’t it?) are the New Laurel Canyon, stocked with occultists and agent provocateurs.
Billy Corgan recently confirmed my thesis.
There are numerous “influence operators” in the “independent” media space. There are loose tribes of which some come to mind including: MAGA Neocon Zionist Conservative Inc. (think Benny Johnson), “Anti-Globalist” New Age Hippie Gnostic Anarchist Theosophic (think Anarchapulco), Pentagon Active Measures & Influence Operations, and the multipolaristas (as I call them).
There are many solo operators, like myself, who have at times wittingly and unwittingly floated through all these spaces and beyond. I believe that there are also good, innocent, and well-meaning people that can be involved in any of these different groups. Yet, there are also nefarious actors.
I would like to add the caveat that I believe the actors in this space, including myself, fall along a wide spectrum, and that it is difficult to definitively ascertain who falls where, in most instances. Yet there are many signals and patterns that give possible clues. I believe motivations in alternative media run anywhere from:
- actors who are truly independent, genuine, each having the right to their own worldview, and well-intentioned in their labor who at times may make mistakes (don’t we all?)
- followed by those who, although well-intentioned, succumb at times to human nature (e.g. greed, ego, narcissism) which leads them to make minor compromises in exchange for money and status (e.g. clout, clicks, followers, fame)
- another group who is able to obtain financing from sources that are ideologically aligned with their work, there is technically nothing wrong with that
- a final group which has little scruples and/or is either operated maliciously by government(s) or directly under the tutelage of some information operation
The criteria for judgement can be highly subjective and a bit of a gray area.
Now back to BRICS. I’ve dubbed the cheerleaders of BRICS multipolarity as multipolaristas. Some are paid pied pipers.
Over the past several years patterns have emerged and visible networks have formed. I am certainly not throwing everyone in this camp under the bus. As with any tribe or club, there are both witting and unwitting as well as well-meaning and not-so-well-meaning participants.
Some of the signals I’ve noticed include a rapid seemingly inorganic rise in follower count on different social platforms, paid trips to the East, and a general narrative adherence to the West being bad, the East being good, and avoiding the subjects of globalism and totalitarian technocracy or framing technocracy as a public good, in a strange statist or Stockholm syndrome sort of way. I believe the governments of both East and West are equally sinister, and implementing the same globalist, technocratic, totalitarianism.
The most recent multipolarista example is “Professor” Jiang Xueqin.
The “Political Economist” Substack makes the strong case for him being “a CIA-created doppelganger”.
Xueqin has also been pushing new age and Gnostic ideas.
Here Xueqin is on Tucker Carlson, who although does some interesting work, I believe is part of the Laurel Canyon 2.0 globalist influence network. Xueqin is promoting a “New (International) Economic Order”. Well, that sounds a lot like globalese for multipolar globalism. As I stated earlier, it was the CFR, the Club of Rome, and the Trilateral Commission pushing for a “New International Order,” “New Economic Order,” and/or “New International Economic Order”. Others have argued that because he is pushing Pax Judaica, it’s not terribly difficult to form a connection to who might have helped manufacture his persona.
Among the multipolarista crowd, many of whom I’ve interviewed, range the likes of Brian Berletic, Pepe Escobar, Danny Haiphong, S.L. Kanthan, Matthew Ehret, Carl Zha, to name but a few. I have found they generally focus on traditional geopolitics and are dismissive of or don’t appear to mention globalism and technocracy, and tend to play up the East to the extreme. They are all very intelligent in their own right and I have found I share many of their views when it comes to geopolitics and empire, however I diverge when it comes to globalism and multipolarity.
Adjacent to them could also be included the Judge Napolitano and Glenn Diesen type networks. Again, I’m bunching them together because of narrative. Beyond that, I don’t know. I’ve interviewed Glenn once and think he’s a cool guy and means well.
The speed at which some of them have risen and their access to certain guests does raise eyebrows.
Yet, I can’t unsee some of the following things that I have seen.
Enter Mystery Bagman
A bit of context is warranted before proceeding, I believe.
My last teaching contract ended in the summer of 2021 and for about half a year, I coasted and wondered what would be my next move in life. I had decided I was going to attempt to podcast full-time. I remade my website in December of 2021 which cost me nearly $5,000 USD, and opened up a membership option directly via the website, using PayPal and Stripe as payment processors.
In the meantime, I had been asked for an interview on Rick Munn’s TNT Radio show in March of 2022. Soon after, I was offered a full-time gig on TNT Radio based out of Australia, conducting three hour-long interviews daily. I would essentially be doing what I had been doing as a hobby with Dissident Thinker and Geopolitics & Empire since 2012, but on a paid daily live basis.
Because of my heavy TNT Radio workload, Geopolitics & Empire was once again put on the backburner.
However, my next experience in deplatforming the following month put a few things into perspective.
You see, back in February of 2021 I had been terminated on Patreon.
This was around the same time (February 2021) the Associated Press did a hit-piece on Dr. Francis Boyle specifically regarding his appearance with me on Geopolitics & Empire.
What was interesting was that, in hindsight, one of the authors of the article, David Klepper, had contacted me in July of 2020 asking to interview me:
“hoping to learn a little bit more about you – where you’re located, how long you’ve been doing this, how you came to have Boyle on your show, etc.”
At the time, I immediately felt a red flag, and ignored his email. This was the first time I had ever been contacted by mainstream media (MSM). Seeing how MSM had treated people over the years, I figured there was nothing to be gained speaking with them. I had assumed he was maliciously planning a hit piece on me. Which turned out to be true. His subsequent article published a few weeks later was a hit piece on conspiracy theorists.
Apparently, in 2019 he had also helped launch the AP’s ‘misinformation team’ to “expose false info”.
Most important, his AP hit piece was co-written with the Atlantic Council, NATO’s think tank or NATO’s “brain”.
Then, out of the blue, in April of 2022 when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) unveiled its “Disinformation Governance Board” under Nina Jankowicz, I was banned from life from PayPal (which I call PentagonPal).
Kim Iversen and Matt Taibbi covered my deplatforming.
In trying to piece exactly what had happened, I visited Jankowicz’s Twitter account for the first time ever and discovered I was preemptively blocked. Hmm, rather strange.
It was through Mike Benz’s work that I was able to piece together what was going on. An entire “Pentagon Active Measures & Influence Network” was created between the Pentagon (Military-Industrial-Complex), DHS, and NATO among numerous other alphabet agencies.
The DHS had created a sub-agency, CISA, to effectively launch a real-life Ministry of Truth, which would be fed through its various networks (e.g. NATO’s Atlantic Council). Under this new system, Americans who lawfully expressed true opinions that the regime didn’t like were considered “non-kinetic” threats attacking the government.
…in September 2020 that formally posited DHS transition from a counterterrorism focus to a focus on “non-kinetic” threats such as social media misinformation. Incidentally, September 2020 is exactly when CISA formally began its censorship partnership with EIP.
In October 2020, the Atlantic Council hosted a livestream discussion of this new proposed domestic censorship role for DHS with three former DHS Secretaries (and that discussion has some remarkable moments).
Virtually every senior figure at CISA and across the other EIP entities involved in censoring the 2020 election has directly participated in Atlantic Council events, tying the networks together personally and professionally…
…any US citizen posting what DHS considered “misinformation” online was suddenly conducting a cyber attack against US critical infrastructure. That was the legal framework under which DHS – and CISA particularly – drew their jurisdiction…
…it was through EIP that DHS built the infrastructure for its current role as government coordinator of takedowns and throttling of US citizen speech online.”
What this proves is that the American and European governments are active in malicious, unethical, and what should be deemed illegal information operations against their own innocent and law-abiding citizens.
Back to TNT Radio. From March 2022 until March 2024, I conducted 1,000+ interviews before I found the workload becoming oppressive and decided to call it quits on the Ides of March 2024. I had been doing two jobs at once, both producer and host. I sought the venerable Jason Bermas as my replacement. In any case, by then I had seen the writing on the wall financially for TNT Radio. I estimated they didn’t have long, and indeed, some six months later TNT Radio went off the air.
Finally, in this second attempt, for the first time in my life, I had decided to try doing Geopolitics & Empire full-time, and took a leap of faith leveraging Substack as my membership infrastructure (because of the PayPal deplatforming as well as technical difficulties I was having with the WordPress membership software). It was a drastic pay cut, but managed to pay the bills, and I thought I’d give it time.
Then weird things began to happen. Other TNT Radio hosts were having spats with management. A public spat ensued between TNT Radio and TNT Radio host Jerm Warfare regarding someone named “Marcel”.
You see, even before accepting the TNT Radio gig, I had wondered if the gig was meant to divert my attention from some of the groundbreaking work I was doing at Geopolitics & Empire. Or if it was part of some operation. I wasn’t the only one thinking along those lines, colleagues and even listeners wondered the same thing.
During my two years at TNT Radio, I never suffered any censorship and generally was able to interview whomever I liked. So I did find it to be a genuine and well-meaning operation. It simply was difficult to monetize.
Then, in the summer of 2024 I received an email from…Marcel (Jahnke). At the time, I had no knowledge of him other than that he had apparently been an investor in TNT (as stated publicly by TNT). It wasn’t until others began discussing and writing about him that I began to realize that I may have been the target of an influence operation. Slowly I began to put two and two together and was amazed at how far and wide his net was cast.
As regards the conversation, which was not recorded, my memory is quite vague and I can only recall generalities. From the little I can remember, my interpretation of the talk is that I believe he said that he was a supporter of alternative media and was against many aspects of globalism or empire and Covid lockdowns, etc. It appeared he may have been offering some vague future opportunities regarding my podcast on various platforms. If I recall correctly, he had suggested he could help me register my podcast as a business. I stated I’d be happy to have the podcast distributed elsewhere, but that Geopolitics & Empire would always remain self-hosted first, under my domain and control. I also wondered if he might gain control over Geopolitics & Empire through equity and the business formalization process, had I decided to do that.
After the call, I had no further contact from Marcel, yet he did become a paid subscriber of the Geopolitics & Empire Substack. I have since given Marcel a “forever comp” on the membership.
Then I began to discover that Marcel had been involved with filmmaker Robert Cibis of OVALmedia whose operation had been derailed. Though there is dispute as to who is at fault there.
Numerous people offer their help or donate generously so that production can continue. But as in any good dramaturgy, the first turning point will soon come in Cibis’ history – in the form of a rich patron who introduces himself to the filmmaker as Marcel Jahnke.
When the rich major investor offers his financial help in the summer of 2020, Cibis also believes in the joint attitude to see evidence that everything will go well. As a sum, he mentions 500,000 euros, which corresponds to an average budget for a six-part television documentary. The big investor does not even shrug his eye and even transfers 100,000 euros more. In return, he is to be involved in the film revenues in percentage terms.
A short time later, the generous “supporter” smears another sugar bread and offers to finance technology with a total value of 370,000 euros, but in the form of an interest-free loan. Cibis wants to equip several studios in Berlin, Rome, Paris and Vienna with the equipment. Organization and planning take three months, valuable time that he cannot use to produce his film project.
Then the loan agreement is presented to him, with strange formulations that make him stubborn for the first time. The skepticism grows when the financial “supporter” suddenly wants to exchange the two previous investments for a company share.
This type of sabotage or takeover, if it was the case with OVALmedia, is known as “black-shelving”. Was TNT Radio like OVALmedia “black-shelved”?
The former head of TNT Radio has also begged the question.
Then I discovered that Marcel had become the Director of multipolarista Matthew Ehret’s Rising Tide Foundation.
Matthew has been on numerous (I’m assuming expenses paid) trips to Russia and has written for Strategic Culture Foundation which the U.S. government alleges to be a Russian military-intelligence front, which is why U.S. citizens were banned from contributing to it under threat of high financial penalty and incarceration.
In an audacious attack on free speech, journalists and writers based in the United States have now been banned by the US federal authorities from publishing articles with Strategic Culture Foundation.
If US-based writers defy the ban, they have been threatened with astronomical financial penalties of over $300,000. The prohibition has only emerged in recent weeks. It follows earlier moves by the US State Department and the Treasury Department accusing SCF of being an agent of Russian foreign intelligence. No evidence has been presented by the US authorities to support their provocative claims. The Editorial Board of SCF categorically dismisses the allegations. In a statement, the editors said: “We reject all such claims by the US authorities that the journal is an alleged Russian intelligence operation. We have no connection with the Russian government. We provide an independent forum for international writers to debate and freely critique major topical issues of world importance.”
I have no problem believing SCF to be a Russian front, it does ideologically serve that purpose, but it also does have good wide-ranging analysis. Furthermore, it is also the perfect pretext to manufacture an American police state at home and dismantle civil liberties (e.g. free speech). A 21st century McCarthyism.
Ehret is also a Dean at the strange American University of Moscow, founded by the late Edward Lozansky, which some people say is non-existent and a cutout organization. I had interviewed Lozansky back in 2019 to get his take on the New Cold War. Another fun fact is Ehret was among the three of my very first guests on my first day at TNT Radio. He also subsequently was given a program on TNT Radio.
Back to Marcel, I discovered that he now ALSO owns a nice chunk of UK Column (UKC)!
And that multipolaristas who apparently had been brought on to TNT Radio, like Carl Zha, were subsequently brought over to UKC. Jeremy Nell (Jerm Warfare) was also brought over from TNT Radio to UKC.
Carl Zha is someone who openly has promoted BRICS multipolarity as well as Chinese technocracy. Here he is promoting 15-minute cities.
David A. Hughes came out with his own analysis of Marcel and these types of influence operations.
To which Jerm Warfare has responded.
Someone also discovered that Marcel had been attempting to make inroads with some of the anti-globalist anarchist crowd, such as Derrick Broze of Conscious Resistance. Marcel had donated to Derrick’s documentary and Derrick confirmed to me that he had no recollection of having any interactions or conversation with Marcel.
Did I dodge a bullet? It is difficult to come to a hard conclusion, but where there’s smoke, there’s fire. My gut tells me there is a visible multipolarista network pushing (globalist) multipolarism which has support from various power centers. Some of my colleagues have even wondered if this financial and online support doesn’t just come from the East, but that it might also be coming from Western centers of power, because after all, it’s a joint initiative and operation.
One strange interaction I had with a multipolarista, who came out of nowhere with a massive X following, who is a contributor to various Russian, Chinese, and otherwise BRICS-world media, was S.L. Kanthan, who I’d interviewed in early 2024. Much of his analysis when it comes to Western globalism gels, but he does tow the BRICS multipolar line.
Subsequently, he had invited me on an X space with another American expat. I noticed he framed the talk incorrectly, very much favoring the BRICS multipolarity angle (“Extreme Censorship in USA — Chat with TWO Americans in exile”), alleging I was forced to flee America, which was not the case. I simply ended up abroad due to wanderlust. I can go back home to America any time I like.
What was odd during the talk is that I began to criticize BRICS technocracy, and then he began to pretend he couldn’t hear me. My internet connection was optimal and there were no issues with my equipment. The other guest and listeners could all hear me except for Kanthan. I wonder if he truly had a technical issue on his end or merely pretended not to hear me as a form of censorship.
Then we have all the Scott Ritter, Doug MacGregor, Andrei Martyanov, and Larry Johnson types. I’ve interviewed most of them. Some people suggest that much of their analysis has been inaccurate up until now, but serves to prop up the multipolar narrative.
Rurik Christwalker has a wild thesis suggesting some of them to be part of U.S. information operations, with unclear objectives. Perhaps to promote the globalist multipolarity narrative in general? To create the boogeyman of multipolarity so as to warrant a stronger reaction from and more funding for the Military-Industrial-Complex? To serve, again, as pretext for bringing in further censorship measures?
Pentagon Active Measures & Influence Operations
Speaking of censorship and “active measures.”
To quote Mark Crispin Miller: “Once you start encouraging people to think critically about subjects that have been deemed taboo by the deep state, you become a sort of unperson.”
Somewhere back in time, around 2023, an anonymous account known as “The A.C.E.R.B.I.C. Nerd” and Dan Collen, a Canada VICE journalist who also works for an NGO financed by the Canadian government, began to attack me.
They would go through my Geopolitics & Empire and TNT Radio interviews cherry picking screenshots of guests they didn’t like, namely multipolaristas, like Matthew Ehret. What a coincidence!
At first they tried to make me out to be some sort of “neofascist Nazi” far-right white supremacist extremist.
I fought back immediately.
How could I be Nazi since my grandpa was a prisoner in a Nazi concentration camp?
What’s more, some Geopolitics & Empire listeners were so perturbed I wouldn’t “name the Jew” that they began calling me “Jewpolitics & Empire”!
The final nail in the coffin was me explaining it was simply impossible for me to be what they slandered me as: what kind of neo-Nazi moves down to Third World México, marries a brown person, and literally becomes a Mexican? Add to that the fact I’m untermensch (a Slav). Case closed.
They also attempted to try and make me out to be a Russian agent because I had interviewed Matthew Ehret as well as some of the LaRoucheites. On a side note, I do believe the LaRouche movement is connected to the BRICS multipolarity movement. The LaRouchites have some interesting analysis, yet ultimately I diverge from them because they promote globalist supranational multipolarity.
Eventually, after I beat them back, they shut up.
And in 2024, they returned, as a new and improved network.
In July of 2024 this new network produced a hit piece on me openly and unashamedly full of lies and slander. My gut told me that this was clearly a security state operation.
This was further confirmed when the next month, in August of 2024, Scott Ritter’s home was raided. Ladies and gentleman, we have a pattern formation!
To top it off, the final nail in the coffin was the Tenet media fiasco.
This network, which continues to knowingly lie about me, is growing.
And attacking more earnest podcasters and writers. For example, they attacked James Corbett and Riley Waggaman with entirely invented facts. Riley was kicked out of Russia, for crying out loud. They do however live up to their name of “Disinformation Governance Board”.
I don’t exactly know what their game is, I can only surmise.
They appear clearly to be towing the Pentagon line and narrative, that’s for sure.
They also appear to be attempting to muddy the waters and disguise the true roots of globalism, which is centered in the West, as I have been explaining. This Pentagon influence network says that Beijing and Moscow are behind the plot for communist globalist one-world government (via multipolarity).
They are signalling a new phase of crackdown and have even issued me a veiled threat. They may be front running a new wave of DHS-NATO-esque censorship on the homefront, effectively attempting to police thought and speech. Call it Disinformation Governance Board 2.0.
The following is just a short list of members that appear to be part of this network, if you check their accounts, you’ll be able to create a wider map since they repost each other:
https://x.com/JamesAFulk (formerly https://x.com/EyesofRepublic)
https://x.com/Restitutor_
https://x.com/onetallorfour
https://x.com/eyepatch_man
https://x.com/DefiyantlyFree
https://x.com/vctrcmrnlr
https://x.com/hl_shancken
https://x.com/barmiyeh3975
https://x.com/ReneeNal
Endeavor News once asked me for an interview, but I did not respond because I could see they were part of this malicious network. https://x.com/EndeavourNews
I had previously interviewed Jeff Nyquist because I thought there had been something to the Golitsyn theory. Given his relationship to this network, I’m increasingly coming to believe the Golitsyn theory was a Pentagon PSYOP. I found it strange that when I interviewed Nyquist right before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, he knew the invasion was going to happen, he said they would invade a week or two later and they did. https://x.com/JRNyquist
His activity and commentary has had an uptick, he’s colored his hair, and does a show with “Candor Intelligence” based out of Germany. https://x.com/Recentr3
Then there are a number of what I considered “friendlies” reposting this network which has knowingly lied about me.
I met Trevor Loudon at the 2023 American Freedom Alliance (AFA) conference and bought all his books, if you can imagine. Then interviewed him on TNT Radio. He is reposting this network. https://x.com/TrevorLoudon1
I also met Stephen Coughlin at AFA, spoke with him, got his card, and subsequently asked for an interview, and never got a response. https://x.com/S_Coughlin_DC
I am (was?) a huge fan of Michael O’Fallon but to my dismay, found him to be reposting this network. https://x.com/SovMichael
As well as James Lindsay. https://x.com/ConceptualJames
And as of late, Courtenay Turner has been reposting much of this network which has both lied about me and threatened me. https://x.com/CourtenayTurner
I cannot help but be convinced that this network is part of some security state operation.
Conclusion
These “patriot games” have all rather become dull and tiresome.
Particularly for little old me who works for peanuts. I haven’t seen a check from Vlad, Xi, or the Pentagon since I started recording conversations with people on the internet 14 years ago. All I have seen is persecution from my own American and European governments.
And as the Ministry of Truth expands and police state measures fall into place for thoughtcrime, this underpaid and thankless task honestly becomes less attractive as time goes by.
Yet, every time I consider throwing in the towel and disappearing into the woods, curiosity keeps me going.
Globalist H.G. Wells was right when he said:
Countless people…will hate the New World Order…and will die protesting against it…we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents.
