There is a tendency for prominent politicians, central bankers, and other panjandrums of Western public life, inevitably men and women of a globalist bent, to refer to their coming global order not only as an historical inevitability ... the product of vast and insuperable forces ... but also as a struggle fraught with the possibility of tragic failure.  There is a sizeable “if” about the whole idea.  Notwithstanding their measureless power, these people worry that The Globality may, in fact, prove elusive.  What can this mean?

After all, there is no resistance anywhere in the West to their project.  The democratic process is a captive or, if it cannot be captured it is ignored or, if it cannot be ignored, it is repeated until the “right” answer comes back.  The main political parties were long since captured, the political class corrupted.  All offer the same narrow policy platform.  The dateline corporations are on board (despite reservations in some cases).  The astonishing technologies which are developing in computer science and the life sciences are being successfully piggybacked.  Thus the means to impose control through a digital currency, be it linked to a health passport or not, already exists.  The means to permanently surveil the movements, purchases and public statements of the population exists.  The utilisation of the dicta of Sustainable Development to cover nitrogen and methane, and so meat production, thereby “requiring” the expropriation of farmland and the forcing on the “useless eaters” of no doubt highly profitable non-meat substitutes, is coming into effect already in certain pilot countries.  It is true that the wired trans-human is still more science fiction than reality, as is the end of ageing.  But other programmes are more advanced, and not a few fully realised.  So with all this rolling along nicely, why do our glorious elites speak with such uncharacteristic diffidence?

Our glorious elites speak with such uncharacteristic diffidence because they cannot be certain of the compliance of their non-Western counterparts.  Specifically, they fear that:

(a) The ambitions of non-Western leaders remain stubbornly within the old limits of personal and national aggrandisement.

(b) The Western elites and their technocratic framework are perceived to be foisting yet more arrogant and grasping post-colonial dictate on southern hemisphere nations.  “Arrogant” and “grasping” the elites probably don’t mind too much.  But “post-colonial” hits a nerve.  Theirs is, after all, just another control system originating in the West.

It is the first of these fears, however, which is most disruptive, and which has brought the Western elites into open and existential conflict with Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

The liberal’s last act versus the dictator’s historical destiny

Not a single man or woman of European descent, raised in a western European, North American or Antipodean society, is unmarked by liberalism and by modernity.  The one is still – just - the guiding Idea of our epoch while the other was its midwife, ripping it from the 17th century body of Christian teaching.  Even though we today are at the end of both, we are nonetheless enworlded by them, our personhood - our secular beliefs and values, our understanding and expectation of self and of others, and so forth - was much formed by them.  Liberalism’s subject without confines, be it the radically equal man or the radically individualised one, communicated itself to us via perhaps twenty generations; modernity’s instrumentalised Man has communicated itself via perhaps twenty-five.  But now we are told that “the world” has reached an inflection point.  Something new is overtaking European Man again, and more radically and suddenly than the gifts of Gutenberg or Locke or James Watt ever did.

Actually, intellectuals have been speaking of postmodernity and the end of the Age of Reason for half-a-century.  Western internationalists, as well as the “cosmopolitan” ones, have been warning about or calling for a new global order for longer than that.  One of the cosmopolitans was the first critic of this new ceasura from within the Establishment.  He was the Harvard psychologist Richard Herrnstein who, with Charles Murray, co-authored The Bell Curve.  The principal concept of the book was that in a perpetually technologising society a cognitive elite will inevitably emerge as the frontiers of knowledge advance, and then with equal inevitability detach itself from the lower orders.  Dissonance, the authors called it.

Herrnstein’s specialism was the study of animal behaviours, which obviously include mate-competition and the male drive for status.  It is safe to say that he would have considered human in-group elitism first as a cooperative structuring of status, and second as a strategy for preserving status from competition from below.  He would have considered the engineered enslavement of the out-group as secondary means to the latter, routinely played out in tribal warfare.  Making the defeated tribe an economic resource functions as a figurative castration of all its males, a taking of their vital principle from which all cause issues.  As a Jewish psychologist and an honest man, Herrnstein would surely have identified it in various Rabbinic statements on the worth and raison d-etre of gentiles.  It is quite likely that he feared a de-tribalised Jewish elite, ie, an elite characterised by cognitive dissonance from the tribal majority characterised by Chosen-ness ... would “perfect” the lesser Jews along with everyone else in “the world”.  It would have been a logical conclusion.

Herrnstein confided to Peter Brimelow, who had visited him on his deathbed in 1994 with a gift of one of the first volumes of TBC to come off the press, that his warning was intended foremost for Jews.  Telling the story at VDARE on the tenth anniversary of the publishing of the book, Brimelow described Herrnstein as “a great man”.  Whether that is the case or not, he was certainly a percipient one.  Of course, he could not know the precise sunrise technologies, scarcely imagined in 1994, which would energise and potentialise a segregating Jewish elite.  He could not know that they would promise all the wealth in the world delivered in an entirely practical manner and within a few decades, or that it could deploy technology to transform the lesser cohort not merely into compliant racial servants but helpless dependents on the largesse of Power, to be algorithmically-cancelled if insufficiently prostrate, or that the elites’ own lives might feasibly be invested not merely in the pursuit of that eternal tribal dominion promised by the God of the Israelites but in a god-like physical immortality of their own. 

The Jewish elite’s pivot to technocracy requires a certain threshold for alienation to be crossed.  The customary tribal devotion must be, if not renounced as such (because that is biologically impossible), then certainly made secondary to the elitist’s focus on his or her personal good.  In other words, a given Jewish elite’s participation in technocracy depends upon his or her confection of a non-natural self-view and world-view.  That would typically be accompanied by some sophisticated apologetics for the purposes of disguise and, probably, self-delusion.  But one would suspect that the more consciously fashioned is the shiny new persona, the less stable it may prove.  That said, once the Re-Set bites there can be no general return to Judaism’s ageless struggle for tribal dominion.  That will have been the Jewish technocrat’s necessary sacrifice on the alter of an Ultimate Power that is actually achievable in this life.

I suppose one should say that it is both the same and different with racially European elites.  Here, too, a sacrifice is necessary to unlock parasitism’s full potential.  Notwithstanding the gross materialism of the venture, the law of transcendence, or transit, still applies: that which conceals and supplants, or that which consigns itself to absence, or that which simply limits and constrains must be sloughed off so that emergence, presence, and limitlessness may manifest.  In the European elites’ case it is the limit and constraint of their existing “private estate” … the West ... which must be transcended, and seen to transcended.  To become world-rulers and hold their due share in the title to it, they have to break the model of Western dominion, which is their own dominion.

They have been thinking it through for half a century, assuming that one dates the first concrete indicator to Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1970 paper Between Two Ages: America’s role in the technetronic era.  Nixon’s visit to China followed two years later.  It was the foundation of Western neo-liberal corporate policy, which we know as globalisation in its fully flowered form today, and which began to bite in the second half of the eighties.  For the CCP it was always a self-serving asset-stripping process, meaning intellectual property and manufacturing industry were gift-wrapped for them.  It stirred into wakefulness the ancient racial dream of recovering the Middle Kingdom from its humiliation by the brilliant parvenus of Europe.

Nobody saw any reason to explain the matter to working white people, and that remains the way of it today.  Among themselves the Western elites’ coin-clipping class – the major corporate investors, asset managers and central bankers, the bulk of whom are Jewish - justify their globalism on the basis that, as there is nothing in this world but economics, and having broken our productive economies with their outsourcing stratagems and their welfare-warfare multiracialisation, they’ve got to shift the game to China and the Third World.  Because that’s where “the growth” is, and “growth” justifies every globalist sin.  As Iain Davis makes clear in his Part 2 essay on Multipolarity:

... the US economy in its present form, along with significant swathes of the Western economic order, is degrading. As noted by BlackRock, the existing drivers of financial exploitation are tapped out. Now that Western economies have reached their limits of growth, new sources of global economic stimulus are required.

Well, parasites do typically move to a new host.  In its ignorance and venality, the parasitic financial and political classes have simply written off American monopolarity and Western dominance as a matter of course, without a moment’s thought as to whether or not we have within us the genius to re-build – proof enough that there abides among these people an unchanging intent, conscious or not, to generate in our place the amorphous and raceless, a-causal gentile of the Judaic End Time.

The Europeans among them stand in a history of fifteen hundred years of Christian impost and three centuries of its estranging philosophical child, liberalism.  They are well equipped for betrayal.  They feel not the slightest attachment to their own ethnic kind.  Liberal individualists and economic men (in some cases born into families of the self-same history), they have no thresholds to cross, no renunciations to make.  They fall in effortlessly with Money’s borderless destining.  In Britain such actions have a history which predates technocracy and even the Money Power.  They are at one with the elitism in our land going all the way back to the Norman Conquest, and in our historiography back still further to the imposition of Christianity.  The organic principle was cast aside in both events.  As for Money, when since the Imperial Century did its borderless destining not shape and sustain the British ruling class?

The new global order awaits the remaking of the Western elites’ financial instruments and institutions.  So the G7 is to replace itself.  The petrodollar is to be replaced by the petroyuan, and the dollar reserve by a synthetic CBDC in some form, initially based on the BRICS economies.  The charters of the IMF and the World Bank have to be rewritten to face towards the emerging economies.  The Western economies, shorn of the interest-rate buffer of the dollar reserve, will be left to its elites-manufactured crisis of debt.  Such are the financial antecedents of Re-Set.

But globalists do not act in isolation.  Their power rests on the totalistic consent and compliance of the entire Western political class, more or less every corporate CEO, every media owner and all their hacks, the revolving-door artistes of the think tanks, the Establishment lawyers, the “educationalists”, the Common-Purposed leaders of the unions and the public and voluntary sectors … in short, the Davosian “stakeholders” at every level, who have replaced the demos.  They tend to be typically middle-class, urban liberals who have learned to signal their belonging with the powerful by displays of fake self-abnegation.  For example, the ordinary liberal who denounces “racism” signals his, of course, vast love of all humanity, especially of the suffering dusky “refugee”.  The liberal who haughtily demeans the simple, sturdy patriotism of “little Englanders” signals his “visionary” internationalism.  The liberal who noisily renounces the waste and materialism of the Western way of life signals his selfless devotion to “saving the planet”.  Humanity, vision, selflessness for the so so precious in-crowd.  Racism, narrowness and bigotry, and a blind and stupid existence for the rest of us.  This is the divide which, at all levels, the liberal achieves by his ritual of self-abnegation.  Of course it’s all mentally feeble and dishonest.  The man who claims to love everyone loves no one but himself.  Scorn for the people’s love of kind and home is not a moral cause.  It’s a pathology and a vicious little trick.  As for planet-saving, the “brave” environmental protester targets the Home Counties, not Hebei or Henan.  The liberal means none of it.  He is just an initiate who must repeat, and keep on repeating, the initiation rituals of his cult.  And it’s a cargo cult.  Moral affirmation, peer recognition, life opportunities are supposed to fall from the sky.  They do for some, it is true.  But the objective meaning of it is that betrayal of the life and right and interest of our race and peoples - Hernnstein’s cognitive dissonance - is everywhere among our educated class, without a single exception or break.  It is a staggering display of the shallowness and herd-thinking of the modern and, for the most part, educated Western mind.

Meanwhile high above, the crew of Davos Airways Flight 2030 are also liberals in that they are, inevitably, unquestioning creatures of the philosophical epoch into which they are born.  They also have a ready recourse to self-abnegation to signal their belonging and solidarity.  But their rarified world has a particular interpretation of self-abnegation in so much as their present lordly status – American global hegemony - is not good enough because it has the same limitations as past imperial ventures.  Rome, the British Empire, the Soviet Union, all declined and fell because the point in their history arrived where the power to sustain them was overtaken by the power of decay and by the strength of opponents.  The elites’ future empire cannot allow powers of decay or, indeed opponents.  Their suzerainty, therefore, must be over the whole earth, and it must be deathless.  For all power to be under their hand they themselves must transcend the principle of the opponent and conquest of him.

In turn, that incorporation of the opponent - the non-Western world’s men of power - requires the communication of an Olympian indifference to all that has always been.  “By the means of letting go of geopolitical thinking, parochial thinking … by putting aside dispute and division,” the Western elites inform them, “you may join with us in creating a new global empire of Money, possess its riches, and luxuriate in its portals as you please, and forever dictate to all the world of lesser men.”

Outside the West, however, men of power are not liberals, and very often not Christians either.  They seem not to recognise the merit in what, after all, is only a variation on the theme of the divestment of worldly goods for heavenly gain.  They may understand the getting of power quite differently.  In coming to it themselves, they have not gone by way of the soft graft of the sober-suited Western bankers and machine politicians but, likely as not, through power struggle, kleptocracy, the exile or murder of opponents, state terror and every form of human rights abuse.  Not a few strive after an absolute and indefinite power.  Some, having achieved it, are now motivated by the vainglory of personal greatness and a place in history.  Vladimir Putin completely fits that description.  Xi Jinping likewise.  Recep Tayyip Erdogan is another.  The Arab feudal-state rulers, the Iranian mullahs, the African “big men” … non-Western leadership consistently demonstrates that cultures and peoples differ qualitatively and vastly.  The Western ideal of civic society – long assumed by Western political evangelists to be a gold standard transferable everywhere - is utterly alien or ungodly or both to most of them.  Its moral superiority impacts upon them and their machinations as an implicit accusation from on high.  They don’t like it.  They can’t replicate it, and don’t wish to.  They can only govern their precious fiefdoms by force, patronage, and cunning, as their kind have for fifty and perhaps a hundred generations.

The inevitable result is that the Western elites’ multipolar model of Globality, with its horizontal power distribution via the G20 nations and global financial structures, is challenged by a vertical model of regional empires.  The Russian idea, advanced by Sergey Glazyev, is that there should be six great socialist blocs or “great spaces”: Eurasian (actually the fourth Russian empire), East Asian (or Greater China), Sub-Continental Indian, European/EU, North American/NAFTA, and South American.  In reality, as the West is expected to be economically bankrupt and industrially defunct, and India and South America will never amount to anything, this is a roadway to Sino-Russian global dominion.

Moscow and Beijing are perfectly content to frame their own projects in terms of multipolarity.  For their part, the Western elites would be perfectly content for Russia and China to lend their economic weight to multipolarity and, in the post-Western future, to be the leading proponents of it.  But they are not content to exchange Western monopolarity for Sino-Russian monopolarity.  Hence Mark Carney’s frustrations about the need for all concerned to think geo-economically, not geopolitically.  Hence Putin’s miscalculation in Ukraine, which was supposed to be the final word, physically manifesting the regional model.  Hence the Western powers’ unexpectedly clear and uniform, material support for Ukraine.

The weariness of the global south

The other large fly in the Western elites’ latte is the legacy of colonialism in all its seemingly unending forms.  One cannot over-state how tired of the West are the governing classes of southern hemisphere nations.  There are several depressingly intractable aspects to it, perhaps the most depressing, and certainly the most inevitable, the mere fact of our being.  To quote from a well-known passage written by Joseph Sobran in 1997:

Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost inexpressible. It’s Western exploration, science, and conquest that have revealed the world to itself. Other races feel like subjects of Western power long after colonialism, imperialism, and slavery have disappeared. The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel not hostility, but only baffled good will, because they don’t grasp what it really means: humiliation. The white man presents an image of superiority even when he isn’t conscious of it.

Well, it is, but still white men or, to be more accurate, American corporations are bestriding the world and ordering the way of things without too much sensitivity for the feelings of the locals.  So America exports its decadent and vapid, homosexualised and mulattoised entertainment culture to healthily ethnocentric peoples steeped in hyper-masculinism, traditionalism, and tribalism.  Likewise it seeks to impose its political model of the world, which since 9/11 has involved a weaponised form of liberal democracy … good governance, they say ... hawked around by war-mongering ex-Trotskyist Jews.  Its central bank makes available the dollar reserve and the petrodollar.  But every international use of it carries the Fed’s base rate over and above the real value of the currency, and in effect transfers wealth from the south to pay down the trillions in debt to which America treats itself.

As for good governance, American corporations have serially enriched local despots and their playboy sons, and extracted all they could from the land, not infrequently leaving behind environmental nightmares, and giving little to its people in return.  Western scientific advancement, Western medicine do not salve the wound.  And now the Western elites return with a new, supposedly generous offer to southern hemisphere rulers who will never be granted a place at the top table.  Let us all transcend the limits of the small worlds we bestride, they say … let us come together in a single world of power over humanity’s destiny.  But what will be left will still be the American corporation and its bitter record of stripping and robbing the unwary.

What chance, then, that the southern hemisphere nations will perceive the Western elites’ technocratic framework as anything other than a new form of dominion “long after colonialism, imperialism, and slavery have disappeared”?  You could be forgiven for expecting, perhaps not immediately but at some point in the future, a dangerous preference for a Chinese alternative.

Taking all this into account, perhaps we as powerless observers, albeit with an existential interest, are too accustomed to think of the elites’ project as an unstoppable historical force.  That is certainly how they wish to see it, and how, for example, Tony Blair spoke of it after his term in 10 Downing Street.  Perhaps the sheer vastness and complexity of it all condemns it to unfulfillment, at least in part.  Perhaps they are too arrogant and we are too quiet, and were we to really agitate against them they would be easier to knock over than we ordinarily assume.  Perhaps.