Multipolarity and the Gaza Genocide: Part I – To China With Love

Wikimedia Commons: US President Richard Nixon and Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai toast, February 25, 1972

In the series of articles I wrote on the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), I argued that the BIS was at the apex of a supranational structure of organisations that have made national sovereignty an illusion. Contrary to the world being governed by nations, nations take their marching orders from this supranational network of power – the governing structure of the Owners and Controllers of Global Financial Capital (OCGFC). The OCGFC regards the whole world as its territory, and national sovereignty, such as it is, is subordinate to the ultimate sovereignty of a global oligarchic network.

This is the paradigm I work with when trying to make sense of geopolitical events. I take some comfort from the fact that the most powerful government in the world, and supposedly the world’s democratic leader, seems to agree with me. The US administration admitted in a memo it released in May 2024 that “nearly all advanced economies and many developing countries are now governed by independent central banks whose governing bodies decide monetary policy without political input, approval, or fear of reprisal.” Control of the purse is substantive control.

If you buy into this, even partly, then it must lead to a revised geopolitical paradigm that forces us to critically assess whether great powers are acting independently of global financial interests. They simply cannot be. The idea that Steve Witkoff, a real estate billionaire and the US Middle East special envoy, is jetting around the Middle East doing deals with the Gulf Cooperation Council and not consulting a Blackrock or BIS wish list is not tenable.

I also expressed the hope that the BIS series would lay the foundation for a discussion of multipolarity in a world in which the financial powers are kingmakers, and how that geopolitical paradigm might inform predictions on whether Israel will succeed with its demonic genocide and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Well, here it is.

Multipolarity on the one hand, and the Palestinian holocaust perpetrated with the full support of the West’s political leadership on the other hand, are not unrelated global events. Is multipolarity a heroic response of the oppressed to Anglo-American neo-colonial hegemony? Or is it a strategic imperative of global financial capital for resetting the global monetary system and consolidating power? Alternatively, is it some mixture of both?

The IMF generously offered financial assistance to Egypt to encourage it to ethnically cleanse Palestinians, so we know that the OCGFC are not idle spectators in this matter. Modern warfare is an instrument of global finance, so it’s not unreasonable to speculate on how Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people has been factored into strategic economic calculations.

The framework for the discussion will be:

• Thoughts about the real meaning of multipolarity in Part I.

• Part II will begin with a discussion of a recent piece in Real Left about China and the 1989 Tiananmen Square crisis. Having set out my stall on multipolarity, my comment on that piece will hopefully reinforce the ‘multipolarity’ paradigm that I will outline now in Part I.

• I’ll then round off Part II by grappling with a ‘multipolar’ framework for seeing the Gaza and Palestine question through the eyes of the sociopathic OCGFC, and the potential that offers for an outcome that doesn’t seem possible right now.

The event precedes the word to describe it

It will come as no surprise to readers when I assert that multipolarity is not an economic revolution by the global south against Western hegemony. To begin to appreciate this, we might ask ourselves when it began. The concept of ‘multipolarity’ is obviously decades old in international relations but, while the world was unipolar, multipolarity was not a serious topic of discussion. At least not until Goldman Sachs pioneered the acronym BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) in 2001 as a signifier of the rising economic power of a bloc of nations champing at the bit to break free from Western hegemony.

The BRICS bloc is underwritten largely by China, the world’s second-largest economy by GDP. Without it, the bloc goes from being a menacing brick, if you will, to a soft lump of cheese. Thus, to understand China’s ascent is to understand a great deal about multipolarity. I would argue that multipolarity was in fact conceived in 1972 with Nixon’s visit to China during the Cold War détente. It was then midwifed in 1978 with the normalisation of US relations with China.

China’s subsequent meteoric rise was not an organic evolution. It was a deliberate economic strategy by the OCGFC to transfer the West’s real economy to China in order to bring the West’s working class to heel while simultaneously exploiting an untapped market and a cheaper working class in new locations. Such a strategy could not have been achieved without an accompanying deliberate transfer of technology. This was not ideological blowback. It was part of the plan.

The smoking gun for this plan is a 1987 report on a workshop conducted by the U.S. Congress’s Office of Technology Assessment. The report is subtly titled Technology Transfer to China and was partly informed by a workshop on China’s Future Course held in July 1986. I’m starting to see it as an Event 201 for multipolarity. Attendees of that course and a list of institutions acknowledged include the CIA, the US Department of State, various academic institutions and think tanks, and the governments of China, Japan, Germany, France and the UK. The report notes that:

“U.S. Government agencies are also involved in technology transfer as part of an overall effort to cooperate with China and improve relations. A broad agreement on science and technology cooperation was signed in 1979, and 25 protocols implementing the agreement in specific areas such as telecommunications, agriculture, space, environmental protection, transportation, and student/scholar exchange have been signed. Three more are pending. These contacts have facilitated commercial transactions and improved political contacts. The presence of 17,000 Chinese students and scholars (half of those sent abroad) in American universities has been one of the most effective forms of technology transfer.”

Under a heading “Strategic Implications”, there is more caginess about the military implications of technology transfer but also an acknowledgment of the inevitability of a concurrent growth in military and economic technology that would be brought about by technology transfer:

“Technology transfer will assist China’s military. The important questions are how much it will help and how much that matters to the United States or its allies […] If China is to become a major power, it will be through developing its own capabilities throughout the economy. Thus, in the long term, technology transfer will have a great military effect if it spurs innovation, modernized thinking, research and development”.

The significance of the report is that it is a discussion about how to transfer technology in the most mutually beneficial way, not whether to transfer it. This doesn’t add up in the light of the fanfare around Obama’s 2011 policy of pivoting to Asia to confront growing Chinese military and economic power in the region. ‘Pivot to Asia’ and the sabre rattling that went with it spawned a slew of terror documentaries like The Coming War on China by the late John Pilger. So China had confusingly been granted most-favoured-nation trading status and technology transfers, and yet was also now fast becoming the US’s Next Big Threat.

Technology transfer to a bogeyman is not new. Anthony Sutton exposed in great detail the systematic transfer of US military technology to the Soviet Union during the Cold War.[i] Again, this is confusing not just because the US and the Soviet Union were always on the brink of alleged nuclear war, but also because the official backstory to normalisation with China was that it was a policy to isolate and weaken the USSR.

The only way to make sense of it is to place a financial criminocracy at the top of the pyramid. Russia and Germany combined were certainly regarded as a real threat to the Anglo-American empire at the turn of the 20^th century, until that threat was largely neutralised with the two world wars. But that is for another essay.

The only way to make sense of it is to recognise that there is an eminence grise that operates below the surface of court power. A force that can transfer military technology to its bogeymen, as it did in the Cold War and then later with China. A force that ensures the powers in the court do its bidding, as Nixon, Clinton, and all the others did. A force that can kill the court powers if they disobey, as it did with JFK.

Suffice to say that the perennial bogeyman is an essential piece of the edifice of ruling class control over the masses. War and the constant threat of war is a ruling-class protection racket under which the unwitting taxpayer is fleeced for vast sums of money transferred to the military industrial complex and the financiers of war who sit at the throne of the Establishment.

To China with love

Chinagate, first reported in 1996, was a multi-layered scandal ostensibly involving allegations of attempts by the Chinese government to influence the Clinton administration through illegal campaign funding activity. Whitney Webb, in her book One Nation Under Blackmail, reveals that the largest legal donor to the Clinton re-election campaign was Bernard Schwartz, the CEO of a US company called Loral Space Systems. That company was investigated for illegally transferring advanced technology to China.[ii]

Schwartz’s donation to the Clinton campaign won him a trip with the Commerce Secretary, Ron Brown, to China, where he managed to secure a contract for Loral to provide cellular (mobile) telephone services to China. In February 1996, a failed rocket launch revealed that a Chinese Aerospace subsidiary had obtained a commercial satellite from Loral, which led to accusations of an unauthorised transfer of missile technology to China.

Webb goes on to note that:

“After donating heavily to the DNC in 1996, Schwartz subsequently pushed for the transfer of satellite export approval from the State Department to the Commerce Department, which Clinton granted. As Schwartz's donations kept flowing, President Clinton continued to sign off on Loral’s exports of satellites containing sensitive technology to China. It was later revealed that the president was warned that approving the launching could be seen as letting Loral off the hook on criminal charges for its unauthorised assistance to China's ballistic missile program, yet he continued to sign waivers for Loral.”[iii]

From the excerpts above, we glean that Schwartz was in a position to make money from trade with China while giving the Chinese what they wanted in technology transfers. But to facilitate that process, he needed the export approval process to be transferred to a government department that would make the process easier and was also headed up by ‘his man’ – Ron Brown. The president of the US, having been bought off by Schwartz, was only too happy to oblige. Conspiracy deniers will dismiss systemic corruption with a higher purpose as merely greedy and unscrupulous men who made it to the top. But, in a system designed to ensure that only greedy and unscrupulous men make it to the top, doesn’t that tell you something about the system?

As exposed by Sutton, Webb and others, the System managed to transfer military technology to both Russia during the cold war and then China after the cold war. The pattern is so obvious as to make the reality of it plain – organised crime is so thoroughly grafted onto the System that we must conclude it is the System. And it seems to be pretty effective at transferring military and other technology to bogeymen.

Webb traces Israel’s involvement in the affair, noting that in 1993, the CIA was well aware of it. The then CIA director James Woolsey told Congress that Israel had been selling “advanced military technology to China for more than a decade and is moving to expand its cooperation with Beijing. He estimated the trade in military technology to China to be “several billion dollars.”[iv]

The whole scheme can be traced back to a plan developed by a company called GeoMiliTech (GMT) founded by veterans of US and Israeli intelligence in 1983. In December 1985, a GMT meeting attended by the CIA director, William Casey, outlined “a complicated three-way trading scheme, developed by GMT, as a means of sustaining finances and equipment for covert operations.” Congressional investigators who delved into the scheme concluded that “Israel would sell certain things, military equipment, to the People’s Republic of China, who would supply Soviet arms, which would then be brokered”. From the schematic outline entered into evidence by the Congressional investigators, Webb speculated that GMT “was proposing the creation of a multinational economic arrangement that would bind together the US, Israel, and China through a series of credit extensions, technology transfers, and arms deals.”[v]

Wind the clock forward, and the strange glitches in the bogeyman matrix get curiouser and curiouser:

• A “disturbing entanglement” between Wall Street, Vanguard and Blackrock, with the latter reportedly investing in the Chinese military industrial complex.

• The location of China’s only African military base in Djibouti, alongside the US’s largest African base in the same location. Djibouti is slightly smaller than the state of New Jersey, so if war broke out between China and the US, you’d be forgiven for thinking that the two sides cosying up to each other in tiny little Djibouti might begin to regret renting the same bedsit. Then again, if they’re already intimately involved, the cosy set-up is not a problem.

• The sale of the US’s mineral interests in DRC to China, aided and abetted by both the Trump and Obama administrations.

• Larry Fink’s warning to China that BlackRock has the power to curb financial flows to China.

I elaborated on the strangeness of each of those points in a little more detail in a previous essay, under the heading The meaning of the new Scramble for Africa – the BRICS vs NATO Punch and Judy show.

Start with a sprinkling of normalisation, add several heaped tablespoons of technology transfer, throw in generous dollops of productive sector offshoring, bake for 40 years, and then take the world’s new superpower out of the oven. All of which is to suggest that, in recognition of everything we’ve ever bought with a ‘made in China’ label on it, perhaps 21^st century China itself should have a label stuck on it that reads: ‘made in the US’.

Multipolarity – same shit spread evenly all over the world

I hope I am starting to make you question whether multipolarity might be somewhat of an OCGFC contrivance. No? Not yet? Ok, well, this blog tends to attract people who are looking for some sort of commentary on the state of the global freedom index, so let’s explore the vast difference between the trajectory for freedom in the BRICS bloc and the trajectory for freedom in the NATO bloc. Don’t buy your tickets to Rio De Janeiro until you’ve finished reading this next bit.

There is no shortage of alt media writers producing apologia for BRICS. Apart from their implicit or explicit support for BRICS, they all share one thing in common – they refuse to address in any serious way the abundance of evidence that BRICS has the same core dystopian agenda for humanity as NATO. That’s because they can’t. We’ll get into some of that evidence shortly.

In fairness to writers like Pepe Escobar, many, if not most, of them never mention the word “freedom” in their odes to BRICS. If they did, they’d encounter an insurmountable contradiction between freedom for humanity and the BRICS agenda. As far as I can tell, all they really want is a shiny new brand of organised tyranny – a tyranny that works for them and against their perceived enemies.

It’s not an ethos to which I subscribe, but one can see how appealing it would be to people around the world who have been on the sharp end of the Anglo-American empire for generations and are looking forward to its collapse. I’ve got some bad news for them. It’s not so much collapsing as it is deceptively morphing into something else. Like a virus, it’s jumping to a new host.

Edward Slavsquat does a fine job of exposing the BRICS charade with a barbed wit that drives the nail into the coffin. So let’s sample some of his observations.

At its 16^th summit in Kazan in 2024, the BRICS ‘upstarts’ confirmed their commitment to “global governance” and the international institutions which are simultaneously above the law yet impose diktat on supposedly sovereign nations, without accountability or scrutiny by national electorates. Of course, the BRICS commitment to these horrific institutions is all dressed up in the language of ‘human rights’ and ‘democracy’, which is sufficient to mollify the average global citizen acutely sensitive to lullabies of justice and equality.

In addition to bending the knee to the IMF, that rock-solid pillar of debt-based neo-colonial slavery, it affirmed its support for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals – the UN charter for global enslavement couched in more lullabies of justice and equality.

Above all, the BRICS summit pledged its support for the establishment of carbon markets as a vital adjunct in combatting the ravages of that most evil and pernicious of gases, carbon dioxide.

The WHO’s plandemic preparedness agenda, ‘safe and effective’ ‘vaccines’, and “digital transformation” using 5G all got two thumbs up from the feisty BRICS rebels.

In April 2025, The Economic Times reported that a BRICS summit to be held later that month would be “expected to adopt a document on artificial intelligence that is in line with the multilateral approach and a document on climate finance”.

In short, the BRICS bloc has bravely, and unequivocally, acquiesced to all of the New World Order’s hostage demands in the full knowledge that the hostage-takers have no intention of releasing the hostages – that’s us: all of humanity.

Russia is pushing for full-scale implementation of its Central Bank Digital Currency, the digital ruble. As the acerbic Russia observer Riley Waggaman (aka Edward Slavsquat) points out: “Russia is far ahead of the West in implementing “digitalization” shilled by Davos”. Waggaman also observed in October 2023 that Russia’s Ministry of Health wanted to amend the National Preventive Immunization Calendar so that COVID vaccination could be mandatory for “vulnerable categories of citizens”.

Let me interrupt this list of BRICS achievements in upholding the New World Order with a news bulletin: multipolarity is a sham to disguise the real unipolarity that has existed arguably for centuries, but definitely since the turn of the 20^th century. If I were a wise French philosopher, I would say of multipolarity: plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. But I’m not, so I’ll just say multipolarity is another deceptive scam brought to you by the makers of 911, the War of Terror, covid plandemic, build-back-better, safe and effective, the digital gulag, CBDCs, Gaza genocide and Make Israel Great Again.

It's hard for people to accept that it is a sham because there really is a rising economic bloc of countries representing people who really do want to throw off the yoke of NATO neo-imperialism. But if the countries in that bloc are not sovereign, if ‘multipolarity’ is being orchestrated by the same powerful financial interests that control the NATO bloc, and if the current Owners and Controllers of Global Financial Capital retain control of the global economy in their ‘multipolar’ world, then it isn’t multipolarity, and it won’t deliver the global justice that ordinary people want it to. I would like to see real multipolarity because it would represent a form of financial decentralisation, but I don’t see the evidence for it.

So I see multipolarity as the application of fake national party political opposition at the global level. Fronted by people of their own colour who may even earnestly believe in the BRICS mission of global justice, the BRICS soul train will be cheered on by the global South citizenry, not realising that it’s being driven by the same powers that propelled the NATO imperialist train.

And the BRICS soul train may even deliver some results that initially appear to grant the world’s poorest some respite. But there are core anti-human agendas that both BRICS and NATO subscribe to as a matter of religious faith, and they all lead to global enslavement. They are climate change and carbon finance, plandemics and bio-digital convergence, digital currency, and digitalisation and data as the new oil. It should be clear that if two ‘competing’ blocs are not actually offering competing platforms, they just might be working for the same boss.

So how do those BRICS apologists who ought to know better defend BRICS? Frankly not very well. Here is a defence of BRICS by Matthew Ehret. Readers are welcome to scour the text for anything concrete that addresses all of the issues raised above. Do let me know if you find something.

---

In Part II, I will comment on a piece recently published in Real Left analysing China’s handling of the 1989 Tiananmen Square crisis. I’ll then discuss a ‘multipolar’ framework for seeing the Gaza and the wider Palestine question through the eyes of the sociopathic OCGFC, and the potential that offers for an outcome that doesn’t seem possible right now.

---

[i] Antony C. Sutton, National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union, New Rochelle, New York: Arlington House, 1973

[ii] Whitney Webb, One Nation Under Blackmail, Vol. 2, Trine Day LLC, 2022, Ch 16, pg 206

[iii] Whitney Webb, One Nation Under Blackmail, Vol. 2, Trine Day LLC, 2022, Ch 16, pg 206-207

[iv] Whitney Webb, One Nation Under Blackmail, Vol. 2, Trine Day LLC, 2022, Ch 17, pg 256

[v] Whitney Webb, One Nation Under Blackmail, Vol. 1, Trine Day LLC, 2022, Ch 7, pg 339-340