After meeting in Johannesburg for its annual meeting, the alliance of countries originally formed by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa officially decided to open the doors to six other countries that had applied. Thus, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia and the United Arab Emirates joined the club.
The mere fact that we see two countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia being part of the same geopolitical alliance should give an idea of the revolution, or perhaps we should say counter-revolution, of international relations that is underway.
What we are seeing with the BRICS project and the creation of an alternative currency is in no way a phenomenon aimed at ensnaring the US and the West, according to Shahid Bolsen, an “analyst” who has worked for the organization “Detained in Dubai”, a personality with a controversial past, known for his views that challenge conventional narratives.
Bolsen recalls that both the idea of BRICS and the term BRICS were coined by Goldman Sachs in 2001 by economist Jim O’Neill, head of Goldman Sachs at the time, who coined the name.
Almost all the central banks of the countries, including the BRICS, are “controlled” by the BIS.
Indeed in November 2001 the bank of New York wrote a paper entitled “Building a better global economy: BRICS“, see also here.
In the paper written by the economist Jim O’Neill, some rather estimates are made about the fact that the growth of the countries that make up the BRICS acronym, i.e. Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, will soon be higher than that of the countries belonging to the eurozone.
This plan has been in the works for decades. None of what is happening surprises the West or the United States. Nor does it represent the emergence of true multipolarity. De-dollarization, the destabilization of Europe, the rise of the BRICS, the potential new BRICS currency, and the pivot to Asia, are designed with a global plan in mind.
A central bank digital currency (CBDC) is also a creation by the BRICS just like the Fed and the ECB.
Shahid Bolsen’s perspective is confirmed by examining some passages in the following article:
The Rockefeller Plan for the BRICS New World Order here.
Also read the article: BRICS – The Key Tool for Establishing the New World Order
Indeed, in a recent article on August 25, 2023, after more than 20 years, economist Jim O’Neill denied that his document was some kind of blessing for what the BRICS would do in the coming years, specifically writing:
“LONDON 25 –August 2023 – When I coined the BRICS acronym in 2001, my main point was that global governance should adapt to incorporate the world’s largest emerging economies. Brazil, Russia, India, and China not only topped this group’s list, but were also collectively responsible for governing nearly half the world’s population. It made sense that they should be represented accordingly.”
In conclusion, after 20 years, he returns to an article he wrote in 2001 and tells us that “it was a reasonable prediction”.
BRICS – Will “1984” Multipolar World Lead to UN Global Governance?
The division into three blocs in “1984” highlights how power uses division, propaganda, and control to maintain control and subjugation of citizens.
In 1996, Henry LAMB Henry LAMB, president of “Sovereignty International Incorporated”, founder of the “Environmental Conservation Organization”, columnist, author and one of the most important experts in the UN effort for global governance, was the first to sound the alarm for Agenda 21 and plans to put global governance in the hands of the UN Secretary General.
Agenda 21, the primary document presented in Rio de Janeiro and adopted by more than 100 heads of state, such as George W. Bush, which describes in every detail all the transformation that must be done in society in order to become “sustainable” as “them” define “sustainability”.
The BRICS countries, from summit to summit, reaffirm their commitment to implement the UN’s 2030 Agenda, Globalization 4.0 and Klaus Schwab’s 4th Industrial Revolution.
“1984”, the world is divided into 3 big blocks
Or is it just a distraction like in the Orwellian novel “1984” where the world is divided into 3 major blocs, divided by hostilities and conflicts that work to keep the populations in a perpetual state of oppression while Big Brother reigns supreme?
In the world of “1984,” the three major geopolitical clusters, essentially Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia, represent the three powers competing for global supremacy. Each bloc has a “Big Brother” – its own totalitarian leader, and uses nationalism, propaganda, and control to maintain its power.
Citizens of each bloc live under constant surveillance and control and, reality is shaped by the regime. The concept of “war is peace” is one of the slogans used to control people’s thinking and distort reality. Freedom of thought and privacy have been completely eliminated.
The division into three blocs illustrates the idea of a power struggle, where no side has a permanent advantage and war continues as a means of control. Citizens of various blocs are monitored and pushed to support their current government, regardless of overwhelming evidence that power is oppressive and reality distorted.
Ultimately, the division into three blocs in “1984” highlights how power uses division, propaganda, and control to maintain dominance and subjugation of citizens.
It is possible that the multipolar world is a kind of distraction from the ultimate goal, which is the governance of two seemingly opposite blocs under the “leadership” of organizations like the UN and the WHO, and not just governments, as Schwab himself would like in the “World Governments Summit – Klaus Schwab wants to create new mechanisms to strengthen international cooperation in a multi-dynamic world”?
