TheDinarian
News • Business • Investing & Finance
🌐Multipolar World Order – Part 1🌐
September 24, 2022
post photo preview

Russia’s war with Ukraine is first and foremost a tragedy for the people of both countries, especially those who live—and die—in the battle zones. The priority for humanity, though apparently not for the political class, is to encourage Moscow and Kyiv to stop killing men, women and children and negotiate a peace deal.

Beyond the immediate confines of the conflict, the war is also seen by some as representative of an alleged clash between great powers and, perhaps, between civilisations. All wars are momentous, but the ramifications of Ukrainian war are already global.

Consequently, there is a perception that it is the focal point of a confrontation between two distinct models of global governance. The NATO-led alliance of the Western nations continues to push the unipolar, G7, international rules-based order (IRBO). It is opposed, some say, by the Russian and Chinese-led BRICS and the G20-based multipolar world order.

In this 3 part series we will explore these issues and consider if it is tenable to place our faith in the emerging multipolar world order.

There are very few redeeming features of the unipolar world order, that’s for sure. It is a system that overwhelmingly serves capital and few people other than a “parasite class” of stakeholder capitalist eugenicists. This has led many disaffected Westerners to invest their hopes in the promise of the multipolar world order:

Many have increasingly come to terms with the reality that today’s multipolar system led by Russia and China has premised itself upon the defense of international law and national sovereignty as outlined in the UN Charter. [. . .] Putin and Xi Jinping have [. . .] made their choice to stand for win-win cooperation over Hobbesian Zero Sum thinking. [. . .] [T]heir entire strategy is premised upon the UN Charter.

If only that were so! Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear to be the case. But even if it were true, Putin and Xi Jinping basing “their entire strategy” upon the UN Charter, would be cause for concern, not relief.

For the globalist forces that see nation-states as squares on the grand chessboard and that regard leaders like Putin, Biden and Xi Jinping as accomplices, the multipolar world order is manna from heaven. They have spent more than a century trying to centralise global power. The power of individual nation-states at least presents the possibility of some decentralisation. The multipolar world order finally ends all national sovereignty and delivers true global governance.

WORLD ORDER

We need to distinguish between the ideological concept of “world order” and the reality. This will help us identify where “world order” is an artificially imposed construct.

Authoritarian power, wielded over populations, territory and resources, restricted by physical and political geography, dictates the “world order.” The present order is largely the product of hard-nosed geopolitics, but it also reflects the various attempts to impose a global order.

The struggle to manage and mitigate the consequences of geopolitics is evident in the history of international relations. For nearly 500 years nation-states have sought to co-exist as sovereign entities. Numerous systems have been devised to seize control of what would otherwise be anarchy. It is very much to the detriment of humanity that anarchy has not been allowed to flourish.

In 1648, the two bilateral treaties that formed the Peace of Westphalia concluded the 30 Years War (or Wars). Those negotiated settlements arguably established the precept of the territorial sovereignty within the borders of the nation-state.

This reduced, but did not end, the centralised authoritarian power of the Holy Roman Empire (HRE). Britannica notes:

The Peace of Westphalia recognized the full territorial sovereignty of the member states of the empire.

This isn’t entirely accurate. That so-called “full territorial sovereignty” delineated regional power within Europe and the HRE, but full sovereignty wasn’t established.

The Westphalian treaties created hundreds of principalities that were formerly controlled by the central legislature of the HRE, the Diet. These new, effectively federalised principalities still paid taxes to the emperor and, crucially, religious observance remained a matter for the empire to decide. The treaties also consolidated the regional power of the Danish, Swedish, and French states but the Empire itself remained intact and dominant.

It is more accurate to say that the Peace of Westphalia somewhat curtailed the authoritarian power of the HRE and defined the physical borders of some nation states. During the 20th century, this led to the popular interpretation of the nation-state as a bulwark against international hegemonic power, despite that never having been entirely true.

Consequently, the so-called “Westphalian model” is largely based upon a myth. It represents an idealised version of the world order, suggesting how it could operate rather than describing how it does.

If nation-states really were sovereign and if their territorial integrity were genuinely respected, then the Westphalian world order would be pure anarchy. This is the ideal upon which the UN is supposedly founded because, contrary to another ubiquitous popular myth, anarchy does not mean “chaos.” Quite the opposite.

Anarchy is exemplified by Article 2.1 of the UN Charter:

The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

The word “anarchy” is an abstraction of the classical Greek “anarkhos,” meaning “rulerless.” This is derived from the privative prefix “an” (without) in conjunction with “arkhos” (leader or ruler). Literally translated, “anarchy” means “without rulers”—what the UN calls “sovereign equality.”

A Westphalian world order of sovereign nation-states, each observing the “equality” of all others while adhering to the non-aggression principle, is a system of global, political anarchy. Unfortunately, that is not the way the current UN “world order” functions, nor has there ever been any attempt to impose such an order. What a shame.

Within the League of Nations and subsequent UN system of practical “world order,”—a world order allegedly built upon the sovereignty of nations—equality exists in theory only. Through empire, colonialism, neocolonialism—that is, through economic, military, financial and monetary conquest, coupled with the debt obligations imposed upon targeted nations—global powers have always been able to dominate and control lesser ones.

National governments, if defined in purely political terms, have never been the only source of authority behind the efforts to construct world order. As revealed by Antony C. Sutton and others, private corporate power has aided national governments in shaping “world order.”

Neither Hitler’s rise to power nor the Bolshevik Revolution would have occurred as they did, if at all, without the guidance of the Wall Street financiers. The bankers’ global financial institutions and extensive international espionage networks were instrumental in shifting global political power.

These private-sector “partners” of government are the “stakeholders” we constantly hear about today. The most powerful among them are fully engaged in “the game” described by Zbigniew Brzezinski in The Grand Chessboard.

Brzezinski recognised that the continental landmass of Eurasia was the key to genuine global hegemony:

This huge, oddly shaped Eurasian chess board—extending from Lisbon to Vladivostok—provides the setting for “the game.” [. . .] [I]f the middle space rebuffs the West, becomes an assertive single entity [. . .] then America’s primacy in Eurasia shrinks dramatically. [. . .] That mega-continent is just too large, too populous, culturally too varied, and composed of too many historically ambitious and politically energetic states to be compliant toward even the most economically successful and politically pre-eminent global power. [. . .] Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. [. . .] [I]t would then become a predominantly Asian imperial state.

The “unipolar world order” favoured by the Western powers, often referred to as the “international rules-based order” or the “international rules-based system,” is another attempt to impose order. This “unipolar” model enables the US and its European partners to exploit the UN system to claim legitimacy for their games of empire. Through it, the transatlantic alliance has used its economic, military and financial power to try to establish global hegemony.

In 2016, Stewart Patrick, writing for the US Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a foreign policy think tank, published World Order: What, Exactly, are the Rules? He described the post-WWII “international rules-based order” (IRBO):

What sets the post-1945 Western order apart is that it was shaped overwhelmingly by a single power [a unipolarity], the United States. Operating within the broader context of strategic bipolarity, it constructed, managed, and defended the regimes of the capitalist world economy. [. . .] In the trade sphere, the hegemon presses for liberalization and maintains an open market; in the monetary sphere, it supplies a freely convertible international currency, manages exchange rates, provides liquidity, and serves as a lender of last resort; and in the financial sphere, it serves as a source of international investment and development.

The idea that the aggressive market acquisition of crony capitalism somehow represents the “open markets” of the “capitalist world economy” is risible. It is about as far removed from free market capitalism as it is possible to be. Under crony capitalism, the US dollar, as the preferred global reserve currency, is not “freely convertible.” Exchange rates are manipulated and liquidity is debt for nearly everyone except the lender. “Investment and development” by the hegemon means more profits and control for the hegemon.

The notion that a political leader, or anyone for that matter, is entirely bad or good, is puerile. The same consideration can be given to nation-states, political systems or even models of world order. The character of a human being, a nation or a system of global governance is better judged by their or its totality of actions.

Whatever we consider to be the source of “good” and “evil,” it exists in all of us at either ends of a spectrum. Some people exhibit extreme levels of psychopathy, which can lead them to commit acts that are judged to be “evil.” But even Hitler, for example, showed physical courage, devotion, compassion for some, and other qualities we might consider “good.”

Nation-states and global governance structures, though immensely complex, are formed and led by people. They are influenced by a multitude of forces. Given the added complications of chance and unforeseen events, it is unrealistic to expect any form of “order” to be either entirely good or entirely bad.

That being said, if that “order” is iniquitous and causes appreciable harm to people, then it is important to identify to whom that “order” provides advantage. Their potential individual and collective guilt should be investigated.

This does not imply that those who benefit are automatically culpable, nor that they are “bad” or “evil,” though they may be, only that they have a conflict of interests in maintaining their “order” despite the harm it causes. Equally, where systemic harm is evident, it is irrational to absolve the actions of the people who lead and benefit from that system without first ruling out their possible guilt.

Since WWII, millions of innocents have been murdered by the US, its international allies and its corporate partners, all of whom have thrown their military, economic and financial weight around the world. The Western “parasite class” has sought to assert its IRBO by any means necessary— sanctions, debt slavery or outright slavery, physical, economic or psychological warfare. The grasping desire for more power and control has exposed the very worst of human nature. Repeatedly and ad nauseam.

Of course, resistance to this kind of global tyranny is understandable. The question is: Does imposition of the multipolar model offer anything different?

OLIGARCHY

Most recently, the “unipolar world order” has been embodied by the World Economic Forum’s inappropriately named Great Reset. It is so malignant and forbidding that some consider the emerging “multipolar world order” salvation. They have even heaped praise upon the likely leaders of the new multipolar world:

It is [. . .] strength of purpose and character that has defined Putin’s two decades in power. [. . .] Russia is committed to the process of finding solutions to all people benefiting from the future, not just a few thousand holier-than-thou oligarchs. [. . .] Together [Russia and China] told the WEF to stuff the Great Reset back into the hole in which it was conceived. [. . .] Putin told Klaus Schwab and the WEF that their entire idea of the Great Reset is not only doomed to failure but runs counter to everything modern leadership should be pursuing.

Sadly, it seems this hope is also misplaced.

While Putin did much to rid Russia of the CIA-run, Western-backed oligarchs who were systematically destroying the Russian Federation during the 1990s, they have subsequently been replaced by another band of oligarchs with closer links to the current Russian government. Something we will explore in Part 3.

Yes, it is certainly true that the Russian government, led by Putin and his power bloc, has improved the incomes and life opportunities for the majority of Russians. Putin’s government has also significantly reduced chronic poverty in Russia over the last two decades.

Wealth in Russia, measured as the market value of financial and non-financial assets, has remained concentrated in the hands of the top 1% of the population. This pooling of wealth among the top percentile is itself stratified and is overwhelmingly held by the top 1% of the 1%. For example, in 2017, 56% of Russian wealth was controlled by 1% of the population. The pseudopandemic of 2020–2022 particularly benefitted Russian billionnaires—as it did the billionaires of every other developed economy.

According to the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report 2021, wealth inequality in Russia, measured using the Gini coefficient, was 87.8 in 2020. The only other major economy with a greater disparity between the wealthy and the rest of the population was Brazil. Just behind Brazil and Russia on the wealth inequality scale was the US, whose Gini coefficient stood at 85.

In terms of wealth concentration however, the situation in Russia was the worst by a considerable margin. In 2020 the top 1% owned 58.2% of Russia’s wealth. This was more than 8 percentage points higher than Brazil’s wealth concentration, and significantly worse than wealth concentration in the US, which stood at 35.2% in 2020.

Such disproportionate wealth distribution is conducive to creating and empowering oligarchs. But wealth alone doesn’t determine whether one is an oligarch. Wealth needs to be converted into political power for the term “oligarch” to be applicable. An oligarchy is defined as “a form of government in which supreme power is vested in a small exclusive class.”

Members of this dominant class are installed through a variety of mechanisms. The British establishment, and particularly its political class, is dominated by men and women who were educated at Eton, Roedean, Harrow and St. Pauls, etc. This “small exclusive class” arguably constitutes a British oligarchy. The UK’s new Prime Minister, Liz Truss, has been heralded by some because she is not a graduate of one of these select public schools.

Educational privilege aside, though, the use of the word “oligarch” in the West more commonly refers to an internationalist class of globalists whose individual wealth sets them apart and who use that wealth to influence policy decisions.

Bill Gates is a prime example of an oligarch. The former advisor to the UK Prime Minister, Dominic Cummings, said as much during his testimony to a parliamentary committee on May 2021 (go to 14:02:35). As Cummings put it, Bill Gates and “that kind of network” had directed the UK government’s response to the supposed COVID-19 pandemic.

Gates’ immense wealth has bought him direct access to political power beyond national borders. He has no public mandate in either the US or the UK. He is an oligarch—one of the more well known but far from the only one.

CFR member David Rothkopf described these people as a “Superclass” with the ability to “influence the lives of millions across borders on a regular basis.” They do this, he said, by using their globalist “networks.” Those networks, as described by Antony C. Sutton, Dominic Cummings and others, act as “the force multiplier in any kind of power structure.”

This “small exclusive class” use their wealth to control resources and thus policy. Political decisions, policy, court rulings and more are made at their behest. This point was highlighted in the joint letter sent by the Attorneys General (AGs) of 19 US states to BlackRock CEO Larry Fink.

The AGs observed that BlackRock was essentially using its investment strategy to pursue a political agenda:

The Senators elected by the citizens of this country determine which international agreements have the force of law, not BlackRock.

Their letter describes the theoretical model of representative democracy. Representative democracy is not a true democracy—which decentralises political power to the individual citizen—but is rather a system designed to centralise political control and authority. Inevitably, “representative democracy” leads to the consolidation of power in the hands of the so-called “Superclass” described by Rothkopf.

There is nothing “super” about them. They are ordinary people who have acquired wealth primarily through conquest, usury, market rigging, political manipulation and slavery. “Parasite class” is a more befitting description.

Not only do global investment firms like BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street use their immense resources to steer public policy, but their major shareholders include the very oligarchs who, via their contribution to various think tanks, create the global political agendas that determine policy in the first place. There is no space in this system of alleged “world order” for any genuine democratic oversight.

As we shall see in Part 3, the levers of control are exerted to achieve exactly the same effect in Russia and China. Both countries have a gaggle of oligarchs whose objectives are firmly aligned with the WEF’s Great Reset agenda. They too work with their national government “partners” to ensure that they all arrive at the “right” policy decisions.

THE UNITED NATIONS’ MODEL OF NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY

Any bloc of nations that bids for dominance within the United Nations is seeking global hegemony. The UN enables global governance and centralises global political power and authority. In so doing, the UN empowers the international oligarchy.

As noted previously, Article 2 of the United Nations Charter declares that the UN is “based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” The Charter then goes on to list the numerous ways in which nation-states are not equal. It also clarifies how they are all subservient to the UN Security Council.

Despite all the UN’s claims of lofty principles—respect for national sovereignty and for alleged human rights—Article 2 declares that no nation-state can receive any assistance from another as long as the UN Security Council is forcing that nation-state to comply with its edicts. Even non-member states must abide by the Charter, whether they like it or not, by decree of the United Nations.

The UN Charter is a paradox. Article 2.7 asserts that “nothing in the Charter” permits the UN to infringe the sovereignty of a nation-state—except when it does so through UN “enforcement measures.” The Charter states, apparently without reason, that all nation-states are “equal.” However, some nation-states are empowered by the Charter to be far more equal than others.

While the UN’s General Assembly is supposedly a decision-making forum comprised of “equal” sovereign nations, Article 11 affords the General Assembly only the power to discuss “the general principles of co-operation.” In other words, it has no power to make any significant decisions.

Article 12 dictates that the General Assembly can only resolve disputes if instructed to do so by the Security Council. The most important function of the UN, “the maintenance of international peace and security,” can only be dealt with by the Security Council. What the other members of the General Assembly think about the Security Council’s global “security” decisions is a practical irrelevance.

Article 23 lays out which nation-states form the Security Council:

The Security Council shall consist of fifteen Members of the United Nations. The Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics [Russian Federation], the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America shall be permanent members of the Security Council. The General Assembly shall elect ten other Members of the United Nations to be non-permanent members of the Security Council. [. . .] The non-permanent members of the Security Council shall be elected for a term of two years.

The General Assembly is allowed to elect “non-permanent” members to the Security Council based upon criteria stipulated by the Security Council. Currently the “non-permanent” members are Albania, Brazil, Gabon, Ghana, India, Ireland, Kenya, Mexico, Norway and the United Arab Emirates.

Article 24 proclaims that the Security Council has “primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security” and that all other nations agree that “the Security Council acts on their behalf.” The Security Council investigates and defines all alleged threats and recommends the procedures and adjustments for the supposed remedy. The Security Council dictates what further action, such as sanctions or the use of military force, shall be taken against any nation-state it considers to be a problem.

Article 27 decrees that at least 9 of the 15 member states must be in agreement for a Security Council resolution to be enforced. All of the 5 permanent members must concur, and each has the power of veto. Any Security Council member, including permanent members, shall be excluded from the vote or use of its veto if they are party to the dispute in question.

UN member states, by virtue of agreeing to the Charter, must provide armed forces at the Security Council’s request. In accordance with Article 47, military planning and operational objectives are the sole remit of the permanent Security Council members through their exclusive Military Staff Committee. If the permanent members are interested in the opinion of any other “sovereign” nation, they’ll ask it to provide one.

The inequality inherent in the Charter could not be clearer. Article 44 notes that “when the Security Council has decided to use force” its only consultative obligation to the wider UN is to discuss the use of another member state’s armed forces where the Security Council has ordered that nation to fight. For a country that is a current member of the Security Council, use of its armed forces by the Military Staff Committee is a prerequisite for Council membership.

The UN Secretary-General, identified as the “chief administrative officer” in the Charter, oversees the UN Secretariat. The Secretariat commissions, investigates and produces the reports that allegedly inform UN decision-making. The Secretariat staff members are appointed by the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General is “appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.”

Under the UN Charter, then, the Security Council is made king. This arrangement affords the governments of its permanent members—China, France, Russia, the UK and the US—considerable additional authority. There is nothing egalitarian about the UN Charter.

The suggestion that the UN Charter constitutes a “defence” of “national sovereignty” is ridiculous. The UN Charter is the embodiment of the centralisation of global power and authority.

THE UNITED NATIONS’ GLOBAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP

The UN was created, in no small measure, through the efforts of the private sector Rockefeller Foundation (RF). In particular, the RF’s comprehensive financial and operational support for the Economic, Financial and Transit Department (EFTD) of the League of Nations (LoN), and its considerable influence upon the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA), made the RF the key player in the transformation of the LoN into the UN.

The UN came into being as a result of public-private partnership. Since then, especially with regard to defence, financing, global health care and sustainable development, public-private partnerships have become dominant within the UN system. The UN is no longer an intergovernmental organisation, if it ever was one. It is a global collaboration between governments and a multinational infra-governmental network of private “stakeholders.”

In 1998, then-UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan told the World Economic Forum’s Davos symposium that a “quiet revolution” had occurred in the UN during the 1990s:

[T]he United Nations has been transformed since we last met here in Davos. The Organization has undergone a complete overhaul that I have described as a “quiet revolution”. [. . .] [W]e are in a stronger position to work with business and industry. [. . .] The business of the United Nations involves the businesses of the world. [. . .] We also promote private sector development and foreign direct investment. We help countries to join the international trading system and enact business-friendly legislation.

In 2005, the World Health Organisation (WHO), a specialised agency of the UN, published a report on the use of information and communication technology (ICT) in healthcare titled Connecting for Health. Speaking about how “stakeholders” could introduce ICT healthcare solutions globally, the WHO noted:

Governments can create an enabling environment, and invest in equity, access and innovation.

The 2015, Adis Ababa Action Agenda conference on “financing for development” clarified the nature of an “enabling environment.” National governments from 193 UN nation-states committed their respective populations to funding public-private partnerships for sustainable development by collectively agreeing to create “an enabling environment at all levels for sustainable development;” and “to further strengthen the framework to finance sustainable development.”

In 2017, UN General Assembly Resolution 70/224 (A/Res/70/224) compelled UN member states to implement “concrete policies” that “enable” sustainable development. A/Res/70/224 added that the UN:

[. . .] reaffirms the strong political commitment to address the challenge of financing and creating an enabling environment at all levels for sustainable development [—] particularly with regard to developing partnerships through the provision of greater opportunities to the private sector, non-governmental organizations and civil society in general.

In short, the “enabling environment” is a government, and therefore taxpayer, funding commitment to create markets for the private sector. Over the last few decades, successive Secretary-Generals have overseen the UN’s formal transition into a global public-private partnership (G3P).

Nation-states do not have sovereignty over public-private partnerships. Sustainable development formally relegates government to the role of an “enabling” partner within a global network comprised of multinational corporations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), civil society organisations and other actors. The “other actors” are predominantly the philanthropic foundations of individual billionaires and immensely wealthy family dynasties—that is, oligarchs.

Effectively, then, the UN serves the interests of capital. Not only is it a mechanism for the centralisation of global political authority, it is committed to the development of global policy agendas that are “business-friendly.” That means Big Business-friendly. Such agendas may happen to coincide with the best interests of humanity, but where they don’t—which is largely the case—well, that’s just too bad for humanity.

GLOBAL GOVERNANCE

On the 4th February 2022, a little less then three weeks prior to Russia launching its “special military operation” in Ukraine, Presidents Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping issued an important joint statement:

The sides [Russian Federation and Chinese People’s Republic] strongly support the development of international cooperation and exchanges [. . .], actively participating in the relevant global governance process, [. . .] to ensure sustainable global development. [. . .] The international community should actively engage in global governance[.] [. . .] The sides reaffirmed their intention to strengthen foreign policy coordination, pursue true multilateralism, strengthen cooperation on multilateral platforms, defend common interests, support the international and regional balance of power, and improve global governance. [. . .] The sides call on all States [. . .] to protect the United Nations-driven international architecture and the international law-based world order, seek genuine multipolarity with the United Nations and its Security Council playing a central and coordinating role, promote more democratic international relations, and ensure peace, stability and sustainable development across the world.

The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN-DESA) defined “global governance” in its 2014 publication Global Governance and the Global Rules For Development in the Post 2015 Era:

Global governance encompasses the totality of institutions, policies, norms, procedures and initiatives through which States and their citizens try to bring more predictability, stability and order to their responses to transnational challenges.

Global governance centralises control over the entire sphere of international relations. It inevitably erodes a nation’s ability to set foreign policy. As a theoretical protection against global instability, this isn’t necessarily a bad idea, but in practice it neither enhances nor “protects” national sovereignty.

Domination of the global governance system by one group of powerful nation-states represents possibly the most dangerous and destabilising force of all. It allows those nations to act with impunity, regardless of any pretensions about honouring alleged “international law.”

Global governance also significantly curtails the independence of a nation-state’s domestic policy. For example, the UN’s Sustainable Development Agenda 21, with the near-time Agenda 2030 serving as a waypoint, impacts nearly all national domestic policy—even setting the course for most domestic policy—in every country.

National electorates’ oversight of this “totality” of UN policies is weak to nonexistent. Global governance renders so-called “representative democracy” little more than a vacuous sound-bite.

As the UN is a global public-private partnership (UN-G3P), global governance allows the “multi-stakeholder partnership”—and therefore oligarchs—significant influence over member nation-states’ domestic and foreign policy. Set in this context, the UN-DESA report (see above) provides a frank appraisal of the true nature of UN-G3P global governance:

Current approaches to global governance and global rules have led to a greater shrinking of policy space for national Governments [. . . ]; this also impedes the reduction of inequalities within countries. [. . .] Global governance has become a domain with many different players including: multilateral organizations; [. . .] elite multilateral groupings such as the Group of Eight (G8) and the Group of Twenty (G20) [and] different coalitions relevant to specific policy subjects[.] [. . .] Also included are activities of the private sector (e.g., the Global Compact) non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and large philanthropic foundations (e.g., Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Turner Foundation) and associated global funds to address particular issues[.] [. . .] The representativeness, opportunities for participation, and transparency of many of the main actors are open to question. [. . .] NGOs [. . .] often have governance structures that are not subject to open and democratic accountability. The lack of representativeness, accountability and transparency of corporations is even more important as corporations have more power and are currently promoting multi-stakeholder governance with a leading role for the private sector. [. . .] Currently, it seems that the United Nations has not been able to provide direction in the solution of global governance problems—perhaps lacking appropriate resources or authority, or both. United Nations bodies, with the exception of the Security Council, cannot make binding decisions.

A/Res/73/254 declares that the UN Global Compact Office plays a vital role in “strengthening the capacity of the United Nations to partner strategically with the private sector.” It adds:

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development acknowledges that the implementation of sustainable development will depend on the active engagement of both the public and private sectors[.]

While the Attorneys General of 19 states might rail against BlackRock for usurping the political authority of US senators, BlackRock is simply exercising its power as valued a “public-private partner” of the US government. Such is the nature of global governance. Given that this system has been constructed over the last 80 years, it’s a bit too late for 19 state AGs to complain about it now. What have they been doing for the last eight decades?

The governmental “partners” of the UN-G3P lack “authority” because the UN was created, largely by the Rockefellers, as a public-private partnership. The intergovernmental structure is the partner of the infra-governmental network of private stakeholders. In terms of resources, the power of the private sector “partners” dwarfs that of their government counterparts.

Corporate fiefdoms are not limited by national borders. BlackRock alone currently holds $8.5 trillion of assets under management. This is nearly five times the size of the total GDP of UN Security Council permanent member Russia and more than three times the GDP of the UK.

So-called sovereign countries are not sovereign over their own central banks nor are they “sovereign” over international financial institutions like the IMF, the New Development Bank (NDB), the World Bank or the Bank for International Settlements. The notion that any nation state or intergovernmental organisation is capable of bringing the global network of private capital to heel is farcical.

At the COP26 Conference in Glasgow in 2021, King Charles III—then Prince Charles—prepared the conference to endorse the forthcoming announcement of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ). He made it abundantly clear who was in charge and, in keeping with UN objectives, clarified national governments role as “enabling partners”:

The scale and scope of the threat we face call for a global systems level solution based on radically transforming our current fossil fuel based economy. [. . .] So ladies and gentleman, my plea today is for countries to come together to create the environment that enables every sector of industry to take the action required. We know this will take trillions, not billions of dollars. [. . .] [W]e need a vast military style campaign to marshal the strength of the global private sector, with trillions at [its] disposal far beyond global GDP, and with the greatest respect, beyond even the governments of the world’s leaders. It offers the only real prospect of achieving fundamental economic transition.

Unless Putin and Xi Jinping intend to completely restructure the United Nations, including all of its institutions and specialised agencies, their objective of protecting “the United Nations-driven international architecture” appears to be nothing more than a bid to cement their status as the nominal leaders of the UN-G3P. As pointed out by UN-DESA, through the UN-G3P, that claim to political authority is extremely limited. Global corporations dominate and are currently further consolidating their global power through “multi-stakeholder governance.”

Whether unipolar or multipolar, the so-called “world order” is the system of global governance led by the private sector—the oligarchs. Nation-states, including Russia and China, have already agreed to follow global priorities determined at the global governance level. The question is not which model of the global public-private “world order” we should accept, but rather why we would ever accept any such “world order” at all.

This, then, is the context within which we can explore the alleged advantages of a “multipolar world order” led by China, Russia and increasingly India. Is it an attempt, as claimed by some, to reinvigorate the United Nations and create a more just and equitable system of global governance? Or is it merely the next phase in the construction of what many refer to as the “New World Order”?

Link

community logo
Join the TheDinarian Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
0
What else you may like

Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
🚹NEW: Watch @BoHines sit down with @CryptoAmerica_

Watch @BoHines sit down with @CryptoAmerica_ to discuss key details of the White House crypto report including anticipated new DOJ guidance, as well as fresh commentary on the @rstormsf trial, and the nomination of @BrianQuintenz to lead the @CFTC.

00:28:43
Why Invest In XRP?

Because Ripple Is EVERYWHERE!

This is on Wall Street... NY

00:00:06
👉"You're gonna be told that there is a craft on its way to Earth.

"That 100 fxxxing percent is the lie you are going to be told."

Jeremy Corbell in January 2025

00:02:38
👉 Coinbase just launched an AI agent for Crypto Trading

Custom AI assistants that print money in your sleep? 🔜

The future of Crypto x AI is about to go crazy.

👉 Here’s what you need to know:

💠 'Based Agent' enables creation of custom AI agents
💠 Users set up personalized agents in < 3 minutes
💠 Equipped w/ crypto wallet and on-chain functions
💠 Capable of completing trades, swaps, and staking
💠 Integrates with Coinbase’s SDK, OpenAI, & Replit

👉 What this means for the future of Crypto:

1. Open Access: Democratized access to advanced trading
2. Automated Txns: Complex trades + streamlined on-chain activity
3. AI Dominance: Est ~80% of crypto 👉txns done by AI agents by 2025

🚹 I personally wouldn't bet against Brian Armstrong and Jesse Pollak.

👉 Coinbase just launched an AI agent for Crypto Trading

In the latest episode of the XDC MENA Podcast, host Rebecah Dausen is joined by Amir Neghabian, founder of Vital Veda, to explore how blockchain is modernizing the way we approach Fitness.

Why you should tune in:
-Learn how decentralized systems can verify the authenticity of Fitness
-Discover how Web3 opens access to Fitness knowledge
-Understand XDC’s role in enabling trusted, wellness-driven ecosystems

đŸŽ„ Watch now:

Still the best infographic about total #XRP circulation, updated. (SBI Holdings fiscal year end report)

~36b left in escrow..

post photo preview

The @WhiteHouse cited Pyth in its latest report on digital financial technology, linking to the network’s research on building perpetual futures.

A small mention, but a meaningful signal that onchain finance is gaining visibility in the broader policy conversation.

As discussions around modernization and regulation continue, one thing is clear: transparent, real-time market data is no longer just a back-office detail. It’s foundational to the next chapter of global finance.

The price of everything, everywhere đŸ‡ș🇾

https://whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Digital-Assets-Report-EO14178.pdf

post photo preview
post photo preview
PYTH: We'll Always Have Coldplay

Welcome back to The Epicenter, where crypto chaos meets corporate cringe.

But surprisingly, crypto has not been the most chaotic corner of the internet as of late.

That honor goes to the startup Astronomer, whose CEO’s cheating scandal broke the web in a glorious meme-fueled media frenzy. The company’s damage control? Hiring Gwyneth Paltrow as a “temporary spokesperson.” Do we think they’re grasping at straws or setting a new standard for PR?

Meanwhile, the markets didn’t blink. BTC is still flexing near its all-time highs. Michael Saylor’s bringing a bitcoin-adjacent money-market product to Wall Street. A pharma company just earmarked $700M to stack BNB, and analysts are calling time of death on the four-year crypto cycle. It’s a steady boom now, kittens.

A few things that are also worth noting: Winklevoss vs. JPMorgan, Visa’s take on stablecoins, and Robinhood’s Euro drama that defies the chillness of eurosummer.

Let’s get into it 👇

⛓ The On-Chain Pulse: What’s Happening on the Front Lines of Finance

This week’s biggest news in crypto and all things digital assets

đŸ—Łïž Word on the Street: What the Experts are Saying

Stuff you should repost (or maybe even cough reword and take credit for)

Meme of the Week

🏩 Kiss my SaaS: What’s Changing the Game for Fintech

Things you should care about if you want to impress your coworkers

Closing Thoughts

From meme-fueled PR stunts to Bitcoin-backed money-market funds, this week reminded us that markets move fast—and headlines move faster. With Wall Street automating itself, fintechs beefing with banks, and even your smartphone becoming a miner, anything is possible. Stay curious, stay cynical, and as always—stay sharp and stay liquid. We’ll see you back here in two weeks.

— The Epicenter, powered by Pyth Network

 

🙏 Donations Accepted 🙏

If you find value in my content, consider showing your support via:

💳 PayPal: 
1) Simply scan the QR code below đŸ“Č
2) or visit https://www.paypal.me/thedinarian

🔗 Crypto – Support via Coinbase Wallet to: [email protected]

 

Read full Article
post photo preview
4 Fintech Companies 💾& Things To Know About đŸ€”

The fintech revolution is reshaping the way we manage, invest, and move money, breaking down traditional barriers and empowering individuals worldwide. As financial technology continues to evolve at a rapid pace, a select group of innovative companies are leading the charge by offering groundbreaking solutions that redefine banking, payments, and digital assets. Whether you’re a savvy investor, an industry professional, or simply curious about the future of finance, discovering these trailblazing fintech companies is essential to understanding today’s dynamic financial landscape.

 

  1.  Alina Invest - The AI Wealth Manager for GenZ Women

Alina is aimed at women under 25 who identify as beginner investors. They're an SEC-registered investment advisor that charges $120/year for membership. The service "buys and sells for you" and gives up notification updates of recent transactions like a wealth manager would.

👉 Getting people to invest early is crucial to building long-term wealth. One thing that holds them back is a lack of confidence and experience. Being targetted "for beginners" and people who live on TikTok should appeal. I love the sense of "we're buying and selling for you." Funds always do that, but making it an engagement mechanic is very smart. The risk here is that building a wealth business will take decades for the AUM to compound. But the next generations, Wealthfront or Betterment, will look something like Alina.

2. Blue layer - The Carbon project funding platform

Bluelayer allows Carbon project developers to take from feasibility studies to issuing credits, tracking inventory, and managing orders. Developers of reforestation, conservation, direct air capture, and other projects can also directly report to industry registries. 

👉 Carbon investing and tax credits are heavily incentivized but need transparent data. By focusing on the developers, Bluelayer can ensure the data, reporting, and credits lifecycle is all managed at the source. This is smart.

3. Akirolabs - Modern Procurement for enterprise

Akiro is a "strategic" procurement platform aiming to help enterprise customers identify risks, value drivers, and strategic levers before issuing an RFP. It aims to bring in multiple stakeholders for complex purchasing decisions at multinationals. 

👉 Procurement is a great wedge for multinational corporate transformation. Buying anything in an enterprise that uses large-scale ERPs is a nightmare of committees and spreadsheets. Turning an oil tanker-sized organization around is difficult, but the right suppliers can have a meaningful impact in the short term. That only works if you can buy from them. Getting people on the same page with a single platform is a great start.

4. NeoTax - Automated Tax R&D Credits

NeoTax allows companies to connect their engineering tools to calculate available tax advantages automatically. Once calculated, the tax fillings are clearly labeled with supporting evidence for the IRS.

👉 AWS and GCP log files and data are a goldmine. Last week, I covered Bilanc, which uses log files to figure out per-account unit economics. Now, we calculate R&D tax credits. The unlock here is LLM's ability to understand unstructured data. The hard part is understanding the moat, but time will tell.

In an era where technology and finance are increasingly intertwined, these four fintech companies stand out as catalysts for positive change. By driving progress in digital payments, asset management, lending, and decentralized finance, they are not only making financial services more accessible and efficient—they are also paving the way for a more inclusive and empowered global economy. Staying informed about their innovations can help you seize new opportunities and take part in the future of finance.

 

👀Things to know 👀

 

PayPal issued low guidance and warned of a “transition year.” The stock is down 8% in extended trading despite PayPal reporting a 9% growth in revenue and 23% EBITDA. Gross profit is down 4% YoY. PayPal's total revenues were $29Bn for the year

Adyen reported 22% revenue growth and an EBITDA margin of 46% for the full year. Adyen's total revenues were $1.75bn for the full year. The margin was down from 55% the previous year, impacted by hiring ahead of growth.

đŸ€”Â PayPal’s Braintree (unbranded) is losing market share in the US, while Adyen is winning it. eCommerce is growing ~9 to 10% YoY, and PayPal’s transaction revenue grew by 6.7%. The higher interest rate environment meant interest on balances dragged up the total revenue figure. Their core business is losing market share. Adyen is outgrowing the market by ~12%.

đŸ€”Â The PayPal button (branded) is losing to SHOP Pay and Apple Pay. The branded experience from Apple and Shopify is delightful for users; it’s fast and helps with small details like delivery tracking. That experience translates to higher conversion (and more revenue) for merchants.

đŸ€”Â The lack of a single global platform hurts PayPal, but it helps Adyen. In the earnings call, the new CEO admitted their mix of platforms like Venmo, PayPal, and Braintree are holding them back. They aim to combine and simplify, but that’s easier said than done.

đŸ€”Â Making a single platform from PayPal, Venmo, and Braintree won’t be easy. There’s a graveyard of payment company CEOs who tried to make “one platform” from things they acquired years ago. It’s crucial if they’re going to grow that they get their innovation edge back. Adyen has one platform in every market.

đŸ€”Â PayPal’s UK and European acquiring business is a bright spot. The UK and EU delivered 20% of overall revenue, growing 11% YoY. Square and Toast don’t have market share here, while iZettle, which PayPal acquired in 2018, is a strong market player. Overall though, it’s yet another tech stack and business that’s not part of a single global platform.

The two banks provided accounts to UK front companies secretly owned by an Iranian petrochemicals company. PCC has used these entities to receive funds from Iranian entities in China, concealed with trustee agreements and nominee directors. 

đŸ€”Â This is the headline every bank CEO fears. Oof. Shares of both banks have been down since the news broke, but this will no doubt involve crisis calls, committees, appearing in front of the regulator, and, finally, some sort of fine.

đŸ€”Â The "risk-based approach" has been arbitraged. A UK company with relatively low annual revenue would look "low risk" at onboarding. One business the FT covered looked like a small company at a residential address to compliance staff. They'd likely apply branch-level controls instead of the enterprise-grade controls you'd see for a large corporation. 

đŸ€”Â Hiring more staff won't fix this problem; it's a mindset and technology challenge. In theory, all of the skill and technology that exists to manage risks with large corporate customers (in the transaction banking divisions) are available to the other parts of a bank. In practice, they're not. Most banks lack a single data set and the ability for compliance officers in one team to see data from another part of the org. Getting the basics right with data and tooling is incredibly hard and will involve a multi-year effort. 

đŸ€”Â These things are rarely the failure of an individual or department; the issue is systemic. While two banks are named in this headline, the issue is everywhere. Banks need more data and better data to train better AI and machine learning. That all needs to happen in real-time as a compliment to the human staff. Throwing bodies at this won't solve the visibility issue teams have.

 🙏 Donations Accepted 🙏

If you find value in my content, consider showing your support via:

💳 PayPal: 

1) Simply scan the QR code below đŸ“Č
2) or visit https://www.paypal.me/thedinarian

🔗 Crypto – Support via Coinbase Wallet to: [email protected]

Or Buy me a coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/thedinarian

Your generosity keeps this mission alive, for all! NamastĂ© 🙏 Crypto Michael ⚡  The Dinarian

 

Read full Article
post photo preview
What is XAH and Xahau?

If you're new to XRP, you may have noticed some of us discussing another network named 'Xahau'.

It's Like XRP ... But Different

The Xahau network was created in 2023, and its starting point was the open-source code for the XRP Ledger. A small team of researchers and entrepreneurs decided to add smart contracts to the network code.


The XRP Ledger has no smart contract capabilities, by default.

To integrate smart contracts, the team decided to use an architecture that includes 'WASM' or 'web assembly' code. Each account can have up to 10 'hooks' installed that are triggered for transactions that match specific criteria. They can run before or after a transaction is processed. This enables a variety of use cases that do not involve the need to change the network's core code.

Hooks

A 'hook' is what is known as a smart contract that can be triggered in relation to a specific account and its transactions.

The term arises from the programming world, where it generally means "code that runs based on triggering conditions." In Xahau's case, it indicates code that is run before, or after, a transaction is processed.
 
Each hook must be installed on a specific account by the party that controls the account - i.e., the secret key holder.
 
What Can XAH Do That XRP Cannot?
 
The primary benefit from the use of hooks, is that the core network code does not need to be changed every time a new use case is identified. This means that additional use cases can be addressed immediately, with no requirement for intervening steps, such as:
  • Community review
  • Community approval
  • Amendment voting
All of those steps are eliminated with the use of hooks; new use cases can be addressed as fast as the code can be developed.
 
To read more about how hooks enables Xahau to handle more use cases than even the XRPL, you can read this article:
 
Key Differences From XRP
 
Other unique differences from the XRP Ledger include:
  • Much smaller supply ~612 million coins vs. 100 billion coins
  • XAH hodlers are rewarded at 4% of their account balance. There are no rewards for XRP.
  • Governance participants are incentivized
  • Payment channels available for user-created tokens (IOUs)
  • URI tokens instead of NFT tokens
Who's Who of Xahau?
 
The list of those that are either founders, or closely associated with the founding organizations, is extensive. Here are the names of three organizations mentioned in the whitepaper, or their current moniker:
  • Xaman (a.k.a. XRPL Labs)
  • Gatehub
  • InFTF (Inclusive Financial Technology Foundation)
There exists a long list of impressive developers, architects, and technologists among the Xahau inner circle. But the three names that people associate most prominently with the leadership of the Xahau network are Wietse Wind, Richard Holland, and Denis Angell. The links to their 'X' accounts are:
 
Friend Or Foe?
 
This topic is one of the most contentious.
 
While Ripple, the company with the largest stake of XRP, showed interest in hooks early on, they ultimately decided to advocate for a different approach; the use of an EVM-based solution (Ethereum Virtual Machine) to handle smart contracts on the XRP Ledger. This decision was met with consternation by the Xaman team that had worked with them for several years to advocate for the use of hooks.
 
You can read more about the 'business politics' part of this topic here:
 
So how do Xahau fans view the relationship between XRP and XAH?
 
The Xahau team - and many of its community members - advocate for the use of a 'dual-chain' solution to implement smart contracts. This can be accomplished by the use of 'listener' software, along with native Xahau hooks.
 
A proof of concept, developed by Denis Angell, has demonstrated that bi-lateral communication can work with a simple approach.
 
From an economic standpoint, every chain that has its own digital asset is a competitor; but the simple way to think about Xahau, is that a 'bunch of XRP geeks' decided to implement smart contracts on their own version of the XRP Ledger.
 
The team emphasized transparency along the way, and initially received support from the primary XRP stakeholder, Ripple. They published Xahau as open-source code that could, in theory, be back-engineered and integrated with the XRP Ledger. You can clearly observe the team's idealistic mindset in early marketing mistakes, where they named their digital asset 'XRP Plus' in an effort to emphasize the way that they viewed their creation. While this resulted in confusion - and even suspicion - in its early days, the team quickly pivoted, and named their digital asset 'XAH', which became its ticker symbol.
 
Synergy effects between the two camps speak to a genuine camaraderie, with many Xahau developers being open and willing to help with changes to the core XRP Ledger protocol. You can find many examples of this open dialogue on the 'X' platform.
 
How To Purchase XAH
 
If you wish to speculate by buying XAH directly, it is available in a variety of convenient locations, depending on where you are located. If you're in a country that is supported by Bitrue, you can directly purchase or trade XAH by using that exchange.
 
On January 20th, 2025, Bitmart announced that it supports trading of XAH for customers in their list of supported countries; And in late March, another major exchange announced that they would be supporting XAH trading pairs: Coinex.
 
If you're located in the United States, you can purchase XAH directly from a vendor known as 'C14'. The xApp for C14 is located in the Xaman wallet.
 
XRP Ledger geeks can also purchase XAH IOUs on the XRPL Dex and then convert them to 'real' XAH using a Gatehub bridge. This is available in countries that Gatehub supports.
 
Which XAH Accounts Should I Follow?
 
On the 'X' platform, there exists two major community groups for XAH fans:
In addition to the Xahau notables I've already mentioned in this article, my advice is to take a look at who is posting in the above two communities. There are many impressive leaders and entrepreneurs included. You should be able to find multiple 'X' accounts that reflect your interests.
 
Xahau Development Roadmap
 
Xahau leaders have published a roadmap for 2025 that lists their various goals for the ecosystem:
 
To read a detailed explanation for each item, refer to this: Xahau Roadmap Super Thread
 
One of the most incredible waypoints listed is 'JavaScript Hooks Implementation.' đŸ€Ż
JavaScript!
 
With the 'JavaScript Hooks Implementation', Xahau is making history; it will enable anybody that knows JavaScript to easily create and install a smart contract. While networks like Ethereum are impressive early movers, they require developers to learn a new language and syntax.
 
Xahau will soon open 'crypto smart contracts' to a group of developers that number in the tens of millions.
 
Project L-10K
 
Project L-10K is one of the most important items in the pipeline. L-10K refers to the effort to boost the throughput of Xahau consensus to over 10,000 transactions per ledger! This will benefit hosted projects such as Evernode, and future issued assets. Heading up the effort is Richard Holland, who provided a progress update to the community in late May of 2025:
 
To learn more about this ambitious effort, you can watch his full presentation here:
The Future Of Defi And Payments
 
Once you've seen the extensive list of use cases that XAH easily handles, it's truly inspiring. Xahau is everything that you love about XRP, plus a long list of more things to love. ❀
 
Be an early adopter of XAH and the Xahau network! Join the community groups listed and follow the accounts that seem to reflect your own interest - speculator, developer, or crypto fan. You have a place in our community, no matter what your background or interests are. Welcome to the future of crypto Defi and Payments. 
 
Sources:
 
 
NOTE: Payment channels for IOUs is currently in amendment status for the XRP Ledger, authored by Denis Angel here:
 
 

🙏 Donations Accepted 🙏

If you find value in my content, consider showing your support via:

💳 PayPal: 

1) Simply scan the QR code below đŸ“Č
2) or visit https://www.paypal.me/thedinarian

🔗 Crypto – Support via Coinbase Wallet to: [email protected]

Or Buy me a coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/thedinarian

Your generosity keeps this mission alive, for all! NamastĂ© 🙏 Crypto Michael ⚡ The Dinarian

 
 
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals