When every aspect of modern society seems to be in failure, it makes sense to believe that the causes of these things are failing as well, which implicates our planning in that these say that not only our history but our future is bound to fail.
If multipolarity comes to pass, there are several potential outcomes which tend to be analyzed in specific silos such as military, political, economic, legal, social, psychological or organizational vectors.
Some argue for a managerial-administrative outcome, namely compromise. Instead of a single superpower since the USA has been conquered by Leftism (“globalism”), the world will move toward a multipolar power structure of multiple pseudo-superpowers:
BRICS definitely has its place in the new world order and — once the war in Ukraine is over — will hopefully operate in tandem with the G7 to resolve existential issues like climate change.
Note that this is not actually a change in governance, only in who owns the power, since in this scenario, the “new” leaders are pursuing the same goals through the same methods as the old, namely world peace and order through world federalism based in liberal objectives.
The writer of the quoted passage above either means a multipolar world or he means a New World Order that adds the BRICS to the G7 as our world ruling junta. A futurist might say that this means that multipolarity is going to exist, but might be centralized by ideology.
Others, like Major Scott Ritter, argues for a military diplomacy approach. He suggests that America use different strategies to dominate Russia. This argument also supports a multipolarity but without defining any preset acceptance of a tandem BRICS and G7.
The benefit of this angle is that America will focus on its own homeland to establish what it really wants and needs. And Brett Stevens apparently agreed:
Europe has to militarize itself which ultimately is going to counteract diversity and socialism as well as the passive man that the modern European has become.
A third possible angle is the Culture Wave approach which is a much more complex scenario aimed at a cultural win-win as opposed to military or simplistic human-rights blackmail. The confusing part may be that some cultures are better or stronger than others depending on how culture gets measured.
In some sense going for military diplomacy would make more sense as long as one culture do not let other cultures protect it i.e., variants of globalism as opposed to regionalism. One of the subsets of culture that makes it so complex is Dark Organizations that for now predicts America to go bankrupt while Russia is becomes more functional after going bankrupt in the 90s.
A fourth possible angle is the psychological angle. This approach is the long game approach also used by very rich people. A reminder of this is how Oppenheimer intentionally extricated himself over a 40-year period from South Africa without paying taxes and without any liability to rehabilitate his mines.
Alastair Crooke suggests that Putin is focusing on a twenty-year objective while Biden’s only concern is to maintain the election term moral high-ground, even if it means killing lots of (other) people. What Oppenheimer and Putin therefore do is to prepare their targets psychologically for a desired endgame.
The trick to understanding is that they are not targeting their own people (Oppenheimer targeted Cyril Ramaphosa, the current South African President, no less). And yesterday Bill Gates had a long meeting with Xi Jinping (just saying). In other words, this looks like diversity warfare.
The fifth angle was discussed by Alexander Mercouris where he referred to an article suggesting that Russia could use tactical nuclear weapons on Europe to avoid American response. The nuclear option is also widely discussed as representing a WW3 scenario, but the reader should be reminded that nothing is impossible because only two nuclear devices were used to stop WW2.
One should be reminded that the Angolan War pitted a nuclear-armed South Africa against a Cuban proxy and although tactical nuclear doctrine was developed for the first time in world history (by South Africa), the lack of direct Russian boots on the ground put a limit on such deployments (although Russian military were there covertly). The Cubans were relieved of course. However, if the Cubans tried the tricks Ukraine now demonstrates, it would have been a totally different story in my opinion. This means Russia is correct in activating its nuclear capability.
Personally, my thoughts around polycausality are more focused on what actual value humans add to the planet in line with the conceptualization of eschatology:
Eschatology refers to the study of the last or the end of things, specifically the final judgment and destiny of humanity. It is a part of theology concerned with death, judgment, and the final destiny of the soul and humankind. Eschatology is predicted by several world religions, both Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic, which teach that negative world events will reach a climax.
As was recently mentioned, the concept of soteriology — the question of salvation — also appears to have become a thing motivating a new Constitution (or perhaps removing amendments), meaning that discussing eschatology is not that far out there.
If we can figure what we are about and our place on the planet, then we could perhaps find links to what we should really do and which angle to pursue. This is of course a difficult issue because nature changes our genetics constantly and while a wolf remains a wolf, humans change.
In this sense, the future of not just human civilizations but humans is determined by polycausality: we need one of Plato’s forms — a pattern — that hits on social, political, psychological, economic, and organizational levels.
After all, humans in different parts of the world also differ, for some reason, or is that too much of a polycausality? In fact, polycausality is so far out there that our only ephemeral option is military diplomacy, over and over. That is why I also think military diplomacy is the future. The thousand-year peace initiative is in pieces.
What does the criminally negligent four-star General Milley, and his senile President Biden think happened to those nuclear guys in South Africa? We live in dangerous times requiring a very cautious approach, especially for people thinking they are “global leaders.”