Russia Correctly Described The US-Led West’s Golden Billion As Racist To The Core
Russia Correctly Described The US-Led West’s Golden Billion As Racist To The Core
Russia Correctly Described The US-Led West’s Golden Billion As Racist To The Core
By its very nature, the Golden Billion divides the international community into a rigid US-determined hierarchy whereby vassals who do its bidding are afforded certain “privileges” (or at least the promise and/or perception thereof in the eyes of their population) while the rest are ruthlessly pressured to submit to its demands.
Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov lambasted the US-led West’s Golden Billion during a video address on Saturday to the fifth Global Young Diplomats Forum. He told those aspiring state representatives that “We categorically reject the neocolonial `rules-based order’ being imposed by the US-led West. This order provides for a racist division of the world into a privileged group of countries who a priori have the right of any action and the rest of the world, obliged to follow the tracks of this `golden billion’ and service their interests.” That was the correct description, which will now be briefly elaborated upon.
The global systemic transition to multipolarity has brought about the “Great Bifurcation”, which is dividing the globalized international order along three levels: the systemic; ideological/worldview; and tactical. The first refers to the global competition between the US-led West’s Golden Billion and the BRICS-led Global South; the second concerns the struggle between unipolar liberal-globalists (ULGs) and multipolar conservative-sovereigntists (MCS); while the last covers the increasingly tense relations between The Establishment and Populists (the dynamics of which differ by country).
It's against these full-spectrum paradigm-changing processes that one can better understand the wisdom behind Lavrov’s latest words. The so-called “rules-based order” is really just the arbitrary implementation of double standards for the purpose of advancing American strategic interests. By its very nature, it divides the international community into a rigid US-determined hierarchy whereby vassals who do its bidding are afforded certain “privileges” (or at least the promise and/or perception thereof in the eyes of their population) while the rest are ruthlessly pressured to submit to its demands.
India, for instance, used to be considered by the Golden Billion to be a potential member of this exclusive club but its multipolar leadership proudly rebuffed all related pressure upon it to condemn and sanction Russia. Delhi regarded that as an unacceptable demand to unilaterally concede on an issue that it considers to be in its objective national interests, ergo why Washington openly declared through State Department spokesman Price just last week that it’ll continue its policy of meddling in its relations with Moscow, which the Congressional Research Service seconded in its latest report.
The way in which that civilization-state is being abused is indisputably racist because a clique of majority-Caucasian countries led by the declining unipolar hegemon aren’t respecting that non-Western Great Power like the equal that it is in the eyes of international law. Rather, they regard India as unworthy of the same rights bestowed to everyone by the UN Charter, which is the exact same approach that they have towards all those other Global South states whose multipolar leaderships also refuse to submit to the US’ demands to unilaterally concede on issues of objective national interest.
That attitude is no different than if a Caucasian American abused one of their African American compatriots by denying them their economic rights in the workplace, prevented them from voting, and even threatened to use force if they refused to submit to the second-class status demanded of them in complete contradiction of their legal rights. Any objective observer would describe that as racist so it therefore naturally follows that they should also describe the US’ similar abuse of Global South states the same way.
After all, the structural disparity in relations between both parties in those two examples is clear-cut: the US/Caucasian American refuses to respect India/African Americans as the equals that they are in the eyes of the law, instead choosing to aggressively pressure them into doing their selfish bidding at the expense of their victim’s objective interests. It might be difficult for those living in the Golden Billion to accept the regrettable reality that their representatives abuse everyone across the Global South, but this systemic racism is undeniable and must therefore always be called out exactly as Lavrov just did.
The split is between corporatist and sovereigntist. These are two parallel strands in modern politics.
Russia is behaving like a typical sovereign country, protecting what it sees as its strategic interests. The US centred Western Alliance is opposing this. It could be 1914 with alliances opposing each other. The Ukraine war is sovereign versus sovereign.
The continuation of international trade at any price is the corporatist strand. China and the multinationals are running a parallel world. This undermines the power of the sovereigntists so that sanctions do not work. The Internationalists are corporatists. They would happily see the world converted into a surveillance society with the only freedom being to work and buy, the only culture being materialism. No diversity. An end to racism (no separate cultures) and global peace (no freedom).
Your use of racial divisions is a tactic used by all sides. Putting up barriers such as borders is racist, opposing the global south is racist, etc etc. etc. Everyone on all sides is accused of racism because it is a handy way of grouping together the enemy as "evil". The corporatists/globalists/internationalists accuse everyone of racism because their ultimate, drab vision has no races or diversity.
Your piece is obvious nonsense. If the West's ruling classes and subjects were even 1/10 as "Racist To The Core" as you imagine, borders would not be wide open, more or less, for replacement migration. No subsaharans, for example. would be allowed to enter, and resident savages like the USA's ghetto rats would be fleeing if they can and dying in droves for showing any insolence whatsoever. Constitutions and other laws throughout the West would be changed to exclude alleged victim races from any and all political and social power. Instead, what we see is pervasive antiwhite bigotry masquerading as a human rights campaign, compulsory recognition of fake marriages between homosexuals, and state protection and sponsorhip of sludge like transgenderism.
So the fact that you (and Putin) readily resort to "Racist" to explain a complex RELIGIOUS conflict indicates the laziness of your thinking about what is, in fact, religious chauvinism based on defective ideas about human nature and the correct way to live. It's ironic that one such dominant idea has long been the sentimental humanist lie that "all Men are created equal". Anyone can see that even two siblings of the same parents are likely to be unequal, esp. in terms of the right to rule, the right to choose teaching as one's profession, and so on. You, Putin, and Lavrov ignore all this for the usual reasons: thinking is metabolically expensive, so it's easier to let your brain stems ride herd over the prefrontal cortices.
In fact, even you don't believe your own accusation. Here's the evidence that I'm right:
"India, for instance, used to be considered by the Golden Billion to be a potential member of this exclusive club but its multipolar leadership proudly rebuffed all related pressure upon it to condemn and sanction Russia."
If the alleged racism were real, "the Golden Billion" would not have considered India as a potential member but only as a vassal to provide laborers for the fourth class. It would be no member at all, and brown bigots like Parag Agrawal, former Twitter CEO, would never rise far above entry level jobs writing code no matter what their merits. The state would refuse to enforce property rights in their favor, and their residency would be as precarious as the existence of any contemporary slave imported recently from Asia or Africa by others of their own races.
Now, there's another elephant in the room which you've ignored, but I'll save remarks about it for later.