Multipolar vs. Micropolar

James Corbett and Matt Ehret once again

As we move toward the multipolar world of Ehret, I explore the micropolar possibilities of Corbett in voluntaryism, anarchism, small scale sovereignty and horizontal governance. The history of Ben Franklin is debated as a centrist or sovereigntist, FDR shows two faces for and against empire, and Putin, Keynes and Kant dance on stage.

In talking about any subject, the first question to ask is “What difference does it make?” My focus on Matt Ehret and James Corbett isn’t to show which person is right but which strategy for the future I want to support with my research, voice and imagination. A person’s ideology determines their shaping of history, their coloring of current events, and their vision for the future. Yet each of these requires facts and logic to back them up, or the strategy isn’t grounded.

The fundamental difference in ideologies between Matt and James is a multipolar world vs. what I’m calling a micropolar world. In the multipolar world, the elected leaders of nations, some up to a billion people, make alliances and deals for trade and mutual development. It requires large and powerful nations, with wealth and militaries, to keep a unipolar world of dollar hegemony in check.

No matter what our opinion on this, there’s no doubt that it’s happening and will be beneficial to all the countries that the US, UK and IMF have under their thumbs with sanctions, debt, restructuring and currency manipulation. The collapse of the petrodollar is in process and, I believe, can’t be stopped.

But does the heterogemony stop there? What will the collapse of the dollar’s international trade value mean to those in the US, who are overwhelmingly consumers and dependent on imports from producer nations? And what will China do with its useless surplus of Treasury Bills? The things that dollars can still buy are US real estate, US resources and US companies. I think we need a plan to protect our assets.

A micropolar world could also be called anarchy, small scale sovereignty, voluntaryism or horizontal governance. Tom Osher, who publishes on YouTube as Mofwoofoo, commented on my last video that he’s a fan of all of us! He has interviewed Matt and asks deep questions about whether authoritarian countries can be trusted. Tom wrote:

While appreciating greatly the work of Cynthia and Matt, I have to align more with James Corbett after watching your video, since I too am a longtime grassroots, radical anarchist activist. I am involved in Ecuador with promoting the idea of horizontal governance and getting all the indigenous nations of Ecuador and all of the campesino villages to agree to the single demand of horizontal government for Ecuador. All of whom we are in touch with.

And then Matt very kindly watched my video and responded:

On CS Lewis, I actually never wrote anything about him. My wife has done extensive work on his work exposing transhumanism and has delivered dozens of lectures on this topic which includes critiques of his naive idea of Christianity and women (which Cynthia demonstrates he was not consistent in either due to his adoration of Joy who he called his "teacher and sovereign"). Her most concentrated work on Lewis is found in part 3 of her trilogy of lectures on Lewis' science trilogy where she also deals with Lewis and the bible's troubled view of women.

I’m looking forward to listening to that since Cynthia is the ultimate example to counter Lewis as a woman “at home in the world of ideas.” Matt also wrote:

Even though you like Franklin whom I also admire immensely, you mistakenly assert that he didn't want a big government and that his 1729 work on paper currency works in our age. Franklin recognized that it didn't even work in Franklin's time because a centralized international deep state of the British Empire destroyed every attempt to get a locally controlled currency/manufacturing etc. Franklin dealt with this crushing of his efforts by organizing the American revolution and then spearheaded the 1787 constitutional convention which enshrined powers of central government in the pre-amble and throughout the charter. This was not because he created a fascist system, but because he knew that a symmetrical power is needed for defense/offense against an enemy that wants to destroy you. I wrote Clash of the Two Americas vol 1 featuring chapters on Hamilton breaking down all the popular narratives of Hamilton as a bankers' agent who created a debt slave system. It ain't true. I wrote several more chapters breaking down FDR's work in volume 2 of Clash of the Two Americas breaking down similar anti-FDR myths.

I responded with thanks, clarifying:

I think there are, perhaps, two different questions. One is what economic system works logistically, in terms of doing what you want it to do. The other is what is possible politically, in terms of what you're allowed to do. What I'm trying to answer is the first question because the second is outside of our control but, if things collapse, it may offer a possibility for change that we should be ready for. …

Whether Franklin's scrip worked logistically, we have his own words that I quote in my book and in the episode on the Constitution Coup (linked below) that also gets into Hamilton's role.

Franklin ends the Constitutional Convention (pp 61-62 in my book) where he sees the Government ending in Despotism "when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other." He promises not to "whisper a syllable" of the opinions he had of its errors, saying "Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die."

---

Helene Belloni posted on my last episode:

I have not read Mr Corbett. I only heard of him mentioned by someone recently and it was not in a favorable light. This was a great show, long but worth it, but start at 1:10 to get background and then they mention him at 1:23 to the end.

The commentary is by Matt Ehret, who I admire, and his co-host Guerrilla V, who I find prone to ridicule, which he did in this episode regarding Catherine Austin Fitts and how she had no financial background from HUD so her ‘let’s go local’ was pie in the sky. Guerrilla V, as he clarified, is an investment banker who deals with rare metals and hedge funds. But Fitts and James Corbett are just “reading off each others’ tea leaves, have no new ideas and repeat things with no gravity or veracity or knowledge of what they’re even talking about.”

Matt then says that Fitts and Corbett are both ‘devoutly influenced’ by a philosophy developed by the Hapsburg elites in Austria. The American Revolution, he maintains, was fought to break America free of ideas like Adam Smith’s that makes using government to do things evil because you’re infringing on the free market. Adam Smith sees liberty as the ‘ability to do whatever the hell you want’ without responsibility.

But, as I was informed by reader noosfera, the rift goes much deeper. James Corbett’s episode is titled SHOCKING Document Reveals Trudeau's REAL Plan! But halfway through he reveals the ruse—everything that’s supposedly written by Trudeau is actually from Putin detailing his agenda in line with the Great Reset.

He goes on to list ten points to support his thesis, that Putin is a Global Leader in the WEF, was brought to power by his close ties to Kissinger when he was an unknown taxi driver, is a warmonger, has cracked down on all criticism of government or the war, admires China’s dictatorship, enforced vaccine mandates, and so on. Corbett’s conclusion is that Putin is phase two of the Great Reset, a coordinated one-two punch to bring about the renamed New World Order.

And then Matt Ehret posted “Are Russia and China in on the Great Reset? My Response to James Corbett." He writes:

… the willingness to believe that every nation is controlled by a sociopathic oligarchy out to kill us is tied to a deep cultural sickness of nihilism, pessimism and the belief that humanity is intrinsically corrupt and doomed. That level of cynicism is attractive partially because it alleviates each of us from having to take responsibility for righting injustices or risking our personal security in order to intervene upon an evil self-destructive system (for how could we make something Good which is evil by its very nature?)

This cynical way of thinking also appeals to our own tendency to wish to remain voyeurs watching and commenting upon reality as if each of us were not also integrated into the system which we were voyeuristically trying to watch as if it were reality TV.

It seems to me that we need to be willing to consider anything if the facts lead to that conclusion. Otherwise, maybe we’re not fully blue-pilled but are willing to accept some tinge of red like periwinkle-pilled. The Matrix was people hooked up to tubes that were harvesting their energy. If we’re going to adopt Matrix terminology, that seems pretty black-pilled to me, as Malone accused the Breggins.

Reality is reality, whether we’re willing to believe it or not. I don’t know that I believe that every nation is controlled by a sociopathic oligarchy out to kill us but I certainly have to be willing to believe it if the evidence is there. And as for remaining voyeurs, I have a hard time seeing what Matt is doing differently than James. They’re both cyber warriors sending out missives from their book-lined bat caves. As are we all.

---

In FDR and Keynes, Matt makes the point that FDR stood up to the British bankers and was not a follower of the eugenicist Keynes. He ends with these telling quotes:

“Galton’s eccentric, sceptical, observing, flashing, cavalry-leader type of mind led him eventually to become the founder of the most important, significant and, I would add, genuine branch of sociology which exists, namely eugenics.”

-John Maynard Keynes on Galton’s Eugenics, Eugenics Review 1946

“I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.”

– Winston Churchill to the Peel Commission, 1937

“There never has been, there isn’t now, and there never will be, any race of people fit to serve as masters over their fellow men… We believe that any nationality, no matter how small, has the inherent right to its own nationhood.”

– Franklin Delano Roosevelt, March 1941

“They who seek to establish systems of government based on the regimentation of all human beings by a handful of individual rulers call this a new order. It is not new and it is not order.”

– Franklin Roosevelt

James Corbett also writes on Roosevelt and Sanctions as Warfare. As I’ve posted, economic sanctions are terrorism because they’re indiscriminate—to call them war would be an upgrade. In this really summary, James starts with the sanctions he calls the German Starvation Blockade. He then goes to the Japan Oil Embargo and FDR:

At the outbreak of WWII, US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was faced with a dilemma. Understanding that the conflict represented the perfect opportunity for America to emerge as the world's unrivaled superpower, he was eager to embroil the United States in the war. The American people, however—realizing just how thoroughly they'd been had by The War Propaganda Bureau and other underhanded efforts to convince Americans to enter the First World War—were decidedly against US entry into yet another bloody European struggle. …

As we now know from the diligent research done by Robert B. Stinnett, author of Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor, the road to Pearl Harbor began in October 1940, when Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum, head of the Far East desk of the US Office of Naval Intelligence, drafted an eight-point memo under the innocuous heading "Estimate of the Situation in the Pacific and Recommendations for Actions by the United States."

Far from a stuffy bureaucratic document, the memo, in Stinnett's words, "called for virtually inciting a Japanese attack on American ground, air, and naval forces in Hawaii, as well as on British and Dutch colonial outposts in the Pacific region."

Specifically, McCollum's memo advised President Roosevelt to (among other things):

• "Keep the main strength of the US Fleet, now in the Pacific, in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands;"

• "Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions, particularly oil;" and

• "Completely embargo all trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire."

… as Stinnett documents: "Beginning the very next day [after the submission of the memo], with FDR's involvement, McCollum's proposals were systematically put into effect," and "provoking Japan into an overt act of war [became] the principal policy that guided FDR's actions toward Japan."

Precisely how this plan was put into effect is likewise a matter of public record. For those who are unfamiliar with that story, [Corbett] documents FDR's subsequent steps down the path to Pearl Harbor in … Debunking A Century of War Lies.

Therefore, even if FDR was not a Keynesian eugenicist, he was a warmonger willing to sacrifice American lives for global hegemony. I would also recommend research into Adam Hochschild’s book, Spain in Our Hearts, for a detailed history of FDR’s refusal to sell weapons to the legitimate Spanish government (in exile in Catalonia) that allowed the fascist dictator Franco to crush them. I’ve never read anything more heartbreaking.

---

And I’ll end with a quote from Immanuel Kant’s What is Enlightenment in 1784. This was contributed by Goeff, saying “I think this may resonate with many here and remind us that we’re dealing with age-old problems.”

Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so great a proportion of men … gladly remain in lifelong immaturity, and why it is so easy for others to establish themselves as their guardians. It is so easy to be immature. If I have a book to serve as my understanding, a pastor to serve as my conscience, a physician to determine my diet for me, and so on, I need not exert myself at all. I need not think, if only I can pay: others will readily undertake the irksome work for me.

- Immanuel Kant, What Is Enlightenment? (1784)

Both Matt Ehret and James Corbett require us to think, give us plenty of fodder for that, and that’s always a good thing whether we agree or not.

---

This episode looks at the original con-con as a con and a coup against the Articles of Confederation and State Constitutions written by the people. I examine why the term 'anti-Federalist' is Orwellian double-speak for those who supported a federal government against the centralizers. The Framers were primarily motivated by direct taxation to fund a standing army in peacetime, and the protection of slavery. When people praise the Constitution, they usually mean the Bill of Rights—which were the condition under which the States ratified. But instead of their dozens of substantive changes, Madison wrote what he called his "nauseous project of amendments" to nullify and neuter the opposition.

Adds new info on Ukraine from Aaron Mate, the US Peace Council, Scott Ritter and Michael Hudson. Asks whether there were diplomatic options that Russia could have pursued but didn't. Examines Putin's strategy in having $650B of Russian gold in foreign banks subject to seizing and freezing. Was it a trap so he could repudiate the petrodollar? Has the US done him a favor by bankrupting the Russian oligarchs? What does this mean for Germany and France that they'll need to buy oil and gas in the petroruble? And how much trickle-down pain will there be when petroleum-based fertilizer factories shut down? Lastly, could this be a catalyst for taking back local economies and making them productive?