Fake Wars & Higher Prices: What a “Multipolar World Order” Really Means

The world is changing. The once dominant imperial power of the United States is faltering, hollowed out by corruption, over-extended by hubris, eaten away by the cancers of hatred, nationalism and greed.

Even according to its own propaganda outlets, America has “become the villain”, is “Officially an Empire in Decline”, and we are witnessing its “final act”.

And, as we await the titan’s inevitable fall, the world is considering the future. Everyone is talking about the “multipolar world order” just over the horizon.

From “Pax Americana to Pax Multipolaris”.

This “Multipolar World” has been a political talking point for a long time, but it has been building momentum over the last few years, and noticeably accelerating since the beginning of Donald Trump’s second term.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has been calling for this multipolar order for years, and did so again last week. China’s Xi Jinping regularly does the same, most recently during his trip to South America in February. North Korea’s Kim Jung Il echoed these sentiments in April.

Xi and Putin signed a joint declaration on “building a multipolar world” this morning.

Two weeks ago, in a talk at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, former German Chancellor Olaf Scholz called for “a post-imperial world [and] a resilient rules-based order in a new era of multipolarity”.

In a speech during his trip to China last month, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez called for “embracing a multipolar world order”:

“What is happening today is not a transfer of hegemony, but an increase in multipolarity — in both power and prosperity,”

Outside of politicians speechifying, the multipolar world order has become the main focus of the international think-tank circuit as well.

“Multipolarization” was the main topic of the Munich Security Conference Report in February 2025.

In December, the Tony Blair Institute partnered with the JPMorgan Chase International Council to publish a report called “World Rewired: Navigating a Multi-Speed, Multipolar Order”, which concludes in the foreword (written by Blair himself and Jamie Dimon of JPMC):

The world still offers enormous potential for those willing to engage constructively—to build coalitions, invest in innovation, and help shape the rules of the next era rather than simply react to them.

And then in March, the World Economic Forum published an (exceedingly dull) report titled “The Future of Materials Systems: Cooperation Opportunities in a Multipolar World”, which uses sentences like this…

In a multipolar world, agile interest-based cooperation will be decisive in shaping resilient, productive and sustainable materials systems.

That’s the traditional circle in which “multipolarity” is most discussed. Reports for alphabet agencies and non-profits, market predictions and risk assessments. Academic language that camouflages meaning in layers of surplus verbiage.

But multipolarity is not just the pet subject of presidents and thinktanks, it is a regular talking point across the media landscape.

America Can’t Escape the Multipolar Order

…said Council on Foreign Relations publication Foreign Affairs, in December.

The European Times headlines “From unipolarity to multipolar reality – A new world order is fast emerging”, and is rather more measured:

Multipolarity itself is neither inherently dangerous nor inherently beneficial. Its ultimate impact will depend on how nations choose to exercise power, uphold international law, and cooperate in addressing common challenges.

In an interview with Politico titled “What the next world order looks like”, British author Rana Dasgupta says:

If we’re entering a multipolar world, that’s not very unusual. That’s the normal state of the world.

As you can see, the potential fall of our modern Rome isn’t terrifying to many of those who owe their money and position to that Empire, rather it is energizing or maybe “the normal state of the world”.

The US/Israeli war with Iran has been blamed for and/or credited with accelerating this long-awaited Imperial decline.

Two weeks ago, The Tehran Times headlines:

How the Iran conflict is catalyzing a multipolar world order

A report from The Middle East Council on Global Affairs frames the war in Iran as the US trying to stop the multipolar world from breaking free:

What is unfolding in Iran is not simply a war over the regional balance of power or nuclear containment. It is an attempt to rupture the geographic core of an emerging multipolar order designed to bypass Western dominance

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace published this…

The Iran War Shows the Limits of U.S. Power – If Washington cannot adapt to the ongoing transformations of a multipolar world, its superiority will become a liability.

In many parts of the independent media there is an almost feverish anticipation.

America’s Empire will fall, and a shiny multipolar new world order will rise in its place, and it’s definitely going to be A Good Thing.

That’s the story.

But that’s all it is, a story.

What is the “multipolar world order”, really?

What multipolarity really means

The cultivated image of a multipolar world – minus the quotes – is that of global cooperation between free-and-equal sovereign nations, each pursuing the interests of their people without living under the cloud of Imperial hegemony.

“Equal and orderly […] inclusive, universally beneficial economic globalisation”, as Xi Jinping said in a February speech.

This was echoed, in greater depth, by Professor Wang Yiwei, who wrote a briefing titled “The Chinese Philosophy of an Equal and Orderly Multipolar World Order”, and describing how different the world would be under Chinese leadership – or rather, non-leadership:

China advocates an equal and orderly multipolar world and inclusive economic globalization. Among these, the core of an equal and orderly multipolar world is to adhere to the equality of all countries, big and small, oppose hegemonism and power politics, and effectively promote the democratization of international relations.

A less utopian view predicts a multipolar world districted into blocs or spheres of influence, but still more dynamic and potentially fair for being out of the Empire’s shadow. That was the original meaning of the phrase when it was first floated in the late 90s.

But neither of these reflect the looming reality, or the true intentions of the powerful people feeding the word to their talking heads.

That might be multipolarity, but it’s not “multipolarity”.

It’s amazing the difference a pair of quotation marks can make, isn’t it?

The powers-that-shouldn’t-be and their soulless meat puppets in the corporate, academic and political spheres have created an entirely euphemistic linguistic phraseology defined by the need for quotation marks.

Words and phrases that don’t mean what they pretend to mean.

“Climate change”, “hate speech”, “public health”.

“Terrorism”, “misinformation” and “sustainability”.

In our political landscape, these have ceased to be words with meanings and become both camouflage and conditioning.

A dishonest cross-breed of programming language and hypnotic suggestion; phrases designed to obfuscate reality on the one hand, and either mechanically call pre-programmed responses or elicit powerful conditioned emotional reactions on the other.

“Multipolarity” is one of those words. And it should always be put in quotes.

The truth behind the word is simple: A global franchise for an old system of control.

Party Politics Goes Global

Defenders of the “multipolar world order” narrative will often argue along the lines “surely a multipolar world is better than US Imperialism? Shouldn’t we welcome resistance to hegemony?”

That same argument has been deployed by climate change supporters, who claim “even if the climate isn’t changing, protecting the environment is still a good thing, isn’t it?”

The flaw in this argument is a failure to question the underlying assumptions and official definitions of these phrases.

Just because something adopts a nice-sounding name doesn’t mean that thing is nice.

Labour don’t support workers. The Democrats hate democracy.

State-backed corporate “environmentalism” is not about planting trees or saving animals, and globalist-backed corporate “multipolarity” is nothing to do with increasing national sovereignty or offering independence from a global authority.

The reality of a “multipolar world” will be a system of intertwining corporate and state institutions implementing authoritarian, anti-human policies and disguising an ideologically monolithic power structure behind an illusory veneer of “choice”.

We in the collective West are more than familiar with this model – it is the way our “democracies” function.

Two major teams, with near identical ideologies and taking orders from the same unelected powers, fiercely battling it out over the tiniest sliver of uncommon ground.

They pitch electoral battles over differences of iconography, phraseology or fractions of percentage points to distract from the fact they agree about everything that really matters, have no real power at all, and are at best replaceable widgets in a vast influence machine.

The point of these battles is to convince people that democracy exists, that they have a choice, and can affect change.

This lie works, and has done for decades.

“Mutlipolarity” is an expansion of that model – the control mechanism of fake binary left-right, red-blue, Coke-Pepsi partisan politics rolling out world-wide.

It’s the same exact method employed to the same exact end: Tribalism as a path to cognitive dissonance, thought termination and the death of objectivity.

Raed the Whole Article