Lucas Leiroz elucidates the nuances of the world’s geopolitical shift, clarifying whether it is evolving into a multipolar condition or merely a multilateral one, and contends that multipolarity is imperative from a Traditionalist perspective.
Speech at the Chisinau Forum: UN Agenda 21 and the Great Reset – The Fall from Liberalism to Technocracy and Transhumanism, September 9, 2023.
Dear participants of the Chisinau Forum, it is a pleasure and an honor to be here. I thank our dear friend Iurie Roșca for inviting me to this important conference and I look forward to contributing to the high-level discussions that will take place here.
As we know, recently, there has been a lot of talk about the issue of multipolarity. Many experts, myself included, believe that we are in a process of transition to a polycentric world order, where there will be more than a single center of power, which will provide greater freedom for nations.
On the other hand, some other experts believe that, instead of multipolarity, we are just heading towards a more multilateral world, where countries will have greater capacity to create political and economic arrangements that seem interesting to them, without, however, contesting the global power structures.
There are good arguments on both sides. Many authors who believe in multipolarity show solid and convincing rhetoric, as well as do some of those who see the rising world as merely multilateral and not multipolar. My intention here is not to try to find out which of these sides is right or wrong, nor to “prove” anything. On the contrary, I make my modest speech just in order to say why I think that, regardless of what happens, multipolarity, and not multilateralism, is what we must seek.
First of all, we must think about who “we” are. Here I believe I am only speaking to people who are dissenting from the global status quo. Traditionalists, conservatives, anti-globalists, patriots of all nations and religious people of all faiths. We are all enemies of the current world system. We are hated by the defenders of globalism, which is nothing more than the end result of the Enlightenment and modernity itself. So, when I say that we should be interested in multipolarity, I am addressing this audience.
I know that mere UN-centered multilateralism will not be able to make it feasible for a new Christian empire to emerge in Eurasia, nor will it be able to make Brazil become a tropical Fourth Rome…
And the reasons for this are very simple. It is necessary to think about geopolitics beyond its merely profane and bureaucratic level. At first, no geopolitical arrangement is good or bad in itself. What interests us goes far beyond material, secular politics, geography and international relations. If we are Traditionalists, we think first of God, eternal values, and traditional axiology.
And that is precisely why we must seek multipolarity. This is the world system proposal that seems most favorable to us to achieve our major goals. The decades in which we have been living in a unipolar reality have proved how evil Western influence has been on the entire world. It was possible to subordinate all peoples to the satanic tyranny of transhumanism and brutal technocracy, without a solid resistance being formed, given the lack of balance of power in the international scenario.
In a simply more multilateral world, as many Brazilian and European institutionalists defend today, it will not be possible to build such resistance either. Multilateralism is efficient in creating international cooperation mechanisms, assisting in the development of nations and favoring the autonomy of states and regional blocs. But it’s still a global platform focused simply on economics and pragmatism. There is no greater perspective in multilateralism because there is simply no real contestation of power on a global scale, only an increase in the autonomy of states.
On the other hand, the multipolar perspective seems interesting to us precisely because it opens up the possibility of defending a revival of our traditions. It is multipolarity, built through the division of the world into several civilizations, each one bringing together people with a common historical root within a delimited space, that can give us the opportunity to think beyond the secular sciences of politics and geopolitics.
We must want, seek and build a multipolar world because what multilateralism can provide us with, such as economic development and win-win cooperation, is not enough for our perspectives. We want something beyond that: a return to our traditions, the perpetuation of our beliefs and the construction of a policy based on the eternal values of our people. It is multipolarity that can give us at least the possibility of seeing again a world with political systems governed by Tradition.
As I said earlier, my intention is not to prove whether we are closer to multipolarity or simple multilateralism, but rather to take part in the defense of one of the alternatives. I am with multipolarity because I am a Traditionalist, because I am an Orthodox Christian and because I am Brazilian. And I know that mere UN-centered multilateralism will not be able to make it feasible for a new Christian empire to emerge in Eurasia, nor will it be able to make Brazil become a tropical Fourth Rome, as predicted by the elders of my people in the long past. So, it’s not something that interests me. For a Traditionalist, the value of a geopolitical arrangement is in how it can help nations to return to their traditional systems. And I only see this possibility in multipolarity.
Obviously, we shouldn’t hope for lasting solutions in this world where everything will perish. As a Christian, my hope is in Our God and Savior Jesus Christ. And, likewise, adherents of other religious traditions should have hopes only in their gods and saints. However, in the legitimate and traditional effort to sanctify our lives and the world around us, we must strive to bring politics and geopolitics closer to the sacred things. And of all the imperfect geopolitical systems that have ever existed, we know that multipolarity is our current hope of returning to Tradition.
Thank you very much.
You have a very difficult metaphysical contradiction to deal with if multipolarity is going to work - the same contradiction the Roman Catholic church is foundering on.
You are Orthodox Christian. Your faith teaches you that you have the ONE true faith, and all others are false.
How do you balance that with a multi-polar world, where other countries can choose to build their culture on a different One True Faith?
Traditionalists like Guenon and Evola give an esoteric answer, and point to a single Tradition behind multiple exoteric world religions. The answers they give as to what this true Tradition involves are pretty darned vague and elusive.
How do you distinguish multipolarity from the Renaissance Humanism stream that leads to a least-common-denominator flattening and blurring of distinctions? It's not an easy question.
Based on my reading the article, here are definitions of the important key terms:
Multipolar - Refers to a polycentric or multi-centered world order where there are multiple great powers or groups of powers with comparable influence and ability to shape global affairs. The article argues that a multipolar world would provide greater freedom and balance of power for nations.
Multilateral - Describes a world with greater capacity for countries to create political and economic arrangements and cooperation without challenging overarching global power structures. However, it would not enable resistance to the current world system or allow for alternatives like new empires based on tradition.
Unipolar - A world order dominated by a single superpower or hegemon with preponderant ability to influence global political and economic affairs. The article cites the past decades as an example of a unipolar reality dominated by Western/US influence, which it views negatively.
The key distinction is that multipolarity implies a more balanced distribution of power among competing centers of influence, while multilateralism focuses more on cooperation without altering underlying power dynamics.
𝙥1: Multipolarity opens up the possibility of resisting Western influence and defending a revival of traditions.
𝙥2: The unipolar world of the past decades allowed satanic tyranny and technocracy to spread without balance.
𝙘: Therefore, multipolarity is more favorable than other arrangements as it enables resisting harmful influences and reviving traditions.
𝙥1: Traditionalists, conservatives, anti-globalists and religious people are enemies of the current globalist world system.
𝙥2: The current globalist world system favors unipolarity and Western influence.
𝙘: Traditionalists and their allies should favor alternatives to unipolarity like multipolarity.
𝙥1: Multipolarity divides the world into civilizations with common roots within delimited spaces.
𝙥2: This opens up the possibility of defending a revival of traditions.
𝙥3: This enables a return to traditional systems of government for individual nations/peoples.
𝙘1: Therefore, multipolarity is more favorable than other arrangements as it facilitates reviving traditions.
𝙘2: Traditionalists should seek to build a multipolar world.
𝙥1: Multilateralism focuses only on economics and pragmatism without contesting global power.
𝙥2: Multilateralism does not allow contemplating greater perspectives beyond secular politics.
𝙥3: Beyond economics, Traditionalists want a return to traditional systems of government.
𝙘: Multilateralism alone is not enough for what Traditionalists want to achieve.
𝙥1: Multipolarity could enable the emergence of new empires based on tradition.
𝙥2: Multilateralism would not make this possible.
𝙘: Multipolarity rather than just multilateralism accords with Traditionalist goals.
𝙥1: Only multipolarity could enable a new Christian empire to emerge in Eurasia.
𝙥2: Only multipolarity could enable Brazil to become a "tropical Fourth Rome" as foretold.
𝙘: Therefore, as a Traditionalist, multipolarity is the preferable arrangement.
---
Now that we've adequately put out Mr. Leiroz's thesis, I believe we should analyze where we agree and differ. Another reader, Charlie Obert, beat me to the punch by pointing out how, in Mr. Leiroz's hypothetical system, multipolarity would be problematic with all the numerous sects of Christianity.
Not only that, but I remind you that there's always been a tension between the priestly caste and the royal caste; especially when Abrahamism become more world dominant.
Multipolarity may increase geopolitical tensions as nations pursue their interests, while multilateral cooperation seeks mutual understanding. Not to mention the previously mentioned schism between religious sects.
Pursuing power balances could undermine progress on shared issues if nations prioritize relative gains over collective well-being while also believing YOU are the one truth correct sect of Christianity while others are false.