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.
π₯1: Multipolarity opens up the possibility of resisting Western influence and defending a revival of traditions.
π₯2: The unipolar world of the past decades allowed satanic tyranny and technocracy to spread without balance.
π: Therefore, multipolarity is more favorable than other arrangements as it enables resisting harmful influences and reviving traditions.
π₯1: Traditionalists, conservatives, anti-globalists and religious people are enemies of the current globalist world system.
π₯2: The current globalist world system favors unipolarity and Western influence.
π: Traditionalists and their allies should favor alternatives to unipolarity like multipolarity.
π₯1: Multipolarity divides the world into civilizations with common roots within delimited spaces.
π₯2: This opens up the possibility of defending a revival of traditions.
π₯3: This enables a return to traditional systems of government for individual nations/peoples.
π1: Therefore, multipolarity is more favorable than other arrangements as it facilitates reviving traditions.
π2: Traditionalists should seek to build a multipolar world.
π₯1: Multilateralism focuses only on economics and pragmatism without contesting global power.
π₯2: Multilateralism does not allow contemplating greater perspectives beyond secular politics.
π₯3: Beyond economics, Traditionalists want a return to traditional systems of government.
π: Multilateralism alone is not enough for what Traditionalists want to achieve.
π₯1: Multipolarity could enable the emergence of new empires based on tradition.
π₯2: Multilateralism would not make this possible.
π: Multipolarity rather than just multilateralism accords with Traditionalist goals.
π₯1: Only multipolarity could enable a new Christian empire to emerge in Eurasia.
π₯2: Only multipolarity could enable Brazil to become a "tropical Fourth Rome" as foretold.
π: 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.
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.
π₯1: Multipolarity opens up the possibility of resisting Western influence and defending a revival of traditions.
π₯2: The unipolar world of the past decades allowed satanic tyranny and technocracy to spread without balance.
π: Therefore, multipolarity is more favorable than other arrangements as it enables resisting harmful influences and reviving traditions.
π₯1: Traditionalists, conservatives, anti-globalists and religious people are enemies of the current globalist world system.
π₯2: The current globalist world system favors unipolarity and Western influence.
π: Traditionalists and their allies should favor alternatives to unipolarity like multipolarity.
π₯1: Multipolarity divides the world into civilizations with common roots within delimited spaces.
π₯2: This opens up the possibility of defending a revival of traditions.
π₯3: This enables a return to traditional systems of government for individual nations/peoples.
π1: Therefore, multipolarity is more favorable than other arrangements as it facilitates reviving traditions.
π2: Traditionalists should seek to build a multipolar world.
π₯1: Multilateralism focuses only on economics and pragmatism without contesting global power.
π₯2: Multilateralism does not allow contemplating greater perspectives beyond secular politics.
π₯3: Beyond economics, Traditionalists want a return to traditional systems of government.
π: Multilateralism alone is not enough for what Traditionalists want to achieve.
π₯1: Multipolarity could enable the emergence of new empires based on tradition.
π₯2: Multilateralism would not make this possible.
π: Multipolarity rather than just multilateralism accords with Traditionalist goals.
π₯1: Only multipolarity could enable a new Christian empire to emerge in Eurasia.
π₯2: Only multipolarity could enable Brazil to become a "tropical Fourth Rome" as foretold.
π: 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.