• When did you fall in love with journalism, how would you define it, how much does it mean to you, and how much impact does it have on the public today?

I personally regard myself more as an analyst than a journalist nowadays, with the difference as I see it being that the first interprets facts while the second is only supposed to report them, though most of the latter often do much more than that. Both are important, but they’re still not the same, despite them and their related information products commonly being confused. Analysis builds upon journalism and research, without which the facts that are interpreted wouldn’t be available in the first place.

I’ve been interested in better understanding everything since a young age when I began to feel like the information that I was being exposed to wasn’t always accurate. Upon learning how to conduct my own research on the internet, I came across media from other countries like Russia, after which I saw that there are indeed different ways to interpret events. From there, I decided to dedicate my life to discovering the truth about everything and explaining it to everyone who wants to listen.

This task is more important than ever since the New Cold War between the US-led West’s Golden Billion and the Sino-Russo Entente over the direction of the global systemic transition has seen the first resort to an unprecedented level of information warfare for manipulating the public. What’s passed off as journalism by the Mainstream Media (MSM) is really agenda-driven “analysis” at best and outright propaganda at worst, both of which are aimed at convincing folks to support Western hegemonic goals.

• Where do you think free journalism exists in the contemporary world, considering the fact that mainstream media and the main narrative want to destroy all the alternative media in the long run?

There are two types of Alt-Media: publicly financed and independently financed or volunteer-driven platforms. Russia’s RT is an example of the first while there exist countless examples of the second, which can be financed through donations or managed by someone as a hobby. What they have in common is that they conduct journalism by reporting on events not covered in the MSM and/or carry out analysis by interpreting them according to a multipolar perspective.

Publicly financed platforms accordingly apply a multipolar perspective that’s largely aligned with their patron’s stated interests, while independently financed or volunteer-driven ones are shaped by their community or editor-in-chief, thus generally making the second much more diverse. Sometimes they reach the same conclusions about events, but other times they might differ, such as concerning COVID, certain socio-political movements like MAGA, and sensitive conflicts like the Israeli-Palestinian one.

• Censorship in the virtual world has never been stronger, anything can be labelled as disinformation or misinformation. What is your opinion about the so-called fact-checkers (read: censors), and do you have any experience with them?

I’ve been targeted by so-called “fact-checkers” on several occasions, and each time they tried to falsely frame me as colluding with Russian spy agencies by speculative degrees of separation. These toxic ad hominem attacks are intended to discredit my analyses by misportraying them as reflections of state policy, though that deliberately overlooks the many times when I’ve constructively critiqued Russia with a view towards improving the practice of its multipolar grand strategy as I understand it to be.

Therein lies the real reason why I’m targeted because these same “fact-checkers” fear the influence that my work can have on folks’ perceptions about events. They hate that I’m an American-Pole with partial Ukrainian ancestry who lives in Moscow and shares my analyses with whoever wants to read them, including those that constructively critique the Kremlin like these here, here, and here. My existence discredits a lot of their purposely over-simplistic narratives about the dividing lines in the New Cold War.

In fact, I’m so hated by the US Government that the State Department tried smearing me as an “anti-Semite” last summer on the counterintuitive pretext that I argued against Hitler’s fascist conspiracy theory that someone’s ethno-religious identity at birth supposedly predetermines their political views. My name wasn’t directly mentioned, but two related analyses that I wrote last May for one of my former partner sites were hyperlinked in their “fact-checking” report here as supposed proof of “anti-Semitism”.

I’ve thus come to the conclusion through my personal experiences of being targeted by “fact-checkers” that they’re dishonest conspiracy theorists who are driven by the desire to manipulate their targeted audience by exposing them to false smears about those whose work they don’t them reading. For this reason, I don’t take them seriously and actually nowadays regard them as psychological warfare agents in the New Cold War whether or not they directly or indirectly work with any Western governments.

• How would you define globalization and in what way do globalists want to reset the world?

I differentiate between globalization and globalism, the first being conceptualized as worldwide economic processes and the second being its socio-political component. Globalization processes have been around for centuries, with Marco Polo and the Silk Road being the most well-known, while globalism emerged after World War II when the US and USSR competed to impose their respective systems onto the rest of the world.

Globalism has changed since the end of the Old Cold War and is nowadays only being promoted by the US-led West’s Golden Billion, which believes in their so-called “exceptionalism” and the alleged “supremacy” of their models, hence why they aggressively seek to impose them onto all others. The Sino-Russo Entente and what’s shaping up to be the informally Indian-led Global South, by contrast, respect every society’s sovereign right to apply whatever models they’d like.

To be sure, there are globalists outside the Golden Billion too, but they’re not formulating those other de facto New Cold War blocs’ policies like they’re currently doing in the West. What the US wants to do is simultaneously promote globalization and globalism, while the rest of the world is interested in benefiting from globalization while continuing to organize their affairs according to national models instead of being forced to emulate the West’s.

The globalists aren’t just motivated by ideological reasons but self-interested ones too since their bloc’s hegemony as well as their elite status in Western society can only be sustained in a US-centric unipolar system. The global systemic transition to multipolarity therefore poses an unprecedented threat to their power, which adds crucial context to why they’re fighting so desperately for the emerging world order to retain as many trappings of unipolarity as possible.

• What is your opinion about Covid?

I believe that some sort of influenza-like virus spread across the world in recent years, but that it’s only deadly for a fraction of the population, and mostly those with preexisting health conditions. The argument can be made that the initial response of locking down was due to an overabundance of caution, but perpetuating these policies upon quickly discovering the truth about this virus was done to advance ulterior socio-economic and political interests.

The virus’ origins will never be universally agreed upon, hence why I believe that it’s more effective to analyze everything that unfolded over the past few years instead of devoting a lot of time to arguing about what exactly COVID is or isn’t. What can be seen is that even rival pairs of countries like Armenia-Azerbaijan, China-US, India-Pakistan, Iran-Israel, the Koreas, and Russia-US, et al., applied similar policies and perpetuated them after the public learned that the virus isn’t as deadly as was initially thought.

In my personal opinion, this observation isn’t attributable to all of their leaders secretly colluding with one another since it doesn’t make sense that they’d all march in perfect lockstep with each other on this issue yet still be unable to resolve their bilateral disputes. I acknowledge that some folks are convinced that everything is stage-managed, but I don’t believe that since it requires such a leap of faith in the face of so much evidence to the contrary as to legitimately make that belief a “secular religion”.

Instead, I consider these similar policies to their shared but independently arrived at desire to accelerate the “Great Reset”/“Fourth Industrial Revolution” (GR/4IR) in their countries after concluding that the failure to take advantage of COVID for this purpose could place them behind their rivals in this respect. These aforementioned processes involve the commodification and datafication of everything, and each player was able to make a great leap forward on this by artificially perpetuating their COVID policies.

It’s precisely due to the lack of trust between pairs of rival countries and not supposedly secret collusion between them that they calculated that it’s better to exploit the virus for these economic-technological purposes than to risk their rival doing so and thus leaving them far behind. In International Relations terms, their “security dilemma” prompted this “tech race”, which aimed to accelerate GR/4IR processes in their countries in order for their rivals not to achieve a potentially game-changing edge over them.

• What is your opinion about the Covid vaccines?

The vaccines were rushed and then pushed onto society in order to conduct large-scale testing of this technology, which their governments were motivated to do in order to accelerate its development and thus gain an edge over their rivals, especially regarding mRNA technology. I’m aware of the power and profit motives behind this too, as well as depopulation concerns, but I believe that the “security dilemma” and “tech race” explanations make the most sense in terms of the grand strategic picture.

• What do you think is the cause of so many sudden deaths of so many people all around the world?

The argument has compellingly been made by many that this might be due to the side effects of some COVID vaccines, which deserves to be investigated. Even if it’s indisputably determined to be the case, however, it’s unlikely that the public will be made aware of this by any authoritative source in order to avoid provoking widespread panic considering how many people could in theory be at risk of sudden death. For that reason, only truly independent sources are expected to report on this in that scenario.

• What is your opinion about the pandemic world and new social divisions that appeared in the last two years?

As explained in the answer to the fifth and sixth questions, the pandemic was exploited to accelerate GR/4IR processes across the world, not as part of some shadowy collusion between every country’s elite like some believe, but due to the “security dilemma” between rival states that drove this “tech race”. The Western elite were definitely on the same page in this respect as subsequent disclosures have since proven, but it’s very difficult to imagine the Iranian and Israeli ones or the Koreas’ colluding, for example.

• What is your opinion about the pandemic restrictions and their impact on contemporary society, largely indoctrinated by the mainstream media and thus obedient without questioning the orders given by the system?

Fearmongering narratives were pushed onto the public, especially the Western one, to get them to agree to becoming vaccine guinea pigs as well as facilitate their government’s planned acceleration of society’s commodification of everything via its digitalization on this pretext so as to speed up GR/4IR processes. There’s a security dimension as well in the sense that this “tech race’s” “security dilemma” made states fear that failing to get their people’s data might lead to their rivals getting it first via apps and whatnot.

In that scenario, these rivals might eventually come to learn more about their society than their own governments know, after which this insight could be weaponized to gain a competitive economic edge or even manufacture more appealing information warfare narratives. States have a tendency to overreach instead of voluntarily limit themselves whenever they “securitize” a certain subject, which adds strategic context to why they reacted as they did over the past three years.

• It seems as if things will never be the same again after this pandemic terror. People have changed for good. How would you define the post-pandemic ‘new normal’ (abnormal) world?

All key geopolitical players appear to have independently concluded that the economic-technological processes associated with the GR/4IR are inevitable, which they arrived at largely due to their “security dilemma” that influenced them to play leading roles in order to preempt their rivals from doing so first. That being the case and absent any black swan event that completely offsets this grand strategic trajectory, the related “achievements” of the last few years are unlikely to ever be reversed.

Everything actually seems to be unprecedentedly accelerating with the large-scale proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) and generative artificial intelligence (GAI), both of which will probably lead to the 5G-powered “Internet of Things” (IoT) becoming ubiquitous in the near future. Even though there are obvious power and profit motives behind all of this, I personally believe that what’s driving these trends more than anything else is the “tech race’s” “security dilemma” between rival pairs of states.

For this reason, I don’t expect life to go back to how it was before COVID and am actually bracing myself for what might come next in the immediate future since I’m sure that it might be even more transformative than what’s recently unfolded. My well-intended advice is that everyone should prepare themselves as well, but that doesn’t imply that they need to agree with all of this since it’s also important to remain critical in order to minimize the way in which they’re exploited by these processes.

• What do you think about the impact of social media on social interaction between people considering the fact that people haven’t grown closer to one another, but on the contrary have become more alienated?

Social media has taken on a much larger role over people’s lives, the trend of which was accelerated by the lockdowns that were imposed and subsequently perpetuated on the COVID pretext. This is also part of the commodification of society via its digitalization per the economic precepts associated with the GR/4IR paradigm of “development”, which in this context is aimed at speeding up the development of “virtual reality” (VR) technologies per the “tech race’s” “security dilemma” between rival players.

What’s so dangerous about this however is that a sizeable number of people have come to experience severe psychological problems as a result of this trend. It’s unclear whether social media brings out underlying issues that wouldn’t otherwise manifest themselves through visible symptoms, if it’s a direct cause of these problems, or if the truth is a blend thereof, but it’s difficult to deny the connection between obsessive social media use and psychological problems, especially in Western society at least.

• In what way will technology change our world?

The 5G-powered and (G)AI-managed IoT will likely become ubiquitous in the coming future, and related technologies can also be weaponized to more effectively spy on and manipulate targeted societies. They can also be exploited by governments to strengthen their control over the population as well. Moreover, all of this will certainly be included in key geopolitical players’ grand strategies in the New Cold War in an attempt to give them an edge against their rivals, thus maximally accelerating these trends.

• The world political scene is changing. We are witnessing yet another war which seems to be here in order to change the world economy for good. You often write about world politics. How would you define the contemporary global political scene?

I regard world affairs as being characterized by a New Cold War between the US-led West’s Golden Billion and the Sino-Russo Entente over the direction of the global systemic transition, with the first wanting to retain the trappings of unipolarity while the latter wants to sped up multipolarity. The developing countries that define the Global South sympathize with the Entente but have close economic ties with the Golden Billion, hence their interest in remaining neutral instead of decisively taking sides.

The Golden Billion and Entente aren’t just competing with one another, but also over the Global South, especially for labor, markets, and resources, hence why the developing world is expected to be the fiercest region of New Cold War competition. Ideally, each de facto bloc would compete in a friendly, gentle, and non-hostile way by simply offering the most advantageous development packages, but the Golden Billion prefers to resort to subterfuge like Color Revolutions, corruption, coups, and civil wars.

Considering this, the strategic dynamics of those two’s systemic competition will increasingly be defined by the Golden Billion going on the offensive against the neutral majority of the international community residing in the Global South while the Entente works to enhance their defensive capabilities. Rising powers in Afro-Eurasia and Latin America will also become increasingly independent players too, thus leading to what’s already been described by some as the present “Age of Complexity”.

• What is your opinion about the war in Ukraine and what are its hidden goals? Is it all one big show to create a global crisis and destroy the economy?

NATO clandestinely crossed Russia’s national security red lines in Ukraine as part of the US’ power play to eventually coerce Moscow into a series of never-ending unilateral concessions designed to culminate in either its “Balkanization” or subordination into its largest-ever proxy-vassal state against China. The Kremlin reacted by commencing its special operation there as a last resort after all diplomatic means failed to resolve those two’s “security dilemma” that’s ultimately responsible for this conflict.

The Golden Billion’s unilateral sanctions in response were aimed at catalyzing Russia’s quick economic collapse, but that targeted state proved too resilient, and thus these measures eventually backfired against the EU. They also sparked the food and fuel crises across the Global South, which are being weaponized to destabilize those countries as punishment for them refusing to sanction Russia even in those cases where they voted to condemn it at the UNGA.

This sequence of events unprecedentedly accelerated de-dollarization processes, which is obviously against the US’ grand strategic interests, but it also advanced its aforesaid interests with respect to consolidating its unipolar hegemony over its Golden Billion vassals in the Asia-Pacific and EU. Amidst all of this, the GR/4IR continues unfolding since each side expects that their developments in this respect could be a game-changer in the New Cold War if they enable them to gain an edge over their rivals.

• Global government seems to be created by the elite from national states, corporations, media, and banks. Why is it forbidden to admit that global government exists, just as the New World Order?

Liberal-globalists are loath to admit their plans because they fear that a critical mass of the public will reject them and possibly rebel, hence why they instead resort to silently moving their agenda ahead in order to proverbially “boil the frog” by gradually imposing their will so that it’s too late to change things once folks notice. It’s all about gatekeeping, information warfare, and perception management, which are designed to indefinitely perpetuate the elite’s psychological control over the population.

• What would be the ideal political system as far as you are concerned?

My worldview can be described as multipolar conservative-sovereigntist, which I explained in this analysis here. In brief, I believe that International Relations should be centralized (multipolar), it’s acceptable to impose certain socio-cultural restrictions like prohibiting LGBT+ propaganda if a genuinely popular government does so in accordance with the majority’s will (conservative), and every state has the right to determine whichever models to apply in pursuit of the greater good (sovereigntist).

• What is the future of national states?

Most European countries within the Golden Billion will likely continue surrendering their sovereignty to supranational institutions while others elsewhere in the world will try to strike a balance between national and regional interests through their involvement in various integration organizations. While some regions consolidate, others will continue to have certain very distinct dividing lines between their countries, but the overall trend is towards regionalization in one or another form.

• What inspires you the most and gives you strength to continue building a better world than the one we live in today?

I remain convince that there are still plenty of people across the world yearning to better understand everything around us as it objectively exists irrespective of whatever differences we might have over their future course, whether in general or concerning a specific issue. This inspires me to continue sharing my analyses about a wide variety of issues that I believe folks should know about, and I’m very grateful to the support that countless people have shown to me over the past decade.

I hope that my work can enlighten everyone about events, after which they can make more informed decisions about how they should personally react to them. In some cases, they might not have much of a choice like those concerning what I believe to be the inevitability of GR/4IR processes wildly proliferating across the world, but at least they can have a more solid understanding of what’s happening and why.

In others like national or regional crises, they might come to have a totally different view about them after reading my work and then better decide for themselves what to do if the analyzed event is directly relevant to them such as if it involves a nearby protest or conflict. I believe that knowledge is important and that everyone benefits by learning as much as possible about whatever it is they’re interested in, which my analyses sincerely seek to help them do.

• Dear Andrew, thank you very much for your time and your answers. It was a pleasure to talk to you. I am more than glad we have the opportunity to cooperate with each other in the field of free media. Together we make this world a better place.

Dear Elia, thank you very much for showing interest in my work and for sharing my opinions with your readers. It was really a pleasure to talk to you too. I am also glad that we can give our contribution to making this world a better place.