The Allure of Wishful Thinking

.......and its drawbacks. On BRICS and "Multipolarity"

When I was sixteen years old, I had a crush on a girl who was one year younger than me and who went to the same high school that I did. She was very, very pretty, came from a good family, and had an impeccable reputation. I liked her a lot.

I quickly noticed that I could make her laugh a lot, and that she enjoyed being in my company. To my immature self, I happily concluded that she was into me, or as we said in those days “liked me”. There was only one problem: she “liked” another guy who was friends with some friends of mine.

She and I would spend hours talking on the phone to one another, about the trivial things that teenagers talk about, and about matters of the heart…in her case, this other guy. Being sneaky, I managed to find out that this other guy didn’t “like” her. Being even sneakier, I did not relay this information to her. I was not sneaky enough at the time to get a third party to inform her of the situation. She would talk endlessly about how she could not get his attention, while I listened patiently, convincing myself that by doing so, I was showing her how much I care about her. What I had failed to realize was that she had already “friendzoned” me.

In my mind, all the pieces were already in place: the guy she “liked” didn’t “like” her. She enjoyed my company, talked to me constantly, told me that I was “good looking”, and I was “there for her”. Once she learned that this other guy didn’t “like” her, she would be all mine. My logic was sound.

When she finally learned that the other guy didn’t “like” her, she was heartbroken like only teenage girls can be. “Luckily” for her, I was there. All I had to do was be there for her and wait for her to get over her heartbreak, and then make my move.

I eventually made my move. Not only was I shot down, but I upset her as well. My logic evaporated like a mirage. The entire scheme that I had devised, one based on sound reasoning, was shown to be little more than a fantasy. It took her sister to tell me that “she doesn’t like you like that” for me to snap out of it, and to understand that my solid construction was actually just flimsy wishful thinking. I had learned my first important lesson in matters of the heart. Many more would follow.

When we engage in wishful thinking, we often allocate powers to ourselves beyond our natural abilities. An example of this is how we assume we can predict how others behave in our construction, oftentimes assigning to them the same thought processes that we possess. We’re all rational beings after all, so behaviour should be easy to predict. This ease of anticipating what others will do allows us to be the masters of our own fate.

Wishful thinking requires a construction of a complex set of events that result in our desired outcome. There are many, many moving parts, and many, many individuals on the set, but somehow it will all work out in the end. Wishful thinking requires a strongly-held faith for it to persist, otherwise it call comes crashing down.

Faith can be a strength, but more often than not, it leads us astray (hence: ‘wishful’).

I think back to the great Ken Burns’ Civil War documentary series, and how the incredibly engaging historian Shelby Foote stole the show. In particular, I often think about his answer when he was asked whether he thought that the South could win the war:

I think that the North fought that war with one hand behind its back. At the same time the war was going on, the Homestead act was being passed, all these marvelous inventions were going on… If there had been more Southern victories, and a lot more, the North simply would have brought that other hand out from behind its back. I don’t think the South ever had a chance to win that War.

This analogy has stuck with me for three decades now. The Confederacy had spirit, morale, elán, determination, drive, leadership, and much, much more. All of this served to construct a false image in the minds of the supporters of The Cause. They had blinded themselves through wishful thinking based on these self-evident attributes. As Rhett Butler put it in Gone With the Wind:

“Gentlemen,” said Rhett Butler, in a flat drawl that bespoke his Charleston birth, not moving from his position against the tree or taking his hands from his pockets, “may I say a word?”

There was contempt in his manner as in his eyes, contempt overlaid with an air of courtesy that somehow burlesqued their own manners.

The group turned toward him and accorded him the politeness always due an outsider.

“Has any one of you gentlemen ever thought that there’s not a cannon factory south of the Mason-Dixon Line? Or how few iron foundries there are in the South? Or woolen mills or cotton factories or tanneries? Have you thought that we would not have a single warship and that the Yankee fleet could bottle up our harbors in a week, so that we could not sell our cotton abroad? But–of course–you gentlemen have thought of these things.”

“Why, he means the boys are a passel of fools!” thought Scarlett indignantly, the hot blood coming to her cheeks.

Evidently, she was not the only one to whom this idea occurred, for several of the boys were beginning to stick out their chins.

John Wilkes casually but swiftly came back to his place beside the speaker, as if to impress on all present that this man was his guest and that, moreover, there were ladies present.

“The trouble with most of us Southerners,” continued Rhett Butler, “is that we either don’t travel enough or we don’t profit enough by our travels. Now, of course, all you gentlemen are well traveled. But what have you seen? Europe and New York and Philadelphia and, of course, the ladies have been to Saratoga” (he bowed slightly to the group under the arbor). “You’ve seen the hotels and the museums and the balls and the gambling houses. And you’ve come home believing that there’s no place like the South. As for me, I was Charleston born, but I have spent the last few years in the North.” His white teeth showed in a grin, as though he realized that everyone present knew just why he no longer lived in Charleston, and cared not at all if they did know. “I have seen many things that you all have not seen. The thousands of immigrants who’d be glad to fight for the Yankees for food and a few dollars, the factories, the foundries, the shipyards, the iron and coal mines–all the things we haven’t got. Why, all we have is cotton and slaves and arrogance. They’d lick us in a month.”

(it took more than a month, as we all know)

What became obvious to all by the time that peace was concluded at Appomattox Court House was not obvious during the course of the conflict. Not everything was visible to the participants on both sides as the war raged. Even worse, some factors that were visible were minimized or dismissed outright, as we humans sometimes have a tendency to focus on the positives, especially when we erect the construction of wishful thinking. We harm ourselves (or our cause) by inflating the value of the positives that we ourselves assign, while minimizing the negatives. This is what opens the path toward the desired final outcome.

The greatest danger in wishful thinking is detachment from reality. When we construct these scenarios in our minds, we run the danger of creating new assumptions based on an improper assessment of the actual situation, removing us from the reality on the ground and relocating us to la-la land. I am of the strong opinion that many people who mean well have succumbed to this when it comes to pressing issues such as “Climate Change”, or the global geopolitical stage.

Discontent Vis-à-vis America

Almost everyone that will read this essay is not happy with how the USA asserts itself on the world stage, and how it runs its own affairs at home. If you were content with the present course of action, you would not be subscribed to this Substack.

This discontent takes many forms and spans a wide distance. One on end are those who want a course correction for America. At the other end are those who wish to see the collapse of the USA, even if it involves the shedding of blood. Most of you are well-within these two poles.

Many here (and elsewhere) are openly hostile to the USA and its foreign policy, cheering on any forces that seek to challenge it, or at least tweak its nose. Many others are absolutely certain that we are living in the end stage of the United States of America, and that the regime is going to collapse soon, and can point to many factors that indicate this to be true. Lastly, there is overlap between these two groups.

After all, it makes perfect sense for Russia and China to partner up because the USA is seeking regime change in Moscow, and is trying to contain Beijing in the Pacific. It makes perfect sense to conclude that productivity and innovation in the USA is going to crater due to DEI policies, and that the USA will lose its position as the most important economy in the world (and the Greenback will lose its role as global reserve currency in the process).

The fact of the matter is that Russia and China have grown closer and are ramping up their cooperation. The fact of the matter is that DEI policies are harming productivity and innovation in the USA. These facts are self-evident. The question must be: do they matter for now? The more important is: what are we missing from the overall picture?

Among those who dissent from US foreign policy actions, it has become an article of faith among many of them that the USA is losing the war in Ukraine. The fact of the matter is that the US proxy flag, Ukraine’s, continues to fly east of Kharkov. The fact of the matter is that targets within Russia are still being hit by Ukrainian forces, assisted by some NATO states. Many of these types assured us that the UAF ran out of fuel last year, and could never again conduct an offensive like the (failing) one being conducted now. Many of these types assured us that the UAF was at the breaking point in October of last year. Many of these types are adamant that an overwhelming Russian victory is approaching, one that will drive a stake through the heart of NATO.

Some of these claims have had good factual support underpinning them. Unfortunately for their promoters, other facts were either invisible to them, or were downplayed by them. Faith in opposition to Pax Americana has muddied the vision of these types who have gone on to engage in wishful thinking, detaching themselves from reality.

BRICS - A Paper Tiger

Faith in the wisdom and ability of those opposed to or targeted by the USA leads to a distorted picture of reality. A perfect example of this is the desires projected onto BRICS whereby it can challenge US global economic hegemony and take down the hated Americans once and for all.

BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) was a term coined by a Goldman Sachs banker over 20 years ago to describe fast growing economies that would collectively dominate the global economy by the middle of this century.¹ These countries were assigned this label for the sake of expediency, not as an initiative of any of the named states. Nevertheless, it has since then become an organization, a rival of the US-led G7 Bloc.

Many opponents of the USA have placed hopes in BRICS to beef up and become a rival that could challenge (and defeat) the Americans economically by taking down the US Dollar. The US Dollar (aka “Greenback”) is seen as the key to the USA’s global power, as its currency serves as the global reserve. So confident is the business world in the strength and stability of the US Dollar and economy, that 58% of foreign exchange reserves are held in it:

While the Greenback remains king in foreign exchange transactions:

The argument goes that if the Greenback could lose its global reserve currency status, then the USA would no longer be able to finance itself and its activities abroad. Logic therefore dictates that it would be wise to try and make this come about.

I’ve been hearing about how other states have been planning to move away from the Greenback for at least two decades now. The first report that comes to mind was this 2009 article by Robert Fisk that appeared in the UK Independent. It was a bombshell at the time, with it being reported on by everyone from the Financial Times to the Washington Post:

In the most profound financial change in recent Middle East history, Gulf Arabs are planning – along with China, Russia, Japan and France – to end dollar dealings for oil, moving instead to a basket of currencies including the Japanese yen and Chinese yuan, the euro, gold and a new, unified currency planned for nations in the Gulf Co-operation Council, including Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Qatar.

Secret meetings have already been held by finance ministers and central bank governors in Russia, China, Japan and Brazil to work on the scheme, which will mean that oil will no longer be priced in dollars.

The plans, confirmed to The Independent by both Gulf Arab and Chinese banking sources in Hong Kong, may help to explain the sudden rise in gold prices, but it also augurs an extraordinary transition from dollar markets within nine years.

The Americans, who are aware the meetings have taken place – although they have not discovered the details – are sure to fight this international cabal which will include hitherto loyal allies Japan and the Gulf Arabs. Against the background to these currency meetings, Sun Bigan, China's former special envoy to the Middle East, has warned there is a risk of deepening divisions between China and the US over influence and oil in the Middle East. "Bilateral quarrels and clashes are unavoidable," he told the Asia and Africa Review. "We cannot lower vigilance against hostility in the Middle East over energy interests and security."

This sounds like a dangerous prediction of a future economic war between the US and China over Middle East oil – yet again turning the region's conflicts into a battle for great power supremacy. China uses more oil incrementally than the US because its growth is less energy efficient. The transitional currency in the move away from dollars, according to Chinese banking sources, may well be gold. An indication of the huge amounts involved can be gained from the wealth of Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar who together hold an estimated $2.1 trillion in dollar reserves.

This “bombshell” turned out to be a dud…a case of “wishful thinking”.

The calls to move away from the Greenback persist to this day, because, as mentioned above, it is entirely logical. Why arm your opponent?

Andrew Korybko has picked up on my theme as well, explaining that de-dollarization will be a very, very long process, if it happens at all:

Those who aren’t irredeemably brainwashed and sincerely aspire to understand the global systemic transition to multipolarity as it objectively exists instead of indulging in wishful thinking about it should use this unpleasant development as the opportunity to finally awaken.

The Alt-Media Community (AMC) has hyped their audience up since the start of the NATO-Russian proxy war seventeen months ago into thinking that BRICS is supposedly on the brink of dealing a deathblow to the dollar. Top influencers deliberately exaggerated the group’s role in advancing financial multipolarity processes in order to generate clout, push their ideological agenda, and/or solicit donations from their well-intended but naive followers.

The reality is that BRICS only envisages gradually reforming the global financial system through a series of carefully coordinated moves whose effects will take a lot of time to materialize, not radically changing everything by de facto declaring war on the Western-centric financial order with all that entails. After all, apart from Russia nowadays, all of its members are in relationships of complex interdependence with the same lopsided system that they intend to reform.

It therefore follows that none of those other four ever planned to cross their Western partners’ financial red lines like the AMC’s top influencers falsely claimed and thus risk catalyzing the mutually disastrous consequences of a so-called “decoupling”. Their economies could crash, Color Revolution threats might then soar, and the resultant international instability could complicate their respective grand strategies. Anyone who expected otherwise was misled as the latest development on Wednesday proved.

BRICS:

Brazil - Forever the “country of the future” and prone to conflict between government and the military

Russia - Currently involved in a proxy war with NATO, and is being struck on its own soil

India - Happily playing the middleman as Ukraine burns, and has border issues with China, another BRICS member

China - Being hemmed in on all sides by the USA and its allies, militarily and economically

South Africa - Cannot keep the lights on

As for Brazil:

Newly appointed President of the New Development Bank (NDB, which is popular known as the BRICS Bank)  Dilma Rousseff confirmed in a statement published on her official Twitter account that “The NDB reiterated that it is not planning new projects in Russia and operates in compliance with applicable restrictions on international financial and capital markets. Any speculations on such a matter are unfounded.”

Rousseff used to lead Brazil prior to her ouster in August 2016 as part of the US’ rolling regime change campaign there at the time. Her appointment as President of the BRICS Bank by newly re-elected and now three-time President Lula da Silva was spun by the AMC’s top influencers as allegedly proving its supposedly secret plans to de facto declare war on the Western-centric financial order. Their audience fell for this lie due to their sympathy for her and their false belief that Lula is against the US.

The BRICS Bank is in compliance with the sanctions regime against Russia. So much for “multi-polarity” in the short or medium terms. Untangling from the western-led global economic system will take time, if it actually happens at all.

Even Russia’s Central Bank Governor, Elvira Nabiullina, weighed in:

Bank of Russia Governor Elvira Nabiullina talked about the proposed BRICS currency on the sidelines of the central bank’s annual Financial Congress, which took place on July 6-7 in St. Petersburg…

The proposal gained much attention over the past week when Russian news outlet RT reported that Russia has confirmed the BRICS is launching a gold-backed currency. However, no BRICS officials have officially announced or corroborated the news.

The Russian central bank chief told reporters (translated by Google) that the idea of a BRICS currency “deserves attention.” However, she stressed that this project “will be quite difficult to implement,” emphasizing: “Like any idea of ​​a supranational currency, it requires the consent of many parties. This is not a simple project at all.” Nabiullina continued:

Therefore, we are still working and concentrating our efforts on the development of bilateral settlements using the national currency, the development of the infrastructure that connects our payment systems, what businesses need today.

While RT claimed that Russia has confirmed that the common BRICS currency will be backed by gold, a top official of the New Development Bank, also known as the BRICS Bank, has stated that the creation of any alternative to the U.S. dollar is a medium to long-term aspiration. According to him, “No one is suggesting right now that BRICS will form an alternate currency.” Nonetheless, many people expect a common BRICS currency to erode the dominance of the U.S. dollar.

Yves Smith gets to the heart of the matter:

Even in this short account, you can see the signs of lack of consensus. The RT story “announcing” the gold-backed currency scheme¹ looks to have been the amplification of a tweet from the Russian Embassy in Kenya. With all due respect, the Foreign Ministry is not driving this train. And the story above confirms that this rumor has not been confirmed by any key actors.

Second is not just Nabiullina, but also the presumed key party, the head of the so-called BRICS Bank explicitly said that “No one is suggesting right now that BRICS will form an alternate currency”…except all sorts of commentators in the alt media, including Bitcoin.com. In fairness, BRICS officials have been talking up the idea too.

Now why is a new currency such an uphill climb? Let’s start with two reasons (trust me, there are others). For any currency regime to operate, you need laws, institutions, regulations. Crypto users wound up trying to build bit by bit the key elements of a banking system, like custodians, and those still wound up relying on existing legal regimes (the agreement with the custodian said which law governed the agreement). Similarly, when the 11 year project to launch the Euro started, Europe had had a legal regime, with the European Court of Justice at its apex, for 40 years.

So pray tell…whose law and courts would govern a BRICS currency? You know no BRICS member will be happy to have their use of a BRICS currency subject to the jurisdiction of another BRICS member. But how long would it take to set up a free-standing court/adjudication system, and all the necessary laws? Oh, and then even if that were not a massive and fraught process, all of the BRICS members opting in would wind up having to agree that their court systems were subordinate to this new BRICS currency regime. How easy will that be to solve conflicts with regular commercial lows of these countries?

And isn’t ceding sovereignty to a new monetary regime at odds with the multi-polarity project, which is supposed to be about reclaiming national sovereignty?

What we have here is another case of wishful thinking.

It is important that we recognize these dreams for what they are, and not create new assumptions based on their actual non-existence.

It is entirely logical for countries being targeted by the USA to band together in collective economic and/or military defense. It is much, much more difficult to create these structures and make them real and not just a figment of the imagination.

---

Note: The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) will be dealt with in a separate essay to appear in the future

1. Nagashybayeva, Gulnar. "Research Guides: BRICS: Sources of Information: Introduction". guides.loc.gov. Retrieved 23 July 2023.