The US, BRICS & BlackRock: the Relative Power Index

Well, know, when I say that the West lies all the time, that they do nothing but lie, and that they literally can't help it. They they really literally can't help it because they are fundamentally and foundationally estranged from the truth. They don't have access to it, you know. I'm not saying that as an insult. I'm not just lashing out at the West or something.

No. You have to understand this is factually accurate. It's true. And there are massive complex ramifications from this fact. You know, you can't just say that the West are all liars and then click your tongue in contempt.

Do you understand? There are whole systems of thought, systems of government based on those systems of thought, academic disciplines, fields of study, you know, economic, political, societal frameworks, and interpretive paradigm for understanding the world, all of which we have adopted. We've adopted it and taken it seriously, and all of that has been built by and for a so called civilization that lies about everything. This is a disaster. I don't think you understand.

It's like like like if you were a contractor, say, or an architect, you know, a builder, and you get hired to build a house, someone hires you to build a house or to build a structure on a certain plot of land. Okay. Now the one who hired you is giving you all sorts of strange demands, odd instructions, you know, farcical, requests and stipulations of how he wants the building to look like, how he wants it to be. And you do what he wants. You follow all his instructions, and then he changes his mind.

And then you need to redo the work, you know. You do all these time consuming tedious things that he's asking for. And finally, the house or the structure is built, but it's not art architecturally sound, it's not structurally flimsy, nothing works, stairs go to nowhere, the plumbing is tangled, the electrical wiring doesn't work, it's all a mess, On and on. It makes no sense. It makes no sense to you as an architect, as a builder, until you find out that the man who hired you is actually criminally insane and he murdered dozens of people.

That's why he wanted you to build a house. You thought you were building a house, but all you were actually doing was building something to hide the bodies. All you did was cover a mass grave, and that man didn't care whatsoever if anything in that building worked at all. All it needed to do for him was to conceal his crimes. Do you see?

That's the West. But now you're taking all of those instructions of that criminally insane person and putting them into your textbooks, putting them into your schools, into your minds, even though all of those instructions were only given for one purpose, to conceal his victims, you know, to misdirect and to conceal to to deflect and to conceal his victims. It was never about building a sound structure. It was always just a cover up. Once you realize that, then you realize that everything that you got from him is useless.

I mean, it's useless to you. It's useful for them for the reasons that I mentioned, but it's useless for you because it's all lies. It's all based on lies. Your sociology, your economics, your political philosophy, your political science, your theories of this and that and the other. No.

It turns out it was all just a cover up, you know. GDP is not a measure of a healthy economy. That's like measuring someone's bicep to try to measure how strong they are. But see, that's exactly why they do it. That's exactly why they do what they do.

Cover up and misdirection. Military spending is not doesn't show you how strong how strong your military is, but that's what they want you to measure. And that's what you that's what they want you to think that you are measuring, is the strength. You see? It's all cover up and misdirection.

You see what I mean? Their whole so called civilization, the the the core of the rot of their so called civilization, and the core is rotten. The core of it has always been that they have never understood properly how to assign value to anything. They give value to what is worthless, and they treat as worthless what is valuable. And they do that in every sphere.

Okay? So we're talking about a whole system of thought. A whole system of government based on that system of thought. Economics based on that system of thought and so on. All built on lies, misdirection, confusion and misassignment of value.

Well, it's a worthless system. It's a useless system, it's a rotten system. And you and I are gonna have to come up with our own system, our own thought, our own, fields of study, our own disciplines, our own way of understanding the world, our own paradigms, our own interpretation of reality based on our own sources of knowledge. And I mean you have to dismantle everything that they gave you, everything that they gave you for understanding the world. You need to remove that lens that they gave you to look through because it just distorts everything, you know.

Have you ever put on someone's glasses? Right? Someone's glasses that aren't your prescription. Prescription glasses that are not designed for your eyes, not designed for your vision. Well, you can't see in those glasses.

Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala gave you prescription lenses. He gave you exactly the prescription that you need. And if you try to wear any other lenses, it will only make your vision worse and you'll be walking around blind. Especially those western lenses, because in fact they didn't give you anything but blindfolds. That's what they gave you, they gave you a blindfold and quality glasses.

But once you take the blindfold off, you take off those blinders and you get your prescription lenses back on, then you can start to see the way things really are. So for instance, for me, with Middle Nation, with my content, I know it doesn't fit into any standard categories. You know, is it analysis? Is it commentary? Is it forecasting?

Is it critique? Is it political? Is it economic? Is it social? Is it left?

Is it right? You know, on and on. Let me just clarify something about that. The kind of analysis that I do, people generally describe it as, and I've even described it myself as, geopolitical analysis. But that's not quite accurate.

I've only said that because there isn't really a specific field, that has a name for what we do. I'm not fundamentally interested in geopolitics as it is traditionally defined. My work, the work of Middle Nation, is focused on the analysis of power dynamics, and then how those power dynamics play out or how they're likely to play out. You know, Allah said that he puts one people in check by means of another people. He said that there are people who are higher ranks than others, that some have what others do not have, and so on.

He said that struggles and battles are, go by turns. All of that has to do with power dynamics and understanding who checks whom in this world, or who predictably could check whom, it seems to be pretty basic information that you are gonna need to have if you wanna understand what goes on in this world. Geopolitics in the conventional sense tends to fixate on the relations between states, you know, borders, alliances, treaties, military positioning and so forth. Which is basically like looking at the stage and the actors on the stage, but not looking at the directors or the script writers. But the middle nation approach goes further than that.

We look at who actually has power, regardless of what kind of power that is. Now that includes state power, but also of course it includes private sector power, financial networks, media empires, asset managers, transnational corporate systems. These are not traditionally part of geopolitical analysis, but they're absolutely central to to to understanding the exercise of real world power. I mean, in my opinion, if you ever listen to an analyst, so called analyst, talking about politics, talking about geopolitics, and they never factor in corporate power, they never factor in private sector power, the drivers of economies, the real drivers of policy, well, that's an incredibly shallow, and ultimately misleading so called analysis. So whenever you evaluate a situation, you shouldn't be asking, for example, what is the United States government doing?

You should be asking, who is shaping the outcome? Who can impose costs? Who can alter behavior without being altered in return? Once you identify the who, then it's not that hard to understand the why. What the desired result is, and try to deduce, given what you know about the who, what are the chances that they're gonna be successful?

And then, what might be done about it? So this could be a country, it could also be a corporation, it could be a consortium, or an investor network. So you need a way of gauging real existing power, relative power of any given actor, of any given entity that has influence over policy, or that wields, you know, a significant degree of power in any given society. That's why at Middle Nation, we developed what we call the relative power index, RPI. The RPI is a model for roughly calculating functional leverage between power entities, or the the the general standing of any given actor in terms of power relative to others.

We built that because the existing metrics, you know, GDP, military size, alliance structures, so on, these are often misleading. They reflect the appearance of power, not its realistic functionality or its operation, you know, a country might be rich but dependent. A military might be large but strategically irrelevant. A government might be in office but not in control. So the RPI, is designed to identify real influence.

It includes factors like, decision making authority, can you impose binding outcomes, control of inputs, do others rely on you for what you control, narrative control, can you define reality for others, immunity to retaliation, in other words, you act without facing consequences, And your adaptability reserve, can you survive and pivot through disruption? And it also measures, negatives, the vulnerabilities like direct dependence, how directly dependent are you? What's your exposure to disruption? And what's the perceived vulnerability of your state or your power? And this model is not static, necessarily so.

It evolves because power is not frozen. It flows. And as the world shifts from the West to the South, from centralized empires to distributed blocks, the tools that we use to understand power, have to try to keep up with those new dynamics. And like I say, everything that they gave us to measure power, well, they designed it so that we would always mismeasure power. So that we would see power where there isn't power, and see weakness where there isn't weakness.

They never wanted us to understand the real dynamics of power, and the real dimensions of power. So that's why even the the system that we have for measuring power has to be flexible because something new might emerge that actually constitutes power that isn't in any existing metric, any existing system of measurement. You know, something that wasn't powerful twenty years ago, or didn't constitute power twenty years ago, may constitute power today. So again, like I say, we have to develop our own systems, our own method for identifying what power is, and what the relative power is in relation to others. We have to come up with our own formulas, we have to come up with our own system for measuring.

Because there's a big difference between, for example, looking powerful and being powerful. That's not the same thing. That's a distinction that the the Middle Nation Relative Power Index is designed to clarify. It sort of cuts through the propaganda, it cuts through the noise, through all the theatrics of foreign policy, all the theatrics of empire, And it answers one question, who has the power to shape outcomes without being shaped in return? That's real power.

Not, you know, your military parades, not your fake GDP figures that count debt and billionaires as domestically productive. Real power is about leverage, so the RPI that we have created is a formula for measuring functional dominance. For example, if we apply it to The United States, right now, The US still has some serious muscle left. We can't pretend otherwise. It still has power.

It can still impose decisions on other countries through the IMF, through NATO, through the World Bank, so on. It still controls key systems, you know, the financial infrastructure, tech platforms, their media empires, and to some extent trade routes to some extent. It can still shape reality through narrative, at least in the English language. That's declining. The facade is cracking.

Its immunity to retaliation is even slipping. Its adaptability is declining. All of their institutions are too calcified, their people are too divided, their infrastructure is too old. The dollar itself is no longer unchallenged. Even its soft power, America's soft power, its reputational authority is collapsing.

People see the hypocrisy now, they see the corruption now, they see the cruelty. Okay? So, internally, America is dependent on imports, on foreign investment, on immigrant labor, on dollar hegemony, it's fragile. Externally, its enemies and even its allies know how to disrupt it if they want to, cyber attacks, debt pressure, supply chain chaos, And crucially, no one in the world believes in America anymore. That's called perceived vulnerability.

And it's one of the biggest forces right now shaping geopolitics because the perception of America has always been a major factor in the decision making and policy making of other countries around the world. What you think America is, what they can do, what you think they will do always mattered before. It matters much less today than it ever did. So that's declining. The perceived vulnerability of America is significant and on the rise.

So if you add up the formula, our RPI formula, well America's score comes to around plus 12, which is still powerful but it's not invincible and it's shrinking. Unless The US radically changes their direction, its power is gonna fall below, functional dominance by 2050. That's why we need accurate tools. At Middle Nation, we don't operate on fantasy or emotion, we measure real leverage. Because if you don't know who truly holds power, then you're just reacting blind all the time.

You can't craft effective strategies. We're not interested in their stage performance, you know. We're interested in, as I say, the script that's written behind the scenes and who's directing that scene. That's why American power has to be scrutinized carefully, it has to be scrutinized closely to see how much of it they really have. Yes, The United States still has a relative power score according to our index of plus 12.

It's not insignificant, they still control many levers, but there's a deeper truth here. It's not using that power for itself, not really. America is a host, it's not sovereign. It's a platform, not a state with independent volition, it's an instrument. Their power is no longer nationalistic, it's been instrumentalized by the owners and controllers of global financialized capital.

What we refer to as everyone knows as the OCGFC. And the OCFG OCGFC are not patriots. They're not defending America. They're not interested in the welfare of American citizens, or even the longevity of the American state itself. Their allegiance is not to the flag, it's to capital mobility, it's to asset domination, and the architecture of global control.

Their loyalties are liquid. And what we're witnessing now in America is the systematic extraction of American power by the a national elites. The a national elites that got built up by their power in the first place, you know. They built American power via the military industrial complex and then they in turn were built up by that, but now they've surpassed it. The United States was built into a superpower precisely to serve as the enforcement arm of financialized capitalism, and that project is evolving.

The enforcers are now being restructured. The OCGFC no longer need a single hegemon. They want distributed control across cooperative nodes, public private partnerships, digital infrastructure, security agreements, asset management firms, and so on. So when we calculate that The US still has decision authority, control of inputs, narrative control, have to ask, but on behalf of whom? You know, the decisions made at the IMF are not made for Main Street.

The control over trade routes that they have and supply chains doesn't benefit American workers or American consumers. The narratives that they're pushing in Hollywood or Silicon Valley don't reflect national interest. They reflect global social engineering. The Pentagon is not defending the homeland, it's defending investment portfolios. What this means is that America's RPI is no longer America's.

The numbers are still there but the ownership is not. You understand, The United States has become the strong man for an empire that it does not control, and from which it no longer benefits really. Its power has been privatized. The state has been hollowed out. It's being used as a transnational tool to establish a new more flexible system of a national dominance centered around capital not countries.

So when you hear that America is still powerful, remember this, it's not The United States that's powerful, not anymore. It's what's operating through The United States, and that's why Middle Nation doesn't just analyze states, we analyze systems of control, systems of power, and increasingly the state is no longer the center of power, it's an instrument of power. I mean, does the United States government, govern The United States or does BlackRock, you know? We're trained to think of power in terms of presidents and congressmen, politicians and so on, maybe the Pentagon, but real power is the ability to shape outcomes without being shaped in return, like I said. That's what the relative power index, our RPI, that's what that measures, not symbolic authority, not popularity, just raw functional leverage.

And if we use this framework to assess, for example, BlackRock versus The United States, well, the results are deeply revealing and deeply disturbing, or they should be for Americans. I mean, with decision authority. BlackRock isn't a government agency, but it might as well be. I mean, it it manages over $10,000,000,000,000, 10,000,000,000,000 in global assets. That means that it has a say in nearly every major US corporation.

It advises the Federal Reserve. It has executives embedded in the treasury. When financial crises hit, Washington doesn't tell BlackRock what to do. BlackRock tells Washington what can be done. So their score is a seven, point five out of 10.

That's for decision making authority, BlackRock, over America. Then you can look at control of inputs. Well, BlackRock controls the flow of capital. It controls pension funds. It controls municipal bond financing.

It dictates the so called ESG compliance. That's not just control of money. That's control of, what's built, where it's built, and who's allowed to operate it. So that's an eight point zero out of 10. What about narrative control?

Well, BlackRock isn't making movies, they're not running TV stations, but it shapes financial orthodoxy. Through its research arms, through Bloomberg, through think tanks, it decides what counts as sound economics, good governance, you know, responsible investing, they decide that. And if you don't align with their narrative, well then you don't get any funding. So they get a score of six out of 10 on that. Then we can ask, can BlackRock be punished?

Are they immune to retaliation? The United States government can't regulate BlackRock without destabilizing its own economy. That's the genius of systemic entrenchment. If you try to pull out, you'll collapse the house. So, BlackRock's immunity from retaliation score is a seven out of 10.

And finally, how easily can BlackRock pivot, can restructure to survive outside The US? Well, completely. BlackRock is global. It's liquid. It's a national.

If Washington collapses tomorrow, BlackRock just relocates. It reintegrates and it keeps profiting. So they get a score of nine out of 10. Now there's some reliance, sure, it operates within US jurisdictions, it benefits from legal shelter, but that's just a three on the direct dependence scale, BlackRock's dependence on America, and their exposure to disruption is practically none. There's no serious movement within The United States capable of regulating or disrupting BlackRock.

So the score there is just a 2.5. And the perceived vulnerability of BlackRock? Well, no one sees BlackRock as weak or in decline. If anything, they're perceived as untouchable, so they get a score of two out of 10. The final score according to the RPI of middle nation formula, BlackRock's relative power over The United States is plus 30.

That's an extraordinary figure. Not only does it outclass the US government's ability to control BlackRock, it surpasses the dominance most empires had over their colonies back in the day. It means we need to stop mistaking governments for the highest authority. No. BlackRock is not elected.

It doesn't answer to voters, but it has more functional power over The United States Of America than Congress does. That's not conspiracy theory. That's not ideological rhetoric. That's a structural reality. And it exposes a much deeper truth that western democracy, so called, has been hollowed out from the inside.

What you see is not what governs, and what actually governs cannot be voted out, and mostly can't even be seen. BlackRock is not an anomaly, it's a prototype, you know. So the question is, who governs your country? And are you sure that it's your government, Americans? Because in America, the answer is no.

Your government doesn't govern you. BlackRock governs The United States, not metaphorically, not rhetorically, but functionally. BlackRock has more influence over the American state than the American state has over BlackRock. So what power does the US government have over BlackRock? Do they have any power over BlackRock?

Well, we ran that through our RPI system as well. Spoiler alert, they have very little power over BlackRock. And that reveals that the American government is no longer sovereign. Because really, can the American government tell BlackRock what to do? Well, technically, yes, but practically, no.

Functionally, no. You know, they could pass regulations, they could threaten antitrust action, but in reality, they don't and they won't. And if they tried, they'd pay the price. BlackRock has lawyers, they have lobbyists, they have leverage in every relevant agency. So relative to BlackRock, we gave The US a three out of 10 in decision authority over BlackRock.

That's the level of a weak junior partner in a business deal. If The US clamps down, BlackRock just pivots offshore, restructures its portfolios, and keeps operating globally. So that's a 2.5 out of 10 in terms of control over inputs. So what about narrative control? I mean, you'd think that the US government with its media and its institutions, its global, cultural dominance and so forth, that they could at least frame, the public perception of BlackRock, but no, they don't and they won't even try again.

Public discourse around BlackRock is marginal. Never see congressional hearings about it. You rarely even hear their name in mainstream public, political debates. And when you do, it's vague and sanitized. No one's gonna talk about BlackRock.

Not to mention all of the media corporations are actually owned by BlackRock. So the US government versus BlackRock in terms of narrative narrative control gets a 3.5. Now, we ask what happens if The US tries to confront BlackRock? Can they act without fear of blowback from BlackRock? Well, obviously, no.

Any serious confrontation by the US government against BlackRock would destabilize their pension systems, it would tank their markets, it would trigger capital flight. No. BlackRock is too entangled to attack. That's what you call mutual hostage governance, except the hostage in this case is the government. So there's a score of two point o in terms of, the ability to retaliate or the ability to control BlackRock.

You simply cannot. And can The US adapt, with regards to BlackRock? Could they replace BlackRock's role? Could they build alternatives, take back control? Well, not without enormous systemic pain.

The state has no institutional substitute for what BlackRock does, you know, management of retirement assets, stabilizing markets, advising the Fed, on and on. So that's a two point o on the US government's adaptability reserve, they're stuck. How dependent is The US on BlackRock? On capital, vary. On asset management, completely.

On market sentiment and investment flows, totally. So their their dependency America's dependency on BlackRock is a seven out of 10. How vulnerable is The US to disruption by BlackRock? Well, all BlackRock has to do is shift some capital. All they have to do is adjust some ESG compliance ratings or pull out of a market segment, and entire sectors of the economy could collapse.

So that's a 6.5 score. How is The US perceived compared to how BlackRock is perceived? Is America seen as strong and in control? Or is it seen as weakened, as captured, as subservient to forces that it can no longer discipline? Well, that's a score of seven point zero.

If you add it all up, The US relative power over BlackRock is negative 7.5, that's negative functional leverage. While BlackRock's relative power over The US is plus 30. It means that America doesn't govern its corporate elite, its corporate elite governs America. We need to be clear, this is not partnership, this is occupation. Okay.

It's not military occupation, but economic occupation. You have a non state actor that has greater decision making power than the state. It can outmaneuver, it can outlast, and it out leverages the government that's supposed to regulate it. No. BlackRock is not an American company, it's a post national institution.

It's a private sovereign. It's a private sovereign embedded in the global system. Oh, but it gets worse. It gets worse for America. America's current power is no longer its own.

As we said, it's been captured. It's been subordinated to the owners and controllers of global financialized capital. They still have power, but it's not their own. But even that status, as the strong man of the OCGFC, even that status is temporary because the role itself is being phased out. The United States is being decommissioned.

Understand? Not destroyed, not invaded, but strategically disassembled gradually and deliberately by the very elites who once empowered it because their system is evolving beyond the need, as I said, for a single hegemon. This isn't a theory. We can map it. We've done it.

Using the Middle Nation Relative Power Index, we've projected the trajectory of The United States all the way up to the year 2050, and the result is quite sobering where it should be for American citizens. I mean, now, America's RPI is plus 12, like I said. By 2050, it drops to negative seven. A negative RPI means that The United States will be more vulnerable than it is dominant. It means that it will be shaped more than it shapes others.

It will act less and be acted upon more. Okay. It will still have weapons, it will still have wealth, but it won't have control. Decision authority will be gone. Global governance is fragmenting.

BRICS plus, alternative institutions, regional pacts are rendering US power frameworks obsolete. The US is no longer gonna be able to dictate global rules. Could their their control of inputs will be weak. America will be dependent on supply chains that it does not control. Critical minerals that it does not possess, and foreign investors that they cannot, defy.

Their narrative control will be eroded. The world is no longer gonna listen to them. Their monopoly on truth, morality aspirations is broken completely by the year 2050. Multipolar epistemologies are rising even from now. America's voice already is just one among many.

It's not the most credible voice. It's not the most listened to voice, and their immunity to retaliation will be fragile in 2050. Cyber war, financial sanctions, strategic decoupling, no. America is no longer going to enjoy the luxury of being able to act without consequences, and their what we call their adaptability reserve was is gonna be almost exhausted by 2050. Political paralysis, social fragmentation, unsustainable debt, crumbling infrastructure, that would choke any effort at serious reform.

Not to mention there's no real desire for it. There's no will for it. Okay? So that's the dominance side of the equation of the RPI index. Now talk about dependency.

America's gonna be deeply dependent on foreign capital, on labor, on foreign manufacturing, on foreign resources, foreign controlled resources. And it's gonna be exposed to the threat of disruption on every front from within and from without. Their perceived vulnerability will be obvious. It will be global, and it will be persistent. So what does the negative seven RPI mean for The United States?

It means that America, by mid century, will no longer be the central power of the international system. It will not be feared, it will not be emulated, and it will not be trusted. It will be seen as unstable, volatile, overextended, and irrelevant to the decisions that are shaping the world's future. It's not necessarily something to celebrate or to gloat about, but it's something to understand because it changes the strategic landscape. It means the enforcement arm of financialized capital is failing.

The illusion of American led order is fading, and the real opportunity to build an alternative, equitable, sovereign, decolonized, that opportunity is now. Middle nation doesn't just observe these changes, we prepare for them. We're trying to build the tools, the doctrine, the consciousness, and the cohesion that's gonna be necessary to navigate what comes next. So now we've established that The United States, though still powerful on paper, is not using that power for itself, and by 2050, it won't even have that power anymore. The architecture of functional dominance that once underpinned the western led order is being hollowed out.

But here's the thing, power doesn't just vanish, it relocates. So where's it going? It's moving east and it's moving south. It's moving into the hands of a coalition that was once peripheral, fragmented, and marginalized. But today, they are consolidating, they're coordinating, and they're rising, and of course I'm talking about bricks.

Now, want you to understand this clearly. Bricks is not just a talking shop anymore. It's not just a slogan about multipolarity. It is becoming the functional center of the global power transition. We've measured it.

If we if we put Brix through the Middle Nation relative power index, our system for calculating real leverage in the world. We've evaluated BRICS and we've evaluated it as a block, and what we found is decisive. BRICS currently holds an RPI of plus 27. Okay? That's super dominant.

That's a super dominant rating, and it's not theoretical. That's operational. It's functional. You can identify what's really driving it. They have control of inputs.

That's first. The BRICS nations collectively control the raw material base of the future. You know, oil, gas, food, rare earths, population, ports, everything. If you want to manufacture, if you wanna grow, if you wanna move anything, you are increasingly dependent on BRICS countries. The second big driver, of why BRICS has a high score in the relative power index is what you could say is immunity and redundancy, you know.

The US used to rule the world by threatening isolation or by threatening sanctions, but BRICS, they're building alternatives. Alternative payment systems, trade routes, currencies, even their own ratings agencies, their own development banks. The ability of the West to punish BRICS countries is decaying. It's it's weakening, while the ability of BRICS countries to resist and to retaliate is growing. Third, their adaptability.

Most BRICS members are not what you call legacy powers. They're not locked into rigid ideological or institutional models. They're innovative. They can pivot. And most importantly, they can build because they still have young populations, so they can build.

They have unexploited potential, and they have a hunger to rise. And then, according to the, to the vector, or the the criteria of narrative control, well, they have legitimacy. Let's be honest, the world is tired of western hypocrisy. The world is tired of being lectured on democracy by war criminals. They're tired of being told to trust in a system that has stolen from them for centuries.

Brix doesn't pretend to be perfect. It doesn't claim moral supremacy. Brix just offers partnership instead of domination. That in and of itself is powerful. Harmony is powerful.

And finally, Brix has strategic cohesion. Yeah. Everyone knows Brix is diverse, but that diversity is no longer seen as weakness, it's becoming a strength functionally. Different civilizations, different systems, different strengths coordinated through trade, through diplomacy, and through mutual interest. Okay?

That's not a traditional empire. That's a decentralized network of sovereignty, collective sovereignty. So let me put it plainly, as The US RPI drops into negative territory, BRICS plus is ascending into historic dominance over the next twenty five years. The future of functional power will not be American. It will not be European.

It will not be Western. It will be multipolar, decentralized, and led by the global South. This isn't the end of world order. It's the end of their world order. And at Middle Nation, we're not trying to stand by the sidelines.

We're trying to prepare people, prepare people to lead in what comes next as civilizational actors with clarity, with direction, and with sovereignty. And what comes next is the end of American functional dominance. Okay. The empire is still standing, but the lights are off. And those who understand that now are gonna be the ones who shape what rises after that falls.

We've talked about the collapse of American power. We've seen that The US, The United States, by 2050 is no longer gonna be the axis of the international system. Not just because it declined, but because something else rose, relative power. Something decentralized rose, diverse, aligned with the reality of a post western world, BRICS, the collective sovereignty of the Muslim world, so on and so on. So now let's talk about, where they're heading.

By 2050, BRICS will hold an RPI of plus 38. Let me say that again, plus 38. It means that by mid century, will not simply be an alternative to western power. It will be the gravitational center of global power. This is not projection by fantasy.

This is based on measurable dynamics. Their decision authority by 2050, Brix is gonna be making the rules, not asking to be included, not submitting proposals. They're gonna be writing the frameworks of trade, the the the frameworks of conflict resolution for cross border digital systems, for economic development. They're gonna write the rules. The g seven won't be setting the global agenda anymore.

The world is gonna look to Johannesburg, to Riyadh, to Delhi, to Shanghai. In terms of control of inputs, well, obviously, it's total. Bricks will dominate the energy market, whether that's fossil fuels or renewable energy. It's gonna control the agricultural belts that feed the world, the rare earths, the shipping corridors, the industrial manufacturing, the ports. All of this is concentrated within the BRICS block.

If you wanna move, if you wanna build, if you wanna power anything in 2050, BRICS is gonna be at the center of that process. And in terms of narrative control, okay, the West monopoly is over. The West lost the microphone. By 2050, they lost the microphone. By 2050, you'll have media networks, you'll have academic institutions, you'll have AI systems within bricks that are shaping public consciousness.

They won't be parroting Western dogma either. They'll be articulating indigenous, Islamic, African, and Asian frameworks, and Latin American frameworks. And in terms of their immunity to retaliation, well, by then, Western sanctions will be irrelevant. System. They'll have their own payment networks, their own currencies, their own capital markets.

Well, they'll be sanctioned proof by 2050. No one is gonna be able to threaten them. No one's gonna be able to threaten bricks, not without serious cost. And their adaptability, obviously, they're young, fast moving, future oriented, they're gonna be flexible where the West is brittle. They're gonna be responsive where the West is paralyzed.

They're gonna be forward looking while the West is trying to relive its past. And here's the important part, they're not going to be dependent on the West. They won't depend on the West. Their supply chain's internal. Their markets internal.

Their technologies independent and internally created. Their ideology authentic. Their moral legitimacy rising. By 2050, Bricks won't be asking to join the table. They will be the table.

They won't seek validation from western powers, they will be the ones to provide validation or to withhold it. And obviously, this isn't gonna be some new unipolarity, it won't be imperialism under a new name, we're talking about collective sovereignty. It will be a civilizational block, a post colonial, post western consortium of power, where values are not dictated, by some decaying, out of touch, deceitful elite, and where their strength isn't going to be measured by missiles, but how many people want to stand with them, by how many people support them. So the West collapses inward and Brix expands outward. But what we're trying to do with Middle Nation is to prepare, like I say, to prepare our people to thrive, not by begging for inclusion, but by building where the future actually is.

This is the global realignment, and we're not just observers, we are participants. So okay, I talked about the the power of black rock, but how much power does bricks have over black rock or vice versa? The answer is bricks power is growing and it's real. I mean, let's be clear, obviously, Brick's doesn't regulate Black Rock, they don't license it, they don't police it, they can't do that in any meaningful way. But here's what Brick's does control.

The food that Black Rock invests in, the energy that BlackRock invests in and depends on, the minerals, the markets, the labor, the infrastructure that BlackRock needs in order to remain profitable. That's what we call control of inputs. And BRIC score is a 7.5 out of 10. That's a powerful position. Because you don't need to control the firm itself if you control what the firm needs to function.

You understand me? The global South's economic immunity is increasing. In the past, global South economies were like sitting ducks. You know, Western capital could enter and exit at will and cause chaos with no consequences for them. If you didn't play by the rules of the asset managers, you could get punished, but that's changing.

BRICS plus economies are building immunity to retaliation. They're creating alternatives to SWIFT, you know, they're trying to find ways to bypass the dollar. They're using sovereign development banks now instead of relying on Western financiers. So we gave Brix a score of 6.5 out of 10 for immunity to retaliation. It's not perfect, but they're not defenseless because they can walk away.

This is key. Brix doesn't need BlackRock. Understand me? The block is becoming increasingly self sufficient with internal trade, domestic investment flows, and their own regional capital structures. They're building the ability to walk away from Western capital, to disengage, to redirect and still grow.

So that's an adaptability reserve of eight point zero out of 10. That means that if Blackrock pulls out, they survive. But if Brix stops engaging with Blackrock, well, Blackrock suffers. So what's holding them back from doing that? Well, first they don't have decision authority over BlackRock.

There, their score is low. They can't pass laws that bind BlackRock. They don't control the global narrative the way that BlackRock does compared to BlackRock. Blackrock still dominates e c ESG discourse, for example. Best practices discourse.

So in terms of those types of things, we gave Brix a score of three point zero in terms of their decision authority, and in terms of their narrative control, because they don't really have it. But even without those, their material leverage is undeniable. BRICS has a lot of power. So the overall RPI result for BRICS versus relative to BlackRock, their score is plus 14 over BlackRock. Okay?

That's not global domination, but it is functional power, and it's growing, and it's sovereign, and it's resilient. And that tells us something critical. You don't have to defeat empire. You just have to make it irrelevant. You have to be able to walk away from it.

You don't need to overthrow black rock, you just need to build a system in which black rock doesn't matter anymore. Black rock has functional tools of discipline that it can pressure BRICS countries, you know. They can stigmatize your economy through through the media, through ESG ratings, through investment ratings and so forth. They can deny you investment. So we gave BlackRock a 5.5 in narrative control over BRICS.

They have more control they have that much control. And a six point zero in immunity to retaliation because let's face it, if you hit BlackRock, you might hurt yourself. But that's where the power stops. Let's be very clear. BlackRock cannot tell BRICS governments what to do.

It has no decision authority over our states. Our states are still predominantly reigning over the private sector, not the other way around, not like in the West. That's important. BlackRock is kinda like those vampires in the movie centers, where they have to be invited in. They can't impose themselves.

They can't just bust in. They have to be invited. So what Brix is doing right now is sort of breaking the illusion that Black Rock's participation is necessary. BRICS is building local capital ecosystems, like I said. They're building alternative ratings frameworks, state backed banks, currency swap agreements.

This is all important. Development institutions of their own, they don't care about ESG ratings. This means that BRICS is building their adaptability and their insulation. We scored them an eight point zero in terms of their adaptability reserve versus BlackRock. BlackRock still has influence, but its leverage is declining in value, you know.

Because if you can walk away from something, then you're not being ruled by that something. Black rock needs bricks more than bricks needs black rock. Black rock needs access to energy, rare earths, manufacturing, labor population, growing populations, and promised returns on capital that the West can no longer generate. So we scored BlackRock's direct dependence on BRICS as six point zero, because without profitable exposure to BRICS markets, well, BlackRock's portfolios will collapse into stagnation if they have to rely on the West, Western markets. And as BRICS becomes more assertive and potentially nationalizes key sectors, decouples from western financial rule books, or BlackRock's exposure to disruption goes up.