Thanks for the replies. First, Russia has been interacting with all the Arabs for decades and more recently as an intimate of OPEC+ where far more than energy policy's discussed. So, Russia and China knew very well what sort of people/nations were being brought into BRICS. And as myself and others have said, the Outlaw US Empire's policies have driven all these actors together. It's on that point that I almost demand people watch this amazing talk between Hudson and Wolff that Nima moderated yesterday, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXDz1PdMWao">"Richard D. Wolff & Michael Hudson: Middle East Exploding, Ukraine Crumbling! the US Take Action?"</a>: They pose all the questions not being talked about by Harris, Trump or anyone else in Empire LaLa Land. It's an hour and fifteen minutes of info you'll find absolutely nowhere else on the planet. And when you're finished watching and thinking about the incredibleness of what you just heard, watch the next to last, and so forth as the Hudson/Wolff/Nima series is unique.
Thank you Mr. Sanchez. Their personalities and "chemistry" in their interactions are fantastic. Their chuckles at the end even got an organic yet awkward laugh out of Nima at the end. Back when people could come together with different understandings and reasonings, sure used to be nice, even if they were still used-stooges. This old grumpy guy was sometimes on tv, after mass Sunday. He wore ultra intelligent glasses. they drank tea backstage undoubtedly sharing shortbread cookies or crumpets complementing each others' attire and recent articles I'm sure, and talks and brags of their recent international travels after dinner at the hotel bar. "BYE BYE" he'd close up with after spending perhaps the previous 90 seconds making certain no one else spoke nor breathed too loudly demeaning everyone else on the panel explaining exactly why every word he spoke was correct and other opinions were obviously wrong, factually inaccurate, would lead to destruction, etc, etc, . I was too young to know what his views were, I know I'd likely detract from my memory and lower his pedestal, I've never looked it up. BUT regardless of his views he was eager to not just state his view but be informed enough to debate about it, but to actively know enough about every side of a topic to be able to respond intellectually in order to negate or offer rebuttal. Or that's at least my memory of it as a 10 year old. Now that evil is no longer hidden, discussion and "debates" may well be held under a tent at a circus. In a manner it's all come full circle, after all there was just a book released The Nephilim Looked Like Clowns, getting quite a bit of net-publicity. It's just unconcealed evil now. No hiding their allegiances at all, let them appalachian's die we gotta support israel and ukraine, and hey don't mention we needed them exact spots exact towns in the Carolinas where the lithium deposits are local municipalities wouldn't allow exploration on.. just like lihuana that we torched. Blessings.
OK, I'm 57 minutes into the Hudson-Wolff interview.
As I expected, other than Hudson filling in some historical details, and Wolff filling in some concepts about the relations between the Zionists and the US, there wasn't nothing I didn't already know.
Worse, Hudson and Wolff are saying right now that the US "can't send troops to the Middle East", which is completely wrong. That the US can't defeat the Middle East doesn't mean the US isn't going to TRY. Why can't ANY human being hold such a thought in his head except me?
Hudson is now saying that the neocons don't care if the world is destroyed if they can't dominate it. In that, he's absolutely right.
So yes, the interview is great for people who don't already know this. I just referred the video to James, who doubts the crazies are fully in charge. But it wasn't of great value to me.
I'm going to shut it down now and go back to binge-watching "Nikita"...
One question: Do Hudson and Wolff (I've never viewed anything by him, but I have of Hudson) actually say anything that we didn't already know? I don't mean things from history or whatever, which, while very informative, are not immediately relevant to the military events going on.
I get useful background from people like Crooke and Escobar because they talk about what's going on *right now* in the corridors of power. Economic and social history tends to be less immediately useful, however good it is at getting the Big Picture of historical trends.
The other guys on Judge Nap tend to be focused on what happened yesterday because that's Judge Nap's focus. Which is why he tends to ask useless questions of them. And once you've seen one interview of the week, you're up to speed and really don't need to listen to the other interviews, with some variances from Blumenthal and Mate and of course, Crooke.
Occasionally Doctorow - with whom I don't always agree, but he's usually got a decent take. His recent claim that the US is running Israel, not the other way around got Larry Johnson and everyone else upset. As I pointed out in various places, he's not wrong, just incomplete. The PTB in the US are using Israel, and Bibi is using the PTB (not all of whom are Zionists.) People fall into this either-or trap as if humans can't see two sides of a story at one time.
Wilkerson is blunt, which makes him better than some of them at speaking plainly, usually leaving Judge Nap befuddled. Macgregor is pretty much tapped out for new information and takes, and then he goes off on the pointless border war.. I've lost interest in most of what McGovern has to say. He tends to ramble and recount Vietnam war history as if it matters today.
Basically I get my useful news and takes from Crooke and Escobar on the (current) Big Picture, and the current military conflict from The Electronic Intifada's Jon Elmer. Everyone else is mostly redundant. I do listen to the Grayzone live stream, but even that mostly just recaps what I've already seen during the week.
I'll download the talk from the link provided and when I get time I'll check it out. But I'm not holding my breath that I'll be astounded at what I hear.
We live in truly interesting times. I firmly believe that we who live in Mordor can only escape the planned fascist-feudalist dystopia if the BRICS and their partners succeed in their efforts to achieve independence and sovereignty. UNO, WEF, WHO, World Bank, IMF and all the tools of the super-rich dynasties of the past centuries who see themselves as god-like.
We see the attempts being made to gather together like-minded nations to construct the UN's replacement based upon much of what the UN Charter contains. The Outlaw US Empire's behavior is driving that activity, the fundamental notion having been around since the 1950s Bandung Conference. The West has no more ideological scare threats to use as propaganda to whip up anti-BRICS sentiment as it did in the past--the Global Hegemony the world's nations need to prevent is its own, led by the Outlaw US Empire. After listening to Hudson and Wolff, the fact that the SCO made its #1 security focus anti-terrorism ought to show just how prescient its founders were/are.
I had posted the following about this at Larry Johnson. The topic is the further development in West Asia. But everything is interconnected. I always point that out.
------
"I always formulate questions. Questions are helpful when facts and disinformation form a fog that is difficult to see through.
What can Israel and the USA gain by defeating and then controlling Iran?
Bringing the Arab-Persian part of Eurasia and Turkey back under its dictates? To prevent the Chinese "One Belt" and the Russian North-South corridor to India? To be able to blackmail / threaten India and detach it from the BRICS? To achieve a strategically important position in Russia's southern underbelly, the Caucasus? To completely control the Persian Gulf and the eastern Mediterranean without consequences for itself? Control the energy transfers? To liquidate Yemen and regain control of the Suez transportation corridor? Etc.
What happens if the USA is not successful in its goal of defeating Iran?
The end of political and military control over Asia? The emergence of a huge economic area that encompasses Eurasia, Africa and South America as far as Mexico and is not dominated by the USA? The end of the US dollar and the fiat money system? The accelerating economic, technological and social backwardness of the USA? The need to move away from the policy of hegemony towards multipolarity in order to be able to participate in international trade and acquire important raw materials and export goods? This would complete the end of the rule of US big business / oligarchy over the world economy. An economic and social catastrophe in the USA? Many social and cultural factors and the decaying infrastructure bear witness to the decline of this society. The collapse of the military-industrial complex? Etc.
Now the question is, do powerful groups in the USA want war? I'm not talking about politicians here. Politicians are employees.
Can a war against Iran, which has the support of the BRICS, the Arab populations and the majority of the so-called "Global South", be won by the USA / Israel?"
------
But I do not agree that our considerations should only be determined by the current and immediate. For me, a multipolar world alone is not the solution to the core problem of human civilization. This is where I disagree with Putin. He said that anyone who has visions should see a doctor. For me, Putin is the most respectable and greatest statesman in at least 200 years. And I don't believe that he has no visions. He's just not allowed to say that in his position. In response to another commentator, I wrote the following. I am also copying it here. That saves me having to formulate everything again.
-------
"I basically agree with that. But I avoid mixing certain things together. That also includes certain "wording". "The Europeans". The EU is not one with Europe and the European citizens. Regardless of people's respective world views, which are ultimately based on indoctrination and media manipulation. The EU is a totalitarian instrument of oligarchic ambitions. Not just the US oligarchy.
The "Americans." Latin American people are also "Americans". Not only the citizens of the USA. The us American people are made up of normal people. Most of them also just have the universal desires and aspirations, like people all over the world. Neither is "Germany" the same as its citizens. The two are not identical.
But yes, since time immemorial, the European populations and later the USA, in their own perception, have implemented an alleged civilizational elevation over the members of other nations. Completely wrongly.
Societies outside Europe have never been shining examples of humanism and human interaction. Russia's and China's contemporary "rulers" now seem to have an interest in improving the living conditions of their citizens, their peoples. At least certain facts point to this. I therefore hope that there are now elites there who want to solve the most important problem. The problem of rich and poor and wealth through exploitation and oppression.
To this day, the human species or civilization has not evolved for thousands of years. The only thing that has evolved is technology."
There's some useful information in that short tract besides the conversation between King Saud and FDR. I suppose the author had to wait a number of years to clear the censor's hurdle
Talking as a 'Westerner'. It was an interesting read and an insight into those times as well as the cultural differences that separate us even now. It's becoming apparent to me that western rationality is not an appropriate perspective to fully understand Islamic fatalism and the optimism it seems capable of instilling in adherants. Juliania at MoA is the only Christian and 'Westerner' I can recall as one of us who comes even close.
Cultural Anthropology in college further opened my eyes to the fact that there are many POVs that differ from the West that are just as valid and far more equitable.
It seems that Mr Crooke agrees with our general sentiments:
"Having no real culture of its own, the western professional class views religion as outdated and sees history as dangerous since it contains components that can be misused by ‘extremists’. It prefers therefore not to know history."
[Al-Aqsa Flood--One Year Later Karl Sanchez Oct 08, 2024]
The delusion that the western 'professional class' appears to be under is their belief that they are big fish in a vast and extensive body of water. The reality is increasingly becoming clear that a cultural and intellectual drought has reduced their environment to a rapidly evaporating pond, which is another challenge to their sense of self-importance.
PS I did like your reference to, "the Great Banking Fraud of 2008-9" in the same article. Didn't comment there as this comment relates more to this article and the excellent source you provided therein. Cheers.
There's an interview today I'll be posting dealing with Russia's assessment of NATO's objectives with Ukraine from the MFA's perspective, not Defense. Then we have the CIS Heads of State Summit in one of the more brilliant and stimulating kremlin Palaces where Putin looks like he had an excellent birthday. The transcripts aren't quite ready yet, but they'll get published. What is available is the sideline meeting with Armenia's Pashinyan, which was very positive. NATO's massively degraded military capabilities hogtie its diplomatic possibilities and essentially render all null. Simplicius today tries to sell his readers that Lavrov has just told the West what Russia's conditions are, but those conditions are old having been outlined by Putin weeks ago and reiterated by Lavrov; so, the Newsweek interview doesn't really reveal anything new other than Lavrov's confidence.
I like your drying pond depiction as it's much better than an aquarium.
Well done, thank you.
This discussion between Larry Johnson and Pepe Escobar is good:
Iran Strikes Back At Israel: What Comes Next? | Pepe Escobar Interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuWj1hyuk84
My comment from MoA @ 3:30pm Pacific:
Thanks for the replies. First, Russia has been interacting with all the Arabs for decades and more recently as an intimate of OPEC+ where far more than energy policy's discussed. So, Russia and China knew very well what sort of people/nations were being brought into BRICS. And as myself and others have said, the Outlaw US Empire's policies have driven all these actors together. It's on that point that I almost demand people watch this amazing talk between Hudson and Wolff that Nima moderated yesterday, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXDz1PdMWao">"Richard D. Wolff & Michael Hudson: Middle East Exploding, Ukraine Crumbling! the US Take Action?"</a>: They pose all the questions not being talked about by Harris, Trump or anyone else in Empire LaLa Land. It's an hour and fifteen minutes of info you'll find absolutely nowhere else on the planet. And when you're finished watching and thinking about the incredibleness of what you just heard, watch the next to last, and so forth as the Hudson/Wolff/Nima series is unique.
Thank you Mr. Sanchez. Their personalities and "chemistry" in their interactions are fantastic. Their chuckles at the end even got an organic yet awkward laugh out of Nima at the end. Back when people could come together with different understandings and reasonings, sure used to be nice, even if they were still used-stooges. This old grumpy guy was sometimes on tv, after mass Sunday. He wore ultra intelligent glasses. they drank tea backstage undoubtedly sharing shortbread cookies or crumpets complementing each others' attire and recent articles I'm sure, and talks and brags of their recent international travels after dinner at the hotel bar. "BYE BYE" he'd close up with after spending perhaps the previous 90 seconds making certain no one else spoke nor breathed too loudly demeaning everyone else on the panel explaining exactly why every word he spoke was correct and other opinions were obviously wrong, factually inaccurate, would lead to destruction, etc, etc, . I was too young to know what his views were, I know I'd likely detract from my memory and lower his pedestal, I've never looked it up. BUT regardless of his views he was eager to not just state his view but be informed enough to debate about it, but to actively know enough about every side of a topic to be able to respond intellectually in order to negate or offer rebuttal. Or that's at least my memory of it as a 10 year old. Now that evil is no longer hidden, discussion and "debates" may well be held under a tent at a circus. In a manner it's all come full circle, after all there was just a book released The Nephilim Looked Like Clowns, getting quite a bit of net-publicity. It's just unconcealed evil now. No hiding their allegiances at all, let them appalachian's die we gotta support israel and ukraine, and hey don't mention we needed them exact spots exact towns in the Carolinas where the lithium deposits are local municipalities wouldn't allow exploration on.. just like lihuana that we torched. Blessings.
Very old adage: Know your opponent better than you know yourself..
OK, I'm 57 minutes into the Hudson-Wolff interview.
As I expected, other than Hudson filling in some historical details, and Wolff filling in some concepts about the relations between the Zionists and the US, there wasn't nothing I didn't already know.
Worse, Hudson and Wolff are saying right now that the US "can't send troops to the Middle East", which is completely wrong. That the US can't defeat the Middle East doesn't mean the US isn't going to TRY. Why can't ANY human being hold such a thought in his head except me?
Hudson is now saying that the neocons don't care if the world is destroyed if they can't dominate it. In that, he's absolutely right.
So yes, the interview is great for people who don't already know this. I just referred the video to James, who doubts the crazies are fully in charge. But it wasn't of great value to me.
I'm going to shut it down now and go back to binge-watching "Nikita"...
One question: Do Hudson and Wolff (I've never viewed anything by him, but I have of Hudson) actually say anything that we didn't already know? I don't mean things from history or whatever, which, while very informative, are not immediately relevant to the military events going on.
I get useful background from people like Crooke and Escobar because they talk about what's going on *right now* in the corridors of power. Economic and social history tends to be less immediately useful, however good it is at getting the Big Picture of historical trends.
The other guys on Judge Nap tend to be focused on what happened yesterday because that's Judge Nap's focus. Which is why he tends to ask useless questions of them. And once you've seen one interview of the week, you're up to speed and really don't need to listen to the other interviews, with some variances from Blumenthal and Mate and of course, Crooke.
Occasionally Doctorow - with whom I don't always agree, but he's usually got a decent take. His recent claim that the US is running Israel, not the other way around got Larry Johnson and everyone else upset. As I pointed out in various places, he's not wrong, just incomplete. The PTB in the US are using Israel, and Bibi is using the PTB (not all of whom are Zionists.) People fall into this either-or trap as if humans can't see two sides of a story at one time.
Wilkerson is blunt, which makes him better than some of them at speaking plainly, usually leaving Judge Nap befuddled. Macgregor is pretty much tapped out for new information and takes, and then he goes off on the pointless border war.. I've lost interest in most of what McGovern has to say. He tends to ramble and recount Vietnam war history as if it matters today.
Basically I get my useful news and takes from Crooke and Escobar on the (current) Big Picture, and the current military conflict from The Electronic Intifada's Jon Elmer. Everyone else is mostly redundant. I do listen to the Grayzone live stream, but even that mostly just recaps what I've already seen during the week.
I'll download the talk from the link provided and when I get time I'll check it out. But I'm not holding my breath that I'll be astounded at what I hear.
We live in truly interesting times. I firmly believe that we who live in Mordor can only escape the planned fascist-feudalist dystopia if the BRICS and their partners succeed in their efforts to achieve independence and sovereignty. UNO, WEF, WHO, World Bank, IMF and all the tools of the super-rich dynasties of the past centuries who see themselves as god-like.
We see the attempts being made to gather together like-minded nations to construct the UN's replacement based upon much of what the UN Charter contains. The Outlaw US Empire's behavior is driving that activity, the fundamental notion having been around since the 1950s Bandung Conference. The West has no more ideological scare threats to use as propaganda to whip up anti-BRICS sentiment as it did in the past--the Global Hegemony the world's nations need to prevent is its own, led by the Outlaw US Empire. After listening to Hudson and Wolff, the fact that the SCO made its #1 security focus anti-terrorism ought to show just how prescient its founders were/are.
I had posted the following about this at Larry Johnson. The topic is the further development in West Asia. But everything is interconnected. I always point that out.
------
"I always formulate questions. Questions are helpful when facts and disinformation form a fog that is difficult to see through.
What can Israel and the USA gain by defeating and then controlling Iran?
Bringing the Arab-Persian part of Eurasia and Turkey back under its dictates? To prevent the Chinese "One Belt" and the Russian North-South corridor to India? To be able to blackmail / threaten India and detach it from the BRICS? To achieve a strategically important position in Russia's southern underbelly, the Caucasus? To completely control the Persian Gulf and the eastern Mediterranean without consequences for itself? Control the energy transfers? To liquidate Yemen and regain control of the Suez transportation corridor? Etc.
What happens if the USA is not successful in its goal of defeating Iran?
The end of political and military control over Asia? The emergence of a huge economic area that encompasses Eurasia, Africa and South America as far as Mexico and is not dominated by the USA? The end of the US dollar and the fiat money system? The accelerating economic, technological and social backwardness of the USA? The need to move away from the policy of hegemony towards multipolarity in order to be able to participate in international trade and acquire important raw materials and export goods? This would complete the end of the rule of US big business / oligarchy over the world economy. An economic and social catastrophe in the USA? Many social and cultural factors and the decaying infrastructure bear witness to the decline of this society. The collapse of the military-industrial complex? Etc.
Now the question is, do powerful groups in the USA want war? I'm not talking about politicians here. Politicians are employees.
Can a war against Iran, which has the support of the BRICS, the Arab populations and the majority of the so-called "Global South", be won by the USA / Israel?"
------
But I do not agree that our considerations should only be determined by the current and immediate. For me, a multipolar world alone is not the solution to the core problem of human civilization. This is where I disagree with Putin. He said that anyone who has visions should see a doctor. For me, Putin is the most respectable and greatest statesman in at least 200 years. And I don't believe that he has no visions. He's just not allowed to say that in his position. In response to another commentator, I wrote the following. I am also copying it here. That saves me having to formulate everything again.
-------
"I basically agree with that. But I avoid mixing certain things together. That also includes certain "wording". "The Europeans". The EU is not one with Europe and the European citizens. Regardless of people's respective world views, which are ultimately based on indoctrination and media manipulation. The EU is a totalitarian instrument of oligarchic ambitions. Not just the US oligarchy.
The "Americans." Latin American people are also "Americans". Not only the citizens of the USA. The us American people are made up of normal people. Most of them also just have the universal desires and aspirations, like people all over the world. Neither is "Germany" the same as its citizens. The two are not identical.
But yes, since time immemorial, the European populations and later the USA, in their own perception, have implemented an alleged civilizational elevation over the members of other nations. Completely wrongly.
Societies outside Europe have never been shining examples of humanism and human interaction. Russia's and China's contemporary "rulers" now seem to have an interest in improving the living conditions of their citizens, their peoples. At least certain facts point to this. I therefore hope that there are now elites there who want to solve the most important problem. The problem of rich and poor and wealth through exploitation and oppression.
To this day, the human species or civilization has not evolved for thousands of years. The only thing that has evolved is technology."
------
thanks karl..
Thanks for the King Saud/FDR link. Well worth downloading. Cheers.
There's some useful information in that short tract besides the conversation between King Saud and FDR. I suppose the author had to wait a number of years to clear the censor's hurdle
Talking as a 'Westerner'. It was an interesting read and an insight into those times as well as the cultural differences that separate us even now. It's becoming apparent to me that western rationality is not an appropriate perspective to fully understand Islamic fatalism and the optimism it seems capable of instilling in adherants. Juliania at MoA is the only Christian and 'Westerner' I can recall as one of us who comes even close.
Cultural Anthropology in college further opened my eyes to the fact that there are many POVs that differ from the West that are just as valid and far more equitable.
It seems that Mr Crooke agrees with our general sentiments:
"Having no real culture of its own, the western professional class views religion as outdated and sees history as dangerous since it contains components that can be misused by ‘extremists’. It prefers therefore not to know history."
[Al-Aqsa Flood--One Year Later Karl Sanchez Oct 08, 2024]
The delusion that the western 'professional class' appears to be under is their belief that they are big fish in a vast and extensive body of water. The reality is increasingly becoming clear that a cultural and intellectual drought has reduced their environment to a rapidly evaporating pond, which is another challenge to their sense of self-importance.
PS I did like your reference to, "the Great Banking Fraud of 2008-9" in the same article. Didn't comment there as this comment relates more to this article and the excellent source you provided therein. Cheers.
There's an interview today I'll be posting dealing with Russia's assessment of NATO's objectives with Ukraine from the MFA's perspective, not Defense. Then we have the CIS Heads of State Summit in one of the more brilliant and stimulating kremlin Palaces where Putin looks like he had an excellent birthday. The transcripts aren't quite ready yet, but they'll get published. What is available is the sideline meeting with Armenia's Pashinyan, which was very positive. NATO's massively degraded military capabilities hogtie its diplomatic possibilities and essentially render all null. Simplicius today tries to sell his readers that Lavrov has just told the West what Russia's conditions are, but those conditions are old having been outlined by Putin weeks ago and reiterated by Lavrov; so, the Newsweek interview doesn't really reveal anything new other than Lavrov's confidence.
I like your drying pond depiction as it's much better than an aquarium.