Middle Nation Content Talks | American Isolation

Assalamu alaikum, everybody. Thank you for joining us for this week's, Middle Nation content talks. This is our third, episode since we started, and, I think we're gonna learn a lot from what brother brother Shafia has to say. So, brother Shafir is going to speak about the video called ceasefire now or else, which is on the Middle Nation YouTube channel. He's going to speak about the topic for up to twenty minutes.

He's allocated about twenty minutes to present his insights and his thoughts on this intriguing topic. So, brother Shakria, welcome. The floor is yours.

In the name of Allah, the most gracious, the most merciful. I would like to thank sister Nisu for helping me present this discussion today. Last week, mister Bolton had received the slogans, free Palestine and cease fire now, suggesting that or else in the end signifying that there will be consequences and provided extensive reasoning. The West will face consequence for the actions. It's not a matter of if, more a matter of when and how.

For when The USA is ousted from the UN or a lasting impactful reform are reality, I'd like to present some other ideas. As customers in Muslim countries, we can actively incentivize our organizations to work with Muslim companies to build Muslim private sector power instead of their American counterparts. As we've seen with the boycott Starbucks movement, we can apply the same core principle in different areas. You know? For example, let's for some countries, they can demand their governments to cooperate with Muslim nations inside of The USA.

Like, the biggest American export is weaponry. If countries who rely on their arms for the on The USA were to make another other nations, you know, take their arms from other nations, it would be a massive blow to the American economy. Moreover, BRICS BRICS nations can play a massive role in this. BRICS members can severely undermine the American economy with a collective economic siege. We know The USA heavily depends on the natural resources held held by the global south.

If countries were to act like the Israeli protest is a gruffer and not let any capital nor resource enter American shores, they will feel the burn. The GCC and Russia hold most of the oil and gas, thus controlling the global fuel prices. India and China are the the two largest populations. So USA naturally depends on them for for high skilled workers. If these countries were to suddenly not cooperate with The USA or issue a state level or big business level boycott, it will worsen the fallout after The US expulsion from the UN.

It is also to note that USA will no longer be a notable player in the security of Africa. Russia's Wagner Group, with the assistance of fellow BRICS countries, Saudi Arabia, have already been very successful in replacing France and The US in majority of the security concerns in the Sahel region. The Arab League has normalized relations with Syria last year. With this continued trend of establishing regional stability, America's stooge Israel will have no choice but to step away from Zionism and make concessions for Palestine. The USA will be left out on all major deals and agreements that have an impact on the global stage.

The China brokered Saudi Iran deal, the rapprochement between Turkey and Egypt, Russia becoming the new security guy in Africa, these are all but a hint to what's come. The Saudi Emirati soft empire in Africa and The Middle East will root out any American authority within the region. We've seen how the ICJ ruling has affected Israel. They're being denied support from all around them. Even their European allies are terrified of doing business with them as as a result of the genocide ruling.

The West has painted the Russian president as a war criminal after the start of the war in Ukraine. Let's say if America were to be sued and found guilty in supporting Israeli genocide, they can very well be subjected to the same scrutiny they like to champion against everyone they've opposed. In conclusion, I would like to say, besides the consumer boycotting and UN expulsion, I think this level of boycotting from the state and the private sector levels will do well in setting up appropriate consequences for The United States. The USA would be isolated, boycotted, subjugated with the same way they did to the world. We demanded free Palestine.

We demanded ceasefire now or else things like this await them. Thank you for hearing, everyone.

Thank you for for all. I do have a question for you, a follow-up question on what you've just spoken about. Thank you for your thought provoking contribution. Contribution. With regards to the Brits plus nations playing a role, can you elaborate on what kind of specific actions these countries could collectively take to achieve an economic siege against The United States?

Thank you for the question, sister. You see, the BRICS nations all have their specialties. They can act like a collective, but all have different parts to play. It's like it's like the Hydra attacking, but this time, there's no overcoming it. If you were to take, for example, the American education industry, the international students contribute over $40,000,000,000 to the American economy.

More than half of these students come from just China and India, both BRICS nations. If these two countries were to halt their people from going to America, kind of similar to how India was feuding with Canada a few months ago, it can make The US lose about $20,000,000,000 a year. The UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Russia, all three which are BRICS nations, can cooperate and make global oil prices hell for America. We've seen what oil prices can make The US act like. While we don't need the exact same outcome as like the great late king king Faisal did, May Allah have mercy on him.

The goal is to make disrupt the American hegemony, as I like to say. As South as for South Africa, they can do what they did best, and they sued Israel, brought their injustices before a court. Since they sued Israel, it's not a distant reality that America can shake share this fate. Meanwhile, Iran continues to be a headache for The USA. So they can keep they can undermine American efforts in their own way.

And just to and just some just recently, we've seen the Brazil's part where they totally circumvented the American dollar to the China Brazil currency swap. I may have missed some countries, but it's quite clear to say that each country can target America in their own way one by one in synchronization and thus achieving a collect collective economic siege against The USA.

Thank you for that. And the last follow-up question that I have for you is, while boycotting The United States is a strong statement, wouldn't there be repercussions for the countries that are boycotting The United States as well? What do you think these strategies could what that might achieve with these disruptions?

The USA is like a dying empire. They do not have the same reach as they did during the Cold War. It is just to note that boycotting is not as simple as ditching US products and services and calling a day. If done wrong, indeed, it can have a great risk of damaging one's own economy. If overt boycott is not an option, then it can very well be more covert.

You know? It means to first build up one's own industries and becoming self reliant while also increasing cooperation with the BRICS nations. Take Turkey for an example. They've been purchasing Russian made weapons even as a NATO member state. Most global South countries do not depend on The USA.

They rely on China and Russia for their armament. And this trend is only going to get more common as America loses ground. I have to say that The USA has disrupted world peace time and time again. It's so it's not unfair to assume when their reckoning comes, it will cause great disruption. The disruption is key for us to weaken the Zionist state Israel and attain victory for Palestine.

However, I'm sure there are better ways to do this. I will leave that to brother Shahid or someone else from the meeting.

Thank you for that, brother Shafir. If anybody else has anything to contribute, now is your time. The floor is yours, please. Brother Shreed, if you have something that you'd like to add, we'd love to hear from you.

Well, I think I think it's it's certainly an interesting idea, an interesting proposal, and justified, no question. I think that how you would approach something like that is, you know, where it becomes more complicated and where you would have to take try to try to look strategically as possible at, for example, what are the major I mean, you have there's two sides of it. Right? There is boycotting American goods and services, what what America exports. And then there is boycotting or sort of the embargo of what they import.

So countries that are importing to The United States withhold those imports or deny those imports to The United States. I think that there you would have to look at specific sectors. I mean, you you mentioned that that weapons is the major export of The United States, which isn't exactly accurate. It's a major export, but it's not it's not the the the most important or the most lucrative export. I think at this moment, it's oil and gas.

And that's mostly going to Europe. Their imports, they let's say, what do they what do they import? They import a lot of raw minerals. They import pharmaceuticals. I mean, to look at to to look at you would have to look at what what what are they what are they importing and what are they exporting to the global South?

Because already in in a lot of the countries in the global South, their main the main country that they're importing from already is China. That's not to say that they're, you know, that that a boycott of American products would be useless. But America doesn't produce that much, to be honest, you know. They've they've they've largely lost their manufacturing base as it is. And you would have to look at what are the actual products that our countries are importing from them and what those sectors are.

And then you would have to look at potential replacements for those sectors. Or if if if replacements already exist domestically in those countries and have maybe been undermined by trade agreements, that require them to import from The United States. And then as I said, the other I think, another key thing would be exporting to The United States could be embargoed. And now I think that to a certain extent, just as you were talking about, brother, the the the shift is already underway. The transition is is already underway, And the process of what they're calling deglobalization is underway.

Where The United States is already moving towards a a to a certain degree, they're moving in a direction of self isolation economically, of disengagement economically from the world as a nation. And that doesn't mean necessarily the owners and controllers of global financialized capital who are based in The United States are are thinking about withdrawing from the rest of the world. I think that they're thinking about withdrawing from The United States to a certain extent, depending on what industry we're talking about. Right now, I feel like, as I've talked about many times, The United States is focusing on the destabilization of Europe and increasing the dependence of Europe on America, specifically for oil and gas, energy and so on. So I mean, it's the the idea let's see.

Because what what what they seem to be wanting to do is to is to sort of impose, like I said, a sort of degree of self isolation and disengage America from the global economy. They they again, I'll I'll specify. I'm talking about the actual national economy, specific businesses or or the or CGFC, but America as an economy is sort of in the in in the moving in the direction of self isolation and protectionism. And I think that to a certain extent that that has to do with the simply the rise of of of China, the rise of the global South, and demographics has a lot to do with it as I talked about many times. And I think that they see that their main how can I say this?

I I don't wanna say sphere of influence really, but this sphere of exploitation is going to be in the Western Hemisphere, in the Northern Hemisphere. And they're going to be focusing on on their their former allies in the in the in Europe. It would subjugate and exploit them and subordinate them. And so so to a certain extent, what you're talking about, I think, like, in order for it to be an or else, it would just be an an acceleration of what's already happening, which I think is a good strategy because I think that as as I I I did a video about the about article six, I believe, and and how this is this is a strategy that is moving along an already existing momentum. So I think that to accelerate the isolation of The United States, maybe not according to their timeline, It would be something that would be effective and it would be something that would not necessarily be challenged or or fought because it is already sort of moving in that trajectory as it is.

It's already moving with with a momentum in that direction. So I think it's something that we could we could certainly think about trying to pursue and and figuring out. As I said, if we were going to try to pursue something like that or try to promote something like that, then we have to then we have to get detailed. We have to start getting detailed and look at sectors and look at, you know, analyze the imports and exports of The United States and of our of the most important countries that are exporting to The United States or that are importing from The United States. And then look at how they can bolster their own their own resources to accommodate for whatever losses they might incur by by boycotting and embargoing The United States.

I suggested this economic siege as a response. We already know that they're being isolated. It's they've partly done this to themselves. But you see, their continued hampering of world peace, their insistent support for the Zionist murder state Israel. And this has already destroyed any amount of risk global respect on a global stage they might have had.

So I think we can say that, you know, they did not stop the genocide in Palestine. So this is what all these global South countries are collectively doing as a response. You know, it they will be USA will be isolated, but this allows us to accelerate that rate with this specific notion in mind. You know?

Right. Right. Yeah. That's yeah. That's that's that's that's what I understood.

The the other thing that I was gonna mention, think, if if I think that I'm remembering correctly what I wanted to say was with regards to what what you said in terms of The United States themselves being charged with complicity and genocide. And I think that that is something that they very much fear and anticipate if things keep moving the way they're moving. Because in fact, the South African what is she? The prime minister, Pandora, she had a statement. Yeah.

I believe it was yesterday. A well, earlier in the week at a panel discussion. Was saying that this this is this is anticipated. This is expected. That if if they get a guilty verdict at the ICJ for Israel, then the next logical sort of cascading consequences of that will be anyone and everyone who has enabled Israel to carry out the genocide will be held complicit and will be charged with the city and genocide.

And obviously, the first one on that list is gonna be The United States And the the the first specific enablers of that will be not only politicians, but Raytheon, you know, Boeing, all of the all of the companies that are supplying Israel with the weapons. And I saw I saw something where Ro Khanna, the congressperson, the the Muslim Rohingya congressperson, I think he's in California, was questioning Lloyd Austin about the delivery of weapons to Israel and that the that the UN had said that that the delivery of weapons to Israel puts at risk anyone who's doing that with puts them at risk of charges of complicity in genocide and complicity of war crimes because there is obviously substantial evidence that war crimes are being committed even if they're even if they decide that it's just shy of genocide. They are crimes against humanity and it is against international law to provide war criminals with weapons. And America is doing it nonstop. So there is every reason to believe that DACA will at some point be charged with complicity and genocide.

And I think that that's that's something that they're very cognizant of. I think that that's something that weapons companies are very cognizant of.

Just a couple of that. Is there anybody else that we can call on that would like to contribute? Do we have sister Wahida present? Sister Wahida, can we please call on you?

Well, assalamu alaikum, everyone. I, of course, support Usted's position on this. And, frankly, as old as I am and what I've, witnessed, I really have not seen anything move as fast as, actually the economic consequences with regard to Starbucks and the boycotting that has taken place there. And I'm thrilled. I'm I'm surprised, though.

I must admit because I I just haven't seen anything take off like this momentum wise and really gain traction in a particular part of the world so that it's really changing. It's really altering, some of the economic decisions that people are making. So, that's really all I have to say. I'm very hopeful, but, the speed with which, some of these positive occurrences are happening just further strengthens my belief that brother Shahid provides some of the leadership that the Muslim ummah needs in at this day and time and that it is Allah who is blessing his campaigns with so much success because they're they're really based in following and in doing things the way that we should do them. That's all.

Brothers and sisters. I was going to ask something. There's an came here about six months ago in Turkey from Australia, talking about how it is important for the West to be connected to trade and in international relationships to other parts of the world in order to restrain themselves from being violent as they were in the medieval times. And I should say, it's quite an important point because if we see that isolation brings a lot of misguided things into mind, especially in the case of Iran. As we see, many of the things they are doing in The Middle East is detrimental to the works of The United Arab Emirates, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia.

Similar thing could happen if you say so, will happen in America's case. What will be the possible result, do you think? If we were to able to exclude them from the United Nations and sever the ties of trades, international relationships with them, would they become more violent because they're going increasingly doing irrational actions, and I feel they will act more stupid if we go that way. Would there be on the can I say it? Would there be an action they could take that will really harm the future of all humanity?

And how we can prevent it if we have another way to pursue of this matter?

Personally, I don't think. As I said, I I believe that the that the isolation, economic isolation of The United States is something that's already being pursued to one degree or another by the owners and controllers of global financialized capital. And I think that, as I said, I don't think that it's something that they would necessarily fight. They would probably like they they would definitely like it to be done according to their timeline. So if as brother Shahiar suggested, if we accelerate that, they may they may they may be reluctant about that and they may they may sort of resist it to one degree or another.

But they're also pragmatic business people, so they will adapt to whatever their momentum is and whatever direction that momentum is moving, I in my opinion. And I think that the simply because of the fact that the state has been more or less captured in America by the private sector. I don't I don't really see the state making decisions that would be disapproved of by the private sector. I don't think that they would I mean, as as I've said, I think that to a certain extent, this is this explains why we haven't seen a war with Iran, which is something that very clearly the neocons have always wanted. And if they ever had an opportunity to do it, it's now.

But the the the BRICS nations, including the Gulf States, have been successful at de escalating the ambitions, say, at de escalating the the violent ambitions of the neocons and of the politicians in America. Where they they I think they have finally received the the memo that a war with Iran is not welcomed by the owners and controllers of global financialized capital who have or who are in the process of switching sides. They're in the process of switching sides from being on the side of America to being on the side of the global South. That doesn't mean supportive of, it just means who they're aligning themselves with opportunistically because obviously they are business people so everything they do is opportunistic. It's not that they have an loyalty to the global South.

They can see which side their bread is buttered on. And so they wanna protect that that side of their bread, is the global South and the outer world. So I don't I I I think that as I said, the the isolation of The United States is already is already progressing and is already supported by the owners and controllers of Global Financialized Capital. And I think that the the response that you're talking about, the sort of violent wild response is more likely to be inflicted on the domestic population in America. I think they're more likely to take it out on the people because the people are going to become unruly.

And this is similar to similar to in Europe where I think that they are anticipating civil unrest by their own people because of the increasingly bad situation in Europe. And I think that the situation in America is gonna become increasingly bad and I think that they will be anticipating civil unrest. And I think civil unrest in America will be considerably more dangerous than civil unrest in Europe considering the fact that everyone is armed. And you have some very, very zealous factions politically and religiously in The United States. And they're they're anticipating these these sorts of problems.

And I think that that more likely you will have problems domestically and potentially between America and Mexico. But I don't I don't think that there is much appetite actually for far flung military adventures much to the chagrin of the of the neocons whose entire political platform is based on far flung military adventures. But I think that that as as I've said many times, think that the that the that the neocons are on their deathbed alongside with the Zionists in the next bed. And I think that the the the the interests who control what the military does, because the military it's been a long time since the military in America acted on the interests of their nation. They've been acting on the interests of business for many, many years now.

And so if it's not in the interest of business for them to engage in wild and violent affairs around the world, then I don't think they will. And I think that most of the military technology will be used to suppress the domestic population.

I I just want to say, here in The United States, about a decade ago or so, maybe twelve years, we found out what was happening with the leftover, war materials that had been used in Iraq and had been sent back here. The federal government parceled them out to various local police departments across the country. So you have to understand that there's higher thinking going on with deciding to do that. They have armed the local police departments with things for massive warfare, things local police departments never had before. They have they have developed here.

I've actually seen the machine. They've developed a machine that produces a sonic wave of sound which can literally physically knock a populace down to the ground with its strength.

I remember reading about

Yes. The NYPD actually has that. You know, the it it there's a reason for this. They could have stored this stuff in in the warehouses we have here. We have an extensive underground warehouse system in The United States as well as those that are above ground, but instead they gave this weaponry to local police departments.

So anything that jumps off here could become major very quickly. The populace in The US today is much different than during the time of World War two or even the Vietnam War. The level of dissatisfaction in the populace, the number of arms per household, the kind of arms per household have changed because we had an assault weapons ban in place for a decade in this country. That ban was allowed to expire, and so Americans don't just have, you know, pistols or a rifle. We have a k 40 sevens and m sixteens Yeah.

And all all manner of things. So there's clearly some thinking about how to severely, oppress and repress the the public going on. So it's it's a it's a very bad situation. I absolutely agree with brother Shahid. The the things that jump off will be internal, not external.

This country has failed to win any war since Vietnam. The only thing we can chalk up is maybe going to the island of Grenada and being successful. But I'm sure brother Shaheed remembers. Malcolm x said during the Vietnam era that America would never be able to win another ground war because the the peoples of the world were losing their fear of The US. We were defeated in Vietnam, and we were defeated everywhere else.

We have wrecked havoc and killed many people and wounded many people, but we didn't win. You know? We didn't flat out win any of these wars. And The US is responsible for the instability in the Middle East region now because what we did was we told the populace that there were three different groups in Iraq. And one was Shiite, and one was Sunni, and one was Kurd.

Well, Kurd isn't a religion. It's it's an ethnic group, 95% of which are Sunni Muslims. So when we overthrew the Sunni ruling structure in Iraq, the Shiite, which was actually the minority religiously speaking, was elevated. We did that. We had a a media campaign to do that.

The the Kurdish guy who came to The US, Ahmed Chalabi, screaming about Saddam was from the 5% of Kurds who are Shia. The American populace didn't understand that, and we were fed this diet of there's a minority, a violent minority ruling Iraq, So we're going to go in and, you know, free the majority when what we did religiously speaking was the exact opposite, And things have been topsy-turvy ever since.

You know, the the military has given the police, as you said, so many weapons, so many military vehicles that they literally look like an invading army instead of the local police. It's it has a real effect on the minds of people. They do not feel like they're protected. They feel like the government is a separate thing from them, just trying to kill them. So this just causes more tension between the police and the population.

You're 100% right, brother Sharar. You're 100% right. We've always had a national guard that was armed with heavy weapons and armored personnel carriers, but we've never had local police forces with the kind of armaments that they have been given out. And you need to understand this. The local police forces did not buy this weaponry.

It was a gift at the behest of the federal government. So this this again, this is just nationwide. You have small, relatively small local police forces with all manner of advanced weapons of war. There's a reason for that.

I wouldn't be surprised if within the next five to ten years, you see tanks in New York City with the NYPD on the side of the of the tank. Didn't you just have didn't you just have over the last week or so or the last I think it was last week. You had the National Guard in the subway system in New York. Right?

The governor, Kathy Hochul, who is this woman is just insane. We have two this is National Women's Month or International Women's Month. There are two women in control of the state of New York who are just they're just out of their minds, brother Shahid. One is our governor, Kathy Hochul, and the other one is our attorney general, Leticia James. And there are no more bloodthirsty men on earth than these two women.

They're just they're just crazy. And, yes, Kathy Hochul has deployed mind you, not the mayor of New York, the of New York City. The governor of New York state made the decision to deploy seven hundred fifty fifty armed members of the National Guard into New York City's subway system. You know, it it's because of crime in in the subway system. It is just outrageous.

It's ridiculous. It makes no sense. We already have, I would say, 40,000 police officers in New York City. There are 29 to 32,000 that are acknowledged, and there are thousands more that aren't acknowledged because under law, the police department doesn't have to count them. They belong to all kinds of secret squads and whatnot.

So there there's about 40,000 members of the NYPD. We we do not need 750 people carrying automatic weapons in fatigues, you know, wearing fatigues in in the subway system. When I moved to New York City in 1993, there was so much more violence and crime compared today to today. It isn't even funny, and we didn't have, you know, people carrying automatic weapons in the subways then. So, it's it's it's just really various forms of repression and keeping the the dissatisfied public under constant surveillance.

I just wanted to say one thing to clarify with regards to Iraq. It is a it is actually a Shia majority by about 15%. It's not it's not a single majority. And and with regards to winning wars, this is something I've said before. America, I think, including in Vietnam, in fact, I don't think that America has been interested in so called winning wars in the classic sense, in the traditional sense of the time.

They haven't been interested in winning wars. Certainly not since the the dismantling of the Soviet Union and the end of the so called Cold War. I don't think they've been particularly interested in winning wars. The whole purpose of their wars was destabilization. They they don't they don't need to.

I mean, none of the wars that they fought fought in my lifetime really have had a clear or achievable purpose. Their their only function was to destabilize and to prevent any other competitor to power in a regional power. So they they their main concern has always been, at least for the last fifty years or so, their main concern has been destabilization. And I think that destabilization and obviously funneling money into the military industrial complex. I think that the as I've talked about, the logic of the military industrial complex is no longer as applicable as it once was.

And I think that the mission of destabilizing regions around the world is also no longer logically applicable with the transition to the global South. I don't think that the the function of the the the the function of American military interventions around the world serves the purpose that it once did. And I think that we'll hopefully, inshallah, we're likely to see less and less of that. And I think like I said, I'll just reiterate. I think that that the that that that style of military intervention is more likely gonna be taking place in America's own cities.

Certainly, as sister Said, they certainly belong to that.

I should agree on that. As described it, when the USS US entered Afghanistan, Afghanistan has a relatively stable situation. Taliban has all but nearly eradicated opium production, and they had been given words of the UN officials back then about their achievements, 2 to $300,000,000 for their eradication of opium. But the global economy, the global capitalist economy, it doesn't like that because they need a place for laundering money and funneling it to, as said, to the army armed tech companies. So they destroyed the situation in Afghanistan, and they re gave power to the local warlords who will oversee production of opium.

And they collaborated with them. And in twenty years, Afghanistan jumped to their highest place in the opium production again before Taliban took over again. That is why they are using a low profile right now. And the similar thing goes for Turkey right now. If we make something very outstanding, US will see us as a threat and will try to undermine our stability as they tried in the the coup attempt in 2016, and we'll try to do it again in various places, whoever tries to challenge it.

And I can say that similar thing happened for Muslim brotherhood in Egypt because they have openly challenged the rule, and they gave something like promise like an attempt that we will bring stability to the region by helping Palestine in open grounds. That was also undesirable situation for US dominance in global warfare. Basically, they they this this stabilized other regions, so their production output will reduced compared to US, and the the people's minds will be shattered. They won't they can't produce they can't make production or make innovation because of the this this stabilization in their region. They it's also possible that they are forced to migrate to the West.

Most of them are the intellectual people which can be used for the growth of the western economy. Right now, they are being used, which is also a part of their internal clash right now. That because there's a national people, the descent migrate people. But apart from this, I'm going to ask another question. In nineteen seventies, Turkey tried to liberate Cyprus Turks from the from their Greek oppressors in the Cyprus.

And while doing that, US and their NATO allies, which was our allies as well, embargoed us. And this helped our army tech grow substantially afterwards. We because of this military embargo, we built our own military vehicles starting with ships and going with land vehicles, military equipment, and now we are building drones. And we are going very high going very high speed. This helped us.

If we isolate US, I believe this may help them a little bit as well, I fear. So I was thinking that should we sell them a high-tech equipment with exploitations in regards and unprocessable other products like vegetable. So they are become dependent to us, the global South. Would we have viable strategy for domesticating, I could say, US's possible destructive tendencies.

Yeah. I under I understand the question. And and and I mean, what it what it comes down to is actually, you know, sanctioning a country as we've seen with Russia and also with Iran and to a certain extent with Cuba, very often when when when you sanction a country, it actually becomes economically self sufficient and stronger. And even you can say on a on a on a smaller level with Gaza, you know, they they what what what the Israelis tried to do with Gaza never defeated them and they became incredibly innovative to the point where they were able to run their cars on vegetable oil. So, you know, when you when you when you complete the isolated country, it does force that country to become self sufficient, self reliant.

And as you said, we're Turkey mashallah. And this is this is it's it's sort of like an imposed protectionism from externally. An externally imposed protectionist policy. And protectionist policies are always good for the domestic economy, for domestic for growing the domestic economy, growing domestic manufacturing and so on. So, yeah, it it it is predictable that if the if The US was economically isolated, then over the course of years or decades, it could benefit from that.

And I think though that this is something that, as I said before, this something that they're moving towards anyway. They're moving towards a more protectionist isolationist policy economically. With the with the idea being that, you know, they have they have largely lost their manufacturing base and they would like to build it up again. So, yeah, that's something that could happen. Now in terms of creating dependency, that's that's not as that's not as likely because America subhanallah is in an incredibly advantageous position as a country.

It has significant resources. It has significant agriculture. It has a significant capacity for manufacturing if they invest in it. And it's, you know, it's it's, you know, surrounded by two oceans and it's sort of unreachable and untouchable. And it it has the capacity for self sufficiency.

Whether or not after years or decades of isolation, if it builds its economy, builds greater self sufficiency. I mean, it should also be understood that to a great extent, America never has been anything but self sufficient as as a country, economic. I mean, it's, you know, with globalization, America was one of the least globalized countries in terms of its as a beneficiary of globalization. The the biggest beneficiaries of globalization were in Europe, not so much The United States. United States still imports and exports less than you would think.

It's it it it it's quite self sufficient as it is. So it's it's kind of hard to think about how you could actually make them dependent on anyone. The only thing that they used to be dependent about was oil, oil and gas. But with the with the fracking revolution, they've obviously become like the leading producer and exporter of both oil and gas. So they've become self sufficient in terms of energy.

So it it's hard to it's hard for me to imagine situation where America could become economically dependent.

I would like to address brother Erkan's statement before the question itself. He said something along the lines of America destabilize I kind of mix it up, I guess, but America destabilizing countries and then making the intelligent population leave, and then those very people immigrating to the West thus benefiting them. Like, it's a vicious cycle. I would like to know what brother Shahid thinks on this dynamic.

Well, I think I think certainly that has happened. I think that the the the the educated populations usually don't require destabilization in order for them to leave. They're usually the first ones out if if, you know, like, for example, Syria. Most of the most of the the immigrants from Syria, for example, who are the the professional class, the educated class, and so on, they left before the the war actually started because they could see how things were spiraling. So now a lot of the immigrants are from the from the lower class, less skilled.

I I I don't think I don't I don't think that that's personally, I don't think that that's a motive. It's it's it's a it's a partially a consequence of the destabilization. I don't I don't see it as a major driver. Because they would rather I mean, if you have I mean, you can look at look at look at India, for example, or even China. Where you have you if you're if you're an American company, would you rather have a a highly skilled, highly educated professional working for you according to their local economy?

Would you rather than come to America and you have to pay them American salaries? I don't think that it's a motive to try to bring educated people over to The United States. I think they would rather be able to reach those educated people where they are and pay them according to the local currency.

Brother Nell, is there something that you still wanted to ask?

Yeah. Thank you, Nisa. Actually, I'd like to go back to the topic of invoking the article six and just talk about we'll ask brother Sheet very briefly about the competing European factions and what he thinks of the speech given by the representative from Hungary in the UN debate that happened last week where he basically said that they do not want a war in The Middle East. So just want to hear his thoughts about that.

Yeah. I don't I don't I don't remember the specifics of his speech, but yes. I I do recall him saying that that they don't want a war in The Middle East. They would like everybody to calm down. I think that that is reflecting the the sentiment in Europe.

And I think it's reflecting the sentiment in not not necessarily in the like, how can I say, in what I think is gonna be the the the new focus in Europe? I think that Atlantic Europe is is on the is on the decline. And I think that Eastern Europe is is going to be the the more important focus. And I think that it it does certainly reflect the sentiment. I think that there's, you know, there's there's there's almost a sort of a like, Hungary represents a kind of non aligned sentiment that you see in some some parts of Europe where they would like to to not they, you know, they they they're not bricks.

They're not part of bricks, but they're also not not particularly interested in taking sides in the Russia, America, Ukraine debacle. And they they they can sense they can they can perceive the the way things are going in Europe and the the type of, you know, in air quotes, ally that America is to Europe. I think that they are they're they're they're certainly more inclined to, peace and harmony. They don't have anything to benefit from from war and conflict. So, you know, I I I don't have much to say about that except that I think that that that his statement reflects a certain sentiment in Europe that, traditional western allies, are less comfortable voicing because they're they're very, cognizant of being, sort of cowatowing to America and vacating the West regardless of what they might really think, regardless of of what their populations might really feel.

And I think Hungary, you know, as we know, Hungary is is, you know, a bit of a pariah in Europe. I think the European Union was is refusing to what give them give them aid and assistance financially that they are due because of some disagreement and and sort of punish Hungary. So I think I think that, you know, you have these these sort of somewhat independent non aligned voices that I think are not alone, but are you don't hear them as much because the the the traditional allies of The United States feel less comfortable speaking out.