Shahid Bolsen: Global Transition & Zionist Obsolescence

I was talking about the sort of three major things that happened that have happened recently that are accelerating or that that have accelerated that have been used to accelerate the transition to the global South, the transition of the center of gravity of the global economy to the global South, to the South, and to the East. Mhmm. The first one being the response to COVID. Yes. The second being the war in Ukraine or rather the response to the war in Ukraine.

Yes.

Meaning, specifically, the sanctions against Russia. Or another way to call that is the dis the deindustrialization of Europe and the destabilization project against Europe. As I've been saying since the beginning of the Ukraine war, this is a a proxy war by The United States against Europe, not against Russia. It's a proxy war against Europe. As you can see, who's suffering the most from this.

It's not Russia at all economically. It's Europe. And then, obviously, the genocide and gossip. Mhmm. These are the three main things that have happened.

Then there are sort of sub events like the election of Trump.

Yes.

The election of Trump is definitely an accelerant to the global transition Mhmm. Despite what his own rhetoric is and his own propaganda is and what what his people think he is. His his actual job and his actual agenda is really the polar opposite of what his propaganda and what his rhetoric is telling his his base. Within the Trump administration, obviously, you have all of the things that he's done, like the obvious example is the tariffs, which until now it boggles my mind, but until now there's there's still people who don't seem to understand that tariffs are being paid by the Americans, not by the exporting countries.

It's the consumers. It's born by the

It's born by the by the importers first and then by the consumers after that because, of course, the importers are gonna pass the cost on to you or pass the Yeah. Pass the expense onto the consumers. You know, and then there are others then there are other things, obviously. I mean, the the organization of bricks I mean, the the Ukraine war forced Russia or pushed Russia to deepen their relationship with bricks, deepen their relationship with China. It made BRICS more important to Russia, and it and and it made urgent the need for alternative payment systems, alternatives to the dollar, alternative international payment systems aside from SWIFT and so forth.

Mhmm.

All of those things were accelerated because of the Ukraine war and because of the actions the sanctions against Russia. As well as, for example, the the actual continued use of Russian energy, Russian oil and gas by Europe, but by means of by way of India. Mhmm. So that is a boost to India, which is a BRICS member.

Yes.

It's a boost to India. India suddenly, out of nowhere, suddenly becomes an an an oil exporter. To Europe. To Europe. Yeah.

So there are many things that have happened, but all of these things indicate, or not indicate, but represent the managed, engineered transition of the economy away from America, away from the West and towards the global South. And to a certain extent it's even forcing it comes across as if it is forcing China, for example, to focus on the global South rather than its relationship with the West, rather than its relationship with Europe. It's showing that we basically want the developing businesses and the developing economic and financial institutions and power players to focus themselves on the global South. And here we could really say specifically Africa, The Middle East, so called Middle East, and Asia. Less so in so called Latin America, because Latin America is

Still under the

It remains it remains the backyard of America. Mhmm. And so America as a as a regional hegemon, which is all it really is at this point, and certainly all it is going to be and all it plans to be and all that the a national OCGFC will allow it to be. And okay. The that's all that they will allow it to be, but that is within the context of it really doesn't have any choice except to only be that.

But they're not even allowing it to imagine that it can be something else. As a regional hegemon, they their jurisdiction, if you will, is going to be in the Northern Hemisphere primarily in Europe, and they will insist upon Central And And South America remaining within their grip. Mhmm. And that's where the neocons are going to be working in Europe and and in and in so called Latin America. So I think that like, for example, you see now that they've they've sent warships to Venezuela.

I think you can you the the the type of American foreign policy that we're used to, which is that which is dominated by the military industrial complex, most likely we will see that manifesting itself in so called Latin America and in Europe. But much less in Africa, much less in The Middle East, so called Middle East, and much less in Asia. Insha'Allah be'nillah. But I don't see why it wouldn't go this way, this is the only way that it could go. I think it's important to understand that the global capital is not being thwarted by bricks.

It's not being thwarted by this transition to the global South, because that's how particularly leftists, so called leftists, and liberals, and sort of your traditional anti colonialist, anti imperialist thinkers and speakers and academics, sort of the propaganda is, or the rhetoric is, that this is the global South rising up against the West, it's rising up against capitalism, it's rising up against American domination, and so forth. That's not actually what's happening. This is a transition that is being engineered by the a national OCGFC. It's being engineered by Global Capital. This is what they want to happen because they understand that this is what must happen.

Mhmm. Alhamdulillah, this is beneficial to global South countries. This is beneficial to the formerly colonized countries.

Mhmm.

It's also dangerous. It's also risky. It's not that this is a rebellion

Yeah.

By the global South countries. I mean, to a certain extent, there are some there are some countries where you can say that that that there is a rebellion against western imperialism, western domination, and so on, such as Burkina Faso. That's that's genuinely like an uprising against the West, specifically against the French, but against the West, against their colonizers. But it's also within the context of the overall transition, because without that overall transition taking place, Burkina Faso could not happen. Ibrahim Cary could not happen.

Or otherwise, the same thing would happen to him as what happened to Thomas Sankara. Right. It would have already happened. So he's able to do what he's doing because there's this transition underway. It's facilitated by the fact of the momentum of the transition and the fact that there is going to be a new reality.

And so he's allowed to to do what he's doing. Mhmm. Whereas prior to that, the neocons would have smashed him by now. Mhmm. The the original idea for Briggs was just a way of selling investment products Okay.

By Goldman Sachs. It was just a marketing tool. The idea of the name Brix was just a way of trying to sell investment sort of instruments Right. By Goldman Sachs. But it turns out that the the the the countries that were involved in that, Brazil, Russia, India, and China, and South Africa, have agency.

Mhmm. Who knew? They have agency, and they could actually decide that, well, as a matter of fact, it is a good idea. Mhmm. And so they sort of, as you say, took the bull by the horns and have actually been developing this.

The international SCGFC want this to happen. They know that it must happen, and no one is trying to prevent it from happening. I think even at this point, the the neocons are not trying to prevent it from happening. The neocons are just trying to make sure that they still get taken care of. The the the neocons here, I mean, the military industrial complex, OCGFC, the nationalistic OCGFC.

They wanna make sure that they still get taken care of. But they're not trying to prevent it. So no one is trying to prevent it. However, they are very interested in what the outcome is going to be, and they wanna make sure that their position is as dominant as possible. So they will they will continue to try.

I mean, I think that, for example, the talk about a single BRICS currency is something that that has been floated. And that is actually advocated by the original guy, I forgot his name, O'Neil, I think, who who came up with the BRICS Currency. The the no. The the the the the title BRICS, who came up with the whole concept of BRICS for Goldman Sachs, he advocates for a single currency. A single currency is an incredibly bad idea, and the the the the the leaders of BRICS have recognized that.

They've understood that what we can have is a a unified payment system,

but

not a unified currency. Unified currency has been disastrous for Europe.

Yeah.

And I think anyone can see that when you have vastly different economies within a block, you have to have different currencies. The the everyone has to have their own currency. It makes much more sense for you to facilitate each country using their own currency, accepting the trade should be in the currencies of the countries that are doing the trading. Mhmm. And that's accelerating.

That that's happening a lot. That's happening much more than it ever has before. I I think that what they wanted to do was to just replicate the Bretton Woods system Yeah. In the Southern Hemisphere. They just wanted to replicate that.

Just reverse it, just switch places, flip it to where now the Global North would be the victims of that Bretton Woods system, and the beneficiaries of their new Bretton Woods system would be in the Global South. Just flip the positions, what we've had since 1945. Alhamdulillah, the leaders of Bikistan don't seem to be going for that, and they're making their own path.

It's essentially an economic alliance.

It's an economic alliance, but it has

It's not a political.

But it definitely has political implications. Okay. And it's increasingly taking political positions. Like, for example, when they had the BRICS summit, issued a statement about Gaza. Right.

So that's a political position. They're coordinated. And it's obvious, you can see very clearly the sort of political criteria that is required for you to be a BRICS member.

Uh-huh. Yeah.

Even if it's not explicitly stated, it's quite clear. All of the BRICS countries, even India, despite the fact that everyone has always felt that India was a shaky wheel in BRICS, even India had and even though India is, you know, we see it anyway on social media, a lot of Indian bots or Indian trolls or what have you who are very pro Zionist and pro, you know, Israel, pro Netanyahu and so forth, the government is taking the BRICS position.

Right.

The government of India has Yeah. Towed the line, the BRICS line with regards to Gaza and with regards to Israel and with regards to Palestine, with regards to eventual resolution and settlement to state solution and so forth. Right. The the official you can say that the official BRICS position is the Saudi Arabian peace plan of 2003.

Yeah. Everyone is on script.

Everyone is on script, including India, including China, including Iran now, including all of the all of the all of the states. So this is this is explicitly a political position. Officially, it remains an economic block, but clearly, it's also a political block. I I don't know even the extent to which people understand FDI when other people are doing it, to be honest. From from my experience, most people don't seem to understand how investment works.

They think it's a gift. And I think a lot of people have not understood that post colonization, post official independence of colonized countries, you have had neo colonialism, which is economic colonization, which is economic imperialism. It's economic domination, which is often even more thorough than

More comprehensive than

More comprehensive, more thorough, more total, and more debilitating than traditional colonization. And think I a lot of people have not really understood that. They don't understand how FDI works. They don't understand the how how regulated it must be in order for it not to be damaging to your economy. It's obviously a benefit to your economy, but it it it is very often and it is designed to be much more beneficial for the investor than for the country being invested in.

It's investment is like a syringe Mhmm. That's stuck into your country, and you think that it is pumping medicine into your country when actually it is extracting blood from you. That's that's how it has worked. And I think a lot of people don't understand that. They they really think that when there's an FDI deal, this is very good for them because they they think it's money being pumped into their into their country rather than money being pumped out of their country.

Because you you understand when someone makes an investment, they want their money back Mhmm. And they want more than their money back. They wanna make a return on their investment. They want profit. And that profit is money from your economy that is flowing out of your economy.

So anyway, if if you do understand it, if you do understand how domination has been adapted in the last eight decades or so to be primarily through economic means, then you should understand that anyone with capital has the ability to do that. Anyone who has significant capital has the ability to do the exact same thing, and that is what's happening. For example, when I used to write about Egypt back in the in the in the mid twenty tens during the resistance or opposition to Sisi government. My whole focus was on the neoliberal conquest of Egypt because that's what they were that was the path they were on. They took this massive IMF loan, which at that time was the biggest loan that the IMF had ever given to any so called Middle Eastern country, and part of the terms of that loan were basically that Egypt would not have economic sovereignty, they wouldn't have any control over their economic policies for like the next twenty-thirty years.

That was in the contract, that was in the agreement. That in other words, no matter which government they had, even if you toppled Sisi, your economy is still going to be controlled at that time by Christine Lagarde of the IMF for the sake of Western multinationals and investors. Mhmm. So that was that was what I was writing about and what I was writing against and what I was calling for resistance against. Mhmm.

I never really called for opposition to the government. Yeah. Because I didn't see that was even relevant. The government was already captured at that point. The government was already compromised.

And your problem wasn't Sisi. It was the ones who were dominating Sisi. It was the external powers. And those external powers were economic.

Yep.

This wasn't an army. That was the plan for Egypt. That was the the direction that Egypt was going to go. The only reason that Egypt has not gone that way, although they have they have to a certain extent because they had to they had to comply

Yeah.

With the with the terms and conditions of the IMF. They had no choice

Yeah.

But to comply with that. Mhmm. However, The Gulf, Saudi Arabia and The UAE Yeah. Pumped their money Yeah. Into Egypt, and they took advantage

Of the

of the terms and conditions of the IMF, the requirement of privatization and so forth. And they gain the leverage rather than Western multinationals and investors.

Yeah. This is where in the in the in the content, we make a distinction between the strategic nature of the GCC investments. Mhmm. Like, mean, we already talked about our OCJFC and their OCJFC in an earlier segment, you know, but we try to emphasize that they have a very unique investor landscape where, you know, family officers and sovereign wealth funds play a dominant role and their decision making is not the same as the Western OCGFCs. So there's this distinction that we make in understanding and how contrasting that with, you know, that question that you answered in the video about Arab imperialism.

Ah, yeah. You know, it's

not just, you know, it's not the same.

Of course, it's not the same. We're rebuilding what you broke. Yeah. Your your so called imperialism, your so called colonization came and broke apart our our unity. You broke apart our solidarity, you broke apart our cohesion, and we're rebuilding it.

That's not imperialism. That's rebuilding what you broke. Yeah. Because we were always one. We were always one entity.

Mhmm. We were under one cohesive ruling system. Whether that's, you know and and don't misunderstand about saying that, like, for example, Khilafa, this idea that it was this centralized sort of dictator that was controlling all the lands of the Muslim. No. I'm saying we had cohesion.

Mhmm. We had really, we had collective sovereignty. Yeah. We had each individual province, each individual territory had its own jurisdiction. They had their own localized sort of authorities within the context of a collective sovereignty under what you can what was called the Khilafa.

We are rebuilding that. That is being rebuilt in our lifetime right now at this moment. It's being rebuilt. We may or may not like the ways in which that was being rebuilt that is being rebuilt. But also, if you're familiar with your history, you wouldn't like the way the Khilafa was built.

Like I said before, if had died halfway through his life, the the the life he eventually lived, if he if he had died halfway through his reign, he would have gone down in history as a villain. He would have been despised because he did so many things that you would that that these people, especially these Ihwani types, these liberals, these camouflage neocons, all of these people who love to hate on the Muslims. Like I I was saying in the chat, it's like you people think that the only way that you can be a good Muslim is if you're being bombed. If you're being victimized by the West, that's a good Muslim, and we love you. But everyone else doesn't even belong to this ummah.

They they they denigrate and insult every Muslim in the world unless they're being victimized presently at this moment by the West. If they're being bombed, then we have solidarity with them. If they're not being bombed, then they're not even real Muslims. They're not even true Muslims. They're all hypocrites and traders and bootlickers and sellouts and whatnot.

This is

So if you if you know anything about all of the things that Salahdin Ayyubi did, in order to become who he became and to achieve what he achieved, that required him to do many things that you would condemn.

Yeah.

That required him to do many things that are condemnable. Mhmm. Many things that if if it did not end with what it ended with, if it did not end with the outcome that he achieved, there would have been no excuse for the things that he did. To to to actually build what what is being built

in

the in the face of the enemies that we have and the power that those enemies have. Because, you know, we talk about the the the sovereign wealth funds, for example, of the of the of the GCC of Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar, and Kuwait, and so on. And they have a tremendous amount of money, obviously. They have a tremendous amount of capital. And when we talk about the economic power that they have, yes, it is considerable.

It is substantial. It is formidable. But it's not more than the international OCGFC. It's not more than them. They still have more power.

That's a fact. They still have more power. They have more economic power. They have more leverage. They have more control.

So just because they were smart enough, I mean, the GCC just because the GCC has been smart enough, has been cunning enough Mhmm. Has been savvy enough to partner with, for example, BlackRock.

Yeah.

They only did that because BlackRock is a threat. That's why they did it. They they partnered with them so that they wouldn't be enemies with them. You know, like the the saying, keep your enemies keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

Mhmm.

They wanted to partner with BlackRock so that BlackRock wouldn't be hostile, so that BlackRock wouldn't act in a hostile manner towards The Middle East and towards the GCC and Saudi Arabia and so on.

Mhmm.

And so that they could get them aboard, and having them aboard is making a tremendous difference. Yeah. And it will make a tremendous difference. And this is again, if you look in the history, Salahdin had to make compromises, he had to make treaties, he had to make partnerships and allies with enemies.

Yeah, with the Crusaders and

Exactly. You know? In order to achieve what he ultimately wanted to achieve, which was that cohesion, which was that unity, which was bringing everybody under his reign

Yes.

So that he could do what he ultimately had to do.

So we talked about the GCCs, the nature of the GCC investment. Okay. We've established we've clarified that. And then we also went on to proceed to talk about how Israel has always been a dependency economy and that it had it has it has had no significant economic independence. Mhmm.

And that it's the the only utility for for it was to was for The US economy as a pretext for funding American tax dollars to the American weapons companies. And Israel's function was never to, you know, gather revenue like the way you, you know, a colonized country

Yes. I mean yes. Yes. I mean I mean, generally, yeah, generally speaking, when you when when traditionally, historically, if you colonize a country so that you can extract the resources of that country and send it back to the empire, send it back to the imperial hub, send it back to the to the king or the queen or whoever.

Right.

Israel wasn't it doesn't produce anything. All they do is take money. They're just a money laundering device. They're money laundering I mean, the money that they get is American money going to American companies. So it it's it's a very roundabout way of just funneling taxpayer dollars into the military industrial complex.

Mhmm. But you're not producing money. You're not making us richer

Yeah.

By that. You're just providing the military industrial complex a way of taking taxpayer dollars out of their pockets and putting it in their pockets. You're not adding to the wealth. Yep. Now a bit of a caveat is that when America was not a major oil producer, which it is now, that resource was important.

Yeah. And Israel served a purpose for securing that resource. But that that this is another thing. I mean, if if we're talking about all of the various things that that have driven the transition, it's gonna be a long list, actually. One of them is the fact that America is now the world's largest producer of oil.

Oil gas.

Oil and gas and and exporter. That that changes things dramatically. And and if if Zionists had any cognizance, if they weren't just so ideologically possessed that they can no longer understand reality, they would have also seen the writing on the wall, Mhmm. That this represents the beginning and the end of their project. But yes, Israel has always been in dependency, clearly.

Yeah.

So so, for example, what The Gulf needs to do now, what The Gulf is doing now, and will do successfully over the next few years, is the they don't even need to do to Israel what America and the West has done to our countries. Mhmm. Because our countries were independent. Mhmm. Our countries had sovereignty.

Our countries were self reliant, and you destroyed them. Mhmm. You broke them down. You had to you had to break us down in order to make us dependent. For example, to make us importers of your agricultural products instead of exporters of ours

Mhmm.

Like wheat with Egypt. This is by World World Bank and IMF machinations.

Uh-huh.

That's one of the main things that they do is to try to destroy everyone's food security

Mhmm.

So that they can become now customers of American agriculture. I was talking about that in a recent video that that America's global empire, one of the main pillars of their global empire was agriculture. Right. And now, you can see what's happening with America. They're in an agricultural trade deficit, which they've never been before.

Okay.

This is a signal or or represents the withdrawal of America and the transition to the global South. And now the global South countries are are as I said in that video, they're feeding themselves and feeding each other. Mhmm. So they had to break us down in order to make us dependent, but Israel's already dependent. So all that has to happen is that dependency has to shift.

It has to be transferred over to a new patron.

Mhmm.

And that new patron is gonna be the GCC.

That will eventually buy control and influence over the region, and then Israel just be again, as it always has been a historical minority, know, Arab majority.

Yeah. It will be what what historical Palestine has always been. Yeah. An Arab Muslim majority with a small Jewish minority.

Yeah. Just that it will transform into a regional dependency and integrate into a region, reverting to what it always was and has been. And then okay.

This is a truism, and I've said it in several videos. The way things have always been is the way they will always be. And so if anything, if you're ever witnessing or living through a situation that is unlike what you've ever had before, what your territory, what your land, what your country, what your people have ever experienced before, that's an anomaly, and it won't last. The way things have always been is the way they always will be. That's just a fact.

So this is the situation. The only thing that has ever permanently changed the trajectory of a people, a land, a nation is Islam. Mhmm. That's the only thing that has ever permanently changed to people. Is Islam.

If you're on social media, it's it's already all over the place. How the West in general, like in concert, they are beginning to rationalize their discontinuation of the support for Israel of their support This for

has to be understood as understanding that that the that the the charade is over, that the jig is up, that Zionism cannot continue, that Israel cannot continue. And so now they're interested in exonerating themselves. Mhmm. Now they're interested in absolving themselves of everything that they have done because all of the blame lays at their feet. All of it.

That doesn't obviously, that doesn't mean that that that blame doesn't follow-up upon the Israelis. Obviously, it does, but not them exclusively. I mean, it would be very strange if this was the only genocide that America didn't back. What genocide have they not backed? But you want us to believe that America is against this?

That America is against what Israel has done? So you want me to believe that America is against the the the crimes that they paid for

Mhmm.

That were that were committed with their weapons Mhmm. And and largely by American citizens with dual citizenship. Yep. You're telling me that they were against that one, but not against all the other ones that they've been for. They're trying to exonerate themselves because they know the game is over.

They're not saying it because they want to prosecute anyone for crimes. They want to not be prosecuted for their crimes. Because there isn't a single crime that the Israelis have committed that wasn't an American crime. Mhmm. America is the dawn, is the mafia dawn, and and Israel is just a capo.

So this is something that we we need to recognize, and we cannot let them off the hook. And also, don't share this content that you see, you know.

No. I'm not I I I I can't for myself, personally, I can't stand that because you're not sharing what you're sharing is Americans trying to exonerate themselves. That's what you're sharing.

Exactly.

You think that you're sharing it because it's against Israel, because it's against Zionists, and because you think that means it's pro Palestinian. Mhmm. It's not pro Palestinian. It's not pro Muslim. It's not pro Arab.

It's not pro global South. It's not even anti genocide. As long as what its its main goal is to try to exonerate the the the biggest criminal on this on the face of this earth, which is The United States Of America. Mhmm. That's their goal.

Like a Candace Owens, a Tucker Carlson Yes. And whoever else, these people are doing nothing but trying to absolve the the the country that is actually responsible for all of the crimes because they're just trying to put all of the blame on their culprit, on their henchmen.

Right.

They wanna they wanna exonerate the the the the mob boss, the criminal mastermind. They wanna exonerate Uncle Sam and put all of the blame and all of the guilt and and the prosecution only against the henchmen. Mhmm. So I would never share anything like that. Please.

Because, yes, I agree with you, Israel is responsible, but I disagree with you that they're the only ones responsible because they couldn't have done a single thing. They would Israel would have been over. Before I was even born, Israel would have been over if it weren't for The United States Of America. Yep. So you know you don't get to exonerate yourself for what you've done.

Mhmm. Because you you don't let them. If justice matters to you if justice matters to you, you can't let them get away with that.

Yeah.

You can't let let them get wriggle their way off the hook because they say some words that you like.

Yeah. And and they like to say that they've been manipulated and hypnotized by APAC and the and the likes.

Well, then you just disqualified yourself from ever being listened to.

Yeah. Exactly.

If you're not even smart enough to understand that that murdering babies and stealing other people's land and stealing other people's property and stealing other people's homes and bulldozing their trees, bulldozing their gardens, bulldozing their homes while they're in them, if you don't understand that and if you can actually be hypnotized that that's all okay, well then you're not even someone qualified to speak in public. Much less pretend that you're some kind of a public intellectual, and pretend that you're moral.

Yeah. No.

You don't get to become moral now after the fact. It's convenient. Come.

It's convenient.

If you fall for this, I'm very, very sorry. But you need to really understand these people. Like I said before also, nothing that you will see from someone who has, for example, millions of followers, because I used to be able to say you won't see them anyone that you see on CNN or CBS News or MSNBC or Fox or what have you. Obviously, you can't believe that any of these people represent legitimate dissent. Obviously, because they're on mainstream.

But now, because of social media, there are we're talking about massive platforms, a Joe Rogan, for example. Okay? He's not on CNN or MSNBC or what have you, but he has a massive platform. You don't get to have a massive platform if you are a dissent. Yeah.

You don't get to have a massive platform if you are dissent, if you're true opposition.

Yeah. You

don't. So please, understand this.

Yeah. Understand they have a monopoly of control on narratives and and and the media

and you know Because and I'm and and and look, this isn't this isn't even a conspiracy theory. This is the logistics of how media works. Yes. You don't get to have a massive platform unless the only thing that matters to you is having a massive platform. You understand?

Mhmm. It means all you care about is getting the views.

Yeah.

You need to appeal to the largest demographic possible. You need to appeal to the largest constituency possible, and you need advertisers. You need sponsorships. You need endorsements. You need collaborations and partnership deals.

You can't get that by being an advocate for justice. Mhmm. You cannot get that by being an advocate against imperialism, against Zionism, against colonization, against the subjugation of the global South. Mhmm. You cannot get that.

Mhmm. You're not gonna get a massive platform. So I'm I'm not saying that the the the powers that be will not allow you to have. I'm saying that the logistics and the mechanics of how it even works to to have a massive platform prohibits you from ever being able to have a massive platform if you are genuine from the genuine descent or from genuine resistance or opposition. It simply cannot happen.

Mhmm.

So understand that. So if they're saying something, you understand, if someone has a massive platform, it's because they have done nothing but work in order to get a massive platform. Correct. Not in order to say the right thing, not in order to do the right thing, not in order to tell the truth. They're doing everything that they're doing in order to get a massive platform Yep.

Which means they will say whatever they think they have to say in order to get one. And that's just what they're doing now. And that should also indicate to you that there's a transition happening.

Yeah.

And that Zionism is over. Because now you can say that, and that's a a good business decision Mhmm. To now talk the way that these types types of people are talking.

Yes.

It's a good business decision. Islamic grievability cannot be understood without epistemological sovereignty.

Yeah. That would probably be used to tie up everything together, but I

Because, for example, I know we're coming to the end, and I'm sorry to interrupt. Go on. I don't wanna take away from whatever our next thing will do will be, the next live. Yeah. But like we were talking about the other day, you and

I, about

America, for example, in this region, in Southeast Asia, trying very hard to pit the countries in the region against China, or to disassociate themselves from China, or to break their relations with China, which is an absolute joke Because on the ground, there is no country that has greater influence than China in Southeast Asia. There's no country. America doesn't even come close. America has nothing on the ground in Southeast Asia in terms of their actual leverage and what they bring to the table as the red pillars would say. All the countries in the region can now ask America what do you bring to

the table Exactly.

If you want us to continue our relationship. Because otherwise, all we have is is is formalities and courtesy. Mhmm. That's what we have, is courtesy because of who you used to be. Yeah.

Because of who you used to be, not who you are now. And that's only gonna take you so far. But this is where the epistemological sovereignty comes in, in terms of in the context of Islamic realpolitik, because we have to determine our own measurements of how to determine what reality actually is.

Mhmm.

For example, what power actually is and who actually has it. Mhmm. And so that's why we developed the RPI, the relative power index system for measuring power. Because if you don't have that, then you would still think that America has sway. The same way that America thinks they have sway.

Americans still think that they have you know, that they can wield power all around the world because there's no objective assessment of that. But any objective assessment says that you have no power in Southeast Asia. Yeah. And you're not even as I say, you're not even bringing anything to the table. And now, Alhamdulillah, the countries in this region and increasingly around the world Mhmm.

Are able to say to America, okay, put up or shut up.

Yeah.

You want us to do this, you want us to do that, but what will you give us?

Yeah.

Because it used to be the case, one one was the case that they did give. Mhmm. They did give. But more importantly and more often used was the threat

Yeah.

That if you don't do what we want you to do, we'll do with us and so.

Yeah.

Now they can't do that anymore. They don't have that kind of as they say, they don't they don't they don't have that kind of muscle

Yeah.

Anymore, especially when you have China on your side. And they have all of the countries in this region have China on their side.

Right.

Now that doesn't mean that there is intention. That doesn't mean that it's a it's a a a a client patron relationship. No. Because China itself doesn't even operate that way. Mhmm.

It doesn't this is this is another thing. America thinks that everyone in the world operates the way that they operate. You know, they think that they think that that that that China deals with other countries when they invest the same way that America and the West has dealt with other countries. They think that it must be neocolonialism because they can't imagine any other way of dealing with countries. Mhmm.

They can't even imagine not approaching everything from the perspective of achieving domination. Yeah. Harmony isn't in their vocabulary in terms of policy.

Uh-huh.

So so a part of part of Islamic realpolitik requires you to have an accurate understanding of real existing power dynamics, which means that you have to have an understanding of real existing power Mhmm. And who has it and who doesn't.