“Rule of Law” vs “Rules-Based Order” – Shahid Bolsen on 99.3FM Borderlines

He is one of the most important critical and interrogating voices in today's dystopian world. Ladies, gentlemen, welcome. His name is Shahid Bolson, and he's the founder of the Middle Nation Movement. Shahid, welcome.

Thank you so much. It's my honor to be here, sister. It's nice to see you again.

It is our absolute pleasure honor to have you because, like I said, you are the most one of the most important and interrogative voices. So let's start very quickly. The first thing I want you to do is to listen to this, and it'll open up the conversation. Let's go.

This bargain no longer works. Let me be direct. We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition. Over the past two decades, a series of crisis in finance, health, energy and geopolitics have laid bare the risks of extreme global integration. But more recently, great powers have begun using economic integration as weapons.

Tariffs as leverage, financial infrastructure as coercion, supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited. You cannot live within the lie of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination. The multilateral institutions on which the middle powers have relied, the WTO, the UN, the COP, the architecture, the very architecture of collective problem solving are under threat. As a result, many countries are drawing the same conclusions that they must develop greater strategic autonomy in energy, food, critical minerals, in finance and supply chains. And this impulse is understandable.

A country that can't feed itself, fuel itself or defend itself has few options. When the rules no longer protect you, you must protect yourself. But let's be clear eyed about where this leads.

That was Mark Carney, ladies and gentlemen. When the rules no longer protect you, you must protect yourself. He's talking about the rules based order. Shaid, I saw you sniggering. What did you make of that?

Because that was a speech that spread everywhere. It was applauded all over the world. But here's the thing, though. I don't know about you. I didn't hear him say a single thing about the global South.

Not a thing. Did you?

Well, no. But obviously, by by implication, he's he is talking about the global South. But but I think it's it's more important. I think I would like to actually talk about this whole concept of the rules based order because

Yes, please.

This is not something this is not a phrase that I grew up with. When I was growing up, we talked about the rule of law. This is what we talked about. We talked about the rule of law. So I think it's important to to, to talk about the language because this is actually where it starts.

Before you talk about say Venezuela or you talk about the ICJ or any specific cases, you have to start with the words, you have to start with the terminology, you have to start with the framing because the words changed and no one seems to have noticed that. The change wasn't accidental. Nothing is accidental in geopolitics. Nothing is accidental especially with regards to words. When you stop talking about the rule of law and started talking about a rules based order, this means something.

And you have to really, I think, try to clock that shift in language. Because otherwise, just hear rules based order and they think, oh, it's the same thing. It means the same thing as rule of law, just different phrasing. But it's not it's not the same thing at all. It's fundamentally different.

Fundamentally and substantively different. Rule of law means something very specific. It means the law is above power. It means that the ruler is under the law as well as everyone else. It means that principle is above power.

It doesn't mean, you know, whoever is the strongest gets to gets to make the rules. It means that even the powerful are subject to the law. This is the the idea that they put back in the old days in the Magna Carta. It's the foundational claim of every legitimate legal system that ever existed. That even the ruler, the government, the whoever, president, prime minister, they're all under something.

They're all under the law. It's universally applied. The power is not self authorizing. But rules based order is a completely different structure. Rules have an author, rules have an interpreter, rules have an enforcer.

The moment that you say rules instead of law, you you have to ask the question, whose rules? Whose rules? Who who designed these rules? Who made these rules? They were made by whom?

They're enforced against whom? And they're enforced by whom? This isn't a question that you have to ask with regards to law. You know, the the answer with regards to to the law is accepted, universally accepted legal institutions. But when you're talking about rules, it's a very different thing.

You're talking about whoever is the one making the rules. That's the one who enforces the rules and against whoever they think is violating the rules. So when they change the rules or or when they change the the language, I think that we should have we should have noted that. But I think that a lot of people just let it slip by. That we've just sort of merged from talking about the rule of law, which is universally applied to everyone, large and small, powerful and powerless, the ruler and the ruled, now we're not talking about that anymore.

And I think it's important to to note that and and Carney is expressing something How can I say this? He's expressing something about the fact that Well, you know what? Let me let me let me actually just explain it this way. When you talk about rules based order, instead of rule of law, when you're talking about rules based order, that translates to know your place and do what you're told by whoever the rule maker is. We're not and and and the the the rules that we're that you have to follow are not necessarily the rules that I have to follow.

Everyone has to know their place, everyone has to know their role, and that will be assigned to you by whoever is the one making the rules. This is very different from rule of law, the concept of rule of law. This means that in rule of law, obviously, we all understand what that means. It means that as I said before, it applies to everyone. No one is exempt.

That, for example, the ICJ or the ICC can go after uncle Sam the same way that it can go after an African head of state. The same way that it can go after Putin, it can go after Netanyahu. This is this is rule of law. No one is exempt from it, no one is above it. Rules based order is a completely different concept.

Why did they change that though? Now, I think that the initial reflex that we would have for why they would have changed that, why they would have changed the terminology and by changing the terminology change the framework and change conceptual understanding of it. The reflex would be because it's a show of power, it's a show of dominance, it's a show of exactly what what what we're talking about here and what what Connie was talking about in other parts of his speech that basically the rules are for our benefit, meaning the West, the rules are for western benefit and everyone else has to comply, which is what is implied anyway by rules based order. You follow the rules. Compliance.

And we will enforce compliance. So it sounds like, it looks like dominance. It looks like a show of dominance, show of power. But I would argue, and this is touched on by by what what Carney is saying, that you are trying to delegitimize the concept of rule of law. You're trying to delegitimize and invalidate the institutions of the rule of law, international law, the United Nations, the ICJ, the ICC.

You wanna delegitimize those. Why? Because you know that within the next twenty years or so, you will not control those institutions. Because the way that the world is moving, the trajectory of the world, those institutions, including the I mean, Africa is gonna be 25% of the whole global population. The the the way that the world is moving, the global South is going to be the future of of the international order.

So you don't want those institutions of international law, you don't want those institutions of the rule of law to fall into the hands of those that you created those institutions to oppress. Once those institutions fall into their hands, you will be subject to them. So you wanna get rid of that whole concept of universality of the rule of law because it's gonna again end up being applied to you. And the whole point of it from the beginning was that it was never to be applied to you. So now you want everyone to accept the concept of rules based order where everyone follows rules.

We don't necessarily understand why we have to follow the rules. We don't necessarily understand who's making these rules. We don't necessarily ever talk about who's making the rules, who's interpreting the rules, who's enforcing the rules and against whom those, rules are enforced. We never talk about that, but we all know. We all know who it means.

But we're also just supposed to accept that, because if we accept that, then we no longer even feel that we have recourse to international law, that we no we no longer have recourse to the concept of the rule of law because we've already abandoned that concept. And they want us to abandon that concept because they know perfectly well that within the next fifteen, twenty, twenty five years that concept is gonna put them in the dock. If that concept is held on to and if those institutions are maintained, those institutions are going to fall into the hands of the people of the global South. And then they can seek justice through those means. They can actually uphold rule of law, which means that the the that the ones who are telling us to just follow the rules and do as we're told, those are the ones who are going to be incriminated and convicted through those international institutions.

So you wanna destroy the legitimacy of those international institutions before somebody else takes over them.

Thank you so much. You've laid the groundwork for us to move on from. So you talked about destroying those institutions. If I'm not you know, if I understand you rightly, and this is really for the benefit of the listeners, you're saying the way they enforce this so called rules based order, it isn't equitable, and it is selective. Therein, at this particular moment, it would appear that well, at least not it would appear.

That would be wrong. There seems to be an intention by The United States, perhaps the most senior of them all, to destroy one of the most critical institutions that you referred to, which, by the way, has has only ever been used against those of us in Africa. And it's never been used when they break the rule of law, not the rule based order, which they designed themselves. Talk to us about that because it is about that policeman. Who is policing whom?

And at which point, are we hearing what you've just heard? Are we hearing everything that you've just laid down to us? Are our leaders hearing?

Well, I think that, you know, everything everything has to be, in my opinion, any any geopolitical analysis of any individual situation in the world. Now this this what I'm saying now might seem a non sequitur, but inshallah I'll bring it back to to what you're asking me. Everything has to be understood within the the broader context. You have to connect all of the dots beyond the dots that you're looking at. The dots that you're looking at aren't gonna you're not gonna be able to interpret them properly until you understand all of the other dots that they're connected to.

You're not gonna be able to understand. So for me, if you're analyzing anything geopolitically today in any given any individual scenario, whether you're talking about Venezuela, you're talking about Iran, like you just had on the the the previous guest, you're talking about the situation with Iran, or you're talking about Gaza, you're talking about Palestine, you're talking about Venezuela, you're talking about the cartels in Mexico, Any of these topics have to be understood and how they're being dealt with have to be understood within the context of the seismic tectonic transition that's taking place globally, where the the old post world war two order, global order, the Bretton Woods era and so forth, the the unipolar moment that's a blip of history when America was the the only remaining superpower in the world, This blip in history, this entire global order, this entire global system is being dismantled. And it's being dismantled by necessity. This isn't something this is this is very important for people to understand. This isn't like, oh, we just decided to do this.

They have no choice but to do this. The the birth rate in Europe, I think is across Europe is an average of about 1.5. This is well below replacement levels. In the in The United States, you take away immigration, it's about 1.6. It's barely above Europe.

If you look at another so called developed economy like in South South Korea, it's below one. It's like 0.7. But if you look at I mean, Nigeria is gonna be Nigeria is gonna be one of the most populous countries in in 2050 in the world. You look at Egypt, you look at Pakistan, you look at Bangladesh, you look at I mean, India already surpassed China in their population. The the the the population of the world lives the robust replacement levels of the population of the world is in the global south.

What does that mean? That means that the labor is in the global South, that means that the consumers are in the global South. That means that global capital, what I refer to as the owners and controllers of global financialized capital, the OCGFC, they understand that if you wanna get any returns on your capital, where do you have to be? You have to be in the global South. The West is not reproducing.

The West is is is falling into irrelevance. I think this has got to be one of the first times in history when a people collectively have have determined that they themselves want to go extinct. That that that no one they're not they're they're they're they're genociding themselves by non reproduction. So for business necessity, Yanny, for for financial necessity, for investment necessity, the only thing that makes sense is to transition the global order, the the the governmental order, the the financial order, business order, the way everything works is is repositioning to the global South. And this is causing a historic or an historic complete reversal, hemispheric reversal of traditional roles or historical roles.

I won't say traditional, but historical roles. What we have all known for all of our lifetimes and our parents knew and our grandparents knew. Where for example, the the the the wealth and the resources were flowing from the South to the North. Meanwhile, violence was flowing from the North to the South. Domination was flowing from the North to the South, and the money was flowing from the South to the North.

This is what we've always known. Now that's reversing. Little by little, it's reversing because it has no other thing to do but to reverse. So everything has to be understood within this context. However, this is a massive change.

This is a massive mind bending change that everyone has to recalibrate to. And we're all very steeped in the colonial narrative. We're all very steeped in the American supremacist narrative, the western supremacist narrative, that we take as fact because it was a fact at one time. Elements of it were a fact at one time. Certainly not the civilizational elements, but the power elements.

The supremacy elements functionally were true at one time, but this is increasingly, I'm sorry to talk talk so long, but increasingly these frameworks are obsolete. So it's a very significant challenge for any head of state in the global South, any analyst in the Global South, any financial experts, economic experts, economists and so forth in the Global South, as well as activists and organizers and so forth, to wrap their heads around and to recalibrate their thinking to understand that this is an obsolete paradigm. And to try to recalibrate to a new paradigm where we understand, for example, like I say, to understand properly that the the change in the terminology from rule of law to rules based order actually signals weakness on the part of the West. It actually signals we know that we're losing, we know that we no longer have the ability to even stand behind a podium and talk about the rule of law after Iraq, after Afghanistan, after Abu Ghraib, after Guantanamo, on and on and on. We don't have the credibility.

No one can take us seriously to even talk about that. So we have to talk about another another framework, rules based order. This is a concession on their part. This is a this is a defeat on their part knowing, as I say also, that they want to now delegitimize those institutions that will ultimately in the future fall into the hands of the global South. Their victims, their historical victims are gonna take over the institutions of justice and be able to actually hold them accountable.

So they wanna delegitimize the concept and the institutions that implement those those concepts. But this is a major change that everyone has to try to wrap their head around. So I don't know the extent to which people are hearing it. I don't know the extent to which people are understanding it. But it's more than it ever has been before with the formation of bricks, for example, the creation of more alternative payment systems, different payment rails and so forth.

The Petro Yuan is a thing now. Alternatives are are being created all the time. So this indicates that the leaders of the global South do understand this. But I don't know the extent to which they understand how much weakness and how much desperation is actually being signaled by America's statements and America's behavior.

That brings me and I'm glad you mentioned it because I have an excerpt that I'd like you to listen to from Marco Rubio from the speech he made at the Munich conference where I can see you're smiling. Let me just play it for our listeners.

This is the path that president Trump and The United States has embarked upon. It is the past path we ask you here in Europe to join us on. It is a path we have walked together before and hope to walk together again. For five centuries before the end of the second World War, the West had been expanding. Its missionaries, its pilgrims, its soldiers, its explorers pouring out from its shores to cross oceans, settle new continents, build vast empires extending out across the globe.

But in 1945, for the first time since the age of Columbus, it was contracting. Europe was in ruins. Half of it lived behind an iron curtain, and the rest looked like it would soon follow. The great Western empires had entered into terminal decline, accelerated by godless communist revolutions and by anticolonial uprisings that would transform the world and drape the red hammer and sickle across vast swaths of the map in the years to come. Against that backdrop, then, as now, many came to believe that the West's age of dominance had come to an end and that our future was destined to be a faint and feeble echo of our past.

But together, our predecessors recognized that decline was a choice, and it was a choice they refused to make. This is what we did together once before, and this is what president Trump and The United States want to do again now together with you.

Shahid, tell me something. What I see again I hope you're all watching on YouTube. You will see the expression on his face. Here's the thing. Could that be possibly the most bombastic, unapologetic, western, supremacist, pro colonialism speech ever?

Or did I not capture?

No. Of course it is. Of course it is. I mean, I was I'm laughing because it sounds like he's inviting someone on a Valentine's date. Let's do this together.

We can do this together. And he's talking about going on a crime spree. But but but what I would say is, and this is why, again, why I say that you have to contextualize everything within the context of the global transition that is taking place and that is irreversible. There's not another way that the that the that the future can develop, just practically speaking. And it's underway, and Rubio knows that it's underway.

Trump knows that it's underway. And this is why I I separate when I talk about the OCGFC, the owners and controllers of global financialized capital, I say that there are two main factions of that. There's the what I call the a national OCGFC, which is they're not tied to any nation. They don't have a nationalistic loyalty to any country. You're talking about the black rocks, the vanguards, all of these investment funds and so forth, the international transnational corporations, transnational finance and so on.

They're not tied to America specifically. They're not tied to American interests specifically. They don't fly under a flag, it's just a collection of logos. It's basically a sort of a floating supernatural or super super national empire without an imperial hub. And then there's the nationalistic OCGFC, which was the was the beginning of it, which arose domestically in The United States through the military industrial complex. Complex.

And they're represented politically by the neocons, the neoconservatives. And they have they believe in American supremacy, western supremacy ideologically, and they believe that American hegemony, global hegemony, you know, back in the old days, we used they they used to talk about the end of history, that chalice now America is just the global superpower and always will be, which just shows you how delusional they are. That they as if this is just a divinely ordained natural fact, no matter what actually happens in the real world. So there are still factions that are, I mean, was the ideological aspect of it and then there was the real profit motive behind it, which was that the American the post World War two, you know, well, within the context of World War two, in fact, America built their economy through the military industrial complex, through the weapons sector, the defense sector, the aerospace sector, and all tech, even what we're using right now was developed by for military purposes.

This was the driver for the American economy. Now, the military industrial complex is just one portfolio within the broader portfolio of the a national OCGFC. The a national. I mean, it's just one portfolio within the within the file of BlackRock, within the file of Vanguard. It's just one.

It used to be the only one that mattered, but it's not the only one that matters anymore. So, a national capital, and I say a national in the same way that you would say amoral or atheistic or so forth. Meaning, not transnational, non national. They don't have anything to do with any nation. They're anational.

They transcend national borders and national interests including the national interests of The United States Of America. But domestically, you still have the military industrial complex. You still have the nationalistic faction of the OCGFC. And those are Republicans by and large, but also Democrats, both parties anyway. It's just, you know, as everyone says, these are just two wings of the same bird, the same predatory bird, the two political factions, the two political parties.

So Rubio because if I remember correctly, it was either Rubio or it was JD Vance. I think it might have been JD Vance actually. Before Trump actually even entered office, he gave an interview where he was acknowledging that America's unipolar power status was an anomaly of history and that everyone has to understand that this is not meant to last and that it cannot last. And it already is gone. Functionally, factually, practically speaking, America is a regional hegemon.

It's a regional hegemon. It is no longer a global power, the way that the way that we all still think about it. They can't do anything unilaterally anymore. If you think about it, look back at what they've done recently. Even Venezuela was not done unilaterally.

They had to work with Venezuelans themselves. They had to work with China and get permission from China and from Russia to do what they did. They can't act unilaterally anymore. And the same goes for Iran. I mean, that was your last topic with your last speaker.

The same goes with Iran. Yeah. America is shackled by their own inability to act unilaterally. They can't act the way they used to act. Rubio knows this.

Rubio knows this very well. But he has to appease that faction. See, understand Trump's Trump is aligned with a national, with the a national faction. This is misleading because he's all about make America great again. He's all about MAGA.

He's all about America rebuilding and powerful and this and that and the other. This is all, packaging that packaging for a product that does the opposite of what it says on the tin. Trump's job is the dismantling. Trump's job is the withdrawal of America from the global stage. Trump's job is to dismantle American empire and he's doing it very well.

And if you look at the actual outcome of his policies Pardon me?

I I need to interrupt you from what you said there because Sure. In a world where great powers routinely, all the time, they ignore and circumvent legal cons legal constraints. There's the issue of sovereignty. You say they don't act unilaterally anymore. Well, perhaps you're right.

But, you know, on on on Christmas day in Nigeria, The United States struck a part of Nigeria, a state in Nigeria under the guise of attacking terrorist camp. Since then, we have some one fifty two hundred troops united in American soldiers on ground in Nigeria, including a drone refueling point, etcetera. When you say America no longer has that power, every I'm sure most of my listeners are thinking, well, what is he talking about? Because they're here, and this is something that's actually dividing this country because some think America should be here because we have a huge issue with terrorists, etcetera. And others are saying, but this is an infringement on our sovereignty.

And our academics have actually written an open letter to the president saying, this is unprecedented. We don't want it.

Yes. But but but what is the what is the agreement between the Nigerian government and America with regards to this?

Mhmm. Therein lies the issue. Right?

Therein lies the issue.

Therein lies your point.

This is what I'm saying. It's not unilateral. It's it's not we can put our troops anywhere we want with whether you like it or not. No. You have to agree to it.

Even if you don't even if you don't necessarily admit to agreeing to it. You you you you do have to agree to it. And even if that even if even if that how can I say this, the the agreement can also be coerced economically, and it can be coerced becau and this is why it's very important to go back to your your earlier question about whether or not the leaders are listening, and why I think it is so important for the leaders, the heads of state in the global South to understand, the actual true position of The United States, in terms of its actual, capacity for power projection? Because if you're still operating on a paradigm where you think that the slave master is young and healthy and can lash you, when actually he has become old and decrepit and he barely has the strength to lift that whip, you're still gonna treat him like he's a threat that he isn't. And America at this point is not the threat that they used to be.

And even the extent to which they they they were a threat in the past was, was, to one extent or another also, inflated and exaggerated. But it's but it's much different today than it was thirty years ago. It's even different than it was ten years ago, even five years ago. So, like, for example, I mean, I can't talk specifically about the details of the arrangement between the Nigerian government and America with regards to those troops. But I can guarantee you that America is not going to be able to do anything in Nigeria without permission.

I can guarantee you that they're not going be able to do anything in Nigeria without permission. So, yes, to to to go back to what I was saying, Trump's job is the is the dismantling. But in order to do the dismantling, he has to package it as the opposite. He's packaging it as make America great again. He's packaging it as building America up.

But if you look at the outcome of his policies, whether it's tariffs, whether it's the excluding countries from SWIFT, whether it's even unilateral sanctions, all of these types of measures are are doing two things at the same time. One of them is withdrawing America and the importance of America to the global financial system, the global economic system, and global prestige. And it's also facilitating and expediting the creation of alternatives to America. It's it's, for example, with the swift exclusions and with unilateral sanctions. Okay.

If we see that you're gonna weaponize the dollar, well, we don't need to use it then. We'll look for alternatives. We'll look for other ways to deal with our our economic issues. We'll find other ways to settle our transactions globally. And that's been happening, as you know.

So everything that Trump has done, all of his policies have actually withdrawn America, retracted America, contracted America and dismantled their global prestige, dismantled their global power and their ability to actually project power. So if you look objectively without narrative and without the obsolete paradigms of fifty years ago, then you'll see that you'll see that America in fact is already a regional hegemon. Yes, they have global impact, they have the ability to impact things globally, but not any different from a China or a Russia or any other major player that is considered to be a regional hegemon. America has already, reached the status of being a regional hegemon.

Which then leads me to my next question. You mentioned them already, the China Russia factor. How are they exploiting the current weaknesses in the system, and how how should we view them? Is this a case of, you know, better Russia, better China than America, or should we now knowing what we've learned and what you've experienced, I'm talking that we as the global South and indeed Africa, knowing our experience of the Americans and what we've seen, should we be playing with them cautiously? Talk to us.

Unpack that factor. I'm gonna give you a minute because we still have a lot to cover, I've gotta open up the line.

Oh, well, okay. I will try. You should treat any any other player cautiously because every other player, geopolitically, the the rule is every everyone is pursuing their own interests. Am am I still connected? Okay.

Every every nation Yes,

you are.

Every every geopolitical player. Can

see you.

Okay.

Yeah. It's red, but I can see you.

Okay. You you should be cautious, always. But I don't think that there's any rational reason to expect Russia or China to behave like The United States. And I also don't think that it's rational or reasonable to imagine that there needs to be a globally dominant power that controls everything. Because that was a moment in history that's already passed.

The the so called unipolar moment has already passed. It's already passed. So there's no need to think about replacing it. But you should every country needs to think strategically about their relationships in terms of how there's no way that I can do that in one minute to talk about what China is doing, what Russia is doing and so forth.

Okay. I'll give you an extra minute. I'll give you an extra minute because they've already started calling. Go ahead. We'd like to hear from you, Shayne.

So I'll give you an extra minute. Go ahead.

Well Okay. Let me let me put it this way. What's happening is when you talk about a multipolar world, functionally, practically, what that means is that the world is being divided into spheres of influence. Spheres of influence that are dominated within their area by regional hegemons or collections of regional hegemons. So for example, the GCC specifically Qatar, UAE and Saudi Arabia, and Turkey and Egypt, these are the the regional hegemons now for various reasons for the Middle East and North Africa.

This is their sphere of influence. This belongs to them in terms of influence. They're the ones who are gonna be controlling outcomes there. But they're doing it also in connection with China, in connection with Russia, and this is through like the BRICS framework and so forth. China is controls East Asia completely.

I mean, there's no there's no there's no concept of it's a completely unrealistic concept if you're asking, for example, Malaysia or Indonesia or whatever or Singapore to cut their relations with China. This is an impossibility and no one takes it seriously. So you're seeing the development of these spheres of influence. America is concentrating on the Western Hemisphere. They wanna be able to control as much as possible, but it's I I should I don't know how much time I'll have to talk about it, but America wants to be able to control the Western Hemisphere, their their traditional, or historical backyard, Central And South America.

They wanna maintain control over that, and they wanna be able to control Europe. They're satisfied with that. Africa is up for grabs. Africa is up for grabs. But you're gonna be but but but where you are, Nigeria is a regional hegemon.

You're you're massive. Your economy is massive. Your population is massive and growing. You're gonna become one of the most, if not the most important and influential countries in Africa. Say in in in the ASEAN region, it's Indonesia and Singapore.

Singapore for financial reasons, Indonesia for population reasons, for manufacturing purposes and so forth. So it's it's everything is getting broken up into these spheres of influence. So there's no necessarily a reason to think about, well, which power is gonna dominate the world. No power is gonna dominate the world. The world is gonna be divided into regional hegemons and and regional spheres of influence, which is which is the way it has always been in history.

And Nigeria better get itself together. Okay. You can call back. I could not interrupt him. 02012770993.

I apologize.

No. Not at all, Syed. You're here to share your knowledge and expertise and, you know, and thoughts with us. Gosh. This people pay for this.

We appreciate getting it for free. 08095975805. Okay. I'm coming to your calls now. I'm making sure it's up succinct.

Hello?

Good evening. This is Sergei Maloka from.

Go ahead, Maloka.

This is yeah. This is this is a rebellion. This is this is new this is new teaching. This is new learning. I may say so.

But again, do it take a long time for I mean, those of us in Africa or in and and and countries like that to to really win ourself of the fear of America as the policeman of the world, even when they are not. So what does your your guess suggest that how does the consciousness how are we going to raise it for people to understand and for African leaders to understand that you can stand and talk just like the way talking about some other people told American business America to take out their business, and they did. And now it's it's it's it's adding up.

Thank you,

couldn't have. They needed the call the the the support. Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you, Madu Khan. I I really like his question because I think, you know, it's it's it's when the ordinary citizens of Africa like, how how can we do this? Let me just answer one more call. Hello?

Hello? Yes. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

This is Franklin.

Franklin, go ahead. Yes.

Yes. So I just wanna ask a question.

Considering how the how I don't know.

Should I call it bullying America is getting these days Mhmm. And how they just grows and don't care how we affect the the country they're trying to invade or whatever the country they're in. Mhmm. Do you think there's a possibility that Nigeria could get colonized again?

Good question.

Love to know that because I feel like our leaders are not paying attention to that, and whatever it is they throw at them, they just do, like, slave and master kind of thing.

Thank you.

So I

really love to know if there's possibility that Nigeria could get colonized again.

Thank you very much. Stay listening. Ekso, you've got two very strong questions there, Shahid. Maduka wants to know I mean, Franklin Franklin I'm remembering first. Franklin wants to know if it's if there's a possibility that Nigeria could become an American colony again because he doesn't think Nigerian you're smiling.

He doesn't think Nigerian leaders or leadership is awake to see what America or sharp enough to see what America is doing. Wants to know pretty much what I asked you earlier. You know, how can we stand up to America? How can our leaders do take a leaf from what the likes of, you know, little Burkina Faso did and etcetera. How can they do that?

The lines are going, so I'm gonna be strict with you, sir.

Uh-huh. Time wise. Okay. Time wise. Okay.

Otherwise, I'll

have to keep you on for four hours. You know.

Well, I mean, you gave me a very broad topic about the rules based order and so forth. It's a very broad topic. It deserves a much longer session. I'd be happy to come back anytime. Obviously, it's my honor.

Okay. Well well, there there is the perception that you have of the West, and then there's the reality of what the West can do. So whether you stand up Okay. With regards to colonization, obviously not. Nigeria is not gonna be colonized again, but you have to get rid of the colonized mentality.

Have to get rid of the psychological colonization in your own minds. And that's for your own good, not because America is gonna be able to keep you under their thumb under otherwise, because their thumb is getting smaller by the day. They don't have the power to colonize you again. So you are afraid of a boogeyman that died a while back. You're afraid of a boogeyman who's already anemic, can't do anything to you anymore significantly.

So, this is one of the things that people have to understand about when America, for example, threatens to withdraw aid to Africa, to South Africa, to Nigeria, or to wherever, they're not actually trying to coerce you. You this you need to understand what's happening. They don't have the money. They're trying to make it look like we're threatening you with this. They don't have the money.

They can't afford to give that to you anymore and, like I said, they're trying to withdraw. Whether you like you're trying to hold on to their legs as they're trying to walk out of the room and afraid they're gonna they're gonna colonize you again where you won't let them go. You need to let them go. And if you don't let them go go, they're gonna try and push you away because they're trying to get out. They're trying to get out.

They're trying to get out of that position. They're take they've taken off their uniform as the as the global policeman, the world's policeman. They took off their uniform. They're trying to retire. And you you keep trying to bring them back into the service.

But they don't have the ability, they don't have the power, they don't have the will, they don't have the drive, they don't have the ability to do that anymore. So whether you get your mind right or not, the reality is the reality. America doesn't have the power to be a global hegemon anymore. They don't have the power and they don't have the will to be a global hegemon anymore. Mark Rubio be damned.

So you need to get your own head right just for your own sake, Just so you can sleep at night with some tranquility because you're otherwise you're believing in a delusion that doesn't exist anymore. And and and the the the first question I think was about was about how people can can can get

How can how can they stand off to a better recovery way for Right.

First of all, with regards to I I I remember I had a little trouble hearing it, but he was talking about it's gonna take a very long time before people can wrap their heads around this, before people can change and and so forth. Yeah. Colonization was for four hundred, five hundred years. Okay? You were under vicious, savage, brutal colonization for centuries.

Look at what is already happening just within the last ten years, just within the last decade, just within the last twenty years what has happened. I don't think that anyone could have possibly imagined that countries that had been subjugated for centuries could already have risen as quickly as they have. The resilience is absolutely breathtaking. The the ability to come back, the ability to stand up after you've been under somebody's boot for five hundred years is absolutely breathtaking. It's staggering.

So I think that you underestimate the ability of these nations, the ability of these people, to reassert themselves and to stand up with their back straight and their shoulders back and tell America where to go. Because what they have already accomplished is phenomenal. What they have already accomplished is phenomenal when you look at the history that they've suffered. So I think that their ability to bounce back is much greater than you might give them credit for, and that you might be giving yourself credit for. You should be very proud of what all of the all of the nations in the global South, all of the nations in Africa.