Wow, although both speakers are very smart and intelligent, it looks they are totally confused on their understanding of Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela. They are creating a real banana republic masquerade of "multi-polarity". They should live in Venezuela for an year and then Argentina. Afterwards come up with a true and real experience in order to discern correctly and not clueless...
I think Pepe is Brazilian, argentinas economy is handicapped by imf debt and Venezuela is one of the most embargoed countries in the world. There is a lot to be said about their governments being bad but also any country under similar sanctions would be in trouble regardless. The only reason Russia isn’t as bad as Argentina or Venezuela is because of land borders with china and India.
Pepe Escobar insiste ancora per la necessità di una nuova valuta di riserva. Questo significa che lui è in favore dei cambi fissi tra le valute nazionali, ossia in favore del sistema fraudolento con cui i poteri occidentali colonizzano popoli e nazioni
Mi piace ascoltare Escobar e Dudgin ma non mi convincono mai: sostituire l'unipolarismo con il multipolarismo è una idea affascinante ma non vi vedo alcun vantaggio pratico per la gente comune (e, quindi, per me). Dal mio punto di vista è il solito "cambiare tutto per non cambiare niente", l'ennesima sostituzione di un ordine (mondiale) con un altro, di una élite con un'altra (forse). Consideriamo l'ultimo che abbiamo vissuto: il passaggio dal bipolarismo al monipolarismo con la caduta dell'URRS. E' cambiato qualche cosa per me? Sì, e non sono sicuro che mi sia conventuo. E' cambiato qualche cosa per un abitante di Mosca? Sì, e non so se gli sia convenuto! E' cambiato qualche cosa per un abitante di New York, Tripoli, Taipei, Tel Aviv...? Sì, e non so se sia convenuto a tutti loro!
A me sembra che Escobar e Gugin stiano solo promuovendo una idea affinché tutti la accettino. Cominciando dal mondo accademico. Un po' come hanno fatto, a partire da qualche decennio fa, con il multiculturalismo.
Quando avrò tempo, dedicherò all'argomento un post. Poiché, però, mi dispiacerebbe essere tacciato per qualunquista, vorrei rispondere al dilemma di Escobar: che valuta utilizzare per far funzionare questo nuovo ordine mondiale? Perché non il Bancor suggerito da Keynes per gli Accordi di Bretton Woods, non accettato dagli USA che imposero invece il loro dollaro? Le cose funzionarono bene finché il dollaro rimase stabile, cioè fino ai primi anni settanta quando, svalutandolo, il governo USA cercò di scaricare altrove le sue difficoltà economiche causati dagli esborsi della guerra in Viet Nam. *Probabilmente* se invece del dollaro avessero scelto il Bancor, il periodo di prosperità garantito da quegli accordi a tutti i suoi partecipanti sarebbe perdurato.
I like listening to Escobar and Dudgin but they never convince me: replacing unipolarity with multipolarity is a fascinating idea but I don't see any practical advantage for ordinary people (and, therefore, for me).
From my point of view it is the usual "change everything to change nothing", the umpteenth replacement of one (world) order with another, of one elite with another (maybe). Let's consider the last one we experienced: the passage from bipolarism to unipolarity with the fall of the USSR. Has anything changed for me? Yes, and I'm not sure it suited me. Has anything changed for a Moscow resident? Yes, and I don't know if it suited him! Has anything changed for a New York, Tripoli, Taipei, Tel Aviv...? Yes, and I don't know if it suited them all!
It seems to me that Escobar and Gugin are just promoting an idea so that everyone can accept it. Starting with the academic world. A bit like they did, starting a few decades ago, with multiculturalism.
When I have time, I will dedicate a post to the topic. However, since I would hate to be accused of being a politically apathetic, I would like to answer Escobar's dilemma: what currency should they use to make this new world order work? Why not the Bancor suggested by Keynes for the Bretton Woods Agreements, not accepted by the USA who instead imposed their dollar? Things worked well as long as the dollar remained stable, that is, until the early seventies when, by devaluing it, the US government tried to offload elsewhere its economic difficulties caused by the huge expenses of the war in Vietnam. *Probably*, if instead of the dollar they had chosen the Bancor, the period of prosperity guaranteed by those agreements to all its participants would have continued. Perhaps until today or even longer.
That went very quickly, another hour would not even have sufficed. Alexander, a couple of points:
Liberal universality: The essence of Liberalism, as with Conservatism and Leftism, can be seen as universal. Fx, Leftism's essence can be seen as egalitarian - universally (In healthy societies) how you treat your friends. If you will not help a friend in need you are not a friend. Conservatism - hierarchical thinking - can also have a universal element, it is how you interact with authority structures, such as your bank manager if you want a loan, or the person waiting on you in a restaurant. And the secondary meaning of preserving. Liberalism therefore can be seen as interactions between individuals who are not friends or in a hierarchy - such as haggling with the local friendly shopkeeper, fx, wherein questions about what you wear, what religion you follow, your sexuality, your politics, are not up for discussion.
These three elements can be considered universal, as they exist in some form in nearly all societies barring the most extreme (Which usually implode or explode).
All societies - and individuals - benefit having all 3 elements within and around them, 'left, right and liberal'. As Pirsig said in ZAMM, society needs to change as circumstances change, but they also need to protect what they already have that already works.
Your point that the Liberalism of the West has become Hegemonic is well taken, but ever so slightly disingenuous. You know of course that the "Liberalism" the West is forcibly promoting is unnatural, and can probably guess that when push comes to shove, will be ditched by Western 'leaders' in a heartbeat. It is a fig-leaf for the TRUE intention of the West, which corresponds more closely to Fascism or Nazism. Colonialism and Imperialism, as the post-Roman Europe can only understand at the greedy 'leadership' level. The West is not promoting aggressively Gay rights for the actual benefit of homosexuals, any improvements are a side-show for the true goal of inserting their agents into political positions by removing those not "pure" enough.
Ironically, the key element of Western "Liberalism" is not Liberal, but Neoliberal, nowadays. The difference is profound. Liberalism promotes private property (Both left and right overturn that in their more extremes), but the essence of liberalism is self-ownership - to be properly Liberal citizens should own their own homes and workplaces, thereby diffusing wealth.
It can be centralised in local credit unions to provide future capital for expansion and investment.
However the neoliberal model CENTRALISES wealth, by design, on every level. It inevitably forces a Feudal model - the opposite of the essence of liberalism, and capitalism.
From my time in Africa, I would say that the genocidal and cultural genocide policies of the West "worked" very well in Africa. Most of all, they need a new direction, to build something outside of the Western imposed beliefs and narratives. And that definitely includes Christianity, which ties them to the West in a million small ways. Yes, Ethiopia has an ancient authentic Christian experience, but for most of Africa (And Europe for that matter), this religion was parachuted in once the local cultures had been decimated, and imposed upon the population.
Liberalism can be universal in another way - the embodiment of the Two Golden Rules [Do unto as.. don't do unto as... etc].
Although I haven't read the authors you mention, I personally wouldn't say that Universal Liberalism is wrong - it is as universal as Conservatism and Leftism - but when it has been weaponised, in truth to maintain a sick Fascist Empire a little longer; it is more than understandable when there is pushback, using the same terminology as the exploiters too.
But "Liberalism" can be seen as not really The Problem - the TRUE problem is the American Fourth Reich. And it's Goebellian media, and "Willing puppets".
IMHO. Greatly enjoyed watching your discussion, I hope you sometimes peruse through this section and have the patience to read one of the 'enemies' replies. :)
Your granddaughter was an exceptional woman. May those who ordered the act lose something as precious for themselves.
Hello Everyone, I am witnessed from Nepal to be here to listen minutely the masterclass of both.
Wow, although both speakers are very smart and intelligent, it looks they are totally confused on their understanding of Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela. They are creating a real banana republic masquerade of "multi-polarity". They should live in Venezuela for an year and then Argentina. Afterwards come up with a true and real experience in order to discern correctly and not clueless...
I think Pepe is Brazilian, argentinas economy is handicapped by imf debt and Venezuela is one of the most embargoed countries in the world. There is a lot to be said about their governments being bad but also any country under similar sanctions would be in trouble regardless. The only reason Russia isn’t as bad as Argentina or Venezuela is because of land borders with china and India.
Pepe Escobar insiste ancora per la necessità di una nuova valuta di riserva. Questo significa che lui è in favore dei cambi fissi tra le valute nazionali, ossia in favore del sistema fraudolento con cui i poteri occidentali colonizzano popoli e nazioni
Sì, questa è la realtà da lui proposta...
Hai letto il mio articolo su di lui?
Sì, l'ho letto e capisco che hai ragione
ONLY I + MARY~THEOTOKOS-! = OUR~LADY~O'~KAZAN-! + CAN HELP YOU-! + + +
The world need more options, alternatives!
MATT & ASUMPTA:
https://theduran.com/the-fall-of-the-anglo-american-empire-and-the-rise-of-a-new-paradigm/ =
MACULA-SPOT-ON-! + & + HAIRY-WRINKLE-TOO-! =
THEE-DEITY-JUDA: W/O-MACULA-SPOT-! + [ATOMIC~MATH-!] ~
+ & +
THEE-DEITY-JUDA: W/O-HAIRY-WRINKLE-! + [HYDRO-GYN~PHYICS-!] =
O'-THEE-DEITY-BI-POLAR-LUCY-! =
JUDA-s-ISM-MACULA-SOUL-SPOT-! = BI-POLAR~ORIGINAL-SIN-!
+ & +
HER-SHE-MALE-UNI-POLAR-LUCY-! =
JUDA-s-ISM-HAIRY-FLESH-WRIKLE-! = UNI-POLAR~ORIGINAL-SIN-!
THEE-ALPHA-BRITISH-LUCIFER-MACKINDER-! =
"THEE-BRASS-RING-!" . . .
+ & +
THEE-OMEGA-BRITISH-GREAT-GAME-OVER-! =
"GOIN-4-THEE-GOLDA-MEIR-@-UK-REIGN-!" . . . =
THEE-FATIMA-ANNIHILATION-O'-NAZI-AZOV-NATIONS-! = HITLER-! =
THEE-[JP-II]-POLISH-WARSAW-PACT-! ~ WEST-! =
O'-THEE-CIA: NAZI-GLADIO-&-AZOV-GALLEN-! =
THEE-WARSAW-SLAVE-NATIONS-! ~ WEST-!
Mi piace ascoltare Escobar e Dudgin ma non mi convincono mai: sostituire l'unipolarismo con il multipolarismo è una idea affascinante ma non vi vedo alcun vantaggio pratico per la gente comune (e, quindi, per me). Dal mio punto di vista è il solito "cambiare tutto per non cambiare niente", l'ennesima sostituzione di un ordine (mondiale) con un altro, di una élite con un'altra (forse). Consideriamo l'ultimo che abbiamo vissuto: il passaggio dal bipolarismo al monipolarismo con la caduta dell'URRS. E' cambiato qualche cosa per me? Sì, e non sono sicuro che mi sia conventuo. E' cambiato qualche cosa per un abitante di Mosca? Sì, e non so se gli sia convenuto! E' cambiato qualche cosa per un abitante di New York, Tripoli, Taipei, Tel Aviv...? Sì, e non so se sia convenuto a tutti loro!
A me sembra che Escobar e Gugin stiano solo promuovendo una idea affinché tutti la accettino. Cominciando dal mondo accademico. Un po' come hanno fatto, a partire da qualche decennio fa, con il multiculturalismo.
Quando avrò tempo, dedicherò all'argomento un post. Poiché, però, mi dispiacerebbe essere tacciato per qualunquista, vorrei rispondere al dilemma di Escobar: che valuta utilizzare per far funzionare questo nuovo ordine mondiale? Perché non il Bancor suggerito da Keynes per gli Accordi di Bretton Woods, non accettato dagli USA che imposero invece il loro dollaro? Le cose funzionarono bene finché il dollaro rimase stabile, cioè fino ai primi anni settanta quando, svalutandolo, il governo USA cercò di scaricare altrove le sue difficoltà economiche causati dagli esborsi della guerra in Viet Nam. *Probabilmente* se invece del dollaro avessero scelto il Bancor, il periodo di prosperità garantito da quegli accordi a tutti i suoi partecipanti sarebbe perdurato.
I like listening to Escobar and Dudgin but they never convince me: replacing unipolarity with multipolarity is a fascinating idea but I don't see any practical advantage for ordinary people (and, therefore, for me).
From my point of view it is the usual "change everything to change nothing", the umpteenth replacement of one (world) order with another, of one elite with another (maybe). Let's consider the last one we experienced: the passage from bipolarism to unipolarity with the fall of the USSR. Has anything changed for me? Yes, and I'm not sure it suited me. Has anything changed for a Moscow resident? Yes, and I don't know if it suited him! Has anything changed for a New York, Tripoli, Taipei, Tel Aviv...? Yes, and I don't know if it suited them all!
It seems to me that Escobar and Gugin are just promoting an idea so that everyone can accept it. Starting with the academic world. A bit like they did, starting a few decades ago, with multiculturalism.
When I have time, I will dedicate a post to the topic. However, since I would hate to be accused of being a politically apathetic, I would like to answer Escobar's dilemma: what currency should they use to make this new world order work? Why not the Bancor suggested by Keynes for the Bretton Woods Agreements, not accepted by the USA who instead imposed their dollar? Things worked well as long as the dollar remained stable, that is, until the early seventies when, by devaluing it, the US government tried to offload elsewhere its economic difficulties caused by the huge expenses of the war in Vietnam. *Probably*, if instead of the dollar they had chosen the Bancor, the period of prosperity guaranteed by those agreements to all its participants would have continued. Perhaps until today or even longer.
That went very quickly, another hour would not even have sufficed. Alexander, a couple of points:
Liberal universality: The essence of Liberalism, as with Conservatism and Leftism, can be seen as universal. Fx, Leftism's essence can be seen as egalitarian - universally (In healthy societies) how you treat your friends. If you will not help a friend in need you are not a friend. Conservatism - hierarchical thinking - can also have a universal element, it is how you interact with authority structures, such as your bank manager if you want a loan, or the person waiting on you in a restaurant. And the secondary meaning of preserving. Liberalism therefore can be seen as interactions between individuals who are not friends or in a hierarchy - such as haggling with the local friendly shopkeeper, fx, wherein questions about what you wear, what religion you follow, your sexuality, your politics, are not up for discussion.
These three elements can be considered universal, as they exist in some form in nearly all societies barring the most extreme (Which usually implode or explode).
All societies - and individuals - benefit having all 3 elements within and around them, 'left, right and liberal'. As Pirsig said in ZAMM, society needs to change as circumstances change, but they also need to protect what they already have that already works.
Your point that the Liberalism of the West has become Hegemonic is well taken, but ever so slightly disingenuous. You know of course that the "Liberalism" the West is forcibly promoting is unnatural, and can probably guess that when push comes to shove, will be ditched by Western 'leaders' in a heartbeat. It is a fig-leaf for the TRUE intention of the West, which corresponds more closely to Fascism or Nazism. Colonialism and Imperialism, as the post-Roman Europe can only understand at the greedy 'leadership' level. The West is not promoting aggressively Gay rights for the actual benefit of homosexuals, any improvements are a side-show for the true goal of inserting their agents into political positions by removing those not "pure" enough.
Ironically, the key element of Western "Liberalism" is not Liberal, but Neoliberal, nowadays. The difference is profound. Liberalism promotes private property (Both left and right overturn that in their more extremes), but the essence of liberalism is self-ownership - to be properly Liberal citizens should own their own homes and workplaces, thereby diffusing wealth.
It can be centralised in local credit unions to provide future capital for expansion and investment.
However the neoliberal model CENTRALISES wealth, by design, on every level. It inevitably forces a Feudal model - the opposite of the essence of liberalism, and capitalism.
From my time in Africa, I would say that the genocidal and cultural genocide policies of the West "worked" very well in Africa. Most of all, they need a new direction, to build something outside of the Western imposed beliefs and narratives. And that definitely includes Christianity, which ties them to the West in a million small ways. Yes, Ethiopia has an ancient authentic Christian experience, but for most of Africa (And Europe for that matter), this religion was parachuted in once the local cultures had been decimated, and imposed upon the population.
Liberalism can be universal in another way - the embodiment of the Two Golden Rules [Do unto as.. don't do unto as... etc].
Although I haven't read the authors you mention, I personally wouldn't say that Universal Liberalism is wrong - it is as universal as Conservatism and Leftism - but when it has been weaponised, in truth to maintain a sick Fascist Empire a little longer; it is more than understandable when there is pushback, using the same terminology as the exploiters too.
But "Liberalism" can be seen as not really The Problem - the TRUE problem is the American Fourth Reich. And it's Goebellian media, and "Willing puppets".
IMHO. Greatly enjoyed watching your discussion, I hope you sometimes peruse through this section and have the patience to read one of the 'enemies' replies. :)
Your granddaughter was an exceptional woman. May those who ordered the act lose something as precious for themselves.
Peace. x
I fully support the BRICS initiative.
This was a wonderful discussion.