Syria Podcast Episode 8

The UK has been less happy to welcome Middle Eastern Christians into British territory, which is kind of interesting. But we're too busy welcoming the Tak fairies, yes? Exactly. Syria was a linchpin really for the entire global resistance axis or the remaining independent countries that opposed imperialism and opposed the Zionist occupation of Palestine as being a core element of their foreign policy

positions, right. And, and so that goes from Iran, Yemen, through the whole of the Middle East or or West Asia, but then also expands into regions of Africa, as we're now seeing coming under attack. And of course, Latin America, Venezuela was an integral part of the resistance axis.

So Machado is also pushing this rhetoric that Hezbollah is establishing itself in Venezuela, that Iran is embedding itself in Venezuela, Hamas is embedding itself in Venezuela, and so therefore Venezuela represents a direct threat to Israel. And of course, I'm sure that this was discussed between Netanyahu and Trump. Hello and welcome to Episode 8 of The Syria Podcast. I'm joined once again by Vanessa Bailey. Welcome to the program, Vanessa. Thank you, Mike.

And I will just say New Year because I don't think any of us can call it a happy start to the New year as expected to a large degree. Well, precisely. And well, we'll call it, You know, this is the Syria podcast. This is the continuation of a series of podcasts that we

started last year. But actually, we're not going to be spending much time in Syria for this one at all because the implications of what happened in Syria just over a year ago and and the acceptance by most world leaders now of Jelani as the head of state of Syria are having massive implications. And that's really what we want to focus on for this program.

Yeah. I mean, there are rumours, by the way, that Jelani or Ahmed Al Shahrawaz, he's now known, of course, having been rebranded by particularly the MI 6, but the entire intelligence card who waged the regime change war against Syria since 2011. There are rumors and there are images circulating of him after an ambush in which he was injured. And he's now in Turkey, allegedly. This is coming from social media and I think Turkish media accounts and some Israeli media

accounts. Now, to some degree that wouldn't be awfully surprising because the writing has been on the wall and we've written about it and spoken about it at UK column that Jolani's term in power is not going to last very long because ultimately what's going to happen, Syria will be carved up into spheres of regional influence. I mean, you know, as you said, we we want to expand from inside Syria to effectively what the fall of Syria actually meant.

Syria was a lynchpin really for the entire global resistance axis or the remaining independent countries that opposed imperialism and opposed the Zionist occupation of Palestine as being a core element of their foreign policy positions, right. And and so that goes from Iran, Yemen, through the whole of the Middle East or or West Asia, but then also expands into regions of Africa as we're now seeing coming under attack and of course Latin America.

Venezuela was an integral part of the resistance axis under Bashar Al Assad's presidency. There were flights established with using Venezuelan airlines to effectively fly from Tehran to Damascus and Caracas directly. So that gives you an indication. It gives people an indication of the importance of Venezuela to Syria and of Syria to Venezuela,

and of the connection between Venezuela and Syria with Iran and effectively the entire resistance axis. OK. Well, let's sort of because it's been a few months since we've recorded one of these. So let's let's start off in Africa actually, because obviously since the last recording, we've had a number of things happening, the massive ramping up of the conflict in Sudan, We've had the attack over just around the Christmas period of Nigeria and supposedly Boko Haram by Trump.

And but as well as that, we've got problems occurring in book in Burkina Faso, for example. So, so why do we take each of those? I mean, do you feel that there's a, a connection between the inflammation of, of what's happening in Sudan over the last six or eight months in particular? There's a connection with that to, to what has happened in Syria or Syria has been a, a

driver for that. No, I think for sure you, as I said, we have to see the fall of Syria as being the opening of the floodgates to Zionist expansion, either through proxy vessel or client states like the UAE, which is operating inside Sudan on behalf of Israel, but also in Yemen.

You're now seeing the effective isolation of the Antrullo resistance government in Northern Yemen with Saudi Arabia and UAE, UAE very much as a proxy of Israel vying for influence in the eastern territories and southern territories of Yemen. So again, Yemen is being enclosed by the Zionist bloc within Yemen itself, but also from the Horn of Africa. The fact that Israel has also recognized Somaliland and is talking about the conditions of

this, of course, one of the conditions is that it can establish military bases, surveillance bases in Somaliland and on the coast. And of course, this directly poses a threat to Yemen both now and in the future. And then yes, you, you have the inflammation, as you said of an already very tense situation in Sudan that again has been fermented and stoked and maintained by a number of global

players. But particularly if we're talking about Israel by the UAE that is extracting gold and rare earth minerals, etcetera, other resources from Sudan itself. But then if you come into Burkina Faso and Nigeria, as you mentioned, there's also issues of course in Eritrea and in Mali. And of course that is also Mali is also connected into Burkina Faso.

Because with Ibrahim Traori, you effectively have a second Thomas Sankara, who of course eventually was assassinated by the imperialist bloc, because Traori represents a new wave of pan Arabism, a new wave of African unity and independence and resource nationalization. So again, this aligns with this entire resistance block of what had left of independent nations.

And very recently, I think it was in the new year, Traore gave a speech to his people about the incoming dark winter where they had to prepare to unite against the forces that we're going to try and again break apart the the rising pan Arabism that that he is trying to foster in Central Africa.

And of course, that followed on from, as you mentioned, the Trump rhetoric of we have to save the Christians from genocide in Nigeria. Of course, they've done nothing other than drive out Christians from the Middle East for, for decades through their various colonialist, imperialist projects. So I, I have very little belief in any statements from them claiming to defend Christianity in any way, shape or form globally.

But actually when I looked into the areas they actually bombed, so they claimed they were not bombing Boko Haram, they were bombing ISIS in Nigeria. So they are kind of two separate entities, but cohesive in some of their operations and so on. But the reality? IS to Syria again then. Yeah, exactly. It's, it's just a branding of the various terrorist factions that of course the US is sponsoring in these countries to create division and, and

terrorism. And in fact, the area that they bombed was in the north and northwest of Nigeria, which is actually, if you like, I don't like to use the word stronghold because that immediately creates a negative impression, but it's

the area where the majority of the Shia Muslim communities reside. And that means Sheikh Zakhzaki, who's been persecuted by the Nigerian government, the Nigerian government, which of course is is a proxy of the United States interests very much in Africa, have been murdering the Shia Muslim factions in Nigeria for some time because of their stance on Palestine.

There has also been a historic campaign by Christian Zionists to infiltrate the Christian communities in Africa because of course, you know, historically Africa has been converted to Christianity and there are various papers and documents detailing the fact that Zionist influences spreading into Africa through Christian Zionist influence and and policies.

Boko Haram and that whole insurgency in that part of Africa is again parallels to Syria because we have here, we have Islamic extremists created and and funded and armed by the West. And then we use those as an excuse to, to carry out our policies in in that region. But it's very much the same. It's always the same modus operandi operating in these places.

And in the meantime, in the Western press, we're bombarded with the narrative that of, of Christian versus Muslim and the Muslims are genociding the Christians and, and we've got to hit Muslims. And, and so you know this for, for the, the, the powers that are, that are manipulating this situation. It operates on many fronts.

Definitely. And I think, you know the clearest example of that is in Syria where the war that was wage to change regime ended with the emigration of a huge percentage of the Christian population, massive percentage.

And now of course, under Jelani or Ahmed Al Sharad, the HTS and Takfiri forces and ISIS elements are carrying out ethnic cleansing again of the Christians or putting them in positions where they feel so threatened within their very isolated communities now that they're leaving voluntarily. And of course, it's always been made very easy for Christians to get visas to Canada and to even to the US and so on.

The UK has been less happy to welcome Middle Eastern Christians into British territory, which is kind of interesting. But we're too busy welcoming the tax fairies, yes? Exactly. That's that's the whole point. This, this was something that I wrote about for some time while all successive British governments were saying we're in Syria to protect the Christians.

But hold on, you're actually preventing them from coming to Britain to to as refugees, but you're both fostering, creating, radicalizing and exporting tech theories. And then you're giving them amnesty, if you remember in around 20/16/2018 to return to Britain. So, yeah, you know, it's it's sort of extraordinary. But this historical cleansing of Christianity in the region has been has been a strategy for some time.

Because ultimately what they want is a war between the resistance Muslim factions and the GCC block, which of course is very much aligned with the Zionist block. They were created by the British in order to effectively protect

the Zionist entity and to act as almost outreach agents for the Zionist entity. I mean, David Miller sent me a document that the UAE has released, or it's a secret document that has been released in which they're complaining that, well, why did we sign the Abraham Accords? Because Israel treats us like a, like a servant. They don't ask us to do things on their behalf. They basically are ordering us to do things.

And as I said to David, well, they it's a bit late now to cry victim because this is 1, why you were created. And two, you've benefited from this partnership to expand your own reach, both in the region, but also now more extensively globally with the backing of the Zionist entity and the movement, the entire Zionist movement, which of course then is backed and supported by much of the Western Hemisphere. Obviously this having a massive impact in North Africa.

Why? What is the, what is the reason for that? Why is the why is there interest from Zionism and from the West in this in this region, do you think? I think there's a number of aspects to this, of course. First of all, as I said, it's Yemen positioning Israel to effectively both be able to intimidate Yemen, but also to eventually attack Iran. Because if Israel has, they already have put air defence onto the island of Socotra, South of Yemen, which is sort of

under the control of the UAE. But effectively that means Israel and it's US air defence systems. Having control of the Horn of Africa means of course that they also have control of the bubble Mandeb Straits which Yemen has been using to blockade shipping to Israel resources. From an American perspective, having control again or or not losing control in some instances in Africa generally means excluding China from its soft power, power expansion.

And that is also mirrored in what's happening in Latin America. We can come on to that because of course, China to a large degree has a greater foothold now in Africa than the United States through its soft power, Chinese government subsidised expansion campaigns, right? And so much of this move by the Zionists and by the US. How I see at the moment is pox Americana, as I call it, Of course, Pax Americana is definitely on the decline.

But what's happening in my opinion, is we're seeing coming up behind it and almost in a parasitic way, rioting the dying empire in order to expand their own influence. Is Pax Judaica the, the Zionist movement expansion economically. I know when people think about expansion, they, they think of settlement and and military takeovers because that's what we've seen for 200 years with the United States, right?

My belief and my understanding with the with the Zionist movement is it's looking to effectively in in it not in the same way as China. It is expanding in the sense of wanting to settle and impose its policies on those countries where it is now increasing its influence. But it's also to have economic structures which are to its

benefit. It's kind of a mix of of I wouldn't say soft power because I don't think the Zionist movement ever uses any degree of soft power, but let's say economic blackmail and capture, right, not necessarily force because it relies on the US for the force effectively. I mean, if we look at what's happening in Israel now, sorry, in Syria now or even in Lebanon beyond bombing, it's very unlikely that they're going to be successful in any kind of

ground invasion. They're only succeeding in southern Syria because they have some kind of backdoor agreement with Jolani and they always have had that. The South would effectively be handed over to Israel. The David's corridor would be established up the eastern border of Syria, connecting with the Kurdish autonomous state in the northeast and then eventually into Iraq also.

So I, I think we're seeing a massive change in the world order, not necessarily of course, an advantageous one or far from it. And I think speaking to people here, people that, you know, study strategy and so on. And and they've said we're going to see some very odd partnerships turning up, particularly in Syria, like right now Russia, for example, although it is very partnered

with Israel right now, it's aligning itself and its policy more with Turkey and France. So you know what I mean? So we're going to see some very odd strategies, alliances and partnerships coming up. And I think people need to almost sort of strike a line under the geopolitics that we know and understand because it's very fluid at the moment. It's very volatile and it's going to change shape multiple

times. Let's move on to, to Latin America then, because obviously the big news over the the New Year period was Trump's removal from Venezuela of Maduro and his wife to stand trial on drugs charges, allegedly. But that's not the only thing that's been going on in Latin America. The Isaac Accords deal seems to have been done between Argentina and Israel.

And what fascinated me about the rhetoric around that from, from the, from the the Jerusalem Post in particular, was the suggestion that this actually was a Latin American accord rather than just an Argentinian accord. So there's clearly something bigger than just a single country going on here. Yeah.

I mean, first of all, just quickly to go back to Burkina Faso, because while everything was happening in Venezuela, of course, a lot of people were not seeing or not having it reported on that France attempted a coup in Burkina Faso, which was actually put down very quickly by the people recognizing what was happening and rushing to the defence of Traore. So, you know, as I said, since Syria, the entire imperialist block has been emboldened to to implement its strategy for for

global dominance. And if we look at just quickly also the connection between Venezuela and Syria is not only through the resistance access, but in the late 1900s, I think there's now something like between 700,000 to 1,000,000 Syrians living in Venezuela, many of whom emigrated during the Ottoman period, when again, the region was struck with poverty and lack of future, no jobs, unemployment, etcetera. There was a mass emigration to Venezuela.

But if we look at Argentina, what I find fascinating is that Argentina has generated under Mile, who is known to be a Zionist supporter. Argentina has generated the Isaac Accords, which are the equivalent to the Abraham Accords in the Middle East or in West Asia, which of course are intended to capture states into the Zionist sphere of influence. And Argentina was actually considered as a potential State of Israel venue by Theodore Herzl in the late 1800s.

Argentina was considered and in fact the the Jews established huge agricultural colonies in Argentina in the 1880s and there's an area of Argentina called Moises Ville, which is known as the Jerusalem of Argentina. There is also consideration that they were looking to establish some kind of sphere of influence in Patagonia and Chile. So the fact that that the Isaac Accords emanated from Argentina, it should be no surprise really when one considers the history.

The fact that just as with Cyprus now, where Israel is expanding again it's reach and influence in competition with Turkey, it's using Argentina, which was it's already historically considered area of interest, to expand Zionist interests into Costa Rica, Uruguay and Panama who have now

also all signed up to the Isaac Accords at the same time. the US of course is working in its usual election interference, most recently in Honduras where they definitely interfered in the election to ensure that a fascist right wing government was brought to power to counter the remaining socialist Bolivarian governments in Latin America. So it becomes very clear that this is a campaign to drive out again independent countries. Whether you, you know, are a fan

of socialism, it doesn't matter. These countries are independent, they are anti imperialists, they are pro Palestine. They are a threat effectively to the Zionists.

And not forgetting that American think tanks, Israeli think tanks, have been putting out this rhetoric for years now, being mirrored by Marina Machado, who of course received the Nobel Prize and is not at the moment being supported by Trump to replace Maduro. I think that might change at some point, but WHO has openly voiced support for Israel.

So Machado is also pushing this rhetoric that Hezbollah is establishing itself in Venezuela, that Iran is embedding itself in Venezuela, Hamas is embedding itself in Venezuela, and so therefore Venezuela represents a direct threat to Israel. And of course, I'm sure that this was discussed between Netanyahu and Trump when Netanyahu came to to Washington just before the kidnap of President Maduro. Yeah, I'd like to, I'd like to sort of consider this possibility of, of Latin

American countries being a direct threat to Israel, exactly how intercontinental ballistic missiles, what, what threats, what possible threat is there to Israel directly of, of an independent state in Latin America? What I mean, you know, is this, is this about economic power? Is it, is it just about having the support in the United Nations for, for their policy in the Middle East?

What, what's, what's the desire for from Israel's point of view to to have this blanket support in, in a, a continent that's halfway around the world? Well, I mean how they're selling it of course to the US is that be careful, you know, Venezuela is in your backyard and now Hezbollah and Iranian proxies, etcetera, etcetera can now attack mainland US, right,

That's number one. But the other threat, of course, they, and, and it's been talked up by organizing like by the Atlantic and, and West Point and all of these major think tanks is that Venezuela is providing drone manufacturing facilities for Iran, it's providing training camps and so on for Hezbollah. So the thought is they will be trained and, and recruited and empowered in Venezuela and then sent back to fight against Israel, which, you know, if if

you consider that the world is at war at the moment, it's not an unreasonable expectation that members of the resistance axis are going to collaborate and cooperate to, for example, end the genocide in Palestine and the Zionist occupation of territory throughout the Middle East. Now it's not only in Palestine. They've extended into Lebanon, into Syria, as we know, they're putting pressure on Iraq. They're extending into Africa and into Yemen through proxies

or directly. And so even if this were happening, why wouldn't it happen? Why wouldn't these countries be defending themselves potentially against what just happened? Because it was actually Cuban special forces that took the brunt of the attack. I think there was something like around 40 Cuban special forces

that were killed in the attack. Let's, let's just broaden the, the, the discussion a little bit because it's, it's something that I'm not clear about is, is what are the, what are the kinds of discussions that are happening between these countries that would consider themselves to be in the resistance axis? And the reason I ask that is because I, I couple of over the Christmas break, I was watching

the HBO series John Adams again. And of course, that's talking about the the War of Independence and we're just coming into the 250th anniversary, the Declaration of Independence and whatnot. But some of the, you know, the conversations that were going on between the original colonies in the United States in their, in, in approaching the decision about whether to oppose Britain and they were sort of saying, well, you know, Britain wouldn't do that. And this these kinds of conversations.

And I just wonder, I just wonder, are there parallels to be drawn here between conversations that might be going on between within and between the, the, the countries that are that that we would consider to be in the resistance axis? Because it does. It does strike me that that maybe Venezuela should have been a bit more prepared for what happened than they appear to

have been. Yes, I mean, it's kind of interesting to me that it's largely I, it's the British press that are that are like the Telegraph that are pushing this idea that he was betrayed from within, which to me completely mirrors the narrative on Syria. I'm not saying that there wasn't betrayal from within in Syria, but there's this parallel narrative that in Syria, the Syrian narrative army collapsed

completely and surrendered. And, and so then why should Russia or any of the other allies fight, right? The same narrative is being put across now immediately in Venezuela, but literally 48 hours after the event and Syria one year on, although it's much clearer as to what happened, it's still not. We don't have full clarification, but one thing I would say in Syria and now what is coming out through interviews with former Syrian Army officers and soldiers is they didn't surrender.

They fought to the last man. But what happened on the field basically put them into disarray and isolated various brigades, right? Even the Jolani 2 hour documentary detailing their campaign to reach Damascus, which by the way, in my opinion was entirely strategized by the British because there's no other country on the planet that would have come up with the strategy that Jelani used.

Nor if you see him in the operations room, I mean, it's something that that British military would be proud of, right? So this was a massive operation. And in my opinion, just as the British were behind the strategy of the Hagana terrorist forces in Israel when they conducted the Nakba, the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, they were behind Jelani's operation entirely.

But even in that documentary, they talk about the fierce resistance from the Syrian Arab Army in all cities and and areas that they attacked. So they didn't surrender.

They were still fighting long past, you know, when they were overwhelmed basically by Jelani's forces and by the drone attacks that were not being intercepted, etcetera. So I see parallels in this. It's almost like an absolving of any responsibility because the army stood down. Maduro was betrayed. So no one wants him anyway. The same and and the same kind of rhetoric that's been used also by by Russia largely regarding Syria and is now being used again in in reference to Maduro.

And so I I find it very interesting this seems to be now the new MO is to effectively create a situation which it looks like Maduro has been betrayed. I'm not ruling out that he was, by the way, but I'm just saying it's we need to be very careful about rushing to judgement and saying, well, yeah, you know. But coming back to your point of should they have been better prepared?

I think it's very difficult to put yourself in the shoes of someone in the position of former President Assad or even of current President Maduro and the pressures that that they were under and and how they read the situation. But I would say that both presidents, as far as I know, received warnings and and both presidents maybe didn't do enough or maybe didn't expect or were maybe led to believe that

nothing was going to happen. I find it quite interesting that the Chinese delegation were there the day before. Now, I think my my interpretation of that is, and maybe it's what led to Trump's operation literally the day after was because in my belief, China was trying to capture Venezuela in a sense. It it was trying to say, OK, look, we'll, we'll deal with you. We'll take the oil against U.S. sanctions, of course. And China has the processing capability for Venezuela's heavy

crude oil. So, so does the US. That's why the US needs Venezuelan oil, because the oil that the US is producing, as someone described it, it's a bit like putting champagne through a diesel plant. It's, it's, it's too light. They actually need the heavy crude Venezuelan oil, but so does China. And so according to some reports, China was saying, look, we'll start dealing in alternative currencies to the dollar. We want to become a partner of

Venezuela in the oil industry. And perhaps they were offering investment and so on. And and this because what Trump needs is, is that those collateral resources, they're worthless at the moment to the US because I think it needs something like 40 billion investment into the Venezuelan oil industry before it can be viable as as a, as an operating oil provider for the US, right? But from AUS point of view, it

needs to secure that collateral. It can't see it disappear off to China, right, Or even to Russia, but kind of to a lesser extent. I think with Russia, I think China was the big threat and China is the major threat in Latin America also. So again, like with Africa, this is also about suppressing Chinese influence, and particularly in what the US

considers to be its backyard. OK, Now, I wasn't suggesting any, any direct criticism by the way, in, in what I said earlier, but the reason I asked the reason, but the reason I asked that question was because, you know, we're talking about a resistance axis. But what I'm not saying in that resistance axis, and correct me if I'm wrong about this, is coordination collaboration in the sense that there that they, that there's a recognition of a common.

I mean, they obviously recognize there's a common, a common threat, but they still seem to be operating relatively independently and, and which allows the common threat to pick them off one at a time. And, and I just wonder, I'm just wondering what the conversations are likely to be that are going on between them and why they're not cooperating in a much closer way. I think geographically for many

of them it's difficult. I mean, you know, if you look at the distance between Iran and Caracas, Venezuela or Cuba, and also another aspect which we shouldn't forget is of course the power of sanctions. You know, the the fact that it's very difficult for them to communicate or even, I mean, there was an air embargo on Venezuela, there was a shipping embargo on Venezuela. There was something very similar on Syria and of course on Iran also. But they do find ways to communicate.

I mean, for example, Iran is still in communication with the various members of the resistance axis in West Asia. I'm quite sure that Iran is in touch with elements in Africa and even in Latin America. But I think a lot of it goes below the radar and it isn't reported on because to a degree it shouldn't be. It shouldn't be visible because then it's it's very easy for what is a predatory imperialist complex to to interfere with these communications and also to

survey these communication. I mean, not forgetting when one talks about these kind of intelligence operations and, and someone said to me, you know, Trump won't do anything. He's too much of A narcissist to do something if he thinks it's going to fail. Well, that's not true. In 2019, he sent the US Navy Seals to North Korea. It's an incredible story. And they were supposed to install the listening devices prior to Kim Yong UN's meeting with President Putin on nuclear development.

And what happened was they were supposed to land from the sea. It was a complete mess. They ended up murdering Korean fishermen who who saw their lights because they'd parked the submarine, one pointing forward and one pointing back. And at one point, they tried to move one submarine to be level with the other one, but they'd left their lights on and, and the bubbles from the submarine moving went to the surface mixed with the lights. Then the fishermen saw them, so

they killed the fishermen. They got out of there, but the submarine had to come in even closer to to pick them up. And then the Korean security services were swarming in the area. That's a bit of a diversion, but I'm just saying, do you know that there is communication, but the problem is that. These countries or states or non state actors are constantly under threat of assassination,

of kidnap. There was 1 Iranian military official who came out and said we know that they were planning the same thing during the 12 day war that they've just conducted in Venezuela. So they're consistently under threat of this kind of attack. So the communications have to be kept to the minimum and below the radar, but it doesn't mean

that they're not ongoing. But in that situation, they're they must be in a relatively weak position and or is that, is that unfair? No, it's not unfair.

I mean, of course they are. They don't have the resources, they don't have the power, They don't have the military industrial complex supporting them that the Western imperialist powers, colonialist powers have and that the Zionist block has basically because they have the backing of that military industrial complex and they produce their own, of course, also with investment from members of that complex. So they are to a degree in a commercial military economic

basis. They are in a weaker position from an ideological position. No, they're much stronger because they're fighting for for for their homeland, for a belief, for their ideology. They're not fighting for supremacy or dominance. They're just fighting to protect

their own sovereign interests. Let's sort of come back to our own countries then for a second, because obviously what happened in in Syria and with every regime change operation that we've seen in the last 40 years, but particularly with this absolutely blatant Venezuelan operation, we see the West yet again trampling all over international law.

And, and, and really, OK, there's been some kind of outcry from, you know, people on the, the supposedly global S. But for our own populations, it seems that that we are willing to accept this kind of behaviour from our leaders. And we have been pretty much since Tony Blair in particular. So the fact that he's not in prison indicates to me that that

perhaps it's a lack of awareness on on on our own population's part point of view. But but you know, is is the first step in fighting against this to to try to educate what international law is, what it represents, and why we shouldn't be allowing our leaders to just trample over it in the way that they are. Yeah. I mean, my view to a degree is that the entire international law, institutional body, including the UN, including the ICJ, the ICC, et cetera, are all captured.

They're toothless, effectively. And so, you know, when people talk about, let's call an emergency meeting at the UN Security Council, what does it mean? Did it manage? Did the UN manage to bring an end to the genocide for two years? No, of course it didn't. And so in my opinion, what actually needs to happen and that it needs to happen both on a macro and a micro level is people need to start those people who are genuinely aligned in their ideology.

In other words, anti imperialist, not necessarily pro multi polar, but multi nodal where those countries have sovereignty and they have control over who they do trade with, who has any influence within their country, etcetera.

So that there isn't this governance by either a unipolar or a multi power, sorry, multi polar still to a large degree superpower, which isn't necessarily going to take into account the sovereign peoples, the working class and the populations of the countries in which they want to gain sphere

of influence, right? And so those countries that genuinely believe in equity and equality globally, an end to oppression and so on, should create an alternative environment in which they conduct what should be known as international law. So they run parallel to the US version of international law, but they form a body in which they create the environment in which they can talk about actions to be taken in response to violation of the international law that they could create.

I know that this is kind of a far off vision, but it's still something that we need to look at. I remember in 2014, the dissident comedian Giordano in France, he was doing exactly this. He was creating institutions and organizations like insurance companies away from the established insurance companies who were basically ripping you off. So he wasn't interfering with them, but he was creating

something on a parallel basis. And that is it's it's some, it's a concept which I think all of us need to start thinking about. Why are we allowing ourselves to be captured by systems that are there to effectively oppress us, censor us punishers for for whatever dissident thought we might have against whatever policy is is incoming? And you know, I think this is

absolutely right. I think, I think if you remember a couple of years ago, Michael Gove published the new definition of extremism in the UK. And, and you know, this is still the definition used by the Starmer regime. And they introduced this, this concept of creating parallel institutions as being somehow an extremist act. And, and that should be in that should be an indication, you know, as to the direction we

should be thinking. But my question is, but obviously, you know, at some point that needs to happen at a, at an international level. And the question is, is, is the United Nations such a busted flush that that it could never be redeemed from this point of view? I mean, obviously there are many aspects to the UN that that are worthy of criticism, net zero and, and Agenda 2030 and 21

being one aspect of it. But if we just, I think with the, with the international law aspect of it and the UN Charter and the Security Council and so on, is that such a is that such a compromised institution at this point that it needs to be replaced it? Needs a major overhaul if you're going to keep it. But I mean, you would say the same about the BBC on a, on a lower level, is it better to get

rid of the BBC? And for a grassroots, I know it's very difficult because then you have the issue of infiltration and so on. But it's, it's the same issue. Yes, if you got rid of the veto, for example, you might be able to, to restore some of, of the kind of equity within the UN, but that's going to be as soon as you put through a, a resolution like that, it'll be vetoed. So this is the point it's at the moment I, I don't see how the UN becomes workable, to be honest, I, I really don't.

And, and I've been watching a lot of sort of interviews talking about this very subject and even Ambassador Charles Freeman, I was watching him yesterday. He was saying the same thing. He said it's completely defunct. It's, it's, it's just not workable anymore.

And even if you turned it upside down and, and rewrite all of the, you know, the, the, the rules and regulations, I, I don't, he doesn't see, and I don't see how it is going to be reversed or, or renovated to be anything which is fit for purpose while you still have the dominance of the countries within it. But that's the thing. That's why I think it has to be something which is actually created in competition to the dominant imperialist book.

And that's going to be, that would be a pretty difficult thing to do. Just just looking at it from the point of view of, of how sort of how you know, the disparate opinions that, that, that are out there, that it's, it's going to be extremely difficult to, to sort of end up with getting a path that that most people can agree to. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

No, exactly. And I think you know to a degree, if it can succeed at a micro level, then then you can understand the workings of it. I mean, quite a few people are starting to do this kind of thing now. They're starting to establish communities, starting to establish systems outside of of the central system in order to protect their communities, their families and their so on. So I think you know, because the problem is you mentioned the fact that you were watching. John Adams.

John Adams yes, sorry. And it's the fact that a lot of the resistance countries, everyone is still reliant on international law as it is right now. And the problem is that creates a kind of prison because you're you're screaming into a void. Nothing's going to be done. I watched the speech by Vaselina Bencia, who has actually maintained a very principled stance both on Palestine and now on Venezuela and previously on Syria. Great. But it's going to achieve

nothing. It's not going to change anything. Nothing changed on Palestine through the UN. Nothing. Even with all of of the weapons that potentially the UN has. I mean, why didn't it use responsibility to protect? Because it would be vetoed by the countries that have benefited from responsibility to protect, to overthrow dissident nations and regimes, right? Do you think that's because do you think it achieved nothing? Because nobody is aware of what

he said. Actually, yes, you know, that's because because the activities on on that forum never get reported on in the press. Nobody ever gets to hear what anybody says or what anybody attempts to do. There's never any criticism of the misuse of the of veto powers in, in the Security Council, unless it's Russia or China that's vetoing something, you know, an invasion of a country or something by the by the US or.

Petro, for example, from from Colombia, who, who gave a very strong speech in the UN and guess what, immediately had his visa taken away from him by Tron, you know, so, so this is the point. It's, it's almost like you're, you're fighting in a gladiator forum, right? And, and ultimately the US is the emperor that that puts the thumb up or down. That's it. I mean, this is completely off topic, but I'm just going to

throw it in here. But if, if anybody isn't aware of what Trump has just done to Mark Kelly, by the way, the the, the Democrat senator who former military man who suggested that, you know, perhaps U.S. military personnel should not be obeying bad orders. This is absolutely a constitutional statement. But Trump has just accused him of sedition. And, and so, and I mean, this is, this is Nazi Germany style suppression of freedom of speech. And it's quite, quite

incredible. But anyway, look, look, we got to, we got to finish off what I'd like to, to just finish off with is obviously Maduro is in court. He's naturally pled not guilty to the charges. What do you think is, is going to be the outcome of this? And and is this is Iran next or who's next for, for, for this kind of treatment, do you think? Well, I mean, you know, they're they're basically denying him his right to immunity as

president. And, and this was the precedent sent precedent set by the overthrow of Manuel Noriega in 1990, where they said basically, I'm paraphrasing, the US didn't recognize the government of Noriega and therefore he didn't have the right to immunity in an American court.

And so that precedent is now being used, levied against Maduro. But when you talk about the craziness of or how Trump is out of control, one of the accusations is that Maduro has machine guns and under American gun laws, this is shouldn't be allowed. And it's just like what? But this is the insanity of, of

the Trump administration. And I think unfortunately, I mean, I, I just had a skim through the charges that are being brought against him and even against Killa Flores or Chilla Flores, however you pronounce her name. And my apologies if I mispronounced her. They're accusing her of, of orchestrating kidnappings and murders and so on. And they're refusing her medical treatment, according to the Telegraph reporter who was in the court. And apparently she's covered in

bruises on her face. She's got broken ribs from the actual kidnapping. And they're refusing her medical treatment. So of course, and they, they are basically out of the norm. They're parading Maduro around, right? Which is just disgusting.

I mean, this is reminiscent, as many people have pointed out of, of, you know, the the ancient Roman Empire towards its ends, where they were parading or, or massacring Christians, for example, and putting their bodies on, on crosses in the upper nine way and so on. This is where we're reducing down to a level of monstrosity that, as I've said before, it signals to me the decline of 1 empire in the rise of another.

But unfortunately, I think the rise of the other is going to be the packed Judaica on the back of the dying American empire, which is going to bring it again into competition, particularly with China. Because if we come back to Latin America, the number of investments and of course, China risks losing all of its investments if, for example, this strategy is also conducted in other countries where China has increased its sphere of influence and its investment.

I mean, China today has invested around 20 billion into Latin America, a lot of that into Venezuela. And just very quickly to end with a point which which I think demonstrates what I'm talking about, the Venezuela oil subsidiary company that was based in the United States, Citgo, which basically because the US has been putting sanctions on to Venezuela for decades, it couldn't repay it's

loans. So it was put it into auction November last year and it was bought up by Paul Singer under his vulture investment fund company, Elliott Investment Management through a subsidiary of that called Amber Energy. Now the company is worth around 15 to 18 billion.

It was bought for 5.9 billion. But the interesting thing about Paul Singer, not only has he supported Trump's campaign both in 2016 and, and his recent campaign for the presidency, and he's also supported Trump's campaigns against his detractors like Thomas Massie, but he's also a major, I think he's #7 in

the list of donors to Israel. So again, this demonstrates very clearly the Israeli Zionist hand on on what is going on inside Venezuela. I think the only other point I would make is that people have gone on the streets and if we remember in 2002 they kidnapped Chavez and there was a mass uprising in Venezuela and and they basically gave Chavez back. My inclination is to say under Trump, I don't think that's going to happen personally. Yeah. OK. Well, let's leave it there for

today. I'm going to say thank you very much, Vanessa, for that has been a fascinating conversation. The world is a rapidly changing place at the moment and it's a lot change is largely being driven by our leaderships. And so, you know, this, this as usual, you know, lots of people don't quite grasp why international affairs are their problem, but everything that's going on in this world is our

problem. And, you know, I think it's naive to think if it's that they they're they're going to do that to those countries, but they wouldn't do that to our own. I think we're living through a pace of change in our own country where people increasingly don't recognize it, but they want to strike out at the, at the immigrant or at the Muslim or whatever it happens to be. And, and not focusing on who's, who's driving this, these

policies in the 1st place. I think we've always got to keep an eye on who that is. I think the point is, if all these independent countries are bought to heal and and incorporated into the transnational ruling elite complex, then we're next. That's without a doubt, because then there's nothing standing in their way. There's no distraction from focusing in on bringing their own populations under control. Indeed, Thank you, Vanessa, and thanks for joining me. Thank you.