Hang tight while we fetch the video data and transcripts. This only takes a moment.
Connecting to YouTube player…
Fetching transcript data…
We’ll display the transcript, summary, and all view options as soon as everything loads.
Next steps
Loading transcript tools…
Transnational Elites Are Engineering World War 3 | Nel Bonilla | Neutrality Studies | YouTubeToText
YouTube Transcript: Transnational Elites Are Engineering World War 3 | Nel Bonilla
Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.
Share:
Video Transcript
Video Summary
Summary
Core Theme
Western elites are not retreating but are actively reconstituting their power projection system by adopting a new doctrine of "multi-domain operations" and "gray zone warfare," driven by a deeply ingrained, historically colonial, and racialized worldview that perceives rising powers as inherently hostile and irrational.
Mind Map
Click to expand
Click to explore the full interactive mind map • Zoom, pan, and navigate
Hello everybody. This is Pascal from
Neutrality Studies and today I'm talking
again to Nell Bonia publishing under her
pen name on Zapstack. Nell is a young
researcher working on her PhD and a
prolific analyst online. She's in the
process right now of publishing a
three-part series on the fundaments of
the Western power projection system
arguing that the West in fact is not at
all retreating but just reconstituting
its fighting techniques. Part one of our
series is called Weaponizing Time: Elite
Anxiety and the Fight for a Closing
Window. And the second part that is out
since a couple of days is called
Weaponizing Time, the global operating
system of Western Power. This is what we
want to discuss today. So, Neil, welcome back.
back.
>> Thank you. Thank you for having me back
again. Thank you. Yeah, very happy to
talk to you again because like both of
these articles I think are very much
worth reading uh because you figure you
you you combine a couple a couple of
strains of information which I think are
very important and your main argument is
very very important to consider because
right now in our part of the blogosphere
ecosphere the the commentariat it's it's
common place to say like the west is
going down the west is is is uh is
collapsing but you're saying like not so
quick. I mean what what's what's
actually happening is that they're reconstituting
reconstituting
uh themselves. Can you maybe lay out
your arguments especially of the first
article for us?
>> Mhm. Yes. So in weaponizing time part
one I talk about you could say the
conceptual the theoretical background of
this uh concept that the west is um
restructuring what they are doing in
terms of how they will deal with um what
they consider rising great powers. Um,
and it's not exactly just about the west
like a monolithic civilization, but it's
about specifically uh western or let's
call them transatlantic elites, power
elite uh ruling strata that that are
really seeing or they are perceiving
that uh country countries like uh
Russia, like China, um Iran and so on
they are finding a way to um develop
themselves economic economically,
technologically um life standards and
quality uh militarily of course and so
on. And they are seeing that if this
continues then they will lose uh their
role in the world order so to speak as
it was in the last uh 30 50 years. So
they will lose this role. Um on the one
hand one could say a symbolical role of
um uh being at the epics at a superior
place but also uh the material um role
so to speak which means the access to
resources um to have control over the
financial world um over um technology
have a to have techn
edge in technological development and so
on. So they are seeing this developments
and their reaction is not to say okay um
how can we cooperate coexist maybe have
what the Chinese government calls the
win-win situations and so on. No that's
not their approach. Their idea is to say
okay how can we keep um our superior or
um role our uniolarity our primacy
intact in the world uh in our countries
and so on. So and what they um what I
say in this part one or what I try to
explain is that this um idea or this
reaction doesn't come from nowhere. It
comes from um uh history or historical
development from colonial times um so to
speak. Um this idea that uh there was a
standard of civil civilization
and the west the Europeans
specifically were on top. they had uh um
superior or hyper sovereignity. They
which means they cannot only decide
about what their own country's policies
are but they can also decide um or
influence manipulate other count's
nations um how they want and in this
standard of civilization.
Uh they also had this idea of yellow
peoples, black and so on and uh that
there were some that could be civiliz
or um brought into civilization and
develop like the west does but not too
much. They still had to be contained. Uh
and if this um process of uh modernization
modernization
in a way cultural um assimilation didn't
work out then they would even actively
um wage war against any resistance or
even uh which we know happens and still
happens carry out extermination
genocides and so on. So this is like the
ideological um backbone of the today's
reaction. So today's reaction uh works
exactly with uh this kind of um thinking
and one could say well what's the proof
in it if one reads these documents from
uh army war college NATO um uh planning
no foresight division and so on uh rent
corporation institute so security
studies so on and so on so the user
language is
I would even say specifically in NATO
and the US military intelligence and
security division documents or sections
uh they use a language where they say
okay even there's one specific that I um
that I highlight in the part one article
that is um called well well it's about
Russia it's about like um thinking about
what will the country of Russia do in
terms of the military going forward
forward it was written in 2020. So there
is a very specific um paragraph that
talks about well uh we mis or we
miscalculated we um through our world
view we thought Russia was European
that's what they write but after the um
fall of the Soviet Union
um they didn't uh
well I don't think they said they didn't
act like we wanted but it's it's practically
practically
the gist
They they did not develop the expected
path which is the European path they
developed into a a highly hostile
something something.
>> Yeah. And what's worse then they say um
then then they don't classify Russia.
They say oh well they are Russia that's
that. No they say so they are actually a
nation apart from Western Europe. They
are Eurasian which means they are
something apart something different. And
then in this document in this uh which
is from a military intelligence se um
division of the US military they say
well uh this actually means nations like
Russia and China they don't understand
concept of peace of rationality of order
uh which means everything they are doing
right now they aren't doing um in terms
of peace no this is war and we need to
respond in the same manner and all
documents almost all documents I look at
all time part two have exactly this this
same lens. So
>> this is this is so important and I think
this is why your research speaks so much
also to me when I read it because you
also uh argue that the language deployed
gives us a window into the mentality of
these people and the mentality is what
then shapes the way how they approach uh
even geopolitics and what you're
outlining is that at the heart at the
core of this conceptual analysis of the
people that you look at is still a
racialized and spatialized
discourse about who's good and who's
bad. And good is basically Europe,
Western Europe and and and North America
because they are enlightened. They they
understand um peace and war and and
what's right and what's wrong. And the
others, the heathens, they don't. And
the only language the heathens
understand is force. Therefore, we need
to gear to protect our values against
well, as Mr. Borel said, you know, the
outside of the garden against the
jungle. And this this is so sick. It's
sick, but it's also sick because it is
deep in deep ingrained in these people.
And of course, they would never say yes
to this. They would they would they
would they would forcefully deny all of
that. But if you read the way that these
papers are structured, which is what you
did, um you get a very very clear sense
for how deeply ingrained this colonial
mentality still is in in within those
circles. Now, can you elaborate on that
a little bit? give us a couple of more
examples also um what you found also
from let's say the NATO side or the the
think tanks that that that you try to analyze.
analyze.
>> Mhm. Yeah, of course.
So what I what I would also add I mean I
added it at the beginning is that they
it's not only about it which is I mean
mo it's not only about that they say
okay these are the barbarians and we are
the enlightened west. It's also even
though again in this case they don't say
it out loud, they don't write it but
it's about saying okay we um functional
or power elite we the ruling class of
the west
>> um are the enlightened ones because this
this will become important as we talk
about militarization for example in
their own countries they are also not um
looking at the interests um of their
citizens. I mean they look down on noble
citizens, right? Noble citizens are
those who need to be protected from
wrong ideas. So obviously we the elites
have the right ideas. But sorry let's
let's let's uh one one by one. One by one.
one.
>> Yeah. Yeah. But it's uh this is the way
it's um they seem to think at least. So
um in the other documents I looked at
well um for example in NATO what I found
and I was a bit like really surprised.
So they have a division that it's called
that is called NATO strategic foresight
division which is part of the NATO elite
command transformation.
>> So they have a document about um
analyzing what will happen in the
future. I don't actually don't talk
about it just a little bit I think in
part two. So and what they're basically
saying is right now there is a pervasive
competition unfolding spreading uh
across all domains at all times
everywhere. When they say pervasive
competition they don't mean uh e in
economic terms or uh just in development
terms. No. um what they actually mean
and this then ties back to the US
military doctrines document is in the
let's say in the doctrines that the US
military has laid out in the 2020s
they state competition
now means um the gray zone hybrid warfare
warfare
>> uh which means and when they say all
they means they mean that every domain
um from uh financial technological,
military, even cultural, social,
cognitive, everything is part of this
warfare of this um of these operations
that are carried out um according to the
US military against um the US for
example, according to the European
Union, against the European Union and so
on. And it's coming specifically from
Russia, from China,
uh and so on. And um what I also found
there um and which has very much to do
with all of this is that there's one
document from the US Army war college uh
that that's called outplayed uh
regaining strategic initiative in the
gray zone. It's from 2016 actually. And
there they say, and I think this is
quite important. They say something like
um the gray zone competition. This is
all about um having or uh threatening
the American status quo. So it's not
even about um war. It's not about what
they call kinetic actions. It's called
it's about the American leg status cor
what I mean they say it plainly
and from there so starting in 2016 from
there all these other documents that I
analyze coming from NATO or or from the
US army keep um using this uh concepts
of gray zone hybrid warfare and specific
specifically competition. So when they
say there will be competition everywhere
at all domains um no matter what what
they saying is there will be um warfare
tight action everywhere coming from
everywhere at all times and we need to
prepare accordingly.
Um, so and what they also say and this
is important. I put out there a video
that I found also on this NATO elite
command transformation website. Um, and
in this video video is really strange.
It's one minute long and they talk about
okay what will what will the um war of
the future look like? So the important
thing here is at the end of the video
they say well the time is now time is
running out um today starts tomorrow we
have to act now are you willing to
choose war
side to four side or something saying
that we need to choose war now which is
and not in the sense of kinetic action
again but in the sense of um seeing how
in the so-called domains and all of them
the US and its allies can construct
operations that will either harm or um
or obstruct
uh the development of um Russia, China
and all countries that are um
threatening the American status quo.
>> And I must say like this video is
utterly insane. I will either link it in
the description so people can watch it
or I maybe maybe I even superimpose it
here or so and show it to everybody. But
it's insane. This is an insane video
including like some AI scenes of of of
you know all of these threats and we
need to dominate. We need to impose
otherwise we will be imposed upon and
the the the threat is everywhere. And
this is an official NATO video. It's on
their YouTube channel. This is what NATO
puts out saying like, "Oh no, this is
good for us. This is this is how we
present ourselves." These people are
insane. I mean, you watch this, you
would think this was made by some gaming
kid. It's not G. This is NATO. It's it's
it's hard to describe just how shocking
it is to see that the that that this
kind of stuff gets gets produced, but uh
please continue.
>> Yeah, it's a I mean I I'm laughing. It's
a it's a biza bizarre. It's bizarre. So,
and what is interesting about the idea
this um um as a side comment although
it's also um it still ties into this is
um I think one of the editors producers
I mean NATO is the producer but like the
director of this video is uh someone
called Floren Scalp who uh is the
director of the research division of
this foresight the division of NATO and
why am I saying this because in for in
part one when I talk about this in in a
talk show on German TV she said like um
that um Russians or she had the
statement she said Russians uh they look
European but they are not they have a
different um relation to life and that's
why they can or accept more to die early
so but what is interesting about this
the video um the statement from someone
within NATO who um um authors this
videos but also the doc documents. Um so
it's interesting because if a person
like this is saying this out loud on
public TV which are actually shocking to
many it's because and I think it's
because uh they within their circle of
um policy planners, strategizers,
implementers and so on they have
normalized this vision or this
worldview. this is their worldview and
that's why they are also not ashamed to
put out such a video.
>> No, they have they have that kind of
analysis and I think the comment that
this person made on TV was in the
context of you know the west trying to
explain to itself or like let's say the
Europeans trying to explain themselves
why the Russians haven't been defeated
yet, right? One of the very important
explanatory uh mechanisms is to say like
well they use human waves attack, right?
They throw hundreds of thousands of
their own into the battlefield and then
they just overwhelm the much more
sophisticated Ukrainian and NATO uh
defenses just because it's they they
just throw so much meat in there. And in
this context, you know, because the
Russians have a different relationship
to life. They don't value even their own
life. So they use this kind of
discourse, this race racist discourse in
order to explain their own inability to
actually impose the outcome that they
want on Russia, which and and this then
becomes part and parcel of the mindset
of these
insane people. But and then those that
group then puts out even more propaganda
like that one not realizing actually how
far out the window they already are.
Yes. Yes. I mean and um it's it's quite
I mean astonishing to see what they
produce and they that they seem
not they seem I think they really do
believe in these narratives that they
put out. uh not least because um if if
one looks at the papers the research
papers they they produce um for these
different defense war and so on colleges
um they do study um colonial methods
they do study what the strategies and
tactics of u the Germany during World
War II were etc etc but in a way I mean
in a very cold way that's what I'm
saying So I I do think that uh it's
quite normalized there but um so what
what um in a material terms what uh is
um produced out of this. So on the one
hand what I then say in part two is
there is this uh doctrine called
multi-dommain operations.
So this is a doctrine which means this
is a type of strategy that now the US
but also its allies in NATO and also in
the European Union will use from now on.
And uh it's a process that has been like
uh 10 I mean like uh 50 10 years in the
making in the US but in Europe maybe
five years
and uh this then turns also um or let's
say the strategy of um using all domains
as they call it also um what they then
need is uh an infrastructure
a global infrastructure
um tied to networks, to data storage, um
to software, all of this in order
because this is their idea of when when
it comes not well also in information
warfare settings, but I mean when it
comes to kinetic warfare warfare, they
will need to have um or want to have
this ability to say, okay, we are in I
don't know the US and one division in
the US will send data to Poland and then
from there a shooter in I don't know
Latvia will have can shoot at a target.
So that is their idea and for this they
need an um a global network structure
and for this global network structure
what they're currently doing is um and I
mean really currently in this year for
example is they're going around the
world in Europe um in different
countries Ben looks for example they
already did this and they are renovating
um the software but also they will be of
course renovating the infrastructure
undersea cables, satellites and so on
that is needed to carry out um these
types of operations and what does this
implicate uh for for example countries
in Europe but also elsewhere is that
they are being entangled into a web a
material web of infrastructure
>> that they can't that first of all the
cit citizens of these countries didn't
choose them they didn't say yes we want
it Second of all, this infrastructure is
in the logic of permanent warfare
>> uh which the citizens also don't know
anything about mostly and third that
it's not so easy to get out of this once
it is built once the military the
intelligence security service and
everything is tied into this structure
it's not so easy to get out of it
because if you do then you are uh
operationally blind I mean then a
country will be uh def defenseless so to speak.
speak.
>> Can I can I quote you here because I
actually I noted one sentence that I
particularly liked and that's what
you're talking about. The plan's
architecture turns the network into the
empire's territory and interoperability
into its law. So creating more and more
dependencies through the network
structure and actually through the
pressure of of on each member to be
interoperable and integratable then
making sure that well um all that's left
will be integration right and further
integration. Uh it's a a beautiful
example actually of that is Switzerland
at the moment of all places our
government has shelled out over the last
three years since the Ukraine uh since
the special military operation last
almost four years four reports and white
papers the ministry of defense and these
white papers define very clearly and
without misunderstanding the goal of
Swiss security uh uh uh the Swiss
security structure. as cooperation and
integration with the partners and the
two partners being the EU and NATO. And
then they go out of their way to say
like we must not play them off against
each other. We must integrate with both.
But this this idea of interoperability
goes so far that in one of the one of
the white papers the people uh there the
military planners actually say uh we
should aim for NATO certification that
NATO certifies that Switzerland's uh
systems are already interoperable so
that you know we can we can share the
data share data and whatnot. uh which is
insane for a country which still
officially says it's neutral and they
don't view this as a breach of
neutrality. They view it as a matter of
course. That's just what we do. It's
just cooperation. It's cooperative
neutrality. it and it's it's that's kind
of insanity that's now driving this
realignment across the board and
actually just increases the the the
structural power of the hedgeimon over
how to deploy that network um which is
it's a very it's very scary vision of
the future
and I would even add that actually I
don't think neutrality
or the concept of neutrality will be
possible was not so easily possible in a
world like this. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Or in a strategy like this. So the only
way a country could be neutral really
neutral maybe
is if they have their own technology and
digital and network infrastructure and
refuse to to become part of for example
this one of the US and NATO.
>> Yeah. or you you you simply refuse to
integrate into the into these network
structures in domains which have nothing
to do with warfare, right? The problem
is that warfare is being enlarged away
from kinetic warfare into every other
domain and if everything becomes warfare
then well no everyday life becomes uh
becomes part of the fight and you are
you're making it impossible for people
to not choose right that but that's also
part of this logic of warfare. Um can
you give us a few more um examples of
the of this reccalibration because the
your argument boils down to the west is
now giving up certain old um concepts of
how wars are fought
>> and they are they are not only imagining
but imposing
this new way of fighting right.
>> Oh definitely. So um one could say a
traditional way of war back in the days
was to have um a battle and it had an
end a beginning the there was the aim of
destroying their capacity and will to
fight of the adversary and then um
reconstruction and so on. So this
conception of war
with this type of um strategy they now
put out is uh gone. uh the new um
conception of what that they have is now practically
practically
that it's again it is everywhere in
every domain and the idea they have for
example what they describe in this
concept of multi-dommain operation is
okay we compete and then when it comes
to kinetic maybe kinetic escalation will
come out of this uh intense competition
we engage we do our best to kind of win
and then we go back and then winning in
this sense is going back to this gray
zone to the civil right to this
competition. So it's um
so this uh normal structure of what it
isn't anymore there but it doesn't uh
rule out at all that they are also
planning for it. So they they are at the
same time as they are building this
infrastructure which also has this aim
of for high intensity conflict the the
um let's say the background is low
inensity conflict everywhere at all
times but they are also planning or
trying at least to prepare for high
intensity conflict with their what they
perceive as um adversaries rivals. And
um the problem so this possibility still
exists that it can come to this um to
such an escalation they plan for it. And
now what I find quite a paradox is that
if we go into the minds or into this
world of okay uh we are the enlightened
western elites and those others are
these barbarians and they don't have a
concept of peace. they don't have a
concept of rationality
and they view everything as war then um
why would I try as a country as an
empire or what have you to uh keep this
uh low state of attrition going on
forever and um have this trust in the
adversary that he always calculates
right or right in the sense that to not
escalate why would I have that it would
rather be that I'm thinking okay they
are barbarians they will eventually um
go on to um a high intensity conflict so
I should preemptively strike I think
there is this danger in this in this
logic of course
>> so but so I would then sumize in effect
that what they I mean some are saying we
are in World War II for example and I
would say we are I use this metaphor in
a waiting room And uh there's someone in
the kitchen cooking all the recypes out
uh of if and when we come into the
living room what what there will happen.
So um it's not maybe it's a type of new
cold war and world war what they are
planning for is this high intensity
conflict. Now what uh also maybe seems
so strange is are all these um planners
and strategizers and those that give all
the money to this endeavors are they not
thinking okay we actually don't have the
ind industrial capacity to do this
because even though they want to use um
uh networks even though they want to use
and rely on drones and um smaller let's
say um arament
It's still uh in need of engineers. It's
still in need of industry. >> Mhm.
>> Mhm.
>> So, and not and here's another thing. So,
So,
which makes this um let's say this
conception of war different from the
others is that the adversaries they are
fighting in their conception is um they
are embedded in the global economy in
the world structure. This wasn't in the
world previous world wars. This was to
it was similar but they had this idea of
of um clashing having an end and a
beginning in world the new I mean in the
cold war it was uh the the spheres were
separated and now they are not. So the
balance these uh functional these power
elites are trying to uh have or is
between or in their race against time.
So on the one hand to beat the Russians
and the Chinese in particular and the
technological development
I mean specific specifically in terms of
military um equipment and software and
so on but also uh in terms of decoupling
they want to decouple I think that's
also another strategy they want to
decouple their economies in order to if
and when this clash happens it won't be
a total collapse. So, uh I I see that
these are like the um strategies that
that come out of this, but also the
conclusions that one could have if one
looks at all these documents.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Now, the the the amazing
thing is of course that all of this
happens out in the open, these these
these papers and NATO shells them out
themselves, right? as you as you said
and even these videos. But um the one
part of the question is of course I mean
how much of what they write in there is
um is over and beyond anything that the
west can still hope to achieve right. I
mean what is science fiction that they
are saying like we need to get this but
actually the ent the the whole um
economic industrial uh base is lacking
to get to get there. Um, one of the
examples is of course that they're
saying within those concepts that you
need to not only um prepare for all of
these multiple theaters, you need to
push, right? You need to be the first
and you need to uh you need to make sure
that the other one gets overextended,
right? that the Russians need to be
best, need to invest into drone
technology, need to invest into their
front lines, need to invest into shells,
need to invest into Georgia, into
Armenia, into Central Asia, so that you
can constantly push them to to
overstretch themselves, right, while not
realizing that that means that's what
you have to do too
with even less of a of an industrial
base. But okay, fine, let's let's put
that aside. That's the strategy and and
part of it is the insanity. Uh uh but
the other thing is of course then this
this um this clear admission to the
projection that this is of course what
they're doing right this is this is this
is their plans. They want to have multi-
multilevel uh war with everybody because
they believe they can they can win it.
Um and again as you said this is not
what what society signed up for
officially except for the United States.
All of Europe's ministries of defense
are still called ministries of of
defense. We never agreed that this is
now that these are going to be the
ministries of uh grayzone multi-dommain
offensive uh warfare against others. We
never said so. But this is the
implication that that's what's matter of
course we need to do
um and that that's that's different from
arguing that the west is actually in
retreat. If anything at all, then the
West is in is in a delusion
or but in a very in a very dangerous
one. You know, it's like, you know, the
the even if you're in a delusion and in
in in a if going crazy, but if you go
crazy and you you're holding a a
chainsaw, well, that does make you
dangerous even if you go insane or
precisely because you go insane with a
chainsaw. Um how how do you how do you
view this and the um the elite factor
within that?
>> Yes. Yes. Exactly. So how do we I I mean
what I found find quite frightening is
so this is a really like an elite factor
because um what we need to understand is
all these institutions of defense of
security all these colleges university
departments and so on that um develop
these strategies but also on the other
side the corporations some of them I
mean uh some of because of within
finance um we need to understand kind of
that they have a institutional memory so
to speak. So if the institutional memory
and mechanisms and so on come from
colonial times they will carry them on
until this day and then there's the
other part this benefits that benefits
them of course. So uh what's more is
that this type of strategy they want to
now employ this doctrine of
multi-dommain operations and so on uh
brings them contracts brings them uh
status position but also
uh for the defense contractors for
example they will have steady uh
contracts because their idea is that
there's actually no end in sight. in one
of the documents uh they practically say
well we have a phase one a phase two and
phase three there's no end inside
because it will have to continually be
renovated modernized and so on so
there's also this uh material factor
and I think what what the problem is
let's say for us it's normal people it's
common people is that uh for the elites
that we task to organize or manage the
complex societies.
Now um fear have a fear have an anxiety
that they will lose their status in all
manners of levels symbolic, cultural and
so on because there other um models of
development that are not western and so
because these models also uh take away
the access to resources. But what is I
mean what they are balancing or or what
they are saying in essence with all
these preparations is that
uh their loss of anxiety is what um
makes them panic and what they will try
to stabilize their position for. They
will not uh stabilize their societies,
their citizens uh societies. um for them
they will do exactly the opposite. They
will use the citizens in every one of
these countries that are within this
networks and so on
>> to uh wage these wars in one way or
another whatever domain they have in mind
mind
>> whether or not it has uh success they
will attempt it anyway.
>> Yeah, that's what just as they attempted
it with Ukraine anyway.
>> Exactly. And for three and a half years,
we've been saying these these these
these Looney Tunes are going to fight to
the last Ukrainian. And that's exactly
what they're doing. I mean, Ukraine is
is all but lost. But you will still
rather try to fire a tomahawk missile
into downtown Moscow, which will not
change a damn thing about the front
line. But you rather do that than
actually call it quits and say like,
"Okay, fine. we need to actually agree
with the Russians that we sit down and
root causes and we we find a we we do
the political solution. you still you
still pretend that the the fight is the
fight can still be continued even when
it's utterly clear that for the
objective purpose of what you want to
achieve it can't um
and for when I mean there's something
else came to my mind in this uh topic of
these elites these functional elites is
this uh that depending on and I think we
are right now in a quite dangerous um
moment event in history depending on the
moments the phases in history they will
um enlist you could say different parts
um of specialists so to speak. So if you
look at all these uh strategy and white
papers and so on and who writes them and
all of this I think there are different
um cate categories. So for example there
are those that um develop the theory
those that develop the strategy those
that develop the implementation the
infrastructure the tactics etc. So, and
they will have different biographies and
different uh we could say
conglomerations of institutions where
they are socialized.
But I would say right now in this
dangerous moment what I'm also seeing
and I I didn't take up on it in these
articles maybe I will in the third part
is that they are also trying to see okay
right now if we want to um really
prepare for kinetic high intensity and
not only low intensity warfare we will
also need specialized or spe specialist
of violence
>> in the sense of people that are very
radical ideological ical and will carry
out acts acts um with carelessness and
on the other hand what they also want I
think or not I think it's quite clear is um
um
exploit the uh their citizen citizens
but not only as canon for also as simply
uh the labor force they have so it's um
and I think it's more and the second
part is more because they want to I
think explo exploited the moment the
moment of where they're trying to
distract the masses so to speak with
these scenarios of radicalization in
ideologies. So I think this is another
um danger that lies here and that they
will probably use are already employing.
Um so yeah that's quite bleak.
>> Yeah. No no it is bleak. It is bleak. I
mean, we see we also see how some of
these um military um uh uh not manuals
but the the um um white papers I I'm
thinking of one in Sweden, but I can't I
can't currently uh recall anymore um
what it is called but um that how they
prescribe you know the the
militarization of civil society and the
use of civil society for the means of
the military um which of course then
also also uh eradicates the line between
military and civilian which then also
makes the entire Geneva conventions
basically go away right because if
everybody becomes part of the military
then everybody is is a legitimate target
and you don't do only do that to the
other population you do that to your own
so you totalize you really you are we
are in a process of totalizing the
concept of war which is the opposite of
what international law tries to do tries
to compartmentamentalize and then
protect certain groups including you
know um those who don't fight anymore
one more element that we really need to
talk about is the uh the this this
crisis actually of realism. Realism is
currently going through one of its worst
periods because the whole assumption of
realism is that states will do what's
best in the state interest, right? And
that that the survival of the state is
at the core of the entire theory. But
what we are seeing currently is that
western elites are so far integrating
and and kind of transcending the nation
that we see we see uh choices policy
choices which from a national
perspective are utterly
self-destructive. I mean you can look at
what Mr. Zalinsky does in Ukraine but we
can also look at Mr. Millet and others
in in Germany and in in France and uh uh
and how these elites which you already
worked on in in one of your other
articles, right? Now these elite
networks are transatlantic and they
don't necessarily think anymore in
what's good for the nation but what's
good for the empire. And then other
colleagues described this as globalism.
The people who who transcend the nation,
right? But but maybe globalism is not
that good an analytical framework but
maybe the the imperial structure also of
capitalism as the Marxists have it maybe
give us better of a of a handle on this.
Can you maybe speak just a little bit
about the the the postnational factor
within um this mass formation that we
are seeing?
>> Yes. So
I would also say I mean not only
I as an analyst but I would say that
there is indeed such a and maybe it has
really to do with this um development of
how um uh the capitalist economy has
developed in the last 20 years with all
these transnational companies and
specifically uh the US and some European transnational
transnational
companies and uh why do I say that
because for example and or not for
example specifically with this strategy
they right now are employing they are
it's not just a plan anymore um they
have these uh concept of dual use they
also have this um uh not suggest suggest
not u um this um concept of that the
corporations will carry a grand load in
this development and production of all
of these things that they will need for
these operations
and uh yes they are more than
transnational transatlantic in the sense
that these are uh elite formations we
could say uh between the US and uh the
European Union well some European
countries specifically not only but
mostly and
so the rather Then as we say that these
for example the politician which I which
I think more and more are actually only
carrying out practically not not the
plans or ideas but uh these uh dynamics
that come from this how the economy has
developed and specifically in these
countries western countries they are
carrying out these dynamics and these
dynamics are not uh not in the interest
of the citizens the masses not at all
and rather in this case for example the
politician I think are then positioned
for the function that at this historical
moment is needed for example to be to
have a lot of theater spectacle
polarization and so on and that uh why
do do they do that do this because they
can they don't need to um live in
Germany in France in Spain and uh in
Ukraine they don't need to live there if
If if it comes to this, if it comes to
catastrophe, they can go elsewhere. They
have enough resources and so on. So they
can survive any catastrophe. So in this
is why they try to do these um almost um
maniacal things, these terrible um try
to carry out these terrible plans
because they attempt of course to still
keep this position, this unipolar order,
this empire.
um even if it means that they could lose
their position but there is a chance
they could not and that they could win
and uh so they are not I mean there is
another articulated about competence
because many say oh these are leaders
are also incompetent well it is because
they incompetent for us but not
incompetent for the corporations for the
military strategy and so on and so forth
>> yeah for their worldview
>> you know this is very very important.
They they seem incompetent to us who
have a standard of what they should
produce, but that's not the metric which
decides whether these people sit in the
chairs that they're sitting in. The
metric that decides over there is
whether they whether they produce within
the system that was created. And the
more the more we go forward, the more
the the good of the nation starts
diverting from the necessity of the of
the seat.
uh and this is just a this is just a
very very sad thing to happen and you
would think that uh democracies have
self-correcting mechanisms for that
which they usually do but our
democracies are not functioning very
well and the people the people who tell
us that they're here to defend it are
the people in the seat who will defend
the rules of the seat rather than the
mechanisms of democracy which would if
worked eject them pretty
>> exactly and I I want to
I mean it uh does it has to do with
this. I have also had written another
article previously about uh the speech
of the Colombian president Petro at the UN.
UN.
>> And why do I mention it? because he did
mention actually this development um
saying that there are these
transatlantic transnational elites and
but there are also of course people and
he had had this idea or this proposition
that but what we need to do is unite as
people but across nations, borders and
so on and so forth because they do this
too. So why not we and uh this is also
interestingly which um a theory I mean
if anybody's interested it um that is
being developed in Latin American
geopolit geopolitical analysis the
theory that there is uh this idea of uh
networking the empire
>> and then that um there should also be on
the or on the side of resistance in networking
networking
of uh the citizens, the masses, the
people everywhere in order to counter this.
this.
>> I very much agree. I I do think this is
maybe the only antidote we actually have
to trying to to fight this which is
really I can only describe it as a form
of institutionalized
um drive toward insanity that is going
on because it also radicalizes on that
side. I think we can clearly see that
over the last four years how this how or
even like five six years because I would
say we should include the corona time as
well. It's it's a radicalization of the
mind set of these ideologues that now
try to carry uh war into all possible
domains, right? Uh uh and and and
that which then mutually reinforce each
other over time and space. uh um
together with of course the enemy the
enemy the enemy that you that you
conjure up and and then interpret
yourself. Um if there's a chance against
this it's it's through net networking on
the ground to say like like no guys
you're just insane. The problem is
you're also at the levers of power. But um
um
>> that's a problem.
>> Yeah that's that that is the problem.
But um where do you see
is there something we didn't mention yet
that's important to understand this um
systematic component of the problem that
we not component but the the system of
insanity that's now breeding the third
world war in front of our eyes that
needs to be understood
I would say it's important to who it's
important to exactly understand the
mechanisms the networks
uh also who is doing this not because of
personal animosity also but also to
understand where are they coming from.
>> Mhm. And
uh also for example
the mechanisms not only of how are these
plans sort out what type of world is
behind them and so on but also the
mechanisms of um how is it that we even
have these type of um elites so to speak
um these politicians.
What can we even do to um undo this? So
we need to understand all of these
mechanisms because uh if we don't again
it's not only that they are radicalizing
their intent I mean they their intent is
to bring some elites that are already
hyper radicalized ideologues in order to
then radicalize and um manipulate the
masses the citizens for their gains
which of course as we see are terrible.
I mean
uh which again are against the gene
convention because they say everywhere
at all times there's war the adversary
is doing the same which means also that
the adversary the whole population is a
target and vice versa so
the only thing I can I would say that
this is the next step that will happen
they will try to
>> u radicalize uh the population
>> and we will need to understand Yes. Yes,
they will. No. So, in a sense, we need
to figure out how to make the population
resilient, right? As in how to how to
deise the tools so that that
psychologically a large part of of of of
the population is resilient to this kind
of insanity. On the other hand, how to
how to treat how to treat these already
insane and and gone mad uh elites on our
way against their own will. So um we
cannot make them drink drugs right
against their will but we need we need
to find a way to not confront them with
reality but somehow how do you get
somebody out of insanity I mean um who's
not themselves aware that they are
insane. Um
>> I think it's a
>> but it's a sociological problem
actually. It's it's it's not that each
one of them is somehow really like
schizophrenically and and
it's it's for the for the lack of of a
more polite word a cluster
>> of within a large part of of of society
and we need we somehow need to get out
of that.
>> Um otherwise it will be the bombs that
will get us out of this and decapitate
those but we don't want that. That's
>> so the the only idea I mean not that I
know but either the social group is
changed from within with the world view
structures and so on which how do you do
that or the social group itself that is
carrying out this this cluster
>> is changed but how do you do this? So >> okay,
>> okay,
>> how do you elevate a social group that
is affected by this in such a manner
that it influences the other? >> So
>> So
>> um thank I think this is the right place
to to uh to kind of leave the
conversation. Everybody, if if we have
like um um psychologists and especially
people especially on math psychology
with us and if you have ideas of how we
can induce some form of uh of process
that would lead to healing within our
own groups of elite in insanity, please
please do reach out. Um Neil Manila,
people who want to read from you, they
should go first and foremost to your
Substack. Is there any other place where
they should go? No, only my substack or
my ex Twitter account. That's where I am
currently at.
>> I highly recommend I highly recommend
subscribing to Neil's uh Substack. It's
it's always very um thoughtprovoking uh
analysis and interpretation that you can
find there. Neil Bonila, thank you very
much for your time today.
>> Thank you for having me. Thank you. [Music]
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
