Episode Details

Rumble link  Bitchute link

Fadi Lama discusses his book Why the West Can’t Win: From Bretton Woods to a Multipolar World. Lama’s thesis is that the West, dominated by private central bankers a.k.a. “the Money Power,” has met its match in the form of the RIC (Russia-Iran-China) de facto alliance. Whereas the Money Power Empire uses slogans like liberalism and democracy to disguise its efforts to construct a one-world totalitarian plutocracy, the RIC axis supports multipolar civilizational sovereignty including the preservation of traditional collective values that bind together religions, nations, and families. According to Lama, world power trends favor RIC, which has been making rapid economic, technological, and military gains, even as the Money Power Empire loses control over energy resources.

Dr. Fadi Lama is an International Adviser for the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). He is a consultant in the fields of geoeconomics, industry, SMEs and academia. Fadi received his PhD in Mechanical Engineering from Georgia Institute of Technology, an MSc in Manufacturing Technology from The City University of London, and his BE in Mechanical Engineering from the American University of Beirut.

___

Excerpts:

Kevin Barrett: And your book does make it clear how the change in the military technology that Andrei Martinov has written about is so relevant to the fact that today the BRICS countries or the RIC, the Russia-Iran-China axis that you write about, are able to now challenge the US economically (thanks to their military power). Because we're moving into a stage of military parity, and maybe beyond parity.

Fadi Lama: Tell me, what's the real balance of military power now? What parity? Economic parity or military parity?

Well, I was saying we're moving into the era of military parity. Where we are in that process, I don't know.

Military parity? That disappeared a long time ago. Now, there is no parity at all. The power of the RIC (Russia-Iran-China) is much greater. I will take a quote from—I think it was Larry Johnson, who stated that the US is waging war similar to having an army of cavalry in World War II.

Let me put across some important facts people are not aware of. As you have noticed in the book, everything has at least two references that corroborate it. So, regarding US Army ground forces, these were finished, obliterated, in Iraq. Most people are not aware that the U.S. Army had more casualties in Iraq than in the Vietnam War. They give you the number, this funny number of whatever it is. The actual number was, until the end of March, more than the Vietnam War.

What was done was like creative accounting. How do you define that in the theater?

Like in Vietnam, if you went to Vietnam and you died, you were considered to be a casualty of the war. In the war on Iraq and Afghanistan, they made the definition “dead in the theater” and “dead not in the theater.” What's the dead in the theater? I gave this example many times… And the missile comes in at me and I'm pulverized. There's nothing to pick up. All the other nine are dead. Somebody's head is falling off. Another is cut into three parts or whatever the ambulance comes and picks all these parts—the helicopter ambulance or whatever, all these that were picked up are not considered dead in the theater. They died while not deployed (but rather, supposedly during evacuation or hospitalization).

Another totally different angle that corroborates this is a conference that was held in the Kennedy School