Davos Shock: Canada Just Called Out the US "Lie" | Silk and Steel

0:00Hello and welcome to another episode of the Silk and Steel podcast. I'm your host Karazah. Today I walk on back French entrepreneur Arnold Patron back to our show. Arnold is a long-term resident of China. He writes very passionately about various Chinese topics. And I invited Arnold, first of all, welcome back to the show Arnold. Always good to see you. Thank you. Glad to be back. Yeah. So we have recently, a French president, Macron, just spoke at Davos. You know, like I never imagined Davos would be like exciting, you know, a new spaking because normally I expect all these politicians just to make platitude, boiler, template, speech. But this year, Davos is quite lively. I think thanks to Mr. Trump, you know, first you have Mark Carney, the PM of Canada, leading with a speech saying,

1:03the rule-based international order was a lie. We just went along with the lie because he benefited us in the past. And then you have the French president, Macron, openly saying we need more investment or we need more Chinese investment in Europe. So do you think there's a pivot going on, like a pivot to China from, you know, US allies like Canada and EU? I think it's not so much a pivot to China than it is a pivot away from America. In fact, it's actually America that decided to end the rules-based order explicitly so because they just don't respect any of the rules anymore. So, you know, at some point countries just have to acknowledge that fact. And that's exactly what Carney did in his speech, which I think was by far the most important speech in Davos.

2:09In fact, he used a very striking analogy in his speech, which he took from Vaclav Havel, who is the famous decident in Czechoslovakia back in the time of the Soviet Union. So the analogy was that of shopkeepers who at the time of the Soviet Union all had to have a sign in the window with Soviet slogans like workers of the world unite, but at some points, you know, when the Soviet Union was becoming quite weak, everyone knew those slogans were lies that workers of the world would not unite, right? And so what the analogy says on what Carney repeated in his speech was at some point, you know, one shopkeeper has to take down the sign because, you know, it's just acknowledging that that's a lie. And what he was saying is that

3:16basically he is that shopkeeper in Davos, he's taking down the sign on he encourages everyone else to do so, which is of course, you know, quite a stunning analogy to make, because that's comparing the US to the Soviet Union with all the implications that that has, which is quite something for Canada to say, because as your remainder, like there are G7 countries, there are 5A countries, there are NATO countries, and there are America's neighbors. So for them to say that is quite something. But taking down the sign does not mean that those countries are somehow shifting sides to China. Like Carney is not going to adopt socialism with Chinese characteristics, right? What he is saying is that they won't basically be independent somehow, like not be on any

4:26side. And he was coming for middle powers. So countries, you know, that are not great powers, basically. So not China, not the US, not Russia, to unite together. So they are stronger together, asserts, you know, put their interests together, so that they together have more leverage. So that's more the direction that he wants to go, whether that succeeds or not, that's an entirely different matter. And to be fair, it will mean that they will probably do more with China, like more trade, for instance, which is exactly what Carney promised to do when he was engaging just a few days before Davos. So for instance, they changed the rules on the Chinese EVs, removed the tariffs on that. So they will to some extent sort of de-risk from the US,

5:37on when it derives from the US, you do more with China. But that does not mean shifting side, also, and so it's sort of rebalancing the Russian ships, so it's more or equal between China and the US. Yeah, I think Mark Carney also made that clear. He said he want to reduce dependence on the United States, you know, which means maybe taking the trade balance from like 80% trade with US to maybe about 50% trade, and we direct some of that trade to China. And when he made the speech about mid-power got a huddle together, I think he's making a appeal to the Europeans and say, hey, us, we have similar values, unlike that barbarian Trump, we got to stick together. We can still make it go. But what do you make out of that? I mean, you have Macron echo in similar sentiment. And

6:38Macron made, to be fair, Macron made similar sentiment before about you need strategic autonomy, but then Macron is famously saying the right thing to the right audience and then end up doing nothing. At this time, he also said, we need more Chinese investment in Europe. Do you think there will be anything coming out of that? Yeah, so on your first point, another thing that I found interesting in Carney's speech is that it did speak about values, but actually not in the way that not in the meaning that values used to have. So, you know, under the so-called rules-based order, values was all about, you know, democracy promotion, I mean, liberal democracy promotion, and so on and so forth. That's not the way he meant it. He actually said that decodes, you know, cooperate with countries like China and so on, on values, but on specific

7:43topic. Like he did say that, you know, for instance, on free trade or the defense of some aspects of international law, he shares China's values more than the US values. So that's more the way I think in me is it cooperation on I will say more principles than values with countries that are not only within liberal democracies. So I don't think it's really limited to Europe, but it's much broader than that. That's actually the smart way to do it, I think, because if they continue sort of the old game of, you know, liberal hegemony and so on, then, you know, that's the world that's dying, that's the world that failed. So you need to adapt to the new reality, the new

8:48reality is a multi polarity sort of adapting yourself to a world where, which is much more complex than, you know, the world where the West dominated and could dictate its values to the rest of the world. And when it comes to Macron, I mean, I'm basically like you. I think that what Macron says can be almost automatic, it is missed as just worlds, because he has a history of speaking. I mean, first of all, Macron has no constant position. He is famous for on-empton in French. So he always says one thing on the inverse. So when they listen to him and he sounds like a Marxist, and then the next day he will sound like a fascist. So yeah, it's

9:54very difficult to keep track with Macron. For instance, on this Chinese investment thing, so he did say that. But then just a couple of days after, you have his minister of commerce, I think, who said that his exact expression was that France would bash the Chinese head in, or something like a very aggressive statement, which is not exactly attractive for Chinese investment, right? So that is the messaging of France right now is just completely contradictory. So it's very, very hard to take Macron's words seriously, unfortunately. That being said, there is, in fact, a general movement in Europe to be a bit like Canada,

10:58they've understood basically the risk that the US constitutes like a public opinion or shifting dramatically. So now everyone sees Trump as a threat in Europe. I mean, everyone, like a very, very big share of the European population. When you listen to French TV these days, it's sort of about Greenland and defending ourselves, defending our sovereignty. There is no political party, zero that defends Trump, even nominally Trump allies like Le Pen and so on. They're actually very anti-Trump right now. So yeah, the mood is definitely risking from the US. But what now? We know that Europeans have been, European leadership at least, have been

11:58despising Trump in private or not so privately. But whenever US Trump summons them to the White House and asks them to jump, they will say, how high? Does this whole Greenland mess make a meaningful break in the transatlantic relationship? Yeah, I think it is changing. I mean, you saw that they posed the investment that the deal that they made with Trump back last summer. So this is quite quite meaningful. I would say it's a strong reaction. On this deal was very shocking because it was basically imperial tribute to the US. It was about sending hundreds of billions of euros to the US,

13:02buying an enormous quantity of US weapons, of US energy and so on. It increased the dependency on the US. So the fact that the deposit is I think quite meaningful. And I don't know if it will remain posed. I certainly hope so. And you're starting to see more and more actions in the opposite direction. So just yesterday, for instance, the French government announced that it will start to remove all US tech from government for government companies. So they're starting small, like they're starting with visual conference, so starting to use Microsoft Teams or stuff like that. But you can see that they're starting initiatives in that direction. So yeah, definitely,

14:03I think that there has been a move shift for sure. Okay. Well, what now this is for Europe. So I actually, before our show, I was listening to you on a panel that you had with my other friend, Daniel Dumbrio and Ben Norton, to talk about this new polarities. And you know, you made a point that US itself actually recognized it now lives in a multi-polar world. I think that correlates also with the latest release of US national security strategy and the new Pentagon document, which sets specifically that they will deprioritize China as a threat, and they will focus on the Western hemisphere, which is what we have seen, you know, the action going both to work in Israel, but also, you know, land grab tour Greenland is all part of

15:05sure in the US position within its own hemisphere. So I would like to hear your take on that. Yeah, so I think this is actually the key roots behind the latest changes that the US, this is the US acknowledging that it lives in a multi-polar world. And so when the US was in a unipolar world, it made a lot of sense for them to back rules because rules was, you know, when you're the only game in town, basically, then it's your rules. And it's all about, you know, everyone, everyone sort of is like if you're the state of a country, and then you have the law of the country, it's in your interest as the state to make sure that the law is respected. But if suddenly there are different powers, if said there is a civil war in a country,

16:13which is kind of what multiplicity is at the global level, then it doesn't make sense for you to be like the policemen of that country, and make sure that the rules are respected, and that also benefits the others, right? Like you're the one from the US standpoint, like you're the one assuming that burden of being the policemen, and that that benefits everyone sort of to your to your detriment. So I think this is a key reason for them stepping to respect, respect for us. And there is the fact that I think the reassession of the Monroe Doctrine on their retrenchments on the western hemisphere is also very meaningful because the Monroe Doctrine was not part of US political language for decades because they used to

17:23claim the entire world as their sphere of inference, right, when they were a unipolar the only great power out there. On the fact that they reassert the Monroe Doctrine, which is a Doctrine that was born when they were basically a regional power, sort of says that they're a regional power again, right? So that also goes to show that they accept the acknowledge that they live in in multiplicity, and and may debate with, well, discussion rather with Ben Norton and Daniel Dumbrell in in Chongqing last week. The question, I think we all agree on that, but the question is, what is the ultimate objective of the US? Is it to re-become the unipolar

18:26hydrogen, global hydrogen, or is it more, is there acceptance of multiplicity more permanence on the, on the basically agreed that in the long term they will, there have no option than to coexist with China. And that's why we had a difference of opinion with Ben because he thinks that they will do everything to regain unipolar, unipolar power. My point was that I have no doubts that they want to, but I also have no doubt that they can't at this stage that it's over. China is just too big, too powerful, to basically be renegated to second-rate power again. So even though they want to, it's not about will,

19:28but it's about power, it's about not about what you want to do, it's about what you can do. It's about capabilities, and I don't see a scenario where the US can regain the capabilities to once again become a unipolar power anymore. But, you know, I completely respect Ben's opinion as well. Conor is the, it might be, right? Let's see. But in any case, that's an interesting debate, and I would encourage people to watch it. It's exactly the kind of discussion that we need to have at this moment. Right. I want you, now I'm asking you to speculate because for decades after World War II, United States have constructed this post-World order where it was it sits on top and with the so-called rule-based international order that

20:29benefits the US the most. You know, of course, as Mark Carney's point out, the Europeans and Canadians, they all went along really nearly because he benefited them as well. Why then does Trump administration is seeming hell-bent on destroying this whole international framework that US has set up? And why does Trump use the language that seems to suggest that he thinks somehow European NATO are these free riders that's ripping Americans off. And that's why he wants nothing to do with NATO. When most of us, you know, a observer seems, okay, well, NATO is set up to benefit US is to keep the Germans down, keep the Russian out and keep American in. What's going on here? Do you want to take a stab at it? Yeah, so what I called it was America's crutch-chef moment. I actually wrote an article on that.

21:36If you recall, so crutch-chef was a Soviet Union leader after studying, kind of in the middle of the of the Cold War. And interestingly, crutch-chef has been the similar features to Trump on the America right now because he pursued the policy of he called it peaceful coexistence with the West. Because again, Stalin was all about, you know, a global conquest of communism and so on. On the overextended the Soviet Union, in a way that was unsustainable. And so what crutch-chef said is on pause here, because that's not sustainable. Let's not overextend ourselves. Let's focus on us

22:38on the Soviet sphere, on agreed to sort of pose the ideological struggle against the West to sort of regain our strength within the Soviet sphere. And so it goes through that, but that was very badly seen on the Chinese side. In fact, Mao's reaction was to call Trump, crutch-chef a revisionist traitor. And that's actually what triggered the Sino-Soviet split on the really hated each other. In fact, there is a funny story, I think, around, I mean, they came to blows, they even killed each other as soldiers in several battles. At some point, I think it was the

23:42Soviet Minister of Defense who called the hotline in Jiangnan High to negotiate. On the attendee of the hotline was like, we don't even call him Mao or Joe and Liar. He immediately replied, we don't speak to revisionist traitors of the end of the phone. So that was the live we're saying, okay, that's too bit because together, united, you're much stronger, you don't want to do that. Much like we're saying that for Trump on Europe today, but it's just seeing the world differently now. So two Europe, Trump is a revisionist traitor, basically. I think somewhat similar, similar dynamic. That's fair, that's fair. Although,

24:49okay, I mean, I think Sino-Soviet split, it's like a whole different dimension, like we can spend hours just on that. But right now with US recognizing that it's lifting a polity polar world, as Marco Rubio himself, I have mentioned, and it's now focusing to be the regional hedgehog on the west hemisphere. And then Europe and Canada are trying to find their own way, post-Trump. Where does this leave us? Where is this, so I mean China obviously is setting pretty because the mean is that Xi Jinping just do nothing but win. And because a lot of the problem faced by US empire is self-reflected. And so interestingly, at this particular juncture,

25:49you know, we're getting that Wall Street Journal reporting. And supposedly Xi Jinping perched his top military guy for leaking new clear secrets to the United States. What's your take on that? And yeah, so I looked into it. And so first of all, this article in the World Journal is by Ling Ling Wei, who is kind of infamous for a bad reporting on China. I mean, there are many instances of stories that were later proven to be made up. So the latest example, for instance, is if you record Trump and Xi at the phone call during the whole Japan row, where afterwards Trump called Japan to tell them to turn it down.

26:49On her article on that was that for the first time, Xi initiated the call, which was extraordinary on time. But literally, we didn't have a few hours, both sides, the Chinese side, and the US side said, no, no, the US side initiated the call. So, that's quite typical of her. And how will Xi know? Because she said it was according to Chinese sources, those people don't click this type of stuff or don't click period. Like what advantage would there be for it up? You know, someone who is knowledgeable of the stuff to link to the World Street Journal. It makes little sense for me. And how would you know, also that that general, I think, the way the nuclear weapon, the nuclear weapon

28:04are organized in China is actually decorated to, I mean, the general question, the vast chairman of the Central Military Commission, could not have had access to those to the secret. There was a great friend on it by, I can't remember. Let me let me look at his name. I think, thank her. That who basically said it was just impossible for him to even have access to this information in the first place. There you go, Nilton-S, who said, yeah, the Chinese nuclear secrets are within the China National Nuclear Corporation,

29:05which is decorated to the army, apparently. So, yeah. So, it doesn't make sense for plenty of reasons, physically. Yeah, now I already seen some social media, a hot social media take. They're saying, oh, this is why Chinese, China will not invade Taiwan because we are so awesome. Our CIA, we're able to bribe the top one Chinese military guy to meet these nuclear secrets to us. So, now Xi Jinping have to purchase number one military guy. That's why by 2027, China will not be able to invade Taiwan anymore. Great props. Great props to our CIA folks. I don't know what to do but laugh. I mean, nobody outside of, you know, beltway of bubbles would

30:09think, you know, there's serious threat of military action in Taiwan straight in 2027. But now they already have come up with excuse why that didn't happen. It didn't happen because China didn't intend to do it but because the CIA did such a great job. They're able to hack you too. I mean, the top Chinese military. Let them believe that if they want to. Yeah, on the topic of Taiwan, actually the latest national defense strategy and the national security strategy is quite interesting. And I just wrote an article saying that Taiwan should read the writing on the wall. And in fact, they are reading the writing on the wall because so first of all, Taiwan is not even mentioned in the latest national defense strategy,

31:13which I think is the first time ever that's the case. So, in and of itself, it's quite to signal on the importance of Taiwan right now for the US. So, what they do mention is the first island chain. But basically, it means that for the US, Taiwan now is nothing much more than, basically, a military outpost, right? And this is the triumph of the Elbridge Corby type of thinking. So, Elbridge Corby is the undersecretary of war right now and is the guy who wrote the national defense strategy. And he's of course famous for having written a book called the strategy of denial, where he basically sees the Taiwanese or Taiwan as, you know, completely dehumanized,

32:16like he doesn't care at all about them as people or doesn't care at all about them politically, like democracy and so on, doesn't care whatsoever. It's that they're basically a military, US military pun. Their only usefulness is as a geographic feature against China. But my point is that, you know, of course, the Taiwanese themselves, there are people, sure. You know, if they start to be seen that way by the US, they should be like, this is basically the analogy I use is like the shepherd, sort of, you know, riveting himself as the guy who's going to bring you to the slaughterhouse, right? So, as soon as they present themselves as the shepherd and so on, it's all good, you can be fooled. But if they,

33:24you know, black and white, black and white rights that, no, in fact, they don't care whatsoever, but you're just a useful pun. Then, you know, that changes the, at least it should shift public opinion in Taiwan. And you can see that they are shifting. I mean, what the KMT is saying is, if you look at the latest declaration by the new leader of the KMT, she's saying, we we shouldn't be a pun of the US, we should have our own voice on negotiate directly with the mainland. So, you're seeing quite some changes on that as well. And I think more and more people in Taiwan are realizing that it's in their interest to sort of also de-risk from the US and on negotiates on their own directly with with the mainland for their own interest rather than

34:27having the US do that. Yeah, she actually says she's going to go to mainly China to meet with Xi Jinping, which I believe might happen this year. And so this, we live in interesting times, Arnold. But what do you think? Where does that leave, say, cooperation between China and Europe? China very much would like to invest in Europe. I mean, they have expressed interest to invest in Europe for a long time except Europeans. On American beheading, on behalf of the United States, you know, have really put a throw a ranch in that relationship. We talk about that last time when the Dutch government sees a Chinese 100-person own Chinese company in this area. And is that going to change? I mean, like UK just approved construction of a big new Chinese

35:32embassy. Does this signal a shift in the wind in Europe? I think it will take time. But I think bit by bit we're going to see more and more of a shift. I think Kahn is leading the pack. So with his policy on EV and so on, that's just the sensible thing to do. Of course, we don't want to shift everything to China. But right now the relationship is very unbalanced. Like they're basically only in America. And on quite a distance from China, especially on technology, on sort of high-value added stuff. So it will make sense to rebalance somewhat, which is the

36:35geopolitically smart thing to do. When you're in a multiple world, you don't want to depend only on one pearl. You want to be in a position where if one pearl is being too coercive on you, you can always say, well, we have the other guy, right? So that makes sense. But I think what makes even more sense is for Europe to try to be a pearl in its own way. And so I think that the smart thing to do for Europe will be to actually learn from China more than, be just by Chinese goods and so on. So basically do what China did when it comes to the West, learning from the West in order to become, you know, to grow in power and so on to become

37:42the way China is today. So I'm trying to remind you that to China a whole century of humiliation before there's a vipeshift. If others there's a there's a change in mentality. Europe we're not quite there yet. We're nowhere near the century of humiliation in Europe. There might be some humiliation from Trump, but it's nothing compared what China has experienced. So I don't know what that means. I completely agree. It will take time. I really believe in the sentence that, you know, good times create weak men with weak men create bad times. So we're in the weak men create bad times era. We haven't been released through the bad times yet. I'm the strong memo definitely not here. So that that we are we completely agree on. But yeah, medium to long term,

38:52that is what I wish for Europe. I wrote another article advocating for Buddhism because Europe needs an ideological shift first and foremost, which is all about, you know, having strong men emerge. So it was in that that kind of beautiful world of the end of history where everyone will become liberal democracy and so on. They're still kind of in this mindset. They're sort of starting to see that makes zero sense anymore. So they're starting to realize that the old ideology is dying. So it means they will need a new one. And when Europe needs a new ideology, you know, it can be very bad news historically, right? So we always like to

39:53call others extremists. But where the ones who started both were wars. Where the one who started the crusades, the Inquisition, all of these stuff who had Osjeviets. So it can be pretty bad. So that's why I was thinking about what European ideology can be positive and well suited to a time like this. And to me, Buddhism is the only one because it's very positive. It's constructive. Buddhism is all about grandeur, greatness, which is very similar to the chain's concept of national rejuvenation. But it's not at all about hatred. So it's not about hating on, I don't know, foreigners hating on based on religion and so on. It's about loving yourself much more than it's about hating others. So it's on it's about strength as well,

40:58which is exactly what Europe needs right now. So if I advise anything, it will be a shift to this rather than fascism or goodness what? But we even speak of Europe as a whole because I think a lot of times we're talking about Europe, we're thinking about what Donald Ranzfeld calls the old Europe, you know, France and Germany. And then there's what he calls a new Europe, which is the Baltics, the Poland, etc. And right now, especially the Baltic countries, they have a vested interest in continue like the standoff with Russia. For their own reasons, historical reason, whatever. And can Europe really stand on its own as a poll without resolving the current conflict with Russia? Because the whole reason they thought

42:04the European leaders thought they needed United States is because they thought they needed US to contain Russia in Ukraine. And I remember some commenter put a comment in our interview last time says, can we even call there's one Europe? You know, apparently the Baltic countries have very different priorities than say France or Germany or Spain. And this is why actually tourism is also something that I recommend this because he has a radically different view on Europe than the current Europe. So his own vision of Europe was a Europe of nations rather than a supra-national state Europe, which is, I mean, right now we kind of have a weird mix of both. Europe is both supra-national for, you know, some stuff, like there are quite

43:07ignations, don't have sovereignty on a lot of topics anymore. So it went at the supra-national level for Europe. But nations still have some power, right? So nations like France can still do its pursuits independent foreign policy to some extent. So the goal was much more on the let's not have any of the supra-national aspect, let's create a Europe of nations where as sovereign nations we collaborate on some topics. So he's not anti-European but he's very much pro-national sovereignty if that makes sense. And he wanted to build a Europe of defense, for instance, a European army to some extent, but not as a European army, but more as, you know, national armies having some sort of European alliance much more than, you know, an army at the upper

44:17level. So I think that vision is still very relevant today because the Gersky insight is really believes in peoples. So he says that, you know, there is such a thing as a people, as a French people, as a German people, Polish people, and so on. And you're not going to change that. In fact, there were some projects in the past, in Europe's past, to change that, you know, Napoleon, the Roman Empire, and so on. On Europe kind of always re-baconized to re-beacon different people. So it's very, very hard to change that. So his point was, let's not even attempt it. Let's just acknowledge the basic fact that peoples exist. So the nation will always be a thing, but let's agree to cooperate as sovereign states for our common benefits.

45:20I think that makes much more sense. When there are some countries to your points, where, you know, that disagree on some topics, like they will probably always do, like the Baltics on Russia, and so on, when, you know, France, for instance, which is much further away from Russia, sees them as much less of a threat. The state was, we should have a core European countries, like the big powerful states, like France and Germany, for instance, try to put their pressure to convince others, not force them, but convince them. And if that doesn't work, you know, then we can also agree to disagree on some topics. That's fine. That's fair. That's fair. This has been a very fascinating

46:24conversation. Is there any topic that you wish to cover? I mean, I think we covered most of the latest stuff. This one, I was just writing on the on the main dash line, because for some reason, the South China Sea issue is trending again. And tourism uses me, how people completely misunderstand this question. But it's not that current topic. Right. Yeah, I don't trust this social media trending anymore, because it's easily manipulated. Right. I mean, like, because I remember when even back in 2018 or so, when Israel were bombing Gaza, they are all the big news media, like New York Times coming out with

47:31headline, like Xinjiang is the largest open air prison in the world, right? I mean, it's almost like a blatant attempt to game the search engine, you know, because everybody knew that largest open air prison is Gaza. But now they have, they're pumping out all these articles trying to, trying to game the search engine results. So I don't trust these. I don't think how, you know, I don't trust the organicity of all these trending topics on social media. Yeah, one interesting topic on that is TikTok, because that makes it so obvious, right? The fact that TikTok was just handed over, TikTok US was just handed over to the new owners. And everyone can see that actually they had much more freedom of speech under Chinese ownership than under US ownership, which is, it's completely

48:36compared to the narrative that you've always been told. To your point, it shows the extent to which you can censor on game social networks with the algorithm. And so I'm like, apparently, as soon as you start to speak about some topics like Zionism in a negative fashion or something that is just completely, yeah, or Epstein or, yeah, it's just completely blocked. Or, or ice, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, a lot of big accounts have reported problems where they review sketch. They're new latest posts just get zero views. I mean, it doesn't say they're blocked. It just nobody can see them. Even people who go visit their profile won't see their latest posts. You know, maybe because they talk about Epstein or ice or any anti-Trump topics. And this, this is goes to show, you know, like all the accusations is a confession.

49:39You know, whatever they accuse China of doing is what they plan to do themselves. And, you know, like, like, one guy, I think, under my comments, oh, yeah, yeah, of course, you can also go to Tiam and Square and yell down with Reagan. But again, this is completely besides a point. TikTok US is a American platform, you know, where it's mostly American users who air their views, right? And right now with American ownership, your freedom of speech has been limited on that platform, which was in the case with Chinese, Chinese had ownership because why we China care about political topics in the United States? Exactly. So that's why you had the freedom to discuss it. And this is the point I make repeatedly, you know, like, whatever

50:39your opinions of Chinese government, you know, the Chinese government policy primarily affects Chinese citizens residing in China. So I have no reason to be worried about Chinese government, even, you know, to read, to somehow spy on me through my EV because I do own a Chinese EV, because Chinese government has no jurisdiction over me. We're asked if it's Uncle Sam is completely different because they do have jurisdiction over me. You know, I will be much more afraid if the US government have that kind of power over me. But, you know, somehow people don't get that. I think it goes even beyond that because China, I mean, the China owned TikTok in the US actually used to respect US flow. So they even did some censorship when it was owned by China. I went on

51:42it a couple of times on France, even if you compare with X, it was much less assertive when it comes to topics like Palestine and Zionism and so on. It was actually quite mild compared to X in many ways. Because they were respecting US flow, but TikTok did in each country, that they respect the local laws. So that's the strange thing with this one. Is the American government even going beyond much beyond its own laws? They wanted to be even more strict than their own local calls for. So it's quite crazy. Yeah, I'm quite scared. There is a very very scary trend in the US towards some sort of fascist like states.

52:44Yeah, I mean, it's crazy. Like, I never thought I will see the day when they're opening, opening, openly executing American citizens. And there will be a significant, albeit a minority, but still a significant minority of people cheering for it a lot, cheering for the government executing American citizens. And this is not, they're not even brown people. They're executing white people, like white mothers and white men. And all these people, all these magas supporters still openly cheering for it. I mean, it's mind-boggling. Yeah, and the government is cheering for it, calling them domestic terrorists. It's quite scary. It's not dissimilar to the brown or black shirts in Europe. Yeah, and it's like all these people, all these outright or markup people, they don't,

53:50you know, you realize that they actually don't care about the so-called principle they stand for, you know, because they they decry every day about why genocide, you know, like why white women not have enough children. And they're supporting the ice executing a white mother, you know, of white, white child. And then you have people, they say, oh, they support second amendment to carry arms, you know, what, you know, we need weapons to protect us from tyrannical government. But now you actually have a case where a registered nurse was legally carrying arms, and then he was executed by by by government agent. And then they're cheering for it. And so it's it's just like it's tribal. These people just like, you know what, I I will support my tribe to execute the other tribe, you know, I don't care. And then the consequences, and the principles, I just don't like the other group of people and I want them dead. And and that that's the level of political discourse right now in the United States. So I this is why I'm glad I got out,

54:55you know, but I didn't plan it. But now I'm glad. I mean, Bali, I just looking looking into U.S. is such a shit show. Now, now, I completely agree. Yeah, it's it's it's very scary. It's it's almost like a bit by bit. You can see it's stepping in some sort of civil war like like status where there is just so much open hatred between between each other. And I encourage by a by the U.S. I mean, that's one of the big feature of the from government, the national security strategy. And so I'm the reprioritized, you know, domestic enemies that they could them like like that's coulding the number one priority now. Yeah, yeah, yeah, America is only second priority. The number one priority is domestic terrorism. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, cool. On those people out there. Yeah, down the

55:58territory status. I mean, the gay was a nurse, right? Yeah. Yeah, on that, well, on that happy note, we can wrap it up. If people want to follow your work, Arno, where would they go? I mean, Twitter or a sub-stack under my name, Arno Beltron. Okay. Well, thank you very much, Arno, for making the time to speak to us. And thanks everyone for, and thanks for everyone's for tuning in until next time. Bye bye.