TIK History theory of history in an hour 42 minutes

Fascinating, recommended. Seems to end up as a justification for libertarianism and rejection of a public sector. Begins with tribal customs of prehistoric Greece, around the family and hearth. TIKHistory: Public vs Private | The Historic Definitions of Socialism and Capitalism Whatever those customs may have been, they are not the building blocks of today's political economy "thing". Today's world is organized as a collection of power hierarchies, each having a boss, leader, prince or lord, CEO, agency chief, military command, etc. Each individual boss, ruler, CEO, etc. has their own obedient down-chain, and network of relations with other bosses. Mathematically all humans could be ranked from top to bottom, in their degree of power. You don't need an hour and 42 minutes. It's not that complicated. It's also not guided by any "isms". There are only various sorts of group contracts in the large blocs of east, west etc. which are loosely followed, depending on the interests of various CEOs, agency heads, military commands, etc.

The front page of this epic organization, Media Sanctuary, is Chris Hedges' greatest talk. I have been tracking, and videoing Chris Hedges for 20 years. His talk in Eugene got over 100,000 views but, this is better. Naming names. Concrete. Share widely. https://www.mediasanctuary.org/ I hope this gets past the Algorithm. because it's true. "Chris Hedges returned to The Sanctuary for Independent Media in Troy NY on October 21, 2022 to speak on the subject of his latest book, titled “The Greatest Evil is War” (Seven Stories Press). This unflinching indictment of the horror and obscenity of war draws from experience and interviews for a book that looks at the hidden costs of war, what it does to individuals, families, communities, and nations." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0jZyHk6Rxs

The Ukraine war is quite directly a result in defects in the structures of worldwide consensus and administration, which originated in 1945. For example, the UN Treaty, one of the pillars, prohibited wars of aggression by one "state" against another... i.e., crossing "borders". Which is great. The treaty committed member states (which included almost all nations) to unite, to counter inter-nation aggression (with two exceptions) Taking a step back it was a bit self-serving, by the victors of WW2 (who ended up on the 5 member "security council") to defend their own existing regimes, within their own borders. But OK, what does the United Nations stand for? It stands for the permanent, unconditional design of "borders" at the point in time. This was a time bomb. Two huge defects: - Failed to define the conditions when a people, a population, a geographic region, have a *RIGHT* to secede from their ruling capital. Under conditions 1, 2, 3, etc. the population of a region should be entitled to self-determination i.e. sovereignty. - Failed to consider in any way, the *RIGHTS* of conquered or vanquished people, for any sort of redress whatsoever-- how to talk about and settle so many obviously unjust grievances of the past, Under conditions 1, 2, 3, etc. e.g. black people and indigenous in the United States, Kurds, Palestinians, Eastern Ukraine, Chechnya, Bahai... A comprehensive framework of addressing past conquests would consider how long ago the crime occurred, in terms of generations since the original victims in some cases are long dead (armenians etc) and their descendents shouldn't enjoy uncondional, inherited rights the cost of which would be born by descendents of the criminals. another concept is the degree to which the descendents have been adversely affected in the present time. For example Gazans have been 100% adversely affected, under empirical measures while Asian americans are less affected. and bla bla bla, just thinking our "international institutions" could do a better job dealing with the actual problems, besides elites of the G20 or Davos meetings, ad-hoc manuevering from year to year without a permanent commitment to any principles.

I recommend Lia Tarachansky's analysis: it's not about NATO.

What the west is getting wrong about Ukraine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDjPMMD8qwA
- The Real News Network
- Interview

I highly recommend Abby Martin/ Brian Becker historical analysis.

Please do your duty, for 2 hours of thought. I am running this at 150% speed, it is just excellent. I have known these two people 20 years. They are the real deal.

I recommend Aaron Mate's analysis.

US caused this war by using Ukraine as proxy against Russia.

I recommend this film.

Ukraine on Fire (Oliver Stone 2016)