People simply have too simplistic a view of politics and the world. The world is not black and white; there is no clear division of good and evil — everything is painted in shades of gray.

– YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

“Clowns” and “elephants” are the kabuki theater of official media.

I wanted to start with this video featuring Ray McGovern and John Helmer, as it perfectly illustrates the difference in perspective I have with The Duran. I’ve often criticized the views presented on The Duran, especially Alexander’s repeated claim that there couldn’t possibly be a larger plan and that Europeans are simply panicking.

In my view, many people have an overly simplistic understanding of the world, and this video highlights that contrast well. Ray McGovern represents the viewpoint often expressed on The Duran – which, in my opinion, is a reductive interpretation of global events – whereas John Helmer expresses a perspective more aligned with my own.

I’ve written before that people pay too much attention to what they see on TV and take it far too seriously. I’m interested in official media not to learn what’s happening, but to understand what they want us to believe is happening. This perspective is well represented by John Helmer in the video. Here is a short excerpt:

4:33

The remark just given about Marco Rubio as a clown, but let’s remember that clowns perform their function in a circus after the elephants. And the elephants in this particular circus are serious. So, let’s go back to what the elephants are. We have here, as we’ve described it before, a sequencing of U.S.-led empire wars. And we can come back to the way in which the present Iran-Israel war, or U.S.-Israel versus Iran war, affects Russian calculations for the ending of the Ukraine war.

But let me just go back to something that Trump himself said, and it’s indicative. It’s a combination of clown and elephant, if you like. He’s just said, reflecting his own ambition for a Nobel Peace Prize, being president of the world, being Pope, and so forth, that he’s just solved the India-Pakistan war. He’s in the process of solving the Kosovo war, which means the complete destruction of Serbia. He said he’s next week going to solve the Central African wars involving Congo. He said he’s going to be solving the Russia-Ukraine war because he’ll be talking again to President Putin, whom he described as misguided. He’s talked to President Zelensky—sorry, Mr. Zelensky—who he described as very nice.

You’ve got essentially an individual who thinks he runs the world, and in certain respects, he does. Certainly in front of the NATO Secretary General, Stoltenberg, who couldn’t have licked President Trump’s boots more brilliantly. But that’s what a NATO Secretary General is for, and that’s what a prime minister of the Netherlands is always for: licking the empire’s boots. But we have a very serious set of wars to continue. And what we can come back to are the lessons that Russia has to learn from what’s just transpired—both the victories and the tactical defeats, the level of military intervention the U.S. is prepared to make. All of these are lessons from the Russian point of view of how to fight the long-term war against the U.S.-led empire, the Trump-led empire.

The elephants, not the clowns, the elephants, are on the southern front in Iran. And one could say, at the very least, Iran has preserved itself from a significant decapitation attack and from the beginning of an attempt to partition Iran; that’s failed.

On the other hand, the war from the Russian point of view in the west is not only a war on the Ukrainian battlefield, which the Russians are winning, but the Russian side was looking to Trump to see to what degree of peace settlement—more than ceasefire, a peace settlement—Trump will come to at NATO. And there’s no sign whatever of that. That has strategic, tactical, and operational consequences we can now talk about for Russia on the Ukrainian battlefield. But then Trump has gotten the so-called 5% GDP increase from NATO, which means escalation of the war against Russia, escalation of the war against Russia on the northern front, going from Poland all the way up to Finland and Greenland. And then we’ve got escalation of war in the east against China and so forth.

So, it’s premature to say we’re looking at an Iranian victory, a Russian victory. Russian victory is far more assured. Iranian victory requires a considerable effort to repair the damage and to understand what the next steps are of the Israeli-U.S. attack, reflecting the empire’s intent to remake the entire world against its enemies.

The same view is also represented by Brian Berletic. Both Brian and John share the “division of theory” perspective, as I do. There’s also Whitney Webb, who focuses more on deeper ideological and internal analysis, which I agree with, while Brian and John primarily concentrate on geopolitics.

9:07

We need to consider all of those questions as we move to the next stage and back to the other battlefields. These are questions for which neither President Trump, nor Secretary of Defense Hagel, nor Secretary of State Rubio have answers. In fact, journalists don’t ask those sorts of questions. Why? Because nobody wants to look at what the “elephants” intend to do next; they want to focus on the “clowns.” And that’s both domestic political, Israeli politics, and NATO politics, and it’s not central to the fight that continues.

The “elephants” John is talking about are exactly the issues I write about – real geopolitics and the workings of the Empire. As John points out, journalists rarely acknowledge or even examine these deeper realities. That’s why, when I follow official media, I don’t pay attention to what they claim is happening in the world; I focus on what they want us to believe is happening. Official media don’t recognize or reflect the truth – they focus on the “clowns” instead of the “elephants.”

Don’t get me wrong – there is still value in watching the “clowns.” Understanding what they want us to think can help us uncover what is really happening. But that’s why I’ve said before that you can’t take the official media too seriously. For example, just because they say Ukraine is winning doesn’t mean they actually believe it. It’s all kabuki theater, full of “clowns,” designed to create a narrative for the masses.

In reality, they know Ukraine will not win. But they can’t say openly that Ukraine has already lost. They need Ukrainians to keep fighting – and dying – in a war that’s already lost, so Russian resources remain tied up in Ukraine and can’t be used elsewhere to challenge the Empire. If they told the truth, how could they expect Ukrainians continuing to die for our geopolitical goals?

That’s why they keep repeating that Ukraine is winning – not because they believe it, but because they need Ukrainians to keep sacrificing themselves for the Empire’s strategic interests. And that’s also why I’ve criticized The Duran for saying that Europe is panicking or that it truly believes Ukraine is winning. First, they know Russia isn’t going to attack Europe – they’re not stupid, so there’s nothing to panic about. Second, they don’t genuinely believe Ukraine is winning; they just say that because the narrative demands it.

Ray McGovern, like The Duran, takes this kabuki theater and its “clowns” too seriously. Meanwhile, people like me, John Helmer, and Brian Berletic focus on the “elephants.”

Gray Reality of the World

In this section, I want to include another video featuring John Helmer, though I know it may provoke criticism from The Duran community because it contains criticism of Putin. I want to preface this by saying that I admire Putin and wish we had leaders like him in the West. However, as always, the real world isn’t black and white – it’s gray.

19:08

There was an implication – and I stress it was an implication – that Russian officials close to the president, including former President Dmitry Medvedev, who is the deputy chairman of the Security Council (which is the collective body combining intelligence agencies, military agencies, the foreign ministry, and the presidency in making consensus decisions for the president), these groups criticized the president’s statement. This statement implied something that didn’t appear to be true, or worse, implied that the Russians had violated their obligation.

So, later on the same day, during the plenary session of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, a major international event, President Putin took a question and tried to explain that Russia honors its obligations and has honored its obligations to Iran. Nonetheless, he made a claim that Russia had to balance between Israel and Iran. He also accepted that there would be an attack on Iranian sovereignty. Without going into the fine words, which is one of the ways analysts like you and I try to report what exactly is happening, the president showed a greater sympathy for Israel than most Russian public opinion or official Russian policy justifies.

This is a very interesting statement: Putin was criticized for being too sympathetic toward Israel. As I’ve written before, I think Putin is a good leader and I admire him – but we need to remember that the world is not black and white. I’ve shared this short video before, but I will link it again.

Klaus Schwab: And I have to say, when I mention names like Mrs. Merkel, even Vladimir Putin, and so on, all have been Young Global Leaders of the World Economic Forum. But what we are very proud of now is a young generation, like Prime Minister Trudeau, the president of Brazil, of Argentina, and so on

You have Klaus Schwab stating that both Putin and Merkel were part of the World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leaders program, where they were groomed by Schwab – just like Trudeau. I also want to share one more video, this time featuring Max Blumenthal, which offers a brief history of Russia. In my opinion, it’s the best summary of the origins of the new Cold War involving Russia.

3:31

“

Yeltsin basically became too drunk to continue. He appointed Vladimir Putin, who had been involved in the privatization project in St. Petersburg and was close to Anatoly Chubais and the kind of guys who had been around Gorbachev and moved into Yeltsin’s administration as partners with the “Harvard boys.” Everyone thought, “Oh, Putin is going to be great; he’s going to keep this thing going.” If you go back to 2000-2001, you can find a lot of people, including Bill Browder, praising Putin.

What he proceeded to do was start throwing the oligarchs in prison – the oligarchs who wouldn’t pay into Russia’s economy from Yukos oil and so on. This sent shockwaves through the national security state in the U.S. and through the foreign policy establishment in Washington. You know, Putin was no socialist; he was basically re-centering the economy around a kind of state capitalist model.

“

Here is some information about Putin’s involvement in the “privatization” process – the looting of wealth in St. Petersburg – which aligned with the agenda promoted by Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leaders program. That’s why he was initially praised by them. However, at some point, Putin broke away from Klaus Schwab, the World Economic Forum, and the Western oligarchs. He chose instead to protect the Russian nation and put an end to the “privatization” that was draining Russia’s wealth.

Still, we must remember that Putin was once part of the World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leaders program and did play a role in the early stages of this economic exploitation. That’s likely why he was initially allowed to rise to power. This connection may also help explain his unusually pro-Israel stance.

Russia, China, and BRICS

I also want to point out that people often view alliances – such as BRICS – in an overly simplistic way. In real geopolitics, there is always a hedging of bets. For example, at the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine, China did not support Russia. Why? In my opinion, it’s because there are eastern parts of Russia, just north of China, that China would gladly claim if the opportunity arose. These regions are also heavily populated by Asians. So, in the case of a Russian collapse, China might see a chance to take control of those territories. That’s why China held back in the early stages – it was waiting to see how things would unfold.

Another example is the Power of Siberia 2 pipeline. If China were truly a strong ally of Russia and wanted to help, construction on the pipeline would have started immediately after Russian gas stopped flowing to Europe. But that didn’t happen. Why? In my view, it’s because China wanted to squeeze Russia for a better deal. China wanted to pay less than what Europe had been paying and waited until it was certain Russia couldn’t send gas to Europe anymore. At that point, China would become Russia’s only major customer with enough demand for energy – and could then dictate the price. This shows that, while Russia and China are cooperating, China is also trying to exploit Russia’s weakened position. It’s a clear example of the gray reality of geopolitics – not everything is black and white.

We see similar dynamics within the rest of BRICS. For instance, India – one of the key BRICS members – is in conflict with Pakistan, a country that has applied to join BRICS. Also, both The Duran and I have questioned why Iran doesn’t fully trust Russia or accept its help. Putin’s strongly pro-Israel stance could be one reason why Iran remains cautious.

As I’ve explained before, India acts as a kind of Western Trojan horse within BRICS. While both China and India are members, India is leveraging its cooperation with the West to counterbalance China’s influence. India wants to play a leading role in Asia, and to do that, it needs to weaken China’s position.

So, the BRICS alliance isn’t as unified or harmonious as many assume. It’s not one big family – there are internal tensions, competing interests, and strategic maneuvering. Again, the real world isn’t black and white. It’s gray.

Deeper Analysis

To conclude, I’d like to share a short video from Jimmy Dore that highlights some deeper issues. This video offers a more internal analysis – not so much focused on geopolitics, but more aligned with the kind of work Whitney Webb is known for.

This short video shows that Trump is not actually fighting the deep state. We see Trump protecting Benjamin Netanyahu, involving figures from the World Economic Forum in his Gaza plan – along with known sponsors of Islamic terrorism, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as well as the former Al-Qaeda-linked leader of Syria. Additionally, Trump has cooperated with Palantir to surveil the Western population. Given all of this, I don’t understand how anyone can still believe that Trump is fighting the deep state.

This is the kind of deeper, internal analysis that Whitney Webb explores – issues that go beyond traditional geopolitics. Here is a recent interview with Whitney Webb.

How You Are Being Played By Silicon Valley Oligarchs w/ Whitney Webb – Media Roots Radio

Abby and Robbie Martin talk to investigative journalist Whitney Webb, editor of Unlimited Hangout, and author of One Nation Under Blackmail, about the PayPal mafia of rebranded neocons, and how they’re ushering us into a neofuedal tech dictatorship Check out Whitney Webb’s work at https://unlimitedhangout.com/ Access over 55 hours of exclusive content by becoming a Patreon subscriber to Media Roots Radio @ patreon.com/mediarootsradio This episode was originally released on May 1st 2025 for Media Roots Radio Patreon subscribers.

Thanks to everyone who stuck with me until the end of my post. And, as always…

“Knowledge will make you be free.”

― Socrates

+

“Knowledge isn’t free. You have to pay attention.”

― Richard P. Feynman

=

“Freedom is not free, you need to pay attention.”

― Grzegorz Ochman

Please pay enough attention, or we will all be screwed. God bless you all.

“We protect our minds by an elaborate system of abstractions, ambiguities, metaphors and similes from the reality we do not wish to know too clearly; we lie to ourselves, in order that we may still have the excuse of ignorance, the alibi of stupidity and incomprehension, possessing which we can continue with a good conscience to commit and tolerate the most monstrous crimes”

― Aldous Huxley

“But again and again there comes a time in history when the man who dares to say that two and two make four is punished with death.”

― Albert Camus

“Sure, there are grays, but when you come right down to it, at its core, beneath every choice, there’s either a one or a zero. You either do something or you don’t. You walk out that door, you’ve decided to do nothing, to say no, which means you do not come back. You leave, you are no longer a part of this. You become a zero. If you stay, if you want to change the world, you become a yes. You become a one. So, I’ll ask you again: are you a one or a zero?”

― Mr. Robot