Challenging Narratives: Beyond Borders, Beyond Bias

There’s no reason why Americans should remain ignorant about geopolitics and how they’re propagandised to believe, world leaders like Vladimir Putin, are crazed madmen, and all Russians are evil.

It’s a philosophy they’ve been brainwashed to believe from the moment they’re born – Red, White, and Blue, God and Country, and unwavering devout patriotism.

To most Americans, who’ve never travelled outside the US—that’s 90%, the world begins and ends at the US’s shores. Nothing else exists beyond America’s border.

It’s a sad indictment on a country that prides itself as highly advanced, yet geopolitically, the most ignorant.

Former Iranian national, Patrick Bet-David, now an American media giant and founder of Valuetainment, hosts the highly successful podcast, PBD Podcast.

Owner to multiple successful businesses, it's Bet-David’s media interests that have seen him rise to become one of the country’s fastest growing media players and influencers.

Bet-David’s podcast’s success has been built on his thirst for knowledge and discussing as broad a range of subjects with as wide-ranging guests as possible.

Last week, the PBD Podcast saw American conservative political commentator Candace Owens, and former CNN reporter and now NewsNation host, Chris Cuomo in a live debate.

Anybody watching or listening, would have quickly come to realise, Cuomo epitomised the indoctrination of ignorance that plagues most Americans.

Owens's exchange with Cuomo exemplified why there’s an urgent need for a more nuanced approach to international relations, beyond the binary narratives propagated by the US media and its political figures.

The world is now in an era defined by complex international dynamics, the imperative for the American public to broaden their understanding of geopolitics and world affairs has never been more pressing.

And Cuomo reinforced the reason why.

The US’s pervasive culture of insularity and tendency to view global events through a purely American lens continues to limit the depth of the American public’s understanding.

Owens, who’s known for her willingness to challenge mainstream narratives, sent Cuomo into a rage with her remarks on Vladimir Putin's intelligence, following an interview conducted by Tucker Carlson.

It seems her decision to praise the Russian president's acumen, contrasting it with the gaffe-prone appearances of US President Joe Biden, sent Cuomo into apoplexy.

Cuomo was so incensed by Owens's remarks, he accused her of endorsing a leader with a propoganised narrative that he has a contentious record on human rights and democratic freedoms.

Cuomo’s assertions about Putin, are baseless, and reflect repeated talking points driven by the US to successfully brainwash Americans into believing Putin does have a contentious record on human rights and democratic freedoms.

However, the Russian people would disagree, and it seems America’s lust for hegemony, which has driven global conflicts, coups, proxy wars, and the deaths of millions of innocent people because of US foreign policy, would suggest it’s the US administration that has a contentious issue on human rights and democratic freedoms.

The Owens and Cuomo exchange wasn’t a clash of personalities but a reflection of a broader challenge that currently exists within American society: the difficulty of engaging with international affairs in a way that transcends domestic political allegiances and preconceptions.

When Cuomo freaked over Owens acknowledgement of Putin's intellectual capabilities, it underscored a prevalent reluctance by many Americans, including influential media personalities, to critically evaluate foreign leaders without defaulting to a simplistic good-versus-evil paradigm.

Cuomo’s attack also exposed a deeper issue: an apparent inability to set aside US-centric views and approach global dynamics with impartiality.

When Cuomo equated Owens's acknowledgment of Putin's intellect with support for his policies, he demonstrated a common fallacy in American debate on geopolitics—conflating understanding with endorsement.

Such a mindset not only stifles debate but also perpetuates a myopic view of international relations, where the complexities of foreign leaders and their motivations are overshadowed by partisan narratives.

The Owens and Cuomo debate came to reflect a microcosm of a larger conversation about the American public's engagement with world affairs.

What it highlighted was a dire need for Americans to educate themselves on geopolitics and seek out a diverse range of perspectives.

Furthermore, it showed why it’s important to distinguish between the intellectual evaluation of a leader's capabilities and the moral judgment of their actions.

Acknowledging Putin's strategic or rhetorical skills represents a critical step towards developing a more sophisticated understanding of global affairs—one that recognises the significance of strategy, history, and diplomacy in shaping international relations.

And that’s exactly what Owens demonstrated - a level of sophistication that Cuomo both lacks and is incapable of demonstrating because of his indoctrination.

Cuomo’s bizarre outburst reinforced a narrow view of geopolitics through their critiques; it's evident the American public must strive for greater depth in their understanding of international affairs.

Which includes critically examining narratives presented by the media, engaging with a vast array of sources, and developing the ability to appreciate the complexities of global leadership without succumbing to partisan biases.