Map of Ukraine
© Unknown
This week we took a closer look at the unfolding chaos in Ukraine. Is it really 'chaos'? Or is their method behind the madness?

In the context of 100+ years of U.S. intervention abroad, the worsening situation in Ukraine is just another in a long line of manipulated and bloody conflicts the U.S. elite has brought about.

This time, however, the U.S. is facing a strong opponent in the form of a resurgent Russia. How will Putin respond to the unfolding mayhem on his doorstep? Will he play dirty like the Americans? Will he just try to keep it contained within Ukraine's borders?

Running Time: 02:10:00

Download: MP3

Here's the transcript:

Niall: Hello and welcome to SOTT Talk Radio. I'm Niall Bradley. Your co-host tonight is Joe Quinn.

Joe: Hi there.

Niall: And we're joined by Pierre Lescaudron in the studio.

Pierre: Bonjour.

Niall: And Jason Martin.

Jason: Bonjour.

Niall: So we were going to have an interview today, a discussion with Finian Cunningham, journalist from Ireland. Unfortunately we've not been able to get hold of him. So we're going to go ahead and have the discussion we were going to have with Finian and we might be able to get him on, scheduled for another show.

Joe: We won't say anything bad about Finian just yet.

Niall: No. I think, from what it says on his bio and what I've been able to know, he's in east Africa somewhere, so perhaps he's currently out of reach.

Joe: He's gone AWOL on the Dark Continent.

Niall: So we're going to be talking...

Jason: (whispering) The horror, the horror.

Niall: We're mainly preoccupied this week with what's been going on in the Ukraine. I'm sure most of our listeners have as well. It's still up in the air what's going to happen there. Events are unfolding as we speak, but it's quite clear already that there's something going on here where they would like us to think that this falls into line with the revolutionary momentum that first began in the Middle East with the Arab Spring and we've now seen this in countries across the world, in the U.S. and Western Europe. However the more that comes out about what's going on behind the scenes in Ukraine, the more clear it becomes that this has got yet another western neo-liberal intervention written all over it.

Joe: Yes it does have western neo-liberal intervention written all over it.

Jason: Say that three times fast.

Joe: One of the things that actually was a hallmark for me of that kind of intervention which is making the intervention in foreign countries by essentially the evil empire, the Wall Street bankers and the globalists, as Alex Jones would call them, is events that happen, especially in the context of some kind of a popular uprising that tends to tug at the heartstrings of gullible western citizens. Some kind of a video or some kind of a report where you can just hear this mass outpouring of "Oh my god, no!" from the civilized people of the world and suddenly they're all behind a certain group or a certain movement within this conflict within a country. One example was obviously the incubator babies from the first Gulf turkey shoot in 1991 where you had this completely manufactured story.

Niall: The gall for that one. She was the daughter of the ambassador to Saudi Arabia.

Joe: And they had no compunction with just basically getting her into the Congress I think, or it was a senate hearing, and getting her to tell lies about how she saw babies in incubators just thrown on the ground. And she was crying and everything. That single event won the public opinion war, if there ever was anybody in the U.S. or in the western world against the First Gulf War, then that completely just knocked them out of the park type thing. There was no longer an issue and it was full steam ahead, let's get those evil Iraqis. And it was complete fiction. People shouldn't under-estimate the power of that kind of a thing.

I saw on Facebook a few days ago people I know spreading around a video I am Ukrainian, a YouTube video of this pretty girl from Ukraine just giving a sob story about "We want freedom, we want democracy. Look at me, I'm so pretty. Shouldn't I have freedom and democracy? Shouldn't you support it?" And people I know were posting it and people who generally speaking don't keep up with things, don't look too much into things. And this was for them the important thing to share, what they got out of Ukraine, which was "There's a pretty girl who wants democracy. We should support the people protesting."

Jason: All pretty girls deserve democracy.

Joe: And when you see that kind of thing, in this day and age, you should be immediately suspicious. It reminds us of the Kony 2012 thing that we've discussed back in 2012 as well. When it's dripping with that kind of emotional manipulation and you feel yourself being pulled for some unknown reason, to support a particular grouping and yet if you stop for a minute and realize that you have no friggin' idea about what's really going on but suddenly you find yourself with a strong opinion on it, you know you've been manipulated. So get with the program people, or stop going with the program.

Pierre: Yeah, that's similar to what happened in Sochi. Remember the story about the stray dogs. The Russian authorities were going to kill thousands of stray dogs because of the Sochi Winter Olympics. We see the recurrence of the same modus operandi in emotional events, usually fabricated by the PTBs, used to hysterize the population and to make them accept things they would usually not accept.

Joe: That was in particular, just a direct attack on Putin. It was just sour grapes. The west doesn't even want Putin to get any kind of kudos on the international stage from hosting something as innocuous as the Winter Olympics. You think "That's got nothing to do with politics", but it's got everything to do with politics because they immediately tried to make sure that he did not benefit in any way from it by turning the entire western media against him and doing things like that, really petty, bullshit things. "They're killing doggies." That's a report on the Winter Olympics? "They're killing doggies" and all sorts of other smear campaigns.

Niall: Yeah, they went after faulty plumbing.

Pierre: Contaminated water, yellow water.

Niall: And gay rights we talked about a couple of weeks ago. The dog issue.

Jason: Hold on. I've got two things to say on that BS right there.

Niall: Let's hear it.

Jason: First of all, on the front page of MSNBC is the news story that Arizona has just passed a bill allowing institutions to discriminate. It's specifically targeted against gays and transgender people and benefits because basically a bunch of Christian groups complained that they should be able to not have to serve in any capacity, any person that they find out is homosexual or transgendered, or involved in any sort of a thing like that, right? That's story number one.

The second story on the MSNBC front page, as of two hours ago, was that the New Jersey water is so toxic that it's actually dangerous for you to bathe in it so pot, kettle, black right there. Right there, pot, kettle, black.

Joe: Yeah, but that's been all over the whole thing in terms of Obama and the British William Hagan. Obama's speeches or comments on Ukraine just have hypocrisy dripping from it and it's just like how anybody can take him seriously.

Jason: Obama got elected on a platform of a pretty girl who wanted change, Obama girl. That was the big sensation of his campaign. That was totally organized, in my opinion, by his campaign. And it was basically a pretty girl dancing in scanty clothes who wanted change.

Pierre: The pot calling the kettle black. While the U.S. were bashing Putin and emphasizing petty details about the Sochi Winter Olympics and the stray dog story who were going to be killed, allegedly, at the same time, the U.S. authorities were killing the umpteenth death row inmate, the 5th female inmate and a male inmate roughly at the same time, with a new drug, new injection, a new toxin because they were out of stock of the usual toxin, lethal injection. But it failed and the individual agonized for 26 endless minutes. So the same country that bashed Putin because allegedly he killed stray dogs, was basically torturing a human being.

Jason: Hold on a second. There is now a class action lawsuit from an Angola prison. Robert King was involved in this. Basically I think there were people in there that were part of the Black Panther Party or something and they had killed a prison guard, probably in self-defense. And one of these guys was in solitary confinement in a 6x9x12 foot room for 41 years, 23 hours a day. That's torture. That's cruel and unusual punishment. That takes place in America.

Pierre: Forty-one years.

Jason: Forty-one years in solitary confinement.

Pierre: Spent his life in a concrete box.

Jason: In solitary confinement. That means 23 hours a day. And the only time he got outside of the room was one hour where he was put in a cage and wasn't even allowed outside. This is America. I didn't even know that shit happened in America. I thought that was illegal. But apparently American prisons really do put people in solitary confinement for 40 years. That's just messed up.

Niall: I'm pretty sure the death penalty has been made illegal in Russia.

Jason: In most civilized countries because of course it's not effective at all as a deterrent and it's really just...

Pierre: See the level of crime rate in the U.S. The death penalty and crime rate is pretty high.

Joe: The use of the electric chair in the U.S. is probably, as far as I'm concerned, the most barbaric way to kill someone. If killing is happening, you don't have to put a hood over his head and stuff. But somehow it's presented as being more humane or something.

Jason: I don't understand why.

Joe: But hanging, for example, is worse. But the electric chair is probably the most premeditated form of murder you can get, in terms of the whole...

Jason: Orchestration of the matter.

Joe: Yeah, in terms of official murder type thing. The premeditation involved in the electric chair is horrible because the kind of planning that goes into it and the last meal and the people there to watch and all that kind of stuff. And then the horror of the actual killing itself is far worse than just snapping someone's neck in hanging. But hanging, for example in Iran, is decried every time anybody is hung in Iran for murder or for whatever. The hypocrisy is just across the board everywhere. I'm talking about hypocrisy in Ukraine. It's gotten to the point where they don't care anymore. They really do not care because they seem to think that people don't remember or people aren't listening or people believe their bullshit.

A couple of weeks ago we had that tape from the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for screwing up Eastern European countries, that's her official title, Barbara Nuland.

Niall: Victoria Nuland.

Joe: Victoria Nuland. She's the one who's re-named the EU F the EU and we're going to adopt that from now on.

Niall: F to you.

Pierre: F to you.

Joe: F to you, yeah, F to you too Victoria. So she's the assistant secretary of state for screwing up Eastern European countries and making them free for exploitation by international bankers and industrialists. We had her on the show a couple of weeks ago, although she didn't...

Niall: She was great.

Joe: She was great. We should get her back. Her telephone conversation with her lackey in Ukraine, the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, who has a funny name, Pyatt or something, the two of them are on this conversation talking about who's going to be in the next Ukrainian government and how this guy was no good, we want this guy and let's get this done, let's get the "deets" fixed, let's get the details fixed in this and locked down. And so that was probably two weeks ago, and within two weeks you had these protests, more violent protests in Ukraine, and you had Obama standing up in front of the world and saying that "This is not about some kind of cold war strategy against Russia. This is about us wanting to secure the right of the Ukrainian people to choose their own government and not be moved by anyone." And I'm just like "Really? Did that not happen? Did I not hear that conversation? Was that not all over the news?"

And of course it kind of wasn't all over the news in terms of what was actually happening in that conversation, the important points of that conversation between those two idiots. Because what the newspapers talked about was the fact that she said F the EU and the fact that the Russians probably had released it and this was a new low in statecraft. This was a new low. And this is another thing, they decried the fact that the Russians had taped this conversation and released it and this comes hot on the heels of the whole Edward Snowden and NSA spying on the friggin' world. I mean, seriously? At what point do you go "SERIOUSLY?!?!?!?" Are you f-ing joking me Victoria?

Pierre: Something else about Victoria Nuland is that she went to Ukraine quite frequently at the beginning of the "events" and actually she visited the Ukraine, met some of the leaders of the opposition and some other leaders in Ukraine only three weeks before the beginning of the demonstrations and the riots. So one could wonder to what extent Victoria Nuland and the U.S. State Department has been instrumentally active in the staging, the creation of this so-called rebellion and opposition movement.

Joe: We don't have to wonder.

Jason: That's kind of what I'm saying. Like what Joe said, we don't have to wonder. This seems to me like imperialism business as usual 101, last 2000 years, nothing new. Niccolò Machiavelli writes about it where Italy went to the king of France, got him in there, wanted to take out some political rivals. And then he ended up basically taking over and it took them forever to kick him out. So this is the same kind of situation. What I think probably happened is the U.S. just jumped on opportunity that probably came about by his opposition party. It was like "Hey, we're not getting any more of the money from this oil that we've been siphoning off and he stopped it, so let's kick him out. Who can we get to help us? Well the U.S. is willing to throw some money around to de-stabilize the country." So they went there, said give us some money, U.S. did, bada boom, bada bang, you have a faked revolution.

Niall: Here's a rough timeline of what happened. In the background, for years really, the Ukraine economy is one of the few eastern countries that has yet to - I don't want to say it's yet to develop because the eastern countries that have joined the EU, nothing's changed there - anyway, there were negotiations going on between Russia and the EU about what to do in Ukraine's situation. It was artificially brought to a head last November when Washington and Brussels gave the President Yanukovych an ultimatum. They were the ones who forced this issue by saying "You choose the EU now or Russia". There was no need for this urgency. It was an artificially created sense of urgency. That's what precipitated the protests. Putin replied and it was carried in some media, but no one knows because it wasn't spread enough. Putin's answer was basically "Why now? What's the urgency? The Ukraine is having Presidential elections next year." He said "Why don't we all work together on what to do about Ukraine's situation together. Why force it into either EU or Russia?" They artificially made this into this kind of 'You're with us or you're against us' scenario.

Joe: But that's because they fundamentally don't trust the democratic process. The Americans don't trust their democratic process that would have happened in elections later on this year. So they wanted to push it and they had been planning it for a long time. This goes back a lot longer than just last year. It probably goes back into the 1990s in terms of planning, for Eastern Europe and the former Soviet states that fell away from the Soviet Union. And of course we know what happened to Yugoslavia. They just bombed the crap out of it and incited ethnic conflicts so they could divide it up into small states. And they've had the same plans for the Ukraine. It's a bit further away so it took a while. But they had the Orange Revolution, which was entirely U.S. funded and sponsored, in 2004 when you had...

Pierre: Yushchenko?

Joe: ...Yushchenko, but there was a whole mess between 2004 and 2010 when the current President was elected between Yushchenko and Tymoshenko which is this woman who's been in prison. And she's basically an oligarch. She was defeated in 2010 by the current President, by the guy who's just kind of fled, as they say because everybody knew that she was a corrupt money-grabbing oligarch. And now her picture is flying above the central square in Kiev, where the protesters are.

I'll just give you an idea of what she did. In the late '90s, before she co-led the Orange Revolution with Yushchenko, she was the president of Ukraine's United Energy Systems which was a privately owned importer of Russian natural gas into Ukraine. And she was accused by Moscow of illegally selling enormous quantities of stolen Russian gas and avoiding tax on the sales and enriching herself massively during the late 1990s when she got the nickname 'the gas princess' from that. And she was also accused of having given her political patron, this former Prime Minister Pavlo Lazarenko, kick-backs in exchange for her company's stranglehold on his gas supplies. And he was sentenced to prison in California, where he still is, for extortion, money laundering and murder.

So she's actually implicated in murder as well. And yet, this one's picture is hoisted above the supposed freedom and democracy protesters in the middle of the square in Kiev. It's kind of ridiculous. And this guy Yushchenko, who was her co-partner in the Orange Revolution, previous to that he was the head of the central bank in the Ukraine in the late 1990s and into 2000. And he was the one who spear-headed the introduction of allowing the IMF to get its dirty fingers on the Ukraine by way of a big loan. The way the IMF works is they come into a country that's in financial difficulties and say "Listen, we'll give you a big loan at a high rate of interest, but we don't really trust that you're able to pay this back so we're going to have to take control of your economy to make sure that you can pay this back. And obviously the way you're going to pay it back is through taxes. We think that you're not really raising the taxes and you're spending too much money on these people." What do they call them again, "your population"?

Jason: Fodder

Joe: "So we need you to stop spending money on them and at the same time get them to pay more taxes so that you can pay back this loan that we've given you to fix the country." So it's totally convoluted and totally contradictory, the whole idea. But for some reason governments are made to believe that it's the only way. And when he did that in the middle of the '90s in Ukraine the price of bread increased overnight by 300%, electricity went up 600%, public transportation 900%, the standard of living collapsed. And by 1998 real wages had fallen by more than 75%. Now that's continued on through. And this is what supposedly the protestors in Kiev are complaining about. One of the things they complain about apart from corruption and stuff is not enough jobs, low wages and this kind of thing. But that's a direct result of this Yushchenko guy who is the partner of this Tymoshenko, the woman. And now they are kind of back, flavor of the month and her picture is up in the middle of the square. So the whole thing is so contrived and so ridiculous.

Niall: I think what we've got here is a couple of factions, you've got the faction that's been described so ably by the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland when she listed off "Who do we want? We want Yats, Kishko and a third guy.

Joe: Tyahnybok.

Niall: Tyahnybok, who's the head of the Freedom Party, which is basically fascist. And they'll do. But that leaves out mention of Tymoshenko. Now what's happened since then is things are changing day-to-day. Joe mentioned a huge poster of her being raised in the square. I've noticed that a lot of the photos of protestors are holding up posters. Someone has gone to the trouble of making one of Tymoshenko with her trademark braided blond hair tied up, with prison bars broken free. They've mass produced them and they're being handed out in the square.

Jason: Very convenient.

Niall: This is another faction coming in trying to position themselves because Nuland hadn't mentioned her. Now what's happened just yesterday in fact, the parliament officially decided to impeach President Yanukovych and they instead voted in an interim President, who's the current speaker of the parliament. This is a guy called Oleksandr Turchynov. Now he represents the Fatherland Party which is Tymoshenko's old party and he was her head of security, basically the head of the intelligence services in 2004 in the Color Revolution. So they now have a little coup. The latest position on the coup is that Tymoshenko's group has taken control of the reins, at least temporarily. And she's announced that she'll run in elections that have been called for May 25th.

Pierre: The U.S. authorities and the European authorities claim that they have prepared a financial package through the IMF to "save" Ukraine. And as Joe said previously, the U.S. doesn't trust elections because they know that the Ukrainian people know about the IMF deal. Because after the Orange Revolution, the IMF policy was applied and in addition to the measures that were previously described, the IMF said "Here's the deal. We lend you money that you won't be able to pay back because of the interest rate. But in exchange for this loan, you have to accept an ideology. And part of this ideology in addition to the destruction of the public sector service, is the privatization of resources, i.e., giving the local resources, human, mining, everything, to private corporations." And the Ukrainian people know where it leads to. So I suppose that their memories are not so short and they know the destructive effects of such ideology.

Joe: They're being railroaded though. They're being railroaded by these protests and the key factor in pushing through these changes that have now gone through with the actual will of the majority of the Ukrainian people, is to have this kind of violence because that polarizes people and it also creates a kind of political capital for the interested parties to say "Listen, something has to be done because there's an outcry. This killing has to stop. We have to do something." That forces the issue. And I'm fairly convinced that the violence that occurred was completely manipulated and it was scheduled, it was programmed, it was planned, because normal people, when they want to protest their government, generally do not spontaneously break into mass violence where they start burning buildings and wrecking the place and attacking cops and stuff. You saw the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Niall: Yeah. Compare and contrast.

Joe: Exactly. It's peaceful. And that's what people generally do. You could say that people won't get violent unless, for example, when they peacefully protest, which is naturally what they'll do, or they'll have nationwide strikes, or something like that, but when that kind of peaceful protest is responded to extremely violently by the state forces, if they can get the security forces to beat heads and shoot people and stuff, then you might have a violent reaction from the ordinary people. But you have to provoke them and they have to be seriously provoked to engage in serious violence like we've seen in Ukraine. But even then, in most cases, when peaceful protestors are attacked like that, they will not respond to violence. They'll be too cowed and too afraid. That's a kind of really tyrannical, authoritarian, totalitarian government and after that there're no more protests, because people know that they're going to die if you protest. So it's only in a fairly open society that people will even go out and protest, and generally speaking, there won't be the situation where police and security forces will start shooting them. They'll be allowed to protest. So where did this violence come from in Kiev only, this extreme violence?

And you notice that in the first few weeks where it was becoming violent, all of the violence was coming from the protestors towards police. Police were not responding. They were getting set on fire by Molotov cocktails. They were getting their heads beaten. It was bizarre. Sure, it heartened a lot of people who were like "Fight the power! Power to the people" and stuff to see ordinary people grabbing cops and throwing them around and beating them and burning them and stuff. But that's not normal. Are you going to tell me that could happen anywhere in Western Europe or in America? Generally speaking, in those kinds of conflicts, the protestors come off a lot worse. And it doesn't last very long because if a bunch of Americans were, for example, marching on Congress and had blocked the entrance to Congress to stop Congressmen and Senators from getting in and if they were marching on the White House too...

Niall: If they started firing in the windows.

Joe: If they started shooting, Obama would say "They're expressing their freedom and democracy."

Niall: "Withdraw your security forces."

Joe: That's what he was telling them. Withdraw. He as telling the Ukrainian President "Do not respond to this." Yeah? And what would you do Obama? Well let's just look at the Occupy Wall Street, what happened? Across 100 cities in one night, there were heads beaten in and the whole thing was gone through police violence towards the protestors. And they weren't even anywhere near any official government buildings. They were sitting outside banks, private banks.

Pierre: And when you read the reports by mainstream media, during the first riots, the first demonstrations, you see the mainstream media only mentions "It was very violent, a hundred people got injured" and they didn't break down the figures. And when you dig some more, you realize that actually most of the wounded people were on the side of the police force which is indeed very unusual. Even when you see the pictures, when you see those demonstrators, they're not demonstrators. You see them fully equipped. They have protection. They have helmets. They have guns firing real bullets. These are not demonstrators/protestors. These are agents provocateurs funded by western forces to establish a coup d'état.

Niall: Yeah. They think they can control this, but to quote the moderate leader of the opposition, Yats, as Victoria Nuland called him, he said 'we've lost control. We've lost control of the situation.'

Joe: They don't want to hear the harm of what they're doing.

Niall: Across Ukraine people are tearing down statues of Lenin, for example. Okay, he was an evil tyrant as well. Take down his statue by all means. In their place their painting logos of swastikas and white power symbols, this is the element that's coming to force in Ukraine.

Pierre: Like in parallel with Syria striking, the modus operandi is basically the same. You have the western forces, powers, who want to take control of this piece of land, usually because of resources and because there is a democratically elected government that obviously don't serve the interest of western powers. They have to further a coup. And for that, they infiltrate the country, they create bogus operations, they distort the facts. They have all this propaganda. And in theory like in Ukraine, you see that those extremist groups funded and created in some cases by western forces, can get out of control because these are mostly extremist groups that are led by psychopathic individuals. In Syria, you see this extremist group fighting against Assad. And in the Ukraine there is the same, with an added inconsistency there. They're in for their own interests. They don't have the interests of the country at heart, which could bring them really together.

Jason: They really screwed themselves in so many ways. Historically speaking, like I said before, they've just made probably about the number one mistake you can ever make as a country. Don't get somebody else to help you with a coup d'état. That's a really bad idea historically. It's never worked and it'll always turn against them. I think there's double-crossing going on, like with this Tymenshenko, or whatever she is. I think that it's kind of like a double-cross situation. I think that one group of people is like "Oh, let's have a coup d'état" and then she's like boom, out of prison. What's up now? And has kind of like taken over it. She shows up in a wheelchair, does all this press stuff. Suddenly posters of her are appearing probably because she paid to have them printed and put up. And then she's all like "No, I won't take over now. I don't want to be connected with that. I'll run for presidency later." But the guy who's currently in charge is basically her gimp, who is a former intelligence guy. It just smells of double-cross plan.

Pierre: And this double-cross is also shown by the leaked conversation between the U.S. authorities and this U.S. ambassador F the EU. Even within the leading western powers you have dissention. The EU is pulling in one direction, U.S. pulling the other direction.

Niall: Well there's another one between the EU and the U.S. brought up by Stephen Cohen, a New York University professor. He suggested that the reason why this ex-boxer, this big Ukrainian guy, is in there at all is because that's a Merkel project, that's Angela Merkel's doing. He's resident in Germany, pays his taxes there. And he was airlifted in by Merkel to have some say in how Ukraine would go. But the thing hanging over, especially over Germany, but for the whole of Europe is that Putin has done it before and he may do it again. He may cut off the gas. And that threat is permanently there. You've got people vying for power and vying for economic interests in Ukraine, with a view to carving it up. It's a fear of Russia at the end of the day. They're so paranoid about Russia because they're afraid.

Joe: We've got a call here, so I'm going to go ahead and take it.
Caller: Hello:

Joe: Hi. What's your name and where are you calling from?

Caller: Yeah. My name is Charles from Missoula, Montana.

Jason /Joe: Hey Charles.

Charles: Yep. Anyways, you guys are doing great, but I just have this question maybe you can throw into this conversation. Why the President didn't get more aggressive on stopping this? I was in high school doing the Vietnam War and I protested in Washington. And what a lot of people may not know is these doors opened from the underground and cops came in single-file, two rows of single-file cops coming out of the ground. And so here's sort of the question. In the United States you have this thing called continuance of government or whatever, if the people rise up they have underground bases and all that crap. And they run the government regardless of what the people want. So what's going on with Ukraine, the President used so much restraint. I'm totally on top of what you guys are saying, the whole hypocrisy and the drone killing Obama saying use restraint. It's a farce. But that's my question.

Jason: So let me ask you a question, right?

Charles: Yeah.

Jason: Turn it around. Imagine the same situation was happening in America and Obama was trying to do something. And it turned out that the speaker of the house was working for the Russians the whole time. And he's in there working to undermine the whole thing. Because the President picks up the phone, he makes a call to somebody who makes a call to somebody and 5,000 people probably get called before a police officer actually gets deployed. It's not like he's going into the streets to enforce stuff, right? So in between that chain, what if that turncoat speaker of the house who's working for the Russians and had his little cadre of people and his whatever interests, is usurping that power, so the President can't get an M16 and go out and police the public anyway.

Charles: Well I don't know what you're saying there.

Jason: What I'm saying is that it's obvious that there were people inside of his own government that were usurping any possibility that he could have done anything anyway.

Niall: That's one possibility.

Joe: It's possible but I tend to think that it was more like if you imagine the analogy of a cop in a police station with a suspect and he puts a gun on the table and he says "pick up the gun" or something along those lines. He's trying to provoke the guy into doing something so that he can respond and say "well he picked up the gun so I had to beat the crap out of him".

Charles: Well I understand the whole political, CIA game playing there. But eventually, after the restraint and everything else, and they're getting the crap beat out of them by these people and they're showing restraint, why is the parliament building so important? Why didn't they pull to some other area and keep governing the country? That's what I don't understand.

Niall: Well, he may have done that. We don't know where he is.

Joe: Yeah, exactly. He's gone to the east. But basically I think what was going on was that he was being advised by Putin and Putin was saying "Listen, you're being set up here with these protests. You've got to hold out for as long as possible, because if you respond, that's exactly what they want. When you get violent, that's going to be your downfall."

Charles: Yeah of course.

Joe: "They're going to screw you." So he held back and held back and held back, but the problem then is, how do you maintain a police force that are willing to out and get the shit beat out of them indefinitely? It's not going to happen.

Charles: Exactly.

Joe: At some point they're going to say "Listen, we're not going to do this anymore or we'll have to be allowed to respond." And so you saw that they did respond.

Jason: That situation doesn't play well because basically he was getting shafted. Say for instance if you're playing a game like this, your best play in that situation is to go in very aggressive, which is what he didn't do because he wasn't able to. I do not believe...

Joe: But he did eventually go in very aggressively.

Jason: No.

Joe: He shot 50 people.

Jason: Shot 50 people.

Joe: Yeah.

Jason: He should have shot 500.

Charles: But there were snipers too, weren't there?

Joe: Exactly, yeah.

Charles: There were snipers on the other side, probably CIA funded, whatever. But were those people that died, did they die by the President's men or were they people killed by the CIA puppets?

Joe: Well that's the question as well. That happened in Venezuela where the opposition...

Niall: It does look like police sniper teams got out there just three days ago now, but by then the bad PR that the President would have been worried about in the west, too late. The place is on fire. Anything he does at that point, he loses one way or another.

Pierre: Exactly, exactly.

Charles: I hear. I'll get off the air here. Thank you.

Joe: Alright.

Niall: Thanks Charles.

Charles: Take care.

Pierre: The factor you were mentioning Niall I think it's important. The Ukrainian government loses whatever happens. See what happened in the beginning that amazing restraint, actually. And to what extent the media spun and twisted the facts and presented the police force as violent.

Jason: Can I interject on that? You're applying the rules of protestors. You're applying a popular rule to a government. When protestors go in there, say for instance in the civil rights movement, when the police were beating them and fire hosing them and letting dogs on them, and they weren't fighting back, you say you were showing a great deal of restraint. States don't act that way. They're neither compelled to nor do they need to act that way. When a state does that you have to say the police being set on fire by Molotov cocktails? There is no police force in any of the western countries, and America, they will shoot you and arrest you for throwing back the teargas canisters that they shoot you in the head with. If you throw them back, then all of a sudden they say "Oh, they've gotten violent" and then the rubber bullets and real bullets start flying and they arrest you, right? That's the normal course.

Joe: The thing is that it seems to me that given the events that happened, it's more likely that he was trying to hold out because he realized ...

Jason: For what purpose? No purpose. There can be no purposes for holding out.

Joe: Because they didn't know what way it was going to go. It was a very fluid situation.

Jason: He did know exactly what way it was going.

Joe: No, he suspected but what was he going to do? He tried to not fall into the trap. They had already set him up as a demagogue and he tried not to fall into the trap for a couple of weeks and then realized that it wasn't going to work, so he went ahead and did it anyway. So obviously it was within his power to tell the police and the Burkat, the special operations guys, to go in and start shooting people, and they did. They went in and in a couple of days they shot dead 45 or 50 people. And that was the end of it. That brought the protests to an end. But he realized that, as Pierre was just saying, it was damned if you do and damned if you don't. And then he left.

Pierre: Putin is a good example. Putin was probably close to the Ukrainian government and maybe still is. Putin during the Sochi games, he does the smallest mistake or even no mistake at all and all the media will focus on this illusory mistake to depict the whole event as bad and negative.

Joe: Well that's another point is that it all happened exactly during the Winter Olympics. And Putin is there and he is trying to grandstand on the stage, the international stage and this wonderful host of the Winter Olympics and Russia in a positive light. And everybody knows and everybody in the west has set it up that Ukraine and Russia are pretty much the same. Putin is best buddies with this Ukrainian President. He says "Dude, try and not cast us in a bad light here during my Winter Olympics". And it seems to me that within a few days...

Jason: But what I'm saying...

Joe: Just close to the end, because the end is today.

Jason: That theory doesn't hold any water though on the basis of the fact that if you're going to be seen as the bad guy anyway, you might as well...

Pierre: Yeah, do it all the way.

Jason: You might as well be positioning yourself correctly against your opposition, from a political standpoint. If they're going to call you a murderer for not doing anything, then you might as well take out your opposition.

Joe: No, but there's outside influence in the sense of...

Jason: Of course.

Joe: the sense of Putin controlling the situation.

Jason: How do you know that Putin was saying "don't do it"?

Joe: Because I know the history of it and I know the extent to which the two of them are close together.

Jason: You don't know what conversation he had. And what conversations he had in public are not going to matter.

Pierre: You know one fact...

Niall: Hang on, hang on. Wait, wait, wait, let me just go here first. So it's pretty complicated in Ukraine. Ukraine is pretty much split down the middle and has been before this particular crisis. For the President of the Ukraine with a let's say 51% majority to do that, he's already inviting trouble from within, whatever about how it might look from outside. Now let's look at the specific timeline of events last week. Before the current state of affairs, it was looking very different. What happened was the violence in the city went up to an absolute fever pitch. Then the police sniper units came out and the police started shooting. Right away, international condemnation. Ordinary people in Ukraine said "no, no, no, no" predictable result. They have a truce and a meeting held that day with at least two foreign ministers, I think from Poland and some other European country, and they come to a deal. And the President agrees.

They made a deal on Friday: December, we'll have elections by then. I'll withdraw my forces. Okay. And they have done. They're completely cleared. Kiev is basically a free zone. And the other part of the deal was the opposition parties would do whatever they could do to get the protestors to leave, to stop the violence and leave. That was the deal. Immediately, the very opposite happened. The protestors increased. The police withdrew. The violence increased. And that's where this new situation came in where suddenly there's a vote in parliament, he's impeached. They used that deal to buy a tiny fraction of time to completely betray him. They betrayed the deal they made with the President.

Joe: Yeah they did. They voted him out of power. And they betrayed the trust and he was going along basically calling over this two weeks of violence against the police by the protestors, he was going along, just trying to be the peacemaker and trying to be the moderate and keep himself in a kind of good light because the possibility was being held out that there could be some kind of a deal.

Jason: Maybe he's an idiot.

Joe: Well it was maybe wishful thinking or whatever, but ultimately we think the way it went down was that they did actually all sign an agreement. And he sat down and signed an agreement, as Niall just described, but then within a few days, they turned around and went to the government and the parliament voted to impeach him. But now he hasn't officially left. He's gone. There were a lot of details involved and it was very complicated and he ultimately was being screwed over. But what do you do in that situation? The one thing he knew for sure was that if he came out and started shooting everybody and cracked down, he would be gone. The alternative was play the peacemaker and then maybe bring it to a head when it has to be and maybe get something out of it. So it's like he was basically weighing up the better of two bads.

Niall: I'm pretty sure that Putin is screaming at his people right now saying "This Yanukovych is a complete idiot. He didn't do what I said he should have done here, here and here. He's lost control of the situation. Why didn't he do what you're suggesting much earlier on? I'm sure history will judge him and his mistakes, but what we're trying to impress here is the intensity of this situation and how difficult it would be for anyone to immediately know what has to be done.

Jason: No, because what should have been done was written down 300 years ago. That's what I'm saying. I'm saying that what should have been done, and what all other governments do, including the U.S. including every other country, including England, including France, there was no unclear situation at the beginning of this. What's strange is that he didn't do it early and quick and rip the tape off, amputate right away. Because the only reason and you said it, you said he's only got 51 percent, he didn't have the power. He didn't have the control to do anything, which is basically what I was saying, is that ultimately, within his own government, he did not have any power whatsoever. He was not able to do anything or affect anything. And also as it sounds like he is an idiot and was incompetent.

Pierre: I understand...

Jason: As democratic and wonderful as he is.

Pierre: I understand what you're saying. And you may be right. I don't know. It's open. We are not trying to take the defense of the ex-President or the President of Ukraine, but trying to understand the reasoning. I think, at least in western countries, a lot of what is going on is based on perception management, an illusion of democracy. And this is conveyed and managed mostly by mainstream media. So to maintain this democratic illusion, you have to apply to some extent, some rules of fairness, of justice and proportionality. I suppose that the western media was waiting, they were in the starting block, waiting for the slightest mistake committed by the Ukrainian government, to be able to bash it. They're not bashing it for bashing it. To bash it in order to prime the western public opinion to accept the fiercest measures possible while preserving this proportionality principle.

Joe: Yeah. For me the point is that he wasn't that stupid in the sense that you'd have to be really stupid to not realize the forces reined against you. And there's a whole history. There's a 10 or 15 year history of western involvement and meddling in the Ukraine and he was right there in the middle of it all. And he knew about the Orange Revolution in 2004 and he was involved in that. They actually forced a re-count of an election that he won in 2004. That was part of the Orange Revolution. This was to do with these western foundations like The National Endowment for Democracy and there's one in Ukraine called Poor Youth and in Serbia there's Otpor, various different groups that have been involved in these revolutions in the Middle East as well or in Egypt and Tunisia. And they used those groups to fuel this 2004 Orange Revolution where the current President won an election and then they called for a recount claiming all sorts of vote rigging. And not only that but they also have these groups that come in and set up polling operations where they release exit polls. And they can manipulate exit polls. They fake the exit polls so it's weighed in favor of the person they want in power even though the other guy wins, and then they say "This doesn't agree with the exit polls! It must have been vote rigging!" And they actually got him booted out in 2004 and Tymoshenko and Yanukovych and a coalition in 2004 as part of the Orange Revolution.

But he was well aware of this kind of stuff going on. So he sees exactly the same thing happening again, by the same groups and you're screwed. And you've been democratically elected. This is a democracy and there're demonstrators and stuff and they're just waiting for you to do something, to make your position completely untenable. They've already set it up, but you just have to pick up that gun. So for me, it seems reasonable enough that this two week hiatus on any response from the police was ordered, because the police will generally follow orders, was ordered maybe by him or by someone in the government to say don't f_king shoot anybody, for god's sake because that's the end of you, if you shoot anybody. That's all I need.

And so it lasted for a while, but like I said, you can't keep that going very long because you're not going to have police in the streets anymore, the police are going to go "screw you. I'm not going out there to get f_king doused in petrol and set on fire or shot at".

Jason: Yeah.

Joe: And so then the question is "Okay, do something about it. Bring it to a halt." And so then 50 people get shot and that's the end of it then. "Okay, now we can go for negotiations." He's there "Okay, at least now we've brought it to a head. Let's have some negotiations. Chances aren't good but whatever" and then, "You're booted out." But he was always going to be booted out. So he's not this demagogue. The thing is he's not this vicious, evil dictator who ruled with an iron fist like they present him. He was democratically elected four years ago.

Niall: Yeah. And elections are coming up in one year's time. But they couldn't allow that to happen. Why, because they're afraid of democracy. They're afraid he'd be re-elected.

Joe: They want somebody specific. We talked earlier on about these interests. And I think there's a diversion, or a difference in the interests between the Americans and the Europeans. As Victoria Nuland said F the EU, the Americans don't give a shit about the EU. The EU's interests primarily are in, like you were saying Niall, about their being slightly afraid of Russia in the sense that a quarter of Europe's gas comes from Russia and it comes through the Ukraine. And they could switch that off, although they can't switch it off so easily because they're going to lose a lot of money from switching it off. But there's that kind of game to be played there.

So they want to keep Russia to some extent online, but America doesn't care about European gas from Russia. What America cares about is, apart from the general strategy of getting into a country and making it free for international corporations to come in a loot the place and the IMF to come in and just to get it, but strategically and militarily, they want to kind of screw Russia over. They want to stop Russia being like anything closely resembling a superpower. America is the only superpower in the world. And they want to make sure it stays that way. The Russians have their major naval fleet in the Caspian Sea...

Niall: Black Sea.

Joe: I'm sorry, the Black Sea. On Ukrainian territory at Sevastopol and it's been there since 1890 or something like that. So if this guy who was in power was essentially neutral, or pro-Russian, didn't want to join NATO, didn't want to join the EU, and therefore the Russian fleet's position in the Black Sea in Ukraine was secured and he was going to extend that lease, allowing them to stay. If a pro-American or pro-European guy gets pushed in like they're trying to do right now, then they're going to cut that off because this Tymoshenko woman has said "We can't have foreign military bases on Ukrainian soil". That's like "What do you think's going to happen when you join NATO" because she's been totally pro-NATO as well. There's going to be American, etc., NATO military bases all over Ukraine. So the Russians would lose their very strategic naval base, which gives them direct access to the Mediterranean through the Straits of Constantinople. The Americans want to neutralize Russia from a military point of view, but they would also be happy to see Russia stop. The Americans and the EU are all buddy-buddy and stuff, but ultimately, like Victoria Nuland said, F the EU. The American point of view it's we're the superpower so they'll be quite happy if, as a result of a breakdown in relations between Russia and the EU, Russia stopped getting that money from selling its gas to the EU, if it cut off gas supplies. And if the EU doesn't get its gas, well as they say, F the EU, who cares? And America achieves two of its aims. One is economically neutralizing to some extent, Russia, and also militarily.

Jason: I see what you're saying but at the same time this whole Ukrainian thing is a bridge too far for the U.S. Whatever their strategy is in there, it's a pipe dream because there's no way that Russia will ever give up strategic access to the Mediterranean for their navy. That would be like us letting somebody invade our front door and stand inside of it and set up a bed.

Joe: But that's what people are asking. Is this going to cause some kind of a war?

Jason: Yeah.

Pierre: And see the dynamic. Geostrategically, if you were Putin, you look back just 20 years before; Soviet Union control of most of Eastern Europe. Also southwest ex-Soviet Union, ex-Russian Republic and the territory is shrinking and shrinking. But the imperialist mind has no boundary. It always wants more. A few years ago it was Georgia, the target. And today it's Ukraine. And poor Putin geostrategically it's very clear, Ukraine and Georgia have direct borders with Russia. These are the last territories before directly threatening the Russian territory. So the location, the access to the Middle East because of the Mediterranean Sea, that's what it means, it's Middle East, it's Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan. So yes, that's of prime importance strategically speaking.

Niall: There's another important point. There's a saying in Russia that Russia was born in Ukraine. This is Slavic territory. As far as the Russians are concerned, either occupying fully, economically speaking, or splitting Ukraine down the middle, in doing so is occupying Russia.

Pierre: Yes.

Niall: Because on the other half you've then totally separated the Balkans from Russia. They consider the Balkans Slavic too. So whatever their narratives in terms of geopolitical strategy, you can imagine how they think of it. They don't actually consider these things, but the reason I'm bringing this up is that the backlash, the pressure will be on Putin to do something in response.

Jason: There is a mirror for this situation in recent history which is the way that Hitler behaved and the behavior of Chamberlain towards Hitler and England and everything. They were all "It's okay, do whatever you want." And then all of a sudden it was like "Okay, no more." And you can see that America has recently gone into a long list of countries and been messing around and is encroaching on territories and expanding and expanding and expanding. And I don't think that Putin would be stupid enough to not see that the CIA's involvement is tantamount to what was at that time, a ground invasion of troops. The CIA going in and putting in a puppet government on his back door, or actually his side door maybe, is tantamount to an invasion by the U.S. or the EU and there's no way that he can really not do something about it.

Now he might not simply just walk in there with some military. He might not do that. He might actually let these factions, because like I was saying earlier and as Niall was saying, a bunch of different factions, everybody's playing games. He might say "Hold on a second. Go ahead and play those games until the people really get a lesson of what really happened" and then comes in and maybe he saves the day, or whatever it is. But there's no way, like I said, it's a bridge too far. They are extending themselves way too far, right there. And there's no way that he's not going to have a response for this, possibly in the future, very soon.

Joe: Well yeah. The thing is they've been demonizing Putin all the way through leading up to the Olympics, all the way through the Olympics. They didn't go to the Olympics. Obama, all these different heads of state actually boycotted it. It's ridiculous.

Jason: It's childish.

Joe: It's childish. In 2012 all European leaders boycotted the 2012 European Football Cup which was held in Ukraine and Poland. And they all publicly, and in the papers, all said "We're not going" because...

Niall: Because Tymoshenko is in jail.

Joe: ...Tymoshenko was in jail and they were blaming the current President for maintaining her in jail and they weren't going to go. It was such petty crap. So there's a kind of precedent there and they're doing exactly the same thing and it's so childish and so idiotic, it's embarrassing for them. But the other thing about Ukraine is Ukraine has the equivalent production of wheat and grain as the U.S. Midwest. The breadbasket of the U.S. is the same in quantity in the Ukraine in terms of breadbasket. There's just kind of really rich soil or something and the Eastern Ukraine has the most fertile soil in the world and it produces very high yields of all sorts of crops. When you get the IMF into a country like that and bring in austerity measures, start closing down factories people lose their jobs, inflation goes way up and it just tends to ruin a country. And Ukraine supplies an awful lot of food, relatively speaking, for the world and if that was taken out of the equation, if there was a drop in that, given the kind of precarious situation with all the floods and weird weather these days, that could push things over the edge. These people could actually, in their greed and their lust for power and hunger and just unfettered mindless kind of more, more, more, they could end up precipitating or causing some kind of a food crisis. And just go "Oops. Well, you know sorry. It's not our fault."

Pierre: There's something else. It might be a motivation as well, the reason why western powers are interested in Ukraine. You mentioned the oil. You mentioned the geostrategic location. Ten years ago food was less important than now. But for years we have food shortages and prices are going through the roof and controlling a country that produces tons and tons of wheat, that's a lot of resources. That's money.

Joe: Yeah. I'm sure Monsanto would love to get in there.

Pierre: Oh.

Joe: Take it over. But it's interesting. There's been a protest-revolution type thing going on in Thailand for quite a while now as well. And it's only marginally reported in the media. But it's just interesting to note that in Thailand there's essentially a puppet regime of the U.S. and the protests that are going on there are very large and widespread protests, are being condemned by the U.S. as undemocratic, just ordinary people protesting.

Niall: I'm not so sure.

Joe: They are. I read the report. Up until 2006 there was the guy in power who was deposed in a military coup in 2006, Thaksin Shinawatra. He was absolutely a U.S. puppet and he was deposed in a military coup and fled the country, but he's still exerting influence. He was a Council of Foreign Relations guy and all this kind of stuff. And his sister is now the Prime Minister. But the protests that have been going on, there have been protesting in the streets and essentially government or unknown individuals have been going around and shooting. Today actually they shot a young girl dead at a protest in Thailand. The little that the U.S. has said about them, they've said that they are undemocratic and they've condemned them.

Niall: Yeah, but the actual protest leaders have themselves said "We are protesting to remove democracy in Thailand and replace it with a wise council of elders." And the person who is the leader of this movement is a royalist in Thailand who's backed by the military. I might need to check my facts on this but...

Joe: That's all true, but when you redefine the term democracy, as it has been, as it plays out according to the west, sure you can imagine people would say "We don't want your democracy anymore".

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: The Iraqis don't want America's freedom and democracy either. It's kind of complicated but simply because the military is involved, and people are saying "we want to establish some other form of government in this day and age" it doesn't necessarily mean that democracy has been turned on its head type of thing.

Pierre: If a regime led by wise junta, wise generals and wise monarch, it's not necessarily bad.

Jason: The point being is it's never...

Pierre: For the people.

Jason: ...lived under a real democracy anyway. What we're talking about is basically oligarchy, sometimes fascism. So democracy as a term is almost meaningless these days. American democracy, Thai democracy, it's all BS anyway.

Pierre: It's an interesting concept.

Jason: It might be nice to try it. (laughing)

Pierre: It should be applied.

Niall: I need to check my facts. Oh dear! Because my understanding so far was that in 2009 there was a popular uprising, the Red Shirts came to power. Well, the Red Shirts is what the protest movement was called, and that's what got Thaksin back because he himself had been ousted in a coup. He's not able to come back into the country and that's why his sister is currently ruling.

Joe: Yeah.

Niall: But she was democratically elected, so to speak.

Jason: So to speak.

Niall: And they're trying to oust her now with a counter-movement that has military support and western support.

Joe: I'm not so sure about that. Look into that guy Thaksin Shinawatra.

Niall: I have. I have.

Joe: He was a puppet.

Niall: I know he's CFR and all that and he's another tycoon, but remember in this world, it's really the battle of the oligarchs. And is there an oligarch that has anything to differentiate him from the other oligarchs in any given country? Thaksin it seemed to me was actually using his power and wealth to help the largely peasant agricultural classes in Thailand. And this current movement is a middle class people in the cities who are occupying buildings, just as we're seeing in the Ukraine.

Joe: Well exactly.

Niall: That's what I mean. The majority of people who actually live in the countryside don't support the uprising.

Joe: We'll have to look into that. That's a topic for another show I suppose.

Niall: It's hard because I've seen very convincing reports and analyses on those reports, from people who really look and dig deep into protest movements all over the world. And there's actually a current spat going on between two particularly sort of high profile alternative journalists, concerning Thailand. And I haven't got it sorted out yet, but each one is saying "No, no, no, no. The protest movement is the coup." And the other one's saying "No, no, no, it's the other way around."

Pierre: But in addition it's not black and white.

Niall: It's not black and white.

Pierre: You have popular movements that start as genuine ones and they get infiltrated along the process. So sometimes both people are right when they say yes, popular movement, it's true or it was in the beginning. And the other one says "No, it's co-opted, it's infiltrated." He's right too because it morphs with time.

Joe: Yeah, it's not always black and white in the sense that it's not always that one side is good and one side is bad. Like you said, when you have a third party like the U.S. watching, they can say "Well either of these two people fighting will do us. We'll just bide our time and see which one edges it. But we'll take either."

Pierre: I think what you're saying is a good summary of the human condition in the 21st century. The only choice we have politically speaking, is between the lesser evil oligarchs.

Niall: Yeah.

Pierre: There are oligarchs that totally destroy the people. There are oligarchs that have some rest of compassion and that don't totally destroy the people, like Obama versus Putin and you have to choose the lesser evil.

Jason: It's not even quite as good as that. I think you're being optimistic. I think it's a choice between the oligarchs who just have a limited ambition for greed, he's just not ambitious enough to rob and murder everybody.

Pierre: Yeah, does a good deed.

Jason: And that's the good one. We pick the one who isn't thinking big enough with this killing and raping and murdering. I think that the one big problem and it's like you see that this control of the discussion, which I find a little bit pointless, which is the discussion of which political system. And every time you talk about politics, you talk about there's a democracy or there's this or that and the other thing. Even the best government, it doesn't really matter, because the psychopaths, the minute they get into the government, they'll ruin any type of government. A monarchy can be totally fine, if it's a good monarch. But the minute you put a psychopath in and then everyone's "Oh, they're oppressing us. Monarchy's evil." We get rid of the monarchy. We put in some sort of republic. And it goes fine until a bunch of psychopaths get into the senate and then all of a sudden it's just as bad as it was under the monarchy. And then you say "Oh well let's get rid of our republic. Let's become a democratic society, completely democratic." And then it goes fine for a while until the psychopaths get in and then they ruin that too.
So it doesn't matter. The political system absolutely has no bearing whatsoever. Any political system will work as long as it's being managed by good and benevolent people. But the minute a psychopath gets in there, boom! Nosedive. Everything turns to shit.

Pierre: What you describe is ponerization in action. And as Lobaczewski wrote, basically all those words in "ism", liberalism, republicanism, democratism, whatever, is only ideological facades behind which the psychopathic mind hides.

Niall: Speaking of which, the origins of communisms, socialism, bolshevism, we're talking about Ukraine but this really goes to the Russian Revolution, both the one that happened in 1991 and then way back in 1917. George Soros, for example, he's got numerous NGOs, but I think they all come under the umbrella of his Open Society.

Joe: Yeah.

Niall: Did you know that by 1992 Soros' NGOs were responsible for printing all the school textbooks for the population of 150 million Russians. Well, I say 70 million children. And they were re-written, the communist propaganda too. The textbooks would have four pages or something on the heroic deeds of American Presidents in the 20th century, and four lines on the Battle of Stalingrad. This is the extent to which something changed in Russia. But what we're seeing happening in Ukraine now was attempted in Russia in the '90s. And this is where the discussion of Putin comes in because as far I can see, he is trying to at least retard or reverse a lot of this. Russia was devastated.

Pierre: Oh yeah.

Niall: Now the official western narrative is the Soviet Union collapsed, just under the weight of sheer corruption, etc. etc., it just collapsed.

Pierre: They brought it down.

Niall: That's not the case at all.

Joe: No, because the Soviet Union, from its inception from the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, was a created animal of the west, of Wall Street essentially and it's fairly well documented that the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, essentially Lenin and Trotsky, was funded by Wall Street bankers and they did it because, like I said before, even then America was a growing superpower and they did not want any other united states or any other superpower in the world to contest that. They had plans for control and domination of the world and the Russian empire at that time was a big enough place to stand in opposition to the U.S.

And they didn't want that so they seeded this kind of Bolshevik Revolution which was just a ridiculous idea of 'everybody's equal'. At that time even Ouspensky has written on his experiences around the time of the Russian Revolution, the ideology of these revolutionaries that were part of the Bolshevik Revolution. They were nihilists. They were nonsensical, inane, just destructive ideology that made no sense at all. It was anti-human essentially. And it was spread by Lenin and Trotsky. And when Lenin and Trotsky arrived in Russia in 1917, they were shunted in there, Lenin by the Germans and Trotsky by the Americans, by bankers and Wall Street. Some of them were Jews.

And they sent Trotsky and Lenin in and at that point, in 1917, there already had been a revolution. They came in and had another revolution. "We're going to have another one." And they had one later, in October of 1917. But Trotsky was funded. He arrived in Russia with $10,000 in gold, although he had no money of his own. He left the U.S. on a boat with this money and with a U.S. passport given to him by Wilson, the President. And they arrived and at that point the Bolsheviks only had control of parts of Moscow and St. Petersburg. They had maybe at most 10,000 people. I don't know what it was then, maybe 100 million Russians, and there was 10,000 of them, and they then led this ridiculous revolution which essentially de-constructed all of Russia essentially ruined the economy, ruined the industry because at that time, previously under the Czars, the Russian Empire in terms of its technology and its industry and its economy was at least as good and as technologically advanced as the U.S. or Britain, or wherever else.

But it was completely destroyed by this revolution. And after that through the '20s and into the '30s and stuff, with the Hoover mission and the various plans to re-tool the Russian economy was entirely financed by the U.S., in terms of money, in terms of technology and even on and past the Second World War and after the Second World War it was the same thing. So communist Russia was...

Niall: Entirely created.

Joe: ...entirely created and controlled by the U.S. And that's obviously completely the opposite of what you're told in textbooks and stuff, and what the whole historical narrative tells you, but that's the facts of the matter based on actual official documents and paper trails of money being transferred. We could get into Nazi Germany there as well, about money being transferred from the U.S., from banks on Wall Street directly into a slush fund account owned by Heinrich Himmler. Hitler's rise to power and during the Second World War all of the technology of the Germans that the Nazis needed was financed - this has all been documented by paper trails and stuff - the fall of the German government previous to 1933 and the rise of Hitler was all financed with money from the U.S. And the technology to actually equip the Nazis' military machine was made possible by American corporations in terms of the technology to refine oil. The Nazis were using a kind of synthetic oil from coal, but the technology to refine it, to make it usable as aviation fuel, the technology for that came from an American corporation. That was the only one who knew how to do it at the time.

Niall: Yes.

Joe: So there's all this evidence that even during the Second World War, the Nazis were being financed.

Niall: They were being financed. As early as 1942 Allen Dulles was in Switzerland arranging meetings with Richard Gehlen, the head of the Nazi intelligence to cooperate on basically taking over their network when such a time arises. And of course three years later Operation Paperclip and it was just "Oh, we'll just lift the actual people, the technology, the research they've been carrying out including the sick stuff and we'll just transplant it in the U.S. and in Latin America" lock, stock, the whole lot. But that's kind of well-known at least in alternative circles, but what was new to me was the extent to which that happened at the beginning of Soviet Russia.

According to historian Antony Sutton, there would have been no Stalin's five year plans without American, British and German companies. Russia was totally devastated by the civil war, just after the Bolshevik Revolution. And Ford is one company that comes to mind now, but all the big names went in and actually rebuilt the plants, rebuilt the industry. You could apply what we know today from The Shock Doctrine about how when a crisis comes up, either contrived or naturally, you go in and you buy up and you retool and you structurally adjust, to use the economic term they use. But this was literally and physically done in Russia. So it just blows your mind. This is supposed to be the great enemy.

Joe: The great enemy. A bit kind of bipolar, bipolar alright! Polarized wars where you have these two great superpowers and it was all complete fiction and was being organized essentially financed. It's like a boxer and manager working two sides of a ring, two corners of the ring.

Niall: The question arises "why?" That's an almighty undertaking. Why would they do that?

Joe: Oh money.

Niall: Money of course and control. But in the years leading up, it was a couple of decades really, of unrest in Russia. But it was relatively tame to what happened after. It was the war, the First World War that created this situation where people were actually going hungry. There was the initial revolt in St. Petersburg and people started to self-organize into little soviets. A lot of the terminology that became crystallized afterwards was being used by people pre-Bolsheviks. By soviets, they just meant a local council of people would manage the local area. And I think it was this that terrified, not terrified, that they sought to subvert. In between that, February 1917 and October 1917, Lenin/Trotsky are literally shipped in with the money. The first ever "free and democratic" elections held in Russia happened that summer. There had been an interim government put in power, just like we see now in Ukraine, and they held elections, the first Dumas post-February 1917 revolution. As the results were being called out, the Bolsheviks got at most 25% of the vote. Lenin just got up in his chair and declared the meeting over. He had guards posted around the doors and that was it. From then on it was a Bolshevik counter-revolution.

Joe: It was a coup.

Pierre: Yeah. That's how I understand it. I think that's the way Douglas Reed presents this period of history in The Controversy of Zion there were two revolutions in Russia. And the first genuine people's approval against the war mostly, and we know how the PTBs base their power and their agenda on permanent war, so in theory in 1917 you have this spontaneous revolution, people's revolution and the movement would be subverted, infiltrated and twisted in October 1917 after infiltration, ponerization of the initial movement to what would lead to decades of what is called communism.

Joe: Yeah. You're left with the impression that at that time they took kind of a movement among ordinary people to rebel against inequality and poverty.

Niall: Brought about by war of their doing.

Joe: Exactly. It wasn't even in good times. If people just had enough food in the house and could keep themselves warm, that kind of thing, there wouldn't have been that. It was in extreme situations where they kind of like were clamoring for change. And these oligarchs, controllers, the elite, looked at that and as you said, were a bit perturbed by it, and took it and ran it off the rails in terms of making it into an extreme and grotesque version of itself under Lenin and Trotsky, where you just had nihilism. The great equalizer was "We'll all do nothing. Then we'll all be equal. Nobody'll work." It just destroyed the society. And that was their perversion of this idea of wanting some equality and less abuse from the powers that be. They took it and distorted it. And then later, that image of it had been used in the west to say "Well, listen, do you want this? This is what happened in Russia. This is what communism would give you. This is why we must fight against it."

Niall: Well the message between the lines is "this is what happens when you, the little people, are in control. Look, 60 million people dead. You kill each other because it's the jungle out there."

Joe: "You need us."

Pierre: And it opens the door to this simplistic dualism where you can claim "Look, democracy is the least worst system of all. See, you have two economic or ideological models. You have democracy in the west and you have communism in Russia. You see how Russia is horrible?" So see, you have the proof that democracy is the best system.

Niall: Now inevitably when you go here, you end up saying "Well who were the bankers?" Now you mentioned Joe that some of them are Jews. And when people start discussing this, there's a black and white issue that comes up. "Well they're bankers and they're Jews, so that's it. It's Jews right?"

Jason: Accidentally that they're Jews.

Niall: Some of them are. I'm talking about the big names involved say in what happened in Russia. But then others weren't.

Joe: The whole Jewish banking situation goes back a long time and maybe you could take it back to the Rothschilds and stuff, and it could just be victims of circumstance, in a certain sense, that they happen to be Jewish. But when people get to that level of power and control, if they have an ideology, generally speaking, they'll use it to their own advantage. They're not necessarily invested in it like "We're protecting the Jews and I'm really for the Jewish cause and this is why I'm doing it, therefore I can claim that I was simply misguided if I did something wrong by destroying a whole country. I was doing it in the interests of Judaism or something". They had this goal of an Israeli state, but I think that always came second to their desire, maybe it's just human nature, their desire for wealth and power, etc. etc.

But it's a difficult one to tease out because there were Jewish bankers and they did have a lot of power. And maybe they still do today, but it's that whole question of to what extent does their religion, their nominal religion, suggest an ulterior motive, or that they have an agenda that is based on their religious beliefs, rather than simply their need or their desire for money.

Jason: Well if one of these big power bankers was Christian, would we say that "Oh Christians are trying to take over the world?" Some of us do say that, actually. They do have the Vatican. But I think that those that are Jews, I think that it's kind of irrelevant that they are Jewish in any way when it comes to it. An oligarch is an oligarch. It doesn't matter where he was born or what his name is or whether or not he prays at a Baptist church or a synagogue. I think ultimately it doesn't matter. He should be seen from his oligarch hat.

Joe: Exactly. Yeah.

Jason: Not from his religious or racial hat.

Joe: There was a Jewish banker, can't remember his first name, Jacob Schiff, the end of the 19th century into the 20th century and about 1905 he financed - and this is official history - he was a Wall Street banker. He came from Germany and was Wells Fargo Bank and a few other things. But he had a lot of money and he was Jewish. He was very outspoken about his Zionist beliefs and decrying the persecution that the Jews had suffered throughout history, etc. In 1905 there was a Russo-Japanese war that lasted only a year between the Russian Empire and the Japanese Empire, and he sent $200 million at the time, which is lots of billions these days, to the Japanese. And he said that he did it because it was a grudge against the Russian Czars because they had persecuted, as far as he was concerned, persecuted the Jews.

Jason: Nice to have $200 million to throw at that.

Joe: Yeah, throw at an ideology. But of course it influenced him and the geopolitics of the time as well. And I'm sure he made a lot of money off it as well.

Pierre: That's one of the ideas developed by Douglas Reed, that this entire communism thing that was instigated mostly by Ashkenazi Jews, one of the reasons was taking revenge against Russia because of its behavior concerning the Jewish population. And the timing is interesting because 1917 you have the Ashkenazi orchestrated the Bolshevik revolution. Four years before you have the creation of the Fed bank and the Jekyll Island Agreement where the biggest bankers in the world basically take over the world's finance. And two years later in 1921 you have the Balfour Declaration that is the first big step towards the creation of Israel that a few decades later would be populated mostly by Ashkenazi Jews coming from Russia.

Niall: Yeah, it actually brings it back to Ukraine. Czar Nicholas, his pogroms against the Jews took place in Ukraine and Poland. And when you bring it forward a bit, you mentioned the Balfour Declaration so there's something going on there. Here you've got the British Empire's interest. Where do they come in? In 1920 Winston Churchill wrote an article that was published in the then-biggest Sunday paper in the UK, Zionism versus Bolshevism-the Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People. I won't read the whole thing out but he basically says explicitly that the Bolshevik Revolution was entirely orchestrated by Jews for diabolical ends. It could not have been a more anti-Semitic tract going by what we're constantly told is anti-Semitic. You couldn't have found more anti-Semitic statements anywhere, from Winston Churchill.

Jason: Yeah.

Niall: I think he was up to something because this is a guy of course who represents a whole other clique which had their own secret society but was then known as the Milner Group in the UK, which basically represented the top aristocratic families controlling the British Empire, between Cecil Rhodes and others. So he's putting that out there as in "Oh, the evil is all over there. I'm going to make it nice and black and white for people to understand". This is in 1920. This is the kind of thing that was said that led to Hitler's rise.

Pierre: Yes, it seems very lame, but from what I understand in Douglas Reed's writings, the deal was pretty clear, what was proposed to the British Empire during the First World War and to the western powers. It was "Okay, we give you the resources to win the war and in exchange we want Palestine." And they agreed, so they got the financial resources and they won the First World War and two years later they were giving away Palestine.

Joe: Yeah. That would make sense.

Niall: The conclusion of historian Antony Sutton in Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, he uses original source documents from government files at the time to make the case that the Bolshevik Revolution was entirely funded by bankers for illicit purposes. Toward the end of the book he addresses the Jewish conspiracy myth.

"Okay, yes, a lot of them were Jews, but what about those who were not Jews? It is significant that documents in the U.S. state department files confirm the investment of some Jewish bankers but also non-Jewish bankers. The persistence, with which the Jewish conspiracy myth has been deliberately pushed, suggests that it may well be a deliberate device to divert attention from the real issues and the real causes. The evidence provided in this book suggests that the New York bankers who were also Jewish had relatively minor roles in supporting the Bolsheviks, while the New York bankers who were also gentiles, including Morgan, Rockefeller and Thompson, had actually the major roles in it. What better way to divert attention from the real operators than by the medieval bogeyman of anti-Semitism."

Pierre: Yeah, knowing that you can be a gentile and a Zionist. And you can be a Jew and non-Zionist, so I would say it has a common denominator, I'm not saying there is one, but if there's a common denominator, it's more likely to be an ideological one like Zionism, than a religious one, like Judaism.

Niall: I would go further and say the common denominator is more likely to be what we've been saying these last few years, a biological one.

Pierre: They're psychopaths.

Niall: They'll say we represent one ideology one day and something else the next.

Pierre: Yeah, and Zionism is an ideology that resonates with psychopathy like other ideologies.

Jason: I don't know how relevant it is, but is the added angle of there's a lot of these wealthy, prominent, fundamentalist Christian republican types of individuals, right. And they are in some senses, violent pro-Israel people. And I think there's a video or something or a recording of them going to Israel and talking about how it's so wonderful because this is where the end battle is going to take place.

Pierre: Exactly.

Jason: And there're a lot of these people who think that bringing the bible truth, or the reconstitution of the state of Israel is all about bringing on the Armageddon. So I don't know how much that applies to the situation.

Pierre: I think that's a very interesting point. I don't know to what extent it applies because it's almost a foreign way of thinking to me. But some of the most flaming Zionists are Christians.

Jason: Yeah.

Pierre: Because for these fundamentalists, it all is about re-enacting or enacting what is written in the bible. It's a very literal way of taking this text. And part of it is the end; the Armageddon is where Israel and the Jews are being destroyed. So those fundamentalist Christians that are so Zionist are not Zionist because they have at heart the welfare of Israel. Actually they want the creation and they want the development of Israel for it to be eventually fulfilled in order to reach this eschatological conclusion that fits the biblical writings, which is very twisted.

Jason: The reason why I bring it up is that psychopaths, the idea of a longstanding conspiracy hatched by psychopaths who are kind of a little bit too impulsive and self-centered and not thinking, is difficult for me to swallow a little bit. But a cadre of these hyper-fundamentalist, literal world of god rich people planning Armageddon, it does at least sound like it could be really possible that this kind of stuff may have been some part of some sort of secret Christian society. That for me, seems like it might sort of apply to this situation, that these people actually believe that they're in on some sort of - I don't want to say the word Illuminati type of stuff, but those people who go on about the Illuminati and the Free Masons and all this different stuff, I don't really buy into it, but if it were true - then I could imagine that situation being an explanation for why things seem to be so planned for such a long period of time. A lot of convenient things have happened in the last couple of hundred years that almost seem like they were planned and you really fight to not go into the whole "It's the Illuminati!" or something like that.

Joe: Yeah. We have a call here I think. Hi, do we have a caller on the line?

Charles: Yes, Charles again. Do you want me to engage again or no?

Joe: Charles, fire away.

Pierre: You're welcome.

Charles: Okay. Thank you, incidentally a brilliant assessment of early Russia and the Wall Street enactment there. It's very good for people to be aware of that and you guys did a great job. I just wanted to add a thought. You guys are higher IQ, more articulate than I am, but this whole thing about Jews and Zionist Jews as opposed to traditional Jews, meaning Torah which I would equivocate to being a real Jew, and the Talmud, being Zionists. I'm sorry, I just think that's an important thing to bring up because this Jew word is thrown around and it's actually not very precise because there are orthodox Jews that I think I personally have no problem with orthodox Jews at all. And if you look at any of the information with them, they're okay. You may buy their religion, you may not, but they're okay. It's the Zionists that, if we're going to talk about Illuminati or anything, it doesn't really matter. The bottom line is look at what they do. Anyway, I just don't like this grouping of Jews all together.

Joe: No, yeah.

Charles: That's all I'm saying.

Joe: Yeah, you're absolutely right.

Charles: Thanks for the show man. You guys are doing a brilliant show.

Joe: No worries.

Pierre: Thank you.

Niall: Thank you Charles. You're very kind.

Jason: He brings up a good point. It's very difficult to talk about any situation. You can't even say Christians as well, on that same topic. There are so many different types, Catholics, Protestants, or you want to break that down even further. You can't use a single word to describe even the entire people. You can't even really say "the Israelis". You say "Oh the Israelis are doing x." No, not really. There's the Israeli government which is making some sort of decisions and to what degree the Israeli population really agrees with and supports it.

Joe: Yeah, that kind of black and white thinking...

Jason: You just can't.

Joe: ...and pigeonholing of people and painting them all with the same brush is the kind of thing that leads to pogroms.

Jason: Exactly.

Joe: And getting them all to go after one person because they're a Jew or because they're a Christian, or whatever. That happens a lot, like we've been discussing in the alternative theories or alternative views or conspiracy communities out there where there are people who say it's all about the Jews. They're even parodied because they're so hysterical about it. They're even parodied where they'll be like "It's all the Joos, J-O-O-S" guy. Because everything is "the Jews did it". And it's ridiculous.

Pierre: And it's not true. And you know now we've talked about this eschatological vision carried by some Christian fundamentalists who are Zionists as well. When you keep in mind their objective, you realize how ridiculous equating Zionism and Judaism is because ultimately Zionism aims for the destruction of Israel, i.e., the destruction of Palestine, i.e., the land of Arabs and Sephardic Jews who are incidentally the descendants of Isaac and Ishmael, the two sons of Sem, hence Semitism. So today, in France for example with Dieudonné and all that, media of course milk the cow and equate Judaism with Zionism. But in the last analysis, Judaism is the ultimate anti-Semitic ideology.

Joe: Well, Zionism.

Pierre: Zionism. Sorry.

Joe: Pretty simply, Zionism is a political ideology and Judaism is just a religion, like one of many religions.

Jason: Yeah, it is.

Joe: And all religions are pretty much evil, so we're equal opportunity bashers of religion there.

Pierre: True.

Joe: But Zionism clearly was a political ideology in the sense that they cited some references from some fictitious book or something called the Old Testament or the Torah or something that somebody made up and said "This says that we are entitled to a land grab in the Middle East and set up a government there and rule it". And that's politics. That's geostrategic.

Niall: Well I think that goes to what Charles said. Charles said the specific distinction between the Torah and the Talmud. Do you know anything about that Pierre? Because I think Douglas Reed wrote about that.

Pierre: Yeah, Talmud is a writing that inspires some movements within Judaism, in particular the Zionist one that goes beyond the foundation of Judaism, as we said previously. There are Talmudist Jews that consider this book as a reference book and this book compared to the Torah is very strong on the distinctions...

Niall: Between gentile and goy.

Pierre: Yeah. Gentiles...

Niall: Excuse me, between Jew and gentile.

Pierre: Between Jews, but more specifically Talmudist in the context actually, Talmudist Jews and goys. And that's this book that says things like basically you can kill a goy, you can lie to a goy, you can steal from a goy, but you cannot do that to Jews. It's the quintessence of Apartheid xenophobic vision of the world where there is the...

Joe: It serves the political agenda which was getting a chunk of land in the Middle East for a Zionist state.

Jason: It seems like when it began.

Pierre: Amongst other things.

Niall: Can I just ask for clarification? So this is a separate religious book from the Torah.

Pierre: Yes, it's totally separate, its rules, laws.

Niall: And so it's like having two sects. One sect follows more or less one path and then there's a separate path.

Pierre: That's why people talk about Talmudist Jews.

Niall: Okay.

Pierre: One of the predicaments in the Talmud is that the Talmudic law overrules any national law, which has been a bone of contention for centuries actually. And probably one of the main rules of anti-Semitism, the main problem was integration. Integrated populations, whoever they want, whoever they are, cause no trouble. It doesn't need to pogrom or to all we've seen through centuries. Talmud preaches the opposite. Talmud preaches non-integration because basically the Talmudist is ruled by the Talmud law. And the very notion of citizenship is based on the fact that a citizen is ruled by the national law, the notion of state rights.

Joe: There is a problem with the fact that most of the leaders of the Bolshevik Revolution were Jews. The problem is that there's enough in there to fuel the idea that there's some kind of Jewish conspiracy. And there's even, like you mentioned a quote of something that Churchill said that makes it clear that he was aware of there being a Jewish movement in places of power to serve their own agenda. And Benjamin Disraeli, quite a long time before, a British Prime Minister who was Jewish himself, I think he was the only Jewish British Prime Minister ever, he said "You never observe a great intellectual movement in Europe in which the Jews do not greatly participate. The first Jesuits were Jews, that mysterious Russian diplomacy which so alarms Western Europe is organized and principally carried on by Jews. That mighty revolution which is at this moment preparing in Germany" and he's talking about the Bolshevik Revolution preparing in Germany "and which will be in fact a second and greater reformation and of which so little is yet known in England, is entirely developing under the auspices of Jews."
So that kind of thing. What's strange actually is, you go back to the French Revolution at the end of the 18th century, in the 1780s, and you see that there was a lot of anti-Semitism around then among the general population. There was a belief that Jewish people or Jewish groups were involved. It's one of the most bizarre things in the sense that we're dissing it here as having any real influence on world affairs, but at the same time throughout history for the past...

Niall: Yeah, it's so pervasive.

Joe: ...past 3 or 400 years, you have among the populace of different countries, an awareness, and even amongst the political leadership, an awareness apparently of there being some kind of Jewish conspiracy and them not being happy about it.

Jason: Here's one thing I want to really get out of the way. So a couple of points; first thing, the Jewish people or the Israelis, let's not necessarily confuse it with the religious aspect of them, just say Israelis or Zionists, they're not fundamentally doing anything that every single other country hasn't done, which is a problem, which is totally a problem, but it's the situation of when Christians get together and want to grab some land from somebody, nobody starts throwing around the word "Christian conspiracy", right? Jewish people, as a political movement, are totally Zionism exerting political power. When Zionists go and exert political power, it's suddenly a conspiracy but when gentiles do it of course it's not. So in that kind of sense it's fair to say that it's not quite right, even if there is a "conspiracy of Jews" it's kind of fair because there's a conspiracy of...

Joe: Everybody.

Jason: ...white money too. There's a conspiracy of all these different people, all these political people, whether psychopath or whatever, are "conspiring together" to effect political change. And why shouldn't they join in the fun with everybody else to. As horrible as it is, they are not doing anything that France didn't do totally. France is very bad. America did.

Joe: Does.

Jason: I mean complete, utter genocide of entire people, continues to do.

Pierre: France was and is doing that.

Jason: Britain. They have at least another good 200 years of catching up to do before they can even approach the numbers of slaughter, torture, murder of all these other countries that are basically ruled by white people. So in a certain sense...

Joe: Yeah, it doesn't equate.

Jason: ...there's no Jewish conspiracy. There's just the political force.

Joe: Yeah, the thing that fuels it though is within Judaism itself, at least whether or not many Jews subscribe to it, but the idea of the Jews being chosen by god and special and apart and them being such a small group to apparently set themselves apart from the rest of humanity. Christians don't necessarily do that and maybe it's just because there's so many Christians. They can't really set themselves apart.

Jason: But at first apparently they did actually.

Pierre: Yeah.

Jason: But in all fairness, they did do that. Early Christian documents do show that that's really how they operated as well.

Joe: That they were different, yeah, that they were better than everybody. But in the modern world and in terms of practicing the Jewish faith and stuff and having those ideas within them, it's just a very bad idea. I hear you blame the Jewish leadership and stuff, that for a peaceful world and stuff, you've got to get rid of this idea that...

Jason: But it's not a peaceful world.

Joe: I know, but if you aspire to that type of thing, if it's meant to be a good religion and stuff, it's just a bad idea to have any notion that you are better than everybody else in the world, no matter who it is.

Pierre: Yeah, you're right. And I'm going back a little bit. You mentioned the over presentation of Jewish individuals amongst the leaders of the Bolshevik Revolution and actually it's true. There were Jews, but they were specific Jews. Zionism is a very recent ideology, political, xenophobic ideology that emerged during the 19th century. So it's nothing compared to the historical Judaism. This ideology emerged while at the same time a new branch in Judaism emerged, the Talmudist one composed of Ashkenazi Jews, eastern European Jews, and here we're going back to Ukraine and Russia, interestingly. Ashkenazi people have nothing to do with the Judaism through blood. The Sephardic Jews in Northern Africa and the Middle East had been Jews for generations and generations that they were there. It was their blood. It was their roots. It was their culture and they had been integrated peacefully in most countries for a millennium. All of a sudden you had this emergence of Talmudism, of Zionism and of suddenly converted eastern European Ashkenazi Jews. So here you start to see a kind of fission between the majority of traditional Sephardic, peaceful, integrated, northern African or Middle Eastern Jews on one side and the minority of eastern European extraction, Zionist, Talmudist, integrist Jews. And it's this minority that instrumentalizes the western powers, Russia, leading to the creation of Israel. And now it's through mostly Sephardic Jews in Israel to further the Zionist scheme.

Jason: Obviously there's something. It's a living culture. The Jewish culture is living. If those people want to self-determine themselves as Jews and say "Hey I'm a Jew" and the Jewish people want to welcome them in, that's completely their right. It's a young movement and stuff like that but in the end, it's all there.

Pierre: The Ashkenazi Jew was less appealed by the principle of Torah, the ancient testament, than principle of Zionism and the Talmud. So ideologically speaking or religiously speaking, these are two very different movements within what we call simplistically, Judaism.

Jason: Yeah. You can say that someone's raised in Judaism, but I have plenty of examples of Jewish people who are raised within the religion and as soon as they turned 18 they shtagged off and joined something else, so people choose that ideology just in the same way that ultimately people do choose to follow a Christian ideology or any ideology. That is their choice and it's a fair choice to make. And it seems to be, at least certainly in the last 100 or so years, their philosophy seems to be rather successful because Israel is obviously now a very powerful state. They did get it, so there's a lot of success there. And it's like the Baron Von Harkonnen said "Nothing breeds contempt and distain like a popularity". And right now they are popular and they do lead and set up in front of many popular and intellectual movements as Benjamin Disraeli was saying, and so naturally you're going to be a little bit envious or angry or you're going to notice it more because "Oh, they're different and they set themselves apart". But it does seem to be it's a successful strategy for them thus far.

Pierre: Just to illustrate the magnitude of this fission within what we call Judaism, is that the most flaming anti-Zionist activists are rabbis.

Jason: Yeah, I saw a video made by a bunch of I guess they call it Orthodox Judaism, the real, real hardcore guys it was a really good video. Basically they went around in Israel reading excerpts from this text and they were asking the person "Now who said this?" And they would pick a popular Israeli former leader or Adolph Hitler. And almost every time the person said Adolph Hitler.

Pierre: Yeah, I watched the video.

Jason: It was a movie made by Orthodox Jews and it was very informative to know that obviously not all Jews are together and onboard with the Zionist policies.

Joe: It's one of the great ironies of the 20th century when you think about the extent to which Jewish bankers were involved, with other bankers, in the funding of the rise of Hitler to power.

Niall: And Soviet Russia.

Joe: But specifically here in terms of Hitler. And then what he did to the Jews during World War II. But in advance of that, these same Zionist leaders in league with certain bankers, some of them were Jewish, had lobbied for a Jewish homeland in the Middle East, in amongst Arabs of a completely different religion. And they started emigrating there and forcibly evicting the Palestinians in the 20's and 30's. And then while that's happening, the British cede Palestine to the Zionist and they start pushing to try to get Jews to go there. And a lot of Jews don't want to go there because they say "Well I live in Germany" or "I live in America. Why do they want to put me in the Middle East?"

Niall: Yeah. My ancestors have been here 200 years.

Joe: So here's where the conspiracy comes in, or if you want to call it just irony, sad irony, is that to the extent to which Jewish bankers are funding Hitler and then he does what he does to Jews in the Second World War, which then is the main driver of emigration of Jews from Europe and elsewhere to this land that the previous Zionists had stolen, had got the Brits to give to them. That's a pretty harsh way to go about getting your little slice of land, essentially sacrificing the lives of - playing a part, if unwittingly, or if you want to be a conspiracy theorist, wittingly, in the death of millions of your co-religionists as a way to get them to go to this land that you have created, albeit from some ideology. But it's not just ideology. A lot of it has to do with wealth and greed, psychopaths in power and politics. But then for that to happen and then to get their little slice of land at this great sacrifice, and then to start doing to the local population what was done to you in the Second World War, the whole thing is just so horrible and stupid and such a terrible, twisted...

Jason: It's an irony.

Joe: Yeah. It's one of the great ironies.

Jason: It's the golden rule, "do unto others that which they did unto you".

Niall: Wait a minute. That's a perversion. It's "do not do unto others".

Jason: But we see throughout history that the golden rule of everybody is as soon as you get some power just do what was done to you basically. The oppressed love their oppressors and can't wait to follow their example. So it's perfectly in line with everything you've ever seen before.

Pierre: What Joe exposed a few seconds ago is a good summary of Douglas Reed's theory. Basically for Douglas Reed, the main outcome of the First World War was the Balfour Declaration, i.e., the principle of the creation of a Jewish state, Israel, and the outcome of the Second World War was the actual creation of Israel. In both cases the Balfour Declaration happened a few years after the First World War and the creation of Israel happened a few years after the end of the Second World War.

Niall: But the problem with that is...

Joe: The non-conspiracy angle to that is that it's politics and land grabs and control and the great game and control of oil, which had just in years previous to the Balfour Declaration, had come online as the major driver of industry and stuff and the need for countries to secure access to oil. And their oil having been found in the Middle East and "Hey, it's a good idea if we have a little outpost here of people who are in our camp."

Jason: I think in all fairness there are some slightly alterated interpretations of those particular events, that to whatever extent Jewish bankers may have contributed to the ultimate rise of Hitler, I certainly don't think that they planned in any way whatsoever, the holocaust. I think that maybe they didn't estimate properly the absolute and utter insanity of the Nazi party...

Joe: Or they didn't care.

Jason: the time. And I think that it's entirely possible that there may have been a lot of additional support from the anti-Semitic elements or the pro-Armageddon elements who said "Oh, they want their own homeland. Well let's get in on this!"

Pierre: Of course. There's a document...

Jason: And goaded the whole situation and poked it and poked it. Because there was of course a lot of poking going on with Nazi Germany at the time.

Joe: Yeah.

Jason: From a lot of wealthy, powerful white men basically.

Joe: Yeah, there's two ways to look at it and one of them is that the conspiracy, like it was planned all along, which doesn't seem, like you were saying earlier on about the whole idea of psychopaths not really being able to plan long-term and just reacting in the moment. Oh, now have things have changed, let's go this way. But it's always from an entropic, pure greed point of view and "whatever suits us and screw the people" type thing. People aren't really concerned. "If we can move this bunch of people in this direction and if they all get killed, or whatever, there are lots more." It's more of a reaction, problem/reaction situation. And in that sense, that's the more rational way to look at it I think, that it was just psychopaths in power just doing what they do.

Jason: And it spun out of control.

Joe: Yeah. There is evidence that certain Zionists did collaborate with the Nazis to save Jews by moving them to Israel. And then you put that in the context of 20 years earlier they had created the homeland and they needed to put some Jews in there. You can see how some people say "I smell a conspiracy". But it's more likely that they were just serving their own interests and ultimately, like we've been saying throughout the whole show, is that people don't matter to these psychos in power. They're just tools to be used. And people really need to think about or contemplate the way that people in power today, like the elite of this world, the way that they view ordinary people and the world that they kind of grew up in and the world view that they get from a very early age.

There are people who are brought up in these elite, powerful families and by the time kids are able to start reading and writing and thinking, they're already absorbing ideas about the world, and they're being groomed to be leaders of the world. And by the time they're teenagers, they're already involved in these kinds of groups and societies that train them in a specific way to look at the world as their playground. And that that is so divorced from the way the average person in the street views the world. They just view the world as their little local community and the world's a big place. But it's so divorced the way the elite and the progeny of the elite are brought up to view the world, as to be almost like an alien race, in terms of your perception of the world. And that's the big problem because you just have two completely different perspectives. One held by a small elite group and the other view, the normal view of the world held by the 99.99 percent. It's a recipe for disaster in that sense, because these people have totally divorced from any normal human feeling, interaction or identification with the life of the ordinary person in the street. And they're seen as poor, ignorant people that need us to organize their lives for them by the millions. And we must take decisions for them and move people around. And it's their responsibility. They feel a responsibility to take decision that will affect millions of people at once. And that's fine. Leadership is fine if it's benevolent. If you add the ingredient of psychopathy and pure greed, well then you're screwed big-time. We're all screwed big-time.

Pierre: And also commonly held is the belief that this vision furthered by the elites is normality and, as mentioned previously, the fight between EU and U.S. about the control of Ukraine shows that the psychopathic elite don't necessarily always cooperate to screw the people. Basically the main driver is their own interests. So they cooperate if it serves their interests. And if we think about the U.S./Israeli relationship, it's quite similar. They both use each other. The Israeli/Zionist psychopathic leaders use the U.S. to back up their Israeli and territorial expansion and their genocide of the Palestinians, but the psychopathic U.S. leaders use the psychopathic Israeli leaders to have an outpost in the Middle East and to have a hold on the resources, particularly oil.

Joe: Alright, we're going to leave it there for this week folks. We hope you've enjoyed the chat.

Niall: Keep an eye on what's going on in Venezuela because that could be up next for regime change.

Joe: Yeah, regime change. And, you know, what can you do about it? I don't know. Just keep watching. That's about as far as we can go. Just watch it and be horrified.

Pierre: And see the world as it is.

Joe: Talk about it as well, to people who'll listen.

Jason: Truth is kind of its own reward in the end.

Joe: Also shoving it down other people's throats, no?

Jason: No.

Joe: No? That's not a reward? Okay.

Jason: No, I don't think that's fun or very effective.

Joe: Even on Facebook?

Jason: No, maybe a little.

Joe: Once in a while.

Niall: How can you not be riled up when William Hague says "Russia must not interfere in Ukraine's politics"?

Jason: Do as I say, not as I do.

Joe: Yeah. So when you get riled up, just post about it somewhere. Just get it out there. It doesn't have to be pushing it on people.

Pierre: Yeah. And the truth shall set you free.

Jason: Actually that's not historically accurate. The truth will probably get you ____.

Joe: Yet to be proven, but watch this space.

Jason: It's a theory.

Joe: Alright folks, like I said, we'll leave it there for this week. And we'll be back next week.

Niall: We don't know who's on next week. It's a surprise.

Joe: It's a surprise. So watch the space. Thanks for all our listeners, and all our chatters.