Will the most expensive Olympic Games ever be a triumph for Russian peace over Western war, or will a CIA/Saudi-directed terror attack attempt to poke the Bear into a violent reaction before the world's watching media?
What's really happening next door in Ukraine? Will the people there soon be liberated from the 'yolk of Putinism' and be free to join the glorious future envisioned by the EU? Or is it too just another CIA-led revolution? And what about the real revolution in France, why is no one reporting on that?
This week on SOTT Talk Radio we discussed all this and more, not least the weird weather. What could be causing wildfires in Alaska while it snows in Georgia? Or prolonged drought and raging wildfires in Arctic Norway while hurricane force storms drown Britain for months on end?
Running Time: 02:25:00
Download: MP3
Here's the transcript:
Joe:: Hi and welcome to another episode of SOTT Talk Radio. I'm Joe Quinn and with me in the studio this evening is Niall Bradley and Pierre Lescaudron.
Niall: Hello.
Pierre: Bonjour hello everybody.
Joe:: This week we are talking about the state of the world and boy is the world in a pretty dire state. I mean all you have to do is really just look around you, I mean really look. Take off the blinkers and look at the world around you and you can't help but be horrified of what is commonly called our modern civilization. But it's not just human society that's in a mess, the entire ecosystem seems to be falling apart too and yet most people just carry on as if nothing is wrong. As if thing's will continue on as they have always have. Well, sorry to have to tell you but the chances of that happening are pretty slim. More than likely, things are going to just get worse, so we should prepare for it.
But my question is what's it going to take for people to wake up? Maybe they just need to be told again and again and have evidence over and over again of what's going wrong and how it'll get worse and worse and worse. It's kind of depressing you know because I don't know, people who already listen to this show know that the kind of work that we do, we look every day in detail of what's going on and a bit of disconnect there from most people who out there in the world who don't do that. They're kind of occupied with their daily lives and their jobs and whatever else entertains them. There's maybe bit of a disconnect in the sense of we're seeing things up close and personal every day and we're shoving our noses into it every day and really kind of getting worried about it and we're wondering why isn't everybody else you know?
But, as I have said, maybe we kind of expect people to do that. Pay some close attention to it but it just needs to be dumped in their laps basically in a more extreme, a more forceful way and maybe that's what we're saying that more than likely that's what going to happen. So anyway, the state of the world: what's wrong with it and how can we fix it?
Niall: Well regarding civilization and or the lack of it I think it was Gandhi who said "Civilization is a great idea".
Joe:: Yeah, we should get on that.
Pierre: An abstract concept eh?
Niall: Yeah, some day maybe. Well I don't know, I get depressed by it too but maybe it depends what we mean by the world waking up? Well because there's enough response going on although it's still disconnected from reality.
Joe:: Yeah.
Niall: We might be able to say that at least in some directions it moves closer towards seeing reality as it is.
Joe:: The problem is the lies and disinformation that are being spread by the mainstream media around the world causes people who do have something in them that they feel there's something wrong and they need to react, they need to do something, they need to try and agitate a little bit for change that they sense in some way or maybe that there's something wrong with or that they have some specific grievances. The problem is that's always misdirected chiefly by the mainstream media in league with big Government. It's misdirected into dead end endeavors or dead end agendas or causes that people fight for. It's kind of like giving the people something to complain about or something to fight against or a boogie man or a bad guy that they can direct their energies towards.
And of late in the media, in the news I've noticed a lot of people in the west anyway are very anti-Russian, specifically anti-Vladimir Putin. He's the bad guy these days and bizarrely it seems because he had the temerity to host the Winter Olympics. Because he's been a bad guy for quite a few years now since basically he came into power as far as the west is concerned he's a bad guy. So he has the temerity to host the Winter Olympics and to bask in the International I suppose glory to one extent or recognition that that brings and as much as the western media has covered the Olympics themselves, they've always carried another story in some way or another bashing either the hosting of the Olympics or Putin himself or homophobia supposed anti-gay laws in Russia. So, it's kind of ridiculous you know. We're not saying that there's anything wrong with Russia, I'm saying it's extremely hypocritical for western nations, specially the US and the UK, to be leading this charge against Russia when they themselves are mired in filth, corruption and everything else.
Niall: There's a certain flavor to what it is they're bashing Putin and Russia generally with. They're picking up on the smallest things and now this is not to say that the whole gay rights issue is no small thing, we'll get to that in a minute. But in terms of the criticism of Russia's hosting of the Olympic Games, I mean "this toilet didn't work" well yeah every single games is always behind schedule, all of them.
Pierre: Curtains were missing in one of the hotel rooms.
Niall: Curtains, oh my god.
Pierre: Yeah that's pretty serious.
Joe:: I seem to remember similar complaints about other Olympics. The one that springs to mind is in Greece, I think it was in 2004 in Greece, I remember there were a lot of complaints but it didn't have the same flavor of a political agenda behind it to demonize a political leader by way of criticizing the infrastructure of the Olympic Games.
Pierre: I find that it's consistent when big games, like most media events, are propaganda tools and western nations, western leaders are using the current Olympic Games to further their political agenda amongst which objectives are the demonization for several reasons of Vladimir Putin. It's all the more ironic and hypocritical that all this media support that was given to London 2012, profit and brain washing and crowd control and people control. The main partners in London 2012 were Dow Chemical, responsible for the Bhopal major accident, McDonald's, Coca Cola.
Niall: Shell Oil.
Pierre: Yeah and BP. BP was just out of the major oil spill in the Gulf in Mexico. You had a police state that was established for the Olympic Games in London with the army, with navy ships, with helicopters, with an Olympic act, a law that was specifically designed for this event and not allow any officer to arrest and search any citizen without any warrant without any reason. Yet this major brain washing event was praised by all the medias, and now what is Putin doing? Putin is doing basically a similar thing but in a different way. You see the difference in treatment here?
Joe:: Yeah.
Niall: Not long ago I would have just, I mean I still do, I don't have that much of an interest to be honest in watching sports, the Olympic Games included. I would always dismiss all the games, just more bread and circuses right, for the masses. It's essentially what it is. What you have got to understand is what the people want, some of them anyway, a large section let's say. Yes, Putin is carrying favor with his people and internationally as well, but so what? That's what they all do.
Joe:: That's what the Olympics are for largely from a political point of view. They are trying to increase the profile of the given country internationally and to attract all sorts of thing's indirectly like investment, tourism etcetera. That's how they make their money back from it, that's why they're valuable, that's why countries lobby for these kinds of events.
Niall: They spent fifty one billion dollars on this event. Well actually they only spent up to ten on the actually sports facilities.
Pierre: Yeah and they build a lot of infrastructure.
Niall: Yeah, they actually rebuilt the region.
Pierre: And there was almost nothing there so if a sport event is used as a development tool that can be a positive aspect of Olympic Games. In many cases, that is not what happened. Greece is a good example and you have many facilities that were developed for 2004 that are now in ruins and used its public money that was thrown through the window.
Niall: You've got to wonder about the Greek one, three years later the country falls apart.
Pierre: Another thing is the meaning of the Olympic Games where there's such a huge event. With London 2012 you had 5 billion viewers, 80% of the population that watch one or another event included in the Olympic Games. And if you look at history there's another political agenda in Olympic Games. So if you give me two minutes maybe. It was created in 8th century BC in Greece in Olympia, in the plain of Olympia and this plain was a particular place. It was a religious place with one of the main Greek temples there and one of the seven wonders started from Zeus.
So the priest created the Olympic Games and didn't create the Olympic Games, as you can imagine, because they loved sport. There was an ideological agenda. At this time Olympia was at war for years and people started to have doubts about this war and to criticize this war because husbands were dying and brothers were dying and sons were dying. It was not ending. So the local king in partnership with the local clergy started up the Olympic Games. That brought two positive things for the people, apparently positive A) Every four years the war stopping, the only thing that could stop the wars, the Olympic Games. So for one month every four years you had a break. That was most welcome for this oppressed population and the second thing is that ideologically the Olympic Games were praising a specific vision of the world based on victory, fight, competition, individualism, values that in the end are not very dissimilar from the values that are exacerbated during armed conflicts.
Niall: Okay, so this is like a kind of a release valve for what would otherwise be energy spent on war?
Pierre: Yes, it can be perceived for a paranoid oriented mind, it can be perceived as a diversion for the people to reduce anti-war, to increase individualism. It's a powerful ponerization tool if you think about it because it praises mostly psychopathic values.
Joe:: Well, it's kind of patriotism being the last refuge of scoundrels you know. It obviously focuses people on their nation to get them all into a jingoistic kind of fervor which obviously only serves the interests of the elites in a certain sense that people would hold on to this and have this idea of patriotism reinforced within them. So in that sense it's good there's no deep conspiracy about it, just human nature and the way things have been pushed and formed over the past as Pierre said you know a few thousand years.
Niall: So you don't prescribe to this idea that this is the illuminati pushing the satanic symbols on the masses?
Joe:: Like in London 2012 there were all sorts of illuminati symbols supposedly in the opening ceremony in the London Olympics, no, that was nonsense. That's people naval gazing and engaging in pseudo or almost borderline schizophrenic behavior, same kind of things that people do around bombings recently in others. Apparently for some people, only so many false flag bombing attacks that they can endure before they just fall into a schizoidal kind of a state where they start to see all sorts of things. Like actors etcetera and fake blood and fake bones.
Anyway, the Winter Olympics is an opportunity for Putin to increase the stock of Russia around the world and the west being anti-Russia and anti-Putin don't want to let him get away with too much of that. So they use the mainstream media to bring him down a peg or two to remind everybody that don't get too excited about Russia, don't be thinking about Russia in any kind of favorable light because we want you to maintain your attitude as the elite's attitude of Putin is evil, Russia is evil and that's what they've been doing.
Pierre: Must be some cringing from the western elites because over the last decades there's been an inflation in budgets. We can show its magnificence of the Olympic Games. Bigger installations, bigger hotels, bigger budget's and Putin managed to create the most magnificent Olympic Games ever. The biggest of the biggest budget at least and it was a sign of the timing in the sense that Russia now has obviously the financial resources to organize the most expensive Olympic Games, more expensive than the ones organized in Europe, in the US, even in China. That's a change.
Joe:: So, one of the other things that they use to try to demonize and this is the back story to the whole Olympics thing with Putin was that bombings a month ago - was it a month ago? Six weeks ago?
Niall: In late December yeah.
Joe:: In Volgograd there were two bombings in a train station. This was blamed on, well nobody in particular.
Niall: Nobody claimed it until mid-January.
Joe:: Well even then, it wasn't claimed by any particular group though a YouTube video with two guys on it.
Niall: Two guys goofing around.
Joe:: Who claimed that...
Niall: They claimed that they did it which didn't make sense because they're supposed to have died in suicide bomb.
Joe:: No, this was before they did it.
Niall: Ah, they released the video now. If the Sochi games went ahead they would promise to deliver a "present".
Joe:: Yeah, so you had these two bombings that were in a train station.
Niall: Train station and then a bus blew up.
Joe:: And a bus blew up in Volgograd which isn't that far from Sochi.
Niall: It's about six hundred kilometers.
Joe:: Yeah and they didn't even comment on last year that Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia threatening Putin that - it was a more of a positive suggestion - if he stops interfering or preventing the west with what it wants to do in Syria, which is get rid of Assad via supporting Al-Qaeda to destroy the country and kill all of the Syrian civilians, if Putin would allow Bandar and therefore the US and the UK and France to do that, he would be able to ensure that the Olympics were threat free because he said that Saudi Arabia controls these so called Chechen Muslim terrorists. There wasn't much report of what Putin actually said, but apparently it didn't go down too well and he didn't take the offer and then you have this bombing in Volgograd just a few weeks before the Olympics.
Supposedly one of the things that come out of Chechen and these Chechen terrorists is the black widows. These are female suicide bombers; they're called black widows locally in Chechnya. Now I might just say something about the suicide bombers again, I think everybody probably knows it. But the concept of suicide bombing is ridiculous. It's a fabrication. The first organization to oppose the idea of a suicide bomb, leaving aside the Kamikaze pilots because that doesn't really count, but in more modern times what was the British Intelligence MI5 came up with the idea in Northern Ireland. They got one of their agents who had infiltrated the IRA to propose the idea of using, well he went ahead and did it, of hijacking a car with him in it and putting a bomb in it and then forcing, somehow you would force the person under threat of death to go and drive the bomb into a British Army barracks or something like that.
So this was the first reported kind of modern incidence of this in the late eighties of suicide bombing, but it wasn't really suicide bombing. It didn't involve someone consciously saying "I'm going to blow myself up". If you think about suicide bombing, it's ridiculous. Okay, they're Chechen terrorists, okay there're Palestinians, all these people, they have the ability to supposedly get a bomb into a train station or a supermarket or wherever else and it's strapped to their bodies. But they choose to blow themselves up. Let's say for example that it's much, much easier to get a bomb into a train station because it's hidden under your clothes rather than in a backpack because obviously a backpack in a train station would make you stand out, right? You'd be searched, right? Maybe the searches are something but whether they don't search your body or if they search your body it doesn't fly anyway.
But the point here is that suicide bombing is designed - it's completely Muslim these days - as a Muslim tactic and it's clearly anti propaganda designed to demonize any so called Muslim terrorists and make everybody in the west terrified of them because they're so crazy that they want to attack the west by killing themselves. They're willing to kill themselves but obviously they're very stupid as well because why would you not keep that one operative alive? Let's say even the best way to get a bomb in to your target is to strap it to your body. Well when you get there, you can't just unfasten the clip in the back and drop it to the ground and then walk maybe thirty yards away and then push the button.
None of it makes any sense, it's completely feasible and probably just as easy to explode a bomb that way and have at least a good chance of saving yourself. But no these people want to blow themselves up, clearly they want to die. This is the idea that is presented by western intelligence agencies and western governments about Muslims and any enemy du jour, is that given the choice to carry out an attack against their enemy where they survive to fight another day or die and waste their life essentially, they will choose to waste their lives, sacrifice themselves for no good reason. That's the logic behind it if you follow it through.
Pierre: And it reinforces the belief that Muslims are stupid fanatics.
Joe:: Of course. But how can they be so successful? How can ever be so successful if they're so god damn stupid? Because that's one of the most idiotic, at a planning level, for any organization to not be able to come up with an idea and kind of go "maybe we should try and keep our operatives alive instead of killing them all the time through suicide bombing because we're going to run out of them". They're not able to actually formulate that idea because they're so stupid.
Niall: So we're told.
Joe:: But yet, they're able to actually carry out bombings. So it doesn't fit, the point is its bullshit.
Niall: Anyone who actually finds themselves in any kind of a guerrilla movement, freedom fighting movement, one of the first things they realize is "shit we're few in numbers and we need to maximize resources including people". It simply just doesn't happen. They don't ever come to a planning decision where they create an army of black widows and send them out. It defies strategy 101.
Pierre: Another flaw in the official narrative about suicide bombers is when you check that the results of the geopolitical consequences of such "suicide bombing" usually the political reactions to such terrorist acts do not serve the interests that are allegedly defended by the terrorists.
Joe:: Yeah, so the point about this little diversion into suicide bombing is this was a threat against the Olympics. This was another way to cast pallor over Putin's Olympics. The suicide bombing was used to demonize the Olympics and obviously the threat of bombing at the Olympics was used to demonize and bring down the whole positive energy of Russia hosting the Olympics.
Pierre: That was so in 2008 in Beijing. Remember all this uproar about all the human rights, China's totalitarian communist socialist regime. How do we dare organize Olympic Games, such a worldwide event about solidarity and fraternity, in a country abusing human rights? Now the same in Russia, the ones who say that who was so shamed by the abuse of human rights in China and political excess in Russia or the US, UK, or Europe that do the same or maybe worse.
Niall: Here's the thing though. This location that Putin chose is in a particular area. You go east you hit Chechnya and Dagestan where terrorist attacks are still taking place. You go a little north of course that's where Volgograd bombings happened. Thirty kilometers away is Georgia where Israeli and U.S. Special Forces spurred the Georgians to attack Russia, not four years ago. There's something about Putin's choice of this place that I wonder he is sending a message back to them saying "so yeah you're going to try and stir up trouble right in this area, okay, this is what I'm going to do". It wasn't easy for them to get these games. Putin himself had to make it his pet project. He learned a speech in English and French to the Isle Sea to win the games.
Pierre: At the same time, we mentioned previously that Putin or Russia spent a lot of money on infrastructure, roads, thousands of kilometers of roads, and rail roads and all this equipment maybe by developing this area is making a strategic move because he knows that nearby in Georgia and Chechnya these are strongholds of western forces.
Joe:: Yeah, the reason why I was talking about the bombings is that the threat of bombing that featured quite highly, as most people are probably aware, I was reading something on CNN and CNN released a poll I thought was funny because they had a poll and they called it an authoritative opinion poll. The results were that 50% of Americans think terror attack likely at Sochi games. I thought that was beautiful because they just spent the past several weeks promoting CNN and all these other new agencies have spent the past few weeks promoting the idea that there probably would be a bombing implanting the idea "are the Olympics safe? Will there be a terror attack?" So after a few weeks of that then they ask the people what they think and people say "yep I think there will be." Wow, how did you come to that conclusion? That's amazing. That's sure some serious critical thinking on your part, are you some think tank or something? Do you have some inside information? No CNN, I got it from you. You're asking me to tell you what you told me to say.
Pierre: If the pole was not rigged.
Joe:: Even if it's rigged, I don't think they're rigged anymore because they know what they can get back from the people. They get back from the people exactly what they shove down their throats.
Niall: Yeah, they coach them.
Joe:: They coach them? Are you joking? They give people their thoughts. That's how bad it is. The problem with the state of the world here, peoples thoughts come from the mainstream media, people don't have their own thoughts. The majority of people do not have their own thoughts. That's how bad it is. If you ask them anything about the world, they either give you back what the mainstream media has been promoting the past few weeks or they don't know at all. They have no idea like those people on the web who go around asking people strange questions about history and stuff like that and the answers that some of them give are just amazing. Like JFK was shot this morning, do you think that's a good thing? And people say "wow yeah I didn't know that, that's not a good thing", that kind of stuff.
Niall: You're talking about Mark Dice on the east coast of I think lives in California and he goes around to ask people some questions on the west coast. There's an even more egregious example. I think it was a mainstream source satire site or something and they asked for their opinion of how the, I think the Golden Globe or some awards ceremony had gone. The implication being that it's already taken place that day or the day before and everyone answered "oh yeah, yeah it was great." And then they're asked more detailed questions as "so what do you think of so and their performance?" and so on and the people go "oh yeah, well he shouldn't have done that" or "yeah that was really funny." Then they're told at the end that it's taking place today or tomorrow
Joe:: Somebody did one on Obama's - topically enough - Obama's state of the union address and what they thought of it. It was that night and they asked them during the day and I think they gave all sorts of answers of what they thought of it and why it was good and why it was bad.
Niall: Yeah.
Joe:: But when things are bad at that level, people don't realize just how bad they are but they are really bad, to the tune that they're really, really bad.
Niall: Okay so the Russian government is more or less ignoring the hysterical value they could extract from hosting these games. They could be telling their own population "yeah there's a terrorist threat." They just quietly positioned 100,000 or whatever security in the area and they just deal with it. Meanwhile, the US media is doing it on their behalf so to speak. You've got headlines like "The Toothpaste bomb threat." This was I guess was last Wednesday, US government warned American and foreign airlines that the Russian's could try to hide explosives in toothpaste tubes on Russia bound flights. An official told AFP that the US government has information specifically targeting flights to Russia. And then there's also a little thing that kind of made it real so to speak, the day before the ceremony there was a flight from the Ukraine to Istanbul. It actually landed in Istanbul but there was a scare when some passenger piped up and said "there's a bomb aboard, please direct me to Sochi." I think the pilot dealt with it admirably, he just said "Okay we'll do that" and they just landed in Istanbul.
Joe:: Yeah, they told him they were going, but the important detail in that was that reportedly the alleged bomber who didn't have a bomb was terribly, terribly drunk. So it was easy to convince him and apparently easy to subdue him and convince him that yeah, we're going to Sochi, don't worry just sit down and have another bottle of vodka. Yeah, it's interesting how these kind of things - we don't know who that was - but it's interesting to think that event by some drunk Turk, maybe he wasn't Turkish but maybe he was Muslim and sympathized with Chechnya for example, that this came to him on this flight that he was going to hijack the plane. Certainly that doesn't happen in a vacuum, the guy doesn't, like you were saying, people don't get their opinions generally from themselves. They get them from the media and of course he also could have been gay, homosexual in which case he would have a lot of reason to be very anti-Putin because of Putin's alleged or some government's alleged crack down on homosexuality and their anti-gay, anti-homosexual laws that have been passed in Russia.
Niall: Yeah the gall of western governments to moralize about human rights in any way shape or form is disgusting and they are beating Russia as hard as they can with what is actually propaganda. And the twist in it is this is anti-gay propaganda on the Russian's part, whereas the actual law that was passed last June and now it's been made an issue of, it specifically says that it would prohibit propaganda directed at minors. They use the term propaganda and that's been twisted into saying that this is propaganda with some nefarious purpose against homosexual people in Russia. The implication being that oh yeah okay, the Russians say one thing on the surface, but really they have a sinister goal behind it. Nonsense.
Pierre: There is this trend against Russia, and you see this agenda being furthered in Europe particularly where by invoking sexual freedom, homophobia, or some politicians offering nefarious vision of the world, pro-pedophile vision, a vision of the world where pedophilia and homosexuality are actually the norm, to fight homophobia you don't have to transform the gay movement or gay people's homosexuality to the norm, its acceptance, equality of right. The norm - I might be wrong - the norm is for a man and a woman to be together and have children. That is what usually works. It doesn't mean that you cannot tolerate or you cannot have a society with homosexuals. That's not what they're trying to do. What they are trying to do is to change the norm.
Niall: Well yeah, while they attack Russia on this basis it's been bizarre, it's been about 2 year's going now and it's systematic. Just about every country, one after the other, in the west in general let's call it, has been legalizing gay marriage, not just the actual ceremonial aspect of it but the point being to give full legal rights to gay couples, extending everywhere in terms of their property rights, of course, but then also into the rights to have children. Now I'm not going to argue one way or another for or against it. I'm just staggered by the fact that on the one hand it's long overdue, of course, it's the way people live, it's the basic principle, live and let live. But in coming from people whose very ethos is totally the opposite, they cannot leave other people alone.
Pierre: It goes further than giving any individual whatever sexual orientations they are, homosexual or heterosexual, equal rights. Because the first step was to allow gay marriage, second step that has been enacted in some countries and reach the stage of law project, an outcome in countries is to give some extra rights, like right to adopt, some right to buy real estate, some civil rights to gay couples and that's pro-gay policy 2.0 but there's probably a policy 3.0 coming, the gender theory. Gender theory basically is teaching all the kids compulsory classes from a very early age in every school. It's already been promulgated and applied in parts of Switzerland, Germany, in 600 schools in France as an experiment. Where basically you brainwash the kids, telling them that homosexuality is okay, being transsexual is okay, anal sex is okay, having sex when you are very young is okay, masturbation when you're 4 years old is okay. So you see how step by step we are going much behind giving equal rights to any individual homosexual rights and what is even more suspicious is that this evolution goes hand in hand with the pro-pedophile policies.
Joe:: You think so?
Niall: That's part of why there is an uproar because they're saying that by implication, in Russia's case for example, they're equating pedophilia with homosexuality but not making a distinction.
Pierre: Yeah it goes hand in hand because in the gender theory the key ideological point I think is sexual freedom, which may not be a bad thing if it's used in the right way, but according to the documents its sexual freedom without limits in aim of the children. And for decades the motto of pro-pedophile movements has been to say "we're not pedophile, we don't do anything bad" actually they don't know they're pedophiles and they say "We only respect the desire of the children. Children at a very early age of sexuality, they have desires and we are just saying yes to those very legitimate desires." Those desires are not legitimate. A child 4 years old doesn't know about good or bad or wrong and those things destroy children.
Joe:: Yeah, I totally agree that they take it too far because it's a simple matter of equal rights for the gay couples and the homosexual community let's say, the idea of a homosexual community.
Niall: Ideally they would not be a community apart.
Joe:: Well exactly, if it's so normal ideally or it can be seen as very normal and integrated, let's say, into society more than it is today, then there wouldn't be any talk of any gay community. It would simply be members in a society and the others have exactly the same rights and there wouldn't be big issue about it. But in that sense, I don't see anything wrong with Putin at least casting this law or Russian government casting their law as a defense of children whether or not there's any incidence. And this could be something that is internal to Russia as well that is there any incidence of homosexuals in Russia trying to push it a bit too far in the sense of targeting children or targeting, as Pierre was describing, at a very young age, kind of swaying their mentality or influencing the choice. That's wrong in the same way that children should not be subjected to any kind of undue influence on things that they are too young to understand.
So whether or not that's actually happening in Russia, I don't know, but if it was then yeah it may be necessary to do something about it. But the problem is that this issue with this Russian law has been blown out of proportion, made an issue by the western press. In the video of it the theme of the song where the two of them were essentially lesbians, about this Russian pop group t.A.T.u., they actually played at the opening ceremony. They played a song that openly depicted a lesbian relationship. So how does that square with this supposed Russian law that is sort of draconian that's been forced on everyone that criminalizes the promotion of homosexuality to children? How many children were watching the opening ceremony? Quite a lot I think in Russia. They see this song by this group, it doesn't make any sense.
Niall: The UK press insinuated that that was a propaganda move on Putin's part. Putin deliberately selected that pop group to make the point that "look it's not so bad here."
Joe:: But it goes directly against what he's accused of doing.
Niall: It's absurd.
Joe:: There's a leader of a gay rights movement in Russia?
Niall: His name escapes me [Nikolai Alexeyev], but this is a guy who is quoted as the leading gay right's activist by the Guardian, an English paper. This is the guy who has been physically attacked in Russia on at least one occasion. He knows what the situation is there. He has come out, no pun intended, and said "look the propaganda is being used by the west in this uproar over the anti-gay rights" so to speak. "Law in Russia is way over the top. You are not doing us a favor at all. Desist." There are also statements from gay athletes who have arrived in Sochi. I've got one here, headline here "Gay Austrian Athlete says fuss over Russia laws exaggerated". I also listen to a gay captain of the US women's hockey team saying that "This is exaggerated, there's nothing to this at all." And there isn't, course there isn't. It's this stench of hypocrisy of people in the west, particular our elites, using this angle when they are the least sensitive to anyone else's rights.
Pierre: There's a modus operandi, I may be wrong here. You know how anti-Semitism can be used, can be created out of nothing and blown out of proportion to justify Zionist policies. In the same way, I have a feeling that homophobia has been blown out of proportion or might be created out of nothing to justify pro-pedophile policies. It's bogus. It's just an excuse that people who talk so much about fighting against homophobia don't care at all about equalities, civil rights, and homosexuals. They just use a cause that resonates in people's minds and hearts to further nefarious agenda, nothing else.
Joe:: Yeah, although there is a lot of evidence of high level pedophile rings in the UK, in Europe, in the US, in a lot of places. That's kind of conclusive. In the states there's hard evidence for the existence of those among our political leaders. These are types of people we're talking about. So you're suggesting Pierre that the gay rights movement is being pushed beyond what is reasonable because when it's pushed that far, it extends into allowing for example what is called man boy love groups and stuff like that and legitimizing the idea that adults can have sexual relationships with children. That it's an extension almost of it, not in that it's an extension of homosexuality, not that homosexuals can be compared with pedophiles. But that they can push it far enough to legitimize that it's a nefarious use of the gay rights agenda to legitimize something that is altogether evil.
Pierre: Exactly, basically the modus operandi is as old as humanity I suppose. You start with a rather legitimate cause, homophobia existing or not, but you will mediatize it and you will hysterize population through it. So if you have a case of homosexual being beaten in the street would be everywhere in the medias. So you get this emotional susceptibility in the public and then you will act as if you were a good politician and you will start to pass laws that you supposedly are aiming to fight against this unjust behaviors. Anti-homophobia laws step by step; 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, you know.
Gay wedding, as I mentioned, and then gay rights for adoption, and then gay right for surrogate mother, and then gay right for inheritance estate, and then reducing sexual majority age, and then sexual freedom for children. We see where it's going because those pedophile rings are very, very powerful and at present at the top every social pyramid, laws, judge, lawyers, police officers, politicians, business men has been trying to push this. You can see the same signatures in those laws in this project. The same agenda for decades; the man boy love so what they try to do is to imprint in boys' mind that having sex with other men is right and next step it would be for them to believe that it is good and at the same time for the parents and the population to believe that indeed it's just a bad law. "If the boy is happy and they both are happy and it's about freedom, what are you trying to do? You're trying to fight against freedom, against pleasure? We are not in a totalitarian regime, are you anti-gay?"
Niall: Yeah, you can see the steps when you look back. Back to the US and the Kinsey report that claims that half of children are molested by their parents and incest was the norm in the United States back in the 1950s. That created an uproar because it was not a norm. Kinsey himself was a predator. It was a norm for him. But in introducing an academic line of research into it in trying to promote it bit by bit, not necessarily in a consciously planned campaign of course, it's just more natural. If you're a psychopath and you've got pedophilic tendencies, you just see the world that way. You would want to naturally add to your vision of the world based on how you see it and step by step you now are in a situation where you might actually have a quarter of children molested at some point. I think in fact it's 1 in 2 girls in the US before they reach adulthood had been sexually molested. So it's something pretty astronomical. That is now the reality of the elite of the very same countries. I mean the leaders; Obama, Cameron, and Hollande made a show of not attending or boycotting the Winter Olympics. They're defending it as a protest to honor people's rights.
Pierre: A few months before they're in Tel Aviv.
Joe:: Yeah the hypocrisy is staggering from the two biggest front men for the biggest psychopathic murderous plans on the planet, Cameron and Obama are the ones who are making the biggest show of defending the rights of supposedly homosexuals in Russia and people are meant to believe that? People are sucking it up, people are arguing on comments on websites; "Putin's evil and stuff, look at Obama, such a great guy for staying away, he shouldn't go there" blah, blah, blah. And this guy is a killer, he's a serial killer basically, he blows up women and children on a daily basis via ordering drones strikes. Now, of course I don't believe he has any control over it, but he sits there and defends it because that's his job. So he's an apologist at the very least for the murder of women and children. And he's going to go and defend gay rights? That's where he's going to hang his hat on, that's what he's all about? Yeah right. Like I said, people don't think, can't think and we're all screwed.
Pierre: And here it's not black and white. We're not saying that Putin is an angel. We're saying that Obama, Cameron, and others are evil puppets. That's a fact. And Putin maybe a bit less evil than them but of course he has agendas, he uses propaganda, he uses media. It's a game.
Niall: The thing is its 20 years or more since Russia more or less entered the western fold. It's been subject to the same cultural norms that the west has. In the west nobody blinks an eyelid when a 6 year old is dressed up and sexualized and put in a pop song. "Uh yeah, but it's just fun" and then when shit happens, they pretend not to see the connection between sexualizing their children and it actually happening to them. And Russia has been subjected to the same crass degradation of culture. Now I want to put this out there; Putin at least is trying to arrest that, reverse it, ameliorate it somehow with at least making a policy stance if not actually making an affective law. We'll see how affective it is but he is at least making a statement that look, let's just think about the kids for a second here.
Pierre: Yeah, I think to be such a leader you need ambition, you need some recklessness, and you need some manipulations, some lies, and other things. It doesn't mean that you will enjoy torturing populations overseas that you will enjoy spreading pedophilia or things like that. There are grades of evilness and there are different levels. As I guess Putin is not willing or ready to embrace all the full degradation of society at every level. It doesn't mean he's an angel at all.
Niall: No. Something else people are bashing Russia with is they're financing all of the games, like I said, 51 billion. That's the most expensive games ever for winter games and summer. "Oh well he could get things done because Russia is so corrupt and crony capitalism and it's just ruled by oligarchs" and yeah, so is everywhere. That is the default but when you look back at some of the things Putin's done and not done, he did not take advantage of the War on Terror like he could of. He has not invaded any other country then forced to react militarily on at least two occasions and I'm just wondering what sets him apart from let's say the psychopathic elites in the US and UK where they've no compunction with lying through their teeth to bomb the crap out of a country 8,000 miles away to get what they want. You talk about graduations of evilness but can we go the other way and suggest that Putin may not be a psychopath?
Joe:: It's hard to know you know, the one thing that you can say about well it's possible you can say that there's some differences between Russia and Putin, let's say as a leader of Russia, and the rest of the world i.e. the west because they are apparently at logger heads and in conflict. They don't agree with each other and the publicly try to attack each other and the question is do you want to go into deeper conspiracy and say this is all a show that they're doing it simply to keep the people distracted? Have this phony opposition type thing and is Putin playing that role?
Pierre: And both levels might coexist actually on minor levels, minor affairs, the Olympic Games, economic stuff, some...
Joe:: Insignificant stuff
Pierre: Yeah. There might be genuine opposition because those players might not be aware of the whole context than some other levels. It might be indeed a kind of one world government where there are not many divisions, maybe just to say that it's not mutually exclusive.
Joe:: Well, personally I don't see anything that Putin's doing as having any real effect. I don't see anything that he's saying as really serving the people of the world in terms of the truth and exposing lies.
Niall: What about Syria?
Joe:: Well he hasn't said anything. Well they've intimated certain things, but they haven't...
Niall: But Syria would long since have been bombed if Russia has not have been by its side.
Joe:: Well exactly yeah. But Syria has been destroyed anyway. The bombing would not have made much difference, really. It's just prolonging it and in that sense Putin is simply really taking care of his own interests, the interests of Russia and his own interest as he sees them as they are. But in terms of actually standing as some kind of a real opposition against the evil that has taken over this world in the form of psychopaths in power, I don't see him really spelling any home truths out to people on a regular basis in a way that he could. That suggests to me that either he doesn't want to do that because it's not in his interest therefore he's not really a good guy or in the same way he's not allowed to or he's not able to because he realizes that he will quickly find himself out of a job.
Niall: I don't know. I hear a lot of home truths coming out of Russia Today, the international media channel he set up.
Joe:: Yeah, well maybe in that sense.
Niall: RT America says things that Americans would not otherwise hear unless they came through bloggers who are paying attention.
Joe:: Yeah, RT does say quite a lot of stuff that is true and so I don't know. I'm not prepared to...
Niall: No, this obviously isn't good / bad black / white. I'm just trying to tease out the issues here because okay on the one hand he does not do anything maybe in the positive. But what do you expect him to do? Raise an army and go after the US? Of course not, but strategically if you look at the series of things that have happened: the attack on Georgia; the getting missile sites all along Eastern Europe allegedly to protect Europe from Iran, but Russian knew what that was really about. The propaganda, we've discussed already and of course Ukraine, what's going on at the moment. I do not think it's completely just coincidence that Ukraine has blown up right now while Sochi games are going on.
Joe:: No. Well yeah, no not really. You know I mean. I'm not sure it's directly linked but yeah maybe it was opportunity to start it. It started last November or something, right around the time when John McCain - who else was it? Somebody along with John McCain were there giving their support to the protesters late last year. That was a sign that who was behind the protest essentially and financed them in the sense that sure Ukrainian people had legitimate grievances but they were stirred up and given the power and the impetus to actually do what they did which was have these pretty spectacular protests and the Ukrainian government was largely, compared to what would happen in our country, the Ukrainian government was very restrained in that sense.
Pierre: Angela Merkel is the second leader that visited Ukraine.
Joe:: Yeah.
Pierre: The German politician.
Joe:: In that sense maybe the Ukrainian president saw the writing on the wall type of thing that this was essentially being funded and inspired by the western powers politically to do with the CIA and the different funding organizations that make these things happen and the Ukrainian government probably realized that this is bad enough, we just have to sit back and take it and you saw the police really were obviously under orders to not go too far in terms of responding to it and they didn't really do very much at all and the protesters really did make a mess of Kiev because he may be understood that if he was to crack down really hard on it, that would just be giving them exactly what they wanted. You are totally untenable; you're no longer legitimate because what you're doing to these poor people.
These protesters protesting for their rights, for freedom and for new government and stuff like the thing that the US has stood against and the Brits have stood against for centuries. Brits for centuries, the US for the whole 20th century has stood against and have actively all around the world stopped people from protesting in various countries where the US or the Brits had a strategic or national security interest i.e. strategic interests they actively put down by directly or by proxies put down the same kind of protests that are happening in the Ukraine because it wasn't in their interests because they didn't want a change in leadership and now they want a change in leadership.
The president Yanukovych basically decided to throw his lot in with Russia. Putin offered him 50 billion to sort out the financial issues and he was more or less willing to take it. This was known in the west beforehand. They could see because they were keeping tabs on it. They know where it was going. They didn't want that to happen, they want the Ukraine to be part of the EU which is basically part of NATO, which is part of the US, basically part of the American Empire. So they stirred up these protests. It's a bit complex it's not so black and white because obviously the Ukrainian people don't want to be part of any kind of a Russian federation or any kind of closer ties to Russia because they have a history as being part of Soviet Union and they have bad memories and stuff and they don't want that. So it's a difficult position for them to be in, but if they could understand really what the choice was and where it would go, I think if they could see down the line where they choose, they eventually get rid of the current president whose pro-Russia and go with US / EU / NATO if they can see where that would lead them in a few years, I think they would regret having made that decision and hopefully this kind of a little maneuver that the Russians did recently in releasing an audio of a discussion between...
Niall: We know it was the Russians?
Joe:: Well, it was pretty much obviously the Russians. I mean who else would have done it?
Niall: You know it could have been Julian Assange.
Joe:: {laughs} Yeah in a certain sense. He flew in.
Niall: Tell us, what's this about?
Joe:: Well, it's about four minutes of an audio of a telephone conversation between the US Assistant Secretary of State of European and Eurasian affairs i.e. the American Empires woman on the spot in Europe to make sure the empire goes the way they want it to, her name is Victoria Nuland. It was a conversation between her and the American ambassador in the Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt Before we just get into that I'm going to check here to see if we have a caller or if we have another listener. Hi, do we have a caller or are you just listening?
Caller: Actually I'm a caller.
Joe:: OK, what's your name and where you calling from?
Caller: Chris from Oklahoma
Joe:: Hey Chris, what's your question?
Chris: It's more of a comment actually. Pardon my voice its coming over a really nasty cold. You were talking about gay rights, homosexuality for example, it's a really good topic. My comment is that it just seems to me like these are one of those socially hard topics to really conceptualize because of ideological / emotional arguments, they kind of muddy the waters.
Pierre: Of course, that is the objective.
Chris: In my opinion that I think that this taking the gay rights thing is merely a symptom of a larger phenomenon and what I find it interesting that if you really look at it all these different things like abortion, gay rights, all of them, all sides, whichever one you're with, either sides of the opposition, the end result is always that either the enacting of some law or some social moral rule that ends up restricting individual choice in some way. On one side or the other the end result of both oppositions is always to restrict the choice of the individual. It all just seems like, I don't know if they're in cahoots or whatever but it seems to be like some sort of anti-instinctual normalcy. Sort of like rewriting our cultural genetic code if that makes any sense.
By the way, any kind of instinctual normalcy, it's like everybody knows they've all got a right for self-defense. We feel it's right, but in the sense of self defense you go in to this sort of emotional argument. We suspect this guy next door is going to do something pre-emptive, let's go after him. You see what I'm saying? We simply know that self-defense is right but that's not self-defense. This emotional argument muddies the water and it's takes like a long time to really figure out the argument against that argument to have any kind of rational stance, to figure out what's really going on. It seems like that this is just a part of it. Everything's all muddy. Nobody knows what to think so society itself seems to be falling apart all over the place.
Niall: Yeah absolutely. I've had these same kinds of thoughts with respect to the whole pro and anti-smoking issue.
Chris: Yes, yes, yes.
Niall: So you know, smoking is bad. Yeah well at least 25% of the population is still going "Okay, whatever but just leave me be" and of course what it comes down to is the person's own individual choice.
Chris: Right which is when you come to abortion; it's like are you anti whatever abortion then you hear on one side. I would find it very difficult that for any reason to abort a child. I'm not a woman but if I was a woman I'd find it very difficult to ever have an abortion. It would be just a very emotionally hard thing. Even if you knew the child wasn't going to survive well I would just give it that chance. So you have this emotional argument. But the fact of the matter is why are we trying to take the choice away from individuals? Why is it making it something society has to side on for everybody? The government, the state cannot fix anything, it doesn't ever fix anything. So why do we keep giving them the power to fix things when it never works anyway. It's always restricting the choice of individuals, that's the end of the right, the left, the pro, the anti, it always goes back to restricting choice.
Pierre: That's very true Chris. There may be something else to what are called artificial divisions about another existing conflict or minor conflict. You see how this progress in heterosexual versus homosexual, men versus woman, black versus white, Christian versus Muslim, all those divisions hysterize the people, divide the people and divert the people from the only true division: us the people versus the psychopathic oligarchy, the psychopathic elite. And I think if it's so exacerbated lately those false, those fake divisions is because of the elites. Some of them are partly aware that pressure is brewing among the people, anger is growing so they have to direct this anger towards scapegoats, gays or whatever Muslims or whatever minority, to deflect the pressure from themselves because they are the real source and the legitimate source for this anger.
Chris: Well, it also seems like it's even a kind of beyond that at a higher level I don't know what you want to call it the spiritual level or I don't really know what you want to call it, but honestly it seems like it's on a higher level and however it comes through in our reality, it just seems like everything is anti some sort of instinctual normalcy, you know what I'm saying? It's like that's how we survive for however many million years or hundreds thousands of years forty thousand years. Everything is in our culture, everything that we think, everything that we do that we don't quite rationalize comes from the same, I don't know how Conrad Lawrence put it, instinct right? Well we can interpret instinct wrongly you know. You get an instinct for something, you give an interpretation and you can get it wrong but my point is that most normal people know that it's not right just to have a war going to someone else's country, invade that country and get them killing people so forth and so on. So it's justified by its self-defense. We know that it's not normal for homosexuals, that's not the norm. People know heterosexuals have children and that's how the species propagates and most people don't have a problem with that. Same thing with abortions, sometimes it's going to abort, that's people's choice and so forth and so on. These things are made into problems where you have to take a side because of emotional manipulation, you know what I mean?
Niall: Exactly.
Chris: For a normal person, I admit I may not be a normal person, I don't know, but I think I am, you know its takes so long to really, really ponder these arguments because on one side you have emotionalism attacking you from one side. On the other side a perfect one like I said before abortions are really good one. The emotionalism of putting yourself into, a perfect example is; are you an advocate for killing children, you know I mean? It's a horrible thing to put yourself into that type of thing, or are you anti-gay or do you hate people because they love somebody else? These are really, really horrible emotional things to put yourself into. The argument that they're giving you is not true, it's not a real rational argument, its manipulation. And everything is being done to wipe out our instincts or to figure out what are instincts are. Like, for example, we know what's going on in the world is bad, some instinctively know it's not good but now look at the data rationally and logically well it's this, well it's that. It's very difficult to be able to obtain the facts and all the knowledge you need to attack each point, point by point to figure it out. But instinctually we know that it's not good, something bad is really going on here. And everything that is going on is confusing, "oh don't listen to your instincts, and don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain there, just go along with it". It feels like something even higher than just psychopaths, it's almost like they're an easy conduit for spiritual evil it's like can you use that word?
Joe:: Yeah, you pretty much nailed it. That's what it is.
Pierre: Psychopath might be part of this conduit and beyond instinct, and I agree with your analysis Chris, but beyond instinct I think human beings should try to rely on an objective assessment. Not to fall into emotional thinking into the trap this elite are digging for us to fall in and try to assess objectively with a mind by collecting data where is the truth, where are the lies, where are the manipulations to understand what's going on.
Chris: Yeah, I agree. I don't really listen to radio shows or when you guys air on Sundays because I'm usually busy but I can't remember which one it was someone had made the comment about why do people need government, why do we need leaders or something like that. I also have a theory for that if I may? This is just what it seems to me, in fact I got a lot of this from if you want to actually look this up Conrad Lawrence's book Behind The Mirror, it's a really good book. But he points out in this book that in all biology and also into human cultures there's always this struggle between more freedom and restrictions on freedom and in human cultures what the goal is to find a proper balance this is pretty much his theory is between more freedom and restrictions upon that freedom.
And what it seems to me, and I think this is true, we are social creatures as human beings. Very few of us are isolationists where we just go off into the wilderness by ourselves. We have to have some social contacts. It also seems to me that society as human beings because of our nature, our instincts which has developed over hundreds thousands of years, because of these instincts we simply cannot live without society. Society is something that we strive for, like it or hate it, it's what we need. But in order for societies to exist you have to have some restrictions on freedom. But it doesn't have to be a whole lot depending on the size of the group. The larger the society is what it seems to me, the more restrictions on freedom to keep it going. I think that one of the reasons why we're standing upon the precipice, so to speak, is because our societies have gotten increasingly large. Everything is about control of individual choice completely restrictive.
If you had smaller communities to have more autonomy they could come into better semblance between restrictions on freedom and more freedom. They can find a balance that works for them and the fact of the matter is what works for one group is not going to work for another, it's just not. As a human species we have a lot of variability. There are people I know in my own family honestly I could never live with, you know what I mean? Just don't get along, no real reason. No specific reason, I just can't quite - it's not going to work out so. But that's what human beings are. We all cannot live together under the same culture so to speak or something like that. And I think that we've progressively gotten away from smaller communities where we can have more choice, more freedom and stuff like this and it works. Everything has become one size fits all, that's kind of my theory.
Joe:: That's a pretty good one I think.
Niall: I think that they're a lot of research, a lot of theorist academics through the decades who would agree with you. This is what they keep coming back to.
Joe:: Alright Chris, thanks for your call and your comments.
Chris: No problems, good job, thanks for the show.
Niall: Yeah thanks a lot.
Joe:: Talk to you later, bye.
Chris: Bye, bye.
Niall: Some very good comments there. So this core problem of choice and the restriction of choice, that's all it comes down to. The smoking issue I raised, look your government doesn't give a damn about your health and they demonstrate that by their actions on every other way: control. I think it was Laura who put it this way: once you accept something as innocuous it seemed as a smoking ban, that's it, rapidly one after the other things start to fall. But you accept this bind on your own choice. Well, if you're not a smoker and you say "it doesn't concern me" you accept having a bind on others who do choose to smoke. And it comes back rapidly to you in all of the other issues that do directly affect you.
Pierre: Yeah in the beginning they come for the communists and they did nothing. Then they come for the unionists and they did nothing. Then they came for the Jews, and they did nothing. And then they came for me and there was nobody to stand for me.
Joe:: Yep, the smoking thing is ridiculous and it's just like getting people to submit to government dictates on in an ever finer way on the minutia of their lives and also government knows best and government takes care of us, government is interested in our health and then getting people to be basically enforcers of government policies on other members of society. So it's pretty horrible. Getting back to what we were talking about before Chris was on the line there...
Niall: The revolution in Ukraine.
Joe:: Yeah, it was interesting because it exposed this call between the Assistant Secretary of State in the US and US Ambassador of Ukraine, his names Geoffrey Pratt - no sorry Pyatt. I don't know how to pronounce his P Y A T T. It should be P R A T T. He's just such a pen pusher, like most of them. They're idiots. These people are idiots. I mean they're smart in a certain way but I like to call them idiots because I don't like them.
{laughter}
Joe:: But they are idiotic in a certain way and I like to see them exposed. People may have listened to it already but we'll just play a little bit of this taped telephone conversation between these two of what they were talking about Ukraine and who should be in power in the Ukraine a sovereign country and this was supposedly released we presume it was released by someone within Russian government because it served their interests most particularly:
Nuland: What do you think?Niall: What's an atta boy?
Pyatt: I think we're in play. The Klitschko [Vitaly Klitschko, one of three main opposition leaders] piece is obviously the complicated electron here. Especially the announcement of him as deputy prime minister and you've seen some of my notes on the troubles in the marriage right now so we're trying to get a read really fast on where he is on this stuff. But I think your argument to him, which you'll need to make, I think that's the next phone call you want to set up, is exactly the one you made to Yats [Arseniy Yatseniuk, another opposition leader]. And I'm glad you sort of put him on the spot on where he fits in this scenario. And I'm very glad that he said what he said in response.
Nuland: Good. I don't think Klitsch should go into the government. I don't think it's necessary, I don't think it's a good idea.
Pyatt: Yeah. I guess... in terms of him not going into the government, just let him stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I'm just thinking in terms of sort of the process moving ahead we want to keep the moderate democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok [Oleh Tyahnybok, the other opposition leader] and his guys and I'm sure that's part of what Yanukovych [President Viktor] is calculating on all this.
Nuland: [Breaks in] I think Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience, the governing experience. He's the... what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in he's going to be at that level working for Yatseniuk, it's just not going to work.
Pyatt: Yeah, no, I think that's right. Okay. Good. Do you want us to try and set up a call with him as the next step?
Nuland: My understanding from that call - but you tell me - was that the big three were going into their own meeting and that Yats was going to offer in that context a three-plus-one conversation or three-plus-two with you. Is that not how you understood it?
Pyatt: No. I think, I mean that's what he proposed but I think, just knowing the dynamic that's been with them where Klitschko has been the top dog, he's going to take a while to show up for whatever meeting they've got and he's probably talking to his guys at this point, so I think you reaching out directly to him helps with the personality management among the three and it gives you also a chance to move fast on all this stuff and put us behind it before they all sit down and he explains why he doesn't like it.
Nuland: Okay, good. I'm happy. Why don't you reach out to him and see if he wants to talk before or after.
Pyatt: Okay, will do. Thanks.
Nuland: Okay. Oh, one more wrinkle for you Geoff. [A click can be heard] I can't remember if I told you this, or if I only told Washington this, that when I talked to Jeff Feltman [United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs] this morning, he had a new name for the UN guy Robert Serry did I write you that this morning?
Pyatt: Yeah I saw that.
Nuland: Okay. He's now gotten both Serry and Ban Ki-moon [UN Secretary General] to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday. So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and to have the UN help glue it and, you know, fuck the EU.
Pyatt: No, exactly. And I think we've got to do something to make it stick together because you can be pretty sure that if it does start to gain altitude, the Russians will be working behind the scenes to try to torpedo it. And again the fact that this is out there right now, I'm still trying to figure out in my mind why Yanukovych (garbled) that. In the meantime there's a Party of Regions faction meeting going on right now and I'm sure there's a lively argument going on in that group at this point. But anyway we could land jelly side up on this one if we move fast. So let me work on Klitschko and if you can just keep... I think we want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing. The other issue is some kind of outreach to Yanukovych but we probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into place.
Nuland: So on that piece Geoff, when I wrote the note [US vice-president's national security adviser Jake] Sullivan's come back to me VFR [direct to me], saying you need [US Vice-President Joe Biden and I said probably tomorrow for an atta-boy and to get the deets [details] to stick. So Biden's willing.
Pyatt: Okay, great, thanks.
Joe:: An atta boy is you know atta boy Joe Biden, get in there and provide the international presence for this is hand across the ocean, this is all good, and we're going to do it. Get the media in and stuff. For people who maybe aren't aware of it that was a conversation leaked telephone conversation between the US Ambassador in Ukraine and US Assistant Secretary of the State and they were basically talking about how they were going to form the next Ukrainian government. A little detail of the fact of there already being a Ukrainian government in place with Ukrainian president didn't seem to matter that much. They were just going to go ahead and push it through and get the details fixed on it as in how they wanted it to be.
And of course the three people that they are pushing, I mean they're not really pushing three people. One of them is Vitaly Klitschko who is Ukrainian, he's a former super heavy weight champion boxer, and he is extremely successful. He's now in Ukrainian politics. There's another guy they call Yatseniuk, he's a kind of an economist pen pusher type thing and that's who they prefer to be the new president and the third guy was Oleh Tyahnybok, they call him Tyahnybok. So these three people Klitschko, Yatseniuk and Tyahnybok are in the opposition essentially but in different kind of factions of the opposition against the current president who is siding with Russia and of course that means that those three people are why the US likes them although as you noticed the Assistant Secretary of the State Nuland there said that she didn't... [blank spot]... even if it is misguided because he is anti-Russian as well. She said "I don't think he would be good in there, he's just ...
Okay, we're back on, sorry about that. That was Blog Talk Radio again, send them hate mail. These three guys, Klitschko who is the most popular guy in the opposition, he's pro Europe, anti-Russian. The Assistant Secretary of the State and the US government doesn't like him, even though the Ukrainian people like him, we don't like him. I don't think we want to put him out so he can do his political homework as in grow up young boy. He's probably the best choice in that sense. Other guy is an economist, would be a kind of World Bank kind of guy so that is sort of favored obviously because he'd be pro-west, western educated. His wife is an artist.
Niall: He'd know what side his bread is buttered on.
Joe:: The third guy Tyahnybok that they keep talking about who they didn't have a problem with Tyahnybok is a far right Ukrainian. I'll give you an example of a couple of things he said, he said back in 2004, talking to his supporters "You my supporters members of my party are the ones that the Moscow-Jewish mafia ruling Ukraine fears the most." And he also said "They were not afraid and we should not be afraid, they took their automatic guns on their necks and went into the woods and fought against the Moskali [Muscovites], the Germans, the Kikes [Jews] and other scum who wanted to take away a Ukrainian State." This guy is like a bit of a racist and right winger type thing you know extremist but he is as far as US is concerned he's cool; we want him in but not Klitschko. Because Klitschko is seen as being probably being more independent or he doesn't want to be part of the Russian Federation but he doesn't necessarily want to sidle up with the Americans as well. So they don't like him, get him out. And you know at the start where the Ambassador said "He's having some marital problems and we looking at that." You can interpret that in a few different ways but the most obvious way to interpret is that they could smear him.
Niall: She suggests that they arrange their phone calls one way and he counter proposed the Ambassador because he said she'd be able to handle the personality issues or something like that. Now what it made me think of was that the way - I don't know what extent its structured in how they do these things or if it's just intuitive to their psychopathic mind-set - that okay you handle this guy, you handle this because you will know better how to work with that person. It's outrageous but at the same time it's just confirmation of what we know.
Joe:: Exactly and this is freedom and democracy right? This is the world's greatest democracy basically deciding for the Ukrainian people, a massive or quite a large country, deciding for these people who will be their leaders based on the US government's interests.
Pierre: Coup d'état 101.
Joe:: Exactly and when she made that comment F* the EU, she's like being dismissal of the EU and that in this story, that in the media is what got the most attention. Apparently she apologized and Angela Merkel said "it's not acceptable." Well it's not acceptable to say that thing in a private conversation. Well I'm sure it happens all the time. But obviously it's what they have to say, they have to defend, Angela Merkel has to defend the EU, dis the EU and stuff. It's kind of ridiculous you know.
Niall: But she has nothing to say for...
Joe:: But not a word about the fact of what the call shows quite clearly is that the US is basically interfering in the most intimate way in a foreign supposedly sovereign country thousands of miles away. They're deciding who the government will be based on the US's interests which are definitely not the interest of the Ukrainian people. And they're deciding it and this is the major country in the world that promotes the idea of democracy i.e. the choice of the people and they're dissing them. They're liking this guy, no not this guy maybe this guy, yeah we like him, he's an extremist we'll go with him, there's another guy we don't like him get rid of him.
Pierre: I like the role given to the UN as well where Ban Ki-moon was the convenient puppet to give the veneer of worldwide or international support for change.
Joe:: Exactly which is what the UN serves these days, well what it's been reduced to, it's a joke.
Niall: Ban Ki-moon, this guy. So Putin says look can we just make peace from this whole gay rights thing and just get on with the Olympics in the spirit of international corporation and peace. And today Ban Ki-moon makes a statement about oh tut, tut Russia. Right at the start of the Olympics it's supposed to be a flagship peace program effectively for the UN, something that they should be promoting in the interest if peace. He's such a lackey.
Joe:: So what's going on here apparently just on the face of it is that if you just look at the rest of the world there is no independent country in this world that even is making a show of being against the west. China makes up like about 15% of the world's population or more maybe these days, it's basically a factory for largely the west. They're the workers right? There's like a billion Chinese workers who are producing plastic crap for the rest of the world. All of South East Asia and the rest of the world are just client states and have being since the Second World War and since the Vietnam War and stuff and since the latter half of the 20th century. Australia is insignificant, sorry Australian listeners you're only 20 million people.
Niall: It's a CIA listening post.
Joe:: You're still a British colony basically so we'll lump you in with the Brits. The Brits are the Americans. The Brits are the forefathers of the Americans genetically and ideologically. America is the horrible psychopathic child of British elite. South America was destroyed in the 20th century as well. It was rendered ineffective even despite its size because of dozens of CIA coups in that country and control of that continent. Africa the same, but even going back further was never allowed to develop. It's such a big place as well, it was more easily to control in a sense. You didn't have so many people concentrated way back when and obviously there were used as slaves. Africa was for various reasons but largely because it was colonized.
So what have you got left? The Middle East is a war zone and ruled by Saudi Arabia on behalf of the US in the west. Israel, a French minister described it pretty well several years ago, look it up. So the only thing left is Russia and the question is why is Russia even making a show of opposing what's basically a global empire, this one world government that we essentially have? In the sense economically through banking, it is essentially all a lock down. So why is Russia not playing ball? Why are they not in there? Is it just for show? I mean, it doesn't seem to be on the face of it.
It seems to be that there is some antagonism, disagreement and they're not playing ball and some way with the west and the west wants to slowly coral them in. Ukraine would be a pretty major coup to steal Ukraine away from Russia's sphere of influence and put it in to the west sphere of influence, they have a client government as we've just heard and that would leave Russia fairly isolated and the Russians don't want that, Putin doesn't want that. He's going to fight his corner type of thing. If and when he can, do whatever he can and that's part of the reason the Russian's released this tape was to strike a blow against, and try and sway public opinion back the other way, its fair dues. They've been trashing Russia over these Olympic Games for a decade in all sorts of different ways, most of it false. So the Russians respond in kind when they get a chance and that was to release this tape showing exactly what's going on in the Ukraine, let's see if they can sway public opinion back in the other direction or at least mitigate the kind of negative press that they're being subjected to by the west. But the question is why? I don't know what the mechanism is behind it, I don't know. I don't think it'll last very long and I think once Putin's gone maybe that'll be the end of it. It's like the last domino will fall really.
Niall: Maybe but Russia's been in this position for a long time. For all the evil that Soviet Russia ended up doing, it struck out when the revolution happened. It was striking out against a world that was made up of small empires, struck out for a different way. Of course in the end it was subverted back to effectively the same thing: an oligarch control system. And yet for all the damage it did, it did it to its own people. It slaughtered its own people. It didn't actually invade other countries. I wondered if there is something fundamental where the difference between the Anglo Saxon US and the European too, Western European mind-set that they are absolutely determined to control everything. They fail a lot of the time but they keep going this pathological drive that seems to be in some way mitigated in Russians.
Joe:: It may be just a hangover from like you said they've been on it for a long time in the sense they've been the chief enemy of the west for most of the latter half of the 20th century. So it's hard to kind of come back from that and maybe in some way that just installed itself in Russian mentality in the Russian mind and it's not so easy to suddenly after 1990 when it falls and you have the breakup of the Soviet Union, it's hard to get rid of that. Even if was a manufactured kind of opposition it was real in a certain sense but not in a way the communist threat the way that the Americans presented and its maybe not so easy just to wipe that all away. Maybe they created an opposition there by using the Soviet Union for so long as this horrible red menace that was going to take over the freedom loving people of the world.
Niall: But red menace isn't there anymore so now they desperately try to paint it as a menace in other ways. In ways that are pathetic because they're irrelevant issues. Oh the toilet didn't work in Sochi, there's like this desperate scrambling to get a dig in. I think Russia has succeeded. The place was destroyed after 1990. Economic shock therapy decimated Russia, the population shrank and now unemployment in the US is what, the real rate of unemployment is about 35%, in Russia its 6%. I wonder if there is some part of that pathological vehemence comes from crap that the Russians are doing one better than us. They do the same things as us, they still have a system where there are elites and they do well for themselves personally for most. But in the process Putin is actually popular. Can you imagine the US president in the 60% popularity rating consistently? Has there ever been one?
Pierre: Historically you have few and far between. You have national leaders that pop up for various reasons, I don't know if it's kind of higher order cosmic balance. Once in a while you have a not fully blown psychopath that manages to get to be the leader of country maybe because of the cultural substratum of the nation, of the people, maybe in awe because of the very complexion of the leader? Maybe Putin is one of those few examples of a not totally psychopathic leader. That's why he sticks out so much.
Niall: The headlines are all about Ukraine but who in the west knows that for the last year at least there've been serious riots and protests. In the next country over in Bulgaria, a member of the European Union, people are setting themselves on fire in Bulgaria, it's that bad.
Pierre: In Greece, in Italy, in France popular uproar is spreading everywhere but the leaders of those nations are not bashed.
Niall: Speaking of revolution in le France, something's going on here, it's been brewing for a while. It's a marked contrast to bloody street battles in the Ukraine and it's a rather funny form of revolt.
Pierre: Yes it's quite different, quite opposite to what is going on in Ukraine where it's at least partly manufactured by people in uproar and rebellion - we have to be quick because we do not have much time left. There have been three different demonstrations, mass demonstrations in France. One was the red hat, people in Brittany because of a new tax project. During the demonstration there were a lot of different populations together under the same banner against the government basically. You had the small business managers, you had independent workers, you had unemployed people, you had employees trained to defend their rights. Interestingly, this movement was bashed by the unions who are usually the organizers of the demonstration. The unions pointed a finger at the movement saying it should not happen, it was bad, it was not the right time and historically in France for decades and a lot of countries as unions are part of the oligarchy it's a tool, an intricate tool that is aiming to control popular movements, demonstrations in particular which sometimes are the first step of more global popular movements. Then you have a second demonstration that was against the president and where you had all kinds of populations again. Students, employees, everybody criticizing the government, the abuses, the loss of rights, the loss of purchasing power and a lot of them mentioning Dieudonné and the quenelle where we talk about it soon. And the third demonstration was against the new laws that were passed now are going to be passed about the gender theory, about the additional gay rights, it mobilized like 500,000 people.
Niall: According to the organizers the police said there were 18,000.
Pierre: According to the organizer half a million. So you have three different mass demonstrations where for the first time since a long time you have a very different population sub groups that transcend their differences and demonstrate for their rights or some rights against the government, against the elite. In those three cases you have another common denominator is the recurring mention of Dieudonné. So we've talked about Dieudonné, a French comedian, very popular, very gifted who has made something almost nobody has done before. He has called a spade a spade and he has described the French nation as being ruled by an oligarchic Zionist financial that basically destroys the country. And he's becoming, not voluntarily, I don't think it was his plan, he's becoming kind of a hero and the people resonate with his humor, they resonate with his personality and they resonate about all with what he is saying. So it's a kind of powerful symbol that is transcending those divisions and that is inspiring people and that maybe the worst thing for the elite is that it's channeling all this growing anger towards the real culprit; the elites and their abuses.
Joe:: Just to be clear on here, the whole thing that Dieudonné claims that the French government is ruled by a Zionist elite, what he really means there, because he's of African descent and Muslim descent, what he means is that they're racist in a certain sense. The same way that the Israelis are racists against Palestinians and racist against pretty much all Arabs and Muslims and have been on the forefront of promoting this clash, this bogus clash of civilizations that's allowed the US and British and Western Governments to go around the world and bomb it and take possession of it. The Israelis have been kind of at the center of promoting that ethos, that ideology which has done so much damage and killed so many people and created such division amongst people in the world that in the same way that ideology in France applies in the government and its anti-French Muslims or French people of North African descent as Dieudonné is. So he's not necessarily saying that, you know what I mean because we have to define what Zionist actually means. It doesn't mean that the people in the French government are all supporting the expansion of Israel because that's what Zionism is; a homeland for Israel and a Greater Israel project. That's not necessarily what it means. It hasn't meant that for a long time.
Pierre: Well they're several things, Alain Soral, a French philosopher and Dieudonné, this French comedian have been pointing the finger on Zionism amongst other problems. Zionism is rampant in France. Zionism is not a religion, as we stated previously, it's a political ideology based on racism basically. Zionism is not only present in Israel, it's also rampant in France and most politicians, more than that most journalists are pro Zionists. They're not necessarily Jews, there's a lot of Jews who are not Zionists. It means the best anti-Zionist activists are Jews actually and a lot of pro-Zionists are Christian, not Jew or even some Muslims are pro-Zionist. In any case, you said he talked about anti-French and what is interesting is when we try to understand why there is such a dynamic, sure there is a leader or two leaders, Soral and Dieudonné, but why are people resonating with that? They see that at the core of these deep popular dynamics are two factors and ironically those factors seemed to come from the propaganda, what was put in the mind of the French population for generations.
The French generation is highly neurotic, highly depressed, very high suicide rate. Mostly because I think of the education system that is highly destructive, however this education system put in the minds of French people two things; its intellectualism that can be obnoxious and destructive that to some extent thanks to this destructive education system still can think to some extent so that they can analyze and understand partly what Soral is saying, what Dieudonné is saying and discern what the elites are saying and at the same time what they are doing, the discrepancies, so there is this disparity in this capacity to think. And the second point is you know this mythos about French revolution, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity you know. It instilled in the French mind this French arrogance. What is the core of their arrogance is this pride of being French, this pride about the country of France. I'm not saying it's legitimate or illegitimate, but this arrogance is there. So very interestingly today most French people still can think a little bit and now animated by this pride, love of France and see that Dieudonné, in sold out shows, against those elites, above all the Zionist oligarchical facets of anti-French, they are destroying France, the very core of the pride of most French people.
Joe:: And those ideals of Equality, Fraternity and Liberty essentially theoretically for all they're infringing, they're trashing that standing on that and that's what is being invoked in a latent way in the French psyche type thing and that's how they resonate with Dieudonné. They don't necessarily resonate with Dieudonné's stance of let's get rid of the Zionists and anti-Israel or pro-ethnic minorities in France because obviously it's not just ethnic minorities in France that are coming out to protest, there's obviously white Caucasian French people coming out and protesting as well and they don't necessarily resonate with those same things that children of immigrants from North Africa resonate with so there is a more broad all-encompassing ideology that Dieudonné is promoting and its essentially anti-establishment, anti-corruption, anti-elite and he should be more on Soral I think. I know he is to a large extent but he's been marginalized, they're trying to marginalize that part of his message and focus on the fact that he's anti-Israel and therefore anti-Semitic, you know because he's Muslim, he's an easy target for that.
Niall: He's not Muslim.
Joe:: Well he's not a Muslim but he comes from that background.
Niall: He looks brown, his ancestors are from Cameroon.
Joe:: that is the way he's characterized you know.
Pierre: You are right. The main message developed by Soral and by Dieudonné is the anti-system message. One of the numerous facets of this system in France, I believe is the pro-Zionist one in several aspects. So he's been used of course and it's the same old story they're creating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. But I'm going to give you an example of how the lines of force are moving and its Soral, who like Dieudonné, are being harassed with death threats, they're been beaten, they're going through 6 for 1, 8 for the other court cases. There are being investigated by the tax authorities and all kinds of harassments you can imagine. Their websites are being hacked and their stats on YouTube and Facebook are being tweaked, everything possible, their house has being raided six times etc., etc. In any case, at the end of the court case involving Soral and JDL, the Jewish Defense League an organization that is considered a terrorist organization and banned in the US and in most countries in the world. I think it's legal in France and Israel.
Niall: No, it's actually banned in Israel too. It's legal in Canada and France.
Pierre: So you can imagine the kind of people participating in such an organization. At the end of the court case opposing Soral and JDL, you have the supporters of the JDL who start to sing hail Israel with a lot of policemen around. Then you have the supporters of Soral, who are more numerous, all kinds of people: white, black, poor and unemployed students whatever, who start to sing La Marseillaise, the French anthem. And then the police were kind of hostile to the Soral people because they are depicted as extreme right anti-Semitic. That's the usual attack in France. If anything threatens the system, you are labeled extreme right because it's been demonized for other reason, we can develop another show, for several decades now. And then the police start to support the Soral guys because they have this thing in common this pro-French sentiment and right now that's where the lines of force are in most of the French peoples' mind. It's either you're pro-French or anti-French and the media and the elites are trained to twist it to whether you're anti-Semitic or pro-Semitic.
Joe:: Hang on a second here. Do we have a caller on the line?
Caller: Yeah.
Joe:: Hi.
Niall: Hi.
Caller: Hi, how are you doing?
Joe:: What's your name and where are you calling from?
Caller: Yeah, Kent from West Virginia.
Joe:: Hey Kent, how you doing?
Kent: Pretty good. I came in when you were talking about Dieudonné, I've been following him with a great deal of interest. Taking you back, you were talking about Putin and you touched on an idea that I had been wondering about because of course I know they have a constitution and they went through this process where Medvedev and Putin switched positions there once before. I'm wondering how long his term is. I think he is a pretty fairly young man. I'm thinking in terms of either like him to be there as long as possible, so do you think he'll become so popular that it's possible that they could revise their constitution and change that feature? I know it's happened in other countries or do you think he'll just be Medvedev two steps once again or I'd hate to think of a world without a counterbalancing figure like Putin.
Niall: Well, in older times - actually not just in older times - somebody who at least thought he had a popularity made himself dictator for life and you see where they come from they're use to this kind of thing. This whole democracy is great, yeah they kind of fell for that for a while but the Russians got wise to that when they saw what happened to them in 1990's. Yeah, I could easily see them just changing the constitution. Putin's in his first of his second pair of terms, if you want to think of it that way, I can easily see him being reelected for a second term. And somewhere along the way maybe they'll suggest change in the constitution but that's far off, it's still another 10 years away. Anything can happen between now and then. He could become unpopular if he makes a mistake he's no longer there, what then we the bulwark to keep Russia in its more or less successful defense position. We'll see then if it's more of a cultural thing or if it was Putin holding it all together. I'd like to think that he thinks long term enough to be thinking of a "successor". A lot will change between now and the world after Putin.
Joe:: I think ultimately what will spell the end of Russia is when the west, the US and the Brits, when enough time has passed for them to develop their kind of inroads or their infection into Russia. They haven't been able to do that, they've been blocked. They tried to do it on a few occasions but they haven't gotten anywhere like they have with other countries where they're able to essentially dictate who gets into power in any country. In Russia, maybe because of the whole turmoil after the fall of the Soviet Union and the break out of the various countries, since then they didn't get a foothold and they weren't able to essentially colonize it covertly. But when they are able to do that and you will stir people up for a revolution let's say in Russia, that's their modus operandi and it works repeatedly and when they're able to do that, that's like I say it's the last domino that'll fall. I don't know if they'll be able to stop that from happening but the rest of the world doesn't really testify it to anybody being able to hold out very long against that kind of a tactic where you essentially use people of a foreign country to overthrow a government and install one that are more to your liking.
Kent: Yeah, well I'm hoping that doesn't happen and I agree with you 100% and I know he threw out some of these "NGO's" a while back and that sort of thing so I know he's on guard for all this type of stuff. I wanted to ask you maybe another question I know I can detect a Dublin accent there, I've been hearing about this guy Shatter who is, I lived in Ireland decades ago for a little while and I just happened to hear about him, he's been given some sort of super ministerial position or something I don't know? What's gone on with that? Minister of Justice and Minister this and Minister that. It's a portfolio of 3 or 4 different portfolios all bound into 1 or something?
Joe:: Yeah Alan Shatter his name is?
Kent: Yeah.
Niall: To be honest, we stay away from Irish politics. We keep an eye on things.
Joe:: You did notice the accent but I actually do keep an eye on it, but I actually haven't read much about that. Is there something...he's Jewish.
Kent: Yeah, that's what I've heard. Well I've wrote a few things about it in the internet and I thought well maybe you were up to speed on it. Anyway I don't blame you for that. I will shy away from it.
Joe:: We'll look into it now it's piqued our interest, maybe there's something on it we'll give a few minutes to it next week maybe.
Kent: Yeah, okay well I appreciate that. Thanks a lot.
Joe:: Thanks for your call.
Niall: Thank you, bye, bye. Alan Shatter, he's Jewish?
Joe:: Yeah.
Niall: I know there was a small community of Jews in Ireland.
Joe:: Well, there is in most places. On the Jewish thing, just let's get this thing out because we talked about this recently.
Niall: This isn't going to get us into trouble is it?
Joe:: No.
Niall: Okay, cool.
Joe:: It's you know as the world turns.
Niall: It goes through space. The Jews do that.
Joe:: As the world increasingly goes downhill and you have social unrest and you have this threat of major social unrest in terms of maybe food shortages and climate change causing that, things going downhill on a global scale, on a large scale in society. When people get in that state of mind, there's a mob mentality and like we were saying earlier in the show, people do not think very well. They've been prevented from thinking or developing their thinking abilities for decades or centuries maybe, and if the prognosis for human society isn't very good and we suspect that there're going to be some major upheaval on the social scale. With that mob mentality and the breakdown of law and order let's say, very often what happens is that the people will turn on minorities in any given society. There are many minorities and oppressed societies around the world and it's not their fault. There're simply minorities by a victim of circumstance or colonialism or whatever and in a lot of societies they're not fairly well integrated so maybe they're not really a distinct minority in that sense, they're protected in that sense. But there's one minority around the world, they're not widely spread and it's the Jews and they, not by an individual Jewish choice but by as a result of their ideology and their leaders and the way they've been directed throughout history, they have made themselves separate. They have consciously and sometimes vocally - well always vocally - expressed their difference from everybody else. They do it vocally, they do it subtly in different ways but most people have that understanding about Jewish communities that they're separate and apart and that is largely as a result of the attitude and the approach and the beliefs of Jewish communities themselves.
So the point is that's very dangerous. It's okay when things are okay in this society. You can do it and you can be a special select group and you can have privileges and stuff like that. But when things go pear shaped, it's the worst situation to be in and it smacks of a self-fulfilling prophecy as well, given the Jewish history. And they've been manipulated by their leaders to be in this position, to see themselves as separate and special, chosen and all that kind of stuff and its terrible because if the shit does hit the fan there's a distinct possibility that they would be one of a few select groups that will be targeted not because of any grand conspiracy against Jews by all the gentiles the goys but simply because that's what happens to minorities in this case.
Niall: Historically the Jews and also homosexuals are the first to be pushed down.
Pierre: Let me add something here. I don't think it's if the mob turns against the elite that kind of civil war uprising. The elite are the very victim and they might target more likely not the minorities per say but the privileged minorities. And today, as a matter of fact, some minorities are over represented amongst the elites: Freemasons, Gays, and Jews, the same population that was targeted during Second World War. So indeed if the mob falls into this frenzied anger going after the elites those privileged minorities might become targets and it would be a very sad story because amongst Freemasons or Jews or Gays you have elite members and you have non-elite members. You have bad guys and you have good guys, but during this moment there's not much space for discernment, reason and...
Joe:: Exactly.
Pierre: ...called thinking. And that's what is actually brewing in France and we don't know what tomorrow holds. But clearly they're several indicators that we are not far away from a major difficult to control popular movement directed against the elites.
Joe:: Well I wouldn't say that's it's going to be directly against the elites because the elites always escape generally speaking or at least and especially in this technology age. My point was that Jews having set themselves apart in the popular mind and the general consensus is that they are separate they are a distinct group and they do that very deliberately and very overtly so that a situation of mass uprising or chaos or unrest that it's the ordinary Jewish people who may well be the target of the ire of a hungry and desperate mob of people looking for a scapegoat and they maybe even be given them as a scapegoat to attack. So the point is it's just such a tragic situation that ordinary Jewish people have been led into this situation. Like I said it's not so bad and hasn't been in a lot of good times its fine but, and I'm not talking about the Second World War here because that was different situation, well again it was minorities who attacked in Nazi Germany and people who are seen to be separate and different and the Jewish people have been manipulated into keeping themselves apart by their leaders when they shouldn't and in the past throughout history at a certain point they did disperse and just become a French citizen or a British citizen or an American citizen but that was all after the holocaust and after the Second World War, that was taken back and they were "we're special, look we were attacked" it's just such a horrible self-fulfilling prophecy. What I'm saying is that, now in these current circumstances where there may be massive social unrest as a result of climate change, it's not a good position to be in.
Pierre: It's true. In France, it's a particularly sensitive topic because of civil historical factor. In any case, today anti-Zionism is one of the main political topics that are bringing all these people together, these demonstrations and this desire to change things. Why, because Zionism is very present. In France in 1990, the law called the Gayssot Act that basically in this country you can discuss anything except the holocaust. If you discuss the holocaust, you might go to jail. Today France is not a secular country. It's a religious country and the religion is for the holocaust, it's gone this far. This Dieudonné guy is one of the most popular personalities in France who is bashed and almost destroyed because he dared. The beginning was not the quenelle this anti-system movement, it all started a few years earlier when he dared doing a sketch where he was impersonating an Israeli settler. He dared pointing the finger at the racist policy of Israel, how everything started.
Niall: He was doing it in the form of a comedy sketch.
Pierre: Of course.
Niall: It was truthful but it was funny and he meant no harm in it.
Pierre: But its taboo. In France you cannot go there and there is this sentiment in addition you have this discourse in France in the schools you keep having this teaching about the shoa, the concentration camps, this kind of permanent reinforcement of the guilt. In a generation that we're not even born during the Second World War, in a country of France that is depicted as highly anti-Semitic and highly collaborative with the Nazi regime although 75% of the French Jews survived the Second World War as the highest survival rate because the French people were not giving away their Jewish neighbors and you have French Jewish kids who are still allowed to go to school during the Second World War. That's the only country with Denmark in Europe that didn't say "Okay, Jewish kids are forbidden in school." You have most French kids have their school trips to concentration camps. You have this overused guilt of the memory of the holocaust and at the same time aimed at the French population that is fundamentally not anti-Semitic and used by Zionist people. So today I think to comment on what
Joe: was saying, today and in the near future when people will be "what will the Jewish people do?" because they're so instrumentalized. They are used by Zionists.
You have all those French leaders, those Zionist and Israeli leaders, intellectuals in France like Daniel Levy and Cohen etcetera, etcetera, who control many aspects of French political and economic life. And we keep saying "Look anti-Semitism here and there and here and there." They create this sentiment of fear and hate and they are the ones who push the French Jews to go to Israel. They're not the ones who are going to Israel and that the one who are hysterizing the population and the ones who are triggering this anger from the people. This anger is directed to those Zionist oligarchs. But in the end the victims, as you say
Joe:, it won't be those guys. They will escape with the Jewish people. So the Jewish people today thought that they are the only ones who have enough legitimacy to criticize Zionism. Is it because if you are not Jew and you criticize Zionism, in France at least, basically you go to jail or you will be destroyed by the system. So they will be called self-hating Jews that can still spread this message.
Niall: France in fact has been exceptionally tolerant of Jews.
Pierre: Of course.
Niall: And the politically ideology of Zionism
Pierre: It's been the country that is most abused by the Zionist process.
Joe:: Like we were saying before, the problem here is when you say the political ideology of Zionism, what are you talking about?
Niall: Exactly.
Joe:: French people do not have a problem as I understand it, do not have a problem with the fact that pity and remorse is extended to Jewish people for the holocaust. That's not something that I think most white French people will complain about. They've passed a law you're not allowed to criticize or question the holocaust or publish any books on it etc. I think most French people are happy with that, why would you? Most French people accept that the holocaust happened and that the Jews were persecuted by Hitler.
Pierre: Of course.
Joe:: So French people which is white French people, when they protest against the government or when they side with Dieudonné, my understanding is that cannot be the primary motivator in their protests or in their siding with Dieudonné. Because like I said, Dieudonné is very much popular with primarily the kind of Muslim and the minority communities. They're his most ardent supporters because he talks so much about the Israelis and Muslims in France identify very strongly with anybody who is anti-Israel and anti-Zionist. Well what is Zionism? When we say Zionism in relation to Israel, you're talking about the way that the Israeli treats the Palestinians and Muslims in France identify with Muslims in Palestine because of the same religion. What about the Catholic white French people who would be identifying with what Dieudonné is saying? He's obviously saying more than just the Zionists are controlling the French government. But what does that even mean? The point that I'm getting at here is that Zionism as an ideology that today is used simply to back up the west's war on Islam which is essentially a war on imperial expansion, where the rich elite continue to enrich themselves through colonial conquest and ultimately to the detriment of the ordinary people of France. So for ordinary people of France it must be some other reason why they would get out into the street and do the quenelle. They see it as an anti-establishment, anti-elite, anti-corruption symbol and that's why they're willing to get out on the streets. Not because they feel some kind of a close affinity with the past for example or with what Israel is doing in Palestine. Maybe a lot of them would think that well they have to have something else.
Pierre: That's right but the way I perceive it from reading all those exchanges amongst supporters of Dieudonné and Soral is of course there are many reasons to be anti-Semitic and anti-establishment. Zionism sticks out though, it does. Not because there is this strong solidarity perceived amongst the French people towards the oppressed Palestinian population. That because legitimately I'm not, there is this feeling that what they call Zionism is this ideology that permeates lately rather a large percentage of the elite and that is anti-French. That's why I was giving this example of the quote. That's why it galvanized so much the French population.
Joe:: In what way is Zionism anti French like we're saying earlier on its anti-liberty, quality and fraternity?
Niall: You see the French nation and revolution built on that. You are insulting France when you insult what is actually universal concepts.
Pierre: I'm going to go there but the sociologic composition of the Dieudonné supporters, actually it's not Muslim or North African young population that are the most represented. The most represented are the typical supporters of Dieudonné and Soral is white, is Christian, is French, is working as a student and is about 28 to 30 years old.
Joe:: The point is why are those people supporting him? What is it that Dieudonné says that they support? If it's the white French Catholics, they have no affinity with Palestinians in particular. So you said that they identify with this anti-Zionist stance, so the question is what is Zionism? What within Zionism pisses off a white Catholic French person?
Pierre: Okay, two things: in general they identify with the anti-establishment, anti-elite discourse. They agree with that and they see some truth in it. And in particular they resonate with the anti-Zionist discourse because they consider that Zionism fundamentally defending the interest of Israel is anti-French. And when you have leaders, supposedly French leaders, ministers, or even presidents that obviously their main concern is not necessarily to France but to Israel or other external powers, this touches the very core of the French people as a way they've been programmed.
Joe:: They're not for French and France first. Their affinity, their loyalty is divided at the very least to a foreign country as no real light to that kind of affinity and they say that's not French, it's not fair, it's not right for you guys.
Pierre: And that's way the quenelle is depicted by the elite and the media as an inverted Nazi salute as anti-Semitic because the fundamental division is pro-French or anti-French i.e. Zionist or pro-Israel. And the twist is not so much because we know how much amalgam and twisting and mixing up of the Zionist and anti-Semite concept has been done, so they transform this pro-French versus Zionist anti-French into pro-Semitic versus anti-Semitic and that's where all the debates and all the process will happen, where will people go.
Joe:: Yep. Okay, we're going to leave it there for this week folks. We've run over our time by almost half an hour (gasps). I've hope we didn't keep you up too late.
Niall: Well in fairness Blog Talk Radio let that happen there
Joe:: Yeah, so we'll blame Blog Talk Radio for keeping you up so late, send your hate mail to them. Thanks to all our listeners and to our chatters and to all our listeners obviously. We'll be back next week with another show and you'll be able to find out what it is in the usual places. So until then, thanks for listening and have a good one.
Niall: Good bye.
Pierre: Bye.
Reader Comments
to our Newsletter