Running Time: 02:05:00
Download: MP3
Here's the transcript:
Joe: Hi and welcome to SOTT Talk Radio. I'm Joe Quinn. My co-hosts this week are: Niall Bradley,
Niall: Hi there.
Joe: Jason Martin,
Jason: Hello.
Joe: And Pierre Lescaudron.
Pierre: Hello.
Joe: This week we are talking about all the stuff that's going on in the world; surprise, surprise. The reason we're talking about all the stuff that's going on in the world is because there's a lot of stuff going on in the world. And it's nasty stuff. Things like: war in Ukraine, Ferguson shooting.
Jason: Hemorrhagic fever.
Joe: Islamic state crazy Jihadi nut jobs coming to get you and your family and your grandparents and everybody in their beds at night because they are under your bed.
Jason: Swedish police stampeding people with horses.
Joe: Not only that but...
Niall: Ebola.
Joe: Exactly. If the Islamic State doesn't get you, Ebola's going to get you. And maybe both of them will get you at the same time. That's the worst case scenario.
Jason: Islamic Ebola?
Joe: Islamic State Ebola.
Jason: Hemorrhagic Islam.
Joe: Exactly. That doesn't bear thinking about. But there you go.
Pierre: And Gaza.
Joe: And Gaza of course. Yes, there is a lot of stuff going on, not to mention of course all the crazy weather and earth changes and climate change.
Jason: And it's all kind of connected.
Pierre: That's an important point.
Joe: Well, it's all theoretically connected. It's all circumstantially connected because it's all happening at the same time.
Jason: It's still quite a bit of a coincidence but throughout history in times of very big collapses, especially of large empires, this is exactly the kind of stuff that was going on. And in hindsight we always realize that actually it was part of a humanity disease going on; the spread of psychopathy and the hysteria going around which actually just hastens the whole problem. Kind of in the same way a person who contracts a disease or a virus has a great big fever to try to shut it off and a lot of times the person dies from the fever which is the defense mechanism against the invading bodies. So we kind of see that now going on. Humanity is acting as if they're in a gigantic fever.
Pierre: And we've been wondering quite a lot about the causation. Is it human operation that leads to cosmic cataclysm, or is it cosmic cataclysm that hysterizes the population, which leads to demonstrations, uprisings and more oppression? Actually it might be both ways. It might be some kind of positive feedback loop of negative events. Where you start with oppression, then you have these cosmic reactions so people react even more, there's even more instability, even more desire to control, like cosmic reactions, and so on and so on. It seems that we enter this very nasty loop where there's an escalation of oppression and cosmic reactions. Where will it end?
Jason: One of the ways I've always looked at it is it's a bit like when a big storm is coming, there are lots of animals that are really sensitive to it and they start acting totally crazy, even sometimes suicidal. And it seems like that's what's going on now. Whether or not people influence that in a cosmic scale, I don't know. But we know, I think, for a fact that because of the nature of human beings and because of the nature of all life on the planet, they are highly affected by cosmic energy sources; the sun and radiation. So I think it's definitely connected.
Pierre: You can have psychopaths who sense on an unconscious level the doom that is coming and become more ruthless and more oppressive.
Jason: Trying to get theirs while the getting's good.
Pierre: Yeah, before it's too late.
Joe: Just before we get into any more details I just want to mention as well that, we say this every week, or even most weeks, but people can call in with their questions or comments on any topic really. But specifically if you have something on the topics that we're discussing today that would be good. But all options are on the table as is often said these days.
Pierre: Calls most welcome. Today I'm going to play the role of the stupid mainstream supporter again since I played the role last time. So I've got my blond wig and I have my special voice [adopts high pitched voice] "Israelis have the right to defend themselves against Hamas rockets, right?"
Joe: Well we've already discussed that last week.
Pierre: No, it was an example. So maybe we can talk about Ukraine and the latest developments. So what is going on in Ukraine and maybe the first point of the genesis of this Ukrainian conflict? It seems odd that Crimea was separated from Ukraine in a rather peaceful way and all of a sudden some kind of civil war exploded in the rest of the country. So if there is a logical link, what are the roots of this conflict? Who is fighting who and what for?
Jason: Why was Crimea safely extricated from Ukraine without any violence, no shots being fired? Why do we see the Novorossiya republic having a bit of trouble? And it's quite simple. Crimea was more strategically interesting to the Russians and they already had a giant military base there with a lot of soldiers, and the Nazi party ruling Kiev right now, while they are completely and totally insane and incompetent, they are not that stupid to try to attack Russia in that way. They would never do it.
But the problem is that the eastern Ukraine is just simply not as strategically important to the Russians as Crimea was. That's my opinion of it and why they were so soft and gentle with Crimea and why it's been so horrible for the eastern Ukrainians. As terrible as that sounds, Russia's not really going to go immediately to a world war over it, which probably would have started if shots had been fired.
Niall: There was recently the humanitarian convoy that, just yesterday or the day before, finally got into Ukraine and left again. The hysteria over that was just par for the course now with Kiev. We know what to expect from them. But it was just potatoes and insulin and what they said it was. In the end the Russian convoy just went in, brought it to Lugansk city in the eastern Ukraine, and then just returned to Russia.
Jason: What's most interesting though is the reaction to it. People are talking about it as a 'humanitarian invasion'. Seriously, there are people getting angry about "How dare they invade with their humanitarian aid!!" Hold on a second. There are people starving who need medicine. How is this a bad thing? It doesn't matter. There are people who are suffering and they're bringing them food and medicine. It's absolutely incredible to see these people just sit there and act as if this is a violent, aggressive act from Russia to send medicine to people who are in need.
Pierre: Is there evidence that it was really a humanitarian convoy? Because mainly western media are claiming it was a covert military action.
Niall: It was inspected four times, all 280 trucks, by the OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe).
Pierre: Which is a European organization?
Niall: No, international. And they verified that the cargo manifest had what they said they had.
Pierre: Food and medicine.
Niall: Yeah.
Joe: Well, to be honest, it's actually asymmetric warfare that Russia is waging with this humanitarian aid convoy because the Palestinian-Ukraine, of the Kiev junta, is the same policy that is followed by any kind of nation state, or state force or state military that is dealing with an insurgency or rebellion. They basically bomb the crap out of the entire area where the rebels are; kill civilians and rebels alike to create conditions that are painful enough that people, maybe not the rebels themselves but certainly the civilian population in the area, will stop supporting the rebellion; call for peace, call for some kind of an end to the conflict which would, in that situation, usually favor the regime, the government forces. By bringing this aid in, Russia is thwarting the development of that scenario where people would be really past the point where they are able to deal with or to support the separatist movement any longer.
So that's why I think that's understood by Poroshenko and his puppets. Poroshenko himself is a puppet but the Kiev regime, and the NATO/US/EU backers and advisors, they all understood that that's why there's so much resistance to allowing them so many lies and manipulations, to try and pitch it as an aggressive act. They're trying to stop the Russians from allowing humanitarian aid in because while it is humanitarian aid, it is a non-linear, asymmetric kind of response to what the Kiev forces were doing in eastern Ukraine which is just bombing the hell out of the population.
Pierre: According to western media, Russian aid isn't only summarized by humanitarian aid. Apparently Russian troops, Russian armored vehicles, crossed the border. Some fighters have been training in Russian combat in eastern Ukrainian territory. What's your take on this intervention of Russia?
Niall: I would be surprised if that was not happening. What surprises me more is that they have not actually found any evidence of it yet. Now, in the middle of this convoy stand-off with the convoys on the Russian side of the border, there was a whole international press corps there. They are invited to go and inspect the convoy for themselves, they're milling around, and they're tweeting live reports. Then one day last week at the height of this, just before they went in, I was watching what was being said. A couple of British journalists there first claimed that they were tracking Russian military personnel, a smaller convoy, driving along the border and going up to a hole in the fence and maybe going inside. They couldn't see how far. They were quickly told to get lost. And this became a Guardian report that said "Oh, Guardian can confirm that a Russian military convoy crossed into Ukraine". Kiev then goes "Oh, Guardian report confirms it. Yes, yes! We confirm that that military convoy that crossed into Ukraine was blown up by us. Yes, yes! Our evidence is what was said on Twitter by those Guardian and Telegraph journalists."
How do they get into this? We can see it in real time; they're forming a casus belli, a justification for war based on: "I saw", "he saw", "maybe", "we're not sure", and "tweets". It comes back to tweets, which is of course what the US state department said is all you need: "Social media and common sense".
Joe: It's all completely manufactured and they've gotten to the point, they're so desperate where they are not holding back with just completely fabricated events; all in service to this ridiculous drive to demonize Russia. I don't think they're looking for a casus belli. It's basically negative propaganda and they're hoping that their propaganda offensive will be enough to stop Russia, because the Kiev regime obviously isn't strong enough to deal with some separatists in eastern Ukraine, never mind take Russia on. So there's no chance of them trying to bait Russia into invading Ukraine so they can launch an attack on Russia because they would be wiped out.
And apparently NATO, the EU and the US don't have the cajones for it because Russia is a big country and it's not like Libya or Syria. They can't do to Russia what they did to the other smaller states. So they're kind of stuck. So that's why we see this ridiculous and really aggressive, and to the extent of just making things up, propaganda offensives, where they're trying to stop Russia by words and by lies and by manipulations and hoping to get the force of public opinion in the west to stop Russia from doing what it's going to do. And it's not working because the Russians are just like, "Whatever. You're all idiots."
Niall: Meanwhile there are real consequences. The UN says about 2,000 people have been killed and up to 750,000 have fled into Russia. Actually, Russian sources say the death toll is closer to 10,000. Ten thousand! And this is just non-existent in western reporting.
Joe: They said that the figures are 10,000 among the civilian population?
Niall: Yeah. Dead.
Pierre: What is the breakdown? Is it mostly civilians and what kind of civilians and on which side?
Niall: But there's only one side in the civilian camp. You're basically looking at two provinces of what is basically Russia.
Pierre: And who's killing them?
Niall: Well up to now I would have just simply said Kiev. But I've been seeing more and more reports in the area using this term "a third force". There are reports of people who come in one day, storm a village or town in one uniform and then others recognize them wearing the opposite uniform, turning up at another slaughter somewhere else.
Joe: What do you mean the opposite uniforms?
Niall: Well one day they're wearing Ukrainian army fatigues and the next day they're wearing the Georgian ribbon pretending to be rebels. You've also got a statement from a Ukrainian army negotiator. He's a pretty senior guy, Colonel General Vladimir Rubin.
Pierre: Rubin, yes.
Niall: He's a negotiator. He's trusted by all people in the region because he negotiates the release of hostages and helps people find missing relatives and so on. So they talk to him and he gets information from them. So he has no interest in inventing this stuff. He asked "Who is doing this? Who is shelling civilian infrastructure?", because the eastern Ukrainian army has no mandate, has no orders to do so. He's asked here by a Ukrainian journalist for Ukrainskya Pravda, "Who is the third party?" He says, "I don't know yet. We just called it the third party." Besler, who's a Donbass rebel commander, also calls it a third party. They're trying to find out where they're coming from. He then comments, "Someone is not interested in ending this war". The journalist then goes, "But Russia does not recognize that there's a war". And he says in response "What does Russia have to do with this?" The journalist asks, "Oh you believe Russia is not involved in all this?" And he says to him, "Do you see any Russian troops here?", "Officially no.", "You will also not see them unofficially", says the colonel of the Ukrainian army "because they are not here. If you have seen someone who's Russian and military, this does not imply Russian government involvement". Up and down the conflicts people are saying similar things.
Pierre: The following question is: cui bono? Who benefits from pouring oil on the fire? What is the third party, according to you?
Niall: Well, there's another clear case of third party involvement on the day this all blew up, on February 21st, when snipers of unknown origin shot people on both sides of barriers in Kiev. So it's the same people basically.
Pierre: Would it be the same people who blew down the MH17?
Niall: Same source, yeah, ultimately.
Joe: Well I think to get a few snipers together doesn't take much deep black kind of operations. You just hire a few mercenaries who will shoot at people for money. That's pretty easily done. People, who are obviously shooting at both sides of the barricades as we said, are the people who wanted to push the coup, push the supposed Maidan revolution and get rid of Yanukovych. That was the result of the bloodshed and the upping of the numbers of people killed. The result of that was Yanukovych had to leave. They put enough pressure on him to leave. And the people who wanted him to leave were the US state department. Victoria Nuland wanted a different government.
Niall: So that's your answer; US state department.
Joe: Yeah.
Pierre: Okay, but now Yanukovych has left and you still have the third party being active. What is their objective now?
Niall: To civil war-ize the country; do what they did in Iraq.
Pierre: Radicalize.
Jason: This whole thing smells of the Kitson doctrine; the Frank Kitson, soft, low-intensity operation. Basically going around dressed as different groups and just mixing up trouble, for trouble's sake in a certain sense, because they want the region destabilized. The goal is destabilization. That's their goal. And so this smells like either America or England or some sort of European-American weird intelligence agency, maybe Mossad, but all the people who really care at that level; maybe it's a bunch of free agents.
Joe: Yeah, you have to understand in this situation that the worse it gets, the better it is for Kiev in eastern Ukraine. The more people are killed, the more bloodshed, the more violent it gets, the better it is for Kiev because at that point, if it gets to the point where there's a large number of people dead, there'll be this force of international opinion or the UN or there'll be a lot of different avenues by which pressure can be put on the separatists and on Putin to resolve this.
Niall: Even though it's nothing to do with him basically. The killings weren't.
Joe: No, the killings have nothing to do with Putin, but they can kill lots and lots of civilians and claim that...
Niall: People have already been primed that it's all Putin's fault.
Joe: Yes, it is all Putin's fault. No, it's not all Putin's fault obviously. This is just my speculation, but I think it's reasonable enough to suggest that Putin is helping the separatists in eastern Ukraine. Putin said he took Crimea because he didn't want NATO and the US state department to come in and stage a coup and basically take Ukraine completely out of Russia's sphere of influence, particularly in terms of the big deal there with the gas supplies. This is a real attack on Russia's economy by staging a coup in Ukraine and obviously Crimea and the Black Sea fleet. So he secured the Black Sea fleet.
But there's no reason not to think that Putin and Russia isn't interested in doing what they started out to do in terms of their reaction to the coup in Ukraine, which was to push back, to stop them just running in and overrunning the place and doing what they wanted to do. So you can't separate the eastern Ukrainian rebellion from Russia's reaction to the coup. That doesn't mean that of course the separatists are genuinely motivated to not want to be part of a country that was aligned with Russia, pull them away from Russia, pass a bunch of Nazis and anti-Russian-speaking laws, and all that kind of stuff. So there's a genuine motivation for ordinary people and military people in eastern Ukraine to react against that. But their interests and the interests of Russia coincide.
So there's no reason to think that Russia would not in some way, or in every way they can, be helping those people, as we've just seen with them helping with humanitarian aid, b short of sending in Russian troops which changes the whole situation and loses the moral high ground and loses the narrative at that point, which is "We just want peace".
Jason: There's this kind of other aspect along with what's going on in the Ukraine is kind of the typical methodology used by the west throughout its history which is based on this Pavlovian transmarginal inhibition of shocking the population really, really bad. And then they're going to move in with the history rewriters to be able to produce a narrative for the people to rally behind, and the Americans obviously think that they're going to come in and they're going to dislodge the Ukraine completely from the Russian sphere, torture the population, transmarginal inhibition-ify them and then present the narrative of, 'it's all Russia's fault'. And of course they'll be so traumatized that they won't really be able to think critically anyway and they'll forget all of the times they saw the Kiev flag being flown during the bombing, then suddenly they'll immediately remember "Oh yeah, there were Russian troops here and they beat me".
You see that kind of stuff happen after these types of situations. The narrative gets produced and some of the people start having memories of things happening that they didn't have memories of when they were asked about a month ago.
Niall: Yeah.
Jason: And suddenly "Oh yeah, I saw that."
Niall: Totally.
Jason: And I think that Russia at the same time realizes this game, and I think that they're playing a game where they're going to let the west basically do this and they're going to try to come in with an opposing narrative. And they're working towards that now with this humanitarian aid. They want to make sure that their positions with their own narrative - as horrible as that sounds strategically speaking - is one theory that fits the facts of why there's so much pointless chaotic violence. How can they all be so incompetent? It's really kind of a competing situation unless you think of it as one of these sort of "shock doctrine" type of things.
Pierre: Yeah. So if I follow your reasoning, the battle is not only in Lugansk or Donetsk or Gaza, the most important battle maybe is the people's minds. And those puppet masters know that the main fight is there, in our minds. Joe was mentioning that Putin, or Russia, is probably helping the rebels in eastern Ukraine. How can you explain this asymmetry? On one side you have the US that for years and years has been supporting militarily all kinds of regimes, the worst ones, and everybody agreed with that obviously. And today you have this massive media uproar against Putin who would - because there is no evidence apparently - be supporting the rebels. How do you reconcile this?
Joe: You reconcile it by saying, "do what I say and not what I do". Its double standards. Its America rules supreme and has done for almost a hundred years and it's exceptional, it has the right to impose its policies and its doctrines and its beliefs on other people but other people are not allowed to do the same. It's a global dictatorship. And it's "what I say goes and if you give me any backchat, I'll send in my bombers".
Jason: I'm always a big fan of saying, "Hypocrisy is not a crime. It's a way of life." And for Americans as a general rule, and for all empires, hypocrisy is how they work. And people actually really love it. It's that cognitive dissonance type of stuff. It's the dissonance. You have to wonder, they seek it so often, and they just love it. Everyone talks about cognitive dissonance that it makes them uncomfortable. I think not. I think they're cognitive dissonance junkies. Because you see somebody in a five minute conversation, they can hold 15, 20 completely dissonant ideas at the same time. And you're like, "What are you, some kind of moron?!?!" But they love it. They get off on just being completely stupid.
Pierre: Before you mentioned transmarginal inhibition and the shock doctrine; according to some rebel leaders there have been cases of phosphorous bombs by Putin's army, fragmentation bombs, torture, even manhunts for sale on social media.
Jason: All the oldest sins in the newest way.
Pierre: Is it Russian propaganda?
Jason: No.
Pierre: Is it a reality?
Jason: It's the opportunities of war.
Niall: Yeah. I saw a transcript of an interview with a Donbass guy, I think he was in one of the militias. He seemed pretty level-headed in describing the kind of things he saw. He said he's seen Polish people, for example, among others coming from abroad, who are having an absolute blast of a time. Guys are shooting people in the head as they cycle to work and laughing about it. When you add in to that mix of creating the conditions for attracting certain types of people, it's very similar to what's happening in the Middle East in that respect as well.
Joe: People shouldn't underestimate the extent of a number of essentially psychopathic or severely ponerized individuals around the world today. You just look at western society and the kind of values that they espouse, and the kind of people that creates, and you have the element of psychopaths in there. There're a lot of them. And when you create an avenue, an arena for those people to just walk in and pick up a gun and start shooting other people. That's one of the things that psychopaths get off on. Like playing soldiers and playing "Yeah, I shot some people, isn't that great!" People need to understand the reality of that, and that there are many, many people like that. And that also applies to what's going on in Iraq and Syria.
Niall: Yeah. The first American that died in eastern Ukraine - you're thinking "Who? What? What?" - was a former major. He gave an interview to Vice News a couple of months ago. They basically gave him a free pass that he was there for all these righteous reasons. And some of the quotes were like, "I just hate Russians".
Joe: And damn commies. He was out to shoot some damn commies.
Niall: Yeah.
Pierre: How did he die?
Niall: I'm not sure.
Pierre: I think he's the guy who died because he was about to rape a girl and the grandfather, 82 years old, shot him.
Niall: That's someone else who was...
Pierre: A guerrilla leader in Maidan.
Niall: In Kiev. Some right sector dude in Maidan was killed recently because he was involved in some attempted rape. And yes, some grandfather came out with a shotgun and finished him.
Joe: Good!
Niall: One less asshole in the world.
Joe: It's kind of interesting. These people that we're talking about, the irregular army members in management places that you mentioned, in Ukraine, in Iraq, in Syria, and in Lebanon, these are essentially mercenaries and it's basically a situation of history repeating itself because towards the end of the Roman Empire there were a lot of mercenaries used by the Roman Empire to do their dirty work. These are people they pick up along the way, as the Roman Empire goes around invading and conquering different tribes and countries, there are many people there who say "Hey, you guys look like you're on the winning side. Can I join?" Yeah, "You just defeated me so obviously you're better than me. Can I join the winning side?" And these are obviously people who by that definition don't necessarily have a lot of honor or integrity or national pride or scruples. They're just guns for hire essentially. And you pick up a lot of them along the way. And that's what America has done, picked up a lot over the past 30, 40, 50 years. And those are the people that it uses now.
We were talking earlier on about this silly idea of fourth generation warfare. Some guy in a suit in Washington came up with this idea of four generations of warfare; first one being spears and swords and then gunpowder weapons, that kind of thing and then moving into more advanced technological armored weapons and planes. And the fourth generation is you don't use that at all. Nation states don't use their militaries to invade, they use proxy armies within the country that they want to attack or they bring mercenaries into the country. It's old history, but this is what he's talking about.
But this is what's going on and how the US, generally speaking, wages war. They don't use their own military.
Jason: There's an interesting point to this. It is universally accepted and written about, especially by Machiavelli, the worst decision a state can ever, ever make is to use mercenaries because if they're good, they will turn on you in the long run. Look at this ISIS stuff. It's obvious that they started this ISIS thing. And I bet you this ISIS thing got right away from them because you've got a big group of psychopaths, and they're getting all the guns and having all the fun and then all of a sudden they decide, "Hey! Why don't we really do this caliphate thing instead of fake doing it?" and then all of a sudden Washington's like, "Hold on! We didn't really mean for it to happen!" And now they're like "Oh, stabbed in the back by our own mercenaries".
Pierre: And in Ukraine you have this very asymmetric warfare. You have a regular army, Ukrainian army mercenaries with armored vehicles. On the other side you have a few people who come to defend the country, their roots, and their families. So it was an open and closed case apparently. So much for asymmetry. Apparently the rebels have been winning the recent fights. So would it be an illustration of what you say that on one side the regular army has people who are not motivated, who have no cause, no vision, no motivation.
Jason: No paychecks.
Joe: No paychecks and no guns.
Jason: You've got to understand how important the paycheck aspect is of any military. And that's probably why this whole situation in Ukraine wasn't settled a while ago because Kiev just did not have the money to pay these guys. They don't want to go around doing any of this stuff. They don't want to go into the bush and in the forest and trekking around with holes in their socks and their shoes falling apart and no toilet paper because the commissary ran out of money. No good food to eat and they're out there starving and hungry and cold.
Joe: Well that's actually the reality of the situation. When this year, like we were talking about today, Poroshenko, the puppet President in Ukraine, reinstated the national military parade in Kiev they feted whatever they had to pull out of the closet and dust the cobwebs off it and give it a paint job to sell Ukrainian national pride; together, strong, military, defend ourselves, blah, blah, blah, because those military parades had been banned by his ousted predecessor, Yanukovych, since he became President in 2009. So this is the first military parade in Kiev since 2009. But the important point there is that Yanukovych had banned them. My interpretation is that it was doing what the Russians didn't want - Kiev to be rabble-rousing or whipping the population up into a nationalistic fervor with military parades. That's kind of what it does. It makes people feel "We're a single nation and we're going to protect ourselves", blah, blah, blah. He didn't want that. Putin didn't want that. And there was no point in it either. But in line with that, the Ukrainian military was more or less just left to rot. And I think that even goes back before 2009, but certainly for the past four or five years there hasn't really been any significant military, in terms of training or regular movements or purchases of military equipment or anything like that, in quite a long time.
So when Russia responded, and it looked like Kiev was going to have to call on the Ukrainian military, they were like "Uh, can you give us a couple of years because we don't really have one." That's the problem really. So that's part of the reason why, I think, that the separatists have been doing so well in terms of holding the ground. But today also, talking about Poroshenko, he announced that he was going to spend $3 billion. I don't know where he's getting it from, probably kind of one of those things "Here's some money. Give it back to me". He's probably getting three billion from the US.
Jason: But he's only got promises of money, because there's no money.
Joe: Well he claims he's going to spend three billion on improving the military over the next few years. Whether or not that happens but that's the intention because he says "We're going to face a threat to Ukraine for the foreseeable future. We're going to be on alert against Russia."
Jason: What's the size of the American military budget? It's like a trillion or something?
Pierre: It's more than the military budgets of all the other countries together.
Jason: And he's going to spend $3 billion on the military? That's like a drop in the bucket. It can't pay for anything. You can buy two or three planes. Doesn't the average fighter jet cost $350 to $400 million?
Joe: The fancy ones, yeah.
Jason: Jeez, you can buy like four planes.
Joe: You can get Russian ones a lot cheaper. If he was smart he'd take the US's $3 billion and give it to Russia and say "Here, kick me out".
Pierre: And shipping is cheaper probably.
Jason: Yeah, exactly.
Joe: There's something very common sense there that you don't need to get from social media.
Jason: That's one of those loans that never really moves. They say you've got $3 billion and he says "Okay, give me a couple of planes or some bombs" and then they do.
Joe: It's a loan to these guys. But that's what they do all the time. You see the way these transactions go with the west and with the US in particular. They'll give countries loans of money to buy their products...
Jason: Like a voucher.
Joe: ...their weapons.
Jason: (singing) I owe my soul to the company store.
Joe: I was never good at accountancy, maybe there's some way you can write it off or something like that, there must be some sense in it on paper, but on the face of it, it doesn't really make much sense to give somebody $3 billion and then say, "Now give it back and I'll give you some planes." Just give me the planes. Why do the money transaction?
Jason: It's all in that song like Tennessee Ernie Ford was writing about, that whole concept of the company store where you didn't actually get paid any money. You were paid vouchers that you could use at the company store to get your food, your clothes and all that stuff and take it back home, right?
Joe: Ah, yeah. Okay.
Jason: So this is kind of how the west works with their client states. They never actually give them any money; they just give them vouchers for getting goods.
Joe: Buy our weapons.
Jason: Buy our weapons.
Joe: But in exchange there are certain contractual obligations on Ukraine's part to toe the line.
Jason: But this is something similar to what John Perkins kind of talks about. It does take a little bit of a mental leap to get there but it is essentially the same idea.
Niall: Yeah, the economy itself, arguably, is a voucher.
Pierre: We mentioned increasing casualties in Ukraine in order to influence the international community, the UN in particular. There are two reports I stumbled upon that left me puzzled: first the UN condemned the Ukraine army for killing civilians and second the CFR, the Council on Foreign Relations which is pro-west, stated that the one responsible for the war in Ukraine was NATO and it did that to enlarge its territory. So how would you explain those two statements?
Jason: From what we've been saying from the beginning is that right now this war is over pretty much Europe. Europe is starting to crack and fracture away from the west realizing that what's going on is not in their interests. And there's an internal battle going on in the EU right now and there has been since the Russian sanctions were announced, which is to have one faction of people saying "Hold on a second. This is really not the way we want to play it". And then of course you have the Brussels guys saying "Oh, Russians are evil. We need more sanctions. Let's throw ourselves on our swords" type of thing. And there're a lot of politicians now who are really saying, "Hold on a second. I don't even have a sword. I'm going to have to go buy one and throw myself on it now".
And so I think that this is the source of it. And you always see that. This type of stuff bubbles up inside of a society, testing the waters to see what kind of strong reaction is against those types of statements and if the reactions are very strong, then more of those statements come out and eventually you end of with a fractured Europe. And hopefully all of Europe will wake up, smell what the rock is cooking, and decide that they don't even want to be involved. They don't have to side with Russia. It's kind of like Caesar said, "Those who are not my enemy, they're with me, just by not being my enemy." Russia and Europe really need to sit down and say "Hold on a second. This is between two people. We're not involved. We just don't even want to be involved with this stuff. Stop it" Let Russia and America duke it out and in that way we know what the end result will be, like the same thing between Carthage and Rome.
Basically, America is on the decline and Russia will be the next big super power for about 10 to 15 years until they start throwing their weight around and Putin dies and then our children will be sitting here around the table talking about "Oh, that damn Russia. They keep going around starting all these wars." But it's global politics man. This is the giant circle of empires for 10,000 years. It's ridiculous.
Niall: There's a pattern with Russia. Even when they had a dominant position they've never exerted it in the way that western liberal empires have.
Pierre: More cooperative, more win-win?
Niall: Oh yeah. They've always more or less played fair.
Jason: I don't know. I wasn't there. There're two sides. One side says this, one side says that. Who do I believe? I don't know. I don't know if they were good and I don't know if they were bad. I read some stuff about Peter the Great and he was pretty awesome but at the same time he made a beard tax, so I have to wonder about the guy. I would not have wanted to be in Russia back then because I have a beard and I would have been taxed for my goddamn beard!
Pierre: That's a major point.
Jason: So I'm sitting here looking at this situation.
Niall: If it was on a progressive scale, you would have got taxed hard.
Jason: Yeah, I would have got taxed hard for my very large beard here.
Joe: Yeah. It seems to me that to understand what is going on today you have to look back a little bit at the British Empire. There were several different empires. We'll leave out the Spanish empire going back a bit further than that, but let's take it from modern history. The British Empire was the biggest empire. The sun never set on it and the blood never dried, as they say. But the Americans inherited or took over from the British Empire. There were empires around at the same time of the British Empire but they were never quite as aggressive. They never had, by any standards, the same scope. And when the handover was done beginning at the start of the 20th century when the US kind of came online and took over after the first and second world wars, the other empires kind of faded and the British kind of handed it over to the US. The US picked up where the British left off.
So around that time, around the turn of the 20th century, the Russian empire was done for as well, by way of the Bolshevik revolution and the creation of communism essentially, the Soviet Union. Russia is really the only country, obviously a very big country that remains unconquered. It was conquered by Bolshevism and by communism, which was largely a...
Jason: A virulent idea that opened up just horrible.
Joe: Yeah, it was largely promoted by the west at the time as a way to neutralize Russia but then they left the job kind of undone. So today what we're seeing is an attempt to finish the job; to complete the domination of the globe by the Anglo-Saxon white man's burden empire type thing. It should have been a done deal when the Soviet Union "collapsed" and the venture capitalist vultures came in. Russia was meant to be divided up economically and owned by the west but it had this phenomenon of Putin, and he is obviously a phenomenon the way people are talking about him these days, particularly the western media. He came along and decided to change the script a little bit. And that's what we're dealing with now. So pretty much everything that the US is doing, and this includes even the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and the stuff going on in the middle east, that is all ultimately directed at containing Russia. When the Iraq war was launched the protestors in the streets were talking about no war for oil. People had this idea that it was for securing Iraq's oil resources and stuff.
Jason: They were already secured.
Joe: Yeah, they were pretty much already secured. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was theoretically something they wanted to do but the bigger goal was to secure that part of the world against Russia. People need to get a map of the world and keep it on their wall beside them with this kind of idea in mind. Just look at what has happened and look at where Russia is and look at where the Middle East is and realize what would happen naturally in terms of economic partnerships and exchange and the flow of goods and resources etc., if it was left to its own devices. Eurasia is a contiguous land mass and it's the wealthiest portion of the world. And if the countries in that Eurasian land mass were all more or less working together economically, etc., then the good old US of A, 5,000 miles across the ocean, would be kind of sidelined.
Jason: Not really involved.
Joe: Sure, you're a country, but why don't you just hang out with the South Americans. You're all over there and we can do some trade and business and stuff, but we've got a lot of stuff going on here in the Eurasian land mass. That makes the empire builders and the psychos in the US just see red. "What do you mean? We own this place." But simply by fate or by geography essentially, that's the way it should be. That's the way the world is made. God decided that because he made the world, right?
So there are geographic realities that the US has always been struggling against and fighting against and trying to continue on the kind of aggressive, bloody imperialism that the Brits were able to get away with in a darker, less enlightened age. They're trying to continue that on in what is supposedly a more enlightened age. Maybe it's not so much more enlightened from a moral point of view, but certainly it's more enlightened from an information point of view, in terms of the access to information people have about what's going on. And that's what makes it much more difficult and that's why they're fighting this battle and losing.
Pierre: Yeah, that's the point I wanted to deal with now. Jay mentioned the position of Europe and it's perfectly logical that Europe join the Asian wagon, Russia, as you mentioned, and China and the other rising stars, both of resources, economic growth and history and mentality. Nonetheless the European leaders, that are probably pragmatic and led by greed, profit, money, don't look towards the east and they still give allegiance to the US empire, which is declining, which is collapsing and everybody can see that. So how can you explain it? Is it because of bribes? Is it because of fear of the US army? Is it because of maybe the mentality and they've been groomed as a Chicago school brainchild for generations? Why those pragmatic politicians don't shift?
Niall: All of the above.
Jason: Because they recognize one fundamental truth. The majority of the people in the world are not white Anglo-Saxon/whatever they are in Europe. Most of them are brown or yellow and they are terrified. They're racists. Most white people, especially the white west, are a racist, violent dominator of the rest of the world which is predominantly filled with other ethnicities and other cultures and other civilizations. They have been meddling and repressing and telling them how to live their lives and do their stuff. They know for a fact, or at least they believe - I don't know if it's actually a fact because I think we've realized from history that actually these other ethnic populations are a lot more peaceful than the white west - but they know that when they lose their grip, it's like having a tiger by the tail; if they let go, the tiger's going to turn and they're afraid of that. They're terrified of places like India that the British Empire horribly dominated. They're afraid of places like the Middle East, the Arabs who they have horrifyingly dominated, murdered, killed, and China who they infected with opium to steal all their gold and silver in the late 1800s, early 1900s. They're afraid that all of these people are going to have a cultural memory of all of the horrible things that they've been doing over the last 150, 200 years, and that they're going to come back and get their comeuppance. So they're terrified.
Joe: The comeuppance they would get would simply be the natural order of things re-establishing itself. The natural order is, like I said, this Eurasian land mass all working together. Islamic fundamentalism, as in Islamic terrorism, was created and promoted and put into place and put into action, ultimately, to contain Russia. 9/11 was done to contain Russia. That's from a foreign policy point of view. Obviously there are benefits from a domestic point of view where you can have this terrorist threat that keeps the people at home down and controlled and afraid and willing to accept militarization and draconian laws and stuff.
But ultimately there's a line going from Afghanistan where Zbigniew Brzezinski stated officially that where the US armed and trained and created a bunch of fundamentalist Muslims from various different countries, concentrated them in Afghanistan to bate the soviets into Afghanistan, to give them their Vietnam, to bog them down in a protracted ten year war that they ultimately lost. And those Muslim extremists that fought against the Russians and won essentially because they were armed and funded by the US. So at that time they were all freedom fighters. Actually I think Reagan at the time called them freedom fighters and shook their hands and slaps on the back and stuff. "Go get 'em boys! Get the commies." So that was obviously directed at Russia at that time.
Then those same fundamentalists were turned into Al-Qaeda and now they're not our freedom fighters anymore, they're terrorists and they're against us. You have things like the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the embassy bombings in Nairobi, Kenya later in the '90s, and then leading up to 9/11 which launched the US military into Afghanistan, again to attack the jihadist that they had created to fight the Russians. Now they're their enemies so they have to go and get them in Afghanistan and occupy Afghanistan which used to be on Russia's border, but is more or less still on Russia's border because it's on the border of the 'istans' which were previously a part of Russia and several of which are now aligned with Russia and also Iraq. Again, if you look at a map, where Russia comes down through Georgia between the Caspian and the Black Seas, and then you have Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran and all of these countries right below Russia would all be natural trading partners, right down into Saudi Arabia.
Jason: Right.
Joe: These would all be natural trading partners with Russia. And that's why the entire war on terror was exported and projected overseas in Muslim territories, so that the US could get their military in there to effectively stir things up and make sure that Russia did not exert its natural influence and control of that region along with other reasons.
Jason: They wanted a legitimate reason to post large numbers of soldiers along the Russian southern plain.
Joe: Absolutely.
Jason: Right where they could be within striking distance, which they are.
Joe: And simultaneous with that you have NATO expansion in Europe, the European Union expanding eastwards right up to Russia's border, taking all the European countries and making them all members of NATO, basically a military organization, and creating missile bases in eastern European countries, all pointing at Russia. It all conspires around Russia. So that's pretty sad, you know. They've got this thing about Russia. They don't like them.
Jason: Because they just haven't been militarily defeated. They're kind of like...
Joe: Haven't bowed down. They haven't knelt before Zod.
Jason: Yeah, in a certain sense.
Pierre: Do you think there's something about the ideology? You mentioned the way Russians address trade and economic relations, this notion of win-win collaboration and non-invasion, non-imperialistic force. The Third Reich's first target was not the Jews but the Slavs. So do you think there's something specific to the Slav or Russian ideology that the psychopathic WASP leaders want to eradicate?
Joe: Yeah, it's their lack of psychopathy.
Jason: Well it's their fundamental belief. They're very religious, eastern orthodox Christianity. From what I know of eastern orthodox - which of course is not very much, I tried to actually find out more about it but you can't get too many details - they do seem to be a lot more aligned with the original Christian doctrine of peace, prosperity, charity, and things like that. What few Russians I've ever talked to about the eastern orthodox thing is they do have more Christian than Christians because my experience is like southern Baptists where they're like gigantic hypocrites when it comes to Christianity. That's my experience. My experience with Russian orthodox people is that they're a little bit more Christian actually, to be quite honest. So maybe that has something to do with it. I don't know.
Joe: I think there are two things. I don't think it's too extraordinary. I think Russians simply have a lot of what people in other countries have which is basic human decency and respect for noble ideals and values, i.e., not conquering and invading other countries and killing the population and exploiting the workers and all that kind of stuff. Any normal person when they saw that happening would say "Can you do that to me?" It's not extraordinary. You don't have to trump up some kind of superhuman Russian values. Other people feel the same way in other countries, but the difference with Russia here, I suppose, is that Russia is in a position, and has always been in a position because of its size, to say no to that kind of ideology and be able to back it up and be able to stand their ground. Other countries won't be able to stand their ground. They may still hold to those values but they can't really do anything about it. The force with which the US imposed its reign on the rest of the world, the other countries couldn't really take a stand against it whereas Russia seems to think anyway, that it can.
Niall: And yet Russia suffered 80-some years of pathocracy of the most extreme form, maybe the most extreme form. Fifty million people slaughtered. No other country has suffered like that.
Jason: Maybe it's because of that, that they have a little bit more empathy.
Niall: Well they were like so before. Part of the problem here is that people think Czarist Russia was the mother of all evils. In fact it's the direct opposite. Just as Russia today is portrayed in the opposite light to what it's really like, so was Czarist Russia.
Pierre: Yeah?
Niall: People at the time portrayed it as backwards, all serfdom, therefore they were all slaves. Actually many people have studied and really looked at the conditions for ordinary Russians in 19th century Czarist Russia and they all agree that without doubt they were the most free economically, politically, socially, of all the so-called western nations.
Pierre: But when you read the history textbooks, apparently the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, the French Revolution in 1789 or the Cromwell Revolution in England, was emancipation by the people for the people. They got rid of oppression from the nobility and from the church.
Niall: The Bolsheviks, to justify their destruction of Russia, had to re-write history completely in order to present what happened there as an emancipation. In fact it was the complete opposite. It was the enslavement of Russians. They were doing really, really well under Czarist Russia. And it's a pattern that goes back. I don't know how strongly you can support that but Russia is 1,000 years old in some form or another. The US is what 300 years old? Even Britain in its current form is not as old as Russia.
So Jason mentioned orthodoxy. There may be something to that. It's probably going to go to another level below religion per se. I think given, again, the geographic location, they were subject to far more invasions in that 1,000 year history than anyone one else can boast. Mongol hordes invaded repeatedly. Then the conflict with the Kazar Empire, which gives us most of today's Jews, was horrific. And then repeated attacks from the south and then of course from the east.
People say, "Well poor Poland has been invaded by Russia". No, the Polish and Lithuanian and beyond them other western countries, have attacked Russia.
Pierre: Napoleon.
Niall: How many times Russia, in some form or another, has always come out of it without being completely ponerized. Something seems to survive in it that resists total ponerization. They still have, let's just say at a psychological level, a better instinctive repulsion towards oligarchic rule and perhaps a greater sense of fairness. I'm not sure.
Joe: I think it's maybe just the result of fate or circumstances that occurred because, as you were talking about under Czarist rule, it was described as a worker's paradise but that was around the time when there were a lot of workers' rights movements across Europe and in the US. That was something that came out of the Industrial Revolution where people were being treated badly in factories and all that kind of stuff and you had this workers' rights movement. In Russia that took hold and the Czars kind of allowed it to happen, essentially. I suppose then after the Second World War, Russia was selected in a certain sense to adopt the Marxist/Communist ideas because those ideas were already in other countries as well but maybe they were stronger in Russia. So when the decision came to divide the world between the two ideologies, Russia was the natural choice to be on the workers' rights, proletariat, and common man side.
However that happened, go back to Marx. Marx was Jewish. Where did he get all his ideas from? Well these are just theories. He went a bit far with them I suppose. But the whole communist or Marxist and workers' rights ideas was a reaction to the abuses of the factory owners and the elite that came out of the industrial revolution, where workers were being taken off the land and exploited in factories, right?
So the fact that that ethos existed, that it came out of conditions of the day by the abuses of the elite, for whatever reasons, it embedded itself in more recent history in Russia. And then a wall came down between the two and one was capitalist and one was communist and workers' rights and everybody is free.
Niall: It was embedded through terror. There was no demand for it in Russia at the time. They laughed at it because they already had it.
Joe: Well exactly, but it was there already is what I'm saying. That's why it was chosen, where it was fertile ground for the implementation of Marxist and communist ideas and to try and put them into practice in this exaggerated, ridiculous way. And then they bring down the Iron Curtain and the Cold War and the west then created its own problem in the sense that they locked Russia off. During the Cold War was the time when capitalists in the west spread their infection around the world, but they excluded Russia from that because Russia had already decided to take the other path. So now they have to deal with it. They're trying to, like I said before, finish the job. "Okay, now the commies have gone and all that kind of stuff, let's get back on this Russia thing. This should have happened a long time ago." Who created the Cold War? Who pulled down the Iron Curtain? Russia was excluded. The Soviet Union was excluded from what the west was doing all those years, which was spreading capitalism and vulture capitalism.
Jason: I think maybe though, it was an accident.
Joe: Well that's why I keep calling it fate or just circumstance.
Jason: Yeah it was a bit of fate and circumstance in there, because a lot of people point out that communism was designed for England and the west. It should have taken off in America. It should have taken off in England but instead it took off in China?! Even Marx apparently at one point said "This would never work for the Chinese. They're too agrarian." I think Russia was also quite agrarian. And it wasn't designed for that.
Pierre: It's true what you mention, Karl Marx ideology was based on the proletariat; people working in factories and giving rise to a new ideology in reaction to the oppression from industrialists. And paradoxically, it took hold in a country that was mostly agrarian. The ideology of Karl Marx was not actually limited to one industrial country. One industrial country was a world revolution where workers allegedly would take power.
Joe: But the problem there then is the fact of industrialization. The fact of technological advancements is what screwed things over. Because other people would just live in agrarian societies, everyone would have their little piece of land, theoretically, or could have their little piece of land and look after themselves, care for their families and their communities, and we'd have a more peaceful world. Of course we haven't had a peaceful world, even before technology and the industrial revolution, there were wars. So that doesn't fit either, you know?
Jason: Well when it comes to the situation, if you look at how China got infected with communism, you kind of understand why it's really interesting.
Joe: Because of the Ruskies, right?
Jason: No, it wasn't the Ruskies. It was the British actually, and the way that they treated the Chinese at the time with the opium trade. And all of a sudden the Chinese found themselves completely paralyzed against industrial nations because they hadn't developed their country. They decided that they were going to start importing works from the west so that they could learn how to deal with the enemy. And one of the books that they imported (laughing) was from these communist types of writers and it infected them. It was kind of a virulent idea that could take over the minds of people who were not pragmatic enough to realize that it couldn't work on a large scale. And I think a same or similar thing happened in Russia; that it started to take off and then the west said "Oh hey, this is a great opportunity. Let's do this."
And they supported it just to disrupt it. They never probably imagined that it would be so successful and that once it was successful they said, "We're done, excellent. Let's do the Iron Curtain thing. Okay, cool. We'll split everybody. We've got rid of Russia because now it's ruled by a bunch of incompetent pathocrats in this communist system that will never work." And they looked at it as a great opportunity.
And now all of a sudden they're saying "Holy shit! This didn't work! We've got to do something about Russia! We thought we had this handled but it turns out that communism fell and that now the Russians are proving to be better capitalists than the capitalists."
Joe: Yeah, they're doing it the kind of right way.
Jason: They're doing it the right way.
Joe: They've merged a little bit of both.
Jason: Yeah, pretty much. They've merged the ideas and so the west is really like "Holy crap!" For Russia to recover to the point that it has in 10 years is absolutely incredible for the amount of work that was necessary to be done. Russia the pooch was screwed. The pooch was dead, completely and totally dead in Russia. And in 10 years they've managed to make a serious comeback and now it's at the point where you hear everyday people "If Canada did this, we would have already declared war". And you would say "Yeah, have you ever thought to ask the question of why they haven't declared war against Russia over this?" The First World War was started by some random archduke from some backwater being assassinated and it started one of the greatest wars of all time. The Second World War was started under less. Why hasn't the war started? And it's because Russia has seriously solidified its position economically and militarily, and has done it in 10 years without anyone really noticing.
You heard some negative stuff about Russia but it wasn't until this Ukraine thing that people really started to harp on Russia as "Oh this great big evil empire". They came out of nowhere with this crap. And nobody saw it coming. And that on this global stage with all this global spy stuff; the fact that America wasn't really seriously able to work on the Russian situation earlier, is a testament to how clever they've been positioning themselves, I think.
Pierre: And the amazing development of Russia, over the last decade, shows how destructive ponerization is because it shows that if a country is not so ponerized a different leader in ten years can do wonders.
Jason: Yup.
Pierre: And while we are talking about Russia and Ukraine and Obama being busy with demonizing Putin; so obviously although Obama in his country was busy with trying to deal with the Ferguson event that is apparently a closed case now. The National Guard intervened after there were massive demonstrations and now demonstrations are done. So what is the conclusion? All that for nothing? Again once more a case of murder, demonstration and finally back to square one?
Niall: I looked up how many times the US National Guard has been called up to deal with civil unrest or dissent. The last time it happened was in 1992 to deal with the LA riots. Before that was the '60s, Lyndon Johnson twice, '65 and '68 when Martin Luther King was assassinated. So apart from the LA riots this is the most recent one, with the exception of one. Three weeks ago the National Guard were also called out to deal with the hysteria, I guess, but I'm not sure to what extent there is an issue on the Texas-Mexico border. The Texans are claiming that people are pouring over the border. Rick Perry called out the National Guard of his own accord. A US governor has not done that since I don't know when. The governor of Missouri did it last week with the federal government's backing. But Rick Perry did it of his own accord and he has since, two days ago, been indicted and arrested on unrelated corruption charges. So there's something going on there because the National Guard got called out twice in the last month.
Joe: The calling out of the National Guard is maybe indicative of jitteriness among the elite to any mobilization of people on the streets, of course especially black people.
Jason: Because they spent so much time funding color revolutions and exploiting any small number of discontent, malcontented dissidents, or anybody who has revolutionary memes. It's just so many years exploiting them and funding them that they are terrified that somebody's going to do it to them.
Joe: Or happen organically. The thing is it's going to happen for real. In the first place there's going to be a real revolution amongst all these color revolutions in the US. And it's going to be for very good reasons which is these cops going around...
Jason: Executing.
Joe: Pretty much executing people, yeah. It's amazing the number of police shootings. They've really spiked over the past few years. It's been ongoing for a while, but really spiked. And of course people put it down to "Oh, more people have cell phones and video cameras. That's why we're seeing more of it." But I don't think so. Cell phones and cameras have been around for quite a long time so that doesn't really fly. There's clearly been an upswing in police brutality and it's a function of a greater number of psychopaths in positions of power and control in the obvious place which is the police force.
Jason: Yeah. I do kind of have this one thing. Originally I can't remember who said the quote but they kind of basically said that the American judicial system was created not to be perfect, and it was more about "Yeah, bad people will get away, but the hope is that fewer good people will be executed or imprisoned" sort of avoiding injustice. In America you have this movement of people who are so afraid of crime, they're so afraid of any guilty person getting away that they have actually switched around and they feel that it's acceptable for some innocent people to be killed, executed, shot by the police or sent to jail or be executed in prison, if that means that no bad guys get away.
But what they kind of don't understand is that when you no longer have a threat from crime on the streets from the local thug, all of a sudden you have a threat of crime from the established authority, which of course is what we learned from history in the 1700 and 1800's, and why this whole idea of controlling the police and keeping them from having these too strong powers was created, specifically to avoid what happens with the exploitation of people with psychopaths in power, which is what happened. So now you are less likely to get shot by a thug on the street but you are more likely to get shot by a police officer.
Pierre: Yeah, don't we see the same template again and again around the world? You have basically an oppressive, psychopathic force like the Israel Defense Force, Ukrainian army, and US policemen harassing innocent civilian populations; different countries, different names but same behavior. It's some kind of radicalization. Psychopaths are getting totally out of control and going berserk for many reasons. Maybe it's the cosmic changes that they are sensing that we mentioned before.
Joe: Yeah, I think the Ferguson thing is indicative of people in the US getting to the point where, at least certainly the most targeted people in the US which is the black community and the non-whites essentially, are getting to the point where they're reaching the limit of their tolerance of the abuses that they've been subjected to by these psychos with badges. In a certain sense, it's kind of a marker that it's gotten so bad where there have been these few days of protests in the streets, and again the jitteriness of the psychos in power who can see that and immediately call in the National Guard. It's just ridiculous; it defies belief almost. They just execute this guy because he stole.
Jason: First of all I saw the video and I'm not entirely sure that the video is conclusive evidence of a theft because I saw the video and it looks a little bit weird but who knows, maybe it's something. But it does look very suspicious, like there might have been some thievery or some short-changing going on and the guy comes out from behind the counter and then the other guy pushes him back like "Leave me alone", and walks out. There may have been that. But the cop who shot him could not have known about it.
Niall: All he did was jay-walk.
Jason: He didn't know.
Joe: He got him for jay-walking, for walking along the road with his friend, yeah.
Jason: But the point being is that this is controlling the debate again, back to the satisfied authoritarian population, because it doesn't matter what crime he committed. The job of the police is to arrest and bring before a judge where evidence is produced. A person is not guilty until a judge has said so in a court or with a jury of their peers. Period. It doesn't even matter if the cop says "I saw it". It doesn't matter until a judge says it. Cops don't get to make that decision.
Joe: Yeah, they're not judge, jury, and executioner. But they are.
Jason: They're not allowed to execute people. But when someone has committed a crime and the police officer says "I shot him because he was stealing something" and all the authoritarians say "Well he deserved it", it's like no! Hold on!
Joe: He was breaking the law.
Jason: He's not guilty of a crime until a judge says he is. Period.
Joe: Summary execution. That's a police state dictatorship essentially, where the forces of law and order are empowered to execute people on the street when they break the law, no matter what the law is, however minor. Just the way they have the tendency to shoot to kill, multiple times, and then find out afterwards. "If in doubt or if you're a little bit afraid, kill him."
Niall: And riddle him with bullets.
Joe: Because there was another guy a couple of days ago.
Jason: Right after in St. Louis.
Joe: Right afterwards, just 10 miles away or something. His name was Kajieme Powell. I watched the video of this. He was on a suburban street, houses and stuff, and there was a little section that was just a store. Apparently this guy was filming it just before the police arrived and the first thing you see is a couple of cans of soda or something on the ground and the guy kind of standing there walking around. And then it pans around to the store owner who's come outside and he's kind of saying the guy who got away from him "This isn't the way to do it". Apparently this guy was a bit...
Jason: He was insane.
Joe: ...a little bit crazy, but he had put down the two cans of soda that he took out of the store and put them on the ground as if to say "Nobody touch this". He was a bit crazy. But then the cops arrive, pull up in a white cop car and two cops get out and he kind of walks away from them a little bit and starts walking towards them. Apparently he had a knife in his hand.
Jason: Apparently.
Joe: But it's by his side all the time. He doesn't brandish it.
Jason: I didn't see the knife.
Joe: Neither did I. But he walks towards the cop and the cops shout "Put the knife down! Put the knife down!" And the guy's shouting "Kill me now! Kill me now!" and other things. So when he's at least six feet, maybe more, away from the two cops, both of the cops just open up on him and shoot him many times. And then they cuff him now that he's dead. They actually went to the bother of cuffing him.
Jason: Yeah.
Joe: If the guy had a knife and they were about six or eight feet away from him, that's pretty close. A trained cop should be able to shoot him in the shoulder.
Jason: Or in the leg.
Joe: Or the arm that's holding the knife. The problem is, put the knife down. He's got a knife, shoot him in the knife. Six feet away shoot him in the hand. Shoot him in the arm. No! You shoot him nine times in his torso! And this guys' dead. No justice, no judicial inquiry.
Jason: Not acceptable.
Joe: No court case, nothing. These guys are judge, jury, executioner, and they get away with it. If you've got a knife or any kind of threatening weapon and you're near a cop and the cop fears, even momentarily, for his life - not even for his life, that he might be in some way injured - (they've got Tasers and stuff as well. They're equipped with all those supposed techniques to deal with situations) he's allowed to shoot you dead. And that's fine. He'll go to work the next day, get a pat on the back.
Pierre: Previously you mentioned the level of tolerance that has been reached, especially among the black population. So you think all those cold-blooded murders committed by the police should not be analyzed as isolated cases, but that the population, especially the black population, is getting angrier and angrier when seeing all those injustices and those abuses and there is this kind of anger growing under the surface with every murder?
Niall: It's not a race thing at all. There were mass protests in Albuquerque, New Mexico earlier this summer. It was a similar situation. They were basically beaten up and booted out. They were occupying and blocking the police department headquarters. It's happening a lot. The feds won this one through a blatant propaganda war by, for example, simultaneously releasing the name of the officer who killed Michael Brown and the CCTV footage to portray him as a thief and therefore in some way worthy of murder. If you read a lot of people's comments they kind of go "Oh, oh, well right he was robbing the store. Well then yeah, yeah." But there will come a time where I think this happens again and it could set the country alight. It's getting stronger and stronger. People are saying "No!"
Jason: It's simply not acceptable for the police to execute a person for a crime that doesn't even merit prosecution. Stealing some cigars from a convenience store will not be executed in any state of the United States of America. It will get you a couple of years in prison at the most.
Pierre: Don't you think, again, that there is a battle for the minds of people by the way they repressed this demonstration with Tasers and with violence? There's a fight in people's minds between this legitimate anger because of all those police abuses; on the other side the elites are trying to instill this fear of rebelling by showing violence against demonstrators. So what way is it going to go?
Jason: The stick only works for a certain period of time. It's not a good long-term strategy, but it's the only one that they understand. It's the only way that they know how to deal with people is to beat them down.
Pierre: So you have people who are rebelling more and more. In Ukraine you have those eastern Ukrainians rebelling against a big army, bigger than them. In the US you have people rebelling more and more about abusive police forces, and in Gaza you have Gazan Palestinians who are resisting for decades, heroically, against the occupying force. We're changing topic here. So there was a ceasefire. No more ceasefire, ceasefire again. What is the business about the ceasefire?
Joe: Before we get into that, we have a call. Hi, do we have a call on the line?
Caller: Yeah. This is Kent from West Virginia.
Joe: Hey Kent.
Kent: You were talking about the shootings that have been going on for cigars and minor little things. Of course Americans don't really know their history. Americans think that they were settled by the pilgrims coming for religious freedom. Of course I grew up in Virginia and that was Jamestown in 1607. It was maiden day. The 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown almost went by hardly without even a mention. And you would have thought that would have been huge, huge. And that's because I think that the north won the war. They won the rhetoric and it's the religious freedom and the pilgrims. But really Virginia was set up partially as a penal colony. People were transported to Virginia for seven and 14 years in indentured servitude, because you could get killed, be executed for stealing a chicken in England at the time. That was the story we always heard.
So now the same thing's going on here in the United States and people don't even realize it. It's bizarre. I called in to a show yesterday, a program and the guy was ranting on about property and I just told him what I just said to you, blah, blah, blah and then he changed his tune. But it's just bizarre what's going on here.
Joe: History repeating itself.
Jason: It's the circle.
Kent: Yeah.
Joe: Alright Kent.
Jason: Thanks man.
Kent: Okay.
Pierre: Thanks for calling.
Joe: Talk to you later. History repeats itself.
Jason: That's right. History is this circle and it always has been. It's a shame that we haven't been able to break that up yet. Maybe this time.
Pierre: And if you don't learn from history, you're doomed to repeat it again and again.
Jason: And people still don't.
Pierre: We were talking about Gaza and there seems to be a new trick in the book from the Israeli elites. There is this ceasefire that is on and off and on. How do you explain or understand these changes?
Jason: They need time to reload.
Joe: They need time to reload, yeah. No. The ceasefire, compared to the bombardment that was going on a few weeks ago, it has calmed down. But they're still sending missiles and just today taking down 12-storey apartment blocks on the basis of rockets being fired. That story is so old and so tired.
Jason: It's a lie that's been told so many times. I don't believe there are any rockets anymore. I'm starting to question the rockets. I don't see any evidence. You'd think that in this modern day and age they would have a whole lot more evidence. I've seen one picture and one video of rockets. And none of them did any serious damage at all. That's all that they've been able to muster. The rest of it is just info graphics. Their proof for everything is info graphics. Whenever the Israelis want to come up with some new reason for doing something, they give you info graphics to explain why and how they're doing it.
And I'm getting to the point where I'm saying "Where's the evidence on this one?" They keep saying these thousands and thousands of rockets and all they have is one crappy CCTV camera showing some sort of thing dropping onto the ground and the cat jumping out of the tree. And the cat didn't even die! And I'm sorry, but I'm starting to ask the serious question "Where is the evidence?" I would like to see just a little bit more evidence.
Joe: There is none. There's social media and common sense.
Jason: Here's an experiment for anybody who really wonders about what's going on. Go to Google Maps street level view of Tel Aviv. And then try to take a street level view of Gaza; there isn't one. And I want you to go through the street level view of Tel Aviv and count the number of bombed out buildings; there aren't any. And that's kind of really the end of the discussion, because you can go and walk through Tel Aviv on Google Maps, no blown up buildings, no bodies in the street but you cannot do the same thing with Gaza.
Joe: It's a farce, a complete farce.
Jason: It's a complete farce.
Joe: Let me just go to another call here. Hi, what's your name and where are you calling from?
Caller: Charles, Missoula, Montana.
Joe: Hi Charles. Welcome.
Charles: Well thank you. Two comments: the last guy was talking about Yorktown. I've been there. It's a beautiful place and I just went, in solidarity with the French, every Fourth of July we celebrate that the French helped the US defeat the British during that war. And if it hadn't been for the French blockade, we wouldn't have won that war. Then you had the whole Freedom Fries thing when France wasn't supporting the invasion of Iraq. You go down to Nashville, Tennessee. They're beautiful people in the south, they really are; they're about family and good music. I don't know if it's because of what happened in the Civil War, but it's like they're ready to go to war for anything. I was in the Bluebird Café and this guy's talking about the French, it was televised. I piped up, "Well if it hadn't been for the French, we wouldn't have America". So I wanted to make that point that Yorktown is a beautiful place where the surrender of the British, they put down their arms, if you ever get a chance to go there. And the French are honored there in Yorktown every Fourth of July. That was my first point.
Next point, I just wanted to pick your guys' brain as you're musing about the world conditions. Where's this all going man, with this third world war and all this aggression against Russia? I just wanted to see into your crystal ball and see where's this going in two, five, 10 years? That's it.
Jason: The future is open. It's really open, where it could go.
Charles: Yeah.
Joe: Yeah. I don't think there's going to be a world war.
Jason: I think they're going to try. I think they're going to try their damnedest.
Joe: I think they're too chicken. If you think about it, obviously we're talking about the US and NATO. They're the ones who wage war and stuff. I don't think they've got the cajones to do it because generally speaking when they've waged wars in the last 70 or 80 years, it hasn't really been a war. It's been kind of a turkey shoot where they were largely far superior than the enemy and in many cases there wasn't really any enemy at all. They were just bombing civilians.
Charles: It's civilian disruption.
Joe: Yeah, in the case of Russia, I think they're chicken essentially.
Jason: Well here's the problem. I completely agree with Joe on that. It's a very good point. It's a totally correct assessment. The only problem I have with it is this particular thing. When you see a bunch of young gang members that are new and green and they meet another group of gang members. And they all start doing this posturing thing. And they throw out their gang signs and stuff like that. And you know that nine times out of ten it's not going to really lead anywhere because they're both kind of chicken shit about it, right? But sometimes you get that one person who is actually kind of chicken shit but they do so much posing and so much posturing that all of a sudden they realize they have to put up or shut up.
And you've got this West that is just rabble rousing, rah, rah, rah, waving the banner "Oh yeah, we're so great, we're so awesome, we're the most powerful nation, look at our army, it's so awesome" and all of a sudden they just come to this point where they're actually going to have to pull the trigger and fire a real shot. And right there you have a chance that if the pressure and they've boasted so much that they will be peer pressured into it and they will actually pull the trigger and it might spiral out of control. And that kind of situation is what led to WWI, supposedly.
Charles: Yeah, that could happen and it's good to hear from Joe that he doesn't think that's going to happen. The other thing is this whole ISIS thing. It's kind of like provocateurs where there're peaceful protests in the US or anywhere in the world, Quebec, and then the powers-that-be infiltrate and turn it into violence so that they can come down with oppression. And this whole ISIS thing that's being funded by Israel and Saudi Arabia and the US, going on murdering people all over the Arab world, maybe for control. But now they're talking about coming over the border you know, in Mexico, and I'm wondering are they going to go into America and just turn it into this total chaos just for their own purposes. I'll listen off the line.
Joe: Okay.
Charles: Okay. Thanks guys.
Niall: Thanks Charles. Bye-bye.
Joe: I think that's possible but I think they want chaos. That's when they know how to handle people. If they think it's going to go there anyway they want to precipitate it so they can manage the situation. Recent news is that there was a major earthquake, the biggest one in maybe 20 years or something like that, in California in the San Francisco area. And I think that kind of stuff is going to intercede as well so it's going to get very dicey and very hairy for the US government to maintain control because there's stuff going to come out of left field from a natural source, i.e. earthquakes, maybe out-gassings, all the rest, anything you can think of could happen.
Jason: It's so open anything could happen.
Joe: But before we start anymore, let's just go to this last call we have on the line. Hey, do we have a call on the line?
Caller: Yes you do.
Joe: And what's your name and where are you calling from?
Caller: This is Laurie. I'm calling from Idaho, again.
Joe: Hey Laurie. Welcome to the show.
Pierre: Hi Laurie.
Laurie: How's it going?
Joe: Pretty good.
Laurie: I just wanted to say thank you to Pierre and actually all of you for the book, Earth Changes and the Human Cosmic Connection. It was a really good read and kind of changed the way that I looked at the whole world, so I really appreciated it.
Pierre: Thank you.
Laurie: And I have to agree with the last caller on the whole France being partly responsible for the existence of the United States and why that just gets shoved under the carpet. It's like the long-term memory, like you guys are always talking about, is just not even there.
Joe: It's so important for people to understand what's going on today to have a memory of history.
Laurie: Yeah. It's bad. But I wanted to comment about the news here. There's absolutely no coverage of anything going on between Israel and Gaza. There's no more Ukrainian coverage between Russia and Ukraine, just when you watch the news on the TV. And what in the hell is up with the plane that got shot down? That would huge, huge news. It would be on every day and there's nothing. There's nothing on the investigation or any explanation. They're showing fluffy warm viral videos off of YouTube. It's pathetic. It's awful.
Niall: It's served its purpose. Its purpose was to make Putin out to be evil incarnate so now you move on.
Jason: He pushed the button himself, from his battle platform airplane as he was flying over. He was in on the whole thing. It was Putin.
Laurie: Well I don't know. It's just so weird that it just dropped off the radar completely, because any other times in the past 15 or 20 years it would have been huge news and it would have gone on and on and we would have been hearing about the investigation. But you're right, they just said "Oh Putin did it" and that's okay?
Joe: You know why Laurie? You're talking about MH17 here over Ukraine, right?
Laurie: Yeah.
Joe: Well I think the reason why is because that was essentially kind of a false flag used to try to demonize Putin and blame him and get him out of Ukraine. And since it didn't work and it's gone, it wasn't a genuine event therefore there isn't a genuine investigation into it.
Jason: Because the investigation would reveal...
Joe: Would reveal the truth about it.
Pierre: Inconvenient truth.
Joe: And the truth about it is that the cockpit of the plane, the Russians did reveal a little bit of detail, which was that there was a Ukrainian-colored jet flying in the vicinity of that aircraft before it came down.
Laurie: Yeah, I remember reading that.
Joe: The most likely theory is that it shot at the cockpit because the damage to the cockpit section seems to be as a result of cannon fire, as in bullet holes. So the cockpit was shot at by the jet to take out the pilots so they couldn't send any radio communications and then shortly after a bomb onboard blew it up. That was the 'cleanest way' that they could do it. But the whole point of it was what came out afterwards and what the media said afterwards, which was: "this is Putin."
Laurie: To try to demonize Russia and the Russians.
Joe: Pretty much. And when they got everything out of it they could, then they move on and it's forgotten.
Jason: As quickly as possible to the next thing so that people will forget about this unresolved issue of the MH17, which there is obviously some benefit with constantly bringing back "What about that MH17 thing? Didn't anything come of that?" But no, they've got the black box. And maybe at some point they'll reveal some new information obtained from the black box that will conveniently point to wherever they want to point it to.
Laurie: Yeah.
Jason: Save that for down the line.
Laurie: It's kind of creepy being a SOTT reader and paying attention to what's going on from that point and then actually living in this country and looking around at people and hearing what people talk about and how they talk about it and just knowing that I'm surrounded by people that have no clue what's going on in the world. No clue.
Joe: They're zombies, Laurie.
Laurie: They are! But the more you learn from you guys, from reading, from listening to the radio show, and you live with them and yeah, we walk amongst them. It's scary.
Niall: Well keep the faith Laurie.
Joe: Yeah, keep your chin up.
Pierre: It's hard but it's true.
Laurie: I will. And you guys thanks for the show and thanks for the book. It was awesome. Keep it up.
Pierre: Alright. Thank you.
Joe: Thanks Laurie. Bye.
Niall: I have another piece of interesting information that I bet most of our American listeners have never heard before. A caller, Charles, mentioned French assistance in the War of Independence. But nobody knows that in the Civil War, the Russian Baltic fleet went to San Francisco and the Russian Black Sea fleet went to New York Harbor, and as a result staved off British involvement entering on the side of the Confederates. There would be no United States of America today if it wasn't for Czarist Russia.
Jason: I'm not exactly sure someone coming from the south, that's not speaking "good" for Russia.
Niall: It would have been a world war.
Jason: They sided with the Union (laughing)?
Niall: They weren't thinking that's why we choose the Union. It's because of British involvement, I think. It was basically the Great Game extended to the American western hemisphere.
Jason: Well that may have been.
Niall: That's how global it was. There would have been a world war about 70 years earlier.
Pierre: Before closing the show, let's address the last topic. A few months ago, we never heard about ISIS, and now ISIS, the jihadi organization, is about to take over the world to institute the caliphates in Europe and the US. They're beheading people, at least one individual, James Foley namely. So is ISIS going to take the world over? Are they going to behead all of us during our sleep? What's your take on the new threat of the day?
Joe: It's a Frankenstein monster version of greater Israel because that's actually more or less where they want to establish their caliphate. The Israelis are really quite quiet about that.
Jason: "Yeah, you're moving in on our soil."
Joe: "Hey, we were on first. We wanted that before you guys!" But then, if you realize that Israelis, from a very fundamental point of view, they tend to need Islamic terrorism to justify their very existence because if there was nothing for Israel to fight against, as in no deadly threats from Muslims, then questions would be raised about...
Jason: The purpose.
Joe: ... and also about historical justice and "How did you guys get here anyway?"
Jason: Hold on for a second. When has the world ever been interested in historical justice?
Joe: Well it might bubble up to the surface.
Jason: Look at the Native Americans. Look at the Native Hawaiians.
Joe: Well, at the very least Israel would have to live peaceably with its neighbors and really give a bit of land back to the Palestinians, if there's no threat anymore.
Jason: As if there're any historical precedents for that!
Joe: No, but a question would be raised in the absence of a Muslim terror threat trying to wipe out Israel all the time. If that didn't exist at all, then what are the Palestinians going to do? You're going to have to live with them, right? How are you going to live with the Palestinians if everybody's cool and the Palestinians are fine, no threat to Israel? How are they going to live with that?
Jason: The plan of Israel is to kill them all.
Joe: Well exactly, but they can only do that when there's a Muslim terror threat, and that gets back to...
Pierre: An excuse.
Joe: ...an excuse, some kind of rationale, right?
Jason: It makes it easier for them.
Joe: Yeah, definitely. And that's what ISIS is kind of all about, partly anyways. It's a fulfilment of the prediction years ago that western European and American governments have been scaring the bejeezus out of people, which is the Muslim horde coming across and establishing Sharia law and forcing all the women to wear veils.
Jason: In the UK apparently there are plots in the UK schools, it's just so ridiculous. How can you even talk to people that actually believe that stuff. They actually print this stuff in the UK and in the American media. Print this absolute BS that ISIS has infiltrated our schools and they're going to turn our little kids into these jihadists.
Joe: Well they try very hard to convince people by way of doing these kind of things, this IS or Islamic State facilitated them to do, which is publicly cut the head off, not fully, but apparently cut the heads off of westerners, of nice American journalists and stuff like that, and have the whole world up in arms about how brutal and violent it is. And this is just proof that the entire war on terror is justified because there really is this horrible Islamic terrorist threat. And they really do hate western people because why else would they cut the heads off them?
Niall: Along the lines of what Laurie pointed out where from one day to the next the media is on this topic, drop it, next topic. ISIS came out of nowhere eight weeks ago and to believe what they're saying they basically declared a new country; they've overrun parts of Syria, most of Iraq, and are now gunning to attack the homeland in the USA and the UK. Overnight. I was like "hello?"
Joe: There's an example here of how little stock politicians put in people's memory and how they're really shortening it. Yeah, people don't really know what happened just last week anymore or even a couple of months ago when it was big news. Everybody should know that the US and European governments were supporting the so-called Syrian rebels against Assad. They wanted to overthrow Assad, right? Everybody remembers that from the past few years, right? That civil war or whatever they call it in Syria. And everybody knows as well that, at least as mentioned in the mainstream media, that there were "al-Qaeda" extremist groups among these Free Syrian Army-type people who were the good guys, "our terrorists" trying to overthrow the brutal dictator, blah, blah, blah.
Well, stuff you probably don't know because it didn't get much coverage was that people in positions to know and who should probably know better than to say this kind of stuff, for example the Council on Foreign Relations which is essentially the western political think tank, said just a couple of years ago during the western sponsored civil war on Syria, they said that the Syrian rebels would be "immeasurably weaker today without al-Qaeda in their ranks". So they talk about the jihadist bringing discipline, religious fervor and battle experience from Iraq.
So basically these politicians were explicitly saying that pretty much the people that they were funding, and this was public as well, that they were supplying weapons, money and training in Jordan and indirectly through Saudi Arabia, to al-Qaeda in Iraq. Now al-Qaeda, ISIS, it's pretty much all the same, right? These are fundie extremist people. There's essentially a public admission that over the past few years that they were funding these extremist jihadist in Syria to try and get them to overthrow Assad. That didn't happen largely because of Russian support for Syria who continued to supply them with weapons to repel this western sponsored jihadi attack on them.
And now when that didn't work out, they say "Okay, they're still in Syria, but they're being pushed out. They're not winning that particular war that we sponsored. Get them into Iraq and they can create some havoc there and talk about establishing an Islamic caliphate." I don't know what the particular end game of this gang is, not only were they funded and trained and armed in Syria over the past few years, but when they were told to move into Iraq to get out of the way, because they were being defeated in Syria by Assad, they just picked up pretty much all of the military equipment that the Americans had left in Iraq for the Iraqi army, which they didn't really do a very good job with because Iraq's very divided. They left an extremely fractured and divided country because they occupied it for 10 years and killed one-and-a-half million people and installed a puppet government. Then they left an army as well, supposedly.
But obviously you're not going to have a very cohesive army, and they didn't have one, but they left them lots of military equipment. "You just get on with it there". So when IS comes into Iraq, they just kind of walk in and that's why the impressive advance that they've made. And they took all the shiny new American military hardware and are using that to run around Iraq like headless chickens, kind of thing, shouting things like "Allah Akbar" and "we're going to establish a caliphate" and stuff.
And most recently, publicly beheading a westerner and making statements to the camera about "Obama, this is what you get. It's your choice."
Jason: It's theatre.
Joe: Yeah, it's just the worst kind of theatre. It's ridiculous. It's not the first because there's been several of these beheadings filmed. Any time the US wants to demonize any group of people or just make everybody in the west afraid of Muslims in Iraq, for example, they get a bunch of these trained hired mercenaries to publicly behead some white western contract worker or a journalist or whatever. They did it with Daniel Pearl in 2002. In 2004 I think, they did it with Nick Berg.
If you look up the Nick Berg one, the Nick Berg video was staged, the video was just so bad. He obviously was killed but they have him in this orange jumpsuit kneeling down and the guys stand behind him with their faces is covered. And one of the guys standing behind him has white hands, so not very Iraqi looking. Nick Berg is speaking. The audio over the tape of Nick Berg, supposedly talking before he was killed, his mouth doesn't move at all. He doesn't move at all. He looks like he's dead already but there's a voice-over and then the tape cuts. There's lots of obvious cuts in it and then there's this scream ,which sounds like a woman's scream, which was meant to be him screaming as he's getting his head cut off. And of course it's really graphic and brutal. They use a kitchen knife or something to hack away at his head. But there's no blood whatsoever, so they're cutting through supposedly a live person's jugular veins and stuff, but there's no blood. There's another cut and they hold up the head. It's just so bad.
That's an example of the theatre that this is. Not that they're not actually killing people, but it's produced for a very particular reason. And the particular reason is to scare the crap out of people in the west and to reinforce this idea that jihadist are coming to get you therefore you need the government to protect you. You need us in the Middle East. We need to kill the Muslims. Just keep you distracted, afraid, and this is what these people are paid to do.
But also this IS group are people who are being given the opportunity. The US doesn't care anymore about the Middle East, about Libya, Iraq and Syria, but particularly Iraq. They're saying "Well who gives a shit who runs the place anymore? So let's give promises to these IS people." And there's a few amongst the people who are the leaders of it, who'd like to have their own little slice of land or caliphate and be the leader so, "Yeah, we'll fight for that. I like money and power. So yeah, I'll go for that." And they get a bunch of fundies, kind of like the extreme evangelical Christian type of thing. You have the Muslim variety that'll fight and kill for Jesus or Mohammed. And they're all in it just for the fun as well. They're reared on video games, shoot-em-up first person shooter video games so they know how it's done. Just go to Iraq and shoot off some Kalashnikovs for Allah, shoot some people, it's all fun and of course as we mentioned before, a lot of psychopaths involved.
But the whole thing is ridiculous because they could be easily taken out by any of the countries around Saudi Arabia, Israel and the US is all over the place. Many of them could just dismiss or deal with these people quite quickly, but they're not. They're being allowed to do it because it's the big, scary Islamic boogie man show, back on prime time on your screens. And it's not complete theatre in the sense that these people are crazy. This is the mix I was talking about earlier with Jason, mix of fantasy and reality where they have this idea of how we want to scare the crap out of people in the west and keep them controlled. So they imagine this idea of the terrorist Muslim boogie man (evil laugh) "wah-aah-aah-aah-aah" coming out with a knife. They have that fantasy and that would be great. But how do we make it reality? So, we actually find some people for that role and actually do it, and they can film it.
Jason: All the better if they're brown.
Joe: Yes! And the whole cutting this guy James Foley, he's just a victim. Daniel Pearl, in 2002, was a Wall Street journalist who was investigating the shoe bomber Richard Reid, which was kind of like a false flag operation around that time just after 9/11. He was kind of like the knicker bomber. There was the shoe bomber and then there was the knicker bomber. But he was investigating him in Pakistan with Daniel Pearl, a Jewish Wall Street Journal report. He was stumbling across information and getting contacts with people who were showing him that this guy, Richard Reid, was basically in the pay of Pakistani intelligence. And Pakistani intelligence, the ISI, have a long track record of running terrorists and Muslim groups and Muslim terrorist spots on behalf of the CIA.
Jason: ISI, ISIS?
Joe: ISI and ISIS, yeah. So Daniel Pearl was there, and he was the first one. He got caught theoretically because he was going to try and expose the fact that this was all kind of phony fake terrorism, very strange links back to intel agencies. So they used him as an example. Instead of allowing him to expose this fundamental truth, they used him to further the fantasy, which is crazy Muslim terrorists, and he was beheaded, supposedly. Strangely enough the group that supposedly beheaded him had come out of nowhere, got a name, picked a name from the dictionary, the Group for Freedom of Pakistan thing, and then they disappeared again. But one of their demands when they supposedly had Pearl was that the US make good on an order that the Pakistani government had for 20 or 30 F-16s that the US was stalling on.
So this is a rather strange jihadi group who wanted the US to sell their stuff to Pakistan or they would kill Americans. Usually you want America out of here. So he was the first one. And the blame for his murder was pinned on two people who were connected with 9/11. We've got that era of 'everybody was involved in 9/11', everybody who did anything wrong, in the Muslim world, was a mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. And then before that was Nick Berg, that was another silly one. So there is a track record for this cutting heads off of people. But now it's in high definition. That's the good thing about it, HD now. Back then there wasn't too much video around but the video I have of it is very good quality.
Jason: Well what you've just said kind of reminds me of something the Baron Von Harkonnen says in the Dune series. He said that the mark of all great conspiracies is the perversion of common wisdom. And there's a complete lack of common sense. You have the state departments appealing to social media and common sense. When is the last time that cutting off a westerner's head on a video has led to anything good for any terrorist organization? Never! Never! It never works. So what are these people doing? How stupid can you be? "We want to establish a caliphate in order to do that we probably don't want the US military attacking us. Here's a great idea. Let's cut off a white person's head on TV. That'll do it." No!
Joe: There's only two explanations: stupid or paid.
Jason: Stupid or paid and I'm going for paid.
Pierre: And you mention conspiracy. The hallmark of conspiracy is the perversion of common wisdom. And I think more than that, the whole battle is not only in Gaza, in Ukraine or in Ferguson but it's in our minds again. As Joe has said, there is this constant stream of new news every day. That's one of the tricks used by the elites along with deception, along with lies, smoke screens, entertainment, and drugs. The main threat for the elites, I think, is people who think. That's why they fear people who see reality as it is. So we encourage all of our listeners to see reality left and right, objectively, as it is. That's the best service they can give themselves and is probably the best service that we can give to our planet, for human hood.
Jason: That reminds me of something. There was a story about a magician. He was a little short Sicilian guy or something like this. And he had these really small hands and he was a card magician. He would palm cards but his hands were so small that the card was sticking out. But he was so successful because he had a good patter routine. And most people in magic say that what gets the trick across, what allows people to be deceived by the trick is the talk, the patter that you give them.
And that's kind of what they do in the media. It's this constant stream of patter, the distracting patter, so that you don't see the trick because you can't pay attention to two things at the same time. Or three things or four things; with all these things going on, there's a pretty girl over here and all this stuff is happening. And it's magic. It's simple misdirection. And the modern media basically is the patter arm of this great big gigantic screw job magic trick. Basically we're all getting cut in half on stage here and being distracted by the pretty girl in the leotard.
Joe: Yeah, that's true. Okay, I think we'll leave it there for this week folks.
Jason: We didn't even get to Ebola.
Joe: We didn't get to Ebola, but you know what's going on there.
Pierre: Next week.
Joe: Watch out and keep your diet healthy. Don't be eating too many carbs.
Pierre: And the cold therapy.
Joe: Take some cold baths, maybe not, whatever. Just read up on it and keep your eye on it. Stay safe. Anyway, we'll be back next week with another show on another topic. There'll be another topic and we'll be talking about it as usual.
Pierre: Breaking news.
Joe: Breaking news. So until then, just keep watching the news and watching the skies and watching the ground and watch out.
Pierre: And have a good one.
Joe: And thanks to our callers and thanks to our chatters and thanks to all the people here.
Jason: Thank you Joe. See you next week.
Niall: See you next week.
Jason: Bye.
Reader Comments
to our Newsletter