This week, we discussed a range of topics, from Jihadi John and prisons in the USA to the glorification of psychopathy in American culture, and the latest in Ukraine.
The Truth Perspective is brought to you by the SOTT Radio Network and SOTT.net, your one-stop source for independent, unbiased, alternative news and commentary on world events.
Live every Saturday from 2-4pm EST / 11am-1pm PST / 8-10pm CET.
Running Time: 01:54:00
Download: MP3
Here's the transcript of the show:
Harrison: Welcome everyone to The Truth Perspective. It's February 28th and in the studio today, joining us we have Sott editors William Barbe:
William: Hello everyone.
Harrison: We've got Elan.
Elan: Hey there.
Harrison: And me, Harrison Koehli. So, last week there have a few kind of crazy stories that happened. Actually just yesterday. We're going to start out with some kind of breaking news: assassination. There's been a pretty major level killing in Moscow right outside the Kremlin. Opposition figure, Boris Nemtsov, and well, first let's kind of get a little bit of background on this guy.
So, he was killed - he was shot - outside of the Kremlin as we said. But first of all, who was this guy, really? William, why don't you fill us in a bit.
William: Well, he was born October 9th, 1959 in the resort city of Sochi. And he actually went through some pretty extensive schooling. He's worked in some research institutes and was involved in plasma physics, acoustics and hydrodynamics; a candidate of the physical and mathematical sciences, and to his credit he has more than 60 scientific papers on quantum physics, thermodynamics and acoustics. And among some of his inventions is acoustic laser and some parameters of antennas for spacecraft.
He didn't start working into politics until 1991, which was during the Presidential elections when Boris Yeltsin came into power and he was supportive of Boris, and of course Yeltsin liked what he saw in him and appointed him as a Presidential Envoy in the Nizhny Novgorod region as well as head of the region. And even Margaret Thatcher had some good compliments about this guy during that time.
Harrison: Oh, he must be a good guy then. Margaret Thatcher; wow.
William: So, he mostly worked in the Russian Government. Since 1997 he served as Minister of Fuel and Energy as well as a First Deputy Prime Minister in '97 and '98 and in the same period was a member of the Security Council of the Russian Federation. Several times, politicians are elected to the Parliament in the Russian Federation in the 1990's and Nemtsov was elected Deputy of the RSFR and a year later on the Council of the Federation. And he was also a Deputy of the State Duma from 1999 to 2003. And in the same period, he served as Deputy Chairman of the State Duma and led the SPS.
Interestingly, in 2004 the party officially... Nemtsov supported Viktor Yushchenko in the Presidential Election in Ukraine. At that time, few politicians supported the Orange Revolution there. And he also made several trips to Kiev to perform in the Orange rallies. And from 2005 to 2006 he was the freelance advisor to the President, Yushchenko.
Now, during the Crimea crisis, Nemtsov criticised Russia for its foreign policy towards Ukraine. In September 2014, he signed a statement to stop the aggressive adventure, to withdraw from the Territory of Ukraine Russian troops, and to stop the military support to the armed, self-proclaimed supporters of DNI and ELC.
Now, since 2012 he has been a co-chair of the political party of the Republican Party of Russia - People's Freedom Party. In 2013 he was elected a deputy at the Yaroslavl Oblast Duma on the list of the party, RPR; a post that he is currently holding today.
Harrison: Well, was. Not anymore.
William: Well, yeah.
Harrison: So, it sounds like he started in science and then got into politics in the 90's - with the mess that politics was in the 90's in Russia. And then, I think it was around 2003, he kind of got out of politics again and focused mainly on business. And then, in 2007, came out again as kind of re-entered the political sphere in opposition to Putin and the ruling party. He has been a vocal critic of Putin, insulting him in public on various occasions and prior to him being shot and killed, apparently he was quoted as saying that he was concerned that the President might want him dead over his opposition to the conflict in Ukraine.
So, right there, that's an interesting statement. Because, well, now he's dead. So of course, we haven't yet seen headlines in the Western press like after MH17 - you know, "Putin Kills Nemtsov" but I'm wondering if we will in the near-future; it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility and in fact I think it's probably pretty likely that that's the direction that the mainstream press is going to go with this.
Elan: Well, even if they're not overtly saying it - and a lot of these articles on the BBC and major 'information carriers' - you have statements like, "Nemtsov claimed that he feared for his life and that the Putin Presidency was going to kill him."
Harrison: Shades of Litvinenko affair, right?
Elan: Yes. There are shades of a few different affairs in evidence, here. So, I think that we're seeing a lot of hints in the suggestion of where we're supposed to be thinking about this killing.
Harrison: Well, apparently opposition leader, Ilya Yashin, said that his friend, Nemtsov, had been working on a report about Russian troops and their involvement in Ukraine. Now, of course, this is second hand, if he was working on this report. We don't know if he was, first of all, and we don't know what was in it or where he was getting his information. So, maybe another little seed planted to create this new narrative - or whatever narrative comes out - that this was the KGB; it was a hit because Nemtsov was Putin's enemy. You know, that's probably what's going to happen.
Elan: And it's clear that Putin - the Russian Presidency - basically had no reason to kill this guy. I think that much is obvious. He was scheduled to be part of a spring Russian rally tomorrow, in opposition to the Putin Presidency, but Putin has been so effective in staving off criticism. He's got an 85% approval rating - why he would be motivated to kill anyone for political reasons within Russia and have such an obvious, kind of dramatic event like that happening right in Moscow, for goodness sake; it's just ridiculous. But, the Western media, all they have to do is throw out a few suggestions here and there and you can be sure that there are a number of people who are going to jump to all sorts of conclusions about it.
William: Well, Putin went ahead and sanctioned that rally for tomorrow. He's given his approval.
Harrison: Well, I think they had said no to it being in a certain spot or something like that. But now, they're approving it because now it's going to be a memorial rally. So, they've got the go-ahead to have the memorial rally for Nemtsov.Just a correction: I accidentally said KGB earlier. It's not the KGB anymore; it's the FSB.
So the killing itself: so what happened exactly? So, Friday night, Nemtsov was walking close to the Kremlin - just outside the Kremlin - to his apartment, apparently. He was walking with a young woman - 23 year old model/actress, Anna Durickaya - who was a native to Kiev; so she was a Ukrainian model, 23 years old. Nemtsov was 55. So he was walking home with a woman half his age to his apartment when it happened.
A light/white coloured car drove by and "one or more" people in the car opened fire. Apparently it was a pistol. They shot - depending on the reports - anywhere from four to seven, maybe more times; hit him in the back. Apparently he was hit four times. The woman with him was unharmed and the car drove away. It hasn't been confirmed yet, but apparently the car has been found - you can see pictures of it on Twitter - so, we'll probably have confirmation for that sometime soon. And a full investigation has been launched. Everyone in the Presidential administration, Putin himself, has made statements. His Press Secretary, Dmitry Peskov, has made statements. And Putin has basically said that this was a horrible act, of course, and they're going to find the people that were responsible and bring them to justice.
So, what could the possible motive for this be? Well, there are a few and the investigation is apparently looking into five possible motives.
First of all, Putin has said that it has all the signs of a contract killing and that it was, "extremely evocative". Now, the police are saying that the motives that they're looking for... let's see. Well, one of them that it could be personal. So of course, it could just be a personal vendetta for some reason against Nemtsov, because everyone has enemies - especially if you're in Russian politics.
Another possible motive was that it was a deliberate provocation to destabilise the political situation in Russia. So, this was a political killing with political motives. Well, we'll get into that one a bit later on.It could've also been linked to the threats that Nemtsov had received over his stance on the Charlie Hebdo shootings in Paris.Or for his stance on the current war in Ukraine.
So, we've heard what he had to say about Ukraine: he's kind of criticising the so-called Russian involvement in Ukraine. And as for Charlie Hebdo, it's hard to find information exactly on what he said on that - at least in the English press - but apparently he condemned the killings and I can only guess that he probably just came out with the line that all the Western politicians had; that's what I'm guessing; because it's hard to see him saying anything else that would be seen controversial in Russia. I don't know; maybe if any of our listeners have any information about that, they could let us know.
And, it could have also had something to do with his business activities. So, right now, the options are open at least for the Russian police. But, the idea that it was a deliberate provocation is probably the one that seems most likely to me, at least for the moment. Because this comes at a very particular time, like we've said - right before this planned opposition rally. Nemtsov is kind of one of the big public figures of opposition and, like William was saying, he's been know and been a public figure in Russia for decades; people know him. But at the same time, like you said, Elan, there's really no reason for the Russian authorities to have killed him. Partially because while he may be a public figure and well known, he doesn't really have that much support.
Just before the shooting happened, there was a report on RT on the results of one of the latest polls that they conducted on Russians about what they thought about opposition parties and just opposition in general. The results of that were that over half of all Russians - 58% - agreed that the opposition is a necessary part of the political system, but only 19% would vote them into power, so that, "Yeah, we need an opposition but, you know, we don't really support them; we wouldn't really vote for them." So they don't really want to see them in power, it's just something that's the right thing to have.
Elan: The principle.
Harrison: Yeah, the principle that it's good to have something to have, but that's about it. And 22% of the respondents opposed the very existence of opposition movements in the country. So, 22% of Russians don't even think that Russia needs opposition; they're perfectly happy with the government as it is. That percentage of the population said that having an opposition only atomises the community by causing unnecessary conflicts. Well, there's an argument to be said for that, especially when the opposition is very much influenced by foreign NGO's and pro-democracy movements that are intent on only getting out the current power and putting in one that's favourable to Western powers. So, there's that to consider.
Elan: And of course, the irony is that the more foreign pressure is made upon Russia - whether through economic sanctions or demonization - by the West, the more the Russian people seem to rally around Putin. So really, if this was an intelligence agency, CIA-backed assassination, it has gone or will go probably in the unfruitful direction.
Harrison: Well, Nemtsov was part of what is called the, 'Non-System Opposition' and in this poll, the Non-System Opposition claimed even fewer supporters that anyone else: only 3% said that they sympathise with the Solidarity Coalition and that includes Nemtsov. So, he didn't really have that much support anyway, so how big of a threat could he be within Russia to Putin or just the existing government? Not a very big one.
Just a little bit more on this poll, because it was kind of interesting; there's some interesting stats in there.
The call to cancel the alleged censorship in mass-media was shared by only 5% of Russian citizens. So, the Russian citizens think that their media is alright. Sounds alright to me.
William: Kerry doesn't seem to think so.
Harrison: Yeah, I know!
William: He's complaining, "We need more money! RT is taking over!"
Harrison: Yeah, "You can hear RT in English. But, can you hear our news in Russian?! We have to do something about this!"
Elan: Speaking of RT - just a quick footnote: I was in New York recently and we have a service provider there that I think is no longer - and maybe someone can verify this - I don't think they're carrying RT in New York any more. And that's funny because there were so many things I'd been watching on it that, of course, provide an alternative perspective to what we're hearing, and I thought, gees, how much longer are they going to be 'allowed' to continue broadcasting? So I have to check into that further, but it seems like there is already a kind of a movement towards getting RT off the airwaves in the US.
William: Well, if they have the dish network, they can connect to it.
Harrison: Another statement that was made recently: one of my favourite public speakers, because he always has fun stuff to say, Ramstein Kharkov from Chechnya, he said, "Only the powers interested in destabilisation could act so wickedly" in reference to the Nemtsov assassination. "The organisers of this murder were hoping that the whole world would blame the country's leadership and thus would provoke protests. No doubt that this murder was organised by the Western special services who try - by any means - to induce internal conflicts in Russia. The hatred of Kiev towards Russia is also a factor. Nemtsov's death sentence, earlier passed in some Western capital, could be executed by the hands of the Ukrainian special services." Hmm, interesting!
So, interesting to know what Nemtsov's relationship was to the woman that he was with - the Ukrainian woman. Also, William, you'd mentioned that he was involved in the 2004 Orange Revolution. Now, interestingly enough, in 2012, he was caught walking directly into the US Embassy to meet with US Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul. Now, this guy, McFaul, had been on the board of directors for both Freedom House and... Well, I'm not sure if he was on the board for the NED - the National Endowment for Democracy - or if he just worked with them; he might have been on the boards for both. And McFaul himself had admitted in newspaper articles after 2004 that both the NED and Freedom House had interfered in Ukraine and were involved in the so-called Revolution there. So, McFaul himself was involved in these organisations and involved in the subversion of democracy in Ukraine at that time, and he himself had close ties - or some ties, at least - with Nemtsov.
So, interesting connections, there; something to look into more, to see what else there is. Right there, you've got Nemtsov himself connected with the NED and Freedom House, these US NGO's that foster freedom and democracy around the world by subverting freedom and democracy around the world.
Elan: The same NGOs, by the way, who were in support of Alexei Navalny who a few months ago who was the other Russian opposition leader - flavour of the month - when he left his home imprisonment status to go out in a square in Russia and speak out against Putin. So, I think that Navalny was probably one of Russia's last hopes in stirring up trouble, and as Tony Cartilluci mentioned in an article: if you're not useful to colour revolution or change in Russia alive, then you might be more useful dead.
I was just looking at sott a little while ago and there was a video of Putin in a kind of a town hall meeting with people who were just asking him questions informally, and he was responding to them off the top of his head, and one of them asked a pretty pointed question, I guess, regarding false-flags and rallies that kind of points directly to what we've just seen. And Putin had some interesting things to say - this was back in 2012.
He said, "Concerning false-flag attacks at rallies and such, I hope no one will step over the line, everything will be kept within legal limits, and hopefully the attempts to provoke law enforcement have been in vain. Because the forces you mentioned really want violent clashes and keep trying to start them. They're even ready to sacrifice someone in order to blame the government. I know this method and tactic; they've been trying to use it for the last ten years - this method mostly used by those working abroad. I'm telling you, I know this as a fact. They're even looking for someone to be made a martyr - a famous person of some sort. They will 'whack' him themselves - sorry for the phrasing - and then blame the government. There are people capable of this; I am not exaggerating here. I hope that people who really want to improve our country - and to this end, use their right of assembly, of free-speech - do not fall for this ploy."
It's prophetic. If we consider the strong possibility that Nemtsov was murdered by Western interests.
Harrison: And, speaking of creating or finding a personality for a scenario like Putin talked about: John Kerry recently said that, "Nemtsov committed his life to a more democratic, prosperous, open Russia and to strong relations between Russia and its neighbours and partners, including the United States."
So, Nemtsov - kind of like we've seen with people like all those exiled oligarchs that turn up in other countries after they've fled Russia or were kicked out for ruining the place - they're lauded as these noble upholders of democratic virtue and they're just almost saints in the eyes of Western governments and NGOs, when they're anything but.
So, this is kind of what we're seeing with Nemtsov: because he was an opposition figure, he's being portrayed as this martyr, as this great hope for Russia that has been cut down, when, I mean, great hope for Russia? No...
Elan: Well, here's one for you. This one's from John McCain...
Harrison: Oh, yay!
Elan: "Boris is dead because of the environment of impunity that Vladimir Putin has created in Russia. Where individuals are routinely persecuted and attacked for their beliefs, including by the Russian government, and no one is ever held responsible." Just classic McCain.
Harrison: Well, I mentioned one of the reasons why this is a kind of curious event, and that was the timing of it. Not just the timing coming before the opposition rally, but this comes after certain events in Ukraine and things have taken certain directions in Ukraine. So, we can tell - we know - that Western NGOs, Western government, want regime change in Russia; they don't want Putin in power; they are doing and will do anything in their power to have that happen - to get rid of Putin.
And so, they were hoping, and have been hoping, for a Russian Midan like they saw in Ukraine; they want, basically, a coup: a change in government; regime change. But, it hasn't worked so far, as we've seen. I mean, Putin is only getting more popular because the Russian people... well, I wonder if the engineers of these kind of information warfare tactics and the guys just calling the shots in how to carry out this project, if they're just totally stupid and they can't see that everything they do has the total opposite effect? Because it should be pretty obvious because if you look at it from a Russian's point of view, they identify with Putin; they see all these bad things happening as being attacks on their leader and so they rally behind Putin and the government because of these things happening that way.
So he ends up getting more support - even if the economy isn't so great - the Rouble is dropping. Even if Russians are getting killed in East Ukraine - Novorussia - this is only bringing Russians closer together because they have this common enemy. So they've got this real common enemy and then in the West, we see in all the media, all the politicians are trying to get Westerners - ordinary people - to see a common enemy in Russia when the situation is totally the reverse.
So, we saw this apparently - on the surface - successful coup d'e tat in Ukraine last year around a year ago, so that was a great boost for democracy in Ukraine (sarcasm), right? Well, no, but it was a success, right? I mean, the US got the people they wanted in there. But then, the country got bogged down in a civil war because it turns out Donetsk and Lugansk wouldn't have any of it. So for the past... how many months has it been since the anti-terrorist operations started? It's been, oh I don't know, ten months already, something like that? That hasn't gone the way that the guys in Kiev and their masters from the CIA and US State Department have wanted and we saw this earlier this month with the whole Debaltsevo thing in Donetsk and Lugansk, which prompted the Minsk 2.0 agreements. So, just like what happened last year in Ilovaisk, the Ukrainians got a whole bunch of their troops trapped in a so-called cauldron - so they're surrounded on all sides - and then they say, you know, when things stop going their way, they go, "Okay, hold on a sec. Let's have ceasefire here so we can solve this because things didn't turn out like we planned."
So this happened again in January in Debaltsevo and so, "Well, this is bad. What are we going to do? So, let's have these Minsk agreements." Only, when Poroshenko got there, he wasn't really aware - seemingly - that there was a cauldron in Debaltsevo. And so, what eventually happened, even though these agreements were signed and agreed on - you know, ceasefire, withdrawal of heavy weapons, constitutional reform, de facto independence for Donetsk and Lugansk, among other matters - is that Poroshenko and the military command in Kiev kind of just abandoned the thousands of troops they had trapped there, denying that the cauldron existed. And then when a number of them managed to break out of the cauldron with very little gear, then they called it an organised and planned withdrawal - you know, a total success; when, in actuality, these guys just barely managed to escape, left behind the majority of their weapons and gear, not to mention all the fellow troops that they were there with; and these guys themselves, you can see videos of them on YouTube, calling out the military command and Poroshenko himself for abandoning them there and lying about it, leaving them to their deaths. Because they had two options, basically: they could break out and break the ceasefire - or attempt to break out - or they could surrender. Well, many of them surrendered but they had orders not to surrender and even those who did surrender or tried to break out then had to encounter the troops that were stationed there to shoot any people trying to retreat. So they were trapped there with no options.
Now, the DPR officials - so the authorities in Donetsk - they released the figures for the fighting between January 12th and February 20th. So this was the time of that whole Debaltsevo cauldron, from when it started until right after the Minsk agreements when it was finally taken care of and the cauldron was pretty much entirely cleared.
So, these were the figures that they gave. So, these are all Ukrainian losses and so we can't be sure that these figures are totally accurate, but based on the videos coming out, the photographs, it doesn't look that out of the ballpark.
So, enemy losses/Ukrainian losses, 10,940 killed or wounded. That includes 4110 killed. So 4000 Ukrainian soldiers killed in that period of time, mostly in Debaltsevo. 4000. Officially, only like 5500 people have died in the entire conflict so far in the last year.
So first of all, that figure of 5500, that's the official estimate but German intelligence says it's probably close to ten times that, so 55,000/50,000, somewhere around there.
William: Ouch...
Harrison: But, 4000 Ukrainian troops killed in less than a month. Oh, no, sorry; over a month. A month and a week.
1178 Prisoners of war. So, these are all guys that have either surrendered or been captured. And if you just add that up together, that's over 5000 troops, and there were estimates when the cauldron first formed that there were anywhere from five to eight thousand troops in the cauldron. So, that gives you some idea of how many of those guys were either killed or surrendered or captured.
Now, equipment losses. This is pretty astounding:
299 tanks - Ukrainian tanks - 28 of which were captured in-tact in Debaltsevo. So basically, they were just abandoned in perfect working condition, with ammo; you know, the Novorussians could just drive off with them. There were several others that were in repairable condition; so they will be worked on and then utilised after that. Almost 300 tanks - 299 - many of which were destroyed, of course.
- 49 self-propelled artillery. So, these are kind of like... they look like mini tanks, but they're just not as heavily armoured. 15 of those were captured in usable condition.
- 155 infantry fighting vehicles, 33 of which were captured. Again, that looks like a mini tank.
- 121 armoured personnel carriers, 30 of which were captured.
- 25 multiple rocket launchers. Those are the weapons you see that look like they're mounted on the back of a truck, angled up, and you just see all the rockets firing out of them. The GRAD missiles or Smerch missiles. So 25 of those.
- 205 towed artillery pieces.
- 36 120mm mortars.
- 16 anti-aircraft guns.
- 2 armoured recon vehicles.
- 290 motor vehicles.
- 3 SU 25 attack aircraft.
- 1 Helicopter.
- 4 UAVs/drones.
Elan: So basically, a debacle for the Kiev military. A strategic debacle.
Harrison:Yeah. A HUGE defeat.
Elan: A huge defeat. A huge loss that Kiev is trying to cover up and undercut and belittle. And they're just struggling. And so, getting back to the Boris Nemtsov assassination for a moment - just putting that in context - it seems like an act of desperation. It seems like the West doesn't know what to do. And they're grasping at straws here because there is a counter-measure or a strategy or an out-manoeuvring of Western designs on destabilising Russia at every corner.
Harrison: And so, they're doing the only thing that they know how, which is to kill a person or a bunch of people and then structure the event in such a way to get the outcome that they want.
Now, we'll have to wait and see how this memorial rally goes, but there's been some speculation from various internet commentators on what could happen. It's possible at least that this coming rally could be used to the same purpose. I mean, if you have some gunmen stationed at this rally to take out some of these opposition protesters or the leaders and the speakers who are there, it would just escalate. I mean, that would be a big situation. And of course, in the West, then it will be presented just like the Midan was presented: you had the snipers at Midan that were blamed on the existing power and not the so-called 'revolutionaries' - you know, the crazies that were jumping on the streets like lunatics.
Elan: My guess is that - after this murder happened, the Presidential office said that they were personally handling the investigation - so, they're probably anticipating any kind of advantage that might be taken from this and are going to have security and intelligence people 'up the wazoo' around this day of mourning.
Harrison: Yeah, because you can be sure that if the FSB didn't have any hand in this - which there's no reason to think they did - that they are, first of all, kind of... what's the word? Blaming themselves, or at least, not very happy that they let this happen? Because you don't want something like this to happen in your country because you see where it can lead. I mean, they wouldn't want Nemtsov to be killed because they understand how that could be used. And so, of course, I'm sure they also probably want to find out exactly what happened.
Now, whether we'll eventually find out who was responsible is hard to say. They'll probably find some guy with no discernible connection to the people that were actually responsible; and the guy that was responsible could even have been chosen in such a way that the connections that he does have will point towards someone else. I mean, that's standard operating procedure when you pick a patsy: you don't want to have any real connection with them to implicate yourself. And it's easy enough to find - in one way or another... like even someone with connections to the FSB, let's say, and to turn them. Or, it could be a double agent; could be somebody that they've just turned or blackmailed in such a way to carry out this act and thereby implicate a third party and not the person or the group actually responsible.
So, hopefully nothing else happens during this rally. If it does, that would just give the Western media and politicians so much more opportunity to exploit it for their own reasons. But we'll just have to wait and see, I guess, what happens with that.
Elan: Well, the sad part is like, MH17, it just kind of goes down the memory hole. You know, you have this message: "Russia is culpable." "Russian aggression." and you hear it so many times in reference to a specific event; and of course, there's no follow-up, no clarity and people forget that it even happened, in many cases. And then, there's this other event and maybe that in their minds is a partial success and a propagandistic strategy that just plants enough negative ideas in someone's mind to get them thinking in the wrong direction.
Harrison: And if or when the final investigation is concluded, whatever the final result is, what is the Western media going to say and what are the Western politicians going to say? "Well, you can't trust the report; it was conducted by the very people who are responsible." So then we're going to get the kind of thing like you see with the Litvinenko affair or the journalist, what's her name? Anna Politkovskaya or something like that where there's no evidence to show that Putin personally, or the FSB or whomever was responsible, but that's the narrative that you see in the West because it had to have been them. And anything the Russians say to the contrary, it's "Well, you'd expect them to say that!"
So the seed has been planted already just by the fact that this guy was a big opposition figure to Putin, considered one of Putin's personal enemies. So that's all that people are going to remember and it's very easy to exploit that after the fact, no matter what an investigation will reveal or who is eventually exposed as being behind it, because "you can't trust the Russians"; it's that simple.
Well, back to Ukraine. A funny little story from last week. So, as it looks like there's some desperation behind the motivation for the Nemtsov killing, it looks like there's some desperation going on in Ukraine as well among the military intelligence 'ministry of truth' kind of people over there. Because apparently, Ukraine needs an information army. So, what they did is they threw a guy - a politician, journalist with connections to various groups and he even does work I think for the Russian Embassy in Ukraine - created this Ukrainian information army website. So, for Ukrainians or anyone to create accounts and become part of Kiev's information army.
And so, there's a blog, Fort Russ, out there that you should probably all check out because it's really good; it presents all kinds of translations of news that you would only be able to get in Russian. And so, one of the translators there, J. Hawk, he actually signed up for an account to be a Ukrainian information warrior just to see what it was like and what would happen.
So, he received several messages - just ridiculous messages - with instructions on what to do. So, basically sign up for their Facebook and VK accounts and Twitter, and I'll read one of them; this is one of the last ones that he received - the fourth, I believe.
So this is what they say: "Commenting on the news of the enemy, you have to understand that you may be blocked or banned at any time because you are spreading the truth. That's what Kremlin's information agents do. Agents of the Kremlin never use their real pages. For this purpose, they create other accounts. Here are the instructions on how to create bots in the Russian army:
1) Register new mailbox.
2) Then register a new page on social networks using the new email.
3) Bots assume common Russian names, for example, "Alexander Ivanov", "Sergei Shevchenko" and "Grigoriev Alla" and so on.
The user profile form is then filled out completely.
City of residence is often Ukrainian, mostly from the Donbass region.
Avatar: a photograph of a real person; typically these reflect a graphics editor.
7) The account's photo album is filled with photographs of the "native city", nature and more. These pictures can be found in social networks or Google image search.
The bot starts by reposting popular pages on general, non-political topics. The user also makes actual personal posts on topics such as cutlets, neighbours or other similar topics. The idea is to create the impression that this is a "live account".
9) Bots added friends, but no more than ten a day and no more than one in ten seconds, otherwise they might be blocked by social networks. The more friends a bot has, the more confidence that he is likely to gain.
10) Bots also subscribe to pages and groups from their native cities.
So basically, that's subscribe to the pages and groups for the city that you've created for yourself. And lastly:
Typically, bots do not friend true pages or pages of their relatives in order to ensure the Russian fake accounts do not block or ban you, we recommend that you hide your name and personal data. Wait soon for the next task. Till next contact, sincerely, staff - information forces of Ukraine.
So it's basically like 'Hasbara lite'.
Elan: Um hmm; I was just thinking the same thing.
Harrison: So, this is how the Russian bots work, of course. But I wonder how many of those Donbass region personal accounts are actually bots and not just people that actually live in Donbass? But anyway, if you want to join the Ukrainian Information Army, you've just got create a whole bunch of fake accounts, spread the 'truth' about what's really going on in Ukraine - so talk about those epic Ukrainian victories, the victorious strategic withdrawal from Debaltsevo, all the Russian tanks that have been blown up by Ukrainian military - you know, you can spread all that stuff using your fake Ukrainian account with the pictures you found on Google and a common Ukrainian name.
So yeah, good luck. It'll be interesting talking to you guys on the comments section of [Inaudible] or wherever.
Moving on; well, just one comment from Putin before this Nemtsov thing happened that I found pretty interesting. He gave an interview to Russian journalist guy who's pretty popular over there, and said about Ukraine and the Minsk agreements that the biggest priority for Ukraine right now is fixing the economy, the social sector, human rights and relations with the People's Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk. And that, "For now, there is no need for extreme measures" in relation to DPR and LPR. Now this is if the Minsk agreements are followed.
Now, the question that was asked to Putin was that if Russia would end up officially recognising DPR and LPR, because until now, they haven't. Russia's official policy, which has been consistent from the beginning, was that Russia would prefer a unified - or at least a...what's the word?
Elan: Federated?
Harrison: Yeah, but, a single Ukraine. They don't want Ukraine to split up. They don't want Donetsk and Lugansk to leave Ukraine. They want them to be part of Ukraine, even if it's in some kind of federated structure or de facto independence - but they want Ukraine to remain a whole, for various geopolitical reasons. So, Putin responds with this very conditional statement - and he calls it an 'extreme measure' - saying extreme measures will not be taken if the Minsk agreements are followed up on, for now.
So, just those words themselves suggest that these so-called 'extreme measures' are at least on the table. And when you look at the Minsk agreements themselves - the latest batch: 2.0 - I mean, we discussed it before: when you read the points there, they look impossible. Because, the Ukrainian government as it is, there's no support for these things. Constitutional reform? Sitting down at the table with these so-called 'terrorist leaders' in Donetsk and Lugansk? I mean, how likely is any of that going to happen?
Elan: It's not.
Harrison: Exactly.
Elan: And on top of that, you have the US military continuing to send advisers. There was a story about some police in Reno, in the US, who were going to be sent to teach policing to the Ukrainians. So, I don't know what the West is thinking. I mean, they're grasping at straws and there was this other thing about tanks with US flags driving through parts of Estonia, just about a kilometre away from the Russian border, making shows of force, trying to instigate something? I don't know if it's a failing strategy or they're just grasping at straws here, but the situation, as we were saying, is getting really desperate and the aim, of course, is to suppress and crush the peoples of Donetsk and Lugansk and take over their resources. They're in the process of trying cleanse them - cleanse these lands of these people. There's a mass exodus of people to neighbouring Russia. It remains to be seen what the US has up its sleeve as its next step towards trying to achieve its aims in securing the area for themselves.
William: Yeah. It was interesting to see some videos out now that Ukraine has lost so many weapons, now they're showing videos of them restoring old weaponry from World War II to show what a sorry state that they're in and that they need help. And so promptly after that, Poroshenko met with Saudi Arabia to make some arms deals...
Harrison: Yeah, the United Arab Emirates.
William: The UAE. And that kind of sounds like a back-door way for the United States to supply weaponry.
Harrison: Of course. "We lost all our weapons! Give us some! You guys wanted this war." Yeah, I mean, they're perfectly justified in asking for the weapons. I mean, it's not their war. The US should be giving them more weapons because the US are the ones responsible for this and egging it on.
But, at least Russia is making it hard for the US to get away with this stuff. Because, even with the latest Minsk agreements - which were probably actually written by Putin; he also made a statement in the interview, hinting at it. He made reference to this one footnote that was put in there because he was talking about how much input that the German and the French - so, Hollande and Merkel - how much input they put in; and he said, "Oh, and you see this footnote here? They wrote that footnote because they really wanted that in there." Okay, so they wrote the footnote! Okay. Well, so who wrote the main points to which the foot note was added? Well it obviously wasn't Poroshenko because he had to be strong-armed basically for 17 hours into agreeing to it. So, who does that leave? Well, it leaves Putin.
But anyways, so they've created this document with the approval and support of major European powers like France and Germany that is apparently agreed to by all these parties showing the wish and intention for peace and resolving this conflict, but which Kiev will be unable to fulfil, so it puts everyone except Poroshenko in a position of looking like the good guys. Because in this situation, they kind of are, and he's kind of left in this impossible situation where, except for all of the propaganda, he'll come out looking like the bad guy - which he is. So, it's kind of a mini coup in that sense for the forces of truth and justice.
Elan: Well, I think it's funny: Merkel came out a few days ago with a statement that if they're going to accomplish anything, they have to have Russian input. And I think that was said in regards to, well obviously, Ukraine, but it's clear that she's trying and she is probably also someone who is extremely pressed to follow the dictates of Washington. But, I think Minsk 2.0 is probably dead in the water and all the counter moves are being anticipated as we speak, by Russia.
Harrison: But, about Minsk, one of the interesting things that I kind of saw afterwards was that first of all, there was an interview with Zakharchenko - the Prime Minister of Donetsk - I believe it was him; if not it was one of the top guys there who had said, basically at Minsk they learned that they've really got to learn, basically, diplomacy and how to get things done politically. And so that they learned a lot of things and that from now on they're not only going to be militarily superior, but they're going to also be superior of the diplomatic front, and basically working the system the way politicians work it in order to get what they want. And so, since then, we've seen that while there has been criticism of Donetsk and Lugansk's behaviour in Debaltsevo because of the interpretation of the different points in Minsk and was this really a cauldron? Well, yeah, it was, but where was the front, actually and blah, blah, blah.
But Donetsk and Lugansk have been the ones that have actually been following the Minsk agreements and making a point of showing the world that they are following these agreements and taking measures to put them into place. So, they did stop all major operations; responded only when fired upon - because Kiev continued to shell various areas, including Debaltsevo and the Donetsk airport, Donetsk itself, Myropol, and then they initiated their withdrawal of heavy weaponry to the demarcation line. As of yesterday, they were 90% and 80% done in Donetsk and Lugansk, respectively. And Zakharchenko made a statement saying that they were completing the withdrawal yesterday. So by today it's probably done; they've withdrawn all of their heavy artillery. And yet, Kiev simply made a statement that they were starting to do it, but with no real evidence, first of all, and the OSCE is saying that they have observed artillery being moved, but they can't verify that it has been moved because they need all the proper documentation for both sides: where the equipment was; the exact route that it was taken; where it was going, and where it would be kept.
So, despite Donetsk and Lugansk actually moving their artillery and the OSCE observing it, the OSCE will not make a statement that it has been done until they receive all the paperwork. Well, first of all, of course, that applies to Kiev as well - they need to provide all this paperwork, too, and they haven't. But, Donetsk and Lugansk have said that they have provided some paperwork, but it's really hard because a lot of this artillery doesn't travel on roads; you can't give an exact route for where it's going, you know? "Okay, so we're at this many degrees across this field, through that little copse of trees..." What do they expect?
And so, the OSCE also has refused several times to actually go and observe all of this. They have been invited, "Okay, we'll come and look and watch" like you're supposed to, "all the artillery we're moving", and they haven't. But apparently, Kiev has started withdrawing some of their heavy artillery, up to like 15% to 20% is one figure I read; hard to know how true that is. But, at the same time, for all this time they have still been shelling various areas. So, it's very clear if you just look at even the kind of half-hearted, lame statements that the OSCE put out, that Donetsk and Lugansk are putting a lot more effort in to maintaining the ceasefire and going through the points of the Minsk agreements than Kiev is. And that'll probably continue until Kiev does something to bring the gate and make null and void the Minsk agreements. Zakharchenko a couple of days ago, when Kiev had yet to initiate the withdrawal of their artillery and to cease shelling, gave them an ultimatum and said that by today - or last night - if they hadn't initiated the withdrawal that the Minsk agreements would be dead and that that would make all the agreements null and void and the front line would be re-established as it was on February 12th, before the agreements were signed.
So, I haven't seen any updates yet today on what is the status of that ultimatum.
Elan: And the backdrop of this - we were talking about this a little earlier - William, you had mentioned that Ukraine is in dire straits economically...
William: Yes, they are.
Elan: The value of their currency has been lowered.
William: Yeah. Their currency has lost 70% so far. Now, hundreds of people are gathered outside the national bank of Ukraine, which is in Kiev, on Saturday to protest the banks policy, and demanding the resignation of its head, Valeria Gontareva. The list of demands includes, among other things, measures to alleviate the plight of borrowers who took out loans denominated in foreign currency as the Hryvnia's exchange rate is rapidly falling. These include a law enabling them to repay loans at the exchange rate valid at the time they took them out. This is Yatsenyuk that's decided he needs to have an emergency meeting about this and it's going to be out in about a day. The central bank has been trying to create measures to rectify the situation but it hasn't helped. But it's creating a panic amongst the Ukrainian citizens and the consumers; they're storming the supermarkets and pharmacies; they're buying up a lot of the cheap products such as coffee, tea, sun flower oil - they have all vanished from the shelves. And the stores have started to introduce rationing to keep people from buying too much stuff and stockpiling it.
But now, there's some experts who warn the Ukrainian customers AGAINST stockpiling flours and cereals and suggesting that the cost of these products are unlikely to rise. But, they recommend buying caviar, medicine and alcohol, which are products that are more expensive, and with the Hryvnia continuing to slide they're going to even go up in price. That's kind of strange: I think I'd rather be stockpiling stuff I need.
Harrison: Yeah, it's all about the value, right? You want to make good investments that you can you recoup their value and more. I mean, sure; what do you need food for?
William: And, do the people even have enough to make those kinds of investments? One lady from Ukraine wrote a nice little letter to Mr. Shedlock, "We have quite a panic over the collapse of currency. People buy any food products that can be stored. Everyone wants to get rid of the Hryvnia. We haven't seen anything like this since 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed. Stores are empty. It is hard to say what the exchange rate is this day, somewhere between 34 and 42.
"There were riots in downtown today. A group of protesters was beaten up by police. They marched through downtown and gave a last warning to government officials. Next time they said they will shoot some officials.
"Ukraine is on a brink, but the West is not in a hurry to give us money. Perhaps they want something. Maybe they know the money will end up with corrupt officials who will steal it."Either way, the few billions they promised in March won't save our economy, not after this panic started."So, the Yatsenyuk government was blaming currency exchanges and now they're blaming the supermarket directors. Oh boy...
Elan: Wasn't Yatsenyuk like a director of economic affairs? Didn't he have some title related to the economy a few years ago?
William: Good old Yats? I'm not sure about that.
Elan: Yeah, I'm sure he did. But in any case, so he's just calling on Poroshenko to have an emergency meeting at this point and...
William: Yeah, to address the situation.
Elan: And to address the situation. But what are they going to do? Are they going to borrow money from the IMF?
William: Well, they may fire the central bank head, who knows? You know, just to please the people, get them to calm down.
Harrison: Well, that's what you get for allowing the US to take over your country. It always seems to go in the same direction. I mean, US freedom and democracy is pretty ugly.
Elan: That's what it looks like.
William: Also, this was pretty interesting too, that the director of the Ukrainian State Reserve, Vladimir Zhukov, he demanded that they open their storehouses and fill the shelves again with flour, sugar, canned meat and buckwheat from the stores. In response, the keeper of Motherland's strategic stores revealed a terrible military secret to Yatsenyuk and Poroshenko: the storehouses are empty. Good old J. Hawk, he had a comment there, "There were indeed earlier reports that the strategic reserve was being unsealed to support military operations on the Donbass. The army has to eat, after all. Maintaining several tens of thousands of soldiers for nearly a year is likely to make a dent. The second factor is the junta's desperate need to earn hard currency." So they were probably selling off some of those stores, including the Myropol's huge grain reserves.
So, they are very desperate.
Elan: Maybe Victoria Nuland can walk around and hand out food to everybody?
Harrison: Yeah, cookies! Nuland's got plenty of cookies. She should just be, you know, dropping them from USAID planes and helicopters, yeah!
Elan: Poroshenko can drop his chocolate.
Harrison: Yeah! He's got plenty of chocolate. Chocolate and cookies: what more do you need?
Elan: "Let them eat chocolate and cookies."
Harrison: Well, I think we can move on from Russia and Ukraine for now. Well, first of all, I just think with all that's going on and the position that Poroshenko is in, he might want to get in touch with this guy, an Italian neurosurgeon, Sergio Canavero, who claims to be able to transplant a head or at least he will be able to by 2017; because Poroshenko may need either a new body or a new brain in order to survive. He's just gotta hold on for another couple of years and then he'll be alright.
But okay, moving on. Speaking of economic concerns, an interesting report was reported on recently that 1.6 billion people in the world - so almost a quarter of the population - have to pay bribes for everyday public services like healthcare and education. So, this was a report put out by researchers at the University of Birmingham.
So, apparently Europe has very low rates of bribery with only 4% on average making such payments. In contrast, the average is 22% in Latin America, 29% in the thirty African countries surveyed. Professor Rose, one of the authors of the study said that, "Within every continent, there are major differences in the percentage of people annually paying bribes. In Africa, the range is between 63% in Sierra Leone and 4% in Botswana. In the European Union - which has the goal of upholding the rule of law - there were 29% paying a bribe in Lithuania, and less than 1% reporting bribing a public official in Britain.
"The European contribution to total corruption is in the bribes that multinational corporations pay to the political elites to obtain big bucks for contracts, such as things like building dams or supplying military aircraft."
So, basically it sounds like there's bribing going on everywhere, but in the Western countries it's more a matter of big, political, corporate bribes; and in other countries, it's a matter of bribing public officials in order to receive things they should be getting without bribes. So, that's a nice little glimpse into the state of society as it is now.
Elan: How much were you paid to make that statement?
Harrison: I'm going to... what's it called? 'Plead the fifth'.
In other news: okay, now this is like some breaking news. I was very interested to read this. It turns out that the top secret identity of Jihadi John has finally been revealed.
By day: a computer programming graduate from the University of Westminster, living in Queen's Park, West London. By night: evil murderous Jihadi - Mohammed Emwazi.
So, this is the guy - Jihadi John - made famous or infamous, by his numerous appearances in the CIA created... oh, no, sorry... in the ISIS inspired and created videos that have been released over the past year or so of beheadings and murders sorts of things. You know, he's the guy with the British accent saying... well, I won't imitate him.
But apparently, his secret identity was known by the UK for a while now, but it was kept secret due to "Operational Risk". What do you think that means? Well, they say that lives were in danger if they were to make his identity known to the World.
I think that operational risk means that they just didn't want to screw up their operation - they had a good thing going.
Elan: That's the English equivalent to 'National Security'.
Harrison: Yeah, 'Operational Risk', Jihadi John... Okay, so it turns out Jihadi John or Mohammed Emwazi, he's kind of been on the radar of UK authorities for years. There's a charity in the UK called CAGE - I can't remember what that stands for, but it deals with Muslim issues, I believe. The charity director says he knew Emwazi for approximately two years.
Now, Emwazi had tried to make a trip to Kuwait several years ago and the UK Security Forces intervened and attempted to recruit him as a spy. He was later detained and interrogated in Tanzania in 2009.
So, Jihadi John, like so many other of these public Muslim terrorists, just so happened to have ties to the UK - or whatever country's - security services: run-ins with them; interrogations; arrests; attempts to recruit them as spies. Now, of course, the UK government denies that they were successful, but do we know that?
William: Ah, huh.
Harrison: I mean, in the US, pretty much every terrorist plot that has been foiled has been created by the FBI with their own Muslim informants, so I mean, it's just standard operating procedure. So, I just thought it was interesting that Jihadi John is most likely - or was - turned by the UK security services.
William: Is he related to Chemical Ali? That's a reference to the WMD; another construct thanks to western intelligence agencies.
Harrison: Well, speaking of British Muslims, there was a survey conducted among a thousand British Muslims recently by ComRes, compiled for the BBC, and they found that two thirds of the respondents felt that acts of violence against people who produce images of the prophet Mohammed could never be justified. So, two out of three British Muslims think that there's absolutely never any justification for violence in response to a person that produces an image of the prophet Mohammed.
However, 27% showed some sympathy for the motives behind the Paris attacks. I think those numbers are pretty predictable. I mean, you get any population of people, of course the vast majority of them are not going to believe that killing someone over a cartoon is justifiable. No matter what their religious belief is, I mean, humans seem to be split up or divided among a kind of bell-curve in terms of just everyday moral values and the way they go about their lives and what they think is right or wrong. Of course there are differences - sometimes stark differences between different cultures - but when it comes down to it, it pretty much averages out. And even those 27% that showed some sympathy? It's possible to show some sympathy towards someone that does an act like that, without either being willing to do it yourself or fully condoning it, because at least, or 80% of the respondents also told the survey that they were themselves deeply offended by the images.
So, of course, if you're deeply offended, a percentage of a population will have some sympathy with the motives for the attack. That doesn't mean they condone the attacks themselves.
And 32% were not surprised by the attacks, of course; that should have been a given I think for most people, not just Muslims.
The results further suggest that half of Muslims living in Britain feel they suffer faith-based discrimination and believe the country is becoming less tolerant. Nearly 50% said they feel prejudice against their faith and it makes living in the UK difficult.
35% said they think the majority of British people do not trust Muslims. This is despite 95% saying that they feel loyal to the country. So yeah, 95% of British Muslims feel totally loyal to the UK, but don't feel like they're safe, basically. And we've seen that in previous poles that we've talked about and just the general situation in Europe.
What did Madonna have to say about the situation in Europe recently? "Feels like fascist, Nazi-era Germany".
Okay, moving on. Anything else you guys want to talk about?
Elan: Well, there was this story coming out now about Homan Square in Chicago's West Side. It's a nondescript, warehouse or facility where there's been a lot of secretive work by special police units. But basically, it has the distinction of looking a lot like a black site, or a place where people are brought in - ostensibly on criminal charges - and really kind of roughed-up, not allowed to call a lawyer or to make any phone calls whatsoever. Quite often, they're kept in really hard conditions - you know, shackled in cells - and not given any kind of permission to reach out. So if people have been arrested and brought there, it becomes problematic because there is a kind of 'black-out' within the police system in Chicago about their whereabouts. And if these people have lawyers or family, they have to be very aggressive in trying to learn of the whereabouts of their family or friends.
Obviously, this has more than a passing resemblance to black sites around the world; places where the CIA has been known to take people suspected of terrorism or other charges and torturing them and basically locking them away. Many of the people at Guantanamo have had to stay at such places before being sent to Guantanamo.
William: Reminds me of an old word we haven't heard in a while: renditions.
Elan: Yeah.
Harrison: Well, the techniques that they use in Homan Square are reportedly identical to the CIA enhanced interrogation. One of the guys that was responsible for the conditions at Guantanamo was even a Chicago Police Officer. There's no known connection between him and Homan square at this point, but it's quite the interesting coincidence that they use the same techniques like holding people in stress positions in shackles for hours; sleep deprivation; threatening detainees with violence towards their family members; beatings.
Elan: Well this is like really where the war abroad is a reflection of how citizens are being treated here. And it's happening by degrees, but it's happening. So, I guess this place has been in operation for several years and it's finally getting some attention in the media; which is a good thing. But, the question remains: what's going to be done to curtail it and how many other places are like this around the US that are doing this to people who haven't had a chance to speak to the media or who can't afford attorneys or who are really at the mercy of whoever runs these types of places?
Harrison: Well, it looks like we've got a caller, so we'll see if this call works - apparently it's kind of choppy, but let's see.Hello, caller. Can you tell us your name and where you're calling from?
Andrew: Hey. My name's Andrew. I hope that you guys can hear me okay. It's a very slow connection - very remote and far-off. So just hoping that it's coming through clear enough.
Harrison: Yeah, we can actually hear you, Andrew. Thanks for calling. What question did you have?
Andrew: Well actually, I had a few comments. I think you guys are touching on some very important topics and when we look at the things like Ukraine and the system that's being set up at the moment in the media where people are starting to feel this sort of Cold War type relation between Russia and the United States again.
It's a very [Inaudible] tactic, yet it's very brilliantly rolled out and the methods that are being used are highly sophisticated forms of control. But one of the things I hope will happen more in the future is that more blogtalk shows and different media outlets will begin speaking about the solutions as opposed to focusing on only what's happening - I mean in terms of what they can see happening on the ground.
Because I've been looking at these things for quite a while and I don't think any of us can claim to be an absolute expert on any of these things - especially in the alternative media - because if you think about, for example, the Central Intelligence Agency, Defensive Arms Projects Research Agency and so many of these agencies - some of them which are not very well know and some of them which are totally unknown - they're highly sophisticated in their methods of creating media and people don't realise that - from what I've found - very few big organisations are ever set up for communities or for people on the ground.
If, for example, a person is living in any country which is connected to a central bank, which means that their energy is being harnessed. And people either forget or they don't know that this is the purpose for why these systems are being set up. And I don't want to go too far off topic, but if you look at Anatoliy Golitsyn - who was a defector from the KGB, in the 1980's I think it was - he just decided he'd had enough and liked the idea of living in West and he wrote a few books. One of them was New Lies for Old; and in that book, he outlined how Russia's going to become a democracy and suddenly they're going to flip over and it's all going to be part of the same game. I'm paraphrasing obviously - I haven't got the exact quotes from the book, but essentially, all of the intelligence agencies around the world - most of them - actually work together; and yes, there's in-fighting and yes every now and then there's a disagreement like what happened with Saddam: Saddam started playing with the oil price because he didn't want to obey his masters anymore. Like what happened with Gaddafi where he started saying, "I want to bring out a gold Dinar. I want to be able to have power within Africa. I want people to be able to compete with the West", and he got taken out.
So the official story is always... and when I say official story, I mean media news stories that come out every single day, the variety of them; they're all there to prop up a particular image that's on the outer layer - it's the outer shell of what's going on; like if you look at an egg, you've got the yellow bit in the middle, you've got the white on the outside, and most people are looking at the white on the outside; they're not seeing the yellow bit in the middle, which also exists. But if you had two ants standing at the bottom of this egg and the one ant says to the other ant, "Man, there's good stuff in the middle there; I know it; I've heard stories." You know? That's kind of what's going on with most of our reality. You know, we can only see from this plane, looking forward, and we don't necessarily have a bird's-eye view. But if you can get a bird's-eye view - which might take a while to figure out - you can start to see through things like the book that Anatoliy brought out and various little hints and things throughout history because obviously this is all very secret and controlled.
There was a funny little YouTube video of John Stewart... I can't remember what his show is called... The Daily Show, that's it; so he had this little segment in there where he was talking about all the countries around the world that America is busy attacking and making war with and he said, "And we're not going to leave you out, Iran! You're on the list to be some of the most hated nations on the Earth. It's not like you're not in on the game." And as he did that, as he used those words, "You're not really in on the game", and he mentions the President of Iran and he stuck his hand into his coat pocket like 'nudge, nudge; wink-wink', because anybody who is initiated into the occult will know the occult meaning - secret societies - will know that when you stick your hand in your pocket like that, it's just an allusion to Masonry.
So, in other words, I think its Ahmadinejad or - I don't know if I'm correct - the President of Iran is probably a Mason and what he was doing was saying, "We're all in on the same game." Jim Carey also did it recently, but because he's a comedian he did it so cleverly; I mean, I'm not saying Jim Carey's on the level of some of the political analysts, but Jim Carey made a funny joke recently on one of these shows recently where he spoke about secret societies, but in a very joking way, so you still don't really know anything, but to those in the know, they know that some of the statements he made were correct. You know, he came out saying, "They're just chosen entertainers to distract you from what's really going on." But because he's a comedian, he can get away with saying that because the person that's not in the know will find it funny; that they think it's a big joke and the person that's... you know... yeah.
Whichever side you're coming from, however much knowledge you actually have, you'll get different things out of what Jim Carey said.
Harrison: Yeah. Well, Andrew...
Andrew: It's very difficult to explain, but essentially...
Harrison: Andrew...
Andrew: ...they're all working together. Russia and the leaders of the United States are working together.
Harrison: Well like you said, I think that there are factions, of course, involved, but in the big picture, yeah, you've got people in these intelligence agencies all over the world that are working together, and that's the big picture. But, you've mentioned that you'd like to see more discussion of the solutions; did you have any thoughts on what those solutions might be?
Andrew: Well, yes, because... and I appreciate you guys listening to what I have to say; it's very difficult because people want to talk about the polarisation. And the thing is for people to not become polarised. And it's incredibly difficult; it's difficult even being someone that does look at these things - and I'm sure that you guys have felt the frustration as well. Because you can go up to a lot of different people, even just on the ground: I did an experiment - a social experiment - recently, to see what kind of reactions would I get. You know, you can say to someone, "Did you know that just about every single President that's ever been a United States President has been a Mason?" And I'm not saying Masonry's bad by the way; there's a lot of good allegorical things that come out of Masonry, etc. But as the funny saying goes, 'It's not completely inconceivable to think that very powerful people might actually use their power to maintain and get more power, you know?
So, the solutions are for the people, on a ground level, to start saying, "Hang on; I'm not going to go along with the construct. Let me stop, think, see what's going on, and start organising. Because if you look at someone like Obama, he's an organiser. One of his favourite books is Rules for Radicals and you could call it communist, but actually it's sort of... you can label things whatever you want, but it's often two sides of the same coin: democracy and communism; two sides of the same coin. In other words, within certain mystery schools certain people have gotten together and said, "You know what? We're going to create constructs. One of them, we're going to call communism; the other one we're going to call democracy." And then they start releasing books: some of them called communist books and some of them called democratic books, but in many different cases, it's all leading to the same thing, which is power and control.
So if people can start extracting themselves from that system and say, "Okay; instead of watching the NFL or whatever it might be - no offence to people who love the NFL - but whatever it might be that's your particular distraction, say, "Okay, the situation is actually quite dire. Because, I'm inside a construct in which I don't have power and I don't have any way to defend myself against, for example, fractional reserve banking, which is what's been going on for just over a hundred years. And the sinking of the Titanic - it wasn't actually the Titanic, it was the Olympic - but in any case the two or three or four people that were resistant to the Federal Reserve were assassinated and you have the Federal Reserve being put in place.
So, it's a private bank and then basically, all the wealth of America has - through various different mathematical programs being syphoned off the people - in to the bank of England and by extension, the different people that have got shares in that particular branch of the global empire - the New World Order - which already exists, it's just that it's the externalisation of the New World Order that we're seeing now, but it's existed for a long time. The British Empire went covert...
Elan: Hey, Andrew...
Andrew: The British Empire was a physical manifestation of the New World Order...
Elan: Andrew... Hey. You're saying a lot of interesting things, and actually I'm thinking there are a few things to respond to.
Andrew: Go ahead. Go ahead.
Elan: Yeah. Just so that this has more of a feel of an exchange; though, I know how you feel...
Andrew: I'm sorry, I just get carried away.
Elan: No, no. Once you've...
Harrison: Oh, just wait... Andrew, yeah, you said a lot, and thank you for calling. So I think we'll end the call right there. But we're going to respond and talk about some of the things you were talking about. So stay listening to the show and yeah, maybe we'll have something to say that could add to your base of knowledge. Alright? Okay, thanks Andrew.
Andrew: Okay, thanks very much. Alright, all the best, man.
Harrison: You too. Bye bye.
Elan: Well, for one, something that occurred to me: you know, "The Devil's greatest trick was in convincing people that he didn't exist". And so, a lot of the things that Andrew was saying felt very much like that. People have been...
[Audio clip]
Voice: The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
Elan: Thank you for that. I guess that was repetition.
Harrison: Well, I wanted to talk about two things that Andrew said, or two concepts that he mentioned. One was polarisation and then the whole idea of two sides of the same coin. Because I agree with that, that one of the biggest issues is this polarisation and how to get away from that and to identify it and work against it. And while I agree that there are a lot of Masons out there, I don't necessarily think that Freemasonry is kind of the top level descriptor or word that could be used to describe who all these people are. Yeah, I think many of them are involved - possibly even the vast majority of them are involved in certain secret societies and organisations like that, but I think that probably the big issue - and it's one that we've talked about a lot; I mean, we've published a book on it: Political Ponerology, by Andrzej Łobaczewski; and it explains this polarisation and this whole idea of two sides of the same coin in very interesting terms - and that is the distinction between psychopathy and ordinary individuals, because psychopaths naturally are attracted towards positions of power; whether that be power in a personal relationship or in a workplace environment or - aspiring to the level of full and total power - ruling a government or even ruling the entire world, a vast empire.
And so, psychopaths - like conmen - they will adopt any mask, any persona, in order to dupe the person that they want to be under their control or that they want to exploit. And when you look at it, ideologies or political parties or communism or democracy or capitalism, whatever, those are simply masks or they are the persona that the conman adopts in order to get what he wants. And when you strip off that mask, all psychopaths are essentially the same, they're doing the same thing, they're using the same techniques in order to gain power and in order to use that power and gain more power and retain that power. Just like when you strip back the political ideology, you see the same, rapacious machine that is modern or any kind of geopolitics or world conflict or international relations or anything like that, it has the same flavour, the same character because behind those masks, it is the same creature - that is, a group of psychopaths that are striving for power and want to keep it and will do anything to keep it. And the way they do that is they use the same techniques.
I mean, you look at the so-called democracy of the United States in a capitalist system that - like in this Homan Square in Chicago, that is using techniques of torture completely against any kind of law or just moral values - I mean, that's the same stuff that the KGB or any secret service agency around the world uses or does; I mean, it's the same torture.
So, you see the same dynamics across the world despite whatever political party or ideology is on the surface.
Elan: I agree. And of course, there are psychopaths and there are psychopaths. You know, the petty criminal who has no compunction about killing someone for a little money operates on one level; the Dick Cheney's of this world operate on yet another level. But I agree; if we're going to address the problems of this world, then what most of us will need to do is identify where most of the problems stem from; and that's the fact that there are people in positions of power who have no issues with hurting and causing the suffering of many others in order to achieve their aims.
So, that, I would say, is one of the first things that we can do as individuals is to learn about this problem. And also, how they influence people who may have a very normal or healthy way of thinking. They do it through the media; they do it through propaganda; people don't realise how they're affected and what the dynamics of it are, and the mechanisms. And you know, as Harrison was referring to, Political Ponerology is really just an excellent examination of the ponerisation or influence that these types of people have on the injured or the instinct impaired, or people who just have no idea of what the depths of influence is that psychopaths have on individuals.
So, it's a very big problem; I'm glad Andrew brought it up because I don't think we could discuss it enough.
Harrison: Well, I think it gets to the heart of that issue of polarisation because psychopaths polarise people; that's the way they operate. And when you look at it in those terms, you'll see that it's not a matter of communism versus capitalism or Russia versus the States or any other dichotomy or, you know, conflict that you can set up between two opposites. It really is a matter of normal people in every country - humanity as almost a whole - against a small population within every country's population. It's like, every country has an enemy within, and humanity should be united against that enemy within, not another country. Because the bad guys in the other country are just as bad as the bad guys in your own country, because they're everywhere, and they're in positions of power and they're the ones pulling the strings. So in order to get over that polarisation, people have to realise that humanity, we have a lot more in common with people in other countries and other continents - the normal, just regular people 'over there' - than we have with the people that are controlling political processes and social realities.And I think that realisation, or that idea, is a profound one in order to get over the polarisation that results from the very processes that we're talking about: pathocracy.
William: Yeah. Bringing back the morals of all the people. That's the thing we have in common.
Harrison: But we just don't seem to get it. I mean, people don't seem to realise that people in the States, people anywhere, have a lot more in common with just the regular people in Russia, say, than they do with their own leaders. I mean, it's not some other country's other ideology that is the problem; it's the people among us that have no conscience. When you attempt to approach even being able to grok them, you realise that they have very little resemblance to what we understand as human beings - they're just completely foreign. It's like they're just some strange alien species dropped on the planet that just has nothing in common on the inside but happens to look like us.
Elan: And if you try to explain - especially in political terms - how things really work; for instance that this guy Nemtsov, for instance, might have actually been victim to the CIA or other agency just to stir things up in Russia...
Harrison: Cynicism.
Elan: You can well imagine the doubt or the scepticism regarding such a reality. It's almost, you know, it's the stuff of movies; it's unfathomable; and yet, it's happening; and yet, that's the terror of the situation. Having said that, Andrew - and for all folks who where this subject of psychopathy may be new - just a few books you may want to consider checking out: The Mask of Sanity by Harvey Cleckley, Without Conscience by Robert Hare, I'm sure there are two or three others...
William: Snakes in Suits.
Elan: Snakes in Suits is an excellent one.
Harrison: Oh: Women Who Love Psychopaths. Now, that's one I wanted to bring up today just in relation to an article that I read recently - it's up on the sott page: it's a letter from a psychiatrist to young people. In it the psychiatrist makes some good points about this Fifty Shades of Grey movie and book. If you haven't heard of it then you probably don't get out much or don't read the newspaper or watch movies, or something like that.
But, so Fifty Shades of Grey: it's a novel about sadism, pretty much - in a word. But, some of the points that she makes in this letter are pretty profound and I think people need to hear them. So, I'd recommend searching the article - like I said, it's on the sott page - and checking it out; maybe sending it around to your friends. Because what Fifty Shades of Grey is, is it basically glamorises and whitewashes physically and emotionally abusive relationships. It presents it in a glamorised way as if it's not as bad as it appears and there may be a happy ending to a story like this. Well, anyone that has experience in the mental health fields or has experienced things like that, it's just a complete fantasy.
For people who haven't read the book or aren't familiar with the story, it's about this kind of rich guy, Christian Grey, who was severely neglected as a child and so as an adult, the only way that he can respond to a relationship is through violence and control. And so he does this to the main character in the story that he gets into a sexual relationship with. But the author of the letter, as she says, first of all "Abuse is not glamorous or cool. It is never okay under any circumstances. In the real world, this story would end badly with Christian in jail and Anna in a shelter - or morgue. Or maybe Christian would continue beating Anna and she'd stay and suffered. Either way, their lives would most definitely not be a fairy tale. Trust me on this one."
The basic message being that in the real world, a guy like Christian Grey will not change because he doesn't have that Hollywood back story of the neglected child - you know, he's really got a heart of gold and if you only love him enough then he will change and become a better person and stop beating you. And it doesn't work like that. That's why I wanted to mention Women Who Love Psychopaths, because really, what this is is a fantasy world creation of what in reality is just an abusive relationship with a pathological male. And this comes back to ponerology in the sense that for people to know about pathology, know about psychopaths in order to avoid situations like this because if you go into a relationship with a guy like that thinking that you can change him and that things will turn out and that he'll stop beating you, I mean...
Elan: You know, this is really a reflection of our times. Because, in the past 20 years, there were so many films that were about the heroine that was married to or had a relationship with an abusive spouse and then ends up escaping and the pathological spouse pursues her and finally she has to draw the line; and it usually comes to some kind of violent climax. And these types of movies - I don't remember the names of them right now; there was one with Jennifer Lopez, another one with Julia Roberts - they're kind of Hollywood thrillers, pretty conventional, but at least a message was there: run away from your pathological partner. And now we have - especially with the Twilight series that's got all kinds of mixed messages, who I believe the author of Fifty Shades of Grey was inspired by, inspired to write this book...
Harrison: Was it Sleeping with the Enemy?
Elan: Yeah.
Harrison: And Enough?
Elan: Yes. Thank you.
Harrison: Yeah, thanks to the chat-room chatters for their pop-culture knowledge.
Elan: Yeah, so, we're really headed in a terrible direction here. And there was another article about the film that was written by Chris Hedges who usually writes about the war on terror and things of a more political nature. And he made the connection between this type of pop-culture entertainment and the objectification of women and the violent turn that a lot of pornography has made in recent years, with grotesque, just barbaric, abusive things that's passing off as entertainment - as if pornography wasn't bad enough. So all of this stuff is really working on a lot of people and it's seeping into the mainstream.
Harrison: And coming back to Homan Square, we see just how pervasive this mindset is and how it extends to all areas of life. And you can see it in history how these things progress, but we don't learn from history, how we have the situation like in Guantanamo Bay and all these black sites, where these things that most people just don't want to know about and would shock them to their core if they actually witnessed an event like a torture. These things go on in other places; "the CIA does its dirty work, but I don't want to see it" but then it somehow happens to come home. And now, the same practices are being done on ordinary US citizens in Chicago, where they are basically 'disappeared'; it's like living in some kind of totalitarian nightmare where the secret police come and knock on your door and disappear you; where did you go? Oh, no one knows because there isn't any paper-trail; the documents haven't been signed; you're taken to some black site where you're tortured, coerced into giving a confession to something you may not have done; can't talk to your family or your lawyer; it's a nightmare, and it's pervasive because of what we were talking about just a few minutes ago - because of psychopathy. And this is the psychopathic mind-set that just affects everything. That's why Łobaczewski said that pathocracy, as he defines it, is not a social system or an economic system or a political system; it is a social disease that takes over entire nations and spreads between nations.
And the only solution is to be aware of that disease and once you know the cause of the disease, you can take steps to take care of that cause - one of which would be... oh, if only we could get accurate psychopathy check-list tests done on everyone involved in government, military, the intelligence agencies...
William: Police.
Harrison: Police. I mean, the police probably purposefully hire psychopaths. But anyways; it's a pipe-dream, but we've got to start somewhere and I don't know if it's possible, but...
William: Yeah, education is the first step.
Harrison: Yeah. Well, anything else on Homan Square we want to talk about?
Elan: I think we've basically covered it.
Harrison: Alright. Then, I think we're going to end it there for today. So, thank you to all our listeners. Thank you to Andrew for calling in - hope we can talk to you again sometime in the future. And be sure to tune in tomorrow - same time, 2-4 Eastern - for Behind the Headlines, and then on Monday for The Health and Wellness Show on the sott radio network. And we'll be back next week, with a special guest whom we'll be interviewing. Can't release the name of the guest yet because we'll have to figure out what's going on, but we should have a guest next week and it'll be interesting, so keep a look out on the cassiopaea forum - we'll make an announcement there or elsewhere. Just tune in and yeah, so, see you next week. Thanks for listening.
Elan: Have a good one folks. Be safe.
William: Bye bye.
Reader Comments
to our Newsletter