Most people would agree that war should be avoided if possible, yet in the 239 years since the American declaration of independence, the USA has been at war for 229 of those years. Were all of those wars necessary? If that isn't a repeating historical pattern, we don't know what is.
The First World War was called "the war to end all wars" and yet, just 20 years later, an even worse conflagration consumed the Eurasian continent, killing 65 million people.
The phrase "never again" is most often heard in reference to the genocidal policies of the Nazis towards the Jews of Germany and Poland, yet today a record number of Jews are fleeing Europe for Israel in the face of mounting anti-semitism.
Apart from 4 military assaults on sovereign nations, the deaths of at least 2 million people and the creation of an extremely instable security situation in many parts of the globe, the almost 15-year-long US-led war on terror has created a distinct anti-Muslim climate in many Western nations that bears many of the hallmarks of the first waves of anti-Jewish sentiment in Nazi Germany.
So if we have an accurate understanding of history, why does it appear to continue to repeat? Is there something wrong with our official historical narrative?
Behind the Headlines airs live this Sunday, 08 March 2015, from 3-5pm EST / 12pm-2pm PST / 7-9pm UTC / 8-10pm CET.
Running Time: 01:31:00
Download: MP3
Here's the transcript of the show:
Joe: Hi everybody. Okay, so I'm Joe Quinn and my co-host this week is Niall Bradley.
Niall: Hey everyone.
Joe: So, this week, we are talking, a little bit - maybe not for the whole duration, but a little bit - about historical revisionism; specifically, I suppose, of the 20th and 21st centuries. But, historical revisionism goes back a long way, obviously, because you know, what is history but a narrative written usually by the victors?
Niall: Usually.
Joe: Or by people after the fact. It would be nice if history was always written at the time or immediately after specific events and kept in a pristine form, but after the fact, there's a lot of historical revisionism that goes on that then becomes official history without necessarily telling you that it has been revised.
Of course, historical revisionism has two flavours; one is official historical revisionism, which is allowed and fair - for example, Biblical history for example or even in political history, etc. it can be updated as new details come to light. So the idea of revising history as new data is discovered... because, of course, you're talking about something that happened thousands of years ago - that kind of stuff is... we have little, for example, texts available of stuff that went on a long time ago or other evidence - but that evidence may come to light with modern technology in terms of being able to decipher or read documents that are available or to unearth historical artefacts, etc., that put a different slant on it. So historical revisionism isn't such a bad thing necessarily.
But it's also got a negative slant, and this is the kind of thing we're talking about, which is where people in the modern day look back at the official history of events in the past and claim that's not the way it happened.
It also is very close to kind of conspiracy theorists.
Niall: Well, yeah; the definition I've got... there's kind of, like you're saying, there's two meanings to historical revisionism. One is an accepted study of orthodox views of history; new evidence comes to light and academics reconsider things - and that's acceptable. And then there's what they consider 'negationism'; kind of another word for the 'dark side' of historical revisionism - which is, "The illegitimate distortion of the historical record -specifically historical crimes."
Joe: Yeah.
Niall: Which is what we're...
Joe: Like things didn't happen the way they say they happened.
Niall: Like, yeah, denying that it happened, or...
Joe: That it wasn't that bad.
Niall: Usually, the outcome is the believer or speaker or person promoting it is coming out with a history that runs totally contrary to the gist of what the official record says.
Joe: Right, or changing the culprits in a historical crime, for example.
Niall: Yeah.
Joe: Official history said that this person was to blame - they were the 'evil one'; and a revisionist would come along and say, "No, he was the good guy and the official good guys are the bad guys" and that's not allowed.
So, I mean, the thing that comes to mind immediately, for me anyway, about this - and it's something that's been in the air, if by 'air' I mean the internet - the rarefied internet air - of late - it's been around for quite a long time, I think, but there's been, in the past year, there's been a lot of chatter on the internet about a video that was produced; quite a long video: a six hour video - I think it's in segments - but it's called, The Greatest Story Never Told.
Niall: And it's not about Jesus.
Joe: No, it's not about Jesus. I think that title was taken originally... yeah, it's a play on "The Greatest Story Ever Told": The Greatest Story Never Told - and it's a revisionist take, effectively, on Nazi Germany and what the Germans and the Nazi's at the time were all about and the way that they're portrayed historically as arch evil-doers or the quintessential evil-doers, at least, of the past few hundred years, let's say.
The people who obviously made this video are taking a different approach to that and are trying to question the portrayal of Hitler and the Nazi's as the epitome of evil, and I mean, the word Hitler...
Niall: They've done more than just question it.
Joe: Yeah. Well, they question it... well, no - they question it...
Niall: Questioning it is fine, but you come away with the impression that there's an aura, a glow, a positive glow. Hitler comes out of it looking like gold.
Joe: Yeah. The problem is that 'Nazi' or 'Hitler' today - everybody knows this - but 'Hitler' doesn't necessarily refer to Adolf Hitler, the person, anymore when people use it. Probably when it's used most often, on discussions on the internet in particular...
Niall: It's almost a curse word.
Joe: Yeah, it's a swear word. And it's a very particular swear word because it's better than any just generalised swear word, some noun that you would throw at someone; it carries so much more, you know; it's a very powerful swear word, because it not only says that you're an extremely bad person, but it ties you into being a genocidal maniac and just completely deranged and being responsible for, you know...
Niall: Yeah; and a supreme racist.
Joe: And a racist, yeah.
So, this video, The Greatest Story Never Told, attempts to take a different approach or show a different side to Hitler and the Nazi's, shows a lot of the history of it, etc., in terms of what was happening in Germany beforehand and what happened during the Second World War - details that were maybe not commonly known or not part of an official narrative or not commonly known by the average person who doesn't really take much of an interest in this kind of thing but just accepts the official story of "Nazi's were evil. We stopped them. Good." You know?
The video itself, like you said, does cross the line to giving this very positive, let's say... it goes to the other extreme, or tires to go to the other extreme, I suppose, in giving a very positive view of even Hitler the man. I mean, one of the ways - I noticed - that at certain points, when they're showing archive footage of Hitler or Eva Braun or of Hitler's life - because there was a Hollywood movie or big-budget movie recently made about Hitler, with an English actor - what do you call him? That guy... he was in Trainspotting.
Niall: Ewan McGregor?
Joe: No, the other guy, with the brown hair. Anyway, there's a famous actor who played Hitler in this movie - I can't remember the name of it - and they used footage from that movie as well as archive footage. But, when they show certain segments of Hitler and Eva Braun, etc., they have in the background the song, "Unchained Melody", by The Righteous Brothers.
Niall: Right.
Joe: You know, that gives you an idea of the way they're trying to characterise him. You know, they're talking about his relationship, for example, with Eva Braun and the background is - I'll not sing it for you - but, "Unchained Melody": "Oh, my love; my darling; I hunger for your touch."
Niall: Ugh, gross.
Joe: And it serves to emphasise their point, or try and imply, that Hitler was this wonderful kind of guy.
But, I suppose my problem with this is that people that are promoting this idea, and it's not just in this movie but in other articles and other evidence that people bring, seems to be a kind of campaign going on for quite a long time to 'rehabilitate' the Nazis to some extent and show a different side to the Second World War and the Nazis. And my problem with that is that it's kind of extremely naive on the part of people who do this because they focus solely on the details in Nazi German, what Hitler did for the German people; after the First World War, the Treaty of Versailles basically crippled Germany and all through the 1920's and 1930's there was another plan called The Young Plan in about 1930 that was imposed on Germany in terms of demanding its war reparations for the First World War.
Niall: They were basically "IMF'd".
Joe: Right. And there was massive unemployment as a result and things weren't going too well in Germany. And then Hitler came along and everything was rosy again; everybody had a job and industry was retooled, but then it led to Second World War, right?
Niall: Yeah, but everything wasn't rosy.
Joe: No.
Niall: Materially, things were going well, but before the War was even on the horizon, there was already a cost to what was happening in Germany.
Joe: Yeah.
Niall: And there were a few people at the time speaking about it and they noticed this distinct change in the atmosphere.
Yes, it was a breath of fresh air for Germans, because, "Wow; leaders who are saying true things and actually doing things that match their words", like turning the economy around or whatever, but it became okay, once you declared you were on the authorities side, you were then above the law. And it was okay to smash people's heads in if they were in any way 'Lefty' or if they in any way looked like they had a 'hook nose'. That's going on while these super autobahns are being built, while Germany's miraculous economy was recovering and booming. Okay, there's goods, but yeah, at what cost?
Joe: Exactly, yeah. Well it was in a kind of national fervour of the German people in their ability to come back from ruin and "How wonderful we are!" It was all whipped up by the Nazi party when they got into power and it instilled this sense of extreme pride and nationalism within the Germans that was easily tipped over into racism and pogroms and looking down on the 'other'. I mean all someone had to do was to introduce the idea of a superior race at that point - the Germans being superior to minorities, and then the minorities got it in the neck, literally.
So, of course, there's these aspects to it, but what I don't understand was that certain people who take up this flag or this banner of revisionist history on the Nazis miss the broader picture. They're maybe just not capable of understanding, is they just don't bother to look into the broader picture and see what was going on around in the previous decades, previous to the rise of the Nazis, and then even what's happened afterwards, and look at it all in a broad picture and see that the phenomenon of the Nazis was just one element of a much broader... plan, I suppose you could say, or a much broader... scheme, even.
So, to miss that fact, then, means that you miss the fact that, sure, the Nazis were manipulated, and this is one of the things that was talked about in the video and other people have said who are trying to revise the whole history of the Nazis and paint them in a better light, was that Hitler and the Nazi party and everything was effectively kind of like a controlled or a phony opposition, essentially, by people primarily in the USA and in the UK, for example, and also in France. So they miss this important point that by focusing only on Nazi Germany and trying to rehabilitate it and saying that the bad guys were the Americans or the British and they have since also talked about how the Jews have used the Jewish holocaust, and this was all a big manipulation and it's wrong and to solve this entire problem you have to understand, first of all, that the Nazis weren't so bad and that they in fact were fighting for something good and that they were fighting against this system that we have today.
That's completely wrong. The Nazis were just a phenomenon within a broader picture spanning, let's say, a hundred years, that was just one more manipulation - one more element of a broader scheme. So, to try and understand it in a broader scheme, you probably have to go back to the 1800's, to the 19th century. But when you look at it from a broad perspective, you see that the First World War and the Second World War were fundamentally about the United States and the kind of banking interests - the money interests that had the money and the influence, who controlled the World, effectively, - that's what they set out to do - their goal was to neutralise Russia; and we're still living with this today.
What we see today in terms of the Putin bashing and the Russia bashing in the West has an unbroken line going back well over a hundred years - and it hasn't stopped; you can see it all as one continuous line.
So when you see that over a period of over a hundred years, to then focus on Nazi Germany and what happened in Nazi Germany and say that this was wrong and the Jews have used the holocaust, etc., to blah, blah, blah... is missing the broader picture. And you should not be talking about revising Nazi Germany history and picturing history etc., in a better light because that's not going to solve anything; you're not going to understand anything.
I mean, in 1905, there was the Russo-Japanese War which the Russians lost; but they lost it because American banking interests financed that war, effectively. One guy is named, effectively, as the kind of prime financier, and his name was Jacob Schiff, and he gave two hundred million dollars to the Japanese to ensure that they would defeat the Russians. This was in 1905; it was less that ten years later - well, it was a bit more than ten years later - that the rule of the Tsars in Russia was replaced by the Bolsheviks. The Tsarist regime was destroyed, literally - they were executed - and the Bolsheviks took over.
Now, there's a lot of evidence that the Bolsheviks - and this is hard evidence, a lot of it presented by a Stanford professor who's now dead, - Anthony Sutton - and while some people... we had a guy on the show who didn't like him, last year - it was that guy, Browdy, wasn't it?
Niall: No, it was Oliver Stone's partner who made the Untold History.
Joe: Right. He didn't think what he said was really accurate. But the fact is that Sutton has documents from the State Department that prove what he says.
Niall: Okay.
Joe: One of them being the Bolsheviks were given one million dollars; this was from a telegram, of which there is a record, from one of the directors of Chase Bank, which is... I don't know what it's called now - it was Chase Manhattan and then it's whatever it is now; but Chase Bank back then, in 1917, sent a telegram, or there's a telegram showing that Chase Bank wired one million dollars to the Bolsheviks, and that document still exists. So, the Bolsheviks were financed by Western bankers and they were helped in their taking over of Russia, by Wall Street.
Now you'd think, "Why would a capitalist in Wall Street want to finance a bunch of 'Commies'...
Niall: Their very own.
Joe: ...in Russia? Well, it makes sense because previous to that, the Tsarist regime wasn't communist, it was... well, you know a little bit about the Tsarist regime ran the country.
Niall: Yeah. There was a US President at the time, not F.D.R., the other Roosevelt, in there just at turn of the Century, who remarked that, "The problem with Russia is that it suffers from an excess of Democracy" which is a telling statement. It was actually certainly at the time the most just in terms of economic distribution and political freedoms, despite the caricature of it actually being very repressive, which was a Bolshevik/Communist revision of that period to paint it as bad as possible, when in fact it was its opposite.
Joe: Yeah. So, you think of revolutions today - Western financed revolutions, today. The Bolshevik Revolution was a Western-financed revolution at the time to get rid of a government that the US did not want to see being a dominant power in the World. Look at the size of Russia; Russia is at least two or three times the size of the US; it has massive resources; they knew this back then. This was after the Post-Industrial Revolution, the Western bankers and banking elite in the US and the UK did not want another 'United States' as a competitor and Russia was the obvious country that was going to be a competitor to the US. So they more or less took it out and installed their phony revolution which literally destroyed Russian industry throughout/after the Bolshevik Revolution, 1917, right through the rest of the '20's...
Niall: They had a civil war...
Joe: Yeah, I mean, it was eviscerated; the country industrially was eviscerated. There was mass poverty and mass unemployment, etc. And it was actually retooled then - their goal was to then retool Russian industry, which they did in the 1930's, or in the late 1920's into the 1930's they continued on with retooling Russian industry using Western companies - Western industrial companies; large companies like the Ford Motor Company, General Electric and a few others all gave their services and their expertise and actually built factories in Russia for the Russians, for the Bolsheviks.
So, by the 1930's, Russia was back on its feet after this revolution which allowed it to take part in the Second World War, effectively.
Niall: I have a question with the narrative so far. This is also a kind of untold history, which is surprising because you'd think if that was the case then we would know about this, but most people don't know that the British and Americans sent in tens of thousands of troops after the Bolshevik Revolution to fight against the Bolsheviks.
Joe: Right; to make sure that... of course at the time there was demonization of the Bolsheviks, which is bizarre. I mean, what you see from reading the history of this is that they're playing both sides against the middle, basically; someone's playing both sides against the middle. Of course sending in the Mensheviks - or The Whites - in the civil war against the Bolsheviks in 1920 or so; I mean you create your revolution, but you want to control your revolution afterwards and make sure it goes in a certain direction, you know? And, of course, there were maybe other interests that weren't involved; I mean, it's not to say that these Western banking interests in the US and Wall Street had complete control over it, but they were doing most of it. But of course, European governments had scope to go and try and keep them at bay, type thing. So it may have been a bit confused at that point, but during the Russian Civil War, these Western banking interests continued to send aid - of course, they said they were sending aid to The Whites who were fighting against the Bolsheviks because officially the Bolsheviks were bad, but most of that aid went to Lenin and the Communist Party, you know?
Niall: Actually, I can see a similarity with today. Today, Germany, France, the UK and the US, for example, sort of came together and did something in Ukraine, but we see both at the time of the coup last year and in subsequent events, that they aren't always on the same... you've got two more or less different plans of attack.
Joe: Right.
Niall: It was the same thing then; there would have been two different... because the Germans were also instrumental in getting Lenin and money into Russia.
Joe: Right, but at the end of the day, it's the money-lenders who win the day, basically.
Niall: The biggest money-lenders.
Joe: Their plan is the one that gets put in place, ultimately, because without money nobody can do anything. And the control of money can be used to put pressure on anybody, no matter what side they're on in a conflict.
So, when you look at the Second World War then, the reason for the Second World War was the result of the Second World War.
Niall: (You mean) of the First?
Joe: No, the Second.
Niall: The reason for the Second was the result of the Second?
Joe: Yeah.
Niall: Jesus; what does that mean?
Joe: Well, what was the result of the Second World War?
Niall: The result of the Second World War was that the United States occupied the Western half of Europe and the Soviet Union occupied the eastern half of Europe.
Joe: And then immediately the Soviet Union became...?
Niall: Oh, the arch-evil empire.
Joe: For the next...
Niall: Seventy years.
Joe: Right. So, Russia... and this is something that you don't hear people talk about much: Russia basically won the Second World War for the allies. But then, within a year, it was the enemy, the arch-enemy of the allies. I mean, at the end of 1945 into 1946, Russia was already being talked about as the enemy.
The West was immediately tooling up for a cold war.
Niall: Yeah, the guy who oversaw the atom bomb project said, "This is for sending Russia a message", before they even dropped the first thing on Japan.
Joe: Right. So, that's a strange contradiction about the Second World War. There doesn't seem to be much of an explanation as to why that happened. Surely, your ally in the Second World War defeating the evil Nazis should have remained your ally and you should have cooperated with him and whatever, but clearly, the point of the Second World War, and this was enforced, was to draw a line between Russia and the West and to keep Russia economically and industrially retarded - because remember what I said before was that when the Bolsheviks in 1917 went through their funded revolution by Wall Street, they eviscerated Russian industry and Russian industry was rebuilt by Western companies so they effectively could control economic development and output of Russia - because they had built the factories, they had given the expertise and they effectively controlled them.
Of course, the Russians could duplicate it and stuff, and they were still being funded, of course, as well - there were still injections of cash being sent - but as its expertise developed, all of its expertise was kind of drip-fed to Russia to keep them controlled; it was effectively a captive market, you know? I mean, if you want to create a market, if you want a market for Western goods and Western technology, what you do is you have to kind of wipe the slate clean in a country and then create that demand, right?
Niall: Yeah.
Joe: "They need us". And that's what was done to Russia. And this all goes back to the idea of stopping Russia; the fear of Russia being a threat to the United States. I mean all of these Europeans went to America a couple hundred years ago and set up the United States, but its way there across the ocean; but their main source of loot and plunder and resources and human resources as well, because of the resources and number of people in Eurasia, IS Eurasia. And they've kind of debarqued over to five thousand miles across the Atlantic, you know?
So, as soon as that happened, they had to continue to manage the situation in Europe and in Russia and control it, you know? I mean, I don't know where these people get this idea from, but a long time ago, someone came up with the idea of, "we want to control the World - primarily through money - through the issuing of money and the control of the economies of the World". So that entire period from 1900 up until today, basically, has been a process of these banking elites controlling, through financing and funding wars and revolutions, to control the Eurasian landmass, and primarily - as Russia is by far the biggest country in the World - to control the development of Russia so that it could not pose a threat to them and their interest to control the World.
I mean, they even - this comes from Sutton as well - there's a document showing that there was a slush-fund for Heinrich Himmler, throughout the Second World War, that was paid into by US corporations and from large US and British banks; this was during the Second World War; American corporations and banks were paying money to Heinrich Himmler as his personal slush-fund to do with as he wanted. But they were also paying money to the German government, previous to the Second World War and during the Second World War.
And it's also pretty well known that there were a lot of industrial ties - there were German subsidiaries of US corporations throughout the war; this is linked to the Bush family, as well - Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush, was involved in this with IG Farben and other companies that were operating in Germany throughout the Second World War.
So, you have the German economy destroyed by the West, particularly the US because the US was the financier of the First World War - it didn't really take part in the First World War, but it financed the First World War, in terms of loans and money, because it costs a lot of money, the British and French could not have run or fought the First World War without massive loans from the US and Germany as well. And those loans then were leverage for long afterwards over those European countries because their economies were destroyed because of the war. But, the money to fight the war had been given by the US government and then they were progressively calling in those loans, but because Germany lost the First World War, they put extremely...
Niall: Punitive conditions.
Joe: ...punitive loan repayment conditions on Germany that led to, in the 1930's and including...There was a plan called The Young Plan which was a guy, and I can't remember his first name, it was called The Young Plan and it was basically a stipulation of how Germany was going to repay its reparations, and that actually precipitated... you know, it was more pressure being put on Germany because after the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was like, "We can't really pay this; this is ridiculous", you know? So they kind of were not paying it, but then there were more punitive measures, like sanctions, effectively, in 1930, put on Germany, precipitated the kind of Weimar Republic crisis in Germany that was just a complete economic disaster on Germany that facilitated the rise of the Nazis - of someone, this guy, Hitler, who was a spellbinder, who was just obviously a bit deranged. I mean, he wasn't stark raving mad or anything, but he was a spellbinder, as Łobaczewski describes.
Niall: Yeah.
Joe: Probably a schizoid or some kind of character disordered person who had this ability to captivate an audience. He was a brilliant orator and he comes along and he's the one who's got the skills to capture the imagination of the German people while they're suffering.
Niall: Um hmm. He has those skills to spellbind, but the actual practicalities of turning the German economy around was largely instituted by Hjalmar Schacht - his banker. I say 'his banker', not really. Hjalmar Schacht goes back to the head of the central bank of England; he worked with him in the nineteen-teens/early twenties.
He was a German, but he was working in London with big banks, kind of what young people do today - they go to New York or wherever and join a big bank and spend their career. But then, he's inserted into Germany and he's the one who... The reason, by the way, Germany had this miraculous recovery in the space of six years is because they basically stopped existing inside what we have today - the central banking system where money is lent by private bankers to a government and repaid with interest; they just stepped outside that system temporarily and they had a public banking system where the government is the issuer of money, and interest free. And that's why that worked, and that's the answer. Everyone in the banking world knows that this is basically, thee, solution that would just completely revolutionise the entire planet in terms of making the world a nice, harmonious, more or less just place. They knew they could temporarily apply that to Germany and it would create, in no time, this industrial war machine.
Joe: And it would elevate Hitler to the position of a God in Germany and that people would go along with his expansionist plans and his warmongering. So Hitler was effectively a dupe of the Western banking elite - that's the best thing you can say about Hitler. If you want to revise the history of Nazi Germany and the way Hitler is portrayed, then the best you can do is say that he was a complete dupe. I mean, he was more than likely some kind of a character disturbed person, but over and above that, he was a dupe. Personally, he was character disturbed; politically and in the broader scheme, he was a pawn that was used, because they allowed him to rise to power; they funded him; they gave lots of money to the Nazi party and to individuals and to the German government - these are Western banking interests - so that Germany could rise. It allowed them, as you just said, to get rid of the central bank for a period of time. Why? Because it they knew they were going to destroy him and destroy Germany, which they did; within a period of ten years Germany was destroyed.
But not just that most of Europe: 65 million people were dead and most of Europe owed unfathomable amounts of money to the US government and to US banks. And going back a bit further, in the lead-up to that, as we just mentioned in the Bolshevik Revolution, they had neutralised any effective opposition from Russia. And of course, Russia suffered horribly in the Second World War. So, the US is the clear winner in all of this, and if you look at who controls or runs the US, obviously you have to go to the banking interests and the money-makers - producers of money - in the US, and they're the ones who clearly come out massively on top as a result of the First and the Second World War and have complete control over Western Europe and have neutralised Russia and have driven a line - almost a literal line, in Germany it was a real line - between Western Europe and Russia and destroyed the Russian economy and made it entirely dependent on Western, US corporations.
So, I mean, that's the broader picture of what has been going on, so to focus on this topic of trying to quibble over details...
Niall: Like, how many Jews were killed?
Joe: Like how many Jews were killed, or whether Hitler wasn't such a bad guy, is completely missing the point and missing the broader picture. And it serves nobody. It doesn't help anything - it doesn't help anybody to understand it. But why people are focused on trying to do that is just beyond me, because I don't know why, because I suspect that certain people have some kind of, I don't know, maybe they're motivated by some genuine feeling of wanting to have the truth be told, and of course, at any point in history, there's lies and there's revision that's needed to be done, and because the truth is rarely told about our history; but to try and focus on just the lies or the incorrect aspects of what happened leading up to the Second World War, for example, and the Nazis and what they did, like I just said, doesn't serve any purpose, really. I mean, maybe they just want to do that to set the record straight.
In all these movies and people who talk about it, there's a whiff of racism in themselves, you know? And in terms of the way they portrayed, in this documentary that I'm talking about, for example, they portray the Jews as causing... well they question the holocaust and they also portray the Jews as being partly responsible for the German response to them, you know? So there's obviously a...
Niall: There's a black and white thing going on. I mean, Hitler was telling people that, "Our problem is the Jews" and he was giving a sort of complex answer - well, he wasn't really; in his speeches he was just ranting - but there was a narrative among the German intelligentsia, "Well, look at all these bankers; they're all Jewish, therefore, it's Jewish bankers." But we know, it's far more nuanced than that. They're not all Jewish and there are clearly Jews out there who are aware of this and who tell people the truth about it.
Anthony Sutton, for example. Part of the reason why our historian guest last year - I still can't remember his name - might have been... he didn't express this in the show, but have been, "Ooh, can't go there", is because Sutton has been marked down as an anti-Semite, which is very unfair because he has this specific chapter in his book on the Wall Street connections with the Bolsheviks; he was getting a lot of fan-mail saying, "Oh, this is great! Finally, somebody's exposing the big, powerful Jews." And he said, "No. No, no; look at the documents; look at the names of the Protestant American and British people who are about as Jewish as you and me. They're not Jewish." And he then added an extra chapter in his book to say, "Look - here are the names; some are Jews, yeah - but not all of them.
So there's a far more nuanced reality. There are still some basic take-home things you can get from doing a fairer revision of history, but you end up going into that black and white thing: you're back to where you started, and you're feeding the same thing that's leading to situations like today where Tony Blair, David Cameron, can say all they want about how, "Oh, we're not after all the Muslims or anything; not all Muslims are evil." It doesn't matter - the message that's coming through is that people see a Muslim coming down the street and they go...
Joe: "Terrorist."
Niall: "Terrorist."
Joe: Yeah.
Niall: And this is feeding back in. There's probably more to it than that. I mean, part of what lead to this German obsession with race - German obsession... it wasn't a German thing; it was Hitler and his people and the schizoidal types and the intelligentsia in Germany - was part of what was going on in the background in this broader hundred-year sweep. We're familiar with the term, 'New Age Movement' today, kind of since the '60's, you know, "Free your mind", all this 'Pop Psychology' stuff, and we're entering a New Age and blah, blah, blah- there was, in the late nineteenth century, exactly the same thing going on; there was a kind of a Messianic/Millennial fervour about the place, and people though this is the end-times and they were getting involved with Spiritism; they were getting involved with all kinds of ideas: theosophy... There was an explosion of sex and cults of various different kinds and I don't just mean that in the pejorative sense; and a lot of the people who ended up being your leading Nazi thinkers were all moulded in the theosophy of the nineteenth century New Age Movement. And if you read the stuff that was going on, there was a lot of stuff that you can see how it would lead to disastrous, horrific, racist experiments on people because there's a strong racist element in some beliefs. And the Germans, of course, thought that they were a chosen people - where have we heard that before? And that they were descended from some Nordic, Arian, Super-God types, Supermen.
Joe: So, if Nazi Germany was to repeat itself again in the same way that you're describing, you'd have a bunch of like, modern-day, New Agers, leading a country and doing what the Nazis did, basically. I mean, a different name - maybe they'd have 'The Aquarians' or something, and then...
Niall: I don't think they'd be the ones to lead it, but...
Joe: They'd be informed by that.
Niall: Maybe of no volition on their own part, they would be part of building the narrative, rewriting history. In Germany's case, to rewrite it to create this fantasy, medieval, perfect Germany that existed and we must recreate - that was Hitler's thing.
Joe: Yeah, it went back to Bismarck who was actually... you know, the whole 'Thousand Year Reich' was harking back to the era of Bismarck back in the 19th century, and Bismarck, by all accounts, seems to have been getting close to the kind of leader you would have to have if you have to have a leader of a country - he's the kind of leader that you would want, you know? And they hark back to that, and his ideas of not just for Germany but for the World and for countries around it, you know? He seems to have had a similar attitude as maybe almost Putin has today, in terms of just being a normal person. Imagine if it's ever possible to have a relatively normal person in a position of power, as the leader of a country, who just is motivated by fairly decent and noble ideals, but is also smart and able to put things into practice and try and change not only their own country, but by contact with other countries, change the lives of as many people as possible, for the better.
But Hitler was the wrong person to try and do that because Hitler was pretty obviously a character-disturbed person; you just have to listen to some of his speeches and the kind of things he says. That's not the way a genuinely decent, honourable, good leader of a country talks - in terms of the things that he said. I mean, just his speeches on Jews and minorities; I mean, that immediately disqualifies him from the 'not a bad guy' category, you know? So anybody who tries to do that... it's just ridiculous. They're clouding the issues; they're letting the issues of the lies that were told or the official history that doesn't take into consideration all of the other details we've been describing, they allow that to transfer over into, "Well, maybe Hitler was the victim here and Hitler should be exalted and held up as a hero of the resistance" type-thing, which is complete and utter nonsense, you know?
Like you just said: it's black and white thinking. These people who are attracted to these kinds of videos and this kind of revising of the Nazi era, it seems that they can't think in more nuanced terms, in a more complex scenario; see the more complex scenario and realise that it can't be black and white - it's shades of grey across the board. But within that, you have your black aspects and I think Hitler was one of them, and the Nazi party was clearly one of them. But like I said, they were pawns; they were used; they had a very short life-span; and they were utterly destroyed. Not only were they utterly destroyed, but their ideology was tarnished for all time and has been used, and is still used, as a watch-word for, genocide and despotism, you know?
I mean, people have a problem with that, but I don't, because the Nazis were a bunch of nut-jobs. I mean that might be sort of vernacular, but they were nut-jobs because their leader and the people around them were dupes. That's the best you can say about them: they were dupes; they were used and destroyed by people more powerful than them - as we've just been describing. So to try to pull anything out of that or try and get something out of that that suggests that the Nazis were anything other than just dupes is silly, you know?
Hitler was a nut-bag; he was warmongering; he had this idea of a, Reich but he had it in the sense of Germany the Arian race who were going to take over as much of the World as possible and establish a Reich. He was delusional; he wasn't a normal, average guy... the ordinary people; he was consumed by his own visions, so effectively he belonged in a mental asylum really; at that point where he's allowed to give vent to those? I mean, if he'd stayed a normal person in ordinary life, maybe he would have got by and just lived and died a normal life, but when you allow him to be consumed with ideas of power and actually let him see and exercise that he was someone who needed to be put in a mental asylum.
Niall: Yeah. The German Army - the Wehrmacht - which was not established by Hitler, it was inherited from the Imperial German Army from the First World War and before - they tried to get rid of him before war actually broke out. They saw it coming and they said, "This is insane. We see the way this is going." And the Russian's also. For all the crimes that were going on in Russia, Stalin saw what was coming as well. But leaving aside what he did to stop it, but within Germany there was basically an attempted coup.
There were attempted coups during the War as well, which failed; assassination attempts, but there were coup attempts before and they were blocked because they couldn't get help from the West; they just shut the door on them.
Joe: No, because these people had a plan for Europe at the beginning of the 20th Century. The Western bankers look at Eurasia and they say, "We have a problem, here. If we don't do anything, Russia, the way Russia is effectively the most powerful and most advanced country in Eurasia, and combined with the European countries, this is going to be a serious, serious competitor to the US. It's going to destroy any hopes we have of controlling the World through finance. So we need to do something about it." And they hit on the idea of, "Well, wars right?" Revolutions/wars; very often one follows the other. And they do it through financing and through picking the right people to put in the right place and giving enough money to them. I mean, it's not that they have this grand, masterplan, but they had a plan: "We need to neutralise Russia and the threat from Russia and its integration of Eurasia", and this was back in the beginning of the 20th Century.
So they follow steps, to do that. You don't have to posit a long-term multi-generational plot or plan that they see so far down the line, they know where it's going to go; no, they just follow the steps to achieve the goals they want and the goal that they want to achieve is power and control for themselves and they see an enemy that is a block to that, so they come up with plans in the moment and put them in place to deal with it. And that very often means, yeah, you destroy a country to rebuild it, you know? You get a country involved in a war by financing that country to wage the war and create an enemy and then a country will go to war against that enemy and you finance that country to go to war against its enemy and then you own that country because it owes you massive amounts of money. Not only does it owe you all the money that you gave it to go to war, but that country now is destroyed and needs your help to rebuild. It's a very effective way of taking control of a country.
Niall: Yeah, I don't think it's so much that we can see the pattern of it, because it's not written down anywhere, how they will go one step, two steps, three - I think we can see the pattern because their behaviours are limited; they behave in a mechanical way - it's always the same thing. One among them will come up with this genius idea, but actually you'll see that it's exactly the same idea as his predecessor had in the previous era - not exactly, there'll be variation - but the pattern speaks to the mechanical nature of this global empire.
Joe: Yeah.
Niall: Not this superb, awesome discipline of "Supermen", you know?
Joe: We have a call from Paige, from Atlanta, hi, Paige.
Paige: Hi. I'm enjoying your show; first-time listener.
Joe: Excellent. Welcome.
Paige: I am suggesting a book; whether you read it or not is up to you, unless you've ever heard of it - it's called How Do You Kill Eleven Million People? by Andy Andrews. And it's a really, really good read; it's not that long - you could probably read it in twenty minutes.
Joe: That's a short book. What's it about?
Paige: It's basically, does it matter what the millions of ordinary citizens are checked out and participate in the ideas that shape the future of our country. It's about how you tell a lie and just keep repeating it and repeating it until people believed it. And it's based on Hitler...
Joe: Yeah, that's what's been happening, I think - if there's a collective gravestone for humanity, I think that's what we'll put on it, you know, "We told them lies and they kept believing it".
Paige: And that's what this book is about.
Joe: Yeah, we'll definitely check it out.
Paige: Well I'll just read this to you; I'm not a very good reader but this is just a run-down. It says: "Andy Andrews believes that good questions only come from asking the right questions. For the powerful provocative question, "How do you kill eleven million people?" the number of people killed by the Nazi Germany regime between 1933 and 1947. It explores a number of other questions relative to our lives today."
And it has some bullet-points and basically it's just how you tell the same lie over and over again - because no matter how fabulous it is, people will begin to believe it, and how you can end up losing your life that way - or your country.
Joe: Yeah. I mean, I think that's the problem, yeah. People believe in lies. People who can make you believe lies can make you commit atrocities at some pointor something along those lines - and it's true, you know?
Paige: It is true; it's absolutely true. And I see it today in the United States, you know? Like global warming - it does not have to be the biggest lie but you tell it over and over again for long enough and people are going to start believing.
Niall: Yeah. And they start filling in the gaps as well. The lie doesn't have to be superbly all-encompassing for every single aspect, but people will naturally take it and reshape it to fit everything.
Paige: That's right. And not to get off topic: I was actually expelled from college getting my second degree because I made one comment - just one comment - and what I said was, "Global warming is an obnoxious topic"; that's all I said.
Joe: And you got expelled?
Paige: Yes, I was expelled. No prior offences; I was an A-student; Dean's and President's list - the whole nine yards. I happened to P-off a liberal - a tree-hugging liberal. I'm serious; I can prove it all to you, I can send you everything you need to know; I'm telling you that that is exactly what happened.
Joe: What was their reason?
Paige: Disruptive behaviour..., I'll have to send it out to you, but mostly that was it. It's not like I brought a gun to school; it's not like I tried to separate... to be the only white party, to go to a prom off campus; it wasn't anything like that. This one guy - that's all he does - is go to college and teaches so that it pays for his school. That is all he does. Period. And he must know a lot of people to get me...
I was on another talk-show on the airwaves and - Neal Boards, actually - and I had three million people listening to me and phone-lines just got jammed listening to this - and I can prove every bit of it - and they just couldn't believe it. And I made such a stir that they still won't take me back. I was expelled. I can even send you the letter I got from the Dean and the one I sent back when I wrote my appeal.
Joe: Really? We might write an article on that. Yeah, you should send it to us. What degree were you trying to get?
Paige: Oddly enough, I was trying to finish up - I only had like, five more credits to get - for my forensic psychology degree.
Joe: Wow, that's like... the global warming police are everywhere.
Paige: Yep.
Joe: That's amazing.
Niall: You can send it to SOTT.
Paige: Oh, okay - one moment; I am so sorry. If you want to check on that book I was telling you about and grace over it and see if you'd be interested in it while I get my pen - I wasn't expecting an email, or even this being brought up, but yeah, this guy absolutely believed global warming... I had to take an elective and I decided to take it in... I forget what it was - science or something like that - and you had to be a global warming extremist: carbon footprint, the whole nine yards. Okay, what is it again?
Joe: It's, SOTT@sott.net
Paige: Alright, let me... SOTT@sott.net
Joe: Yeah, that's it.
Paige: Okay.
Joe: Yeah, we'll be interested to read about that because that sounds really extreme, you know? But I'm not surprised to be honest, because it's just gone off the rails, the while global warming business. And I know there are a bunch of extremist liberal types that take it as a personal insult if you question global warming, because they're so invested in saving the planet and the animals and the trees and all that kind of stuff.
Niall: They accused you of being a denialist and a revisionist - that word again.
Joe: Yeah, you're a killer; you're killing the planet and "how dare you? This is my planet and I will stop you if I have to. Jeeze, they're extremists, you know?
Paige: They are; they are extremists. I mean, this guy... and I will call him a terrorist - he is a terrorist, because he caused terror in my world. He caused panic in my world. And when you instil panic or terror in someone that makes you a terrorist.
Joe: Absolutely.
Niall: Yep. No different.
Paige: And he actually said to me in an email, he said, "I take my job very seriously." You don't think I take my education very seriously?
Joe: Mmmm, yeah!
Paige: And I said, "What about the freedom of speech?" Hello!? I made one sentence. And then he tried to turn around and say that there was another offence, and I said, "Well, won't you please enlighten me as to what that was, and why wasn't I reprimanded?
Joe: Umm hmm...
Paige: Nothing. 'Crickets'. The sound of one hand clapping and the other one not.
Joe: You were able to finish it, yes?
Paige: Finish what?
Joe: Your degree. Were you able to get it eventually?
Paige: No. No, I became radioactive.
Joe: Wow.
Paige: I was radioactive. Nobody would... they stalled everything for so long until my student loans ran out - my time to get new student loans. A president excludes students, every single one to the max... Plus I had a PRIOR degree with them before I all this happened.
Joe: That's like a horror story. And you can't take legal recourse against those people because it costs so much, right? I mean, you'd be kind of back for the rest of your life if you tried to take them to court, right?
Paige: You know, it is really... I have so many other things that I can do right now. I can go back and start my cleaning service again, which I was excellent at. There's nothing I can't do. It's just that, I wanted that degree. It really isn't that important for me to waste all of my resources, all my savings, for some quack who's going to end up sitting there drooling on himself because he has absolutely got it in his veins that he is going to be the leader of this global warming topic.
Joe: Well, you know his name, obviously. So, you could send that too us as well.
Paige: Oh, you can look him up - it's public. I mean, I'm not ratting this guy out for something that is untrue; his name is Clifford Blizard, with one Z. Clifford Blizard.
Joe: That's a good name for a global warmer!
Paige: Yeah, he owns like a tree farm or a tree hugging place or bearded clam sanctuary in Palmetto, Georgia.
Joe: A tree hugging sanctuary where hipsters can go and hug trees, yeah?
Paige: Make him lick 'em, I don't care. That was partly uncalled for, completely... I really lit the C's on the tampon and I didn't even mean to.
Joe: Did you write anything about this? Did you have a blog or something where you could at least write about it?
Paige: No, I didn't. I sat and festered for about two years.
Niall: You've got to put your story together!
Joe: Yeah, send us the story and any documents you have.
Paige: Absolutely. Not a problem. But I really do wish you guys would check out that book and let me know what you think, and just let me know if you need my email. But, I mean, that is absolutely insane. And I can't believe all I got was, "I take my job very seriously" or "my views" or something like that; I can't remember, it's been two years. I mean, I was like, "Are you kidding me?!"
Joe: Yeah; crazy. Alright, Paige, we'll let you go.
Paige: Okay, I didn't mean to steal the show - I'm sorry.
Joe: No problem - no, that's fine, thanks for your call.
Niall: Nice talking to you.
Paige: Okay, I'll get you the email as soon as possible. Bye.
Joe: Alright, thanks; bye.
Niall: How to Kill Eleven Million People - that's funny, the figure I have in my head for eleven million is the number of people who've been killed by the British Government, directly or indirectly, between 1945 and 1995, just through arms sales and overthrowing regimes. Eleven to fourteen million - it's actually a wide estimate.
Joe: Yeah. There's ten or eleven million people that died as a result of the British induced famine in India around the time of the First World War, where they basically exported everything - most of the food that India produced, you know, for the war effort and for its empire, and there was a famine; what was left for the Indians was some kind of a disease or something in whatever else they were eating and it lead to the deaths of about ten or eleven million people from starvation, under British stewardship of India. That was Churchill, another great statesman, played a direct role in that, you know?
Niall: Yeah, well, this is history that doesn't even get a chance to be revised because it doesn't get a chance to be told. On the Wikipedia page on historical revisionism, the examples it gives, in no particular order:Japanese war crimes. Now that's about obviously what the Japanese Imperial Army was doing to people, largely in China. And they were doing gross experiments on people as well, like the Nazis. But the revisionism aspect is that Japanese nationalists since then are like, "Well, it wasn't so bad", similar to revisionism of German war crimes.
There's a similar thread on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, but this goes the other way. This is where Japanese complain that it's been downplayed. I can think they have a point, because it's been downplayed in the official Japanese, cleansed, clean-ish history; they are now, of course, fully a part of the Western Empire, so "we don't want to talk too much about what happened there." You've got to understand why there are people who are wanting to say, "Hello? This was awful!"
The next on the list is Serbian war crimes in the Yugoslav wars. Well, Serbia was made out to be, Nazi Germany and that's a fair point. The fact is there was at least parity among the atrocities committed by Croatian Muslim extremists and Serbs; and the Serbs, in addition, were paramilitary units of questionable background - they were not official Serbian Army people.
Joe: The KLA.The KLA, well, that's something else; that's the Jihadists that were sent in by the British and American military intelligence who later then popped up after 9/11; that's a whole other story.
The next on the list is Turkey and the Armenian Genocide. That's actually kind of been resolved since, I think, the Turkish Government has issued a formal apology for the million deaths of Armenians.
The next on the list is Soviet history. That's murky, because obviously there were atrocities carried out from the beginning of the Bolshevik Revolution. The thing is, communist Russia stayed the same in name all the way until 1991, but Communist Russia, the U.S.S.R. in the later half is a different regime, so there is some scope for revisions there - valid revisionism.
North Korea and the Korean War; this is funny, because the revisionism that's associated with it is that what's being revised is the official narrative, which is that it was started by the ancestors of today's North Korea, which is horse shit. Because as Fletcher Prouty showed, the US and the British Army were shipping weapons in 1945 to Korea, anticipating a splitting in both places and creating war theatres there, twenty years ahead of time.
Joe: But that was part of... I mean the Soviets were accused of - just speaking of Vietnam - the Soviets were accused of funding the North Vietnamese against the South and against the Americans in the Vietnam War - and they were. But Sutton, again, in his book, mentions this as well; that as part of the, I think we mentioned the Bolsheviks were funded in 1917 by Western banking interests that destroyed the Russian economy and then it was retooled using Western corporations to get a control over Russian industry, essentially, and to drip-feed them technology, and they had them on a leash, essentially. But that lasted right up until the Vietnam War, when - and this is an official document, he says, as well - that there was a massive plant in Russia that was sending military vehicles to Vietnam to fight and kill US soldiers, but that that plant was owned by The Ford Corporation in the US. So a Soviet plant making military vehicles sent to Vietnam to fight Americans was owned by a US corporation.
And there's also the Russian aspect that appears kind of mind-boggling, but the Russian nuclear capability, according to Sutton, was only possible because of US help, in terms of sending them all of the different components - aluminium tubes and graphite and little machines that could make casing for ball bearings and stuff specifically for... he mentions that MERV, which was a jump forward in nuclear technology, which a MERV rocket is the one that has warheads that split open and can target different areas - I mean, previously, nuclear weapons were just one bomb - boom - like in Japan, but this development of them meant that a warhead could have multiple warheads within it that could independently target several different places, you know, like the head of the weapon opened and various warheads came out of it - and that technology was given, by the US, to the Russians. Which kind of brings in the whole question of the whole cold war and the mutually assured destruction and that whole stand-off. I mean, the Soviets were the enemy of, and are still to today, the Russians are, because they are nuclear capable; but that appears to have been by design. And I mean, I've always thought that the whole nuclear threat was a joke, was always a joke and there was never going to be nuclear war on this planet. It's a means to an end, to scare the population and to push them in a certain direction and you would hype up that threat - and both sides knew that, because none of them were so stupid that they were going to initiate that.
Or it may have been for a period for quite a long period of time, that the Russians, the Soviets, weren't able to really... the US was dominant in the nuclear arms race, essentially, even though they might have said, "We're losing", or "We're falling behind", that was all bullshit. It was all just rhetoric to try and scare the population to get them to side with policies that further the kind of banking and the corporate interest in the West to control Russia and to control the Eurasian landmass, you know?
Sutton actually says that in 1972, in giving that technology, that multiple warhead technology to the Russians, he and many other people protested about it because it was public knowledge - it was leaked out that this was being sent by the Department of Defence, through one it's companies, was sending this technology to the Soviets and alot of people protested about it, but those protests were quashed by the incoming Nixon administration and primarily by Henry Kissinger - the Arch-"Russia is the enemy" spokesman; the guy who all along, with Brzezinski - but Kissinger's been big on combating the Soviet threat around the World, type-thing for his whole career, and he was instrumental in giving the Russians technology, increasing the Russians nuclear capability.
So that's the bigger picture, and getting back to the question of why this phrase, "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it", so why do we keep repeating it? Because we do keep repeating it. You know, we keep having wars, we keep having psychopathic governments, things on this planet just cycle around from bad to worse, pretty much, and don't change, you know? A lot of humanity hasn't changed in history that we know of, really - as far back as we can go; and the reason is because there's an elite that have their own agenda.
So, it's not about history repeating - history just doesn't change, is the problem - because of the nature of the people in power on this planet and the type of people who have been in power for a long time. I mean, we can't necessarily say that they've always been psychopaths, but certainly, once people get consumed by this idea of power or see the possibility of controlling the entire world, well it doesn't exactly make for a person who is going to feel empathy or a connection with the average man or woman on the ground, right? They're going to see themselves as the controllers of the world and, "We need to take these actions for..." insert narrative 'A', type of thing, "for the good of the planet as a whole and you have to break some eggs to make an omelette... blah, blah, blah", you know?
So the problem is the hierarchy on the planet, you know? And that's why history gets distorted, so it's not even right to say that history repeats itself, you know?
Niall: It's a permanent condition.
Joe: It's a permanent condition and to make matters worse, we don't get access to the actual information that would allow people to... well, I don't know if it would allow them to change anything, or if it would change anything, if people began to understand what really goes on - but then, there's an impediment to that within human nature in the sense that people don't want to believe that such a thing could happen - that there'd be such people on the planet who would do this, you know?
Niall: I know. It's a whole other show, but a contemporary example of gifting nuclear technology to Soviet Russia is actually creating terrorist groups in London - I mean, London, England. Giving them bank accounts; giving them phones; giving them offices - it still goes on. People don't really understand that when they read the news and Jihadist group X, Y, Z, pops up - previously unheard of - they don't realise that it's another shell-company for "Terror Inc." which is based in London, which is the leading light of, "We're Western civilisation and Islam..." well, they say 'terrorism' "over there is our opposite number" - how did that terror over there get started? How is it created? Well, it all comes back - not just to the city of London literally - but substantially, it's phenomenal the number of various groups - some of them began as revolutionary groups - in Algeria and elsewhere in the Middle East; some were legitimate opposition groups to Saddam Hussein in the '80s or to the Shah in the '70s in Iran. Some were religious; not nutcases - more like the Muslim Brotherhood - but they were all effectively incentivised to come, "Come here; we'll give you an office here; you can just talk about work out whatever political difficulties you have back home", and out of that came the explosion of "Islamic Terrorism".
Joe: Yeah, I mean, people shouldn't be so surprised at the idea that certain interests, for example in the US, or even in Europe, funded the Nazi party; because up until late 1938, Hitler was being fated in various magazines - one of them was Homes and Gardens in the UK...
Niall: Time magazine.
Joe: ... and portrayed as this 'Bavarian gentleman' in his mountain retreat with the little doggy and the little girl and oh how wonderful it was and what an art lover he was. This was like, less than a year before they were at war with Germany.
So, when you think of, for example, the history of Iraq and Saddam Hussein, and how Saddam was a good guy. Thirty years ago, the US supported him in the war against Iran - the Iran/Iraq War - and gave Saddam Chemical weapons - they were selling chemical weapons to everybody, basically - but the whole point is that these people who do business, they'll do business with anybody. They don't care. The black and white ideology is for the little people so that they can sleep well in their beds at night and not get too scared or confused about it.
But for them, it's just hard core business and they'll play both sides against the middle; they'll find both sides and it's like somebody betting on two boxers in a ring that are fighting each other, you know, and you can bet on both of them, basically, or you can put a horseshoe in the gloves of one of them so he'll win. I mean, it's not strange, you just have to bring it out to a macro-scale; that's the scale these people work on because they have the capacity to work on that scale, because they have the money to influence this horse race.
Niall: Yeah. You've got to sort of think hypothetically, in the way that they do. They could, in the space of a year - because they have the power, they have the information, they have the money, the media - they could influence the masses of people on this planet that say... pick a random ethnic group, or national group... Brazilians, need to be eliminated from the face of the planet, and we should all focus our war on Brazilians - and it would happen; it would be manifested. In space of a year, and most people would not even blink because it would have appeared to be such a natural progression in "History".
Joe: Um hmm. Yeah, they set it in motion and create facts on the ground that make it a "Reality" and people go with what they think would be a reality.
So, Hitler and the Nazis were financed by the West; that just makes them dupes. They were destroyed. Yes, there's a lot of lies told about what went on - that piece of information is missing - for example - from the official narrative. But that doesn't make the Nazis or Hitler any better than anyone else. They were just a pawn, like other countries have played that role of pawn. So, I just find the whole concept of revisionism and the way people are going about it to be just obtuse and silly and naive.
I mean, you can talk about the state of Israel and the Balfour Declaration and the manipulation of the Zionist elite to get a homeland for Jews. That was facilitated by the West, by the UK - obviously, Lord Balfour, a British politician - and by the Zionist organisation in the US and by the US Government at the time, all supported it. Why? Because look where the Middle East is; I mean, it had long been known that that's where the oil was - they had already been squabbling. Part of the rationale or the motive for the First World War was over access to Middle Eastern oil.
So allowing or going along with the creation, or facilitating the creation of the state of Israel in the Middle East, right in the middle of the oil fields that the West so desperately needed to continue their dominance of the globe is not strange. And that the Zionist league used historical or Biblical records or Biblical claims to that land - whatever works. The point was that it was geo-strategically expedient, when it was proposed, for there to be a pro-Western government - i.e. an Israeli Government or a pro-Western country created, as they were creating and had just created many countries in the Middle East after the First World War and the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and they were just drawing borders all around the place - well let's draw one that says this is a Western country here in the Middle East, right beside the oil that we need.
So to get into all sorts of insidious conspiracies and blah, blah, blah - it was all just politics. People are far too idealistic; they don't understand human nature, in that this is just how business is done - this is the way things happen in government. It's hidden from most people, sure; but when you get an insight into it, don't be surprised at it and don't go trying to elevate one as the good guy and this guy is the bad guy - they're all corrupt and they're all just corrupt business people, you know? They're all just corrupt and greedy business people who will just do whatever... they'll sell their mother, basically, for a few bucks, you know? And that's the way it happens and, you know, deal with it. But if you want to deal with that and want to go into that area and try and look at what's going on, you have to see it from the broadest perspective; you can't focus minutely on one thing because you just get lost and you'll not serve any purpose - you'll just get fixated on one thing and you'll become an extremist yourself - you'll become an ideologue, basically; it can happen easily, you know?
So, yeah.
Niall: Yeah.
Joe: We didn't get to talk about weather.
Niall: Whether the weather...
Joe: Whether the weather...
Niall: Well, it's up on sott now, so people can see it for themselves. Check out what happened last month - it's crazy.
Joe: Yeah, Niall just published last month's weather... what's it called? Weather Round-up?
Niall: Earth-changes, fireballs...
Joe: It's called... summary.
Niall: Sott summary.
Joe: Sott summary of the weather over the past month of February, so check that out. But before we leave you, I'm pleased to announce that, back by popular demand, we're going to have another Pop Culture Round-up from our favourite Canadian, up in the wild of Canada - Relic. So, enjoy.
Niall: See you next week. Bye-bye.
Relic: Well, hello there. It's Relic, here, ensconced once again in my little log cabin on the frigid shores of Lake Canada. Two in the afternoon here, and pitch-black outside on account of the days being shorter in the winter-time. But I'm all snug and cosy, sitting in my rocking chair with a hot cup o' tea and a crackling fire to keep me company.
So, let's check out my tumbler gram feed this week and see what's happening in the glamorous world of celebrity culture in Beverly Hills.
[Audio drop]
Voice: I felt a great disturbance in The Force.
Relic: We have some breaking news this weekend. It's been reported that Hollywood actor, Harrison Ford, has suffered moderate injuries when the vintage, single-engine airplane he was piloting crashed into a Santa Monica golf course. As to the causes of the crash, some are speculating that a practical joker put a rubber snake in the cockpit. We all know how much Indiana Jones hates snakes on a plane.
There's another rumour going around that it wasn't even him in the plane at all, and that Tyrell Corporation created a Harrison Ford replicant as a publicity stunt to promote the much anticipated, Blade Runner Part Two.
But, whatever the case may be, we here at Behind the Headlines are relieved to hear that this talented and beloved actor is now doing well and expected to make a full recovery. The moral of this story being, Han should never fly solo.
Elsewhere on the interweb, Huffington Post is reporting that super-fan, Adam Guerra, of Hollywood, California, spent years undergoing eighteen cosmetic surgeries and 175,000 dollars in his quest to look like the pop-superstar, Madonna.
His sheer dedication to the Herculean task of transforming into a mediocre-talented, washed-up, '80s pop-idol is truly commendable; kudos to you, sir.
Recently, in his relentless desire to emulate the, "Material Girl" in every respect, Mr Guerra now dances around in a long black cape and practices falling off stages wherever he can.
Aw, heck - that's nothing, really; I've spent years trying to look like my favourite Hollywood icon - Grizzly Adams - and it hasn't cost me a dime.
Speaking of plastic surgery gone wrong, Variety is reporting that many viewers of this year's Academy Awards ceremony took to social media to cry foul over the absence of vile, racist, mean-spirited comedienne, Joan Rivers, from their televised memorial tribute. The very same woman, who in the weeks before she died was quoted in the press as saying that; "Palestinians deserve to die because they have low I.Q.'s."
Now I don't mean to be all negative, but I have an inkling that some of that silicone in her face must have creeped into her brain and short-circuited the wiring in there. I heard tell that, one time Joan Rivers got bit by a rattle-snake, and the rattle-snake died! And you probably wouldn't be surprised to know that, upon her passing, Silicone-Joan was issued a one-way ticket on the Highway to Hell, and when she got there, the Devil himself stood up from his throne and said, "Sorry, Your Highness, I was just keeping your seat warm... ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha..."
True story!
Well, perhaps it's best to not speak ill of the dead. Why don't we just say for the record that Ms. Joan Rivers wasn't the most pleasant individual in the universe, and by individual, I don't mean human being - if you catch my drift.
In one final piece of entertainment news, Canada's own bubble-gum music princess, Carly Rae Jepson, whose 2012 monster hit, Call Me Maybe, redefined our notion of the ear-worm. She has just released a new - and according to Slate Magazine - even catchier single. Apparently, this song is so catchy, it's like Frank Herbert's Dune of ear-worms. Let's have a listen:
Song: "I really, really, really, really, really, really like you - and I want you - do you want me - do you want me, too? I really, really, really, really, really, really like you - and I want you - do you want me - do you want me, too?Relic: Now, in case you hadn't guessed, the name of the song is I really like you. But, if you listen closely to the lyrics, you'll notice that Carly Rae actually sings, "I really, really, really, really, really, really like you", there's like SIX reallys in there! Now, I understand why she wrote it that way; because if she'd only put in four, or even five reallys, I wouldn't have believed so much that she liked him. It was that sixth really that cinched it for me - it was the last really that really pushed the envelope, right over the top and totally confirmed how much she really likes him.
Oh the travesty of what has become the craft of song-writing these days. What this young lady has done with words is an abomination to the English language. Heck, I bet if Ernest Hemingway were alive today to hear that song he'd probably put a shotgun in his mouth and pull the trigger.
Oh, wait a minute; that really, really, really, really, really, really happened. Ugh; my guess is that maybe old papa Hemingway saw what was coming in the world of pop-music and decided to take an early exit.
Some folks have all the luck.
Well, that's all for now, kids. Until next time...
Reader Comments
to our Newsletter