In response to the attacks, the French government has activated emergency powers instituted tighter border controls, and begun making arrests of suspected accomplices. It remains very unclear what happened where, how many terrorists were involved, and whether any of them survived.
This week on Behind the Headlines, we'll be putting the attacks in Paris in context: why they happened now, who or what stands to gain, and what agenda the resulting mass confusion serves. Join us from 2-4pm EST / 8-10pm CET for some clarity on the madness.
Running Time: 01:44:00
Download: MP3
Here's the transcript of the show:
Joe: Hi and welcome to Behind the Headlines on the Sott Radio Network; I'm Joe Quinn and my regular co-hosts this week are, as usual, are Niall Bradley and Harrison Koehli.
Niall: Hi everyone.
Harrison: Hello.
Joe: This week, as you might imagine we're talking about events in Paris, over the last couple of days; another 'terror attack'. It's undoubtedly a terror attack, obviously; people were killed, a lot of people were killed - 129 at the last count.
Harrison: 132. It went up.
Joe: Oh 132, sorry.
Niall: A lot of people are in critical condition.
Joe: Hundreds injured, up to a hundred in critical conditions. So this was a major terror attack in the sense that, yeah it terrorised the people involved and it terrorised a large part of the people France and to a lesser extent I suppose the rest of the people of the world. There's a quote from the Bible I'd like to read here.
Niall: Yes.
Joe: It sums up the situation quite nicely, from a general - across the broadest perspective. And it is from Ephesians 6:12 from the King James Version of the Bible.
Niall: Take it away.
Harrison: The only version.
Joe: The only version of reference. The quote is:
"For we wrestled not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world. Like a spiritual wickedness in high places."Supposedly that was written a long time ago. When the Bible was written I'm not going to say when because the Bible is completely made up. So it could have been written sometime in the last two thousand years. Certainly not in the last few years, but a few hundred years ago at least, maybe a few thousand, you never know. That's as close as we can get to the authenticity of the Bible. It's a very good quote and obviously the person that wrote it was aware or had some insight
Niall: Had a good grasp on how things are.
Joe: Right, had a good grasp on how things are. Because things haven't changed in two thousand years or maybe even longer, it seems. Because there are rulers of the darkness of this world. And there is an awful lot of wickedness in high places and there always has been it seems nothing ever changes on this planet. The only thing that could hold any hope of things changing on this planet are if the majority of people on this planet understood that is what we're faced with, that we wrestle with, principalities, powers, and rulers of the darkness of this world. And it was displayed quite graphically and traumatically in the Paris attacks on Friday night. So, thanks for listening - just kidding.
Niall: That does sound like a wrap up. Is that all you have to say on it?
Joe: That's all we have to say on that.
Niall: That's all you need to know.
Joe: As far as I'm concerned, although maybe I'm biased but this terror attack in Paris was an attack on Russia.
Niall: Paris is now in Russia?
Joe: No.
Niall: Oh. What do you mean?
Joe: Well, it shouldn't have escaped anybodies attention that Russia has been caught in the cross-hairs of western principalities.
Niall: Indeed.
Joe: And those wicked people in high places. Over the past few years, Russia has been the target. As we've already hypothesised just a couple of weeks ago, a Russian plane was shot down, of course it was blamed on ISIS, although we're not 100% sure yet everything seems to have gone a bit quiet on that front; they've dropped it particularly now after the Paris attacks.
Niall: I don't think they've identified or even found the bodies of those who were supposed to be on the plane yet.
Joe: Right. But this is the world we live in, basically, with these kinds of attacks we're no longer in a world where two warring parties or countries or powers in this world will attack each other directly, they'll attack each other indirectly. This is described very often as fourth generational warfare. Which is not conventional warfare i.e. a mass your men and troops against each other and then shoot it out. What you do is you use asymmetric warfare - another term - against each other where you use anything and everything that you can possibly use to undermine your enemy. Specifically in the definition of fourth generational warfare, it includes attacks on civilian populations, like shooting an airplane full of civilians of the target country down to apply pressure of some description or send a warning to your enemy.
Niall: Economic sanctions.
Joe: Economic sanctions, is another one.
Niall: Cultural war.
Joe: Cultural war; propaganda, media propaganda, demonization in the media; we're actually in the middle of a third world war in case anybody doesn't realise that. This, the long expected third world war has already begun and is already in process and is being waged and a large part of it, in case you haven't noticed as well, is the war for your mind, the mind of the public. That is the primary battle ground.
Niall: You're also foot soldiers in this. When you support this cause or don't support that cause, you are an activated element in this war.
Joe: So when I said this Paris attack was effectively, at least on one level, an attack on Russia it remains to be seen but there's the possibility that this will be used by the, 'West', the French government, the British government and the American government primarily; to attempt to initiate a NATO bombing on Syria. To try to undo, or push the Russian presence outside of Syria in some way or other. Because obviously this has been a major problem and annoyance and frustration for the west, particularly America that Russia; 6 weeks ago now began the bombing of Syria that was very much to the disliking of the US and other western powers who thought they had it all sewn up with the funding of terrorists in Syria to overthrow the Assad regime. Russia steps in to thwart that attempt and is in the process of thwarting that attempt. So it seems to me that coming at this time, this Paris attack, which based on the words of French president Hollande who directly described it as an act of war against France that would in theory or technically activate Article 5 of the NATO rule book where if one country if one NATO member, is attacked then other countries within NATO can rush to their defence.
So in theory, it's possible that we might see over the next days or weeks, talk about some sort of a concerted western campaign against ISIS in Syria but which would effectively be used to try and change the situation in Syria more to the west's liking. Which ultimately, their long term goal over the past four years has been to remove the Assad government.
Niall: Can I suggest that that's one possibility?
Joe: I said on one level yeah.
Niall: Yeah. A physical change in the situation as it is right now in Syria but here's another one, just to throw it out there. What if they can't, because of how Russia has gone in? What if they can't do that and the best they can hope from this, given that this happened on the eve of cross party talks in Vienna, on Syria and what to do with it. What if the best they can get from this is some kind of leverage in the negotiation process about what will happen to Syria? In other words, there can be little to change or gain from it, because moving whatever Russia has planned for Syria would be like trying to move a rock. And they can't get around it. Because Russia is unlikely to respond to this pressure by going, "Oh well! Fair game. France, out of respect - OK, fine. We'll just step aside here."
Joe: "Well, just walk away yeah." That's just not going to happen. Putin is in Turkey at the G20 meeting and I don't think these kinds of attacks - Ok, everybody is sorry, presidents and other world leaders are all expressing their sympathy to the French but the bottom line is, for these people this is par for the course. Many countries have experienced similar terror attacks, Russia being one of them and it's not the kind of thing that makes people stop and say, "Oh my god! We've got to really do something about this." They just carry on with their policy. As much as the media would say that this is going to be at the top of the agenda at these meetings in Vienna and in Turkey. I don't think it's going to change the policy very much - at all, at least not overtly. Just so you can undercut my own argument that they may be trying to launch a NATO attack on Syria and in line with, what you were saying Niall that seems like a very difficult thing for them to do. Because Russia's there, it's not going to go anywhere and NATO planes can't just start flying into Syria without coordinating or without agreeing what they're going to do, with Russia and obviously Russia would insist as it has been insisting for the past 6 weeks, that the targets in Syria are these evil terrorists. NATO would have to go after terrorists. It couldn't just go ahead and start bombing Syrian government offices in Damascus or something like that. So, that's just one theory.
Niall: It was on the eve of these talks in Vienna it was also on the eve of this G20 meeting, Putin is there in Turkey today he supposedly met with Obama briefly. What other things have coincided around this? Coming up in Paris at the end of this month is COP21, the next UN climate change conference. Interestingly the French government announced a week prior to the attacks in Paris that they would be closing their borders - closing the borders was the French minister's statement in fairness but in the small details not much would change. There would just be increased border checks and land based borders, no change to airports and whatnot. So, that was a week prior and that plan effectively was moved ahead by what has just happened. What else is going on around all this? Joe mentioned the plane that came down in Egypt two weeks prior to the day.
Harrison: Well in Syria, the Syrian Arab Army had their first big, strategic, operational victory at the Kweires air force base in Aleppo province which has been besieged by ISIS for the last two and a half years. Well, we've had the Russian airstrikes for the past six weeks. And in concert with that we've had the national defence forces of the Syrian Arab Army retaking small towns and villages other than that, there hasn't really been anything major, nothing has really changed if you look at the map there haven't been any major advances by Syrian armed forces. So, this has been the biggest one they retook this air force base in Aleppo province which is north of the country. And just north of the air force base in and around - this is territory ISIS has controlled for the past few years and that's right on the border with Turkey. And where does ISIS get the majority of its supplies from? Turkey, across that border.
Joe: So, a scaled down version of what I was suggesting would be the imposition of a NATO no-fly zone over northern Syria, where they say this is where for example, they made a lot of noise about how these so-called terrorists in the Paris attack, came from Syria, with the refugees - they had Syrian passports etc.. So, they're suggesting or more or less stating that they came with the refugees, therefore the problem has to be to stop these terrorists coming into Europe is the message to all of Europe. "We've got to stop these guys coming in." "How do we stop them?" "Well we have to control that area in northern Syria, into Turkey." So, there's a possibility there that they would start bombing in a certain area in Syria or even get boots on the ground in Syria; to basically plant their flag there, to have some influence there and in that way, to a certain extent, push back Russia's intentions or involvement and increasing control over the Syria situation. Basically the point about this is that there is a lot of political capital that they can use to do several different things. And they're already showing that they're using it to do different things. Amongst them being, for example, president Hollande said today that he wants to extend the state of emergency in France for 3 months; to extend it for more than three days he has to go to parliament to put it to a vote.
So, on the level of police state-ification of France, it obviously plays into that and allows for a more militarised atmosphere in France a more insecure atmosphere on a social level within France which obviously serves people in this world with an agenda to control more or less everything that happens, in as much of the planet as possible. So, there are various different agendas that could be fulfilled here as a result of this. Anybody who wants to make an argument about this - say you want to stay away from too much of a conspiracy theory about it, you don't want to go too far down that line of saying it was false flag or something like that there is more than enough mainstream official information that has come out over the past few years to make the case that this is clearly the fault or that the responsibility for these attacks lies with the US and western, French government policy in the middle east. For the past four years the US government, the French government, the British government and other governments; including client states of the west in the middle east has been supporting Syrian terrorists; funding them, arming them and training them and it's not inconceivable that some of these people as has been suggested by the mainstream media, came to Europe hidden amongst refugees and decided to attack France because that's what terrorists do.
So, if you want to - it's very plausible and it's very easy and it's official - it's not conspiracy theory - make the argument that the responsibility of these attacks has to be placed at the door of the French government and it's alignment with an insane policy in the middle east.
Niall: Absolutely. If you are or if you know someone who is accepting, what has happened and isn't it awful - and it is awful - and is in sympathy with the victims and is accepting that this was done by evil terrorists who came into our country and did this and or came in and radicalised people and helped them to do it; it doesn't matter exactly who did it, carried it out, how they got there, because they only reason they came there in the first place was because of actions taken by their government in the proceeding decade. No matter how you slice it, the responsibility lies with western governments who thought they could - and this speaks to your biblical quote, "the principalities of power" - create this monster and manage it and control it and use it and compete with each other as to who - so, now Turkey is saying, "Oh see, we've got some people on a leash here, if you don't wink-wink agree with us on this deal, we can always unleash them over your borders there." Saudi Arabia explicitly is on record as using that kind of threat against Russia; in leverage over an oil deal!
Joe: Right, they said explicitly that they control the Saudi Prince Bandar, who was the Saudi foreign or defence minister who has since moved but he said to Russia just last year, around the time of the Sochi Olympics, he said to Putin that "We, the Saudis, control ISIS and other groups in Syria, and also similar groups in Chechnya and we can keep these people under wraps as long as Russia - ..."
Niall: And will make sure they won't blow up your games.
Joe: He made that very explicit. And so this country who is on record as saying that they control ISIS, is best buddies with America and France and Britain and the British and French and American governments won't hear a bad word said about them. I'm just getting back to the fact that this is his officially accepted by all the mainstream media outlets that these same western countries, America, France the UK and others, have been supporting the Syrian revolution there. Their express and publicly stated intention over and over again, was to overthrow the Assad government and to help the terrorists overthrow the Assad government; they've all gone on record saying this. So, effectively they admitted to furthering and promoting a war, a terrorist war in Syria which was largely against the Syrian people as a part of the process to overthrow the Syrian government. So what has that created? Massive numbers of refugees trying to flee western backed terrorists in Syria. So when they create this massive refugee crisis in Syria through their warmongering and their promotion of terrorists in Syria, what did they expect to happen in their own countries like France or any other European country?
Niall: Indeed. And right under their noses. Year after year the numbers of people who are already in the west - they've grown up their third generation Muslim or Arab descent or they're even white - they get on a plane and you think they don't know where they're going when they land in Istanbul with a one way ticket?
Joe: Right. They don't care though. Obviously someone is allowing it to happen. They aren't concerned about this refugee crisis - flooding Europe with refugees amongst who, apparently, based on the reports of the Paris attacks, have been Jihadi terrorists who came from Syria where they being trained, armed and funded by the west. So does that not suggest that these same terrorists who were being trained armed and funded by the west in Syria and then came from Syria to Paris, is that not effectively the French government, or the American government or the British governments, terrorists? Who carried out he attacks in Paris? Is it not possible that these people are the people who they've been training in Syria?
Niall: Well it must be. By their account, though they haven't made any official, clarified statements but they've more than hinted at, "We found a Syrian passport, or two, possibly an Egyptian one... yadda-yadda." So I'm going to assume that they are saying ISIS, from the Middle East, came to Paris and did this. So let's go with it.
Joe: So how did ISIS get into the Middle East?
Niall: Now read the descriptions of these guys: professionally dressed, with professional weapons, executing people clinically; one, two, three, four, off they go - who made them into those killers?
Joe: Who trained, armed and funded them? Just look at CNN, the Washington Post, BBC, your answer is right there; they were trained, funded and armed by the west, and the west's partners in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey. And Hollande has the gall to come out after the attack in Paris and say this was an attack on the civilised world. Err, excuse me president Hollande, but there's nothing civilised about funding, arming and training terrorists who have massacred hundreds of thousands of people in Syria over the past four years. What's civilised about that? This is a fantasy that these people keep promoting, there's nothing civilised about the west's foreign policy, it's absolutely barbaric and it has led directly to the kind of attacks we've seen in Paris a couple of nights ago. Pull the other one Francois.
Niall: And there'll be more. We predicted these two months ago and this is not the end of it.
Joe: You can look up stuff from the past year there's been lots of stuff has passed under the radar. For example in June this year, there was a trial in London of a Swedish man, his name was Bherlin Gildo and he was accused of terrorism in Syria. He had been in Syria, came to Sweden and he was put on trial for being a terrorist in Syria. But then his trial collapsed and had to be thrown out of court, why? Because it was clear that British intelligence had been arming the same rebel groups that he, the defendant, had been supporting. You can't get any clearer than that. They get hoisted on their own petard here where they try and convict so-called terrorists in Europe who had been engaged in terrorism in Syria and they go, "Oh yeah, excuse me your honour, I know I'm being accused of terrorism in Syria but I have to admit to the court that that British intelligence operative sitting in the gallery, he's the one who was giving me the money and the weapons in Syria." "Alright, we're going to take a recess here to discuss...case dismissed! Quick get out of here!"
Niall: So when you hear David Cameron say, "This is an attack on British Values." One of the values being Great British justice, this is what he's referring to. Our value is our 'god given' - whatever, I don't think they believe in god - to manipulate this situation and therefore manipulate you.
Joe: If you want more evidence about - you shouldn't need more evidence - but that this is, primarily, a US-scheme in Syria to overthrow the democratically elected government of Bashar Al-Assad. It is an American operation that began several years ago and in 2012 - you can look this up, there was a declassified secret US intelligence report from the, I think it was the DOD, Department of Defence - which basically outlined the fact that the US government was looking forward to a group like ISIS arriving in Syria, and them being able to use it to overthrow the Syrian government.
Harrison: It was the DIA [Defence Intelligence Agency].
Joe: Oh, sorry.
Niall: Speaking of passports, we're blessed that the professional killers, on their way to heaven, after martyring themselves, always carry passports.
Harrison: At least one of them always does.
Joe: Which is totally logical obviously, if you're a crazed Jihadi-Muslim-Terrorist who is going on a suicide mission with a bomb strapped around your waist, you're going to blow yourself up to become a martyr but you make sure you get your passport renewed before you go and you carry it with you to the scene - it just beggars belief.
Harrison: You need a passport to get into Heaven.
Joe: Right exactly. Talking about passports, there was mention of an Egyptian passport that was found but the Egyptians have since spoken up and said the passport belonged to one of the injured victims. Not a suspect. So I'm sorry but you can't include Egypt in this one. Although, maybe they were going to try and run with that one.
Niall: well, one of the passports was a Syrian one and the Serbian interior ministry said it had an ID on it and it was an asylum seeker who passed through Serbia, sometime in the last few months.
Joe: Over the past year or two there was a report that somewhere in Eastern Europe they stopped a truck that was full of Syrian passports.
Harrison: That was either Bulgaria or Hungary and they found ten thousand Syrian passports. And there was another report I believe it was in Germany, a guy was arrested and he had a Syrian passport and in the report about this there were comments, I believe it was from German officials saying something like that a large percentage of all Syrian passports were fake because apparently they were easy to come by and desired. Because when this was all going on, everyone wanted to be a Syrian refugee as opposed to from anywhere else because Syrians were the ones getting all the news and getting treated really well so they all wanted a Syrian passport. Now, I've been following the coverage of this on the Guardian and the Telegraph and what I've noticed is that from those websites at least is that they've been very careful whenever mentioning this Syrian passport, they make sure to say that it hasn't been verified and that there are a lot of fake Syrian passports so we don't even know if this is the real guy who's on this passport. There was even a report that the passport itself couldn't yet be verified because there seemed to be discrepancies with it; it didn't match an official Syrian number on Syrian passports so it's kind of fishy. And then of course, the reports about it it's unclear exactly where it was found some say it was on his body, some say it was near his body; how does that happen?
Niall: Yeah. The point of the passport whispers whether they're honest to god passports, bought stolen or reproduced, mass printed in bulk, whatever, the point of them is to identify the attackers.
Joe: Somebody organised it very well obviously. There was report from September 16th, so two months ago, on RT, about fake Syrian passports. And this was a report about a journalist working for a Dutch magazine who was able to get a fake Syrian passport in less than two days, in Holland with the picture of the prime minister of Holland on it. (Laughter) A Syrian passport, from the prime minister of Holland in two days.
Niall: Where I was going with this was these are to anchor identifiers in the public mind. Because you must also keep in mind that it's likely the attackers were probably completely different people. I was thinking back to the Mumbai attacks when this was going on, there's a pretty good run down from start to finish on Wikipedia, and you can see how the story began and ended. In the end, they had some kind of identifier for a total of attackers which left all either with Muslim names. Names that could be traced to Pakistan, primarily or exclusively but that was it, it was tied up. So you had Pakistani/Talibani attackers coming across the border to carry out the Mumbai attacks. But the initial reports are so different. The Indian police said on day two of four, it was four day spree, that they were faced with thirty-seven attackers and many, many witnesses described blonde haired, blue eyed, jeans wearing, young, stylish guys, off their heads on drugs, in bars and cafés, drinking beer, settling the bill, and then whipping out Kalashnikovs and starting to shoot the place up. Which is a very different picture to these dedicated-fundy-Jihadi-Islamists, who cross the border from Pakistan. So the point of this is to come up with a list of names and those will be used going forward, to cement in people's minds that was, they'll probably going to go with, "These guys smuggled themselves in, disguised as refugees - yadda-yadda-yadda."
So they may have absolutely nothing to do with the refugee flow, as we said two months ago the point of the paranoia they were stirring up about refugees coming into Europe was that it would provide some plausible rationale for any future terror attacks.
Joe: Exactly, so they wanted to carry out some future terror attacks, so why did they want to carry out terror attacks?
Niall: Well, confusion. Confusion reigns in France right now, there's been another shooting this evening and as a result of which Hollande has extended the state of emergency in France to three months; in which they can arrest anybody for any reason. I presume that's going to extend to border controls; France has effectively dropped out of Schengen, the open border policy for Europe. The other thing that strikes me is a report in Der Spiegel magazine about a possible putsch going on in Berlin; there are apparently people in the German government who are very furious with Merkel and her handling of the situation. One other piece of data is the Polish government, right after this attack on Friday saying, "Right, that's it. We are taking absolutely zero refugees into Poland." Where I'm going with this is that this is fracturing this has an effect of fracturing Europe.
Within the principalities down through the people; within Paris, France has, well it'll always have this problem of the social divide. Take a city like Paris, ok you've got the rich areas but the middle class areas where these attacks happened and then you've got all the way around; on the outside the Banlieue the suburbs, where the blacks and the Muslims live, that's a fracture line that's just going to - ...
Joe: And they're provoking that, that's been provoked. Because these attacks happened three weeks before regional elections in France which the primary Islamophobic let's say, or right-wing, anti-immigration, 'France for the French' party, the Front Nationale, is expected now to - ....
Niall: Clean sweep?
Joe: Clean up at those elections. These attacks are being used or will have the effect of polarising, to a large extent the French public and the public in other countries in Europe, along the lines of 'Us vs Them', the west vs Islam, a clash of civilisations basically and to allow for a more totalitarian, fascistic atmosphere to prevail in society and in politics. And under those conditions for example, you can have the rise of a new Nazi party; it's similar conditions, emotionally provocative atmosphere where anything can happen.
And someone apparently wants that to happen. Because it's very hard to accept the idea that this could have simply happened, this state of affairs, a push toward a fascistic political and social atmosphere within so-called 'liberal Europe', could have happened by accident, with no one intending it. Of course we see a very clear intent in the details and actions that led to that situation coming about, like the western foreign policy of overthrowing democratically elected governments and trying to control the Middle East, and keep Russia out of the Middle East. These are all - if you can go there - it's understandable from a geopolitical perspective why the west would want to do this in its long term battle against Russia. But the indirect result of that is these conditions within European countries that create this fascistic, totalitarian-type mentality.
So, which ones on first? Both are valid goals from the point of view of the power-elite. But one of them is more understandable in that it's just, "Ok, we want to control the Middle East and we're going to take these actions." But the secondary results of that, those that have a direct effect on people, who otherwise aren't really interested in what's going on in the world, though it has a direct effect on them. People in France, Germany and the UK, go about their normal lives and they hear now and again, "Oh, we're bombing Syria." or "Russia's in Syria." and they're like, "Whatever, that has nothing to do with me." But these kind of terror attacks definitely make it all have something to do with you, they directly affect the mentality of the average person in the street, who otherwise doesn't give a damn about geopolitics; they still don't give a damn about geopolitics but what they're being made to give a damn about is the question of; "Those damn Muslims. Should they be here? Who do we vote for?"
Harrison: There's another angle to that. Getting back to the idea of this passport and just its existence, it's prominence in the news, leading to the conclusion that these are refugees and that have come in and that's the reason for it. The French authorities, at least for now, seem to be going in a different direction. I believe they have named at least three of the attackers; one of them is a French citizen, who lives just south of Paris. They say they have identified him by a finger print, from a finger they found this is one of the guys who blew himself up, and it turns out this was a guy known to the police, he had a few run-ins with the law. He was on a watch list for being a kind of radical Islamist but with no tendencies or ties to any terrorist organisations, well that's what they're saying and because of that, they didn't have him too high on the list. The other guys, they're saying were three French brothers who were involved who were living in Belgium, in Brussels. There's a couple of stories that tie it together; one is that three guys had come into France from Belgium in one of these cars, I believe it was the black SEAT and they were let into France, they were stopped and questioned coming into France but they were let go because none of them were on a watch list or anything so they came in.
And one of these guys ended up going back to Belgium that same night. And he was one of the guys that the Belgian authorities have arrested - they've arrested seven people in Brussels, all of whom lived in this predominantly Muslim neighbourhood. So they were saying these three French brothers who lived in Brussels, one of whom was in Belgium he was arrested, another one was one who blew himself up and the other guy is still at large and he was one of them who rented these cars. So, so far of the three guys that have actually been named are all French citizens, travelling from Belgium. So there's a couple of things there; one, it gets back to the border issue and how easily these guys went back and forth between the two countries and two, the idea of this home grown radicalisation, and it's not just a problem with the refugees but it's a problem with Muslims in general in Europe and the Muslim population. Now there's this crazy video going around that we watched about how evil and bad the refugees are...
Niall: The anti-migrant video going viral across Europe. Yeah, people have been sending it in to Sott.net and asking, "Why doesn't Sott publish this video?? Huh? Huh? Huh?" Tell us about it.
Harrison: Well... you really just have to watch it. Let's just say that it starts with a bang and it doesn't go downhill from there. It starts out with 3-4 minutes of just heavy metal-techno kind of music that gets your blood pumping and there are all these images of what appear to be, refugees getting in fights and punching people and swearing. From there it goes on for 19 minutes about just how these people basically aren't human; they're rapists and criminals, they're shallow and selfish and materialistic, anything bad you can possibly think about a person, that's how this video portrays all refugees.
Niall: So it's a slick video portraying the Muslim hoard, pouring into white-Christian civilised Europe, which is blue and white by the way.
Harrison: Raping our women, taking our homes.
Niall: Raping our women, taking our homes. And it was uploaded and has been virilised rather than just spontaneously gone viral. I think it was uploaded the day before the attacks, probably a coincidence. But this has been brewing for a long time now. It's going to get a lot of traction. Even if, to pick up on what you were starting to talk about which was that some of the details suggest that they're going with this being a home grown thing rather than the result of Muslims pouring into Europe; it doesn't matter. The association people are making is, "Muslims, terrorists, aren't there a lot coming to Europe, yes, oh my god we've got a problem". So whatever else they've got to say about who did it, they've already said who did it.
Harrison: It won't make a difference.
Niall: "ISIS snuck into Europe along with the refugees." with the darker undertone as explicitly being delivered in this video being that, "They're all the same, aren't they." A known commentator on French radio today 'jokingly' put it out there that, "We probably need to put them all in detention camps." I mean, we're there; people can 'freely' express what's on their mind. We're going to see a lot of this. The blurb that comes with the video is something like, 'Don't be afraid to say what you can say while you're still free to say it', "because the time is coming when you won't have free speech anymore so express your inner hatred for Muslims" they don't say it in such words but that's what they mean.
Harrison: Though it doesn't just focus on refugees though of course that's the main thrust of it but by extension it applies to the entire Muslim population in Europe. And the way it is presented is that the Muslims are here and they are coming in order to displace Europeans entirely as individual races. So the British will be gone; "How long before there are any British or French left? They'll all be Muslims because the Muslims have four wives and eight children. And the European races are just dying out and the Muslims are coming in to take over."
Niall: Well, it'd actually be a positive development for Europe because frankly concentrations of white people as we can see on the planet over the last five hundred years are pretty dangerous. So the more they mix, I think, the safer it is for the planet as a whole.
Joe: Absolutely. So it's all good.
Niall: It is. Because as horrific as this is people, you're going to get a front row seat to see up-close and personal how psychopaths can destroy in a very quick time, countries, groups of people, civilisations, whatever you call it. They're going to turn everyone against everyone else and it's going to be a master class in how to destroy everything, so yeah, enjoy it. Some of the details we can throw out there - as you probably noticed from our reporting on Sott.net, there's so many reports, so many contradictory reports - but there are a couple of gems out there. And one that we picked up today was a multi-site exercise was planned and carried out on the morning of the attacks, which we learned through a guy called Patrick Pelloux. And his exact words were, "As luck would have it, in the morning at the Paris SAMU (EMT)" - which is more or less an emergency response service - "a multi-site attack exercise had been planned. So we were prepared. What needs to be known is there was a mobilisation of police forces, firemen, EMTs, associations who came to participate and we tried to save as many people as possible." (https://www.sott.net/article/306404-SOTT-Exclusive-Multi-site-attack-exercise-held-same-day-as-Paris-terror-attacks) he doesn't spell it out as clearly as we've seen with other terror attacks but the suggestion there seems to be, there were a lot of first responders hanging around - I'm not sure...
Joe: A lot of police on the scene. And a lot of police on the scene means that there are police there who would possibly be able to do certain things as the attack is progressing if they have some foreknowledge of the attack there are certain members of the police - or members of some organisation within the police - being on site in advance as it was happening, to do whatever they wanted to do. And that's as far as we'll go with suggesting what can happen. This whole situation of these drills that happen on the morning of the terror attacks takes the whole coincidence theory - coincidence theorists are crazy enough but when you hear these ones who actually believe this as a coincidence, that a country like France who this year had two terror attacks but they were separated by eleven months and before that France had very few actual terror attacks, so the idea that on the day that one of these extremely rare terror attacks happened -...
(Audio cuts out)
Niall: Hello?
Joe: So Harrison, you were saying?
Harrison: Yeah so, we were going through the coincidence theorist thing and how these drills just happen to crop up during pretty much every major terrorist attack.
Niall: And you're going to argue that they are just a coincidence?
Harrison: Well, no. I'm just going to offer an alternative scenario because I think there are two possibilities for what's going on here, in addition to the coincidence theory. One is that the people planning the operation, the drill are somehow involved and the other being something that I think we've brought up a couple of times on the show before, the hijacked operation where something that's put into operation that someone else knows about and then takes over and uses that in a way to their own advantage. Now there's a theory about the JFK assassination, something was going on, some other people found out about it and basically took a fake or - the idea is there was a fake attack planned and this failed assassination could then be used for a different purpose; other elements of different intelligence agencies found out about this and made it go live to a real assassination attempt; there's another theory about that for 9-11, a similar thing usually involving Israeli Mossad. So I'm just wondering, this attack looks like it did have some intelligence capabilities; they had some information they knew that it was going on, they knew Hollande was going to be at this game at the Stade de France; they knew their target, they chose their targets well, they were the hotspots where young people were going to be hanging out and having a good time.
So some people are saying that they were either French or they were dealing and working with people who knew the scene, knew Paris, knew how to get around, where to go, when to be there, etc... So I'm just saying, that there's a possibility that the people directing these people knew a lot about what was going on and had their tentacles in -...
Niall: Sure.
Harrison: Now, where they came from, who they actually are, that's a question that's kind of open.
Niall: But that's no different than if you're the orchestrator and you orchestrate both the drill and the live version, effectively it's the same. You are someone with some kind of inside information and unbeknownst to all the others involved in the other operation, you take advantage of it. So effectively, it's 6 of one, half a dozen of the other it doesn't really matter.
Harrison: So Hollande was probably telling the truth when he said - how did he put it? Well first of all he said, "We know who did this." and that they were, let's say, people from abroad and within France. And that's kind of all he said and it's pretty vague the way he said it.
Joe: I think it something to do with the French and ISIS and home grown terrorists.
Niall: We could analyse this till dawn, or, we could do as Joe did and look at history. You found a gem and put it in your recent article. Tell us what happened in 1961.
Joe: Well fundamentally this is about French colonialism. Because French colonialism is what is happening in Syria right now; the French are involved with their bigger brother partners, the USA, in attempting to colonise or maintain control, maintain their colonisation and control over the Middle East. They don't like the Syrian government of Assad because he stands in the way of western goals and intentions in the Middle East, to effectively maintain control of it. And Assad-the Syrian government has chosen to align itself, as it began to do many years ago, with Russia. So we're dealing here with French colonialism, essentially. It's quite interesting because I was talking with my Father earlier on today and I hadn't really mentioned anything, he just brought up the Paris attacks and the first thing he mentioned was, "Well it reminds me of the SAO." And I went, "Really?"
Niall: What's the SAO?
Joe: You didn't read my article? (Laughter) And so I said, "Really. It reminds you of the SAO?", and he said, "Yeah that Secret Army Organisation." he said, "Because I remember back in the 1960's that there was a similar dynamic going on with bomb attacks, etc., in France and it was all about the French colonial war with Algeria." Where Algeria had been a colony of France for quite a while and Algerians and basically risen up in that war of independence against the French. And the SAO was a group that was effectively an off-shoot or a part of Operation Gladio, the stay behind network created in the aftermath of the Second World War and the beginning of the cold war and the iron curtain across Europe.
Niall: That wouldn't have been known at the time though. You're saying looking back we know that it's -...
Joe: What I'm saying is that the SAO was part of this Gladio network that was set up in the aftermath of the Second World War as a secret organisation set up under the auspices of NATO and effectively the USA, to control the European governments, and prevent them from falling under the influence of the Soviets. And these were effectively paramilitary groups that were kept hidden and loosely organised around Europe and they periodically carried out shooting and bombing attacks in various European countries when it was necessary to demonise the communist party and leftist groups in Europe to prevent them coming to power in governments in Europe. Because NATO and the Americans, wanted to prevent that from happening; any leftward swing amongst European governments and to keep Europe under American influence. So this group SAO, was one of those groups and during this war of independence between the French and the Algerians, this group was tasked, effectively by NATO with trying to keep Algeria as part of a French colony. At that time, President Charles de Gaul had more or less, already announced plans for a cease-fire in 1961 and they eventually signed the Evian peace accords where a cease-fire was announced and it paved the way for independence for Algeria from France.
And this group under the auspices of NATO and the Americans wanted to prevent that happening and apparently their strategy to keep Algeria was to carry out bomb attacks and gun attacks on different individuals and civilians in France to put pressure on de Gauls government to keep Algeria which doesn't seem like it was ever going to work but this was their strategy. Their main goal was to keep Europe under a western, ala American-NATO sphere of influence. One of the attacks this group carried out was the bombing of a French train that was travelling from Paris to Strasbourg, they put a bomb on the tracks and detonated it as the train approached which derailed the train and 28 people were killed. And that was the worst terror attack with the highest number of fatalities prior to this Paris attack two nights ago.
Harrison: And it was also the last time that France declared a state of emergency.
Joe: Right. So the interesting thing is that the day after these attacks in Paris just yesterday, a French train derailed on more or less the same route which was Paris to Strasbourg. The media or the authorities within an hour or two of the crash announced that it was caused by excessive speed which is always interesting, when you hear conclusions -...
Niall: A mechanical explanation - with hours.
Joe: Well any conclusion to any deadly accident or incident involving trains or planes or anything else, that within an hour they say, "Yeap, we know what this was."
Niall: "And it was not terrorism" This coming right after, how did they know?
Joe: Even while they were saying that, the police said, "Well no, actually we don't know what happened yet." - this is the same day that I happened - "We don't know what caused it." So it's just an interesting correlation that you had, in the 1960's, effectively a NATO-US covert paramilitary group bombing a train in France as a way to put pressure on the French government and then yesterday someone, and this is my hypothesis is that this train crash was not an accident but that it was similar to this event in 1961where someone probably put a bomb on the tracks. So you effectively have a repetition of that situation in 1961 with a French train being derailed by a bomb. In 1961 it was caused by a group of paramilitary terrorists working for NATO who did it to put pressure on the French government. So if you backtrack one day and look at who might be responsible for the Paris attacks, well certainly there's a precedent in France of covert paramilitary groups working effectively for the Americans or some aspect or agency of the American government, carrying out terrorist attacks in France to put pressure on the French government.
Niall: And in forty years of a high speed rail network in France what happened yesterday was the first accident, on a brand new stretch of high speed railway line which hasn't even opened yet it's due to open next year; the people on the train were the workers for the French rail company testing out the track on its maiden test journey and we're being asked to believe it derailed due to excessive speed.
Harrison: Even if that is the case that it derailed because of excessive speed; what was the source of that excessive speed?
Niall: Aha, ok, it could have been more sophisticated maybe not a bomb on the tracks, there are any number of ways to hijack infrastructure.
Joe: Well the other important aspect of this is that the original bombing that occurred in 1961, the first bombing on the Paris to Strasbourg line, it was known at the time that it was a terrorist attack using a bomb but the government kept it secret for 20 years. So for those who think they can come out with an explanation as to what has happened or think that any explanation provides the answer for what caused the train to crash on the very same day, are a bit naïve considering that the last time a similar event happened the French government covered it up for 20 years.
Niall: Now this parallel, if it is that, is interesting but there are some key differences. The situation in France then is different now; then you had a leader who was pretty much, anti-US Empire and he let it be known. He knew the problem with the US dollar being the world reserve currency and he complained that because it was the world reserve currency everyone else was effectively paying a tithe or tax to Washington or Wall Street and he complained about it bitterly, that's just one example. But his complaints were broader than that; he took France out of NATO. No one had ever left the club and this was one time that someone left the club, they've since rejoined NATO. So in that situation, the OAS, Organisation Armee Secrete, phony commie paramilitary group as actually a NATO-Gladio operation; it is more or less a foreign proxy force against the state forces or the state head in this case of a non-party member, someone not aligned with them unlike today though.
Joe: That same group at the time carried out seven assassination attempts on Charles de Gaul. The most serious one occurred a year after the train bombings in 1962 when one of their members raked de Gauls car with him and his wife in it, with machine gun fire and just narrowly avoiding killing him. So, that was a major motivation factor for de Gaul top finally kick NATO out of France and remove France from NATO membership and remove all foreign military assets or bases in France, in 1966. And for more or less the next thirty years that's the way it stayed and in that respect, France was relatively independent from American/NATO influence unless they chose to participate. And it was in 1988 - sorry 2008, for the next forty years they were out of NATO and in 2008 it was Nicolas Sarkozy who decided to rejoin the NATO club and put France back into NATO. It's interesting because if you look at a map of Europe and the US military bases of whatever size, France more or less stands alone as the only major or semi-major country in Europe that has no US military bases on its territory. So in that respect US influence in France is limited in that way which makes me think that this why France may be coming under some -...
Niall: Particular attention.
Joe: Particular attention.
Harrison: Well there's been a couple of interesting responses from French politicians to this, including Sarkozy. So Sarkozy had to say this, "I told the president (Hollande) that I believe we should put together appropriate responses, which means a shift in policy at the European level and some drastic changes to our security policy. We need the whole world to destroy Daesh (ISIS), in particular the Russians. Europe must regroup to set the conditions for a new immigration policy. We must learn the consequences of failures and turn our resources towards all those who look at Jihadi websites." So mixed in there is that we need Russia, basically in order to defeat ISIS. Now a member of Sarkozy's Republican Party, Jacques Bernard came out and said something similar, he's been critical of the French stance on Syria for a while now, but he had to say, "It's very simple we are at war. We are fighting against different kinds of Jihadists and the Islamic state. We must arm ourselves, we must be vigilant and there is no alternative. We must go further. France needs to re-examine its foreign policy, particularly in Syria. I think we have followed a mistaken policy. Today those who are fighting the jihadists are those in Damascus and with the support of Iran and Russia. Though Bashar al Assad is not a saint his government is not France's enemy." The direct quote was; "The enemy today is the Islamic state, the jihadists of Al-Qaeda, it is not Bashar al Assad who is the enemy of France."
Niall: Mmmm. But this was exactly what the NATO-Gladio operation spent forty years working against, aligning with Moscow.
Harrison: Yep. Now there's the SAO proxy-mercenary army, and we just happen to have today a similar proxy-mercenary army which is ISIS.
Niall: Then it was Algeria now it's Syria.
Harrison: What strikes me as odd is this whole narrative that came out immediately after the attacks. We had, first of all, some dubious reports that in the concert hall where 80-something people were killed-shot, where two guys exploded themselves and the third guy was shot by French security forces, apparently. One of these guys had allegedly said, "This is for Syria!" Now of course other reports from eyewitnesses say these guys didn't shout anything they just shot people and that was it. But we have this, 'This is for Syria' thing, and then later that day, ISIS allegedly releases a video and audio claiming responsibility for it and claiming that, 'This is for Syria', this is retaliation for French air strikes in Syria. Now, stop to think about that for a second. You've got someone saying that this is for the air strikes in Syria; OK, well who's really doing air strikes in Syria? The Russians are doing real air strikes in Syria. Now the Americans have been pretending to do them for a while. Now how many air strikes has France done in Syria - depending on reports, two or three; two or three air strikes in Syria. Now how does that mesh?
Niall: Yeah. It doesn't. That's the simple answer. The narrative's illogical. If it should have happened anywhere it should have happened in Moscow; but it happened in Paris.
Joe: Well to me it says, if you assume the idea of a hidden hand behind these asymmetric attacks on foreign governments, the three that have happened most recently in western Europe or in Europe and Russia, have been the Charlie Hebdo attack in January this year; then the shooting down of a Russian airliner just last month, and now the Paris attacks. So France and Russia are being targeted by someone for some specific reason. It suggests to me that there's stuff going on in the background that certain people don't like to see happening, certain people perhaps in Washington DC or some other hidden broom closet somewhere within the bowels of the Pentagon, they don't like to see certain things happening in the background that we aren't even privy too. A certain move away from US dominated policy, there are other aspects, other factors that play into this or give credence to this; one of them is, for example, people probably know about what TTIP is. It's the Trans...
Niall: Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, something like that.
Joe: Which is basically a corporate takeover; giving power to corporations to effectively run countries. It's the corporatisation of the world that is being led and pushed by America. Now the US has been trying to sign up as many European countries to this agreement that would largely favour America, or American corporations. Because American corporations; are the most dominant multinational corporations in the world, as well as the richest. But just recently, a little over a month ago, the French minister of State for Foreign Trade threatened to call a complete halt to negotiations if - he made this threat based upon a, "total lack of transparency" and that it posed a, "democratic problem and that American members of parliament (congress) have access to a much higher number of documents that we do in Europe." So basically the US is trying to sell this agreement to the world because they have a similar deal with the Pacific region, which would effectively, from an economic position weight everything, weight economic trade etc. in favour of American corporations. So you have the French National State of Foreign Trade minister potentially threatening that France will walk away from this which probably does not make the Americans happy at all.
The Israeli's aren't too happy with France and Europe in general. Over the last year or so back in November 2014, when several countries recognised Palestine as a state, Netenyahu said at the time that it would be 'grave mistake' for France to recognise Palestinian statehood.
Harrison: Is that a threat?
Joe: I don't know Bibi, you tell us. And then just more recently there was a lot of Israeli anger at the EU in general for agreeing to label settlement products as - for what they were. This was an EU decision to assert the fact that the European Union, in line with international law does not recognise Israel's sovereignty over the occupied Palestinian territories; the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and east Jerusalem. So any Israeli occupation factories or businesses on Palestinian land that are producing products and selling them to Europe and labelling them as Israeli, you have to label them as 'Occupied Territory Products'. So that consumers can see that they're buying products from land owned by Palestinians but stolen by Israel and exploited by Israel.
Niall: Which would obviously, hurt the economics of those regions.
Joe: Of the burgeoning Israeli colonies on Palestinian land. Those are other factors. But we have Stephen on the line again. Stephen are you there?
Stephen: Yes I am. Thank you. I'm enjoying the discussion. You know when I'm looking at the terrorist attacks in Paris, I backup a step and I say, "Does this really serve the US policy goals?" And that would be, with some conjecture, to get France involved and NATO involved more intensely into Syria and Iraq. And I really think about it and I go, "No, no." Because ISIS would actually benefit from what France has been doing which is funding mercenaries to overthrow the secular government of Syria. So - and this is just speculation on my part - I tend to think that this is coordinated with US intelligence, meant to develop mayhem like a wild-card because they've lost the narrative and it's a desperate attempt to shake things up, shake up the trajectory of Russia becoming seen as a saviour. So they shake things up and it's a desperate attempt, and it's going to see how this will leave France to align tightly with the US on a total different trajectory of involvement into the region that would be working totally outside of Russia's efforts. Do you follow me?
Joe: Right. The obvious motivation or political capital that it provides to France is to say, "OK, we're going to get those terrorists." But that's totally against what the US wants to happen, which is what Russia is doing which is getting the terrorists. If France is aligned with America, they don't want anybody to get the terrorists. So the idea that this would give motivation of justification for France to dash over to Syria and Iraq and start bombing ISIS is totally against the whole American rationale which is, "leave them alone".
Stephen: Yeah well, of course it's an unstated rationale. But right now the United States is desperately trying to change the narrative to be seen as the heroes against Daesh, right?
Joe: Right.
Stephen: So I just don't see - I can't stand Hollande, I think this guy's feckless; they might even have films of him having sex with children, I mean who knows, but the guy is totally feckless. And I'm so heartened by what y'all quoted from Sarkozy and the other person in the conservative party of Sarkozy. Saying, "Hey, we need to regroup, we need to work with Russia." that is so brilliant. Because I just can't see Sarkozy having said that, and another ally and big-wig within the party actually saying that too, that's going to make it hard for Hollande to go out on a cowboy mission, totally outside of Russia and opposed to the longer term goals of what Russia is trying to accomplish, primarily protecting the viability of the secular nature of the Syrian state. So I just can't see Hollande going off on a cowboy mission with Obama that's opposed to not just the 'terrorists' but also to Russia's goals because it's just going to look too creepy or too incongruous in the overall.
Joe: How would they even do that?
Stephen: God knows. But the United States is actually very desperate right now. As a matter of fact, they're trying to split off the Kurds in that area of Syria, they're trying to split them off as total proxies under the wind of the United States and being opposed to the Syrian government. That's their big goal right now.
Because I read on Red Voltaire, that some of the Kurds have been going into towns that are Christian - and there's a lot of different Christian groups there - and then changing school teachers and language. The United States - this is my guess anyway - it seems are trying to split off the Kurds as being total proxies and allies of the United States in Syria, and then they want to establish some kind of autonomous territory where the United States military presence is assured for the long term in that area.
This is just some of the stuff that I've read and it seems logical that they would be trying to do that. Now how successful they can be given that Syria has given the Kurds in this region a lot of lee-way in terms of autonomy and in protecting their interests, how they would just jump under the umbrella of United States who has been helping funnel jihadists into Syria to overthrow the government and create tumult - it's hard to even think that the Kurds there could be that dumb. But who knows, there's a lot of corruption going on. I think that United States is going to fail in their efforts, their little shenanigans in this. And it's unfortunate that the French people - it seems to me anyway - that have been subjected to this violence, it just doesn't make sense to me that this is solely Islamic State fanatics engaging in this, it just doesn't compute, it's just really weird. Anyway, I'll enjoy listening to the rest of yawls show, ok?
Joe: Alright, thanks Stephen.
Stephen: Take care, bye-bye.
Joe: Bye. Yeah, I think he's on the money there when he says that this is a desperate attempt by the western cabal - Kabbalists - to do something, do anything, to shake up the situation, to create some chaos, to give the French government a problem, basically; to militarise countries, to lock us down, to force them or encourage them to engage in these tactics, to basically distract them from the one thing this western cabal has never wanted to see and has always wanted to see, a normal - or as close to normal - situation as possible in prevailing in Europe, whereby France and Germany in particular would establish closer and closer ties with Russia.
And basically align with Russia as they naturally should being they're on their doorstep. And I think this is the one thing they have always wanted to avoid ever happening. And at this point they're getting extremely desperate as to how to prevent that happening, especially with Russian air strikes and Russia's involvement in Syria and basically securing Syria for Russia. This is the last, the final almost, desperate attempt to stop that happening and the only thing they can think of doing is just, "create some chaos in France, stir up the population, get people fighting with each other, hit that fracture point of Muslims vs Non-Muslim French" and that's the best they can do.
Because otherwise, as Stephen was just saying, it doesn't really make any sense for this to be used, or the motivation for this attack in Paris, to give the French government that justification to go and attack ISIS. Because in case anybody hasn't noticed the US and their western allies have, for the past four years done virtually nothing about ISIS, they have given them a free pass. Because ISIS is effectively, along with Al-Qaeda and Al-Nusra and the different terrorist groups in Syria, they are effectively, directly and indirectly, the tools of western imperialism in its attempt to overthrow the Assad government. So those are, 'our guys'. Now why would anyone in the west want to provide France, or the west in general, with motivation to go and attack those guys by having those guys attack the French people in Paris, none of that makes any sense whatsoever.
Niall: This 'ISIS' is, as you wrote in your article, are terrible strategists, if we are to believe that this is their strategy.
Joe: Right. They're being decimated, effectively, and run ragged and routed -
Niall: And they wave a red flag.
Joe: ...- by the Russian military, by the Russian air strikes, over the past six weeks; they're on the back foot, they're losing a lot of ground so what they do is attack France. Now France can turn around and say we're going to join, with enthusiasm, the attacks on ISIS. This would deal the coup de grace to them, is that what they wanted?
Niall: This is the thing about trying to decipher and understand asymmetric warfare. The payoff is rarely apparent. It's often only in hindsight how a payoff can make sense. We were speaking earlier today Joe about, ok, maybe you have a group that says, "Quick, we've got to do something." and that might be your desperate group. Maybe it's in the interest of the western cabals overall foreign policy objectives vis a vis Russia, etc. But you were also talking about agendas within agendas and - you know what strikes me about the fall out, the reaction from the attacks in Paris, websites, news sites, social media sites, they all have their little banners, offering their support and condolences to the victims of the attacks in Paris, you never ever see that when a hundred people are blown up by a car bomb in Baghdad. Iraq is ostensibly now a democratic country, right? Well last year 17,500 Iraqi civilians were killed in car bomb attacks, shootings, etc. I don't remember a Nous Sommes Baghdad or a Nous Sommes Mosel campaign [Nous Sommes = We Are]. Anyway, the point is we have this campaign - and it's not just online, it's very visible on the streets - particularly in western capitals, like New Zealand, to state capitals in the US displaying colours of the French flags at night time in sympathy with the victims in Paris.
Joe: And the pyramids are going to be lit up tonight, in Egypt. The Egyptian pyramids are going to be red, white and blue.
Niall: What I see, when I see all this, is a kind of one world-ism. A binding of as many people as possible, to one basic world view. They're not even fussed about whether people recognise and accept that America is the guardian, they may even explicitly disagree that America should be the policeman of that one world. But that their primary interest is the binding of as many people as possible into this basic way of seeing the world. And that when they do these things, it's the methodical, psychopathological - but also there is some objective science to it, that cattle prodding the herd like this, herds them all together and makes them easier to control or maintain within a certain world view and therefore certain frequency fence or something like that.
Joe: It's pretty despicable to see that. On the one hand you could say it's despicable, all this outpouring of grief for the victims of the Paris attacks because, as you just said, countless other people in other countries are killed on a regular basis and there's not a peep from the press or from Facebook or from anybody changing their Facebook profile picture to the flags of any other countries. It's kind of ridiculous when, for example, you read that today the Palestinians are holding a vigil for France, the French victims of the Paris attacks. When was the last time you saw any kind of mass social media outpouring of grief for a particular attack - or a global one, as we see with the Paris attacks - you don't see that; it's an example of the elitism and the two tiered world that we live in. Where people in the west are the elect and other people are - I don't know, not the elect.
Niall: They feed us.
Joe: Of course, when they die it doesn't matter. But of course, people in the west are victims of this nonsense narrative that has been pushed for the past thirty years and longer in the western media and the western culture that people, for example, in the middle east, they just fight each other all the time, and killing and dying there are just par for the course, and people have become normalised that this is part of daily life over there and that's just the way those people are. But they are largely victims of western propaganda that tells them that; tells them that over there it's dictatorships and fundamentalist religion and in the west it's all about wonderful 'freedom and democracy' and the wonderful western values, etc. when it's not true at all. The only reason, people are dying on a daily basis in Middle Eastern countries and in Africa etc. is largely because of western intervention. The wonderful values of the west spread to the Middle East and Africa that involves; overthrowing of governments, arming of death squads and warlords and brutal regimes, like the Saudi regime that gets passed off as some kind of a bizarre democracy that likes to chop people's heads off whilst saving itself from stores. So that's largely a result of propaganda. We're seeing it very displayed very explicitly on social media and the west and around the world. And the bizarre thing is that it's actually affecting the victims in a broad global sense
Niall: Well, they're flooding into Europe in the hope or with the expectation they're going to be saved or helped.
Joe: In Valhalla?
Niall: Do these people not understand that the cause of their strife, whether it's through manufactured civil war, manufactured famine, wherever they are in the world, is the result of these people who they're going to and they're expecting to be welcomed with open arms. I think a large swathe of them don't - like anyone else, it can take a generation like, for example, the Iraqi's, to really look back and go, "How the hell did that happen?" and sit down and work it out. That the US came and went but left behind structures that kept the country divisive and may end up dividing it.
Joe: It's the equivalent situation with the slave wanting to be the slave master. I suppose it's a natural response, when you've been kept down and kept in relative slavery for so long, you're aspirations would be to join the slave driver and become a slave driver yourself, in the big house. The guy who's stealing all you stuff so you want to go and live with him since he's got all your stuff, what other choice do you have?
Niall: Exactly. You're right. We can't pontificate and say, "Why don't they stay and fight?" or "try to work it out?" Maybe they don't want to.
Joe: Well they're being forced to stay and fight. They're being forced to live in those conditions and put up with regular invasions and destabilisations of their countries and terrorist bombings, perpetrated by the west. And when they try to flee, as is happening in Syria, as a result of western funding of western proxy armies and terrorists in Syria, the Syrian people leave Syria, come to Europe and there's the kind of terror attack you see in Paris that serves to marginalise them and demonise them as a people, as a people who adhere to a certain religion, in those western countries, that they came to for salvation. Now they find themselves effectively looked down on and labelled as terrorists. Because the terrorism that they're fleeing in Syria is being perpetrated by the countries they're trying to get to, to escape the terrorism, and they are ultimately the perennial victims. Even in the countries where they think they will find safe haven.
Anyway, it's a pretty nasty situation, all the way around. But again I think there's some hope to be had in the sense that it does seem to be a desperate attempt by these powers that be, to just hold on to their power, to stop the rot, effectively, of their own empire and their own power and control crumbling beneath them, because they've pushed the situation far too far, and dug too deep, for the power and the gold and control, and it's no longer tenable. It was never going to be able to be pushed to the extremes that they're pushing it and we're seeing the results of it right now. And their response to see that the edifice is crumbling is to just lash out in desperation and create some chaos in specific countries to try and maintain control of the situation. But that's actually going to just push control further away from their grasp. Whether there's hope in that - it's also a very dangerous situation because you're dealing with people who are very dangerous, ruthless, conscienceless, psychopathic type individuals who don't really have any line they won't cross in attempting to maintain power and control.
So everybody needs to keep their eyes open and be aware and not allow themselves to be manipulated by propaganda, trauma and terror attacks and all that kind of stuff. That's what I think anyway.
We're going to leave it there for this week folks, a little bit earlier than usual but we hope that you found the show informative. We will be back hopefully next week with an interview with former NSA agent-translator -
Niall: Edward Snowden?
Joe: Scott Rickard.
Niall: Oh...
Joe: That's not very good to have that on record, you just said, "Oh..." You don't like Scott Rickard? Should I tell him not to come? (Laughter) Ok, so we'll hopefully be talking to Scott Rickard next week and we hope you'll tune in, same time and same place. Until then, have a good evening!
Niall: See you next week.
Harrison: Bye.
Reader Comments
to our Newsletter