white nationalism
The evils of 'white nationalism' has been a hot topic in the mainstream media lately, especially following the phony mail-bomb campaign targeting Democratic figures and the mass shooting of Jews at a Pittsburgh synagogue, sparking countless 'soul-searching' psychological profiles of 'the typical Trump supporter' ahead of the US Midterm elections.

If we reflect on older events, like the Battle of Charlottesville last year, or the massacre at a black church in Charleston in 2015, and even elsewhere in 'NATOstan' - the massacre of children of Norwegian elites by Anders Breivik in 2011, for example - it's clear that this theme of 'white extremists' holding severe grudges against 'all racial and ideological enemies' has been percolating to the surface for some time.

Is it mere coincidence then that - just as nationalist feeling is growing in countries the world over, and producing electoral results that 'shock' the status quo - extremist caricatures of nationalism begin proliferating, occasionally commit atrocities, and thus blacken nationalism and mandate government crackdowns on all dissent that 'smells like nationalism'?

This week on NewsReal With Joe & Niall, your hosts wonder if the 'War on Terror' has become what it apparently always wanted to be: a war on political dissidents...


Running Time: 01:12:20

Download: OGG, MP3


Listen live, chat, and call in to future shows on the SOTT Radio Network!

Here's the transcript of the show:

Niall: Hi and welcome to NewsReal with Joe and Niall.

Joe: I'm Joe.

Niall: And I'm Niall and in this episode we're going to discuss a pretty hot topic - white nationalism.

Joe: Sharp intake of breath.

Niall: Okay, so first things first. This isn't actually a show about white nationalism in that it's a show about "white nationalism". So we're not here, two white guys taking a side on white nationalism per se because, as we'll try to make the case in the next hour or so, it's largely a contrived, ridiculous, inapplicable concept to what's really going on out there. And yeah, there's been a host of incidents with screaming headlines, White Nationalism, "extremism", white this and that, white supremacy.

The point is, as we'll make clear I think, white nationalism/white supremacy is tacked onto events, onto people, onto ideas when that's beyond just being an inaccurate description of what the event or idea or person is trying to say or do by carrying out things. It covers up a much broader phenomenon that's going on if you like.

It's layered over what's really happening which is, in the broader sense, a re-emergence of a nationalist spirit globally. It's not just in white countries or the west. It's everywhere. Everywhere. Pakistan elects someone kind of Trump-like, not in the political mainstream, calls himself a nationalist. Mexico, same thing. In his case he's traditionally of the left, but whatever.

He's a nationalist and it upset the status quo and high brow publications made the comparison even though it's ridiculous on the face of it, AMBLO and Mexico with Trump. Obviously there's been a series of electoral shocks all across the west and of course Putin and Xi. So China as well. Is Xi-Jinping a white nationalist? Of course he's not. It's ridiculous.

This argument's only working in the mainstream in the west at the moment. It tells you something's afoot. It tells you there's a manipulation going on that's conflating extremist manifestations that have white nationalism attached to it with something else, something much broader, and frankly positive. It's given this horrible pejorative negative association by tacking on this extreme racial suggestion with it.

Nationalism is not a dirty word. Trump recently burst that little bubble when he spoke at a rally declaring he was nationalist, much to the phony shock - it's not real shock - it's phoney emoting back in CNN studios about how racist and evil and ancient that is. It's not. It's simple, it's pragmatic. It is what it is. He was giving an objective description really to what he's come to represent these last few years.

Joe: Yeah. There are various different levels as I see it to the situation. Obviously nationalism, as you just said, is made a bad word. Nationalist is a bad word, but that's only very recently in recent history, particularly in the last three-to-five years that it's really become mainstream as a bad word and a word to denounce people for, internationalists. But obviously there are many nationalist causes throughout history that actually were predominantly leftist.

When you go back to the 20th century many movements or struggles that ordinary people took up against, let's say, the ruling classes, which is absolutely a lefty kind of ideology fighting against ruling classes - it's communist, right - those struggles were defined, generally speaking, as struggles for national liberation, ergo, all of those people involved in them, all of them lefties, many of them communists, were struggling for a nationalist cause.

So it's absolute nonsense to take the word nationalist and say first of all that it's a bad word or a bad thing per se and secondly that it's only the domain of the right. Obviously nationalism throughout history and in recent history of the last century was actually predominantly a left-wing cause or it was neither left nor right, it was simply ordinary people in a country struggling for liberation from some kind of often foreign rule. So to call it left or right is complete nonsense.

The other aspect to it is that on a broader scale, there's always been people who are more conservative and nationalism has a connotation of people being focused on their in-group. What's an American nationalist? They're not nationalists in America because they're not trying to unite the nation. That's what nationalism means, unite the nation, put the nation first, unite the nation around a single cause, etc. That's obviously not what's happening in America today. It's certain groups and it's put on the conservative side therefore it's a kind of in-group of people, conservative or republican in-groups are the ones who are called nationalists.

So the word is just meaningless basically. That's why I don't like it. It makes no sense from an historical perspective. Like with so many other words these days, they've changed the definition. The definition of the word has completely changed to the point that it makes no sense anymore. It's similar to the word fascist that has re-emerged as well. It simply means someone that you don't like. It's just a bad word. It's a slur that you use against someone that you don't like, if it happens to be appropriate or convenient for you to use the word nationalist if it's fashionable to use that for your cause against the other cause then today it's nationalist.

For example left-wingers will call people nationalist because it's opposite to them. It obviously has connotations. Apparently nationalism and fascism are exactly the same these days, given the change in the definition and that links back to Hitler and the Nazis. They were nationalists. Yeah, as long as you include expansionist as well as nationalist. Again, it depends on your definition or how you understand it, but nationalism and expansionism seem to be two opposite words. If you're nationalist you want an isolationist policy. You want to put your country first. You want to do the Trump's "America first, make America great again" thing, which by definition means that you would tend to not focus so much on expansionism abroad. But obviously for anyone who has even a passing understanding or awareness of Nazi Germany, they would agree that Nazis were expansionist. Just ask the Poles for example.

So it's ridiculous but in a broader sense I think what's happening not just in America, but around the world like you were mentioning earlier on, is that people for the past 17 years, since 911, since the war on terror, let's say, and everything that has come as a result of the 911 attacks and the US led war on terror, that has created a lot of chaos in the world in many different ways, a lot of insecurity among many different people and as a result of that generalized chaos and a sense of insecurity among people, it's a very natural thing for many people to want to close ranks. It's almost like an unconscious drive that people have when they feel that the world is a scary place, for whatever reason. They close ranks with their in-group.

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: And that is what has given rise in many places, to this claim that this is nationalism. It's not. People who are feeling that "nationalist" urge to close ranks and identify with their in-group and their values within that group, it's not their fault. It's a natural response to the state of the world and the chaotic state of the world that we live in today is largely a result of people in positions of power, particularly in western nations, creating that chaos as a result of their greed and desire to mess things up.

Niall: And ironically it's the chaos that comes from a kind of hyper-nationalism where the west is dominant and will do whatever it takes to maintain it. They don't articulate it as so but it's imbued deeply. We've got the "America is an exceptional nation", "manifest destiny", "yes, but we can do this because we can, might makes right". "We can intervene in all these countries." It's bizarre because that obviously stems from one nation over others.

Joe: By hyper-nationalism you mean globalism and nationalism is a response to globalism, i.e., nationalism is, as it's being touted today, is essentially isolationism and is primarily being used in the US under Trump but also in western European countries and it's a push-back against globalism where America has supposedly been the world's policeman spreading its largess around the world and costing a lot of money. Trump campaigned on that and won the election based on that idea; listen, America is focusing far too much on other people's problems, what about our problems. So that gets him accused of being isolationist, which it is, but only in the context of America for the past 100 years spreading itself as far and as wide as possible around the world.

So it's a reaction to globalism effectively. The point is that it's not a bad word. Anybody who thinks, and the media wants to focus it down, wants to miss all those details that we just pointed out or to ignore all of those details we pointed out, and focus only on divisive headlines and language. At this point they do it so much, they're completely stupid or the mainstream media is doing someone's bidding, maybe their own bidding or someone above them's bidding, to actually divide people within America and to a lesser extent in Europe, against each other to create the conditions for a kind of civil war when it's completely unnecessary, it's completely irrational and even more so, it's not actually happening.

Niall: Right.

Joe: Someone is deliberately trying to foment civil discord and strife within the US. That's the only conclusion at this point.

Niall: The US intelligence community has the answer - Russia - which is bizarre how it's there, it's available for them to use, but they don't use it in every instance. Normally in this situation it's an external threat that is causing all our chaos and our problems, right? And they will hit that now and again. We see Russia behind all this internal vision. But they obviously can't say that all the time or they forget it themselves in the course of trying to explain why Trump bad and Trump's supporters bad and what's wrong with them. So it's kind of there as a nebulous explanation because it has to be because in the end the only thing that can unite people, they hope, around the status quo is the threat of something external.

Joe: Right.

Niall: Because hammering on about grandmothers in Ohio who get together to bake cookies and try and raise money for Trump's campaign is not going to work. There needs to be behind that some malign, foreign influence. So Russia is useful there. The way it's all come together is doubly useful in that it's applicable if you like, because they keep making comparisons with Putin's Russia, he's a nationalist, he's a white supremacist.

Joe: Right. And of course it also serves their geopolitical agenda, the US establishment's geopolitical war against Russia for their global dominance. So it's all kind of inter-connected in that respect and it's quite complex but you can see the interconnections. There are obviously divisions in the US, that we've just described as a result of the state of war and chaos in the world that people tend to close ranks on their in-groups and at the same time they either blame white nationalist groups in the US thereby exacerbating those division. Yes, there are divisions.

It creates divisions but it's natural but they can and should be managed. People should understand that the world's a scary place, immigrants and ISIS terror attacks and Muslim terror attacks over the past 15 years in the US have all created a climate of fear and insecurity in the US and people are going to react to that and they're going to close ranks. But they don't have to be at each other's' throats over it. They can try and understand and really put the blame where it should be which is on the people who have created this climate of fear and chaos over the past 16 or 17 years since the 911 attacks.

But the powers that be don't want people to look towards the real source of that and to try and address that problem and stop that kind of chaos being sown by the American establishment's policies. So instead they go "Well let's divide them against each other. Let's divide and conquer. Let's make this a fight between the American people rather than have the American people fight against us or recognize us as the enemy, the corruption in the establishment. It's a story that's as old as time, as human civilization. And now, like you said, they throw in the Russia thing to further distract the population from themselves. What better way for a government to distract from its own corruption and its own fault by pointing to a foreign government and that way you tend to get the people on your side at the same time as you're dividing them against each other. They've got a two-track method going on.

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: At the same time that they're trying to divide the people against each other into factions, they're also trying to unite them in a weird jingoism or xenophobia towards the US establishment's geopolitical enemy on a broader global scale, which is Russia. So they're pretty smart people in that respect, at manipulating people and sending out particular messages and ideas and infecting the minds of the people and trying to corral the people's' thinking in various different ways.

There's very few people. No one in the US today seems to be concerned about stopping or trying to stop this creeping social division. With that said, I don't think there's even a significant minority, a very small minority of people in the US who are actually taken with this idea of socialism, we have to go out and fight against the Nazis or fight against Antifa, fight against the left, fight against the right or vice-versa. I think there are very few people who actually think that that has to be done or who are actually engaging in that in any major way.

Niall: Or that seriously "the whites are a superior race". It's such a fringe issue and it's so bizarre, looking at the feedback that comes through to the intelligentsia, by the time they cotton on to something much later. What I have in mind is the Pepe meme when obviously the vast majority was parody. It was satirical swipes at the ideological left but also at the right. There was a parody but in the telling of it at the level of writing the national narrative through the media and hitting people hard over the head with it, Pepe became a Nazi symbol.

Joe: Yeah. Pepe the Nazi.

Niall: And so they took something that was freaking 4chan discussion board and turned it into a national...

Joe: Issue.

Niall: ...issue. What the hell!?! I want to show something that got me thinking about this today. Obviously it's going on nonstop. It was the New York Times today. Pull up that article Scottie. This is their top article today actually. It's humongous. I'm not going to read it or anything.

Joe: It's the New York Times magazine.

Niall: They have it at the top of their home page. "US law enforcement failed to see the threat of white nationalism and now they don't know how to stop it."

Joe: That's a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

Niall: Even the images flicking by, there's Dylann Roof, the killer of the black church a few years ago. And then they've got neo-Nazi types and then David Duke pops up and then Antifa clashes with god-knows-what, some terrorist attack, we don't know and then someone's funeral. And that'll be it. The Star of David there is obviously in memory of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting the other day.

Joe: The headline there is a perfect example of what we're talking about here. "US law enforcement failed to see the threat of white nationalism. Now they don't know how to stop it." It's out of control people. It's gone live. Get the national guard out. The neo-Nazis are going to be rampaging across the US and killing all the blacks and Jews and immigrants and the Muslims and gay people.

Niall: It's a huge long article that basically re-writes recent history to fit with what the angle is. And you see the angle already, just in the title, to see the threat of white nationalism. Then just imagine white was blanked out. That will be the accurate actual headline. "We failed to see the threat of nationalism and now we've lost because politically the people are...

Joe: Nationalized.

Niall: ...resonating in positive, civic ways nationwide. It's not ethnicity based although it will substantially be in white country. This is one of the sick, manipulative things of this, that white nationalism is a dirty pejorative when all it is, is an objective description of nationalism in majority white countries. Of course it's white nationalism as such.

Joe: Well what's amazing to me is that the culture, the meme essentially that's been spread by the media, the anti-nationalism meme in the US is bizarre in how quickly it has taken hold because for me forever - not being an American but knowing about America and understanding that this is the general perception of people outside of America and I assume people inside America as well - but foreigners have always viewed Americans as this country full of people who are super nationalistic.

"USA! USA!" Flying the flag, American flags on every doorstep of every colour and creed, all fly the American flag, love their country. "America's the greatest country on the earth". All of those ideas about America are all the definition of strong nationalistic sentiment among the vast majority of the population and that has been what America has always been about up until a couple of years ago.

But suddenly now it's evil. The most vocal media that get most of the airtime are the ones who denouncing it and decrying it as if to say 'this is not what America was ever about!' and I'm like, "Yeah it was!"

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: Yeah it was up until a couple of years ago, forever! And not only is that my opinion but that's what every single article and newspaper headline over the past 60 to 100 years was conveying about America to the rest of the world. "America is great. America is the best. We love America. All the American people are super nationalistic and love America. It's great. America, America, 'Merica, 'Merica, 'Merka, Merka, Merka".

Niall: I think they thought that all that was corralled with the safe word and the safe word in the United States is patriotism.

Joe: Same thing!!

Niall: I know it's the same thing but they think that these are separate things. So nationalism now in this context when Trump's using it, is something new. New but old that's creeping back up from the dregs of society.

Joe: How nutty do you have to be to say patriotism has nothing to do with nationalism?!? They're almost interchangeable, patriotism and nationalism.

Niall: They are basically, yeah.

Joe: You could use either word to say the same thing.

Niall: I know.

Joe: So what is the deal here? Is this different views of America? That's why I think it's the deep state and the US establishment basically, the American exceptionalists, the expansionist Americans who are always behind the scenes, who up until a few years ago, used American patriotism and nationalism to spread Americanism or Pax Americana around the world, 'how great we are, how wonderful we are' and a nationalist sentiment among the vast majority of Americans was useful for them.

But now because of Trump they've had to totally turn it around because Trump has taken back the idea of nationalism and patriotism and said "No, it's actually isolationist. It's put Americans first. Stop going around the world and wasting American tax dollars on aid programs to overthrow governments or infiltrate other countries and get American corporations which ultimately just drain the American treasury." That's what Trump's saying so they've had to turn around and start to demonize American patriotism and nationalism because it's no longer under Trump being used to service American expansionism.

And that's what the people at the top of the pyramid in the US want. As they always have, they want to control the world, not always have done but certainly increasingly over the past century have increasingly wanted to control as much of the world as possible. So now America is not about nationalism or patriotism. It's about diversity. They think they can do the same kind of thing where they can still spread American influence around the world under the guise of diversity. "How are we going to get all the diverse...

Niall: And human rights.

Joe: ...population to come to America if we don't go out there and spread the good word of America under a lefty paradigm now, anti-nationalistic?" It's weird. How did America grow over the past century as this super-patriotic country filled with 80% white people? How did it turn into a multicultural country? How did it survive as a flourishing multicultural environment when it was full of white nationalist patriots?!? Surely they should have been kicking all the blacks and the Jews and the immigrants out under the past 100 years! I mean, how do those two thing co-exist?! The point is they can co-exist and have co-existed. America has been a very patriotic and nationalistic country and at the same time a happily multi-cultural ethnic melting pot. But now they're saying it's not possible anymore.

Niall: We see a delayed reaction, change at the highest levels of narrative production, the people who write the articles, who write the think tank papers, the intelligentsia. It's kind of a delayed reaction. So back then the United States was seen by everyone and proudly put its colours to the mast as, let's say, centre right, capitalism good/communism-socialism bad.

Joe: Right.

Niall: I'm not saying anti-imperialist. That's how they were portrayed, but any country then - coming out of the post-colonial era, so after WWII all these countries wanted their independence from the previous European empires.

Joe: Right.

Niall: Including some American territories. The avenue of discourse that was available for them to use was largely positioned from a left rhetoric. So although they didn't explicitly go out of their way, some of them anyway, to say "We're Marxist and we want a revolution to overthrow the capitalist status quo", what they were saying they wanted was independence, nationalism.

Joe: Who was saying that?

Niall: All these countries in Africa and Asia.

Joe: Former colonial countries.

Niall: Yeah. And the powers that be largely centred in the US had to counter-attack by saying that they were all commies, lefties and they were going to undo the good deeds of capitalism and the great progress under liberal democracy, blah, blah, blah. So they were all pejoratively attacked as being lefty loonies when essentially they were nationalists.

Joe: Right.

Niall: Here's where I get to where there's a latent delayed reaction. The intelligentsia over a couple of generations adapts its discourse, but underlying it wants to do the same thing, impose and maintain the Pax Americana but all the world likes lefty stuff and is anti-aggression, anti-war, anti-imperialist, so they turn around and they develop this kind of humanitarian intervention, to protect human rights.

Joe: The development of human rights.

Niall: "We're bombing you because we want the women to have the vote." All these kinds of things. So there was a shift.

Joe: It's shifting narratives then.

Niall: Right.

Joe: This is in service to the same agenda.

Niall: Exactly.

Joe: Which is domination of American exceptionalism, American control.

Niall: So there's no essential change to the status quo globally. So what will that mean for all those countries then that want independence or a genuine national government that actually invests the hard-earned resources and labour of their country back into their own country instead of off to Wall Street or London wherever? Now the way that's open for them is largely a right-based rhetoric of "Our own cultural values, our traditional values."

Joe: That's what it always was.

Niall: It's what it always was but it's a shifting thing at the surface - left, now right - but underlying it is the same essential thing.

Joe: Yeah. So nothing has really changed, just the narrative and that's what we keep saying. The media is putting forward a bullshit narrative that's designed to inflame people's emotions and get them worked up to create the appearance that they're on different sides. It's like trying to convince as many people as possible that they are divided against each other, they're on diametrically opposed different sides, that ordinary people in America for example, are on one side of the fence or the other and never the twain shall meet. And that's not true at all. Obviously there are differences in people, as we've talked about before in terms of the way they see the world, their taste buds as we've mentioned before, but none of those differences are so great that people can't, as they have generally speaking, always done, found common ground to stand on.

I keep coming back to this point. Someone is trying to divide the people against each other, against themselves.

Niall: And what they have referred to are a string of atrocities, mass shootings and the mail bomber guy, and then these sound byte political manifestos, statements that they allegedly made as they were carrying it out or to police after that just go for buttressing this narrative, that white nationalism is metastasizing as the New York Times put it today. Robert Bowers, the guy who shot up the synagogue supposedly tells the police "They, the Jews are committing genocide to my people". The mail bomber guy is a white nationalist too but he's not. He's actually of Native American descent. He doesn't look like a WASP anyway.

There was Charlottesville last year, that weird thing with some obvious cointelpro going on there with Antifa...

Joe: Tiki torch.

Niall: ...to create an In 2016. It came out of the woodwork. Where did they come from? And everyone went "Look at all the Nazis" and we were screaming back at you "These are 0.0000 - there's no national support for this. Stop falling for this! They're trying to lure you into thinking this is a 50/50 split in the population. It doesn't exist!" They want to make it exist and it will grow some legs but it will never become an actual, honest-to-god split down the middle of the country.

There were earlier signs as well. Dylann Roof in 2015, that was the kid who looked like a trailer kid who goes in and shoots up a black church in Charleston.

Joe: Put up that other article just to move in because I know there's a big long list of these. Put up that one from the Guardian will you Scottie? It's from last year I think or a few years ago but it serves our purposes here. "Government agents directly involved in most high profile US terror plots". That speaks directly to the Muslim terror plots that have been doing on since 911 in the US and most people who have any sense are aware of that information and know that the details of them are that the FBI would find some vulnerable guy usually, some low IQ guy and they would use their informants to pretend they were members of Al-Qaeda or ISIS or something and go down and talk to the guy and say "Hey, you want to join Al-Qaeda? You want to get some guns and blow up...

Niall: "Sears Tower".

Joe: ...Sears Tower maybe or blow up anything?" And the guy's like "Yeah I would but I don't have any money." "Hey, we've got money. You want some money? Here's a bomb. You want to go and do it? Do ya? Do ya? Go on. And will ya swear an oath to Al-Qaeda?" So they record him doing all this stuff and then when he goes down with his fake bomb from Toys-R-Us given to him by the FBI to do the bombing, they pick him up and say "Gotcha! Terror plot exposed!" And it's complete nonsense.

And that's pretty much a template. Any reasonable person would assume if that's going on with Islamic terror plots then it's also going on with white nationalist shootings and attacks. These people can have their heads messed with. Anybody who knows about cointelpro knows that cointelpro goes back to the '60s and '70s or even beforehand in the US where the FBI was infiltrating various different groups and making them do things because they were a threat to national security because they decided they didn't like these people for political reasons or whatever, and they would make them look bad by setting them up to put them in bad situations, make them look like they're a bunch of terrorists.

That's bread and butter for the FBI and other intel agencies in the US. So you apply exactly the same thing to this list that is in the Washington Times magazine article that we showed a minute ago, this long list of supposed white extremist attacks over the past 10 years, you apply the same cointelpro/FBI manipulation tactics to a lot of those and you realize that yeah, somebody in positions of power in the US and intelligence agencies are deliberately creating these kind of events so that the New York Times magazine can then write a big long article about them and say "See all the white nationalist terrorism that's been going on for the past 10 years. It's out of control people."

And that's not to say that it's all totally manipulated.

Niall: No.

Joe: Going back to what we said beforehand which is that there's been a climate of insecurity and fear that's been created in the US and in other western European countries in particular and other countries around the world in fact, but as a result of 911 and the US-led war on terror. After 911 a lot of people in the US were out to get Muslims. They didn't like Muslims. Maybe it's not in the article. It's actually in a list of domestic terrorism in the US since 911 and they include at the very beginning many attacks against people, that happened immediately after 911 by ordinary Americans who went out to get Muslims for 'knocking down our buildings', right?

So that continued on with the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq, the demonization of Muslims. So what do you expect in such a climate when people go out and shoot up a mosque or attack Muslims or whatever? So there is a climate that's created by the powers that be that work people up and will create a situation where at the very least we have a lot of material in terms of ordinary people who can be easily manipulated by intelligence agencies to going and carrying out an attack against a Jewish synagogue or attack against a Muslim mosque or any other number of attacks.

Niall: I want to show something else now from Quartz.com. Scottie have we got this one? Yeah. That was it - headline - "Terrorism is surging in the US fuelled by right-wing ideologies". I was wondering about it. They have some objective data. In this and another article they cite...

Joe: Tiki torches! Look at all the tiki torches!

Niall: They cite some global terrorist database. If we just look at the first couple of paragraphs here: "Terrorism is in retreat globally. Attacks fell from around 17,000 in 2014 to about 11,000 last year but not in the US. In the US there's been a surge in terrorism" and I'm not sure that they're defining as terrorism. Anyway, the trend is in reverse. And then they have a little chart there showing terrorist attacks in the United States are going up. There's 2015 to the right of the bar chart.

I was wondering about this because it struck me this summer, and I think it's still the case, that so far in 2018 there has not been a single - beyond the death of a couple of people somewhere in southern France actually - there has not been an ISIS/Al-Qaeda type blamed on Muslim terror attack anywhere in the west so far this year. There's been crickets. But there is a lot of stuff still happening. Obviously there's the recent thing in the US, mail bombs.

Joe: Keep going down there. It says "Most attacks in 2017 were thought to be motivated by right-leaning ideologies." But it ends up out of 65 incidents, 37 were tied to racists, anti-Muslim, homophobic, anti-Semitic, anti-government, xenophobic motivations."

Niall: Which kind of covers everything, no?

Joe: Is that all right-leaning? Racist, anti-Muslim, homophobic, anti-Semitic. Okay, fascist? They're throwing fascism around. I don't think it means what they think it means. Anti-government?! Hang on a minute!

Niall: Right.

Joe: Is that not lefty, anti-government? This is the problem with these terms! It's ridiculous! There's something else going on here where they're trying to create the impression of what we're talking about here, which is a white nationalist rising in the US when it's complete and utter horse shit!

Niall: Quartz published that in August two months ago. So soon afterwards the British did the same. I have an Independent article from mid-September. This one. Scroll down there for the headline. "Number of white people arrested for terror offenses outstrip any other single ethnic group." That was the first time since 2001. That's in the UK.

Joe: Do you realize how crazy it is that within literally the past two years at most, terrorism has gone from being Muslim terrorism...

Niall: It still is.

Joe: No, but not according to that headline.

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: That's what I mean, not according to that headline.

Niall: In the prisons the majority are still...

Joe: I know but those are all details.

Niall: ...of Muslim origin in the UK.

Joe: Those are all details and facts that are irrelevant to what they want people to believe, which is what they say there - the number of white people arrested for terror offenses outstrip any other single ethnic group. The point being what people are being told is that now...

Niall: White is black.

Joe: ...after 17 years of being told that Muzzies - Muslims, sorry - is that a bad word for Muslims?

Niall: Whitey, Muzzies, come on, equal opportunity.

Joe: Okay, I can call them Muzzies. Muzzies are where all of the terrorism comes from. It comes from Islam in the western world and now it's, "Uh, all change. Next up! White terrorism! In fact we're already there. It's outstripped the Muslims!" And it's like "When did this happen? Who? How? When?

Niall: Very recently. This is going on right now.

Joe: All of a sudden. Don't you have to have a build up for that kind of thing or is it premade ready to be launched? Pull back the curtain, boom! There you go. White terrorism.

Niall: "Government policy is catching up." This has been going on a while. It's obviously building up and now we want to show you the next article from the Guardian published last week. "MI5" - it's the one about MI5.

Scottie: I've got two about MI5.

Niall: The one you're on now. "MI5 provides..." Excuse me, that's next. The first one. This was last week. "MI5 to take over and fight against rise of UK right-wing extremism." So this is government policy catching up with this new "market" for domestic, or more importantly the way they're spinning it...

Joe: Well what happens when MI5, British intelligence, takes over a fight against the rise of some kind of extremism or terrorism? It actually increases because they start perpetrating it.

Niall: Exactly.

Joe: That's historically what has happened. I know this for a fact from personal experience that MI5 in Northern Ireland, when they became involved in that conflict, suddenly the number of attacks and shootings skyrocketed because they basically wanted it to happen.

Niall: "MI5 is to take the lead in combating" - scroll down to the third paragraph, short one. "The decision means that extreme right-wing activity" - which is another synonymous in the current dominant narrative with white nationalism - "will now be officially designated as posing a major threat to national security." This is interesting because this isn't just a shift, especially in the UK's case. The UK kind of transitioned almost seamlessly from three decades of "Sorry, we need emergency measures because of those Irish terrorists" to "Sorry, we need emergency measures because of those Muslim terrorists" to "Sorry, we need emergency measures because - oh actually it's because of you."

Joe: Because of white terrorism.

Niall: But that's an interesting change.

Joe: So terrorism, terrorism, terrorism.

Niall: Now it's so broad, "Well it's all of you under the watchful eye of us. You are all potential terrorists."

Joe: Yeah. But that's a real mind job. We've mentioned this before and I mentioned it more or less earlier in the show here, that for 17 years the media and the government terrorize themselves, terrorize the people and the media programs the people repeatedly - almost every day in some way or another with major terror attacks by Muslims, etc. - program the people and of course they're waging a war on effectively what everybody understands to be Muslim terrorism, for 17 years! They were waging a full-scale war on Muslim terrorism.

Well they started on with the 911 terror attacks, spectacular attacks leaving no doubt 'Muslims are evil!' Then they launch a worldwide war on Muslims effectively, on Muslim terrorists because Muslim is synonymous with terrorism. And you tell people for 17 years that that's the case and then as part of your war on terrorism, which is a war of conquest and expansion, you bomb a bunch of Muslim countries and create a migrant refugee flow from those countries into European countries and America.

Then when people that you've been programming with the idea that Muslims are terrorist, when they respond to this influx of Muslims from these countries that you've been bombing, when people respond to that by saying "No F-ing way! Get them out!" you say "You freakin' racist!!"

Niall: "You terrorist!"

Joe: "How dare you?!" And not just racist. "You're the terrorist now for not allowing the terrorists-which is what the people understand them to be-into your country!" That's a serious mind job.

Niall: I know.

Joe: "You're a terrorist for not allowing terrorists into your country." "Who's not a terrorist, Mr. Government?!?"

Niall: When it's spelled out like that it's no wonder that people see the hidden hand, see agency in it. And of course then they get attacked. "Oh god, the crazy tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist who are daring to suggest that!" But when you spell it out in a broad sweep - it took a generation - but there is a crazy manipulation going on.

Joe: Right.

Niall: But not necessarily being done consciously. It's just one thing feeds into the next.

Joe: I don't even have to call it a conspiracy theory. I don't have to say that there's a hidden hand behind it doing this. I can just say "You cannot disagree with me that things are massively f-ed up and there's massive mismanagement at the level of government when you have that kind of situation that I just described."

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: Where people are being called terrorists for not letting terrorists into their country.

Niall: Which is breeding actual nationalism, a kind of a real...

Joe: Which is probably the only genuine response even though it's a manipulated response and we don't support the rise of xenophobic ideas and anti-immigrant and anti-other sentiment within western countries. We don't agree with that but we're not going to blame the people for having those feelings and those ideas when they have been propagandized against for 17 years in the most brutal way, i.e. by blowing up shopping centres, cinemas, mass shootings, slaughtering them en masse in concert halls in France, like in the Bataclan.

We're not going to blame the people because they've been massively trauma-based programmed to believe, and as far as they're concerned it's true because they see the dead bodies. They see the people slaughtered in the street. They see the media saying "These are Muslims." And when they see the Muslims then being let into their country I'm not going to blame the people for saying "Hang on an F-ing minute! We're not doing that!!" And then to turn around and call them racist for it!?

Niall: Just last week Anjem Choudary, renowned radical Wahhabi, Islamic...

Joe: In the UK.

Niall: ...cleric in the UK was released from prison. He's linked with so many things that it's probably ridiculous but I don't think there's any doubt that he is connected with some criminal activities, not least inciting impressionable young Muslims in the UK to join terrorist groups but also raising funding going back to the '90s and the Bosnian war.

Joe: Yeah.

Niall: This guy is up to his neck in it. At one point a few years ago he was outed basically, as British intelligence. That's not a secret anymore.

Joe: He's being handled.

Niall: Last week he was let out of prison. People already know that he's tainted by association as a high-level informant of the British MI5 and they let him out. What are they going to think when he's allowed to go free but they're going to arrest somebody for wanting to speak about nationalism...

Joe: Or wanting him back in prison.

Niall: Right. It's crazy. And like you mentioned, this isn't a small announcement. MI5 opening its books to anyone and everyone who dissents with the government being a potential terrorist or certainly a white extremist.

Joe: Right.

Niall: This is the same MI5 that also, it was publicly acknowledged, in the last couple of weeks - that's what's interesting - we know it, you've lived it. We know it though, that MI5 operates under a special government policy called 'third direction' which means that it has full impunity to engage in criminal acts...

Joe: They can kill people.

Niall: ...not least fomenting, actually creating, extremist cells.

Joe: As a way to see what happens.

Niall: To see what happens.

Joe: To try and bait the actual extremists out of their holes. That's how you do it. Well what if there are no extremists in their holes but you create a terror or extremist group on the premise that "Well we've got to find out where the extremists are. They're hiding. So we've got to create this high-profile extremist group that'll attract all these extremists" and nobody comes out of their holes? "Well we're just not being extremist enough. We'll have to make them more extremist." "Well how far do you want to go?" "Well maybe we should have them carry out some kind of a terror attack to really embolden, to encourage the ones that are hiding in the holes." You can keep going then and you never need to have anybody in any holes. There are none! You create one yourself.

And I don't believe for a second that at the higher levels that that is just naiveté or stupidity or ignorance. You can get yourself a long way in understanding what's going on in the world today and the chaos and terror attacks and all that kind of stuff, by simply positing that an anti-terror government organization needs terrorism to exist to justify their ever-increasing budget.

Niall: That was explicitly said by...

Joe: Increasing levels of terrorism to justify their jobs and their big government budget.

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: So you just put it down to self-interest and you get a very long way.

Niall: That was explicitly said by I think a top New York police chief...

Joe: Right.

Niall: ...after retiring. Budgets. We needed to keep it going.

Joe: We needed the threat.

Niall: That's why we did all the sting operations.

Joe: Right. Because they needed a threat. They wanted to keep the money flowing. And the government wants the money to keep flowing from the taxpayers into the governments then it can give it to these intelligence agencies. That's not even talking about there being a conscious plot to divide and conquer the population, to keep them divided against each other so that the overall rule of the establishment can be maintained.

Because obviously when there's trouble in society in general, when there's terror attacks you need your intelligence agencies who fight terrorism and they get to keep their jobs and get extra budgets. But the overarching government structure is needed when society is in trouble, when there's chaos. "But I want everybody to know why they need us!" And if they don't get it, then beat them or have some civil discord going on so that people will remember "Why they need a strong government", why they need to keep paying tax money for it.

Niall: Is it possible that these people are supremely wise and they've been doing all this, creating terrorism along the lines of what they call counter-insurgency when they go abroad? You create the phoney opposition to justify your military presence there? Is it a wisdom that's levels beyond what we can comprehend? In this situation, there's going to be actual chaos and then they'll be needed because there's actual chaos. But actually in the actual national widespread chaos, will they be totally useless because they won't actually...

Joe: Yeah, they won't be able to do anything about it.

Niall: And that's why they've been thrown out on their ass by large numbers of people the world over, because even if they can't articulate all of the things we've just said or see it as clearly or as viscerally, they know something has to change.

Joe: Yeah.

Niall: Because the wrong people, they're not adult-like. There's something pathologically wrong with them.

Joe: It's wishful thinking and they're deluded effectively. But crazy people can get quite far if they're smart enough and they have a lot of power and resources. A crazy person can go on for quite a long time. But in the aftermath of the terror attacks over the past few years in France, French government ministers - and I think British government ministers were saying the same thing - more or less that they said explicitly, 'the people are just going to have to accept that terror attacks are now a part of reality' which is exactly the wrong thing to say because it really pissed people off. The attitude of people is "Well what good are you then?"

Niall: Yeah, "We want to hear that you're winning."

Joe: "You're meant to be protecting us. That's the whole idea. That's why we invest you with the power of the people and to make the decisions for us so that you can keep us safe from these big issue threats that are beyond our ability to control. So when you explicitly come out and way 'Well this thing that's my only job description, I'm not going to be able to fulfil that anymore.' Well, you've just invalidated your own position."

But they're stupid but I suppose they think they can just keep the people divided, keep people distracted. It's a classic situation. And when I say it's as old as time I'm not joking. It's as old as time, that idea of divide and conquer, to keep the people distracted by infighting amongst themselves so that they don't bother the government. The government can stay in power untouched, untroubled by all the things that they should be troubled by, which is people's anger at their corruption and fecklessness.

So it's not a mystery and it's not a conspiracy theory either. It's just a fact of life unfortunately.

Niall: There's one other one I wanted to mention. It stands out, again, because it's so political and didn't fit with the war on terror period that we're I suppose emerging from. We've already shown this article. It's the other Guardian one. Just look at this. This is the image they chose to show with that. So obviously this is recent news. This is from just last week announcing that...

Joe: Oh, that's Jo Cox.

Niall: That's Jo Cox. You remember her. So it's just before the eve of the in/out referendum in the UK. She was killed by a guy who supposedly shouted, as he was shooting her through three times and stabbing her - I don't know, did one hand have the knife, whatever - "Britain first, Britain first!" Later at his trial, this guy Thomas Mair is supposed to have shouted "This is for Britain. Britain will always come first!" He had a history of mental issues...

Joe: {singing} Rule Britannia.

Niall: And he was also a member of one of these probably cardboard cut-out cointelpro groups in the United States called National Alliance. I had never heard of them before. No one probably ever heard of him until this incident happened. But it's just weird that it happens right on the eve. Maybe it was meant to sway the result or something, but either way it cast a shadow over. And I suppose the narrative making it supposed to be "Nationalism bad, see? Ergo, EU and globalism good." I suppose that's maybe the intended but it jarred because it didn't fit. It's supposed to be at this point, 15 years later, a Muzzie. That's the only reason it works in the war on terror context. But now you're saying it's a constituent of the MP, a local, doing it for Britain.

That's his sound byte political manifesto? It's for Britain? Dot-dot-dot, what?! What for Britain? What is your politics? He has none because that's all we're supposed to hear. So it's growing on me that we're transitioning now. There are still things that are blamed on ISIS or lone wolf Muslims in the United States and in Britain and elsewhere. That probably won't go away yet but I think it has massively dried up because Russia went into Syria and cleaned house. That's also not over yet, but substantially which means all those one-after-the-other non stop barrage of 'ISIS has kidnapped and abducted', the videos cutting heads off, all that just dried right up. How could they be proliferating and doing all that if they're being bombed from the air by Russian MiGs and 257s?

Oops! That gone. And now we're transitioning into kind of like what if I imagined a deviant mind was thinking at the beginning-the war on terror they always wanted, the war on dissidents. They still have a two-track. It's still not syncing up into one perfect...

Joe: What do you mean by dissidents?

Niall: Dissidents.

Joe: What do they mean by dissidents?

Niall: Anyone who doesn't agree with how they think things should be run.

Joe: And what is that?

Niall: Everything from fracking - it was announced a few years ago when the secretary general of NATO Rasmussen literally said that all the anti-fracking protests and protest organizations in the United Kingdom and the US these last 10 years as an environmental movement was being done by Russia to make us divided in on ourselves. Dissent. Anyone expressing anything that can be portrayed as nationalist and not globalist.

Joe: Right.

Niall: Anyone who suggests that the media might lie from time-to-time. Freedom of the press. Anyone who says anything along the lines of "America first", "Britain first", "Country-X first". That's bad. That's racist. That's xenophobic. It's not inclusive.

Joe: Right. And they don't like people who talk about western values either.

Niall: Right. Traditional values.

Joe: Traditional western values because it's ethnically insular or closed, let's say. And why don't they like that? Why do they not like nationalism?

Niall: Because they thought they'd reached the end of history where the earth is one national...

Joe: Is one big melting pot.

Niall: Is one terrain, is one nation, no borders.

Joe: There's more to it where they want...

Niall: They don't want diversity. They are absolute...

Joe: No, they want...

Niall: No, no, no, they keep saying it.

Joe: They want diversity.

Niall: But actually they're terrified of it. When they're given a diverse idea emerging from Moscow about 10 years ago when Putin gets up and says "You know maybe this unipolar idea isn't something..."

Joe: No, they want diversity as it's understood today which is a leftist ideal which is basically a mixing of all races and creeds and of breaking down...

Niall: Yes but all following the same monoculture.

Joe: Right.

Niall: There can be no diverse cultures where Russia takes its own independent development policy.

Joe: Right.

Niall: Where China takes its own independent development policy, which is why they call Xi Jinping a nationalist too and that completely freakin' jars because he's not white. They were always anti-Fascist. They don't have a history of invading other people. But you're somehow leading and nebulously associated that he's also Hitler because he's a nationalist. It doesn't work and they know it! So they shut up after saying "You know he's a bit of a nativist nationalist himself ..." and they just leave it hanging in the air.

Joe: He's not allowed to think about the interests of China basically.

Niall: No.

Joe: Very bad. It means he's Hitler. That's something I was saying to someone last night actually, about the whole diversity thing and it's a problem with these terms that we keep having where they don't mean anything. They're just thrown around and they're completely divorced from their original or even dictionary meaning. People are using terms like nationalist or fascist or diversity and stuff. 'What do you mean by diversity? Is it the dictionary term or is it your own special term that has a special meaning for you when you use it?'

Diversity doesn't make any sense in the terms of the way lefties use it today. They want diversity, i.e. they're pro-immigration. They want diversity into America. They want more different ethnicities and cultures and religions to come to America to be tolerated and to be embraced into the American system because diversity. But what they don't seem to understand is that America is a monoculture. It's a consumerist monoculture and there is no diversity. If you take people from India or some African country or the Middle East or anywhere, with their actual cultural and religious differences and you bring them to America, they're very quickly subsumed into the American monoculture. So diversity is gone!

The only way you can have real diversity is have people standing up for their cultures and their values and their religious beliefs, if any, and to keep them largely protected from other cultures. You don't water them down. You don't establish a unifying culture that is some kind of a blending of all of them into some kind of watered-down melting pot. And it's America's that's promoting that and the culture that America promotes is basically Coca-Cola. It's a Coca-Cola culture. That's not very diverse or interesting. What's interesting is the cultures or the religions in other countries where they are, where they grew and they should be protected in those countries where they are so that people can go and have the exchanges, have cultural exchanges, educational exchanges, whatever.

But you don't bring everybody into a country like America is today and expect that you're going to maintain some kind of actual real diversity of culture or religion. It's just going to be turned into Mickey Mouse culture.

Niall: The thing is, when it took off to the point that they're going into a new country, when they're there it's good and it's proper and it's what happens anyway. It might take a generation but it happens. The newly arrived should integrate with the new country. And they do.

Joe: But they integrate into a predominantly white, American, western, Christian, capitalist culture. So what happened to Hinduism and what happened to socialism, whatever differences that came from their country of origin? Where are they going to go? You can't have them all at the same time. One country needs one kind of system essentially. Generally speaking, it should have one language to be effective.

Niall: The Chinese would argue otherwise. They say, "One country, two systems" because they have actually a separate sub-system for Hong Kong.

Joe: Well but that's because of the British.

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: I don't think any country with defined borders and defined group of people in it generally all end up speaking something approximating the same language and they have a shared culture so that they can all understand each other and engage in business deals, have a business culture that's similar that's all based on a certain type of transaction that everybody can trust and know how it's going to work. You have to have confidence that when you go and talk to someone or you go and do a business deal with them that there aren't going to be radically different cultural norms that may influence the way you do business with them, if you don't know what's going to happen, you don't know what's going to happen if you give the person money that they're actually going to give you what you give them money for because maybe that's the not the way their culture works.

No country can survive with radically different cultures or business practices. You can have different religions to some extent, in different parts of the country but that very often has been the cause of conflict as well. I'm not saying it can't happen but it's just a ridiculously idealistic nonsensical idea that by bringing other cultures into America that you're going to maintain those cultures inside America. You're not. In the case of Mexicans, for example, or South Americans coming to America, it would be like putting one drop of tabasco sauce into a vat of Coca-Cola. {laughter}

Niall: That would spoil the whole lot.

Joe: It wouldn't spoil it, no. You wouldn't notice it.

Niall: You wouldn't notice it.

Joe: At all. It's gone. It's been subsumed. Where's the diversity in that? So it's just Coca-Cola. Can't even taste the tabasco sauce. I know tabasco sauce probably isn't even Mexican. Is it Scottie?

Scottie: I don't know!

Joe: I don't know. It's on there somewhere on the label. Somebody look it up. Anyway, it was just an example of what I was trying say. It was an analogy. So diversity is nonsense the way these people present it today and I think there's nothing wrong...

Niall: And they don't...

Joe: Proper diversity is specific cultural groups and religious or whatever you define as their culture, whatever makes them distinct, should be maintained, if it has value I suppose, maintain it in the place where it developed and then you can have all sorts of cross-cultural meetings and links and visits and experiences. That's the way the world worked for a lot of history. But don't put everybody into one country and mix them all together. That's what happened in America and we still have a dominant capitalist, Christian culture, right? I don't know.

Look at blacks in America who came a few hundred years ago from Africa and the Caribbean and Indo-America with the slave trade and all that kind of stuff. Did any of them maintain their original African religion or cultural habits?

Niall: There have been various ways of trying to recreate it.

Joe: After 100 or 200 years it's gone.

Niall: There have been post-modern attempts to sort of revivify it. But it's only based on what they've read in books. There is no cultural connection.

Joe: As an example, look what happened to the 911 hijackers. Do you remember? Mohammed Atta?

Niall: What they were doing the night before.

Joe: Yeah. But they were Muslim, right? They were devout Muslims because they had to be to engage in this kind of jihad against America and carry out the 911 attacks. Mohammed Atta came and was only there for a couple of weeks and he was down at a strip bar eating pork and snorting cocaine! All three things that are totally against his original Islamic culture. That's the effect of America. Two weeks and you're done! It's gone. Your culture's gone! That's a slam/dunk right there. That was a mic drop moment. Can't drop this mic though.

Niall: No. We should probably wrap it up.

Joe: Yeah.

Niall: Before we say anything controversial.

Joe: We already did which is talking sense which is controversial, very controversial. You're not allowed to.

Niall: Well this is the silver lining in all this. In a way they're becoming more honest with where they want to go with this, which is that just speaking common sense is going to be a criminal activity.

Joe: Yeah.

Niall: So we'll no longer have the confusion like, for example, where Lauren Southern went to the UK to give a talk but was detained at the border and prevented then from going in and giving her talk under terrorism charges that she was totally bamboozled by because "That law was set up for fighting terrorists like Muslim terrorists. What's that got to do with me?" And now "thankfully" policy is shifting where it's much more clear-cut. "No, you're the terrorist in the eyes of the powers that be because you're a dissident.

Joe: We'll have to wait and see where it goes, if it goes anywhere. They're making a good attempt at it right now to really impose this bizarre, ridiculous counter-intuitive, illogical world view on people and force people to accept it and agree and say "Oh yeah, that makes sense" because it really doesn't make sense anymore and the only thing stopping people from realizing it doesn't make sense is they're not really thinking about it enough. Just follow it through. People are too fond of simplistic black and white thinking because thinking is hard and they prefer to just go with the catchphrase and join a cause.

Bad idea! Look at history. It's a bad idea when you join a cause, unthinking, especially one that catches on like wildfire. If it's not a slow, long-term cause that has been in the background and has been growing for a long time and has a lot of evidence, really fundamental, good reasons why you should join a cause, if it's not that, if it just comes out of nowhere and suddenly you find yourself caught up in it, you're probably making a mistake.

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: So don't make mistakes. Think about things.

Niall: Try to falsify yourself, anything you find yourself believing. Give it a rigorous, honest trying to see it from another perspective and go 'what's really here' and you'll find that most of it's dross.

Joe: Yeah, take it as a given that you generally don't know what you're talking about. It works for me. We're going to end it here. Thanks for watching, listening. If you like the video click the like button and subscribe. We'll be back next week with one more show on another topic. Until then, have a good day.

Niall: See you next week. Bye-bye.