♪ (theme music) ♪
So it's just like, OK:
let's just have a real talk, real talk: no censorship.
Welcome to the Boiling Frogs Post Roundtable.
In San Francisco, I'm Peter B. Collins.
I host podcasts at PeterBCollins.com
and the Processing Distortion weekly podcast
at BoilingFrogsPost.com.
Joining us from deep in the heart of Texas is Guillermo Jimenez.
He operates Demanufacturing Consent and TracesOfReality.com,
and of course is a weekly contributor here at Boiling Frogs Post.
Guillermo, welcome.
Thanks, Peter.
James Corbett, as usual, joins us from Japan,
where he anchors CorbettReport.com,
and of course the podcast series, the video podcast series,
at BoilingFrogsPost.com.
And also with us, of course,
is our publisher and the founder of BoilingFrogsPost.com, Sibel Edmonds:
the author of a powerful new novel called The Lone Gladio
that I certainly enjoyed,
and I think there's a lot in there for our viewers to check out.
Sibel, good to have you with us.
Hello, everyone.
So, we are speaking a couple of days before Halloween.
And while we are not in costume,
it seems like the theatrical fear of Halloween started in August
and will continue well beyond.
And the sources of fear are the propaganda
around the Islamic State,
this threat to life on the planet as we know it
that has caused President Obama
to launch airstrikes in Iraq and Syria.
Also, domestically, the media
-- the corporate media --
is giving heavy coverage to the Ebola issues,
and it also becomes a source
of palpable fear in the American public.
I don't believe it's coincidental that this is occurring
just before the mid-term elections in November,
and I think that members of both political parties
are doing what they can to exploit these fears
in an effort to cynically pick up votes.
Sibel, let's start with you.
Because the framing of this monster, the Islamic State,
is driven not only by the effective propaganda that they produce,
but by the way it is played in the US media
and played off by American political leaders,
who have created this fear and dread
that actors from the Islamic State,
with American or Canadian passports,
are any moment now about to descend
here in the so-called homeland
and launch terrorist attacks.
There is no evidence of that;
the government has offered us conflicting numbers
of their estimates of the number of people
who might be prone to do that.
But with the recent events in Canada and Australia
we see those governments embracing
police state new laws in response
to what are a series of lone wolf attacks.
Oh, absolutely.
I have been, lately, framing this
within marketing paradigms,
of marketing and marketing frame.
Because you start, first, with a brand, OK?
And we had, for 12, 13 years, one brand:
with propaganda, and all the mainstream
-- which are the tentacles of the deep state here, the war machine --
al-Qaeda was created.
And al-Qaeda brand...
I know you have been paying attention,
but our viewers:
I mean, it kind of has been losing its effect.
In fact, in the past few years,
even in some of the mainstream media programs,
we have seen people making fun of it
and comedies are being made of al-Qaeda.
So that kind of created panic within the Deep State,
saying, "That brand is not doing very well."
"Why don't we re-brand the boogeymans that we created"
"and come up with something else?"
So, first they came up with a brand.
And strategically, within this new brand,
they inserted the term "Islam."
And again: that was very well-calculated
-- it was by design --
and threw it in there: Islamic State.
So... and then you can have other various abbreviations.
But one thing that remains constant,
that is the Islamic State, OK?
And then, within just a few months,
they have been able to blow up
this Islamic State, so-called Islamic State,
new boogeyman that they created.
You know: financing it, training them.
We have covered it through Boiling Frogs Post and Corbett Report
in terms of what happened in Turkey three years ago.
And these people were trained against Assad's regime, et cetera;
armed, directed.
So, these are our guys,
and then we re-branded them
and made them called, "Islamic State," blah-blah. [laughs]
And then, just in the past few months,
I've been reading some headlines
that are unbelievable, fantastical.
In fact, just three days ago,
I couldn't help myself,
and I kept tweeting about it.
The headlines said, "Based on government calculation,"
"currently this IS business, this cell,"
"is the wealthiest terror organization,"
"the wealthiest terror cell, in the world."
That's exactly like some start-up business
that you want to take public.[laughter].
Have the stocks created for it.
You put together;
you come up with a logo,
you have a brand name,
and you kind of market the brand
so people keep hearing it.
And then you start making this business
-- ooh! --
so fantastical, you know?
So that's what, usually, companies do
before they go public. [laughs]
So it's very Wall Street-like approach,
this "IS business" that they have created here.
And it is a business:
because if you look at the stock prices
for the major war industry-related corporations,
you see how it has gone up,
together with the creation of the brand IS.
And so, that is as far as the brand goes.
But as far as framing goes, again,
I will go back to the brand.
The word "Islam" was inserted into it
-- it was not coincidental, it was not by accident --
and it was for a purpose, and a desire
to achieve certain types of an affect.
And unfortunately, we are seeing
those effects now around us.
And that is, the entire Western world
putting this within the context,
within the frame, of Islam:
"This is what Muslims do."
You see a guy there
with his shalwar that he's wearing there,
and with that ferocious-looking shawl,
and he has a big sword,
and he's beheading...
I mean, so scary: that's horrible!
And I'm not putting that down.
I'm not lowering the fact:
it's a despicable act.
But, what they are doing is
they are taking these one, two, 10 or 15 incidents, casualties,
and they are turning it, currently,
to something that is bigger than, even, what al-Qaeda was.
We don't know: there may be millions of these people,
or there may be only 25 of them within the cell,
but they're the wealthiest terror cell in the world.
They can attack us here;
they can attack France;
they can attack the United Kingdom.
Well, I don't know:
they rockets,
they have nuclear bombs,
they have the briefcase bomb,
they have a suitcase bomb,
they have chlorine gas,
and they have other kind of chemical weapons.
Can you imagine how unbelievably fantastical this thing is,
that in a few months you have this entire thing
being created and achieving this level?
I mean, even Donald Trump would shake his head. [laughter]
You know, the guy is really famous,
and he has done it so many times:
going out there and making a business out of nothing.
Just based on hype.
But as far as hype business is concerned,
considered,
this is the height of any hype
that I have ever seen.
And I'm hoping that today we will discuss this
within the context of Islam,
and provide our viewers with some other examples and context
to... to make them aware, psychologically, mentally,
of what this propaganda is geared to do.
Because unfortunately, as I mentioned,
the Deep State, the establishment,
they have been achieving the effects,
the results, that they intended to achieve
when they created this brand.
So, Guillermo:
is IS the Kardashian of terrorism?
In a way, yeah. [laughs]
I didn't mean to interrupt you.
How do you view the launch here?
They've launched a new product.
If we go back to 2002, 2003,
the Bush team said,
"Well, you never launch a new product in August: nobody's paying attention."
So on September 10, Obama gives this fear-riddled speech
and declares that the Islamic State is the most evil of all evil
and must be vanquished by US airstrikes.
And he may have been crossing his fingers
when he said that he would not insert American troops
into Syria or, again, into Iraq.
Right. We discussed this recently on a BWO podcast:
the fact that this is not a coincidence,
that this tends to happen yearly,
around this time of year:
right after summer,
right after everyone comes back from summer break,
back to work.
And that's when this really takes off.
And I think that the marketing metaphor
that Sibel was using is right on.
And just to extend that metaphor a bit,
I think if we were to follow the money, so to speak,
and look at who benefits financially from all of this,
we can see the people who got in on the ground floor, so to speak,
of this "ISIS IPO" [laughs] that's launched.
And so, yeah:
I think you're absolutely right.
And I wanted to focus a little bit
on one of the things you mentioned, Sibel:
because I think one of the things that really struck me
and that I kind of wanted to highlight today,
something that you really stressed recently in an interview...
I think it was Sean Stone, on his show.
And I don't recall the name: is it *Buzzsaw?
Yes.
And it was a recent interview:
but yeah. And so you were talking about
-- and you really drove this point home, and I really appreciated it --
we were talking about how...
exactly this:
not only has...
this has been a marketing tool,
but it's being used to demonize a group of people
in such a way as we haven't seen in quite some time.
There are historical parallels for sure,
and I think we can get into them today,
but it's really...
it's unlike something that I've ever seen,
the magnitude
-- and perhaps that has to do
with the media age that we live in.
So I can, I guess,
kind of take that into account.
But I did think that was a very important point to stress:
the way that the argumentizing Muslims,
the argumentizing Islam,
and really stirring up
these really ugly, nationalistic emotions
of patriotism and xenophobia
and, in my opinion, racism,
in many ways.
And I've seen this not only directed
at specifically Muslims,
and specifically Islam,
but it's also being used to redirect attention
-- at least in some circles --
to the southern US border,
which is where I sort of pay
my most attention to these days.
And what I've seen also is...
and throughout the whole media,
whether it's mainstream,
and some sectors of the alt-media,
they've been using the threat or terror,
the threat of ISIS
-- and again, this is nothing new:
the same thing happened with al-Qaeda,
but it's being renewed now with ISIS --
to direct it at the southern border
and say,
"Look: these ISIS terrorists,"
"they're gonna come over here,"
"they're gonna sneak over the Mexican border."
"So we need to close it down:"
"we need to send troops down to the border."
"We need to further militarize it."
"We need to get more police state gadgetry down there"
"to ensure that this doesn't happen."
And again, I think
it's the same sort of emotions that are invoked
that you were describing in that interview
and you mentioned here today:
those same xenophobic, racist...
the same sort of ideas here.
And it's being used in sort of a two-fold front:
where... it's kind of a two-for-one
sort of special that they're running here,
where they can at the same time demonize Islam,
get that War on Terror going,
and at the same also redirect attention
to say, "Oh, by the way:"
"we also need to further militarize the southern border"
"and the communities who live in that area."
So again, I've seen this throughout the media,
in various different outlets.
So I wanted, I guess,
just kind of throw in that angle,
throw that into the mix
and see what you all think about that.
But no, I would agree so far
with everything that we've said so far.
James, give us the benefit of your perspective
from outside the United States.
Because I would make the point that in 2003,
when Bush launched an obvious fool's errand
with the invasion of Iraq,
there were some 10 million people worldwide
who took to the streets to express their protests.
And here, because Obama is the man who pulled the trigger,
and because of the effective marketing and propaganda that we've seen,
there is hardly a hint of protest,
even from the hard-core peace and justice groups
that were growing,
and growing in their influence,
during the Bush era.
Well, that's correct.
And of course, we did see signs of that
last year with the "Hands Off Syria" campaign.
But obviously, that's gone by the wayside
because of this successful marketing campaign.
And I can give you the perspective,
specifically, from here in Japan, where...
which would be just about one of the last places on Earth
that you would think this kind of marketing would be effective.
And yet, we've had...
just a few weeks ago,
there was a plot busted of men,
"Japanese Men Were Planning to Fight for ISIS, Police Say,"
is the headline that The New York Times ran with.
And this is about a bust of some...
I guess a university student
and some man who was trying to radicalize him
at a bookstore in Tokyo
or something of that sort.
A very...
not a very threatening story,
if you actually start to dig into it.
But the terror brand is being sold here, equally,
as it is elsewhere in the West.
Is it quite effective in that regard,
because again, just about any place in the world
can be afflicted by this marketing
if you just frame it in the right way:
"Oh, you're in trouble too."
"You'd better help in this worldwide quest against Islamic terrorism."
So I want to pick up on just two of the points
that Sibel raised in that opening statement
that I think are extremely important.
The first one being just the observation
of the incredible rise, the ascension,
of this terror group that now, as she says,
has nuclear materials in their possession:
$429 million dollars
that they plundered from the Mosul Central Bank,
and on and on and on.
Just all of the incredible facilities
that they supposedly have,
now, at their disposal.
Which... you would have to say,
this is the primary example
of the dog that didn't bark:
"Silver Blaze," it's Sherlock Holmes.
You know, I mean:
if we were to take the CIA
and these types of groups seriously,
the fact that they have not been able
to foresee or prevent the rise
of this spectacularly powerful and effective terror group
in the space of a few months
alone shows that they are absolutely unworthy
of the titles and the money that's given to them.
Of course, we all know that that's because
they're really working towards
the creation of these terror groups.
But anyway, that's just one thing to note on this.
The other part of this is the idea that, specifically,
it is Islam that is being brought into this.
And I would say that although
there are identifiable elements within Islam
that, of course, can interpret those teachings in violent ways,
and do do so,
that is, of course, not
inherently intrinsic to Islam in particular.
And we can see that in pretty much every major religion.
We can see examples of that.
And for the Christians in the crowd who roll their eyes
whenever the Westboro Baptist Church is brought up
as some sort of exemplar
of what Christian morality is about,
well, people will say,
"Well, that's ridiculous,"
"because 99.999 percent of Christians think that those people are insane."
Well, again:
it's the exact same thing in Islam.
But we don't say that any time that a Christian commits a criminal act
that it's some sort of Christian terrorist,
in the same way that, generally speaking,
the media will never look
at Jewish racism against Arabs in Israel
and say, "Oh, those Jews! They're always racist,"
"and they're inciting terror in Palestine."
You'll never see coverage, for example,
of the Buddhist monks that are now
joining flash mobs against Muslims
that leave dozens of Muslims dead:
in Sri Lanka, in Burma.
I mean, it happens.
In every major religion,
there are elements within there
that will commit acts of violence,
and it's never framed as in,
"This is the religion causing people to do this."
It's always framed as...
it's only framed in that sense
when it's politically convenient to do so.
So I think it is important to look
at the way that Islamic terror has been framed
as "Islamic" in nature,
and why that is.
And I guess that's really the question:
what is the purpose of this?
And I think this has to, probably, do
with Gladio B and the way that we've been set up
for the past couple of decades
to be conditioned for this Islamic terrorism
that has been inculcated in certain geo-strategic areas.
But I'll leave that to Sibel and everyone else to comment on.
Well, James, and I would build on your remarks,
that we're seeing this very selective outrage
that's exercised particularly
by the mainstream media in this country.
And I'll just cite a couple of examples:
that, on the last Sunday of October,
The New York Times ran a lengthy, front-page story
which did advance much more detail
about what happened to James Foley
after he was captured and then held prisoner.
He was waterboarded and subjected
to other forms of torture
remarkably similar to the torture regimes
that the US refers to euphemistically
as "enhanced interrogation techniques."
Furthermore, we have sent
-- but not, so far that I'm aware of, used --
depleted uranium munitions
in this new perpetual war.
The damage from DU in Iraq
is really just starting to surface
in birth defects, and far more cancers
that are showing up in the general population.
And we
-- the US, John Kerry was thundering last week
that there are reports that the Islamic State
used chlorine gas in a weapon form
in the battle for Kobani.
And I regard depleted uranium
as a chemical or biological weapon,
that is certainly much more toxic long-term
than the chemical weapons that have been blamed on the Islamic State.
And likewise, John Kerry
-- who thundered about this --
didn't bother to remark
that he had fully blamed the Syrian government
for the sarin attacks in Gouda in August of 2013.
And that now,
it appears to be more consistent
that it was the Sunni radicals fighting in Syria
who were more likely to have introduced chemical weapons there.
And so,
this selective outrage over a couple of beheadings,
when Saudi Arabia has beheaded
more than 59 people already this year,
and not a peep from the US government about that.
It just shows that the outrage is focused on,
as you pointed out,
Islamic individuals
and groups that are now demonized
as the worst of the worst on the planet.
And I guess, once again,
we have to say that we don't favor decapitation
or the massacre of innocent people
because they happen to be of a different religion,
but that is not the basis
for this poorly-thought strategy
-- if there is one --
and the phony coalition of partners with the United States
who all have different agendas,
and only pay lip-service to our stated mission
to degrade or wipe out the Islamic State.
So these inconsistencies really amount
to a great deal of incoherence,
but most people in the United States
are just falling in line,
not asking any questions,
not showing any skepticism,
and just embracing the memes
that have been launched by the administration
and embraced and endorsed by the media. Sibel?
No, absolutely.
Well said, Peter.
This is a prelude to a much bigger war that is intended, OK?
And it is garnering the public support
before we do launch multi-fronted wars in the area.
We still know that Iran is the prize there
-- it's there.
We ended up having the issues with Russians,
and things had to be placed on hold with Syria.
About a year-and-a-half, two years ago
we had a session with James,
and I was talking about:
"This is a temporary cool-off period,"
"and the issue is going to start again with Syria."
"It's not going anywhere."
Because at the time,
people were celebrating, saying:
"OK, this issue with Putin"
"and Russia putting its foot down,"
"put an end to this"
"going there and invading Syria."
I said, "No, no: that's just temporary."
We've put that on hold temporarily,
then the focus was placed on Ukraine and what we saw happening there,
and now the focus is coming back to the region
-- and Syria and Iraq being two,
but we have other nations in the area,
especially Iran.
And this is the prelude;
this is the war hawk period.
This is when the nations, the United States,
need the public support:
at home here in the United States,
but throughout the Western Europe.
People in the United Kingdom,
basically, NATO nations.
Because the people there, their opinion matters
for these multi-fronted wars
that we have been preparing for
against exactly the same countries and nations
that have been the prize that we have been chasing.
So these are all prelude and warm-up.
And I mean, as far as the branding goes
and what they are doing by putting the word "Islam" there
and creating a tension
-- and again, this is an intended tension --
between the Western world and the Muslim community
-- and that means those nations --
you know, just amazing.
And for some people who really don't understand it,
we need to provide a certain level of context
and give them a framework.
Because let's look at the recent Gaza conflict that we had, OK?
These were major assaults by Israel.
To a degree, that an Israel-supporting human rights organization
came out and said, "We are looking at war crimes," all right?
I mean, that's pretty... kind of...
that is unexpected from an organization like Human Rights [Watch],
because even they couldn't deny it.
Because we know how it has been for the past five decades:
whatever Israel does is fine, OK?
And everything is placed with a stamp of approval.
But in this case,
with all the atrocities that they committed, Israel,
and all the assaults,
even the organizations
-- US organizations --
had to some and say,
"Well, these are war crimes."
Imagine if... I mean, daily we were seeing reports, right?
The Israeli soldiers bombing, and 20 kids dying here,
an entire family dying there, blowing up into pieces.
Imagine if our mainstream media
-- and, Peter, the so-called alternative media, too:
I haven't seen any difference, especially with these reportings --
but imagine if they put on CNN and Fox News and NBC and Salon,
and all of them:
"Today, the Jewish soldiers blew up 11 children," OK?
"And they wipe out an entire family."
Once, just once:
because if they were to do that,
there would be such outrage here from the Israel lobby.
There would be these flags being waved:
you know, antisemitism, OK?
This is absolutely unacceptable.
You would see The New York Times editor being fired.
You would see the CBS reporters, anchorperson being fired,
for pairing up the religion, "Jewish,"
with the soldiers who actually committed those acts.
Now, those soldiers: were they Jewish?
Yes.
And I'm not saying two wrongs make it right:
I'm saying, imagine if that were the case.
When, during the Gaza conflict,
for four months, every time they paired up Israel's assaults and their war crimes
-- and I'm saying it because even Human Rights [Watch],
they are saying it was to the level of war crimes, OK? --
they reported as committed by Jews.
Imagine that, OK?
It would have been wrong,
and they would have just objected to it.
But, if you look at it factually
-- because people say, "Hey, look: it is true."
"These people are Muslims,"
"and they are beheading,"
"and they are doing that."
Well, these soldiers committing these war crimes
were, and are, Jewish.
What does it have to do with anything OK?
And as you mentioned, if we start...
Peter, you just mentioned about,
as nations, let's look at it:
in the past century, which country
has used chemical weapons and nuclear weapons in wars, OK?
Are we number one there, or aren't we?
I mean, anybody is going to object here?
We have had Hiroshima, OK?
We have had Nagasaki,
and we have had Agent Orange
in Vietnam and in Cambodia, OK?
We have had the First Gulf War.
You just mentioned
-- and that's a very, very important point, Peter --
in Iraq, again.
We are the number one nation
-- I would say, the only nation --
that has been using weapons of mass destruction
-- chemical, nuclears, OK? --
for the past half a century.
Nobody else has our record, OK?
Now, to say that every time,
if we have these reports,
we just insert this,
saying, "The Christian soldiers of the United States of America,"
"they killed one-and-a-half million people in Vietnam."
Or, "Today, the United States Christian military,"
"with their drones, they wiped out an entire tribe or family there,"
"including grandchildren and babies, et cetera."
Can you imagine a reportage like that?
Well, people have to consider this.
They should also look into the other side and say,
"How do you think it's perceived there?"
Yes, we have a one man with one sword,
or five men with five swords,
or 50 men with 50 swords, OK?
Think about the damage they can inflict,
versus a guy listening to acid music in Utah,
air-conditioned room, chewing gum,
pressing the button there, sending the bombs with the drones,
[xx] killing thousands of people
over three, four days' period.
Now, if you want to compare atrocity acts:
why is it that, for some reason,
people in the Western nations,
especially here in the United States,
they have a problem getting a grasp
of the atrocities committed in the most atrocious way
-- this way, I would call it the robotic wars --
yet they can have two, or three, or five, or ten
awful, despicable beheadings
as the most scary thing can ever happen?
I mean, these are all the different things, by design,
put in place by the Deep State
that is having, again, that intended result.
And one last comment I have here
that I would like for you, all of you, to talk about,
is: they are bringing back
one of those phrases that I loathe,
and that is "blowback."
They're not getting tired of this.
And especially the alternative media:
especially the so-called, pseudo-"alternative" media.
They did that with the mujahideen in Afghanistan:
that was a "blowback;"
it created the al-Qaeda,
and it came to...
haunted us, with 9-1-1.
Now they're saying, "Yeah, sure:"
"we did put together the liberation army,"
"and armed them, and trained them"
"-- we are the one that put this in place --"
"and then it came back and... 'blowback!'"
I mean, blowback:
you can only define
what's happening today as a blowback
if you are facing unintended consequences, OK?
In this case, the United States
- the Deep States --
are getting the intended consequences.
Therefore, this can in no way
be categorized as blowback.
Because this is by design,
and what we are seeing
is what was intended in the first place:
it's paving the way for more wars,
the perpetual wars:
for the war industry,
for the oil industry,
for the financial institutions,
the financial industry.
Therefore, this is intended.
So to go back here... people
-- like, jerks; like, Scheuers and all these people --
"Oh, yeah, we see that."
"When are they going to learn?"
"When is our government going to learn?"
"See? We have another blowback!"
"They were trying to help these people"
"with their liberation against Assad,"
"atrocious regime."
"Now, look: they're here"
"and our biggest enemy,"
"and number one enemies:"
"Blowback!"
Please: describe that phrase,
and I would like to hear your take
on this blowback notion that was being attached to it
as it was with al-Qaeda.
All right, can we go...
And actually I have an answer to that.
Yeah, I have an answer to that actually,
as far as...
on both points, as a matter of fact.
The idea that for most Americans
whatever the US government does is automatically justified
because, "Hey, it's my government,"
"and my government can do no wrong:"
"we're spreading democracy, after all!"
And so when they go bombing people all over the world,
as you mentioned, Sibel,
it's automatically, it's inherently, in a way
-- at least in their mind --
it's inherently justified
because we're the United States
and we're exceptional and we can do no wrong.
And to that point, also:
as far as the blowback angle:
again, from a psychological perspective,
it makes sense to say, from that perspective,
if your government can do no wrong and it's inherently good,
then when it does do something wrong,
then it must have been a mistake.
It must have been unintentional,
and this must be blowback.
So I go back to the point that I raised earlier,
as far as nationalism
and misguided perceptions of patriotism.
I think that's what it's rooted in,
from a psychological perspective:
the idea that we can do no wrong,
we are exceptional,
we are
-- what's the Navy propaganda commercial? --
"A Global Force For Good."
I throw up every time I see that.
I can't stand that commercial:
it comes on every now and then.
But... yeah.
So, just to go back to something
that both of you raised, you and James:
I just want to echo, I agree completely
that there's nothing
-- I believe --
there's nothing inherently violent
in Islam as a religion.
And if you're going to say...
if you're going to make that argument that
there's something inherently violent about the religion,
then you'd have to say that Christianity
is also inherently violent
-- if you're going to make that argument.
I wouldn't do that.
But you'd have to put them on the same plane, I would think.
That's the sort of argument from the Bill Mahers of the world.
He says stuff like this,
although he does spend a disproportionate amount of time
talking about Muslims:
because, I suppose, they're an easy target
for an American audience these days.
And so that's that:
that sort of account for that.
But I just wanted to make
a quick point, quick example,
to go back to the point that I raised earlier.
Because I realize that I did not offer
a concrete example of what I was talking about.
So I just want to throw this at you briefly,
and this is a heading from FoxNews.com:
no surprise there.
So, it says,
"Congressman: 'At least 10 ISIS fighters'"
"caught trying to cross into US."
This is Congressman Duncan Hunter from California.
And he cites no source.
He says, "Oh, anonymous Border Patrol sources told me that this happened."
-- again, without any evidence,
just completely making stuff up.
It make no sense whatsoever that this would be happening.
And for any listeners out there,
any viewers that are even entertaining this thought
-- because, as I said earlier:
I've seen this not only
in the mainstream press, like in Fox News;
I've seen this in so-called alt-media outlets,
perpetuating the same nonsense
that ISIS fighters are sneaking over.
But think about this for a second:
if you're an ISIS terrorist in Iraq or Syria,
and your objective is to sneak into the United States,
you're going to cross an ocean, right?
At some point, either by plane or boat or something...
No thinking!
Well, yeah. [laughs]
Because some of... why would you go to Mexico
and then cross to the US border?
Why wouldn't you go directly into the United States,
or why not go to Canada
where the border is much less protected:
it's much more open.
It's warmer! [xx] [laughter]
Maybe the [xx] The weather's better:
that's why they're going to Mexico first.
It makes no sense at all. But anyway...
They'd have to stop off and pick up
the "Fast and Furious" guns on their way to the gig. [laughter]
That's it. That is funny.
No, no: the answer is to militarize the Canadian border, Guillermo!
That's what we need to do. [laughter]
All right, OK: Can I have a say?
Yes.
Yeah, go for it.
All right. Well, on the blowback note:
there was a humorous comment left on The Corbett Report
-- I think with regards to our previous Beard World Order conversation,
where the latest stories about the humanitarian aid being dropped
into Iraq or Syria or wherever it is
that's getting "blown by the winds"
into, actually, Islamic State hands.
And somebody said,
"Well, that's what 'blowback' really is"
-- ha-ha-ha.
But, OK: let's think of it this way.
I think we shouldn't do disservice to the argument
that Islamic terror is Islamic,
because I think what we're dealing with here
is just basic logic:
all x are y, therefore all y are x? No, of course that doesn't follow.
All Islamic terrorists are Islamic, therefore all terrorists are Islamic?
No, that doesn't follow.
So I think what we have to do is understand, yes:
the Islamic State is clearly Islamic.
The people who fight for Islamic State are clearly Islamists
-- I mean, that's a prerequisite, right?
Or the people at the lower levels, anyway:
I don't know about the people at the top of these organizations.
But anyway, clearly an Islamic organization
trying to set up an Islamic caliphate.
I mean, there is a religious element to this.
And you could say, well, with the US military,
it is not exclusively Christian.
There are people who are not Christian who serve in the US military forces,
and they are not serving explicitly Christian ends;
they are not trying to establish an explicitly Christian government
in Syria or Iraq, or what have you.
So it's different in that regard.
I think that would only bolster my argument
that statism is a religion,
because it's always framed in, "We're doing this for democracy,"
which is, I think, the religious conviction
of a lot of people who are serving in the military in this context.
But anyway, I think that would be the argument
that a lot of people would put against
the argument that we're making here,
and I think, again, I think we have
to point out the logical flaws in this:
that, yes, there is a subsection
of Islamic culture or Islamic peoples
that are motivated by their religion
to commit acts of violence.
Again, like every other religious sect
has their own similar problems.
But let's put that in the perspective
of what we've been talking about
as some sort of marketing campaign:
because it strikes me that something that...
just as human beings, fundamentally,
psychologically, something that we
are almost incapable of doing
is seeing that when we are looking
at something on the TV
-- when we're watching some report
that's filed from Syria or Iraq or wherever --
on the TV,
what we are seeing is explicitly what we are being shown.
We are seeing whatever the camera is pointed at,
and we are not seeing what the camera is not pointing at.
And that's not just the literal,
that's also metaphorical.
I mean, there is...
whatever we are not seeing
is the big, excluded factor in all of this.
We are seeing the faces of these journalists
who supposedly are being beheaded in these videos.
These...
"this is the face of... this is what happens with Islamic terror,"
and these Islamic terrorists kill these people.
And look at these white journalists
out there that are being killed:
it's horrific.
But what we are not seeing is...
I think, Sibel, what you were gesturing towards
-- is the victims of the terror
inflicted by the US government,
or the Israeli government,
or any of the allied NATO countries' governments
with these bombs dropping on these populations,
and the Agent Orange, or whatever:
those are the excluded faces,
and explicitly so.
Because again, most of these images
are explicitly censored from the media,
that we are not allowed to show
some of these things on television.
You can't show a corpse hideously mangled
by a Hellfire missile from a drone.
You can't show any of these things on TV,
because that would be...
that would offend our sensibilities.
But of course you can parade these beheaded journalists out,
and show them a million times a day
until we think this is the most pressing issue
on the face of the planet.
So again, it's...
what we are not being shown
is not only equally important,
but probably more important, than what we are being shown.
Well, I want to address
the question Sibel posed about blowback.
And on one level,
I certainly appreciate what you're saying:
that we shouldn't use blowback
to describe things that are probably intentional.
But I do think that this is a multi-layered story,
and that there is a legitimate use of the term blowback
when you talk about the failed strategy
of the so-called "surge,"
which separated Sunni and Shia
in an effort to tamp down the civil war
that has since re-erupted in Iraq.
I do believe that we're experiencing blowback
from the de-Baathification,
the marginalization of Sunnis
early in the occupation of Iraq.
So I take your point that there are intentional objectives
and initiatives by the United States and some of our allies
that don't properly fall under the term "blowback,"
and I do understand your irritation when it's misapplied,
but I think that we're paying a price,
as I mentioned earlier,
for the detention and torture regimes that we employed.
We're seeing that used against us now,
and I do consider that a form of blowback,
because it was simply stupid
for the United States to employ those tactics,
and we are playing a price for it;
and again, I would legitimately put that
under the proper definition of blowback.
OK, well, I have a comeback for that one:
because let's say that is true
-- which I don't believe is the case,
because there is this saying,
it's an English, American saying,
fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me?"
Is that how it goes?
Not according to George [W.] Bush, but [xx]
[laughs] Right. Well, think about it:
because we have been saying this,
and the analysts on CNN
have been talking about what you just talked about,
for the past half-century, OK?
They... we have had so many analysts
coming on all mainstream media
and saying we had, even, blowback
because we installed Shah regime there
-- OK, the kingdom there? --
and because of that, this happened.
Well, if that were the case, Peter,
if you have it over half a century
once or twice,
and three times, four times,
five times, six times,
seven times, eight times
15 times, 30 times, 50 times,
then you say, "What the fuck?" OK?
-- excuse my language here --
I mean, you can't fall back on that blowback
for goddamn 50 years, OK,
and then come and say,
"Aiee! We don't know why it didn't work."
This re-drawing of the maps, OK?
Using the sects and the tribes
and the Sunnis and the Shias and the Kurds against each other,
we've been doing it,
and we have had a lot of blowback,
because those blowbacks are intended.
Because if they were not,
you do it once and twice and 50 times and 100 times:
you won't do it again.
If that was the case,
we wouldn't continue after 9/11
supporting Saudi Arabia.
Can you imagine the blowback we're going to see in Saudi Arabia?
I mean, we have seen nothing with Syria and Iraq.
When the Saudis, the population
when they really rise up
and they get rid of this despicable kingdom regime
that is installed there by the United States,
protected in place by the United States,
you're gonna see the biggest bloodshed of our time,
as far as Middle East is concer--
I mean, it's happening. It's in the corner.
Do you think there anyone,
anyone in the United States government,
in the State Department, in the CIA,
who doesn't see this?
Who doesn't expect this?
If that was blowback,
at least after 9/11 we would have said,
"We're not gonna do this!"
Because how many times you're gonna suffer blowback of the exact same thing?
That means a second option,
and that means all these people are totally
[gestures strumming lips with finger] ba-dih-ba-dih-ba-dih -- crazy, OK?
[laughter] That's why we keep doing the same thing
-- which, I don't think it holds true --
or the only other alternative is,
again, it's intentional:
it is intended.
The division here of Iraq,
with Sunnis and the Shias and the Kurds:
right now, that's exactly what the United States is doing.
And I had the same conversation with one person...
he's a Kurdish person in that region
-- and he was saying, "You know something?"
Actually, he really appreciates what the United States is doing
-- "Finally they are helping us,"
"and with all the stuff they're gonna give us,"
"we have some other objectives."
"Because these guns that we are getting..."
-- they have other enemies as well, the Kurds:
so there are Kurds in Iran,
there are Kurds in the southern part of Turkey
-- "so we have plans, and we love it!"
And I told this man
-- this very nice, informed on many levels, but emotional Kurdish person --
I said, "How many times do you have to be used?"
Because they always use the Kurds,
whenever it's convenient,
for a very short period of time, right?
The United States and NATO, they do that.
And then, when they finish,
when the job is finished,
they turn their backs.
And let's say it is Turkey
who is gonna go and massacre them
in the tens of thousands:
they won't even lift a finger.
So it's temporary,
and these same people are gonna come after you,
or when others come after you,
they're gonna make sure the others have the green light.
So, no:
I absolutely, absolutely believe
that none of these are blowbacks that are not intended.
And if it is intended, if these are intended
-- which they are --
it is not a blowback.
Blowback has to be unintended, by nature:
there is no other kind of blowback there.
Maybe we can find a different terminology.
I want to give a very quick Persian-Iranian belief:
it's like an idiom, mixture with folktales:
they have this saying, they say,
"Don't ever leave the roofer alone in the roof for the repair," OK?
And here's where the folktale comes from:
they have flat roofs in Iran, OK?
They are not... you know, the slanted roofs.
And with the bricks and...
it's one of the businesses
that, especially historically, is there:
it's the roofers.
They go, because some of these bricks come loose,
and it causes leakage,
and they repair it.
So the folktales goes that when the roofer
-- you know, in this particular city or village --
goes there,
because he's called to repair a couple of things
-- on his way out, if he's not watched by the house owner,
he's gonna go and loosen up
several other of these brick pieces
so that two weeks later he's called again.
This is how the roofer maintains his business, OK?
And especially if you are looking at smaller areas.
So if everything is fixed so well,
he may go for a year and a half
not having anything to repair,
so he actually induces problems so that he would be called.
And they are very good at it, supposedly:
tactically, they are doing it:
so it will come loose in two weeks,
they will be called.
This is exactly what we have
when we have the real Deep State
that is made up...
the military-industrial complex,
and the oil,
and the financial institutions.
Look: their existence, their expansion...
OK, besides their survival and existence and expansion,
OK, all of these depend on the war industry.
They want wars, expansion, colonialism.
This is the colonialism:
there is nothing different.
When we have bases in Afghanistan,
that's modern colonialism.
Nobody would disagree with that.
So we have to induce we.
We have to have these beheadings.
If it doesn't happen, we have to artificially induce it;
because once we do that, look at their stock prices, OK?
Look at the expenditure on the military-industrial complex.
The more wars we have, the more conflicts we have all over the world:
I mean, in most cases we sell to both sides, OK?
When you look at both sides,
either they are getting these guns or whatever from the black market,
or they are given, as subsidiaries,
by the United States.
Who wins? Who wins in these scenarios, in these wars? OK?
Is it a "blowback" for those people?
This is intended.
This is exactly what they want.
And, guess what else they want:
police state, also, increases that expenditure.
So when we have those terror attacks, OK?
-- like Boston bombing, that was induced, that was completely staged,
that was false-flag? OK, it was: I believe, 100 percent that it was.
When you have the Metro bombing in the UK, guess who's selling?
You're gonna put more X-Ray mach ines in the airports,
and you're going to have more of these checkpoints,
you're going to have more border control:
you have to fatten up, expand these old institutions, OK?
Create jobs that otherwise are not being created
in a country that is bankrupt, OK?
Right now, the war machine
-- even though we are borrowing --
is sustaining this rotten economy.
You take that away, it won't be.
And you call it "blowback?"
No.
There are people who are, big time, profiting from it.
And it doesn't fall into their lap by coincidence.
It's exactly the same as those roofers.
You go and do this stuff with the Sunnis;
and you do to it, this thing with the Kurds;
and you do train these people,
Syrian freedom fighters,
rebels in Turkey and Jordan,
and send them there.
You do all those stuff because you have intended consequences.
And as a top analyst, you take it from here. [laughter]
And I wanted to add, just quickly, that...
Guillermo?
Yeah. Well, I think what you're describing
is the problem-reaction-solution strategy,
which I think our listeners are probably in tune with.
But one thing that I wanted to mention, though:
I think you're absolutely right.
One point that you made that I really wanted to highlight
was that these strategies, at this point,
they're not creating the police state:
they are sustaining, maintaining the police state.
In large part, because as you just mentioned,
because it did create thousands of jobs,
and those people want to keep their jobs.
And they want to keep those dollars,
those federal dollars, flowing
into the DEA, the FBI, the DHS,
and all the... especially the border area.
Jesus! The border would have no economy whatsoever
if it were not for the Department of Homeland Security
and the growing surveillance and police state:
so, that's completely right-on.
I wanted to just offer, on the blowback point,
perhaps a little bit of a middle ground.
Because if I understood Peter correctly,
I think what you were saying
was that there is such a thing
as unintended consequences, on a small scale.
Because after all, we're talking about human action,
and you can't 100 percent predict
what human beings are going to do.
But I think on a large scale, on a big-picture,
I think you're absolutely right, Sibel.
I'm not a subscriber of
incompetence theories and coincidence theories,
so when you see this happening
over and over and over again on that big scale,
then yeah: I absolutely would agree
that you cannot call that blowback.
If you do, then you're either misinterpreting it, I believe,
or just being duplicitous, in a way.
Also... oh!
There was one other quick point that...
this is kind of going back
to something else that we talked about,
but if I could just go back to the point
on Islamic terror being used as a marketing tool
and the comparisons that you made, Sibel,
with how this is reported versus how...
you would never in a million years
see those headlines you described
about Jewish terrorists or Christian terrorists,
so on and so forth.
I think the last time that I can reme mber a headline
even coming close to something like that
would be 1995,
the Oklahoma City bombing with Timothy McVeigh,
there may have been a headline saying,
"Christian..." whatever.
But it was always paired with "extremist"
or "right-wing, fringe, nut-job Christian..."
whatever: all these kind of qualifiers before "Christian."
And so I just wanted to highlight that,
because I can't think of another example besides that.
Maybe you guys could help me out with that,
but I honestly cannot think of one...
The only other example I can think of is, it happened
when we had those abortion clinics bombings,
and it was attributed to Christian ultra-right-wing extremists
that engaged in this, that was short-lived.
So that's the second, only, example that I can think of.
Yeah, and it was used the same way,
for the same ends, ultimately:
to expand the police state,
to drum up all this fear about terrorism.
And in fact, that was after Oklahoma City
was when Bill Clinton attempted to introduce
what became known as the Patriot Act.
It was the same legislation, I suppose:
the effect was not large enough
to push that through at the time,
and then came 9/11,
and we all know what happened after that.
So just wanted to, again,
bring that up, just for context.
James?
Well, I don't have a lot of add
to what's been said already,
except for the fact that,
on the blowback note,
it's interesting to note
that the same people who push the blowback narrative
are these same people who cheer-led for every invasion
that led to the so-called blowback that they're now lamenting,
including Amy Goodman
and all of these other cheerleaders for the war state
who are cheerleading on:
"Let's get Gaddafi in Libya!"
"Let's go into Syria: look at Assad!"
And now they're like,
"Oh, look at the blowback! Oh, this is so horrible!" [laughter]
And it's just another example:
how long will people continue to listen
to the same people who cheerlead for the war state
and then pretend to be surprised
by the consequences of it?
Rather than listening to the actual alternatives, like...
That's right.
...the people here in this conversation. [laughter]
Who were warning about this before the Libyan invasion,
before what happened in Syria.
Exactly!
We were right all along.
We were right before it even happened.
But now the people who were wrong all along
are the ones who are gonna be listened to
by a lot of misled people
who believe that they're listening
to some sort of alternative voice.
And, "Oh, the blowback! Oh, the humanity!"
Guess what, James? The funny thing is
-- not funny as in "ha-ha" funny, but funny thing --
is, those people who have done it the most
happen to be the ones who pose in the pseudo-alternative media,
not even mainstream media!
The former CIA analyst saying,
"Yeah, blah-blah-blah, and it was blowback,"
and they are playing the alternative.
There is nothing alternative about
this so-called ex-CIA analyst.
Some kind of, like, anonymous Mike Scheuer:
"O(h, my goodness, such an alternative point of view he's providing!"
It is, actually, furthering the same agenda.
Or, Peter:
I mean, that was one of the things that I was just simmering
with the last interview you had with Ray McGovern.
I mean, you know...
and these guys,
these women, Samantha and these bad people
are making Obama do it...
and making Obama do it:
it's like, OK:
I understand you campaigned for Obama, OK?
Second time, not the first time. [laughter]
Because the first time, everybody was fucked up and stupid, OK?
Second time, all right?
Fool me twice and shame on me:
it's like shame on me a billion times?
It never was, "They made Bush do it."
"Bush did it."
"It was the Bush and Cheney..."
"these two were the entire face of the Deep State."
"They were the forefront and did it."
To this day, this junk is coming out,
and that really pisses me off, Peter.
That's why I cannot respect,
I cannot promote this man.
He said... just, "They make Obama,"
"and then they pressured Obama to do that,"
"and those crazies..." OK?
"They made Obama do this,"
"because he's such a great man,"
"he's such a nice man;"
"and then it blew up, and blowback."
I mean, I'm listening,
and I'm trying to say,
I'm trying to find a way
to not say it in an insulting way,
saying, "Maybe it's the senility." Woo-doo-woo-doo-woo-doo. OK?
Either you are that,
or you are one really nasty, nasty hypocrite
that is not shameful for one second:
because, put it in context:
"They made Obama do it."
I mean, this is what happens
in these pseudo-alternative media outlets.
They turn it into, make it into
some puppets in the forefront;
not the Operation Gladio B,
ot the Deep State.
They make it about personalities;
they make it about parties,
the war parties:
oh, yeah: that's about the Republicans,
the neocons, right? W
ell, the neocons did this,
the neoliberals are doing that,
and taking away from the real context,
from the real frame.
And anyhow, that's just my two cents,
and there is no such a thing as blowback, OK?
In this case.
When we are looking at our perpetual wars,
what is happening today...
[holds up book: Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic by Chalmers Johnson]
Who's that?
This is part of the Blowback trilogy
that was written by the late Professor Chalmers Johnson.
Yes.
And I interviewed him many times,
and I have respect for him.
And his definition of the term "blowback"
is a little more narrow than the way you're using it.
And it is the unexpected or unintended result
of covert operations.
So, I take your point
that many of the divide-and-conquer strategies
that are in play today
are not accidental,
they are intended,
and they don't qualify for the term "blowback."
But I also believe that there are huge American policy blunders
like the ones I cited
that have produced the consequences today.
And the comparison I would use
is the movies Hunger Games
and the books that have been written.
And the image of The Hunger Games
is this virtual reality zone
that is controlled from master control,
and they can change the arid desert to a flooding river
just by flipping a switch.
And I don't believe that...
while I believe the US aspires
to the level of control that is depicted in the fictional Hunger Games,
I don't think we have achieved it.
So that's where I parse things a little bit differently;
but I don't dispute your basic notion, Sibel,
that much of what is occurring
and much of what the US will say,
"Aw, shucks, we blew it!"
"Oh, we didn't expect that to happen!"
"Oh, somebody miscalculated!"
A lot of that is bullshit
that is intended to obscure
intentional programs and operations
that are in motion, even as we speak.
So I don't have a deep disagreement with you,
except I do believe that there are some instances
of blowback from policy blunders,
some of which were covert,
that fit the original definition
coined by Professor Johnson.
No, and I get your point, and I agree with you.
And I am not applying this to everything.
I am applying this narrowly to everything that is related
-- almost everything --
in the Middle East, in terror,
al-Qaeda, and everything.
The only honest policy paper that I have ever seen, OK?
Period: the most honest one, is PNAC.
What was written for Project for a New American Century.
I mean, if everyone...
they did all of it like this, so overt,
and so open and clear...
because there, it had nothing to do
with beating around the bushes.
They were very clear.
They said, "Our goal is this: imperialism, OK?
"Soviet Union is gone, we have to be the world power."
Just, I'm summing it up, simplifying it.
"And, to achieve it, we've gotta have something huge happening here,"
"thousands of people dying,"
"so the stupid majority will line up behind us,"
"achieve it for us, and make it possible."
I love that.
I mean, I love the honesty of that paper.
And that is the reality.
And the interesting thing is,
you never hear people talking about that
-- PNAC, OK? And that way,
in CNN or on NPR or on Salon,
they like to get those things mumbo-jumbos,
you've got pages and pages
of some policy nobody understands.
There people
-- and these were the real, powerful policy-makers in the policy arena --
they made it very clear:
I love it.
You put it like that, and everybody understands.
But the mainstream media doesn't have an appetite for that, OK?
You read that, it's very clear, OK?
"This is our policy, this is our modus operandi."
"We want to be the world power."
Who's "we?" Is that you, or me, or Guillermo?
Or is it the teacher who's working in a high school?
Is it 97 percent of Americans?
No. By "we," they mean the Deep State.
They mean the fat cats.
They mean the military-industrial complex.
"We want to be the superpower, OK?"
"Colonize the world: take the most..."
"not leave anything for China, Russia:"
"we want to get everything."
"In order for it to happen,"
"we have to sacrifice 3,000, 5,000, 10,000, whatever here"
"-- and we'll do it. Because ends justify the means."
For who? For those one-half a percent. or 0.1 percent.
Very clear, very to-the-point, very honest.
I wish they'd make more policies like that,
and they talked about it like that.
Then we wouldn't even have anybody
coming on these issues
and make up things about,
"Well, as a former CIA analyst,"
"I must say that we really messed that one up,"
"and it blew up in our face,"
"and we had a blowback, man."
You know, we did it in Afghanistan, da-da-da-da-da.
Just like PNAC, put it out there:
and there is no room there for second-guessing,
and saying maybe it didn't,
you know, they didn't mean that it happened as a result:
it's out there for everyone to see.
And that is, that is the main premise behind our...
all our foreign policies.
All our foreign policies
are based on that notion.
It's a power game, OK?
And again, it's not power
for the people of any of these nations;
it's the power game,
and it's the power for the Deep State,
saying "How we want to maintain our power,"
"how we want to stay big and get bigger."
It has nothing to do with the people,
it has nothing to do with you and I.
Has nothing to do with 99 percent of the Americans,
and the lives of 99 percent of Americans
doesn't mean a lick for those people.
If they... when they get...
if they feel the need that they would do something
that would kill, not 3,000, 500,000 Americans?
They would do it in a second.
They would do it in a second, you know?
There's that country song by Randy Travis, "Ants on a Log,"
and I'm saying, it'd be like, "Ants on a log."
And if you listen to it,
even though it's a cliche, country music rhyming,
when you have ants, the colonies out there,
I don't think they even know that humans exist.
They can't look up and see that.
They are busy in their own lives,
and suddenly some foot comes on top of them
-- right, the shoes?
Bam! They are gone.
They don't even know: something big hit them. OK?
Who knows how they are interpreting
of what killed half of their colony,
that it was something called "human?"
Because they can't really see us, OK?
This is how it is with the Deep State and the people, OK?
The people: 99.999 percent of the people.
And that's the situation.
Sibel, you've once again demonstrated your skill with languages,
because I don't speak country music. [laughter]
But I do want to comment:
I do understand your frustration
with people like Ray McGovern.
My view is that because he served in the CIA
and because he's willing to criticize the agency that he once worked for
and some of our government policies,
that he has a legitimate point of view.
And I do think that he has added some elements;
and I also think that in the recent interview,
the focus there was on the victory that he won over the State Department
when they brutally ejected him from a speech
that Hillary Clinton was giving about human rights.
And he basically was able
to successfully sue them
and get his name removed
from a "Be on the Lookout" list.
And I think that is worth reporting
and getting his comments on.
And I posted it, and I do not...
I don't disagree with you.
I think everybody is entitled
of having their opinion.
Now, on the other hand, to say it's legitimate or not,
that is up to interpretation.
I do not find many of his opinions legitimate,
but that's me.
And it's a subjective thing
based on what I see and how I see it.
So I would say, absolutely,
he's entitled of his opinion.
And one of the things that I have tried to do with Boiling Frogs Post,
even the things that I disagree
-- it makes me gag: you know, not a government gag. [laughter]
I really want to puke
-- because... aarrgh!
That's the reaction it gets out of me:
I publish it.
You know why?
Because there are people, Peter,
who agree with that;
or they like that;
or they think that is sound.
And they find it legitimate,
and that is perfectly fine.
And I want to provide that forum
where we have all those.
But personally, yes:
absolutely, he's entitled to his opinion.
I don't there's anything legitimate
about Ray McGovern's opinion.
I don't think he's respect-worthy.
I would not disrespect him,
but I would never give him respect,
especially after what he did.
And that is, again, the machine-intended stuff.
[raises hand]
[laughs] Go ahead, James.
OK, thank you.
There is an extremely important point there
that I think we should make the focus of our next conversation,
because it would be extremely interesting
to bring it up with you specifically, Sibel...
[claps hands] Yay!
Which is my take on this:
I am more and more,
increasingly, of the opinion
that anyone who is stupid enough to sign up
for an admittedly disgusting, horrific,
atrocious organization like the CIA in the first place
was either stupid at the time
or is lying now
about not being working for that organization.
Signing up!
But we are talking to someone who signed up for the FBI,
which was a disgusting, corrupt institution since the very founding,
[laughter] so...
No, but that's absolutely true:
and I have done it in Classified Woman.
I said, "Doing that just proves so much stupidity and being naive."
It's absolutely true.
Because, look:
I'll tell you about the...
when you go and they give you this paper
-- and you're signing at least 40 papers --
and the laws themselves are not cited, OK?
There are some numbers. You are signing that,
"Based on 509732, you're not gonna write a non-fiction without us..."
I signed those papers.
The eye-opener, the waking up:
absolutely. I absolutely agree.
I mean, I consider myself
completely ignorant, completely naive
-- completely naive --
uninformed, stupid,
for actually signing up.
I was offered jobs with the CIA several times
during my university years.
I would have never even looked at the organization.
FBI and CIA, very different, OK?
Police state FBI?
I'm not saying I highly regard FBI at all,
but you're looking at two different breeds of...
and even within the CIA,
as despicable as it is,
there are a hierarchy of despicability.
There is a degree of it,
operatives being the most despicable, disgusting, OK?
Serial killers.
And then you have the administrative analysts,
and the secretaries,
and the bureaucrats: you know, maybe they are naive.
I mean, that's...
so you cannot even put them in the same basket
saying everybody is [xx].
There are different degrees of despicability.
And I agree with that:
I completely agree with that.
If my daughter ever, ever comes to me
and says, "Mom, I'd consider..."
when she's 23, "I have two or three languages:"
I would do everything in my power...
which, she won't:
because I'm already doing it with her. [laughter]
But, I agree: and anybody who does,
and anybody who signs their First Amendment rights
and works for the police state,
they do it, you know, economic reasons or whatever:
I mean, still,
they have to be stupid to do that.
And I was, absolutely, stupid:
I will be the first to say that.
But I wouldn't go and play and say,
"Well, there are some really good people in the FBI..."
no: it's a very stupid thing to do.
All right, Guillermo?
And I would add, what's worse than that:
what's worse than someone
like a McGovern or anyone else
who may have worked for the CIA
and now criticizes it,
what's worse than that is the former CIA spy
who worked for, willingly worked for,
the CIA, NSA, DIA, so on and so forth,
and then says,
"Hey, they're great."
"They do good work."
"We should not bother with..."
Who are you talking about, Guillermo?
Oh, I dunno.
Who?
Just, you know, anyone. Not anyone in particular. [laughter] But, you know...
CIA, ex-CIA, NSA contractor?
I can't think of any off the top of my head...
oh, wait: there's one.
Well, ladies and gents...
At least one.
I think we have a good start
on our next Boiling Frogs Post Roundtable.
I certainly enjoyed this one.
I want to thank Guillermo, James, Sibel.
And I remain Peter B. Collins. Thanks for viewing.
[Captions by "Adjuvant"] [CC-BY 4.0]