♪ [ Philip Glass – “Runaway Horses” (Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters) ] ♪
OK, everybody. Welcome back to another episode of Porkins Policy Radio.
As always, I am your host Pearse Redmond,
and you can find this podcast and all the other podcasts
by going to porkinspolicyreview.wordpress.com
Well, today we have a very special episode,
and we have two very special guests.
And we're going to be discussing The Lone Gladio,
Sibel Edmond's new novel, in greater detail,
As well as exploring some of the intricacies
of Gladio Plan B in general.
And joining me for this epic roundtable discussion on this
is, of course, our good friend and frequent guest on the show Tom Secker
from SpyCulture.com and the host of ClandesTime.
And also joining us all the way on the West Coast
in what has become the newest state to legalize marijuana
is our wonderful, wonderful guest who's been on the show recently
and that is, of course, the creator and founder of BoilingFrogsPost.com
and the author of The Lone Gladio, Sibel Edmonds
So Sibel, Tom: Thank you for joining me on the show today.
(Tom) Hi, thank you.
(Sibel) Good to be talking to you both.
(Pearse) Yeah, absolutely. So, basically me and Tom just wanted to ask you
about a million more questions that we didn't get to
when we both interviewed you for our respective shows
So... and I guess... Tom, why don't you start the conversation off?
(Tom) Sure. Well, I only have...
Well, I managed to whittle it down to two
that I didn't get to ask you before, Sibel.
Because we were talking about, essentially,
how your book The Lone Gladio
Subverts an awful lot of the normal spy fiction.
And that's because it's doing something vastly different.
It's, in many ways, an attack on the security state.
Rather than some kind of defense of it
or glorification of it, which is what you normally get.
And we picked up on... sorry, on various different things.
And there were a couple that I didn't get around to asking you about.
So the first one is this question of rogue agents.
Because in the book, the protagonist, the titular Lone Gladio, Greg,
He goes rogue and wreaks this havoc
against his former colleagues, his former paymasters
And normally in spy culture,
the rogue agent is portrayed as the bad apple, right?
The exception to the normal state of affairs.
Sort of they're the bad people within a good institution.
That's the usual picture you get.
Whereas in your book, in The Lone Gladio
Greg is a... I hesitate to say a good apple...
[laughter] but he's somewhat good. He does do good things.
He does protect people that need protecting
and that deserve to be protected.
Things like that.
Some of his...
some of the torture sequences, one might debate. [laughter]
[xx] how good these things are
but nonetheless, he is a somewhat good apple, if you like
within the bad institution.
So once again, this is a complete inversion
and reinvention of a stereotype in spy stories.
And yet you've said in other interviews
that Greg is somewhat based on real people
real black operatives that you've met along the way
and had conversations with
and to some extent got to know what kind of people they are.
So my question -- and I hope this isn't too cheeky --
is how realistic is Greg?
How realistic is it that one day,
there might be a real Lone Gladio?
(Sibel) Well, you may call it
to some degree, a wishful thinking.
Because we haven't had a real-life Greg MacPherson
Despite all the publicized, many of them totally scripted
supposed CIA whistleblowers
or people who have turned against the CIA to a certain degree.
We have never had a real Greg from the Agency
from the CIA
And also, to answer your question,
the first part of your question,
my feeling and my knowledge,
based on my knowledge, what I have seen,
has been that many of these mass-market books
the spy thrillers involving the Agency,
they are the ones that always subvert the reality
meaning, what really these people do
and the culture of the agency
who the agency actually serves,
it's not the American people.
And it's not even the United States government.
So it goes to the heart of the Deep State.
Those people who benefit from the Agency, from the CIA
and whom the Agency really serves.
So all the books that we see out there,
the Hollywood-made movies,
they subvert the facts, the reality
of what the Agency is about.
And because of this, all average Americans
or even people in Europe,
most people, they have
a complete false notion of
what the CIA is all about.
Now, this is actually to a lesser degree
or even, maybe, not even in any degree
in countries that have been the targets
of all these types of CIA, the Agency's, operations.
Because if you go and talk with people in countries like Iran,
the 1953 coup with Mossadeq being taken out
and Shah being placed in there.
If you go to some of the Central American, South American nations
because they have, these countries
-- in Middle East, in South and Central America --
since they have had first-hand experience, real experience
of what CIA actually does,
they are not under this false notion.
And you can engage in some really heated conversation
with people in these countries
with notions that they put forward
that are far more realistic, factual,
than, let's say, when you talk with people in the United States.
So I would put it this way:
I would say I subverted the subverted notion
of the Agency and the Agency people.
And you're absolutely right about Greg.
It's hard to call him a good person,
or the good apple,
but the book and the characters in the book
they go into the heart of what the Agency is about
what kind of people
are selected to be operatives.
And of course, the fictional aspect being
all it takes is one or two real good apples to actually,
truly expose what the Agency's about
and the operations, their objectives, and who they serve.
And we haven't had, to date,
such a good apple.
And it's really, really amazing.
For me, it's really amazing.
But then, on the other hand,
it may go to this whole notion of
the chicken or the egg.
In this way: that... well, to start with,
the poeple they select for these jobs
the operatives -- I'm not talking about the administrative people or analysts --
to start with are the kind of people who would never
become those good apples that they would step out
and go all the way into exposing
what the Agency is about.
I mean, this fact applies to a lesser degree
to agencies like, more law enforcement, the FBI
even though I'm not saying that they are good,
but we have had whistleblowers, or some good apples,
that have really exposed some major black deeds
performed or implemented by these agencies.
But not really with the CIA.
And some people may say,
"Oh, here we have had this agents, or that agents,"
and if you look at these so-called, supposed whistleblowers,
you see how controlled heir supposed exposure
or exposing of the agency is.
First of all, you get to see them
within the mainstream media, frequently.
Which tells you right there that they are
not exposing the Agency.
They would never get a chance
to be before millions of audience within the mainstream media
putting forth some factual... or some facts
that expose the true nature of the Agency.
They would never, ever be given that kind of a chance.
It doesn't happen.
It has never happend.
It really hasn't happened.
You'll see some people who would talk about how
the Agency is, by doing this particular thing,
in this particular way...
or people who are selling the notion of, yes, there are a few bad apples
within the Agencies who are doing this, within the management.
But this is similar to what people call
the controlled opposition.
It is tightly framed to further, still
the Agency's legitimacy -- which is, they are not legitimate.
And then within that tight frame,
put forth some very shallow criticism of some agencies.
And then, later on,
if you see, it's usually blamed on a President
or a particular party
rather than going to the Deep State
whom the Agency is there to protect and further their agenda,
not some puppet President, or some party.
Or... it boils down to some director not being good, being the bad apple.
I mean, these are all the false notions
that have been popularized by the mainstream media.
By all the books that subvert
what the Agency is about
And alternative media as well,
the so-called "alternative"media.
A lot of them, they parrot the same notion,
-- maybe they put it forth in a more heated manner --
but in the end, they are actually
repeating the same storyline.
Within the storyline, some plots are maybe targeted and criticized,
but not the story itself.
Well, I mean, you're absolutely right there, I think.
And when you were talking about how this was...
whenever you do get any kind of significant revelation,
it's always wrapped up in a "Oh, well, this was just"
"the policy of this particular White House"
"Or it was because there was a bad director of the CIA at that point"
"or..." there's never any kind of sense
of this being a fundamental, institutional problem
at... a fundamental problem in the character
of the CIA and other similar institutions.
And I was thinking, they've even tried this with the original Gladio.
That, this was always the way it was [xx] out there
by anyone who was insincere.
Was that, "Oh, this was just some stay-behind thing."
"It was Cold War paranoia. Nothing really came of it."
And they ignore that second phase
of the original Gladio
where it became this very aggressive means
of carrying out false-flag terrorism.
And they sort of pretend like
that never actually happened.
They say, oh, this was some...
oh, we were all worried about Stalin or whatever.
It's just written off in that way, the original Gladio.
(Tom) Yeah, sure.
So, I mean, that's one of the things, I suppose,
that I loved about The Lone Gladio
is that, not only are you kind of throwing all of that bullshit out the window,
you're actually talking about more or less the present day.
I mean, it's set about ten years ago, OK,
but it's the modern era. It's the War on Terror era.
(Sibel) Absolutely.
(Tom) So you're cutting right to the heart
of the modern-day reality
and my other question is kind of related to that.
And I'm not in any way trying to get you
to contradict yourself here.
But we do also have the question of blowback.
Because in some ways, that's what Greg
and his crusade of violence represents.
He is, to some extent,
the unintended consequence
of these black operations
Both in terms of his motivation
-- his wife is killed, essentially, accidentally, or at least carelessly:
they weren't trying to kill her --
And yet that's his...
that's at least the point at which he then decides
it's time to wreak havoc against them.
I know your opinion of blowback is roughly the same as mine,
that, again, it's one of these things that's hung out there
to cover up something that would otherwise be quite damaging.
Sometimes black operations do go bad.
And unintended things happen
but in general terms, blowback is just one of those covers.
It's a smokescreen.
It's..."the mujahideen in Afghanistan"
"evolved into al-Qaeda completely by accident." [laughter]
We've sort of accidentally let this happen.
We took our eye off the ball, blah-blah-blah.
It's totally untrue.
Of course, we know it's totally untrue.
And so I found it quite fascinating, that...
knowing that your opinion of blowback is quite similar to mine
if not the same as mine
that this same basic idea forms
such a central part of the story
in The Lone Gladio.
I mean, it's not a sort of explanation that you take all that seriously
for real events, is it?
But there, again, I suppose you're being quite subversive.
Because instead of using blowback as a way of covering up for black operations,
this story of Greg's retribution against the Company
is actually his sort of means of exposing them.
That's, I suppose, what... the overall point of this book was
was to try and expose the reality
and in doing so, that meant you simply
had to subvert the usual way in which these things worked
and therefore had to subvert even the concept of blowback.
I suppose... OK, my question: is this something that you did consciously,
or am I letting the literary analyst inside me get a bit carried away here?
(Sibel) Um, no. Absolutely, absolutely. First of all, you're absolutely right:
it is based on the notion of blowback
and in this case, it's a real blowback.
And that is: unintended consequences.
Because, as we know, Greg's woman
was killed purely accidentally.
So that was not designed by the powers
to get this reaction and this outcome
that is brought forth by Greg. Because he starts the mission.
And there are two things that are happening.
There are two things that are motivating Greg.
One, of course, we are talking about this Great Terror Event in 2001.
In the US.
And he was outside that highly- compartmentalized operation
to execute this, this false-flag operation in the home front
in the United States, on the US soil.
And he realizes this as it happens, and it's reported
by the tentacles of the Gladios.
This is the CNN and BBC, or BCB, as they are listed there
it may be a little bit cheesy [laughter]
But... so...
That is when it makes Greg stop and think
and the blowback doesn't begin here
but the roots, or the seeds, are planted there.
Because he is, himself, a highly unusual,
eccentric character
with some dark, to a certain degree sad background
that I don't get into in this book.
It will, hopefully, once I write and if I write the second book
will get more into Greg's childhood
and what started his intense hatred of Russians and everything Russian.
And that's one of the repeating themes there.
And that has been one of the driving force
for a lot of things that he has done in life.
But in all this, this... for this operation, false-flag
taking place in the US, that begins the process.
It plants the seed, and then the catalyst, of course,
two years later, becomes his woman accidentally
taken out by the Agency
So that basically triggers all these actions.
And again, that was unintended.
So that's a true blowback right there.
And you used the word "intended," and that is very, very important.
It's the key word, because
for a blowback to be really a blowback,
the consequences have to be unintended.
And with these operations themselves,
the black ops, the false-flag operations,
the recruitment and the training of these terrorists,
in this case we had a black widow who's a Chechen,
who's Chechen, in Azerbaijan
and those operations are the false-flag operations
with intended consequences.
With intended consequences
therefore, anything that results from those operations
cannot in any way be considered blowback.
Because when you look at, let's say
a certain group being put in place,
trained, armed, directed, managed,
to execute a certain terror operation,
whether it's in Russia or if it's in Syria,
and if it's in Iraq,
executing that terror operation
is only a part of the intended results,
the objectives, the means to get to the objectives.
It's not all of consequences taking place afterwards:
those are the intended consequences.
So, let me give you an example.
For example, let's say when you train the Chechens,
a group of Chechens,
and arm them, and drug them,
and indoctrinate them, and manage them,
and say, "You're gonna go and blow up this in this part of Russia,"
for example.
Well, the first result of it is, OK, this horrible terror incident happens
in that particular city
or targeting this particular school, et cetera.
Now, what happens next is what is the intended consequence.
And that is to get Russia to react to it,
and to react to it, hopefully, dramatically.
Emotionally, and start rounding up hundreds of Chechens,
putting them in jail, or actually going and shooting 150 Chechens, right?
And that, in return, turning around and causing this...
more attacks over there.
Then, you start getting closer and closer
to the intended consequences.
The intended consequence in executing
this particular terror operation, this part of it
where something is blown up
and you have 100 people dying,
is not the first intent,
the most important objective here.
That is a way to get the following five or six consequent events,
which are intended,
to cause that chaos,
to cause that certain sect going after another sect
to cause for that to actually become even more,
explode even further
and affect a neighboring country.
Let's say, if it's in Syria, something is happening
with Jordan, and then
this happens in the border,
and you have, let's say, maybe half a million refugees
getting to this country.
Those in the media,
and then these so-called CIA analysts they are talking about,
they are always represented and presented to the viewers
as the unintended consequences.
I mean, they don't even say, "
"OK, we did help blow this thing up."
But let's say they armed it, and we didn't know.
The usual storyline.
"And look, all these things happen, and they're horrifying"
while all along the intended consequences
are events that take place long after, let's say,
a building being blown up
or 50 people getting killed.
And that's what we are talking about.
And in no way those can be considered as blowback
because they are absolutely intended.
Because when that chaos is taking place,
then the next things comes as a result of that,
and then these other two countries get involved,
and as a result of that, let's say, another country which says,
"You know what? Now we are really going to, let's say,"
"put our candidacy to become a member of NATO."
And as a result of that, this and this happens.
It's like a chess board.
And you want to look at the move that's gonna come
eight moves after the first move
in order to go and execute, or achieve what you want to achieve.
Not the first, initial things that take place
with the first or the second move.
And for those to be considered blowback,
is the fiction that, unfortunately,
almost everyone -- except for you guys
and a handful of other who I call the Irate Minority
real informed people, people don't know.
And I always try to give these examples and say,
if a certain action, modus operandi
results in unintended consequences...
Let's say this was talked about a lot after 9/11, saying...
"Oh, well, we supported the mujahideens in Afghanistan."
"In early '80s, late '70s. We armed them, we trained them."
"Including Osama Bin Laden; including Zawahiri."
And then those people turned around
and started doing these kinds of things.
And those were unintended.
So let's say what they say
-- this is the Deep State; this is the mainstream media;
this is the so-called CIA analyst,
these are the so-called CIA dissenters such as people like Mike Scheuer --
anonymously writing the blowback-related stories, fiction,
being marketed as non-fiction,
let's say if they were true, OK?
Well, think about it: any person,
any sane person, average normal person, would say,
"I did this, and these things came out of it -- unintended things."
So, you learn a lesson: you don't go and repeat it ten times again
after seeing these supposed unintended consequences.
But on the other hand, if you look at the reality
and say, OK, for the past 30 or 40 years,
how we repeat exactly the same script, the same scenario,
the same operations,
and getting the similar kind of blowback,
the reactions, eight steps later,
then you have to stop and say,
"Well, really, is that unintended?"
Because as the saying goes,
"Fool me once, shame on you."
"Fool me twice, shame on me."
I mean, you can't keep doing the same thing.
You do that with mujahideen: "Oops! Blowback!"
Then you go and you get these cells
you take then to Turkey from Syria
-- These cells from Syria --
You train them, you arm them,
you put them there, back into Syria.
You do the same thing with another cell:
take them to Jordan, train and arm them, put there,
knowing that, OK, they have...
or selecting, intentionally, extremists.
And then events take place, and say,
"Oops! That was unintended."
"Because our intention was getting this, really, just like mujahideen"
And all the other groups that we have used,
we consider them the freedom fighters.
For how long the United States media glorified the mujahideen
That includes Osama bin Laden as their commando, Zawahiri, in the '80s.
If you go and get the archives -- the newspaper articles, OK? --
all the clips from NPR, from CNN,
what you see is, they were glorified.
Nobody even put anything like "Islamists" or "extremists"
or any of those adjectives in association with these people.
They were the great freedom fighters.
They made Americans, all of them, cheer for mujahideen.
The fact that they had... they were stoning women, or doing...
which they did, during those years as well.
They were never exposed, because those were irrelevant.
They were the glorified freedom fighters.
Liberation armies, right?
And then, lo and behold:
one day they all turned to these awful, ferocious terrorists and al-Qaeda.
And their commandos became the top terrorists in the world,
with these extreme belief system and religious...
all those things happen: "Oops!" Those were like, "Ooh, we were caught"
"and we were shocked; and we were so surprised"
-- supposedly.
Again, we are doing the same thing.
We have been doing the same things.
Take these people, arm them, train them, manage them.
And then later come and say, "Oops!"
"Look at what these people are doing."
"They are extremists. We did not..."
"We did not account for these kinds of reaction,"
"and these kinds of practices by these people."
So therefore, in no way these operations
and the consequences of the operations,
can be considered blowback.
And then, the lastly, the most important thing to look at is:
Who benefits? Who benefits from these operations?
And the intended consequences.
Well, whoever is the puppet President
--whether it's Obama or Reagan --
they don't really, personally benefit from these.
It's not about the President.
it's not about a political party, or the Republican Party:
because of that, they got rich or they became powerful.
No. So that... those are not the beneficiaries.
So the people on the ground,
people in Syria, or people in Afghanistan,
they're not the beneficiaries.
their homes have been wrecked,
and they have lost tens of thousands of people.
The American people haven't been better off.
And either financially or security-wise.
So take the American people's interests out of the equation.
Then you look at the map,
you look at the situation, and say,
who has become richer and more powerful,
as a result of this.
And what you see is, "Oh, look at this."
Without these wars, the sales and the stock prices
for the military-industrial complex
would just plunge. I mean,
think about a scenario where we don't have these wars.
We are not engaged in Syria and Afghanistan,
and with the drones in Pakistan and Yemen.
Who are they gonna sell it to, these drones and bombs?
And then, when you look at NATO,
and you look at the militaristic expansion,
and, let's say, with 9/11,
before 9/11, how many bases did we have in the region?
Whether it's in Eastern Europe, or you're looking at nations like Azerbaijan,
I know they shut it down, but Manas Airbase in Kyrgyzstan:
look at how close they are to Russia.
Now, what made these possible
was the event that took place here,
the operation that took place here in the United States, 9/11
that gave us that legitimacy -- even though it's not legitimate --
to say, "OK, we don't have the Cold War,"
"We don't have Russia,"
"but we need to expand our bases and take over these countries."
Again, those countries, with our military bases
in order to protect ourselves again a new enemy
the enemy that we create, put in place, and manage.
So therefore, that's when you're looking at
the intended consequences
War, and who benefits from that.
How many military bases Russia has put in place,
created, put in place,
since the Cold War ended?
How many military bases China has put in place, created
and expanded and...
you don't see these.
But take a look at the United States,
and then start putting it with the cover, legitimacy that they have done.
It's always in the name of a great enemy
that we have militaristically
put these bases in these countries,
taken over these countries and their regimes,
or installing their regimes.
Therefore, without these operations,
without these wars, without these consequences,
we couldn't.
So this is how you, or anyone, could start
putting the two and two together, and say,
my father always taught me this, when I was six, seven, eight years old.
He said, "Whenever you look at any wars,"
"really look and see who benefits from it."
And it's never the case of people.
It's not ever the case of those, let's say, American soldiers
who are losing their lives doing these
atrocious things overseas.
Then who benefits/
And once you get that answer
and start to pinpoint the beneficiaries,
that's when you can in-depth, truly understand
what these wars, or these terror incidents, or these conflicts are about.
That was a long answer. [laughter]
(Tom) Well, yeah. And I suppose I'll just hand you over to Pearse here.
Because I could pick up on a dozen things that you just said.
Pearse, I know you wanted to kind of carry on on this topic of...
(Pearse) Yeah.
(Tom) Not necessarily blowback, but,
consequences of where this thing's going.
(Pearse) Well, yeah, I guess with everything that you've just been saying, Sibel,
and taking The Lone Gladio as kind of a road map for how this works
-- and again, it takes place around 2003,
so we can see how this is starting to form --
but it seems that right now we're sort of starting
to reach a new level, perhaps
within the Gladio operation.
And I guess my big question is,
what is the end-game scenario for Gladio B?
Or, even if there is one?
Because at some point
-- it's already happening to a slight degree
in places like Azerbaijan or Kyrgyzstan --
we're seeing a lot of these mercenaries trained by NATO returning.
Now, if one of the major goals of Gladio B
is the exploitation of natural resources,
like oil and gas,
and about encircling Russia,
how are... at what point does this become untenable
if you've got these jihadis running all over the place?
And kind of fleshing that out a little bit,
a lot of The Lone Gladio revolves around Turkey.
And I was recently talking with Christoph Germann on our new show,
and he was mentioning that more and more analysts
are starting to come around to the idea
that Turkey is entering this Pakistan-ization
where it's being broken up into these little areas
like Gaziantep or Hatay, which are right on the border
or Suruç, where Serena Shim was recently murdered
and they're starting to resemble more and more
places like Peshawar in the 1980s and 1990s.
And again, the relationship between MIT,
the Turkish intelligence and ISIS
is somewhat similar to the ISI and the Taliban.
So I guess, is that really the direction that NATO and the CIA and MI6,
-- the Deep State network -- want to go in?
Because it seems as if they're playing
a very dangerous game here.
And if Turkey really did become... like, a Pakistan-type scenario,
is that really an intended consequence of this?
I know, I don't want to keep bringing back...
(Sibel) No, absolutely. Absolutely, it is.
Because you have to look at the last, let's say, 8-10 years
of what's been happening with Turkey.
Having countries...
-- especially the countries that we control, our allies:
in this case, you just said Pakistan: very similar. --
having countries weak and not unified,
with lots of internal chaos...
let's say in Turkey,
a Turkey that has a lot of things going on with the Kurdish sects.
The Kurds executing some terror operations,
the atrocity of Turkish militaries against the Kurds,
all the internal chaos created by that division
between the Kurdish sects and the rest of Turkey.
Then, to have other pockets.
Division along the extremist religious people there,
versus the secular.
That's what we have always intended and we wanted...
-- and we want: this continues --
for countries that are allies.
A strong, unified nation,
especially for Middle East,
for a strategically, geographically strategic nation,
is something that we never want.
We never want it.
We want Iraq that is divided between Shia and Sunnis and Kurds.
Because that makes Iraq much weaker,
therefore much more susceptible to be a puppet nation.
To take over, to take over their oil.
Same thing with Pakistan.
Same thing with Turkey.
Now, what has been scaring...
because there has been so much
going on with the mainstream media reporting on Turkey
in the past five, six years here in the United States,
is a government that they don't like,
and a country that has started becoming economically strong.
If you look at what has been happening,
or what really happened with Europe in 2008, 2009 and 2010,
and turn around and look at what has...
-- economically, I'm talking about --
what has been happening during the same years,
those same years, in Turkey,
you see Turkey was one of the only nations there in the region
that with economy that actually got stronger and better
without all the havoc that was taking place in Europe.
That's number one.
Number two: you see what happened with the protests.
The Gezi protests and all the chaos
that were completely scripted and implemented in Turkey
by the United States, by the Gladio operation
being defeated. Because they... and there was so much coverage
when they were talking about the elections coming
and Erdoğan was not gonna be elected.
But Turkey still stood unified,
and they re-elected this guy.
So I'm not saying this guy is good or is bad.
We never, ever, in the Middle East, intend to have
any allies that can be strong and unified.
So taking countries and making sure
that they are bogged down by all these divisions
and internal conflicts between various sects,
either along the religious lines, Sunni versus Shia,
or along race, or along the ideologies:
that has been the recipe of...
and again, this is really interesting because, Tom,
this is something that we took from...
-- I don't want to say "inherited..." --
but took from the Brits, the British Empire.
(Tom) Sure.
(Sibel) Because that has always been the modus operandi
of the British Empire. The divide and conquer.
And that has been, even in Iran,
it's always been the tool utilized and the modus operandi
put in place and practiced by the British Empire,
and it is now part of the Gladio and the United States' modus operandi.
So for... we don't want a strong Turkey.
We don't want a peaceful, unified Turkey.
We do not want a strong Iraq.
I mean, one of the...
look at, when we were taking over Iraq...
-- the war against Iraq, and then Saddam, and going in there --
one of the things that made it much easier...
-- and the chaos that's going on there, currently, is completely intended --
was the country was not one country.
In the north, you had these whole big Kurds who are against Saddam
they have had their internal wars for years and years
between Saddam and the Kurds.
In the south, we had the Shias.
And in the center, we had the Sunnis.
And even during the First Gulf War,
that, again, was used:
with the Kurds in the north and the Shias in the south,
and, look: all the people that got massacred and killed
and from all three sides.
but that's exactly what we want.
And that's exactly what the British Empire wanted before
when they re-drew the maps of the entire region
and that includes, even, Africa.
The maps were drawn in such a way
that would keep these countries to prosper, the region,
and to be unified, and to be peaceful.
These maps, the borders,
were all drawn and created
based on the division and the dividing lines
between the tribes, between various religious sects.
So absolutely, this is intended.
And as far as to what end,
this is why the book gets into, well, Operation Gladio B
will be Operation Gladio C at some point
and Gladio C will be Gladio D
because one region you don't hear American media talking about
it China and the Xinjiang region.
They call it [East] Turkestan, they call it Uyghuristan.
The Uyghurs, well, these are the Muslim minorities
in that region of China.
And they are Turkic heritage,
and we don't hear much about that.
But that is in the plan.
That is part of Operation Gladio.
And what we want, basically, is...
and that's what's gonna happen.
You're gonna see this happening
in the next, I would say, less than five, six years.
You see, once in a while, they talk about the US media
how oppressive the Chinese regime is against these people.
You know, these people, they don't consider themselves Chinese.
They consider themselves Muslims.
They consider themselves Uyghurs.
They consider themselves Turkic.
Their language is Turkic, OK?
They want independence.
Well, we have been cultivating that for the past...
since 1997, 1996 there, OK?
And what we want is
we want some of these terror incidents
and the escalation of that,
and getting China to increase its oppression and react,
because China wants to [xx] they just want to defend their interests,
then show that to the international community by saying,
"Look, these poor little minority groups there,"
"They are being crucified. They are being massacred"
"It's almost like genocide."
They want this genocidal operation,
they want it to escalate to the point of genocidal operations,
they want to push China into reacting
and turning this into a genocidal operations.
So then, with the consent of the international community,
we go there, in there, and say we are here to stand by the sects
because we are such great nation.
We care a lot [laughter]
about humanity.
And we always have these great intentions.
It's always because we want to democrat---
we bring democracy and democratize a nation.
We want to protect some underdog.
We want to defend some minority groups
because we are that kind of nation, guys.
OK? That's what we always, always have done, right?
You know, it's always glorified.
We always intend good things.
And look, bad things happen as a result: but they are unintended.
Again, going back to "blowback."
But once we have that,
once we have a situation escalate
and we are pushing it to that degree
-- this is all planned: it's been in motion since 1996 --
then we're gonna say, "We've got to help these guys,"
"so we've got to put our military there,"
and it's going to be another Taiwan.
That's the intention, OK?
That's the objective.
We want to separate Xinjiang area from the rest of mainland China.
We will put a base there, in the name of protecting these minorities,
and we're gonna turn it to another Taiwan.
That is the ultimate goal.
And look and see where Xinjiang is:
not only for us to get close to China just the way we are doing with Russia,
with using the Caucasus and Central Asia,
this is the start for us with this Xinjiang region
to exactly implement the same objective, the same plan
and get close to China and close in on China.
So, that's number one.
And number two, if you look at the pipeline scenario
-- this is for the oil and gas --
the oil and gas resource-rich regions of Central Asia and Caucasus,
when you look at Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan, et cetera,
and you see all the business deals
between China and these Central Asia/Caucasus,
ex-Soviet nations...
--because how many billion people are in China? --
China has the greatest need for energy resources
compared to any other nation in the world.
They need this oil, they need this gas,
and they are putting all these pipelines to bring...
-- with business deals --
this needed gas and oil into China. Into mainland china.
Well, go and see where these pipelines pass through.
Then you start realizing the significance of the Xinjiang region.
So by having our power, our military boots on the ground,
our base there in Xinjiang,
not only we are controlling getting close to China,
but we are sitting in the section
that is the [xx] that the pipelines entry into mainland China.
We can starve and deprive China of all oil and gas
coming from that region by sitting there.
So that's the area you don't hear much from the mainstream media, US,
even though so much has been taking place.
They only broadcast when China reacts to some terror incidents that we manage
-- "we" being the United States, Operation Gladio --
by the Xinjiang Uyghurs, and show how despotic they are.
You know, they go there and they are oppressing people, repressing people,
they are killing people, they are jailing people,
awful stuff that China is doing to these people, right?
We don't show the casualties of when these groups, our groups,
implement terror operations in mainland China,
but we right away broadcast what China did.
So we are basically massaging the peoples,
Americans and also international communities,
and even especially the Muslim region,
of, "Look, what is China doing to these people?"
The same thing we've been doing with,
"Look what Russians are doing to Chechens!'
Exactly the same scenario.
It's the same Operation Gladio.
And again, when you said, "To what end?"
That's... we are... we have these objectives in place.
Not "we:" the Operation; the Operation Gladio.
And China and getting close,
controlling the entry of the needed oil and gas into China
thus containing China from becoming the superpower,
is in motion. And the same thing with Russia.
And of course we have the prize there that we haven't done anything.
That's for the next administration.
Right now, we have Syria. We had Libya before that.
Yemen, Afghanistan with... we're gonna stay there.
Of course that's gonna be our permanent base.
There's no question about that.
Pakistan is our puppet region.
Of course, these regions sometimes play off of US against China.
"OK, so you do this, then I'm gonna go and make a deal with China."
Well, we don't want that, right?
And again, that ends up being some headlines once in a while,
but the importance of it is way beyond what the US media
represents in its reporting.
So of course the prize being Iran there.
And between Central Asia, Caucasus,
Iran, Afghanistan,
the goal is whoever controls the resources,
the needed resources: the oil, the gas, the needed minerals --
that is the superpower.
That is the sole empire of the globe, the world.
And we have been doing it through Operation Gladio,
and of course with our more militaristic covert wars.
But then look at our competitors,
supposedly our enemies,
China and Russia:
we haven't seen anything like that from them.
And so that is our modus operandi,
and that is the objective.
The objective is who is going to be the sole superpower,
the super-empire.
And as long as that's the objective,
these are the things we're gonna be doing.
(Pearse) Hmm. And I think that you're really right in pointing out that this is...
the situation in Xinjiang right now is actually starting
to get more, sort of, intense;
and we're already seeing Uyghurs
that were fighting in Iraq that were captured.
And it seems that perhaps
we are entering into a different phase of Gladio.
And just briefly, I just wanted to take your take on
Tarkhan Batirashvili or Omar al-Shishani,
who is the "Ginger Jihadi."
And he seems to have been thrust into the spotlight of ISIS.
There was a Daily Beast article calling him "The Bin Laden of the Group."
Of course, and then a little bit down in the article they say,
"Well, his brother is really the brains behind all of this."
And Batirashvili has a somewhat similar background
to a character in The Lone Gladio, Yusuf Mohammed
and we'll leave that to the audience to decipher who is is.
But of course, Batirashvili was trained by the Americans
in a Georgian Special Forces outfit,
fought against the Russians in Chechnya,
and he has repeatedly said that he wants
to bring the fight back to Kadyrov and Putin,
with not so much as a peep out of Georgia.
So I just wanted to see and get your take on this, Sibel.
And is this a, sort of, new ramping up?
Are we going to go from the small-scale attacks like in The Lone Gladio,
like the bombing in the Defense Ministry in the beginning of the book,
to a more, sort of, open war with Russia?
And with, perhaps, this Batirashvili -- this white jihadi guy -- at the forefront?
(Sibel) My answer, I guess, will have three different segments into it.
Number one, that's right: you mentioned the character Yusuf Mohammed.
But the biography, the summary short biography that you just mentioned,
fits exactly Ayman Zawahiri's.
Mm.
OK? Ayman Zawahiri was jailed; he was tortured.
Then he went there and became the lieutenant for Osama Bin Laden
and was fighting against Russia in... with mujahideen cell in Afghanistan.
So you... as you said, you're looking at the repeated bios.
So these are the... the profiles are so consistent.
See, that's one of the other interesting things
about the United States and NATO,
the Operation Gladio,
and that is the consistency.
Really, you may see some small variations here and there,
but if you look at it overall,
the script is the same. The scenario is the same.
I mean, in a way: it's awful, but it's also boring.
But guess what?
If it works, if it ain't break, don't fix it, right?
That's how the saying goes?
It worked with Afghanistan,
it worked with... it has been working.
So why change it, right?
So that's number one aspect of it.
That the bios being exactly consistent as the rest of them.
you know, Zawahiri and Yusuf Mohammed.
And the second part of it
has to do with the psychological aspects of it.
And this is the psychological warfare,
and also propaganda.
And that is when you put... let's say you have an enemy cell.
ISIS, ISIS, right? They are doing these ferocious things.
It goes only so far.
Of course, let's say, look at the Americans' opinion:
these barbaric Muslims -- they are Islamists, number one.
"This is what Islam advocates,"
"and these barbaric extremists, they're doing all this stuff. "
Goes... it's effective; but it goes only so far.
What you always need in a psychological warfare and propaganda
is to put a human, actual human face and name to it.
Because then, that makes it so personal, right?
Because, as we did with Osama Bin Laden.
Showing the picture of that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
That evil-looking guy, you know? He's crazy, right?
"MOOONSTER!"
So we associate, when we think about the Americans...
you know, people,
then we are thinking about these horrifying boogeymen.
If we don't have, put some pictures there...
you know, it's like Freddy Krueger, right?
Freddy Kruger. I mean, you can write all the stories about Freddy Krueger,
but if you don't create an image that goes with Freddy Krueger,
Freddy Krueger can't become that monstrously scary, right?
So Osama Bin Laden, with that long beard and the dark, piercing black eyes,
that screams evil, and you have Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, that crazed guy there.
And then you are looking at Ayman Zawahiri,
and the photos when he's talking passionate with his index finger up,
you know, the extremist Islamist mullah with his headpiece.
Well, those are effective.
Because just like Hollywood movies, just like Freddy Krueger,
you need to have a human face and name
that you make it synonymous with whatever cell
you have created and put in place, right?
And that's exactly what we are seeing with this guy.
Because ISIS, ISIL, IS -- they did this? OK, that's fine.
But now it's time to enter, to bring in
and introduce the face that represents it all.
Now, you have [xx] this person.
So that's the second segment.
And as far as yet bigger war,
I think we are putting things in place for that if needed,
but I will offer my own hypothesis theory.
Because I don't know this for a fact,
but if someone were to ask me to speculate
and say when and why... when we would do such things,
in terms of going into full-blown war,
this is what I have to offer.
Again, this is based on my own analysis and opinion,
and I'm not going to market it as, "Oh, this is pure fact."
This is my opinion.
First of all, we are going to see much more stuff
with Georgia, Abkhazia region.
We had that -- what was it? -- six-day war, eight-day war a few years ago?
That was just a warm-up.
But with Georgia's candidacy, integration into NATO that is coming,
that is going to happen in that region.
We're gonna see more conflict and confrontation there.
Similar to Ukraine, we're gonna see it in the Abkhazia region there.
And again, these terror cells and the groups,
we have already cultivated, put together, put in place,
we've been managing in that region.
We got a little bit of taste of that during
the so-called false flag Boston bombing.
People started hearing,
at least their ears got a little bit used to,
this "Dagestan" region?
[laughter]
You see?
Because ordinarily, most Americans: they don't like geography, OK?
They like to view the world as this... the United States of America.
OK? It's huge.
Look, Turkey's the size of Texas, right?
Well, I don't even know where Turkey exactly is.
We are a big country,
we are just by ourselves here.
There are some countries and nations with weird names, oh,
thousands of miles away.
Who needs to know about them?
If you were to ask Americans,
I would say 94 percent -- I'm just gonna throw a number here --
if you put the map and say,
"OK, put your finger on the region that is considered Caucasus/Central Asia,"
I can guarantee you, if we were to implement this test,
You would see that 94% of Americans,
their index finger would freeze in the air.
"What?" "Can you show me Kyrgyzstan?" "What's that?"
I mean, I'll just give you a quick... it's not a joke, it's a real-life thing.
When I started college, university here in the United States --
and this is during my second, third year, so this is not in high school
this is in college-level
this one guy in my class, he says, "You're from Turkey, right?"
I said, "Yeah, I'm from Turkey."
He says, "Turkey is in Saudi Arabia, right?"
"One of the nations in Saudi Arabia?"
And I was like, "Oh my goodness."
They have made Saudi Arabia a continent,
And Turkey a nation in that continent called Saudi Arabia.
But unfortunately
-- this is a fact; this is true, OK? --
we... I spent years living in other countries.
I lived in Vietnam for a year.
I lived in Russia in 1992, right after the end of the Cold War.
And I have traveled to a lot of places, to many, many countries.
But when it comes to geography, with Americans,
I never... I'm still amazed, OK? It is just...
and then I traveled... another thing I noticed, like, when I was
when I was there, when I was in Vietnam,
I saw all these backpackers from Scandinavian nations
Australia, New Zealand, a lot of Brits.
You know, they are 21, right out of college.
Or they are taking a break from college.
And they have their backpacks, and they are traveling all over Laos and Vietnam.
And I struck a friendship with a lot of these people.
You hardly see Americans doing that.
There is this inherent desire to explore the world by some of those nations.
But you don't see it much for Americans.
That's another thing: that worldliness which reduces xenophobia.
When you start getting more familiar,
the culture and other traditions and people and races,
that kind of reduces your xenophobia,
but also it makes you an informed person about the world.
It makes you worldly. Well, you don't see that much in America.
So, going back to the topic of Kyrgyzstan,
"I don't even know where that is,"
we are going to see this conflict.
We have already planted that.
We said, "Let's make Americans familiar with this name Dagestan"'
Dagestan and terrorism have become kind of synonymous
thanks to the Boston bombing.
So Chechen, Dagestan, these people came,
they're extremists.
They're somehow related
to either al-Qaeda or Jamaati [sic: Jabhat?] al-Nusra... whatever.
But that region has many, many terrorists, OK?
We are going to reintroduce that topic again as a nation,
as Operation Gladio, when the time comes, which is going to be soon
in Georgia, Abkhazia region.
But as far as a bigger war with Russia,
I doubt it under current circumstances. That's my opinion,
because of Putin and who Putin is.
And again, Putin's rating went up in Russia,
and Putin's popularity really went up there.
And Putin has been portrayed, even here by US media,
as a tough, nationalistic leader in Russia, right?
Because Putin is standing up to the United States.
He did -- he and the Russians --
when we were talking about going into Syria two years ago, right?
And of course what we saw with Ukraine.
My theory is just like the limited opposition framed and controlled,
I believe there is... we have Putin tied,
and into a certain degree, Putin can only do it so much.
And you're going to say, why that is?
One of, again, our modus operandi has been...
-- and you see it a lot in Operation Gladio-related sections
of The Lone Gladio --
is blackmail and collecting crap, shit from people, right?
I mean, we do it with Congress.
Even with the FBI we did it. FBI had files on some top figures in the House.
Just in the operation that involved Turkey and the Turkish lobby, right?
That was involved in my case.
but CIA has been doing it forever,
since its inception and creation.
There are some Presidents, and we do that.
Otherwise they won't become President.
That's one of the qualifications, requirements.
And again, the book The Lone Gladio goes into that.
To be qualified to get to that level,
to that level of power seat,
you have to have a lot of dirt, OK?
That makes you a viable candidate.
because you are controllable.
If you don't have lots of skeletons and dirt,
you are not as easily controllable.
It's pure and simple. Well we've been doing that with, also, world leaders.
It just came out and leaked that, OK,
we've been collecting dirt on Angela Merkel, right?
With this NSA spying: her personal phones were being listened to, correct?
Well, why would we do that? Think about it.
Because at any given time...
let's say someone like Angela Merkel, if she was not the scumbag that she is, OK?
And we decided that you know, Germany, or this country or that country,
is not backing us with this,
what would happen if we...
-- "We," the United States; Operation Gladio --
would release to the media in France, or in Germany, or in UK?
All sorts of recorded tapes,
and also maybe some Internet activities
showing that this particular leader is a pedophile, OK?
Let's say... you know, let's say Sarkozy.
I'm just giving you a hypothetical example.
What would happen if all these pictures come out
that Sarkozy has been having
this relationship with five, six-years-old boys
and, through... and he's been a pedophile?
Can you imagine right away that leader not disappearing from that country?
We have that power, because we've been... we've been doing this a lot.
We first use what we collect on the world leaders in terms of blackmail
by saying, "You know what? You don't do this and we will expose this."
OK? Number two, if needed, we would do that.
Some things happen with the Bakayev family in Kyrgyzstan
A lot of things are associated with that that I'm not gonna get into right now.
But with Putin, it's already estimated that his net worth, his wealth,
is way over $500 million dollars, OK?
Where is his money? As of 2003, 2004 --
and this is based on direct, first/second-hand information
from people within intelligence community
a lot of his wealth is kept in the Greek portion of Cyprus, the banks there.
And they're... so if intelligence agencies,
CIA, and even through counterintelligence monitoring FBI,
knows and has all the information
about where Putin keeps some of his wealth,
or if some other leader keeps it in Dubai,
this ones keeps it -- let's say, hypothetically speaking,
Putin keeps it in certain banks in Malta?
OK? Malta is another important place.
Nobody talks about it,
but in terms of the money laundering and the financial operations center
and in Cyprus.
And if this were to come out in Russia -- how did he get this wealth, OK?
Because this is the nation's wealth that leaders go and take out, right?
In countries like... whatever countries that you look at.
And where they are kept.
They can...
-- and this is the Operation Gladio,
this is the United States, this is the UK --
they can make Putin a scandalous leader
and take away all his popularity
in less than a day, if they wanted to.
If they wanted to.
So you are looking at a leader, let's say in Russia, that has to
balance... has to balance two things.
Number one, to appeal to the nationalistic side of its nation
Because any leader of Russia has to kind of be tough
when it comes to the Western powers, right?
Because it was not that long ago
when Russia was the Soviet Union.
It was the second empire in the world.
It was the Western empire, and it was the Soviet Union, OK?
So in order to stay in power,
that leader has to appeal and maintain that faith of the people there,
that he's tough, and he can stand up.
He's not a butler, OK? He's not weak.
He can stand up to the United States.
He can growl and say, "Rawwwrr!" OK?
Or maybe bark a little bit, and say, "Woof, woof!" OK?
But, he won't bite.
Because then that leader has to balance it.
Because we know Russia has a lot of corrupt people.
We know that. I lived there for a year, OK?
And I know how a lot of top-level KGB, former KGB people
got to be some of the top business people we hear about today,
with hundreds of million or billion dollars net worth.
So that... you need a leader that can growl,
that can bark a little bit when the situation arises,
and appeal to his people's nationalistic tendencies.
They still have that pride, Russians.
But yet, do it to a certain degree,
and not totally piss off and totally stand up to
the Western nations that have the blackmail power.
That have the power to expose him, OK?
That is, I believe, what we see with Putin.
We do see some really nice-looking growling,
and a little woof-woof,
but Putin is not going to bite.
And as long as Putin is in this position,
I don't believe that we are going to see a full-blown war with Russia.
It's not gonna happen, because another thing you should look at is,
ask yourself,
and I'm gonna ask, because you both
are experts with this whole area and the region,
how come Russia really hasn't done anything in the past 15 years
when the United States and NATO has been closing in to Russia's borders
by taking over Azerbaijan,
you know, until last year, Manas, Kyrgyzstan;
Georgia, OK?
And you start looking at all this, and say, "Whoa!"
Think about it!
Why, for the past 14, 15 years, Russia hasn't become really antsy.
Saying, "Well, these are my backdoor neighbors."
"They're right there on my border."
Think about it: why not?
Let me put it on the other hand and say,
what would happen...
imagine, what would happen if Russia starts building closer relationship
-- business relationship; militaristically, relationship --
with Mexico,
and starts coming to Mexico and put a huge base there
with 15,000 boots on the ground in the base, with Mexico?
Oh, it would be chaos!
Can you imagine?
First of all, we would not, as United States, let it get to that point, right?
And even as a notion would arise,
we would start using what power we have with Mexico, right?
And do everything: that would not happen.
It would not happen. Not...
or in Canada, OK?
Or even let's go further:
what would happen if, Russia says,
"Now I'm gonna go and put a base,"
"because I have now put this relationship,"
because a lot of these nations, all you have to do is make a contract,
business contract for $15 billion dollars,
you have the country and its leader.
And I'm gonna put it in Panama, OK? Where the canal is. ;
Put myself strategically in that situation.
Can you imagine that being allowed?
It wouldn't even come close to implementation.
Now, let's go back to the other side.
How come, for the last 15 years,
Russia has not made a peep, sound, about the United States, NATO,
going and putting all these bases in all these countries right along its borders?
Why?
[laughter]
(Pearse) I actually don't know,
because I see it as...
with Abkhazia and now South Ossetia,
that Russia might sort of be saying, "If you're gonna keep moving,"
"Then we'll take these little tiny areas,"
"And what are the Georgians going to do?"
But I don't know. I'd like to hear your...
(Sibel) That's right.
But that would be similar, it would be parallel to saying,
we would let Russia to come and put this bases in, let's say, in Mexico,
and then if Russia starts coming towards Texas
and do something right along the Texas border,
then US may flex its muscle.
But we would never let that happen in the first place,
to put ourselves in that vulnerable situation.
And even the stupidest Russian general, Russian strategic analyst,
they would know from 15 years ago
that putting these bases by US and NATO in Kyrgyzstan and Azerbaijan,
that would definitely lead to what we saw happening with Ukraine, OK?
Because the preparation for this started taking place in mid-'90s.
When after the fall of the Soviet Union,
we started seeing with Eastern Europe and all these nations,
we're gonna get closer and closer and closer:
during this entire period of 20 years, almost,
Russia and Russian leaders...
and we know what kind of Russian leaders we had even before Putin, right?
Gorbachev? Very nationalistic, you think?
Russia sat there and let the United States and NATO
closing up on it, right?
And closing in, closing in, and now we saw the stuff with Ukraine,
and then we're gonna be seeing with Georgia.
But it was allowed to happen.
They didn't stand up and say, "Whoa-whoa-whoa-whoa-whoa!"
"Over my dead body! You're not coming this close!"
They didn't.
Meaning, Russia never went to war for any of these places,
the colonizations that we have been putting in place in that region.
We didn't need to have any war with Russia.
We didn't even have any kind of a posturing war with Russia.
It happened, very easily. Smooth sail.
Thus, this is why I'm thinking
that the chances of having a full-blown war with Russia is highly unlikely,
unless, unless, we have been reading the notion and the fact
that there is a revival of nationalism in Russia.
That people, they're... the segment, the nationalistic segment saying, OK,
initially, at the end of Cold War, I went to Russia.
I lived there for almost a year.
It was this huge desire of Westernization,
especially in Saint Petersburg and Moscow.
I arrived in Moscow from Saint P, because my base was in Saint Petersburg,
on the day that the first McDonald's opened In Moscow,
in this big center there.
And as we were approaching
that downtown section where McDonald's opened,
the traffic was just stood still.
They had this line -- and it was a very big McDonald's building --
there was this line that wrapped around this McDonald's building for the opening
that was, like, going around about 14, 15 times.
And if you would stand them up in one linear line,
you would see almost quarter mile of a line in front of the first McDonald's.
It was a huge deal, OK?
I mean, it was...
it was during the shock stage of the Soviet Union disappearing.
People didn't know what to think.
They had this desire of openness, they can wear the...
they can have lipstick. They can go and buy this lipstick.
You don't have to buy it from the black market.
And then the country was saturated with all these vultures
from the US and from Europe.
Who were there to take away things quickly, while things were cheap.
There was this US group that was buying
the high-value downtown real estate.
There was no regulation.
I mean, it was total chaos,
and the Western nations were taking advantage of it.
They were just placing themselves,
they were putting their boots, business boots, on the ground.
But the Russians were just too baffled.
They were excited about all the Western things.
They were a bit shocked: they couldn't believe that the Soviet Union was over.
And so that era of shock and awe for them
started kind of wearing off around 2002, 2003.
Now, gradually, we are seeing, to a certain degree,
this revival of nationalism in Russia, by people who are...
and maybe ex-generals,
maybe some other ex-intelligence figures from KGB era
that are seeing the fact that their mother nation is being surrounded.
And they are looking, maybe, at Putin,
and saying, "How could you let this happen?"
OK? And it's the Russian pride.
So if, for example, Putin is toppled,
and we see a more real, nationalistic leader come into power,
then, sure: I would say, then it would be likely to see some direct confrontation
with Russia. But as of now, with Putin, with his limited woof and bark,
I would say no: it's not likely. It's not.
If it were going to happen, we would have seen it even with Ukraine.
(Pearse) Yeah.
We just saw some level of posturing.
And it made him look taller, and his rating went up.
But then I was reading just last week,
that it's been going gradually down again.
Because it gave hope
to that nationalistic feeling on the ground in Russia
that yeah, they're... our leader is standing up!
We're not gonna let this happen!
But, it happened.
Really, with Ukraine, if you see, it really happened.
And I think it's also important to note that at the end of the day,
many of these people, while they might be confrontational in public,
are essentially working towards the same end goals
and, you know, the really, really independent leaders...
-- people like Gaddafi or the former President of the Ivory Coast --
you know, those people are taken out.
They're really... they're just murdered and overthrown.
You know, any sort of independent leader like that.
So you know, you do have to wonder sometimes.
But I know we've been talking now for quite a while,
and Tom, you've been a little quiet,
so before we wrap up, Tom,
do you have any quick questions you'd like to ask Sibel?
(Tom) No, but I am thinking about this subject
and this question that you've raised,
and I'm not 100 percent convinced -- I'll say that much -- but...
it is an interesting question.
Maybe that would be a good place to kick off
a further conversation on this,
because we've perhaps got to the end of our conversation
about The Lone Gladio per se
but a lot of this stuff that's spinning out from this conversation, I think,
is certainly worthy of greater discussion.
And I'd be interested to see how our differing approaches
kind of, how we could marry them together,
and at least delineate differences between our perspectives on this.
so, I mean, yeah. Perhaps we'll leave it here,
and hopefully in the near future, the three of us can explore this again.
Because I do think we're starting to, now,
get into some really interesting territory.
But again, I'd like to thank both of you guys
for joining me today. It was a wonderful conversation.
(Pearse) And quickly, Sibel: where can they find
The Lone Gladio? Where can they find your work?
(Sibel) Sure. The Lone Gladio is available via Amazon,
both print book and also electronically through Kindle.
but people who don't want to deal with Amazon,
they can purchase it directly from the website TheLoneGladio.com
and they can have, even, signed copies.
So those are the two top places, and easiest places,
for people to obtain, purchase, The Lone Gladio
But even if they just go to TheLoneGladio.com website,
they will see the links from there
to all the other channels where they can get the book,
either electronically or in print.
(Pearse) And Tom, I'm sure that almost all my listeners
know where to find your work,
but we've always got new people coming,
so please, tell everybody about your website,
your podcast, and your novel as well.
Or -- excuse me! -- not a novel: book. [laughs]
(Tom) Sure. I mean, my main website is SpyCulture.com,
and on there you'll find links to my book about 7/7, Secret Spies and 7/7.
I also do an about fortnightly podcast called ClandesTime
that's available on Spy Culture and on YouTube.
So anybody who hasn't already checked that out, please do.
(Pearse) All right. well, thank you both, again, for joining,
and I hope we can pick this up again soon.
But thanks so much.
(Sibel) Thank you. Sorry for dominating the conversation.
So next time, I really want to hear your perspectives on this.
As I said, with some of the answers,
I have had only hypotheses or some theories to offer,
not as concrete fact,
so I would love to get your opinions on that.
And also, thank you for the opportunity.
it was great, thank you.
(Tom) Thank you Pierce, and thank you Sibel. it's been great talking to both of you.
(Pearse) OK, everybody.
So, that about does it for this episode of Porkins Policy Radio.
Thank you all for joining me and listening to this podcast.
And if you enjoyed this and you'd like to hear some more,
then please visit PorkinsPolicyReview.wordpress.com
And there you can find all of the podcasts free for download.
you can, of course, find them on YouTube also,
and if you use YouTube, then please, please subscribe to my YouTube channel,
which is YouTube.com/1138porkins
And also definitely follow me on Twitter @porkinspolicy,
and you can also follow the podcast through the RSS feed,
and also through email blasts as well.
And I just have a few quick programming notes before I completely sign off.
Just want to thank everybody who listened to the second episode
of me and Christoph Germann's new podcast,
Porkins Great Game.
We've gotten tremendous feedback and lots of hits on that episode.
So I'm really grateful for everybody that's been listening to it
and putting it up on social media, and whatnot like that.
And it's been really great.
And again, you can find that on the main site, as well as on YouTube.
And I just want to say one other quick thing.
And I know that I made a promise...
I believe it was actually the last time I spoke to Sibel
that I would have two episodes up on Porkins Policy Radio.
One dealing with Scientology,
and one dealing with Jim Jones and The People's Temple.
Well, I just want to say that I have not forgotten about that,
and I have been doing quite a bit of research on Jim Jones.
And I think that'll probably be the episode,
the next episode for Porkins Policy Radio.
So definitely stay tuned, and look out for that one on the horizon.
And again, we will be speaking with both Sibel and Tom again very soon,
and expand on some of the issues that we discussed, again, in this podcast.
So with that, I just want to thank everybody.
And again, if you liked this podcast, please tell a friend.
Email it to someone, put it up on your social media, whatever:
just help spread the word, because... and I just want to say, the fans have been...
the listeners are just fantastic.
Everyone has been promoting the show,
and it's really fantastic.
And a quick shout-out to James Corbett,
who included this podcast and me and Christoph's podcast
as one of the podcasts that he listens to in his Reddit AMA.
So that was very cool and very awesome,
and thanks so much, James.
So, I think we're there, we're gonna leave it,
and I will be talking to you very soon.
♪ [ Philip Glass – “Mishima/Closing” (Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters) ] ♪
[Subtitled by "Adjuvant"] [CC-BY 4.0]