Sibel Edmonds Explains Who's At The Top Of The Pyramid

SHOW NOTES: http://www.corbettreport.com/?p=7094

In this sixth part of the ongoing Sibel Edmonds Gladio B conversation, we ask the question: Who is at the top of the pyramid. We look beyond the usual suspects and follow the money back to the industries and lobbies whose existence depends on the perpetuation of boogeymen enemies.

Welcome, friends.

This is James Corbett
of CorbettReport.com,

and I am coming to you
on the 14th of March, 2013.

And today we are talking, once again,

on the line to Sibel Edmonds

for the next installment in our series

on Operation Gladio Plan B

and all of the things surrounding that...

well, twisted tale, to say the least.

And once again, for people who are

just joining this conversation now,

I will once again exhort you to start

from the beginning of this conversation

where we've been laying out now,

for the past five hours, a lot

of the different pieces of this puzzle

and answering some of your listener

and viewer questions on this.

So, without further ado,

let's bring Sibel right into this.

Sibel, once again, of
BoilingFrogsPost.com:

thank you again for your time today.

Thank you. Thank you, James.

Well, let's start into
what is really a topic

that everyone is fascinated by

and everyone likes to speculate about,

but there isn't always a lot of substance

behind that speculation.

So let's see what we can bring

to the table in terms of trying

to identify some of the groups

and some of the organizations that

are really puppeteering these things

that we've been talking about.

And I think it should be obvious

at this point to everyone out there

that has been following the conversation

at least this long that

it isn't the United States government

or any of the traditional power structures

that are really at the
top of this pyramid.

There are certainly institutions

and organizations and individuals

who are ensconced in that
government network,

but also above it and beyond it,

who are really the people

that are bringing this together.

But I want to start trying to see

how we can start identifying

some of those groups

and putting the finger

where it really needs to be pointed.

So, it's a broad topic.

I'm not sure how

you really want to start broaching it.

But what would you say to people

who are interested in...

where is the top of this structure?

What is really behind

this organizational pyramid?

Sure.

I would like to start with my father,

because he tried to teach me, or he tried

to get me engaged in critical thinking,

when we were in Iran

-- and this was during Iran and Iraq War.

And he was a lifelong anti-war activist:

I mean, truly, in action as well.

And so during this period,

I was about eleven years old;

ten-and-a-half and eleven years old.

And for some reason, this was

the period of time when

-- for some reason --

I had gotten into watching all these

classic war movies.

You know, The Great Escape, all those...

Paul Newman stuff, and Steve McQueen;

and all these World War II theme;

and the heroes, et cetera. And you have

the typical Hollywood storylines

and the happy ending;

and, in a way, war is glorified.

Even when they are showing
the painful aspect,

it is still glorified.

"This is a time where you can really"

"show off your heroic side," et cetera.

Anyhow, for some reason, I was into

watching those movies during that period.

And he... some people may call it

a type of child abuse.

I was very close to my dad,

and he was a great person.

I mean, he was always my role model.

He said, "Uh, let's go to hospital"

-- this is the hospital where he
was the director:

surgeon, and a director there --

"And I want to show you a few
patients of mine;"

"and I want you to see a few things"

"because of how you have gotten
into these war movies."

And he took me there,

and he took me to this entire section
of the hospital

that was for the war victims.

And he took me inside this one room;

and we entered this room; and

even before I could see what was lying

or who was lying on the hospital bed i

n this particular room,

could smell.

I mean, I could smell, like, fried food.

I could smell, like, burned meat.

As I got closer I saw this... I saw, this

about eight- or nine-months-old baby.

And he was... they said that 80 percent

of his body was burned.

And his skin had completely melted

and had become one with the clothes

that the baby was wearing at the time

when the bomb dropped in his house.

So... and the temperature

reached such level that his skin melted

and became one with the clothes.

So they couldn't even separate

the clothes from this baby's skin.

And his nose was completely melted, and

they had to drill two holes in his face;

and there were two tubes going there

giving this baby oxygen.

And it was a...

it was a heartbreaking, shocking sight

-- and especially for a child

who's eleven years old.

And for my father,

it was teaching a lesson.

He said, "You smell this? You see this?"

And the child, he couldn't

even make a sound and cry in pain,

because his lungs were all destroyed.

He didn't even have any...

much lungs left, you know?

And he said, "This is war."

"And I want you to think of this"

"whenever you think of war."

Now, we never get to see babies like that

on TV when we have our drone strikes

during the wars, et cetera.

But one other thing that my father

said during this session: and he said,

"Every time you hear the news;"

"or you hear, yourself, being
present there..."

-- because we heard some of the bombs

that were being dropped
during Iran-Iraq war --

and he said,

"When you hear those bombs falling or

read about them,

think about this guy sitting there and...

with a little abacus and saying,

"One bomb,"

"three-and-a-half-million dollar plus"

"-- for someone." OK?

And the cost of playing...

because somebody is winning.

And you have to always follow the money.

People sometimes like to distinguish

between power and money,

but it's not really separable:

because money is power, as we know.

There are many forms of power,

but money is power.

"And so when you..." he said,

"When you chase the dollar and money,"

"and follow the money,"

"where you get is... with wars..."

"and as far as the countries"

"and peoples are concerned"

"on both sides, you just see losers."

"That baby on the hospital bed, now;"

"that baby's parents;"

"that baby's parents' family,"

"financially; of Iran."

"Iraq: the same thing,
with people in Iraq."

However, there were winners in this war.

There were people who were able to make

a lot of money from the bombs

and the chemical weapons sold.

And we know where Saddam, at the time, got

got his chemical weapons;

and some of those were used

during Iran-Iraq war.

And my father got to treat

a lot of those patients,

those people who were affected.

They were burned by those

chemical weapons that Saddam used.

And atrocities were on both sides.

More than a million people died.

And there was no clear winner.

There was really...

there were losers-losers.

Nobody gained an inch of soil;

there was really nothing.

But at the end of it, somebody won.

And my father always asked me

to always chase, follow the money

and see, where does it end;

and who are the ultimate winners?

So I think that's a good place to start,

because in our culture

-- especially here in the United States --

people tend to want to see,

as I said before, guys in black hats

and guys in white hats.

They like to view the world as

the villains and the heroes.

We must have those.

We have to have these clear-cut heroes -

- those people we worship:
they are great --

and then those awful, evil people.

And in doing so, it was very easy,

since 9/11, to pick a few people

-- a handful of people -- and attach

this evil villain status to them; and say,

"These guys are the reasons
9/11 happened."

These guys are the reasons

we are engaged in all these wars.

These guys are the reasons for Iraq wars;

these guys are the reasons for..."

Well, we know some of these characters.

We are talking about Dick Cheney,
of course:

who likes Dick Cheney?

It's really easy to make him

the Darth Vader here. Darth Vader:

you just automatically think about him,

think of him, as Darth Vader.

You know, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith;

and, to a certain degree, Donald Rumsfeld;

and a little bit for Condoleeza Rice.

And I think, for some reason,

Democrats are better at this game.

Because if you look at it

during the Obama administration,

we haven't really created many villains.

I mean, here is Obama of course...

[laughs] But we don't have it, you know?

We don't have these caricatures,

these cartoon characters

that we can assign the label

-- the villain label -- and say,

"These are the ultimate bad guys."

When you do that, it's easy.

Because people, they say,

"Here, these are the guys, these are"

"the evildoers -- and they're rich!"

So they have $50 million dollars,

or they are worth $75 million dollars. And

that distracts from the real villains.

So this is one way of misleading people

-- or people wanting to be misled.

The other one is this general notion

of "The Government did it." You know?

"It's the Government's fault."

As if government...

I mean, what is government?

How do you define government?

Government as in

the Department of Agriculture

and a bureaucrat working there?

The secretary did it? Was it the director

of the FBI, Mueller? Or was it that guy

at the CIA agency, Wolfie?

What do you mean by "Government?"

When you just talk about departments
and say,

"They did it: all of them.
A few individuals"

"from each department got together..."

This is one of the reasons

we are not getting anywhere

with many discussions,

and even in organizing,

as far as wanting to counter

and to challenge what's happening to us

here in the United States

-- also, globally. And that is:

not wanting to go all the way

up the chain, go to the top level.

See... OK, those guys.

Let's talk about Dick Cheney

and Donald Rumsfeld

and Richard Perle

and Douglas Feith

and Condoleeza Rice.

Take a look at these guys' background:

before they became

important people in the government,

during the time when they

were outside the government,

then after they came back to government,

and then after they retired.

What are the common themes

that you observe with these people?

They are not working for themselves.

They are not the ultimate bosses.

So if you go and check the top villains

that we have picked in the last

-- I wouldn't even start with 9/11.

I would go back in the last 30, 40 years--

pick them. Then take a look at them

and see who they are working for.

Their government jobs:

they're in and out, and

very influential within the government

whether they are in or out

-- from outside or from within.

In fact, to a certain degree, it's easier

to be influential from the outside.

As we know, people like Kissinger

and Brzezinski, they have their power

influencing and guiding the

decision-making process as much

when they are outside...

whether they are outside or inside.

So, it doesn't end there.

But then you look and see

who they have been serving. In general,

the top two most important entities

we end up with when we are looking at

these villains in the last
several decades,

that's going to be:

military-industrial complex; oil.

And if you pick those two, of course,

the financial institutions

go with these two regardlessly.

When you have these
operations involving trillions,

hundreds of billions of dollars, with it,

you have the financial institutions.

So that goes along with it.

I know some people are gonna say,

"Well, you're forgetting
to mention pharmaceuticals."

That's for the domestic side of it;

and I'm gonna keep that aside,

put that aside for a while.

And just... let's talk about these people.

Let's talk about the
military-industrial complex.

Let's talk about 9/11.

Let's talk about all the wars
we've been engaged in.

Let's talk about winners.

Let's talk about motivation in terms
of these entities.

If it's the military-industrial complex

-- and our series started with

all the NATO Plan A being switched

to Plan B; Central Asia/Caucasus;

the operations with the Turkish actors,

Gladio actors; and we had this discussion

mainly focus on the end of Cold War

and the beginning of the new era.

Now, if we take

the military-industrial complex and now

look at that in relation to the Cold War

-- the end of the Cold War,
the period before 9/11

between the end of the Cold War
and 9/11 --

and then the period post-9/11, we have...

we get to see a lot of facts that

are out there, open before us, that

we don't need any whistleblowers for.

We don't need any experts

from Harvard or Yale:

the ones that come on NPR

and they talk with their gobbledygooks.

It's pretty simple:

you look at the graph...

-- and when I say "graph,"

look at the financial power,
or the financial value

-- the dollar value, net worth --

of these companies

and how much business they did.

If you look at that graph,

which you will be showing

when you publish this post:

that graph is very revealing.

I mean, we had these several decades

that we had this wonderful excuse, reason

created: perpetual war, as in Cold War.

That we said,

"We need to build our defense"

"because there is this gigantic,"

"humongous power out there"

"that wants to be a superpower"

"and turn the entire world Communist."

"They want to come and invade us here;"

"they want to come and invade
our neighbors."

"So we need to pile up,"

"we need to spend all our money"

"and build these nuclear weapons"

"and the chemical weapons'

"and the military bases."

And we spent trillions of dollars.

Well, our government didn't produce

any of these chemical weapons,

or the planes, or the bombs,

or the programs,

or any of these things that

the expenditure goes towards,
is going into.

They pay -- who?

They pay these entities, the large ones.

Let's take the top ten

companies in the United States.

Let's talk about Lockheed-Martin,

General Dynamics, Northrup Grumman,

and... Boeing. And they said,

"OK, here the money, and we get these."

So, the survival of these companies:

and if you look at the net worth,

the value of these companies

-- and they have tens of thousands

of workers, employees.

These are gigantic companies

-- you're looking at worth close to

a hundred billion dollars each.

I mean, you're looking at

a massive, massive industry.

And their survival

-- their existence --

depended only on one thing:

fear factor and the fear of wars.

So it's the war industry

that is driven by the fear factor;

and the fear factor was Communism.

And as long as we had the fear factor,

and as long as we had these monsters

-- which, in this case, monsters:
the Soviet Union, the Communists --

which, again, is in line with

our villains and the heroes:

we always have to have the evil country.

Remember George Bush, the "Axis of Evil,"

the evil Communists.

You know, how Reagan was evil-izing it

-- you do that, the fear factor,

and you have a booming war industry.

Trillions of dollars.

And it got bigger and bigger and bigger,

and just became a monster. And then

we had the end of that Soviet Union.

We had the end of that Communism. And this

was the WTF moment for the industry.

Because, put yourself in this
industry's position:

you're looking at hundreds of billions

of dollars of industry, OK?

Trillions of dollars.

The fear factor, that Communism,

is taken away; the monster is gone. And we

are looking at shrinking war industry:

meaning, what's gonna happen to tens

of thousands of workers,

billions of dollars of profits? OK?

I mean, wouldn't you get nervous?

I mean, this is...

"Our existence depended on this
monster being created"

"-- and our mainstream media, of course,"

"on the forefront pounding it, making it"

"a really big, scary monster. Gone!"

So you look at the graph, and then

you look at the expenditure that built up

during the Reagan era, going up and up:

"We gotta outspend them, man!"

"We gonna bankrupt them."

"We gonna spend, spend, spend."

Well, yeah; we outspent them, all right:

and they're gone. Then look

what's happening to the war industry.

Look at those companies

between 1991, 1992, till about 2001.

The expenditure is going down.

You are looking at some really, really,

really nervous people.

They are sitting and saying,

"This was a great monster
that we created."

"This was a good monster to pump up"

"and create the fear factor around it."

"But next time around..."

"we learned a lesson here;"

"we're not gonna make the same mistake:"

"we're not gonna pick a monster"

"that can be taken out like this"

"-- with the Soviet Union's fall,"

"with the Berlin Wall coming down."

"We need to create some kind of a monster"

"that we never have this kind
of a risk with."

"Something that can go on forever:"

"because it's an abstract,"

"because it's invisible."

"One day it's in Mali;"

"the other day it's in Sudan;

"it's in Iraq; Oops!"

"They are in the caves in Afghanistan;"

"they are in the deserts in Yemen."

"I mean, they are all over the globe.

"And how many of them are there?

"Who knows? Maybe a hundred million,"

"maybe a hundred."

"Nobody can put a number on them."

"How do you identify them?"

"Where are their bases that"

"we can go fry, and bomb, and..."

"It can never be destroyed."

Yet, these invisible... it's like amoeba.

We still take the traditional planes and

traditional bombs and drop them in there,

even though we have already concluded

they are like amoebas, right?

Because there are caves in Afghanistan...

I believe we bombed every every
cave in Afghanistan

at least 186 times since 2001.

Because if you look at

the airstrike numbers in Afghanistan,

you're looking at... I don't know.

And they said it:

even, seven, eight years ago, they said

"there's no more al-Qaeda left in
Afghanistan," right?

Then, for some reason,

it turned into Taliban.

And these airplanes have been going

-- airplanes every day --

and we have been dropping

50-100 bombs there on these caves.

Go back, hit the same cave again.

We've been, really, cave-hitting.

Because there's no Pentagon, or

equivalent of Pentagon, in Afghanistan.

There are no military bases. They have...

there are no planes, there are no tanks.

There are caves: so we go out there

and then we throw 50 bombs a day.

[laughs] It's like,

"Let's go hit some caves, man!"

Now, the thing is: going back to

my dad's line of thinking, saying,

"Now think: every one of those bombs"

"that they drop on the caves,"

"how much is it? $3.5 million dollars?"

I know there was a report published

about the cost of each bomb.

And just the fact, the logistics

of taking that airplane, moving there,

dropping them there,

you're looking at several millions

of dollars for each hit, right?

Every time that goes,

the guy with the abacus there goes,

"$5 million dollars more!"

For who?

$5 million dollars for who?

More for who?

Well, go back again to the post-Soviet:

this happened, we needed

to have something without walls

like Berlin Walls that could come down.

So we had this period of ten years

for this industry to say,

"We need to survive. We need to exist."

"Our existence is gonna come to an end,""

"because what we gonna do?"

"We don't a big monster enemy"

"and a perpetual war out there."

"Your inventory's full, OK?"

"You've got 180 tanks"

"and you have 275... you have enough."

"So there's not much need left"

"for more production."

"Things are getting..."

"sitting there, rusty there."

"And this is gonna shrink:"

"this trillions-of-dollars industry"

"is going to shrink."

And this is why you look at

that very important document,

the letter written and signed PNAC,

the Project for a New American Century.

Who... then look at the signatures
of PNAC, and

then start looking at their backgrounds

and see who they...

They are on the board of advisory of who?

They are a part of board
of directors of who?

These peoples' existence really

doesn't depend on the government,

working for the government,

or having titles

-- whether they're a Vice-President

or they are the Defense Secretary.

It's none of those. Look at

their ultimate bosses there. And look at

the ultimate benefactors there.

So, beneficiary here is

the military-industrial complex,

to a large degree.

And they're suddenly like,

"This is what we need."

"We need to go back to our plans."

"Now the Soviet is gone:
we need to establish"

"the United States of America"

"as a global power."

They are looking at

the definition of an empire, basically.

"We wanna be the empire, and the world
is our field:"

"we wanna take over everyone."

"With the Soviet gone,"

"this is our opportunity."

"However, for that to happen,"

"we need something really massive here,"

"because people have been happy"

"in the States. They're like,"

"'OK: Soviet is gone, Communism
is defeated.'"

And as you and I were talking, James,

when we are looking at that graph

with the trough there,

with the defense expenditure falling

-- and this is during
Clinton administration --

and if you look at the
US the last half-century:

this is the only time,

or the longest period of time,

that our economy actually had surplus.

We'd been always bogged down with

all the deficits and everything.

Look at the surplus period coinciding

with end of the Cold War and the

the war machine not working
really... good.

It's... they were on a vacation. [laughs]

They were exhausted after all this
Cold War,

and they were regrouping.

They were coming up with their plans

-- including PNAC, including
NATO Plan B --

to say,

"This is not acceptable."

"Let's replace what we lost"

"with something bigger and
better and unending."

"Something that could never be defeated."

We will never, ever, ever be able to say,

"We, today -- on March 18, 2026 --"

"today, we won the War on Terror."

"We executed, with our drone,"

"the last terrorist in the world."

"Of the seven billion,"

"we pinpointed every single one,"

"and the last terrorist is dead."

"People, TSA's going to disappear."

"We are going to bring all our
troops home. "

"We're not gonna bomb the hell
out of people."

We're gonna..."

"whatever money we have, surplus we have,"

"we're gonna spend on people."

Can you imagine a day like this,

when we come out and declare

the end of the War on Terror?

We eliminated the last terrorist

on Planet Earth? [laughs] Planet Earth.

Well, that's for the military-industrial
complex.

And if you go back now

and look at that graph and see

what has been happening to that industry

since that day, 9/11:

and this is... this is...

this is humongous!

This is the largest it's ever been. A

nd if you look at the graph,

look how steep it is.

So you don't have a graph that says,

"Yeah, we had some period during"

"the first two years we were bombing"

"Afghanistan, Pakistan,"

"and the Iraq stuff;"

"and then, most of the..."

Look, I mean, Bin Laden has been, what:

one and a half, two years?

I mean, it's been going like this: up!

Look at the number of wars we
have been engaged.

And if you start

-- and it's very easy to speculate

it's going to end up getting
more and more.

I mean, we have also

these so-called secret wars

that are not really secret.

Whether it's Somalia... what is it?

I mean, when did we declare
war on Pakistan?

Did we ever declare a war on Pakistan?

So what's the deal?

Why are we bombing Pakistan,

a sovereign nation

-- a supposed sovereign nation --

day in, day out? And when

did we declare war on Somalia or Yemen?

We don't even need

to declare war anymore:

we just go and make war.

And if we don't find some people

on their donkeys crossing
the desert to hit,

we'll hit the cave. [laughs]

There must be more caves out there.

After we the caves...
[unintelligible 26:35] [laughs]

It is so ridiculous, isn't it?

I mean it would be funny

if it wasn't just so...

so tragic, in so many ways.

But absolutely:

and I think it's important, again,

to think about that period in the 1990s

where not only, I think,

the military-industrial complex

was looking at that with concern,

but also I think you have the financiers

looking at that with concern:

well, that the US isn't

getting into debt as much anymore.

They're actually getting surpluses now.

That's no good for the financiers.

And then also at that period of time,

you had oil at extremely low prices

-- at least compared to what it is today.

And you notice in the Age of Terror,

oil has gone back up into the triple-digit

range, and stayed around there

for some time now.

So guess who else is making money off

of this whole war on terror?

Uh-huh, exactly. Absolutely. And if you go

and look at Pepe Escobar's "Pipelineistan"

-- this whole chessboard based on
the pipelines, OK? That is... --

and this is why

we have been pounding together

Central Asia, Caucasus, NATO Plan B.

It's all about the "Pipelineistan."

It's all about the resources:

the gas, the oil, the region.

What's going to replace

today's Saudi Arabia and Iraq?

Because they are looking at 30 years,

40 years down the road.

They are not looking at next year.

And you look at the players;

you look at the actors;

and you look at Exxon;

you look at Chevron.

And you say, "All right."

So... and then you start looking

at what they have been doing,

where they have been investing,

where they have been going

and doing their things. And then

the picture gets a little bit more clear.

And then people, they say,

"OK now, all right:
military-industrial; oil."

But they are not that separate:

because when we have our oil

-- and these are these companies,
they're the industry, oil industry --

with oil, you must have the protection.

What protection? The military protection.

Why do we have the military base
in Saudi Arabia?

Why do we have the base in Azerbaijan,

and having NATO base in Azerbaijan?

And you start... why we wanted to go

and take over Iraq's oil?

But if you have oil, you've got

to have the base to along with it.

Because you have oil, you have pipelines.

Who's gonna protect the pipelines?

You can't really count on

these puppet dictators you plant there.

We talked about the Saudi royals.

I mean, they're busy out there:

they're drinking and they're screwing

and they're just, you know, warped.

Same thing: Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan,

look at these guys. I mean,

they are some puppet dictators there,

symbolic out there.

So we have to manage the country.

How can we manage the country?

Financially, is one way. This is why

wherever we go, we bring with us

IMF, World Bank, and a military base.

Those are the three elements we have.

And under that, the bottom-feeders,

the parasites: all these NGOs,

the Human Rights and Amnesty

and all the stuff with different names --

and then there's a miniature version

of the same ones.

This is our way of operation.

So, you have those pipelines,

and you have the oil wells,

and you have the oil refineries:

you need to protect it.

Here comes military bases.

Now, look at the US military bases that

have been erected since 2001, since 9/11.

Start going through the map.

And there is one map that I will send you

-- I'm sure you have that map --

that shows.

And it shows the timeline,

because it shows the bases in red,

and the blue is after 2004,

and then 2006: all these places

that we have been putting military bases

thanks to 9/11.

So, 9/11 happens: we have created

perpetual monster and a perpetual war

to go after perpetual monster,

the invisible monster.

And we have, as a result, an industry.

Look at the money;

look at the growth of the war industry,

the military-industrial complex.

Now look at the growth of our bases;

now look at where we are putting

pipelines and oil

-- the oil wells, the oil refineries:

it comes together. And: look at 9/11.

And people say, "Well, 9/11..."

And just let me interject:

it comes together with the drugs as well,

because the bases are important stations

for that drug route;

like the Manas Airbase,

which has been used for shipping out

drugs from Afghanistan. Absolutely.

Or what we just reported on Azerbaijan.

Because with all the movement,

they said -- Azerbaijan:

because we talked about this

during one of our episodes,

about how the casinos shifted

from Turkey to Azerbaijan.

Same with a lot of refineries,

the labs for these heroin conversion,

and Azerbaijan becoming NATO candidates

-- and it's about almost finished there --

and with an airbase there,

became a perfect, logical base for heroin.

So a lot of things

that were being done through Turkey,

now it's being done through Azerbaijan:

with the Turkish NATO actors,
but in Azerbaijan.

And logistically, again, it makes sense.

And Manas Airbase: absolutely,

same thing over there.

And we talked about the influence of

the Russians on Afghan heroin versus us,

and how that power balance shifted.

We went from having maybe 10, 20 percent

of that share before 9/11,

to today having basically 90 percent,

100 percent of that revenue

-- with much, much more
increased production.

So, you're looking at heroin;

you're looking at
military-industrial complex,

the war industry;

you're looking at oil.

And with the protection: again, one of

the issues that we've been reporting on

with all the pipelines between
Iran and Pakistan.

And I just came across

this particular article that

was pooh-poohing the deal and saying:

"Even if US, it says it's OK, and doesn't"

"hit Pakistan with some sanctions,"

"it's really suspect that this"

"can ever go through and be accomplished"

"-- because look at the region."

Where are we looking at? Baluchistan.

There is no way.

This project is going to be sabotaged,

the refineries are gonna be blown up,

the pipelines are gonna be blown up.

You know why? Because we're gonna ensure

that that's gonna be the case, because

our guys are there to blow them up!

We have been planting those seeds.

The whole thing with Baluchistan,

the importance of the whole thing

with the Gwadar port, with Iran

and Pakistan today: well, we have been

doing our homework in Baluchistan.

And one positive externality

of the things we are doing there is,

we have our foot-soldiers there.

We have our groups there, and we know

that we're not going to let this c

ome to fruition

-- whether it is the refinery going
up or the pipelines --

because they're gonna blow them up,

and we can watch and see. Until

-- and it has happened, with China,
with Russia --

when they declare it "not feasible."

They say, well, they were going to invest;

but in the middle of this project,

they pulled out because it was not...

security-wise, it was "not feasible."

Well, they are gonna make sure that

Baluchistan is not gonna be feasible

for this project, because Baluchistan

has been under our thumb.

And with everything that is being

reported daily on Baluchistan

-- and again, compare that to Chechens,
and you compare that

to all the other places with
our modus operandi --

you'd know that: who is doing what

in Baluchistan, and what is the big game.

Divide and conquer.

Have these little pockets,

get them on each other's throat,

then have controls on either side.

But that's exactly the case.

With Pakistan and Iran, well,

who's gonna protect that pipeline?

I mean, unless they have that much

military power being transferred there

to really watch out for what
is about to come

within Iran and Pakistan,

developing this.

Otherwise it's not gonna even take off

and get anywhere because...

we've already said it: Baluchistan.

Exactly right. And let me once again

stress to people out there

who haven't done their homework

on what's happening in Baluchistan:

it's important to understand

the characters that are lining up

behind the Baluchi cause

and the transparent nature of that as

just, exactly,

to have that force up their sleeve

to do things like sabotage this pipeline.

And that's such an

important piece of this puzzle.

And I agree completely

with what you're saying.

I would only caution against

the use of the word "we,"

because it is so easy

to slip into that language.

"We" have done our homework,

"we" have our forces on the ground,

"we" are going to sabotage the pipeline.

It is, of course, not you and I:

it is these people in these positions

who are doing this.

And the trick that they've done

is to get it to be done in the name

of America and the American people;

but it has nothing to do

with the American people.

It's just these people who have ensconced

themselves in those positions of power.

And when we talk about people

like the Cheneys or the Feiths

or all of these people

who are obviously part of this but not

the key or central players in this,

sometimes it's beneficial to look

at where these characters congregate,

the type of organizations

and umbrellas that they're working under.

And for example, something

that's been oft pointed out

-- but deserves to be so --

is something like the

Council on Foreign Relations,

which has obviously been host

to so many of these people.

But there's another organization

-- speaking of organizations
of interest --

that does not get anywhere
near the attention,

but is absolutely important.

That would be the
American-Turkish Council,

which is an organization which

has had some very interesting people

associated with it: from Brent Scowcroft,

to everyone else you can think of w

ho you would not necessarily associate

with Turkey in any way, shape, or form.

So let's talk about

the ATC and its role in this,

as an organization that has played

such an integral part in these operations.

Excellent point, James. And as you know,

ATC was exposed in my case as one of the

FBI's major targets of investigations.

It's a lobby organization.
It's like AIPAC:

even though it's a lobby,

they have set it up... in fact do you know

who set up American-Turkish Council
in 1995?

It was Richard Perle and
Douglas Feith that...

they set it up.

So what happened was, in 1989

Richard Perle went to Turkey, to Ankara,

for some meetings; came back.

And this is...

he was outside the government,

but still inside as advisory role.

And he set up a Strategies...

I forgot the name, I think it was
a Strategies Industry, Inc.,

or Strategic Industries, Inc.
[International Advisors, Inc.]:

a lobby group.

And he actually registered under FARA,

Foreign Agents Registration Act

and became an official

lobbyist for Turkey.

But then what happened was

Wall Street Journal wrote this piece

-- and, I don't know, this is '94, '95 --

and turned this into a scandal,

because he was still officially

working for the government.

So you can't, theoretically, be

a foreign agent lobbyist while

you're still working for the government

as an advisor and getting paid;

same thing with Douglas Feith.

So they shut it down.

What they did instead was they took

their Turkish contacts and they said,

"We are going to set up another arm"

"that is not going to be, exactly, lobby;"

"and we are going to model it for you"

"after AIPAC." In fact, if you look

at the initial board of advisors,

board of directors for
American-Turkish Council,

you're gonna see every single person

-- from Richard Perle to Douglas Feith

and a lot of American
Enterprise Institute --

but a lot of AIPAC actors,

with American-Turkish Council.

So they set it up as such, and it

was absolutely modeled after AIPAC. It's

not exactly a foreign lobby.

It's not, because it's not

Turkish government-linked, really

-- not much.

And so they set it up that way.

And again, it didn't come from me, but

from sources from the Justice Department

and the FBI, and other supporters

who talked with the media:

they identified

-- and even the Department of Defense --

the American-Turkish Council as the top

FBI target in Sibel Edmonds' case.

That's how it's listed.

And if you go and look at the actors
and people there

-- from board of directors to board
of advisors, active members --

what you're gonna see, mainly, is the

top-tier players. You're going to see

the military-industrial complex

-- the US military-industrial complex --

and oil companies. And then

you're gonna see what characters? Again,

you're gonna see similar characters

that we have been talking about,

the ones that we call villains. And

again, they are serving their own bosses.

So, American-Turkish Council:

from my own first-hand experience,

if people were to ask me,

"Well, who are they serving?"

"The US government?" No.

"Turkish government?" No.

There were some major illegal operations:

some of them involving heroin,

some of them involving terror. Because,

as I said during one of our episodes,

when the State Department and CIA said:

"One way to carry these operations,
carry them out,"

"is to get Congress to allocate millions,"

"hundreds of millions of dollars in total"

"to be used in Central Asia and Caucasus;"

"is to give it to these subcontractors,"

"the Turkish companies."

They are

-- every one of those companies are --

the members of the
American-Turkish Council.

Every one of those criminal
entities today,

if you were to go look,

you would see them there.

I'm not saying every company

of American-Turkish Council is criminal;

I'm saying every one of the top criminals

also happen to be the members.

So they constitute maybe 20, 25 percent

of American-Turkish Council.

But these are the companies

that get US tax dollars

-- hundreds of millions of dollars;
various projects: $40, $50; and for

tourism development or construction
development in Central Asia and Caucasus

-- which doesn't get to be used.

But also a lot of stuff

with the false end-user certificate,

with the weapons companies sending
tons of weapons

that are supposed to be going to Turkey,

but then in Turkey right away

gets transferred and goes somewhere else

-- all parties involved knowing
what's going on,

including the players within
the US government.

And again... and if you come back again to

the notion of who are the real bosses, you

say, "Really, who does the CIA serve?"

Do they serve a President?

I mean, they're come-and-go.

Obama, Bush, Clinton, Jimmy Carter.

Do they serve Dick Cheney? No.

Does CIA... and then, granted, of course,

people who know their history,

they know how it came about, the CIA;

how it was established;

who were the major players

from the beginning in there.

A few years ago I read

a very interesting book

that was almost like a biography

of the Rockefellers' families.

And there was a chapter that dealt

with so many of the family members

who were part of the CIA

-- actually worked officially,
I mean, for the CIA,

some of them with their names known.

So the CIA is not serving
the American people,

or the Constitution, or some President.

Those people are not consequential:

they're inconsequential.

They are not the bosses.

And this is why I always refer

to this term as the "shadow government,"

the "real powers."

Whenever I put in quotes,

I put "real powers,"

the "real government:"

those... not those people you see.

And again, back to this notion

of 9/11 and government, or the fact that

"Government did this."

Saying,

"What government? What agency? Who?"

"Department of Agriculture?"

You've got to look at the main agencies

involved in carrying out,

if you are talking about wars,

on foreign-policy-related

operations and relations.

And if you look at the State Department

and the CIA, again,

it becomes very, very obvious that

-- and even with some of the documents
that became exposed a few months back --

that the major role for US embassies

and consulates abroad is to market,

promote US businesses. And they were

mainly the military-industrial complex

and the oil companies.

In fact, that was was even part of this

whole WikiLeaks document shenanigans,

that the communication showed that close

to 80 percent of the work, job they did

-- these State Department employees --

were not... had anything to do

with US States, really. But it was,

"Don't buy it from France,"

"buy it from Northrup Grumman." Because

currently three companies are bidding for

$2 billion dollars worth

of Turkish helicopters, or... et cetera.

And our embassies try to

-- sometimes with blackmail, sometimes
with carrots,

sometimes with all sorts of
different methods --

to say, "No, you buy from
Northrup Grumman."

So they do represent Northrup Grumman,

and Boeing, and General Dynamics,

and Chevron, and Exxon.

So it's irrelevant, really,
who is President.

It's irrelevant if it's Woolsey

or if it's Brennan: you are looking at

the second, third, fourth tiers, starting

with those people we have assigned

an adjective "villain" to.

And then come to the agencies and the

agents we had: they are not the top tier.

And we need to put our focus

on the top-tier people.

I couldn't agree more.

And it's interesting,

in the picture that you're painting, how

the real positions of the most power

are not in the positions of directorship

of this or that agency,

or the President, or that...

it's the people who have the access

to both the government positions and

the positions within these lobby groups.

Because that revolving door and
that closed circuit

creates the real power that
directs and shapes the policy

and creates these contracts that

creates the private wealth, et cetera.

It's those nexus points where I think

the real power in the system comes.

No, absolutely.

And this can't be emphasized enough.

I mean, you can just... you have

to pound and pound and pound this

until people get it.

one of the funny things that happened

with Henry Kissinger was...

this was during the period

when I was working with the Jersey Moms,

the Jersey Widows from 9/11. And they

appointed -- and this is George Bush, his

administration, and then Congress said,

"Yeah, that's a great idea!"

-- Henry Kissinger to be the chairman

of the commission to investigate 9/11.

Now think about it: if these ladies,

in two or three days, found out about

Henry Kissinger actually representing

Bin Laden family members

-- several of them --

but George Bush and the US Congress,

they didn't know about it?

I mean, you get it, and then you look

at all the advisory positions that

Henry Kissinger has. They usually like

to list their university,

prestigious academic positions,

and some of these NGOs. But their

real bread and butter, their real role,

is actually serving the masters

within the oil industry

and the military-industrial complex.

Again, you look at Condoleeza Rice

and you start focusing on,

where is it coming from?

Who gave her the power to get there

within the government agencies?

And after they leave,

where did they go back?

And those sidelines are the academic and

some NGO positions. But their real jobs

is to serve their masters.

And if they were to ask me,

especially if people are focusing
on the wars,

and the police state practices,

our foreign policy:

you're looking mainly at the oil industry,

military-industrial complex; and

-- to go with both --

is our major mega financial institutions.

Well, that's exactly right,

and it is such a fascinating topic.

There's so much to explore, and we do

have a lot of related links for people.

So once again, if you're listening

or watching this video,

please go back to the show notes

to find some of the links.

And you can see for example,

the graph we've been talking about:

military spending.

You can see some of the top companies.

You can see more information

about the American-Turkish Council.

So we have a lot of information
to back this up.

But Sibel, we're already coming up

against the one-hour mark here,

so I'd like to move on to just

maybe a couple of viewer questions.

Sure.

We're still continuing to get more in.

But before we do that, obviously,

this is a big and important topic.

So anything you'd like to say
to sort of wrap up

at least this section of the conversation

on the powers at the top?

I'm going to first quickly mention

this news that you and I broke,

the report on Jordan being used

as the base of operations for NATO,

and the West, and the US, against Syria.

The prep: and that was 15 months ago.

And maybe you can put

that headline there, your interview.

The reason I'm mentioning is this:

15 months later, suddenly that becomes

the total news headline

-- Spiegel, Guardian --

and I'm looking at it, like, "This?"

"We covered it,"

"we reported on it 15 months ago."

Same thing for what we have been

discussing in these episodes.

A lot of people...

-- unfortunately, it's not really
going through.

Some people, they are still not able

to realize the significance.

And some do: and I really...

I love it when I get to see some emails

and say, "Yes, there's a spark,
somebody's getting it."

And then we have one more person among us

who is aware, with their eyes wide open.

Well, syncing with these episodes,

something is going to be leaked.

And if you pick the headlines that

plug in to what we have been covering,

it's going to say, "We covered this;"

"it's really been exposed."

And this is one of the reasons
I tell people...

actually, first, I get pretty upset,

because there is this -- first --

an addiction to scandals. It's like,

"Why more whistleblowers
are not coming forward?"

Then they come, some things gets public:

"Oh, well, that's boring."

"I want more: something new."

It's only -- the attention span is there

for three, four days, or... max.

And that is max.

It's this made-up disease

that now they're saying

our schoolchildren are afflicted with.

I think as a nation,

our nation has this made-up disease

called Attention Deficit Disorder.

That is to move and say,

"OK, that's it, I want something..."

"and the next one better be bigger."

And I ask people and say,

"What do you mean, by 'bigger?'"

And they say,

"Huge! I want the smoking gun."

I'm like, "What smoking gun?"

"I want the smoking gun, the evidence,"

"the fingerprints saying that Chinese
pulled the plug,"

or something [laughs] like that.

It's really discouraging, frustrating.

And you can say,

"Well, how come you're smiling?"

Because that's one of the things

that I have taught myself

in the last four or five years,

since I became a mother.

I don't let myself to get really...

I laugh because there is this need

for more: more explosive, smoking gun.

Something that says, "Here!" Like: people,

they leave a note before suicide...

note that Cheney says, "I did it..."

-- and with a finger

because he's not signing it.

He's actually putting
his fingerprint there.

And today, they can
extract DNA as well....

[laughs] from the same letter
saying, "I did it."

It's really detrimental. It's terrible,

because so much is public.

So much you've been covering

with these not-so-secret organizations.

The stuff we've been covering on CIA.

This stuff, these episodes

we've been covering on NATO operations,

Gladio operations, Plan B.

These are really big. A lot of it is

really supported with public documents.

Extremely important:

it is the explanation for so many things

that are out there

and people are confused about.

And if they really pay attention,

they see that the pieces

really start falling into place.

To think of it in those terms

and go deep into things

rather than be in this search, this...

or in lots of... I don't...

"Giving up hot stuff: I want big,
big whistleblowers!"

That's all I want to say.

But we have so much,

and I hope we have more and more people

who will take the time, watch it,

go do their own research, read

-- because you also include really
good, wonderful links in there --

and then sit and think.

If you don't want to agree,

or you arrive at a different conclusion,

that's perfectly fine.

You may come up with some other,

because you may be able to connect

some dots that we have missed,

or we haven't covered here,

or that may be related to something that

some whistleblower six months
from now may expose.

But be aware of the dots,
and critically think.

And that's the most important thing

I want to emphasize here.

And we can go to the questions.

Excellent. Well, let me just reiterate

exactly what you're saying there:

I think it is important
for people to understand

that this information we're covering:

it might not be the sexiest smoking gun;

it might not be the easiest thing

to understand or wrap your head around;

but it is worth the effort, and

it is ultimately what reality looks like.

It's not going to come in the form of that

smoking gun that everyone's looking for.

And I remember, early last year,

around April 1st, there came out

an April Fool's joke about Darth Vader,

Dick Cheney himself,

confessing to doing 9/11.

And that lie, that complete fabrication,

got emailed to me dozens of times

in the course of a few hours,

because everyone is waiting

for that type of stunning confession.

I hope people will stop waiting for that

and start doing the actual legwork that

it requires to put these pieces together

and to form the bigger picture;

that... hopefully we are helping

to do that in these conversations.

And you, again, have been laying out

some great information about one of,

I think unarguably,

the most important sections of the world

-- Central Asia and the Caucasus --

that a lot of people don't

know anything about right now.

But it's exactly like the Middle East:

it became something that a lot of Americans

now understand something about.

In the exact same way,

Central Asia and the Caucasus

is going to be an area we're going

to be hearing more about in the future.

And on that note, we got an email in...

we've gotten so many emails,

so many questions,

we can't possibly get to all of them,

at least not in this conversation.

But please continue to send them in:

I will continue to keep track of them,

and we'll get to them as we can.

But on this very note, we had an email in

from Hannah who writes,

"I'm curious about the importance"

"of the BTC oil pipeline,"

"which takes oil from Russia's back yard"

"through Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey"

"bound for Western refineries."

"Could Ms. Edmonds comment on"

"any collaboration there may have been"

"between Western interests
and Gladio B forces"

"in terms of bringing
this pipeline to fruition?"

Uh, I really don't have much detail
in terms of information,

and I haven't really studied it.

But you've got to also remember

that Russia is also a major player.

And we have already seen

the kind of powers that that gives:

whether it's Russia,

or the United States, or China,

it doesn't make a difference.

But when Russia says,

"I'm going to shut off,
turn off that valve;"

and,

"Ukraine, I'm not gonna give you gas..."

I mean, can you imagine that?

Or in terms of how the prices,

they've been up in Europe

because of the shortage,

or because of what's happening

with US foreign policy.

So when you're looking at Europe,

it's an interesting

-- really interesting -- situation.

Because especially since 2006, 2007

-- and that, again, coincides
with this economic crisis --

they have been far more hawkish in what

we are seeing with France and Mali,

and what we are seeing with Germany

suddenly trying to establish itself

as a military power. And a lot of these

also have correlation with the latest

economic situations in Europe.

So they have been far more supportive

of US imperialistic pursuits

since 2007, 2008 than they were

during the Bush administration

-- and that would be right after 9/11

between 2001 and 2008.

This was when we had

some of the European nations

within the United Nations saying,

"No, we won't help you with Iraq War."

And they were raising red flags

with some of those things.

That Europe is gone;

and you look at the latest Europe,

you are looking at,

"We wanna be part of the yee-haw!"

"We'll have a smaller one.

"So, you get Iraq;"

"you get Syria and Iran; we get Mali."

That may be France's little crumb.

And that's one of the things US does:

US just throws some crumbs.

"Now, I give you a crumb." You know,

When you watch some of these

National Geographic documentaries:

the deer comes; and you get the lion,

the tiger going there

and take it into pieces; and then

after that you get the hyenas coming,

and they take theirs;

and after that the crows come.

You've got to look at these
nations sometimes

-- I know it's an ugly, ugly kind
of a visual [laughs] --

but that's how it is

with the power structure.

It's even...

I would use the same metaphor,

the same imagery,

with a lot of stuff with the US.

With the companies:

that, you get the top ones,

then you get the vultures,

and then you get the bottom-feeders:

you know, some of those little NGOs

and the so-called
"alternative media," et cetera.

But with Russia, it's a matter of power;

and with Europe in this particular case,

it's the

-- they're trying not to put

all their eggs in one basket.

And it's a competitiveness, too:

the deal they're getting with Russia

versus what they will be getting

with the other pipeline that would be

with the US and Turkey leading the way.

So again, these are all the

strategic thinking from European side.

I don't think US is very happy about it:

it's all about competition.

And every day, every night,

I include any kind of development

with Gazprom or Rosneft, because

all of these things a

re extremely important.

Because if you look at it,

handle it this way, you would say,

"Here it is, the Russian company."

"Now they are having this:

"business venture together with Shell,"

"and they are coming and they're doing"

"something together in Gulf of Mexico;"

"but at the same time,"

"they are dire enemies of each other."

Because it's business, and this is how

the whole business diplomacy

gets to intertwine and become one.

And each party is seeking

to gain their own point of advantage.

And sometimes, with the European case

-- with this case --

it is a matter of being able

to cover your butt and say,

"I won't put all my eggs in one basket."

And that's my two cents. But I'm sure

there are people with much higher-level,

better expertise than that to come up

with even more comprehensive explanation.

Well, hopefully we could get

Pepe Escobar on to talk about it:

obviously a wealth of information.

'd also be interested in talking

to William Engdahl about some of this...

Yes.

And his take, especially,

on the divisions within Europe as well.

Because we look, for example,

at Germany dragging its feet

on things like Libya and Mali

and places like that

-- as opposed to France,

which is all about it. I think

there are some interesting divisions

within Europe as well.

So lots of different things

to add to that mix.

And the pipelines, again,

can be a bewildering mixture

of acronyms and... IP and BTC and Nabucco

and South Stream and all of this.

But once you start to get into that,

I mean, it is so obvious

that it is absolutely integral

to the geopolitics of the region

and to the economy generally. So I hope

people will start getting into that

and start researching it some more,

and we will continue to cover that.

Let's just move on to one other thing:

last time we were talking, for example,

about the idea of a contest for people

to come up with the best synopsis

of what we've been talking about.

Obviously, we aren't sponsoring

an official contest,

but we have had, actually,

someone write in about this.

And just on my own note,

I've been attempting to try to include

this information that
we're bringing out here

in some of my work. So you can look at

my podcast episode on Gladio Revisited.

I just came out with a video trying

to put terror in Central Asia
into perspective,

incorporating some of the knowledge

of what we've been talking about.

But it's extremely difficult

to try to compress this down

and to try to put it into other forms,

so my hat's off to everyone who's

trying to do that. And on that note,

we have an email in from Robert, who has

a blog called AmericanJudas.BlogSpot.com,

where he is starting

to synopsize our conversations.

And he's got Part One and Part Two

up already, and has done a good job

of putting in some relevant links

and explaining some of the characters

and the details. So I will put

the links to those blog posts

in the show notes for this.

And also, Robert had a question. He said,

"In Part Two, Sibel mentioned that"

"the Pentagon doesn't call it Gladio B,"

"but there is a designated section"

" -- a physical office --"

"that deals with Gladio operations."

"Can she tell us what the actual name is,"

"or has she been gagged from doing so"

"on the grounds of state secrets?"

Right. The FBI's file --

because the name of the file itself

wouldn't be even considered classified,

it's the name of a file

-- the operation is considered

the Operation Gladio Plan B.

With the Pentagon, I can't:

because it has not become public,

and it is part of, or under,

another division.

And again, that division:

if I were to name the division,

people would be very familiar.

And it is... it will be... say,

"That's an interesting place to put"

"the Operation Gladio Plan B,"

"and the office there."

I can tell you that the division

is mainly international NATO officers.

You're looking at lieutenant colonel
and higher.

And it has the only office that I
know in Pentagon

with the highest number
of Turkish officers.

They have both US citizenship and Turkish,

but they are assigned to
this Pentagon division.

Now, it changes: every four, five years,

some are stationed somewhere else.

But if you look at it, let's say,

during a certain period of time,

the highest percentage are

Turkish officers there; female and male.

That is extremely fascinating.

And on that note, I think we're going

to wrap things up there for now.

And as I say, people continue

to send questions in,

and I'm glad that they are doing it.

We will try to get to your questions

if and when possible.

And again, if there's anyone out there

who's creating videos, starting blogs,

doing something to try

to raise awareness of this,

let us know, and we'll be happy

to link to your efforts as well. So...

It's making...

we are making some people very nervous.

It doesn't have to do with

the number of people who have downloaded

and have the DVDs, but if you start...

I did that after our first session,

first episode before

we published our Part One:

I put it in Google.

I put "Turkey Gladio Operation,"

and I didn't get much.

I mean, there was Wikipedia.

Today, if you go to Google
and run the search

with "Operation Gladio Turkey NATO
and Central Asia,"

you put that,

you'll be surprised how many hits you get.

Which... we didn't have this
two months ago.

So... and this alone is enough

to make some people way up there

extremely, extremely nervous.

Because there are even some journalists

sitting on the sidelines
watching everything,

listening to everything.

And I sometimes get

-- because some of them
are semi-friends --

they send an email too. Because they know

their publication won't cover,

but we are getting

the attention of some people,

including some people way up there.

And they are nervous,

because this is when they...

if this gets to a point where they

would consider a certain operation

maybe too public or getting

too much visibility or too many eyes...

because, think about it:

how many whistleblowers

have we had from NATO? Ever?

I can't think of any
off the top of my head.

Exactly. We don't have public ones.

But I had one person from NATO,

Belgium office, who retired

in 2003, 2004, who provided -

- and this was during a time
when my court case was still going --

voluntarily provided

a signed letter, affidavit, for me

- and so to be used
with my attorneys as well --

to vouch for terrorist operations

that Major Douglas Dickerson

-- now Lieutenant Colonel
Douglas Dickerson --

was involved in; and

he knew it from first-hand experience.

But I wouldn't call him a whistleblower

because his name is not public.

I got the letter,

I had communication with this person.

But, we haven't had any,

because people would not bear doing it.

This is even, I would say

-- as far as especially this operation
is concerned --

it is far more secret or sensitive than

even the most sensitive CIA-alone...

individual CIA black op,

operation black op. So this is

getting them very, very nervous.

And the more we put this out,

the more eyes we get to point
at this whole topic,

the better we are going to be off

in terms of bringing

this macro-level knowledge

of what is going on

and why some things are happening

or have been happening in certain ways.

Because if you just look
at what is available,

the official public channels

and the mainstream media,

you would see that nothing makes sense.

Because you put them in one place,

what do you get from...?

All you get is confusion.

And now, that's by design. I know that.

So, you get so many people confused

that you won't get outrage.

Because confusion overcomes outrage;

because when people
are confused, they try...

or, they'd rather not to take actions.

Because first you want to be sure:

it's like,

"I know this, I'm very angry about this,"

"and I'm gonna do something about this."

But if

-- and I've heard a lot of people
telling me,

"But I'm kind of... I'm confused!"

Well, because they want

to make it very confusing.

As long as you're confused,

you're not gonna be decisive.

As long as you're not decisive,

you're not gonna do anything. And as long

as you don't attempt to do anything,

you're fine:

they are not worried about that.

So no: get over the confusion.

These things will help you

get over your confusion;

and that will lead us to

the decisiveness stage and taking action.

Absolutely. And that's something

that we're going to continue to explore

in our future conversations. And it is

heartening, on the one hand, to note

that we are garnering attention for this.

Also a bit intimidating, of course: and

that's one of the other reasons why I hope

people are helping to spread the word
about this.

Because we want to make sure

it's not just Sibel and James

that are talking about this.

The more people that
are talking about this,

the bigger effect it will have,

the more decentralized
the information will be,

and the more difficult it will be

to shut any one of us up from talking,

if there are lots of people
talking about it.

So, all very important
pieces of the puzzle.

So once again, please help

to spread the word about this.

Help to mirror the...

and for all the people listening,

please download and save these files:

because, again, who knows how long

this type of information

will be openly and freely available

on the Internet? So...

Not for long.

Exactly.

Let's take advantage of i while we can.

Well: on that note, Sibel, I know

you're going to be doing some traveling

and are going to be out of the country

for a little while;

so this will, I assume,

be our last conversation

until at least April. So...

Yes.

And I have been getting
a lot of comments

on our potential weekend round table

for the two of us and bringing

each time different guests

-- maybe Pepe, and some weeks
we'll have different guests --

and we'll have a heated,

casual, fun discussions.

And as I'm getting this feedback
from people,

I'm getting... actually,

I'm looking forward to it even more

So as soon as I come back,

we'll go about setting up
that arrangement,

and we'll go have fun.

Excellent.

Well, I'm looking forward to that

at least as much as you.

So, absolutely: and again,

please keep the questions and comments coming in,

and we'll do our best

to get to them as we can.

Sibel, once again,

just thank you so much for doing this,

and thank you for your time.

And thank you, James. Any time.

[Captioning by "Adjuvant," released under "CC BY 4.0" license]