Porkins Policy Radio ep. 30 Gladio B Roundtable with Sibel Edmonds and Tom Secker

♪ [ 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]