Winter Patriot Community Blog

Below are three articles which explain much about the trail of people who make money from the theft of resources and the theft of the lives of largely innocent people.The trail stretches from Syria/Iraq to Turkey/Israel and beyond. Some readers may have read one or both of the first two articles by William Engdahl but few, I think, will have read the third article which is not to be missed.

The Western press featured stories about ISIS selling oil initially to explain how ISIS got their funding. What was left unsaid was where the funding came from in the beginning to place ISIS in a position to capture those oil wells: where the oil went to; through whom and who made money from these transactions.

Apart from the funding, there are enormous logistical operations involved in fielding an army in battle. It takes anywhere between 5 to 8 personnel to support one front line fighter. Who is supplying this logistical support? Tony Cartalucci explains in Logistics 101

All this information was, no doubt, included in the dossiers that Vladimir Putin handed out to the national heads attending the recent G20 meeting. He identified 40 countries and individuals who were supporting and facilitating the terrorism of ISIS et al. - Ali Baghdadi and the 40 Thieves.

Much of this information has been known for some time as the first of two articles from William Engdahl and the article from Tony Cartalucci will attest given that they were both written more than three months ago. William was being quite prophetic when he opened his August article with this statement -
"Turkey is a beautiful land, rich in resources, with many highly intelligent and warm people. It also happens to have a President who seems intent on destroying his once-proud nation."

Of course, psychopaths eventually end up destroying everything they touch. That is the nature of psychopathy: that is the nature of nihilism; same, same. They worship power and have no God above themselves.

The second article is a follow-up from William Engdahl and was published a couple of days ago after the shooting down of the Russian bomber by a Turkish jet fighter.

Welcome to our Thanksgiving Day dinner, Erdogan. You're the guest of honour!
You've made a lot of people in Washington very happy – the Neocons, their banker paymasters at the CFR and the Pentagon brass (also happily ensconced at the CFR).

You see, although Erdogan was helping the bankers by providing the logistics for ISIS (and making a fancy profit from it), he was hindering their plans for an independent Kurdistan. It was getting messy and the ever-fickle Kurds were in danger of going over wholesale to the Russians.

So, Erdogan had to go. But how? Simple: play to his overblown sense of entitlement and his psychopathic outrage at the Russian's bombing his family's lucrative terror business. His son ran the oil tanker fleet (that is no more) that shipped stolen Syrian oil from ISIS into and through Turkey. No doubt, there are many other highly profitable family businesses.

Turkey claims that they shot the Russian jet down using an air-to-air missile fired from an F16 fighter jet. There were early claims that it was a surface-to-air missile. I don't know that that possibility has been definitely ruled out. Another possibility is that it was an American jet or even an American pilot flying a Turkish Air Force F16. It's not like there are a shortage of American F16 pilots at Incirlik airbase where the attack allegedly was initiated from. There was another early report that claimed that US F15 combat aircraft were in the air at the time of the attack on the Russian Su24. Whatever, it is clear to many pundits around the world that the attack was, at least, co-ordinated with the US.

From Pepe Escobar-
"Let's cut to the chase. The notion that Turkey's downing of a Russian Su-24 by a made in USA F-16 was carried out without either a green light or at least pre-arranged "support" from Washington invites suspension of disbelief."

The following article has been copied from Sputnik and is entitled "The Jury is Out and the G20 Shutters at the Verdict"

It is written by Phil Butler. You may need to concentrate to follow his prose at times but it is well worth the effort. It is a good insight on his part.

It was almost imperceptible; most people probably missed the sliver of a smile from Vladimir Putin as he leaned in to talk with American President Barack Obama at the G20 in Antalya. Phil Butler — Not so many noticed either, the "handwriting" gesture from Putin just before the casual meetup in front of cameras ended. It hit me last night like a scene from the Daniel Craig film Spectre, "the writing's on the wall," Putin had won. ISIL will soon be over. We still have a chance for world peace. When ISIL terrorists slaughtered those innocents in Paris the other day, the extremists essentially beheaded themselves. The message has just not reached their feet I guess. Key to the power play in Cold War II, France and Germany had already bucked the traces of an Obama-Cameron led policy war on Russia. Mr. Hollande and Mrs. Merkel had already orchestrated Minsk II remember, and the Americas and Brits simply did not like that game. Do you recall independent media chiming in on the EU-America disconnect coming? Well, it arrived via a horrid and ghastly event. The French people marching through the tunnels of the Stade de France singing their national anthem, even knowing another bomb could go off any second, this was a stunning reminder of how tough those people really are. Courage, dignity, Russian or French, Syrian or Kenyan, its face is unmistakable.

Below is an interview conducted by RT of Gearoid O'Colmain, a political analyst resident in Paris. It is well worth listening to closely. Mr O'Colmain speaks the plain unvarnished truth about who's behind the terror attacks and where they are leading.

I came across this excellent interview at SOTT. SOTT's article provided a link to the Intermarium that Gearoid O'Colmain mentioned which is well worth reading and thinking about. (The "Intermarium" has been a pet project of the Polish Government and the Vatican for decades.)

View on YouTube

Below is an excellent discussion found at Stop Imperialism. The three-way talk is on the manoeuvring going on in the Middle East and in Vienna. What a difference it makes to have three reasonable people who listen to each other and allow each other to speak. Interruptions are minimal and there are no neocons to scuttle any intelligent analysis.

Below is a short 2 min video from RT. It shows RT's White House correspondent, Gayane Chichakyan, and Associated Press' Matt Lee questioning the current spokeswoman for the White House, Elizabeth Trudeau. What you will see is two reasonable people appealing to the reason of a third person who is incapable of being reasonable. Even if she is not a psychopath, she represents the White House Administration which is demonstrably psychopathic. So appealing to reason is a lost cause.

If you are playing a game of tennis and your opponent hits the ball out of court, the point is not up for discussion; it is either 'in' or 'out' by virtue of the facts. It is not an occasion for determining the facts via consensus agreement. The spokeswoman hit the ball out of the court and Chichakyan and Lee questioned the spokeswoman in an attempt to get her to agree with them on the facts. Mistake!

They should not have been asking questions at all but rather declaring the proposed assertion that Russia had bombed a Syrian hospital as unsubstantiated and therefore invalid; of no credibility and declared that the end of the discussion.

How could they have done that?

It is a universally accepted maxim in debate, logic or rhetoric that if someone makes an assertion, then the 'onus of proof' is upon them. If there is no proof provided, or evidence at least, then the assertion has no substance or credibility and therefore can and should be dismissed.

One of the reasons this is so is because your opponent can make up imaginary scenarios all day long and they gain some credibility in the eyes of the audience provided they can make it look like there is some truth on both sides. This is achieved by continuing the dispute which necessarily needs the co-operation of the other side. The trick is to get your audience to defend the opposite view so the person making the assertion is relieved of defending their case. In this way, the deceivers reverse the onus of proof.

Credibility is gained by the deceivers because the vast majority of people believe (falsely) that, in a dispute, the 'truth' lies somewhere in between the two arguments. This is very often not the case and when one of the disputing parties is a psychopath, it is almost always not the case; the truth is entirely on one side.

So by asking questions and even providing evidence of the contrary, as Chichakyan did, she and Lee unwittingly gave the White House some credibility. They provided the other side of the argument so now we have a contest. Matt Lee did hit on the essential flaw in the spokeswoman's assertion (no evidence provided) but phrased it as a question instead of as a statement. This allowed the 'contest' to continue when it should have been declared, "No contest!" Or, "Game over. Thank you linesmen. Thank you ball boys"!

He asked, "Isn't it incumbent upon you to come up with some . . . even a location . . . ?"
He should have declared instead, "You are making a very serious assertion. The burden of proof is incumbent upon you. Without any evidence from you, your assertion must be dismissed because it has no substance". End of discussion.

Of course, in practise, when dealing with psychopaths or their mouthpieces, you can expect them to keep repeating their baseless assertion. In that case, the correct strategy is to keep repeating that their claim is without supporting evidence and therefore is without substance and unworthy of further consideration because the onus of proof is upon them.

Matt Lee made another tactical mistake in that he asked two questions at once. The mouthpiece answered the easier one and gave him a victory but in doing so dodged the more dangerous bullet; the question regarding the onus of proof. Again, it should have been in the form of a self-evident statement rather than a question. The question allows the 'contest' to continue, whereas a statement declares, "no contest".

When talking to or corresponding with a hostile opponent, always only ask one question at a time and repeat it till it is answered. This is called 'playing broken record'. That way, if the question is repeatedly not answered, it is far more obvious and far more damning.

View on YouTube