Winter Patriot Community Blog

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

The latest CrossTalk is a doozy for misinterpretation of plain English. Sam Husseini, a guest, took issue with Peter Lavelle and another guest for describing the US's behaviour in Syria as irrational. He said it was if you took the US at their word regarding their stated agenda but said if you took in their unstated agenda, then it could be seen as rational. (N.B. 'rational' does not mean 'reasonable' behaviour of a reasonable person)

Lavelle lit up thinking Husseini was supporting the US's thinking and behaviour which he clearly wasn't. Sam Husseini tried to clarify his point several times but Lavelle kept missing the point, talking over the top of him and crossing to another guest - extraordinarily rude behaviour on his part.

What is clear is that Peter Lavelle, and perhaps his other guests, have never considered how the US's destructive behaviour makes sense from the US's point of view. Everything is done for a reason, after all. I find this non-thinking quite amazing but the evidence is right there and can't be denied.

Reading the comments at RT and at RT's YouTube channel, it is clear that the bulk of the viewers that bothered to comment were way in front of Lavelle and Co. Even so, none of the commenters that I read hit on the essential missing word - psychopaths.

The CrossTalk crew need to learn about psychopathy. It answers so much that they are currently throwing up their hands in the air over. "It doesn't make sense", they say. Well, learn about it and keep learning till it does make sense. In their shoes, I'd be too embarrassed to say I didn't understand when it's my job to understand and I'm paid the big bucks accordingly!

And Sam Husseini was talking about "Divide and Rule" which also seemed to fall on uncomprehending ears. Here's an excellent primer from Joachim Hagopian Divide & Conquer: The Globalist Pathway to New World Order Tyranny

While they are at it, the crew should learn about banking, too. Peter Lavelle stated that Libya, Iraq and Syria posed no threat to the U.S. That is not how the U.S. Federal Reserve saw it. All these countries (and Iran) were selling their oil in non-US currencies. If the CrossTalk host and producers understood the nature of the threat that the Fed perceived, they could put together much better shows with better guests and ask better questions. Lads, you've got some work to do!

Back to the show and the subject of psychopathy, granted Sam Husseini could have made himself a little clearer given the absolute dearth of knowledge displayed by the other participants but, really, at this level he shouldn't have to. But that aside, he could have said, "The US's destructive behaviour is quite rational given that they are psychopaths".

If it were me, I'd have continued on and said that psychopaths are at heart the world's quintessential thieves with no conscience, no sense of guilt or shame and therefore no inhibitions. They have an overblown sense of entitlement (you can hear it every time they open their mouths) and they steal everything they can from others. If they can't take possession of the loot, then they destroy it. Their "reasoning" is that if they can't have it, then neither can the rightful owners.

This is the 'raison d'etre' of the CIA's acknowledged strategy of demanding possession and if they strike resistance, as in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria, then they move to Plan B and destroy all they can. And they keep the destruction going for as long as they can, 1, because they like destruction, and 2, as a warning to others to comply.

When one faction gains a dominant position in the fighting, the Americans fund and arm their opponents to keep the war boiling along. Hence the rise of ISIS in Iraq once the Shia government was getting in control, at last, and now the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan - perpetual war. Let's not forget Ukraine.

Peter Lavelle's CrossTalk Show is part of the "Reality Based Community". From Wikipedia-

This Reality Community is always playing 'catch-up'. It's always behind. And it will remain behind and the butt of jokes from the likes of Karl Rove until it learns to ask questions such as, "What does this mean?" Or, "What do these facts tell us?" And finally, "What can we expect from them next based on this bit of inductive logic?" At that point and only at that point will the Reality Community get ahead of the game (as the Russian Military have). Think! Join the dots, for pity's sake.

It is past time for Lavelle and his producers to stop the opinionating/editorialising and start asking the relevant questions. Ditch the Neocon psychos from the show who immensely enjoy messing with Peter's and his guests' heads and dominating the show so nothing beneficial amounts from it and instead invite as one of the guests whose expertise is the psychopathic history of the major players who figure in that night's show's story. In other words, dump the liars, invite real expertise (like Sam Husseini - after apologising to him - and I suggest bringing back Dan Welch and Vladimir Suchan - and more of Nebojsa Malic and Eric Draitser) and ask the right questions, for goodness sake.

Otherwise, judging from the comments left on the show, the ratings will be headed for the "S-bend". CrossTalk is even behind the Reality Community. It has been steadily slipping and many have noticed it.

Lift your game, lads, while you can!

View on YouTube

Below is a brilliant article from William Engdahl. He is correct when he talks about Russia's central bank. Under the constitution drawn up by the American agents of western banks in the early 90's, Russian Central Bank (the Bank of Russia) is constrained in issuing currency as a ratio to her foreign currency holdings. This means that the Russian economy was forced into orienting itself as a export driven economy so that it could have sufficient money internally to fund its industrial and agricultural expansion. This has been a huge brake on the Russian economy and has cost it dearly. It is a credit to many in the Russian government that they have been able to recover from the disastrous Yeltsin years so well in spite of this economic restriction.

Sergei Glaziev, an economic advisor to the Russian Government, has been advising for some years the changes needed to the Russian Constitution to allow it to finally issue its own sovereign currency without Western impediments. The Russian Central Bank is owned entirely by the Russian Government and therefore its policy and constitution are within its power to change as they see fit. In the past, ways have been found around this currency bottleneck but the time is past due to change the constitution, the philosophy of the bank and probably many of its senior staff.

I feel I should make some comment about this video but words fail me. And if they didn't, where would I stop?

View on YouTube

The link was found at Syrian Perspective