Page 2 | Connecting the Dots with Dr Wilmer Leon (audio) (2024)

Find me and the show on social media @DrWilmerLeon on X (Twitter), Instagram, and YouTube
Facebook page is www.facebook.com/Drwilmerleonctd
Some articles referenced in the episode:Libertarian article: To End the War in Ukraine, Expose Its Core Lie | The Libertarian Institute
Nato Watch article: How Gorbachev was misled over assurances against NATO expansionTruthOut article: The Ukraine Mess That Nuland Made | Truthout

FULL TRANSCRIPT:
Announcer (00:06):
Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.
Wilmer Leon (00:15):
Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon. I am Wilmer Leon and this is a special episode. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they occur in a vacuum and we're failing to understand the broader historical context in which many of these events occur during each episode. Usually my guests and I have probing, provocative and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between these events and the broader historic context in which they occur, and this enables you to better understand and analyze the events that impact the global village in which we live on today's episode. The issue before us is what's really behind this most recent spate of military spending and is democracy really at risk? My guest for this discussion is me as the brilliant philosopher of the late Maurice White with Earth, wind and Fire said in all about love.
(01:23)I want to take this moment to run down a couple of things about things we see every day. So in this episode it's just going to be you and I, president Joe Biden. On Wednesday the 24th of April, he signed into law the So-called Military Aid Package. It's worth $95 billion of your hard earned tax dollars. It includes nearly $61 billion that's going to Ukraine, $26 billion for Israel and $8 billion for the Indio Pacific. After signing the bill, president Biden said quote, it's a good day for America. It's a good day for Ukraine. It's a good day for world peace. The aid package, Biden said is going to make America safer. It's going to make the world safer, and it continues. America's leadership in the world. Is it and does it really well. So these statements by Biden, they're going to be kind of the broad outline of my comments for today.
(02:43)What's really behind all of this money to Ukraine, Israel and the Indio Pacific, and is it an investment in safety or is it profit for the military industry? On January 17th, 1961 in his farewell address to the nation president Dwight Eisenhower, a former general and Republican warned the country and the world against the establishment of what he called the military industrial complex. Eisenhower said, and I quote, A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be might ready for instant action so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. He was talking about a defensive military, not an offensive military. He went on to say American makers of plowshares could with time and as required make swords as well, but now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions and this is really the key, this conjunction, this is Eisenhower of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience, yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications in the councils of government.
(04:28)We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought by the military industrial complex, the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. I repeat that the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist and that's what we see today. Eisenhower was incredibly prophetic in his concern of the dangers of American foreign policy becoming the ideological play thing of the arms industry. So coming out of World War II in 1945 coming out of the Korean conflict in 1953 and entering the Vietnam conflict around 1955 or 1956, it's very easy to understand Eisenhower's position on the need for a strong and prepared military. We're not going to debate that point. That could be a whole nother program, but with that, he admonished us not to fail to comprehend the grave implications, the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought by the military industrial complex.
(05:57)So again, what's really behind all of this money to Ukraine, all this money to Israel, all this money to the Indio Pacific. Let's start with Ukraine and most of this will center around Ukraine because that's where a bulk of the money is going and that's also where for the most part, the most immediate risk of conflagration exists. There's a great piece that's published in the Libertarian Institute. It's entitled to end the War in Ukraine, expose its core lie to end the war in Ukraine, expose its core lie it's co-authored by Ted Snyder, a regular columnist on US foreign policy at antiwar and history at anti-war dot com as well as the Libertarian Institute and it's also it's co-authored by Professor Nikolai Petro. He's a political scientist at the University of Rhode Island and he's also the author of a number of books and since their piece is so well researched and so well written, I'm just going to quote from it, instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, they did a phenomenal job with this piece and I suggest everybody read it anyway.
(07:19)They write. The essential argument used to avoid negotiation and continue support for the war in Ukraine is based upon a falsehood. They call it a falsehood. I call it a lie. That falsehood repeated by Joe Biden is that when Russian president Putin decided to invade Ukraine, he intended to conquer all of Ukraine and annihilated its falsity and this is Snyder and Petro its falsity has been exposed multiple times by military experts who have pointed out both before and after the invasion that Russia could not have intended to conquer all of Ukraine because it did not invade with sufficient forces to do so. Indeed, this was the key reason why senior Ukrainian officials and even President Zelensky himself argued just days before the invasion it would not occur. Now, I take issue with their use of the word invasion because it's really a military intervention, but again, that's a discussion for another time.
(08:33)Folks, if you just strip away the rhetoric and the lies, and if you just look at the facts, the US started this fight with Russia and is using Ukraine as its proxy to do so. Schneider and Petro also have a piece, it's a shorter version of piece that I just referenced and it's entitled four Myths that Are Preventing Peace in Ukraine. Again, their work is so well researched and written, I'm just going to quote them again, I'm not going to try to reinvent the wheel they write. If diplomacy is to have a chance at settling the bloody conflict, then four persistent myths about Ukraine need to be exposed and refuted. Myth number one, Putin. I'm sorry, myth number one. If Putin is not defeated in Ukraine, he will roll into Europe. You've heard this many times. If Putin takes Ukraine, according to President Biden, he said this in Congress on the 6th of December, 2023, he won't stop there. He's going to keep going. He's made that pretty clear.
(09:53)The problem with that statement is no evidence to support it has ever been presented. Petro and Snyder go continue, but Putin has not made that pretty clear. In fact, Putin has consistently said that the Ukraine crisis is not a territorial conflict. The issue is much broader and more fundamental and is about the principles of underlying the new international order. Simply put, it's about President Putin being concerned about Russian territorial security, sovereignty and integrity in the same manner that any other leader in the world is concerned about their territorial security, sovereignty and integrity. He's not doing anything different than what any other world leader would do. There's a piece@natowatch.com, I think.org, nato watch.org entitled How Gorbachev was Misled Over Assurances Against NATO expansion. And this piece that I'm referencing is kind of background to give you some greater context about what Schneider and Petro have written the US was trying to convince. The Soviet Union, this is back in the nineties, was trying to convince the Soviet Union to allow for the reunification of East and West Germany.
(11:40)The then US Secretary of State, James Baker, his famous not one inch eastward assurance about NATO expansion while he was meeting within the president of Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev. This was on February 9th, 1990 was only a part of a cascade of similar assurances, meaning not only did James Baker say it, but other European leaders said this to Gorbachev as well. In February of 1990, baker assured the Soviet Union, and at the time he was the US Secretary of State under then President George HW Bush, he assured his counterpart Edward Chevron Nazi, that in a post Cold War Europe, NATO would no longer be belligerent, less of a military organization, much more of a political one, and then it would have no need for an independent capability. This is what the United States told the Soviet Union. Nonetheless, baker promised Shepherd Nazi ironclad guarantees that NATO's jurisdiction of forces would not move eastward meaning no closer to the then Soviet Union.
(13:12)On the same day in Moscow. He famously told the Secretary General that the alliance would not move one inch to the East The following day, O Cole, the future chancellor of a United Germany repeated the same thought to Gorbachev even though they were disagreeing on other issues. Tillman Cole told Gorbachev not one inch eastward. That's what convinced Gorbachev to agree to the reunification of east and West Germany. I believe France, Britain and possibly one or two other European countries made the same assurances as well. And again, as a result of these insurances assurances, Germany was reunited the West NATO and Western allies or US allies have violated this agreement ever since. That's what's at the crux of the conflict. That's why when President Putin and President Biden met in Geneva, Switzerland before the Russian intervention, Putin told Biden, I'm giving you my security concerns in writing and I expect your response to my concerns to come back to me in writing.
(14:46)He demanded the written response because Baker had stated the commitment verbally to Gorbachev. So now Putin wants this in writing and just quickly to those that say, oh, well, because it was just a statement and it was not written, it's not valid. Nene, I say to you, there's a case, I think it's Norway versus Greenland. It's a 19 35, 19 36 international law case that holds statements made by official representatives of states or countries are valid. They are enforceable. So the fact that Baker said it and didn't write it does not mean it's not valid. Again, according to Norway v Greenland, it's a 19 35, 19 36 international case. Okay with that. Now let's go back to Petro myth number two. Russia's invasion of Ukraine was never about nato. That's the myth that this has. The conflict in Ukraine has nothing to do with nato. Western officials insists that Russia's invasion of Ukraine was unprovoked and that Russia's decision to illegally invade Ukraine was never about NATO expansion and crossing Russia's red lines, but rather it's a senseless war against a sovereign freedom loving nation.
(16:29)Petro Snyder continue. On the 7th of September of 2023, NATO's secretary Jens Stoltenberg made the stunning admission that Putin's decision to invade Ukraine was indeed provoked by NATO encroachment on Ukraine. The United States wanted to put missiles into Ukraine too close to the Russian border. Prior to making that decision to go into Ukraine, Stoltenberg said that Putin had sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent to us, Stoltenberg said and was a precondition for his not invading Ukraine. And Stoltenberg said, of course, we didn't sign that. Myth number three, the war in Ukraine is a war on democracy versus autocracy. According to this narrative, Russia cannot be allowed to win because this war is not just about Ukraine. It's the first battlefield in a larger war for democracy against autocracy.
(17:55)But Russia abandoned the goal of exporting ideology when the Soviet Union collapsed. In fact, the Russian constitution, article 13 of the Russian constitution explicitly prohibits the imposition of a single state ideology and the exportation of such. And for those of you who will say, oh, you all didn't know Russia has a constitution, president Putin is bound by that constitution. Russia has a parliament, they have a democracy. Vladimir Putin, contrary to popular belief and narrative is not an autocrat. He's no more of an autocrat than Joe Biden is an autocrat and some would tell you that Joe Biden is an autocrat. But anyway, this and this is my input. If the US is spending billions of your taxpayer dollars to defend democracy, then why did the United States go in and overthrow the democratically elected government of President Victor Jankovich in Ukraine in 2014? To that point, there is a piece in truth out the Ukraine mess that Newland made.
(19:18)You can find this in truth out the Ukraine mess that Newland made assistant Secretary of State at the time, Victorian Newland engineered Ukraine's regime change without weighing its likely consequences. This is by Robert Perry, a RRY, as the Ukrainian army squares off against ultra-right, and neo-Nazi militias in the west and violence against ethnic Russians continues in the East, the obvious folly of the Obama administration's Ukraine policy has come into focus even for many who tried to ignore the facts or what many have called the mess that Victoria Newland made assistant Secretary of state for European affairs. Tor Newland was the mastermind behind the February 22nd, 2014 regime change in Ukraine, plotting the overthrow of the democratically elected government of President Victor Jankovich while convincing the ever gullible us mainstream media that the coup wasn't really a coup but a victory for democracy folks. She worked with Nazis in Ukraine to overthrow the democratically elected Jankovich government in 2014.
(20:51)It's called the ma don coup or ma don coup. Look it up, M-A-I-D-O-N. Everything I'm telling you right now, you can verify for yourselves. In fact, I implore you to do so. I'm not just taking this stuff off the top of my head. This is not my opinion. If it is my opinion, I will tell you that it is. This is historic fact. Myth number four, Putin again, this is Snyder and Petro Putin is not interested in negotiating. The West insists that Putin is not interested in negotiating an end to this conflict despite multiple news reports that he has been signaling through intermediaries that he is open to a ceasefire and that he is ready to make a deal. The White House continues to insist that he has shown absolutely no indication he's willing to negotiate. And that's just not true. My opinion, that's just not well, that's a fact.
(22:08)He my opinion is not interested in negotiating based upon the usual tactic that the United States uses. The United States usual tactic of negotiation is capitulation. The United States comes to the table and says, here's how it's going to go. And once you agree to how we believe it's going to go, then we can sit down and talk about it. And Putin's saying, no ne nay, I'm not going to do that. You want to negotiate this. We're going to sit down and negotiate this. And that's one of the big problems. My opinion, again, that's one of the big problems that the United States has with dealing with a peer such as Russian president, Putin back to Petro. But the historical record shows that Putin has sought a negotiated settlement since the opening days of conflict. And by all accounts, Russia and Ukraine had even reached a tentative agreement in Istanbul in April of 2022. And that has been confirmed by American reporting by then Israeli Prime Minister Neftali Bennett by former German chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder by Turkish Foreign Minister, and Newman Tuus, sorry for that struggle with those names. He's the deputy chairman of Erdogan, Turkish president of Erdogan's party. In fact, former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, he went to Ukraine and told Zelensky in April of 22, under no circ*mstance is the West going to allow you to negotiate a settlement with Russia.
(24:29)I say that again as the United States says that Russia has no interest in negotiating. They were already negotiating and they had reached an agreement. And there have been some instances, some press conferences where Putin has held up the agreement and said, I got it right here. But Bojo Boris Johnson went and told on behalf of the West, went and told Zelensky, under no circ*mstances is the West going back that play. So if Putin isn't interested in negotiating, negotiating, why did he participate in the mens agreements, the series of international agreements which sought to end the Donbass conflict that was fought between armed Ukrainian, pro-Russian separatist groups and the armed forces of Ukraine. Folks look up the Minsk accords. And when you look up the Minsk accords, here's the problem. You can find this at the World Socialist website. You can find this a number of places former German chancellor, Angela Merkel Min, that the mins accords or the mins agreement was merely to buy time for Ukraine's arms buildup. The 2024 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine time. Merkel told a German newspaper, it was also used. They also used that time to become stronger as you can see today.
(26:16)And Angela Merkel was one of the key conveners of the Minsk meetings under the pretext of negotiating a settlement between what were called the ethnic Russians in the Donbass region and the rest of Ukraine. See, once you had the 2014 Midon coup and the Yakovich government was thrown out, then a pro Ukrainian nationalist Western leaning government backed by Nazis in Ukraine was implemented. And they then, because they were Ukrainian nationalists, they started ethnically cleansing what were called ethnic Russians in what's known as the Donbas region of Ukraine. And those folks in the Donbas were begging President Putin to intervene on their behalf. They're Ukrainian citizens with Russian background, Russian families, many of them speak Russian. They are members of the Russian Orthodox Church. They travel back and forth between the Donbass and Russia because they have families in Russia. But the Ukrainian nationalists wanted to ethnically cleanse them from the country.
(27:50)And so in order to stop the conflict, they came to what was called the mens accords, which is why if you go back and look at the record, you'll see Putin telling Biden before he went into Ukraine, all you got to do is implement the Minsk agreement and we're good. All you've got to do is implement the Minsk agreement. And I'm not going in. We've already negotiated this. All you have to do is implement it. And the United, he told that to Biden when they were in Sweden in Geneva, you can look it up. The United States ignored it. So folks, this is a cursory view, cursory overview of the situation. You can research this for yourselves. Tony Blinken, Joe Biden, even Malcolm Nance, Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, they're all lying to you. This is not about defending democracy, it's not about stopping the further advance of Russia. It's all about selling weapons around the world and they're using your nickel to do it.
(29:22)Of the $60.7 billion that's going to Ukraine, $38.8 billion isn't going to Ukraine. It's going to US factories that make missiles, munitions, and other military gear. It's going to replenish the United States military stocks that have been depleted as a result of this fool's errand called Ukraine. It's going to Lockheed Martin, it's going to General Dynamics, it's going to General Electric, it's going to Boeing, it's going to Raytheon, it's going to a whole lot of other American arms manufacturers or as Eisenhower refer to them, the military industrial complex. And I'm not making these numbers up. You can look it up. This came from an Associated Press story and guess where the Associated Press got their numbers? They got their numbers from the Biden administration. So again, not my opinion, it's the facts. There's a great summary at the World Socialist website.
(30:48)I referenced the story a little earlier in this piece, but if you're asking yourself, so what's the motivation behind the United States for using Ukraine as its proxy to confront Russia? The summary is as follows, since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States has pursued the goal of remaining the sole world power. To this end, Washington has waged numerous criminal wars and expanded NATO into Eastern Europe. Now it wants to integrate Ukraine, Georgia, and other former Soviet republics into NATO and subjugate Russia in order to plunder its resources and isolate China. You may have heard the pivot towards China from the Obama administration. That's what this isolation of China is all about. It's a pivot away from Afghanistan, a pivot away from a conflict with Russia, and the focus is on China. So the 61 billion in aid to Ukraine, the 26 billion for Israel, the $8 billion for the Pacific, those are your tax dollars with infrastructure crumbling in the United States, healthcare, pensions, education, we don't have the money to deal with those things as the rate of suicide is up in the United States as the rate of depression is up in the United States as inflation is ravaging the pocketbooks of the middle class and the working class and the poor in this country, they got 95 billion of your tax dollars that they can send to Ukraine now 26 billion for Israel.
(33:09)What a mess that is contrary to the dominant narrative. This conflict did not start on the 7th of October. In fact, there's a piece in the publication in these times entitled History didn't Begin on October 7th. The Israeli military is currently carrying out an attack on the besieged Gaza Strip bombing homes, bombing mosques, bombing hospitals, churches cutting off access to water, assassinating children, assassinating doctors. They're cutting off electricity, they're cutting off food. The Palestinian death toll has risen to over 35,000. 70% of those 35,000 are women and children, 80% of GA's, 2.3 million residents have been displaced GA's and suffer untreated injuries and a continual lack of medical supplies.
(34:28)While this collective punishment, which by the way violates international law, has been justified by right wingers. Israeli defense minister Yoav Glan called Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip human animals and US Senator Lindsey Graham, the Republican from South Carolina that's never met, a war he didn't like, called for the military to level the place in a sitting American senator has called upon the Israeli government to level Gaza, which by the way is in violation of American law because Israel is using American money and American weapons to ethnically cleanse, to collectively punish, to engage in genocide against the Palestinian people. Look up the Lehe law, thehe Amendment, look it up. Look up the Arms Export Control Act, and you'll see very clearly that the United States is in violation of its own law by providing weapons to Israel. While it's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, while it's defense Minister Gallant and others have stated very clearly that they are engaging in genocide.
(36:16)Now, as I talk about this and as I talk about what Hamas' response, Hezbollah's response in Lebanon, ansara Allah in Yemen, I'm not saying this to condone violence or to condone killing in no way, shape or form, but you have to understand the context in which these actions and reactions are taking place. Dr. King told us many times that war is an enemy of the poor, and he also talked about the three evils of society are racism, militarism, and poverty about racism. He said, if America does not respond creatively to the challenge to banish racism, some future historian will have to say that a great civilization died because it lacked the soul and commitment to make justice a reality for all men. That not only applies to how the United States government treats Native Americans, that not only applies to how the United States government treats Mexican and other Latino or Hispanic immigrants. That does not only apply to how the United States treats African-Americans, it applies to how the United States spends and spends its money to back fund and organize genocide against the Palestinians.
(38:03)The second evil was militarism. And Dr. King said, A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death. 95 billion sent of our tax dollars to foreign countries for war, for oppression to maintain this unitary or unilateral hegemony that the United States has become used to since World War II and our bridges are collapsing. You have people in the United States that are having to decide between do they pay their rent, do they pay their mortgage, or do they pay their grocery bill? And that takes us into the third element, the third evil of society that Dr. King talked about poverty where he says the poor black and white are still perishing on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. What happens to a dream deferred? It leads to bewildering frustration and corroding bitterness.
(39:29)The people cry for freedom and the Congress attempts to legislate repression. They just voted to send $95 billion of your tax dollars to oppress another people, repress another people, Dr. King, millions. Yes, billions are appropriated for mass murder. That's not me, that's Dr. King for mass murder. But the most meager pittance of foreign aid for international development is crushed in the surge of reaction. Unemployment rages at a major depression level in the black ghettos, but the bipartisan response is an anti-riot bill rather than a serious poverty program. Or you've got Mike Johnson going to Columbia calling for the arrest of protesting students that are protesting what? They're not protesting against Judaism. They're not protesting against Israelis, they're protesting against genocide and they're protesting for the freedom and the rights of Palestinians at the time that he gave this speech, which I think was 1968, right before he died, $26 billion.
(40:56)I'm sorry, this is me now, my problem, my mistake, 26 billion of your tax dollars are being invested in the genocide of the Palestinian people. Context, folks. Context is incredibly, incredibly important here. I'm not going to go through the 75 years of apartheid and oppression right now that's going on in pal. I'm not going to go through that right now. Let's just look at some of the most recent incidents. According to Chatham House, the Israeli attack on Iran's consulate in Damascus on the 1st of April. You remember Israel sent missiles into Damascus, Syria and struck the Iranian consulate in Damascus, killing an Iranian general and a number of other diplomats. That's unprecedented. That's an unprecedented escalation by Israel against Iran in Syria, an unprecedented escalation. Folks, it's a violation of international law for one country to attack the embassy or the consulate of another country, and they did it on Syrian soil, which means they also violated Syrian sovereignty.
(42:37)What did Iran do after consultation with the United States and agreement with the United States? Some say it was Bill Burns from the CIA A with the US and other countries in the region and based upon and consistent with international law. That's a very, very important point here is that after Israel on April 1st illegally struck the Iranian consulate in Syria, Iran did not just react in a knee-jerk manner. They didn't just send a barrage of missiles into Tel Aviv. They sat down and they spoke with the United States and they said, look, we can't allow this to stand.
(43:29)We just can't sit I lead by anymore and let them do this to us. So here's what we're going to do Based upon international law, we are allowed to retaliate rarely. When you read about this in the newspaper, does it say that Iran retaliated against Israel? What they usually, how they usually describe it, and this is why context is important, they usually describe it as Iran struck Israel. Iran attacked Israel. No, they retaliated. And under international law, what you are allowed to do is you are allowed to strike military targets that were tied to the offensive strike that you endured, and you're also allowed through international law to strike support targets well such as radar towers, communication facilities. And so Iran sat down, I think it was Bill Burns from the CCIA A and Bill Burns said to Iran, okay, so long as you don't hit civilian targets, we the United States will not respond. So what did Iran do?
(45:02)They retaliated as international law allows them to, and when they finished, they even gave the United States and Israel the heads up. They said In five hours, this is what we're going to do. And they used these slow moving drones so that the United States and Israeli radar could track the drones. They even gave them time to get their newly acquired F 35 jet fighter planes that they had just gotten from the United States out of harm's way. They did all of that to make a point, and when they were finished, they said, we now consider the matter closed. You struck us. We retaliated we're good, but Israel wasn't satisfied.
(46:10)And what did Israel do? They struck again in violation of international law. Fortunately, president Raisi as well as Supreme Leader, Khomeini and others in the Iranian government, fortunately they are thoughtful. Fortunately, they have a longer view of history than Americans do. Fortunately, they exercised restraint and they have not struck back. Think about that context, folks. Context is very important. President Biden tells us that we're protecting security and democracy in Israel. Here's the newsflash. There's nothing secure about Israel and there's nothing democratic about a colony that oppresses over 30%. Its population. Palestinians do not have the same rights to vote as Israelis do. Palestinians do not have the same right to travel throughout the country as Israelis do.
(47:46)Many Palestinians have been relegated to living in an open air concentration camp called the Gaza Strip, where their caloric intake is monitored and managed by the Israeli government. Their access to water, their access to electricity is managed by the Israeli government. That's not democracy. That's not even humanity. It's called genocide. And your tax dollars are being used to fund it. There's nothing democratic about a United States that is arresting students for peacefully protesting against genocide. Now, over 40 colleges and universities are engaged in protests. The University of Southern California in Los Angeles has canceled graduation. They are not allowing, well, the first thing they did was they decided that the valedictorian of the class of 2024, a Palestinian American woman was not going to be allowed to give her valedictorian address and they claim due to security concerns. So instead of protecting her and allowing her to give her speech, they have been held hostage by threat, by innuendo, by social media posts. Think about that.
(49:29)Over 40 colleges and universities are now engaged in protests and presidents of these universities are calling out the police. They were arresting students. Mike Johnson, the speaker of the house, just went to Columbia University and threatened or called for the resignation of the President of Columbia because she's not following the script. And to show you how prevalent this has become, there are now high school students, high school students in Washington DC at Jackson Reed High School, the largest high school in the District of Columbia. They have had to file a lawsuit being represented by ACL U. They have filed a lawsuit against their principal saying that the principal has infringed upon their first amendment rights by barring them from holding pro-Palestinian events and distributing information materials. So apparently the First Amendment doesn't apply if your speech is in support of those that the Israeli lobby deems to be offensive.
(51:06)And for those of you listening to this that say that this is an anti-Semitic analysis, no, it's not. It's anti-Zionist is what it is. And contrary to what they have now wanted to say from Congress and what many backing the Israeli lobby will tell you, Zionism and Judaism are not the same thing. Look it up. Don't take my word for it. Zionism is a political ideology that is racist, that is white supremacists and is used as the basis for genocide against the Palestinians, whereas Judaism is a religious belief system. Two totally different things. Finally, what the United States loves to call the Indio Pacific, basically what they're doing is trying to start a war with China, and they're using the island of Taiwan as the United States has used Ukraine as its proxy to start a war with Russia. The United States is using the island of Taiwan in a similar manner, and fortunately, president Xi of China is thoughtful, patient, reserved, and is not responding to the provocations as the United States would do if China were trying to do to Puerto Rico or trying to do through Puerto Rico. What the United States is trying to do to China through Taiwan, missiles would be flying and bullets would be shot.
(53:17)But G is a wise man and he's not falling for the banana in the trick. He's not going to allow the United States to provoke his country into a conflict. So the United States is engaging in military exercises with South Korea. The United States is engaged in military exercises with Japan. The United States is engaged in military exercises with the Philippines. The United States is building more military bases in along the Pacific Rim. All of this, and heaven knows why, because it's a fight. The US can win. We don't have the technology, we don't have the technology that they have. We don't have the capacity, the capability, the hypersonic missiles. Look, the United States going back to the Iranian, I'm sorry, going back to, yeah, the Gaza conflict, the United States sends in the USS Eisenhower, was it Gerald Ford? I think it was the Gerald Ford. They send in the Gerald Ford carrier Group into the Mediterranean off the coast of Israel. And President Putin says to Biden, he says, why are you doing this? He says, you're not scaring anybody. These people don't scare. He says, oh, and by the way, we Russia can sink your aircraft carrier from here with hypersonic missiles.
(55:26)Hypersonic missiles. These things fly at something like nine times, 10 times the speed of sound they have, I think it's the SU 35, which is a fighter jet that Russia has, and they're called Kja. I think it's K-I-N-J-A-L, Ken jal missiles. Look it up. They can sink the carrier from the Black Sea before the carrier even recognizes that the missiles are incoming. That thing is on its way. That carrier is on its way to the bottom of the Mediterranean before they even know that the missiles are incoming, and China has the technology as well. Some say that Iran has the technology.
(56:20)So folks, why are your tax dollars being used being wasted when there is such drastic need at home? And this is not a Republican or a Democratic issue. Democratic, this is a NeoCon, and you got Republican and Democratic neocons. This is a NeoCon issue. They are lying to you about the rationales and the so-called logic that they are employing so that it's a money laundering scheme, is what it is. The United States through its proxy, Ukraine starts a conflict with Russia so that the Biden administration can tell you that we have to increase our military spending to stop the fight with Russia to stop the war in Ukraine, to defend the Ukrainians. Well, if you hadn't started the fight in the first place, there wouldn't be a fight.
(57:57)Joe Biden tells us we have to defend security and democracy in Israel as the United States Arms funds, trains, provides logistics support to the Israeli government as it engages in genocide against the Palestinians. It's very simple. Joe, if you want to bring a stop to this as you ring your hands and cry, crocodile tears about protecting innocent Palestinian civilians, pick up the phone. Tell Benjamin Netanyahu, you don't get another damn dime. Very simple, very simple. The way you end the fight is don't start the fight in the first place. The United States is trying to provoke a war with China over Taiwan, even though it is clearly stated, articulated by then President Nixon, secretary of State, Kissinger, the one China policy. The United States considers Taiwan to be a part of China. The UN recognizes Taiwan is a part of China. The majority of Taiwanese believe support that they are Chinese citizens. If you don't want to have a fight with China, then don't provoke the fight with China, as they say on the corner. Don't start nothing. Won't be nothing. So folks, here's what you really need to think about. What does this mean? I just went through Ukraine. I just went through Israel. I just went through the conflict with China, and what does this mean? What's at stake? Well, first of all, world War iii. Remember, Russia is a nuclear armed country. China, I believe, has nuclear weapons. Israel, that's the worst kept secret in the world, is a nuclear armed country. So the United States as a nuclear power is trying to start a conflict with other nuclear powers. A nuclear war is unwinnable by anybody. Everybody loses in the course of a nuclear war,
(01:01:06)Even if the war doesn't go nuclear. Look at all the resources that have been wasted that could have been used to make America truly safer. When our infrastructure is sound, the country is safer. When our children are better educated, our country is safer. When you have social security, our country is safer. Why can't we have the healthcare, the mental healthcare, the family care that this $95 billion, and that's just the most recent of the So-called aid bills. That's just the most recent of them, 95 billion. Where could that money go, and what could that money do to help you life easier to ensure a better standard of living for you?
(01:02:32)What could be done with that money instead of being used to fund a fight that the United States started? Again, don't start. Nothing won't be nothing. But when militarism is all you have, what is the adage? When your only solution is a hammer, every problem is a nail. When militarism is your solution, every problem is a conflict. And oh, by the way, you're starting the conflict. So folks, in all the stuff that I've said over this past hour, if you heard that on M-S-N-B-C, have you heard that on CNN? Have you heard that on Fox News? Probably not. But when you do a little research, you'll find everything I've said to you is true.
(01:03:45)The truth is the light. So again, this is on you because this is impacting you, and you've got to start at the local level, starting with your city council, starting with your state and local government and working its way up. You've got to look at what those kids are doing on college campuses and on high school campuses. Now they are getting engaged. Now, I'm not saying you got to pitch a tent on somebody's lawn, and no, there are a myriad of ways that you can reengage in the process, but it starts with reading. So with that, I say to you, I got to thank my guest, who by the way, is me. Thank you all so much for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wilmer Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Also, please follow and subscribe. Go to patreon.com/wilmer leon and contribute. Please contribute. It costs to produce this program every week. We could do more programs in the week if we had the funding to do so. So please contribute. Go to patreon.com/wilmer Leon, leave a review, share the show, follow us on social media. You can find all the links below in the show description. And remember that this is where the analysis of politics, culture, history, converge, talk without analysis is just chatter, and we don't chatter here on connecting the dots. See you again next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Wilmer Leon. Have a great one. Peace
Announcer (01:06:11):
Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.

• Download110

Find me and the show on social media @DrWilmerLeon on X (Twitter), Instagram, and YouTube
Facebook page is www.facebook.com/Drwilmerleonctd

FULL TRANSCRIPT
Wilmer Leon (00:15):
Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon. I'm Wilmer Leon. So here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they occur in a vacuum, failing to understand the much broader historical context in which they occur. During each episode, my guests and I have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between the current events and their broader historic context. This enables you to better understand and analyze the events that impact the global village in which we live. On today's episode, there are a few events that have occurred and transpired recently that I want to get into. First, the United States has vetoed a UN Security Council resolution granting Palestine full membership in the United Nations. It's important to remember that Palestinian statehood was recognized by the UN General Assembly in November of 2012 when it was given non-member observer status.
(01:23)The US has agreed to withdraw troops from a key drone base in Niger. The United States recently agreed to withdraw more than 1000 troops from Niger, which will have a dramatic impact on the United States posture in West Africa. US lawmakers have passed a draft resolution containing some 95 billion in military aid for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, also approving a bill that will allow Washington to hand Kiev assets that have been seized from Russia and paved the way for a ban on TikTok. So with all of these things that are going on, oh, and by the way, more than 40 Palestinian protestors were arrested this week at Yale University. The school said that 47 students protesting peacefully the school's investments in military weapons manufacturers were arrested and will be referred for disciplinary action, potentially including suspension. And we know that a similar action has been taken at Columbia.
(02:35)So again, speaking as an African-American looking at our current circ*mstances as a community and in the much broader American imperialist context, I decided to call my guest and I asked him, what's on your mind right now? He directed me to a speech by Dr. Luther King, Jr. Entitled, honoring Dr. Du Bois. The speech was given at Carnegie Hall in New York on February 23rd, 1968, in commemoration and celebrating the 100th birthday of Dr. Du Bois. In this speech, Dr. King said that Dr. Du Bois recognized that the keystone in the arc of oppression was the myth of inferiority, and he dedicated his brilliant talents to demolish it. And as Dr. Du Bois was creating the naacp, Dr. King said at the same time, he became aware that the expansion of imperialism was a threat to the emergence of Africa. He recognized the importance of bonds between American Negroes and the land of their ancestors, and he extended his activities to African affairs after World War I, he called Pan-African Congresses in 19 19, 19 21 and 1923, alarming imperialists in all countries and disconcerting negro moderates in America who were afraid of this relentless, militant black genius. That was Dr. King. So this is going to be the basis of our conversation For this segment of connecting the dots, let me introduce my guest. He's a lifelong activist and scholar, former dean of the African-American Studies Department at Ohio University, former director of the King Center in Atlanta, and former host of morning conversations with Tom Porter. He is Brother Tom Porter, and as always, man, welcome back to the
Tom Porter (04:47):
Good evening.
Wilmer Leon (04:48):
So with that long introduction, Tom, what's on your mind, man? What do we need to be paying attention to?
Tom Porter (04:57):
Well, it's interesting how you started off, and I would paraphrase what you said was what so many people are guilty of. That is an analysis of the results, not an analysis of how the results were obtained since we actually are told by the Israeli government and our government and the Western government that October 7th, 2023 started the Israeli Palestinian conflict.
(05:35)And then we do a real stretch and say we compare the events of October 7th to the Holocaust. And that's a stretch. One incident involved a couple thousand people, the other one involved the assassination murder of millions of people, but they would have you to believe that they're one and the same. And that is so important today. If we go back to the speech by Dr. King, among other things, he said, while honoring dubois, that black America will never be free until a long light, long night of imperialism is lifted from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. And he also said, in honoring Dr. Dubois, who was an admitted and a vowed and proud communist, Dr. King in speaking of communism, said that our blind anti-communism, read Vietnam, read Korea, read Afghanistan, that our blind anti-communism has led us into one quagmire after another. So what's on my mind is that we're in a quagmire.
(07:09)Where does the African-American community go from here? If we look at the African-American community, it's leaderless. There are individual pockets of people and groups that are challenging the system. But if you look at the black caucus, the black elected officials, the black actors, the black musicians, there's no real leadership. We forget that the movement in the sixties was a movement of African people. It was a movement of black people in this country, but it was a movement that was a Black Panther party in Britain, black Panther Party in the Virgin Islands in Puerto Rico. So it was a movement of African people against imperialism, against colonialism and neocolonialism. Now, the leadership seems to be embracing that very few of our leaders have called for a ceasefire, for instance, in the Middle East, very few of our leaders speak forcibly about the environment or about police brutality or about the medical conditions of black people. And that extends to the leaders in Africa where you have thousands of people risking drowning in the Mediterranean weather to stay in their home country. And then you complain about the Chinese building roads and infrastructure complain that they're trying to take over. So that's on my mind.
Wilmer Leon (09:18):
Well, it's very telling that you talk about leadership, because when I think about leadership, I think about Dr. Du Bois. I think about Dr. King. I think about activists like Dory Ladner. I think about Mrs. Hamer and Paul Robeson. I think about the Tom Porters of the world. Now we're looking at athletes and musicians. The discussion is LeBron James better than Michael Jordan? You asked that question. Oh man, you can be in a bar and wind up with damn near a fight on your hands that people are so personally invested in that conversation. But ask them about Palestine, ask them about Niger. Ask them about Haiti, and you'll get glazed looks, gloss looks, or you'll get talking points from CNN and MSN. Ask somebody about Ukraine. And the first thing you're going to get is, well, Vladimir Putin is an authoritarian and a dictator, or ask them about Taiwan and China and all they want to talk about is a spy balloon.
(10:47)And then you mentioned some of the individuals in the Black Caucus. Right now, the United States is looking to work with Canada and looking to work with France to reinve for the, what is it, the third time in 30 years, reinve, Haiti, Hakeem Jeffries, an African-American member of Congress is leading that charge. In my open, I talked about the UN and vetoing, the initiative to take Palestine out of observer status and make it a full fledged member of the un. Linda Thomas Greenfield, an African-American woman raises her hand as the representative of the United States in the UN against people of color. You've got General Lang. I just talked about what happened, transpired in Niger, a black general, the of africom. General Langley, a black man is trying to find a way to undermine the new government in Niger and keep those US troops. Your Honor, those are just a few examples of what we're missing, what we're missing. And Tom, we don't even miss it.
Tom Porter (12:22):
You're so right. But the fundamental question for me as a black man, as an African man, I mean, at my age, 84, I'm okay, but when I think about the future of my kids and my grandkids, what about their future? And it raises the fundamental question, can African African-Americans obtain freedom, justice, and equality in a society that's imperialist capitalists and politically, economically, culturally, and socially? For all intents and purposes, that's a nation of white supremacists from the top to the bottom. And so the question is, do we stay here? One of the mistakes that I think that we've made that our politics and our politics has been to challenge the society to let us in on it,
(13:44)To give us an Academy Award and whatever, whatever, whatever. And we have to ask ourselves, as James Baldwin raised, who wants to integrate into a burning house. And so that thing's on the table, as we see America in decline in many significant ways, including its allies in Western Europe at the same time that who realizes more when you are in decline than the people who are in decline. And so it looks as if, and the situation in the Middle East is part of that, that the West United States feels that Africa has insignificant leaders and the people are not united. And that is true for African people in the United States till they're going back in for another helping, they're going back in for another helping. And they sense that black leadership is weak. Black leadership are going to do what they've been told every four years and vote for the Democrats. And if I say don't vote for the Democrats, I'm not saying vote for the Republicans. I'm saying vote your interests.
Wilmer Leon (15:16):
Talk about that binary thinking because I wrote a piece a while back, the dangers of binary thinking for the African-American community. And what prompted me to write that was listening to these discussions about, well, if you criticize Biden, then you are either obviously or by default, you are championing Trump. And no, both of them are not above beyond reproach. Both of them are in fact, in many instances, they're engaged in some of the same activities because we tend to get caught up in the politics of personality and we lose sight of the politics of policy, not really understanding that Julian Assange, Donald Trump started that process. Joe Biden followed up on it. That's just one example. So this danger of binary thinking for us, it's got to be Biden or Trump. We can't see beyond the two options that we've been provided.
Tom Porter (16:29):
Well, that has to do with the philosophical underpinnings of what makes a society go in America. There's a rare university that offers political economy. They offer economics and political science at the same time. It's a rare school that offers, of course, in dialectical logic, symbolic logic is basically the structure of arguments. That's what you're going to see in New York in the trial is that who can argue correctly, not who's correct, but who can argue structure the argument that makes a better case than the other one. It has absolutely nothing to do, whether there's a crook and a bomb that's on trial that shouldn't even have gotten this far. Fortunately, I took philosophy, symbolic logic from a person who was a scientific thinker. And so he taught it in a electrical way, which means that your thinking should be rooted in the interconnected of things, the relationship between things, not this or that, black or white, either or. It can be boan.
Wilmer Leon (17:58):
Well, hence this program, connecting the dots, always trying to find context and provide the interrelatedness between events so that you're much better able to engage in better analysis because the factors that you bring more factors into your equation.
Tom Porter (18:26):
Oh, I mean, you're absolutely correct, but that is the thinking. If you don't vote for Biden, it's a vote for Trump. And if you don't vote for Trump, then it's a vote for Biden. That doesn't make any sense at all. But people say, those are the choices that we have. No, we have another choice. We forget that we made the most progress when we didn't have a black caucus, when we didn't have many black judges. When we had, maybe we had one judge on the Supreme Court, very few black mayors because we struggled, we fought, we banged on the door and push the door in. And that's not happening. That's not happening anymore. So you talk to people and it's that binary thinking, but it's that in everything. It's that. It's that kind of thinking. And that's one of the real problems that you have in the educational system here, why Americas is lagging far behind in certain critical bodies of knowledge. Because I soon realized when I was in undergraduate school that many of my professors concealed more than they revealed.
Wilmer Leon (20:11):
They concealed more than they
Tom Porter (20:13):
Revealed than they revealed. I remember when I started teaching at Antioch, one of the books I used in the child development course was Thought and Language by ky. And another faculty member said that that was too difficult for graduate students. How can a book be too difficult for graduate students? But the book by ky, which is thought Language is all the rage now rave now in educational psychology and psychology circles. But then because he was a Russian and therefore assumed to be a communist, even though he was born, if I'm not mistaken, before the Russian Revolution. But that's where we are. But the point is, my point today is what are we going to do? Are we going to go down with the ship? Are we going to get off the ship? But that's the fundamental,
Wilmer Leon (21:38):
Are we going to take control of the ship?
Tom Porter (21:45):
That's a good thought.
Wilmer Leon (21:47):
Well, to me, it only seemed like a logical extension of the other two options that you provided, or at least since we're using the metaphor of a ship, are you going to create your own lifeboat?
Tom Porter (22:05):
Well, I think it's now time before serious call, given some of the emerging forces in Africa and Brazil and what have you, even in Venezuela that it's time for a new Pan-African movement, 21st century style. It is really time. And I just talked to somebody who was in Geneva on, there's a conference, UN conference on racism and civil rights. I don't have the correct title, but he's on his way back and he said he's going to brief me in person, but he was very optimistic about some of the things that he was seeing. But also obviously, so there's movement and we're in a transitional period on the planet. So there was a unipolar world, it was United States, and it controlled mostly through NATO and other relationships, the politics of Europe and the United States. But now you have the bricks, you have a number of, we live in a multipolar world and it is not just the bricks with China.
(23:46)There are all kinds of different relationships between countries and Latin America and Central America. And they may not all be trying to get away from capitalism, but they're certainly open to the new changes that are going on in the world in their own interests. I mean, countries entering relationships with China, not because they want to become communists, but because they want to get some of what China has to offer and they realize that they've tried the West. And so you have all of these around the world, these various groupings and what have you, and we've got to internationalize our struggle. That's not new with me. He was Malcolm, even Dr. King understood that and some new progressive forces. And I'm encouraged by what I see around what's happening in the Middle East that these young students on these campuses across the country, and I think that Gaza may be the achilles tendon of Joe Biden.
Wilmer Leon (25:10):
Oh, I think you're absolutely right. Not only is Gaza the Achilles tendon of Joe Biden, but I also believe that one of the reasons why the Biden administration and so many other forces in the West are so adamantly behind this settler colonial genocidal project is because I believe they understand as goes the settler colony of Israel, so goes the rest of colonization, period. And that the end of this is the, that
Tom Porter (25:58):
One of these days, somebody's going to really take a real look at the relationship between Israel, not just in this country, but in the rest of the world, and where does its power come from and where's his strength come from? Why would Biden put his presidency on the line, but not just his presidency, he actually believes what he's doing is right.
Wilmer Leon (26:32):
Well, he is on record and folks can scream antisemitism if they want to. He's on record very clearly as saying, I am a Zion, which a proves the point. Not all Zionists are Jewish, and not all Jews are Zionists because he's Irish Catholic, but he's very clear on I am a Zionist. And contrary to the dominant narrative, Zionism and Judaism or Zionism and Judaism are not the same thing. And being anti-Zionist doesn't mean you're, and being anti-Zionist doesn't even mean it means you are anti-Zionist. But their vested interest in controlling that narrative, which by the way, they are dramatically losing control of as evidenced by what we're seeing playing itself out on our college campuses. They've lost control of that narrative. And I don't see how they're ever going to be able to reclaim that narrative.
Tom Porter (27:52):
Well, it's very clear that the forces supporting Palestine is growing, and the questioning, which never happened before, Israel was never questioned before in a way that it is being questioned down. But the question is because, well, let's be clear. You strike up a conversation with the average white person about Jews and you'll get some antisemitism. And of course, Hitler was white. He wasn't a Jew, he was white, European, Mussolini was, and the rest of the fascists in Europe were Caucasians. And so what would make this country send him a bunch of weapons in the middle of a situation where the whole world is saying, you shouldn't do that?
Wilmer Leon (29:02):
Well, what did Al Hague say? He said, Israel is our unsinkable aircraft carrier in the region. And so they saw in that colony a ideological and military base bastion region that they believed would be their space to project power and to control that space.
Tom Porter (29:41):
I don't have the answer, but it's an interesting question. The reason why I say it's interesting because the relationship is not making sense now,
Wilmer Leon (29:51):
Right?
Tom Porter (29:53):
It's not making a sense. When you stand alone at the un, you voted against something that the rest of the world was for,
Wilmer Leon (30:04):
And you're voting for genocide. We're not arguing borders. We're not arguing an issue on the maritime navigation of the seas. We're not arguing whether it's 12 miles or 14 miles from your coast where you get into international waters. We're not arguing access to mineral rights. It's genocide. And it's not even debatable. It's not even debatable because those such as Netanyahu that are being in Morich and Benny Gantz, we have their own language. They have made it very clear in their own statements in court, you would call that statements against interest. We got to take 'em for their word because they're saying things that are really against their interest
Tom Porter (31:15):
And doing things that are
Wilmer Leon (31:16):
And do it exactly.
Tom Porter (31:18):
But still, the question comes back what's on my mind? I care less about the fight between Trump and Biden and more about what are we going to do because we come out losing whoever gets in, and we need to be clear about that. If Biden will do what he's doing in the Middle East and Haiti and in Africa, what will he do for us? When the vote comes up?
Wilmer Leon (31:54):
To that point, Tom, the house has just passed a 92 billion military spending bill where they're going to send something like 62 billion to Ukraine. They're going to send, I don't know, 20 something to Israel. And of course, Taiwan, while people in the United States are having to make decisions between paying rent and buying food or buying medicine, the homeless rate or the unhoused rate in the United States right now is somewhere 800,000. And that's just based upon the number of people in shelters that's not actually dealing in addressing the number of people that are living either under bridges in tents living with other family members. The social in indices in this country are, the rate of suicide is on the rise, particularly among white men. The rate of depression among children is on the rise. I mean, I can pick a litany of things. Oh yeah, go ahead.
Tom Porter (33:15):
The Misery Index, which used to be something that they used to measure the conditions of black people and other people of color in this country, now it's extended to looking at the misery index among whites, because when we talk about homeless, and DC is rare where you see a significant number of black people who are homeless, but you travel throughout the rest of the country in rural Virginia, rural Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Ohio, and what have you really see some poverty that you've never seen.
Wilmer Leon (33:57):
So my question is 92 billion, and that's just this latest round of funding. And we don't seem to, we're paying for healthcare in Ukraine. We're paying for pensions in Ukraine when Americans can't get either. But where is the pushback and the outcry from the Congressional Black Caucus, for example?
Tom Porter (34:27):
It really isn't. I mean, that's the problem, is the deafening silence come out of black leadership at all levels. Even here in Washington, I don't think the non-voting delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton has stood out, stood up for a ceasefire.
Wilmer Leon (34:51):
Nope,
Tom Porter (34:52):
I don't think the city council has called for a ceasefire. So where do we fit in all of this? That's the fundamental question for me
Wilmer Leon (35:08):
That it keeps going back to that,
Tom Porter (35:11):
Right?
Wilmer Leon (35:14):
The A DL is going to spend, I think the number was a hundred million dollars. I think that was the number on this upcoming election to unseat, if I'm off on that number, folks, I apologize. I was just getting it off the top of my head. I think it's a hundred million to unseat what are considered to be progressive Democrats. Now, in the 2020 election, and in the 2016 election, there was all this boohoo and crying and concern about Russian interference and Chinese interference and Iranian interference in our elections. Now you've got APAC getting ready to, or in the process, or they're in the midst of spending a hundred million dollars and not a moan, not a grip.
Tom Porter (36:14):
And the reason why is the influence, again, people always say the United States is supporting Israel. It is one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that in significant ways, Israel and the Israeli diaspora controls significant aspects of American business, cultural, social, and economic life. And that book hasn't been written well.
Wilmer Leon (36:52):
Oh, okay. Tom, sounds like my next book. Yeah, that
Tom Porter (36:59):
Book hasn't been written. And so from that stand, well,
Wilmer Leon (37:03):
If you could get it written, how are you going to get it published?
Tom Porter (37:06):
It's interesting question.
(37:11)So the protection of Israel and its influencing the rest of the world is something that I think gets overlooked because Israel is perceived as a little small country in a sea of Arabs and what have you. But actually it is more powerful than any African country. It is probably more powerful than most of the countries in Latin and Central America. If you look at its military, its weapons, its technology, industry and what have you. And so it is significant among nations of the world in terms of its influence. And APAC is a part of that influence. So again, that's where my mind is these days. What are we going to do? And then how are we going to get there when we decide what we're going to do? But guess what? We got to do it.
Wilmer Leon (38:29):
I asked the question about if the book were written, how would it get published? And I was looking off at my bookcase because this book right here, the Israel lobby and US Foreign Policy by John Heimer and Steven Walt, I remember when this book came out and they damn near ran these boys out of town. I remember it was how long I tried to get an interview with Heimer or Walt and what those guys were damn near in hiding because the uproar of the publication of the book, the Israel lobby. Now, it's interesting too, Tom, that you just mentioned how powerful Israel is, but give me that analysis. While they can't defeat Hamas and they can't defeat Hamas, they're getting their hind parts whooped in Gaza, Iran just sent them a real serious message about mess around with us if you want to, and we'll reign missiles down on you for the next 15 years. And Hezbollah has not gotten into the mix. Ansar Allah in Yemen has shut down the maritime traffic in the Red Sea, and before Iran launched their retaliatory strike against Israel, they captured a cargo ship in the Straits of Horus to demonstrate to the United States, we will shut down the straits of Horus. We will shut down the Red Sea, and you won't get a drop of oil or nothing. So when you talk about the power of Israel, talk about it in that context or those contexts.
Tom Porter (40:28):
Well, I think the United States,
Wilmer Leon (40:33):
Is that a good question to ask?
Tom Porter (40:34):
Oh, it's an excellent question because, but what we see in the West Bank and in Gaza, it's the same thing we saw in Vietnam. Same thing we saw in Korea. Same thing we saw in Cuba. Same thing we saw in Guinea Basa in Angola and Mozambique and South Africa. That is, you could misjudge the sentiment to say that the Palestinians don't support Hamas. Some of that is probably true, but one thing that all Palestinians are clear about
Wilmer Leon (41:29):
Freedom,
Tom Porter (41:29):
Freedom, justice, and equality. And I think that is a mistake that they've made. And I think that is a mistake that they've made in Lebanon. That is, they underestimate, in fact, they have increased the number of young Palestinians and young Arabs throughout the Middle East in their hatred for both Israel and the West and down the road. Arab leaders are going to have to deal with that. The people not going to,
Wilmer Leon (42:04):
And that's a very practical reality because some people listening to this conversation, when you make that statement say, oh, that's because they're antisemitic, and that's because they hate Jews. No, they hate oppression and they hate oppressors. And no matter what color stripe or size they are, I hate the person that has his or her foot on my throat, no matter what size that foot is. And no matter what kind of boot they're wearing, that's what I hate.
Tom Porter (42:44):
I think they're making the same miscalculation around the students. I mean, you can lock up 40, you can lock up 50, you can lock up a hundred people, but you really can't lock up an idea. And unless you are willing to make certain changes, the idea is going to grow. I mean, it's small, but it's significant that a group of auto workers, I'm thinking it was in Tennessee.
Wilmer Leon (43:13):
It was in Chattanooga, Tennessee
Tom Porter (43:16):
Voted to unionize. They thought they had broken the unions, but the conditions of such among workers, white workers and black workers, that something has to be done because they're filling it when they go to the grocery store. I went to Costco to fill up my gas tank the other day, and because I have to use premium in my 1992 Volvo wagon, it cost me almost $60.
Wilmer Leon (43:55):
I have to put premium in mine. It was 85.
Tom Porter (43:59):
Wow. So everybody's beginning to feel the decline of this economy At the same time that they're saying that the economy is growing, you notice they never say use the word development again. That's kind of like binary thinking. They never use the word, they always use word. The economy is growing. That's a quantitative analysis. But a qualitative analysis would be, are you developing as a society or your school's turning out educated people? But if you just deal with growth, it's all about numbers.
Wilmer Leon (44:51):
It's all about numbers, primarily because when they come and tell us that the economy is growing, they're talking about the financialized side of the economy. So if you have a 401k program, then you're happy as a clam because over the last three or four, maybe five quarters, the financialized side of the economy is running like gangbusters. But we're not manufacturing anything in this country anymore. The manufacturing base in this country is on the decline because we've exported all of those jobs to China and to Vietnam and to India. So the wage, has there been wage growth in this country? No. And to your point about the unions, so Sean Fe comes out the head of the UAW. He comes out in January saying the UAW endorses Joe Biden. But that same day, he has to give another speech where he comes out and says, the rank and file of the UAW does not back Joe Biden, because they're more concerned about their paychecks, and many of them are going to support Donald Trump. That's Sean Fain. That's not me. That's the head of the UAW making that statement. And that's what goes to the, as you talked about, the UAW in all places, Chattanooga, Tennessee, and from Chattanooga, they're going to Alabama now to a Mercedes plant in Alabama. Now that's going to be a harder fight. They're going deeper south. But still,
Tom Porter (46:54):
How can you have the largest economy in the world and be a detonation
Wilmer Leon (47:02):
And debt to your, who you consider to be your primary enemy, which is China,
Tom Porter (47:08):
Right? But how can you be? There's some oxymoronic about that, right?
Wilmer Leon (47:13):
That
Tom Porter (47:15):
You have the largest economy in the world, but
Wilmer Leon (47:19):
You're a better nation,
Tom Porter (47:20):
Better nation, and people are seeking different ways of economically engaging with each other other than using the dollar. And yet you, but every day people are feeling it. Every day people are filling at the pump, at the grocery store, at
Wilmer Leon (47:44):
The a pack of chicken wings and a gallon of milk,
Tom Porter (47:47):
The doctor's office. I mean, if you can
Wilmer Leon (47:51):
Get in.
Tom Porter (47:52):
Yep, yep.
Wilmer Leon (47:55):
So, Tom, to your point, what are we to do?
Tom Porter (48:02):
Well, we used to have men and women who thought these things. A lot of people are writing books. I'm encouraged about some of the things, and there's a lot going on in the street. There doesn't seem to be a unifying theme. I mean, the Montgomery Bus boycott was something that significant numbers of African-Americans, the black people felt in the north and the South, because many of us had a two-state experience, born in the south, grew up in the north, and so on our yearly summer visits back home, we ran into what our brothers and sisters and kin folks were dealing with. And it was a spirit in the community that it was our time to fight back and to be independent and what have you. That spirit, you can see it bubbling up young people. I'm encouraged by young people because you really can't lie to them as easy as you can lie to everybody
Wilmer Leon (49:28):
Else. Not watching CNN and MSPC,
Tom Porter (49:32):
Without a doubt. Without a doubt. So I'm actually encouraged. On the other hand, I would encourage people to get a passport. You never know when you're going to need it. I think you ought to look for options, particularly for your grandchildren and what have you. And that's not unusual. People are leaving America, not just black people going back to Africa, but white people going to Europe, and some of 'em are going to places like Puerto Rico,
Wilmer Leon (50:08):
Right? Central and South America,
Tom Porter (50:10):
And say nothing of Africa. So people are leaving. And that's one option. That's one option that has always been on my mind and
Wilmer Leon (50:25):
Abandon ship.
Tom Porter (50:27):
No, get on another ship.
Wilmer Leon (50:29):
Well
Tom Porter (50:33):
Get on another ship. Let Biden and Trump and that group fight it out. They seem to be doing a pretty good job of battling each other. But on the serious side, we've got to raise significant questions wherever we can. We got to discuss these things wherever we can. We can't allow this leadership class that we have, and even some of the so-called progressive pundits, we can't simply allow them to get away with what they've been getting away with. And I'm grateful for programs like this and some other programs or a few other stations where people are speaking out and are being heard and are being heard.
Wilmer Leon (51:30):
Just really quickly, did you happen to see the fallout from the National Action Network Congress, a convention where folks went in protesting as Hakeem Jeffries was brought in to speak and folks were protesting Hakeem Jeffries and Reverend Sharpton called him Renta Coons, and did you see any of that?
Tom Porter (51:58):
No, but I'm not surprised.
Wilmer Leon (51:59):
Okay, then I won't go any further into it.
Tom Porter (52:02):
Well, but you raised an interesting point about the bankruptcy of leadership. They used to refer to Al Sharpton as Jesse on a budget. But
Wilmer Leon (52:23):
Lemme just quickly make one point, because one of the things that Reverend Sharpton was promoting or displaying, he was basically saying, look at. So he got Joe Biden to do this little video and supporting, thank you Reverend Al, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But so everybody's, wow. Look, Reverend Al got President Biden to zoom in to the National Action Network Convention, but nobody seems to want to talk about that 10 days after Biden was inaugurated. Biden had to be forced. And I mean, kicking, brought in, kicking and screaming to have a meeting with black leadership. And when he got on that call, he disrespected everybody on that call. But if you didn't see it, you didn't see it then so
Tom Porter (53:33):
Well, but the role of, again, it just points out the bankruptcy of certain African leaders. I mean, here you have, well, a two-way race between Democrats and Republicans. Two Democrats are running in the primary to become democratic senators. One's a black woman and one's a white man. Without discussing Dem merits of either one of them, why would Hakeem Jeffries, Anthony Brown and Jonathan Jackson endorse the white candidate? I mean, why would you do that? I mean, Jonathan Jackson is from Illinois. I understand that connection between he and David Cron is Itron
Wilmer Leon (54:37):
Cone, cone, David Tron in Maryland.
Tom Porter (54:43):
He owns total wine and liquors, right? And Jonathan Jackson is in the liquor business. He's a big distributor in the Chicago era. I don't get Hakeem Jeffries, who's in New York. The point of it is, where's the integrity? Where's the integrity? On the one hand, you talk black out of the side of your mouth, and I'm not in any mean pushing black nationalism. I'm simply saying, why would you get in that fight? I mean, why would you get in that fight? Obviously,
Wilmer Leon (55:21):
Angela also, Brooks is running, right? That's what I'm saying. A black woman, and why wouldn't you back her?
Tom Porter (55:31):
But why would you get in the race at all since you got you from another state? And you would not want that to happen to you when you were running? And so there's obviously a cash nexus.
Wilmer Leon (55:50):
Well, we do know that Hakeem Jeffries has received, I think, over a million dollars from APAC over his tenure in office. And the same thing with Gregory Meeks. He's another one that falls into that same camp. And both of them, along with the Vice President, Kamala Harris, they're all behind the Global Fragilities Act, which is being used as the rationale for the United States to rein, invade Haiti. Go figure.
Tom Porter (56:32):
Again, we have to do an analysis of how the results were obtained rather than the results. I mean, it looks like Haiti is a failed state. So how do you go from the first independent black Republic on the planet? Well, not on the planet, but in that era, because there were black leaderships. But how do you become that, given any slave who could get to Haiti freedom? I mean, how do you get defeating Napoleon then? How do you become the basket case, a basket case in the world? How does that happen? Why do they still old friends and see should be the other way around,
Wilmer Leon (57:25):
Way around?
(57:29)Why is the United States wring its hands and going through all these machinations talking about we have to go in and stabilize this country when the United States is responsible for the instability? Why does the United States send $60 billion to Ukraine when the United States is the one that started the fight in the first place, and Ukraine is merely the proxy for the United States? Why is the United States saying we can't do anything with Netanyahu? Yes, you can. You call 'em and tell 'em, you're not giving in any more money. You are against genocide, but you send them the bullets, you send them the bombs, you provide the logistics. Same thing with China. Oh, Taiwan, Taiwan, Taiwan, Taiwan. Why are you trying to pick a fight with China? Who by the way, holds more of your debt than anybody else in the room? Why? Let's get to the cause, right?
Tom Porter (58:48):
Of course. I mean, again, the Haiti situation, it gets played out and we go in, why did the United States involve itself in the overthrow of John Butra?
Wilmer Leon (59:06):
What was his aired? John Beron aired,
Tom Porter (59:10):
Aired
Wilmer Leon (59:11):
Twice
Tom Porter (59:14):
A legitimately elected democratic leader who's very positive. Why do you place sanctions on Cuba? Only because you don't believe in what they believe in?
Wilmer Leon (59:33):
Here's another, and
Tom Porter (59:33):
Then get upset when they're successful in the biotech industry and what have you. And the list goes on and on and on. But because they don't think that people study history or read history,
Wilmer Leon (59:53):
The average Haitian makes less than $3 a day. Folks, you can look it up. The average Haitian makes less than $3 a day, but somehow they can walk around with $1,800 sniper rifles, military grade equipment
Tom Porter (01:00:18):
Where they get 'em from. That's the question that you asked. All of these militias running around the deserts of Africa, where are they getting these weapons from? Where do they get food from?
Wilmer Leon (01:00:33):
Right, right, right. Brother Tom Porter. Man, as always, thank you.
Tom Porter (01:00:45):
Thank you for having me. It's been a long day.
Wilmer Leon (01:00:48):
I know it has, and I appreciate you giving me your time today. I got to thank you Tom Porter so much, man, for joining the show today. Greatly, greatly appreciate it.
Tom Porter (01:00:57):
Thank you for having me. Have a good evening,
Wilmer Leon (01:01:00):
Folks. Thank you so much for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wilmer Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes each week. Please follow and subscribe, go to the Patreon account. We'll greatly appreciate you contributing to the program. We can't do this without your support, so please go to the Patreon account. The address for that is on the bottom of your screen. Also, leave a review. Share the show with those that you think will like it, and then those that you think will hate it, send 'em to 'em anyway. They might just surprise you. Follow us on social media. You can find again, all the links to the show are below in the description. And remember, folks, that this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge because talk without analysis is just chatter, and we don't chatter on connecting the dots. See you next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Wilmer Leon. Have a great one. Peace. I'm out
Announcer (01:02:08):
Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.

• Download118

Follow this week's guest Scott Ritter on X/Twitter @RealScottRitter and his substack http://scottritterextra.com/ and read his latest article here: https://consortiumnews.com/2024/04/15/scott-ritter-the-missiles-of-april/
Find me and the show on social media @DrWilmerLeon on X (Twitter), Instagram, and YouTube
Facebook page is www.facebook.com/Drwilmerleonctd

FULL TRANSCRIPT:
Announcer (00:06):
Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.
Wilmer Leon (00:14):
Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon, and I'm Wilmer Leon. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they happen in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historical context in which they occur. During each episode, my guests and I have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between current events in the broader historic context in which they happen, enabling you to better understand and analyze the events that impact the global village in which we live on today's episode. The issue before it says, what can we expect next? Now that Iran has responded militarily to Israel's attack on the Iranian consulate in Syria for insight into this, let's turn to my guest. He's a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. His most recent book is entitled Disarmament in the Time of Parika, and he is of course, Scott Ritter. As always, Scott, welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Wilmer Leon.
Scott Ritter (01:37):
Well, thanks for having me.
Wilmer Leon (01:39):
So Pepe Escobar wrote the following. He called it the Shadow Play, and he writes, so this is how it happened. Burns met an Iranian delegation in Oman. He was told the Israeli punishment was inevitable, and if the US got involved, then all US bases will be attacked and the Rai of Horus would be blocked. Burns said, we do nothing if no civilians are harmed. The Iranians said it will be a military base or an embassy. The CIA said, go ahead and do it. Scott Ritter, you've been writing about these issues in Iran for over 20 years. First, your assessment of Pepe Escobar's assessment.
Scott Ritter (02:29):
Well, I mean, clearly Pepe, he is a journalist. He is a journalist of some renno, and he has a source and he's reporting it. It's plausible. I can't confirm it. I can't sit here and say, I know that this happened. I have no idea if this happened. I do know that the CIA has over the course of time, taken on a shadow diplomacy role because the State Department in implementing America's hegemonic policies has alienated America with so many nations and that normal diplomatic relations are impossible. And so the CIAs assume this responsibility. Indeed, this is why William Burns was selected by Joe Biden to be the director of the CIA. He's not a CIA hand, he's not a man who has involved. He's a diplomat, former ambassador to Russia, and he's a man who has written a book called The Back Channel, which describes his approach, the back channel approach to resolving things. Burns has carried out similar meetings with Russia when trying to reopen arms control venues or talk about possible prisoner exchanges.
(03:55)It's burns that takes the lead on these things. The CIA has played an important role in the past in facilitating dialogue between the Palestinians and the Israelis. The CIA had a very big role to play in making that happen. The CIA was behind the secret negotiations with the Taliban that led to the American withdrawal. So would it surprise me that the CIA has connectivity with Iran? Absolutely not. Especially given Burns' role and the importance of the back channel to the Biden administration. I think the Israelis might find it somewhat of a shock that the United States green lit the Iranian response. But then again, we're living in very strange times where the lack of, let's just call it the deterioration of relations between the United States and Israel is real. I've said for some time now that no American president or presidential candidate has won the White House by turning his back on Israel.
(05:09)And I've also noted that no Israeli Prime Minister stays in power by turning his back on the United States. And yet we have a situation today where Joe Biden, a sitting president, is starting to turn his back on Israel because of the policies of Benjamin Netanyahu's government policies that are being carried out in direct defiance of American instructions to the contrary. So we live in unprecedented times, and it would seem to me that the United States has made it clear that their policy objectives, strategic policy objectives, and again, just a quick background, remember, part of the reason why we withdrew from Afghanistan in August of 2021 is that we were delinking ourselves from a two decade long commitment to the middle. We were going to lower our profile there as part of our pivot to the Pacific to confront China. And so we have, we no longer are actively implementing the Carter Era doctrine of guaranteed American military intervention.
(06:21)Anytime something in the Middle East goes south that we don't like, we don't do Desert Storm anymore. We don't do Operation Iraqi freedom anymore. We don't do the invasion of Afghanistan anymore. We're not looking for a fight. We're looking to avoid a fight. And one of the reasons is that Iran has emerged as a very significant regional power with a tremendous amount of military capability. Iran is also a major player in the regional and global economy, and it's incumbent upon the United States to do what we can stabilize this economy to make sure that it doesn't go south, especially in an election year where the old James Carville mantra, it's the economy stupid factors in so large. So we don't want a war or a conflict with Iran that could lead to the shutting down of the straight or moves. This would've a devastating impact on global energy security.
(07:20)Oil prices would go through the roof at a time again to remind people when Joe Biden has lowered the strategic petroleum reserve down to less than 17 days worth of reserves. So if there was suddenly a shutdown in oil transit, we'd be in trouble. Huge trouble in an election year, which is for Joe Biden. So it doesn't, what I'm trying to say is a long way of saying that there's a lot of reason to believe the reporting that's put out by Pepe Esquire. And again, when I say believe the reporting, I'm not challenging Pepe Escobar. I understand I'm saying that every journalist has sources and some sources are better than others. But what I'm saying is my assessment of the information that Pepe is reporting from the source would be that this is extraordinarily plausible, that it makes sense that this would indeed happen.
Wilmer Leon (08:15):
That was my takeaway, whether it was Bill Burns or whether it was Mr. Burns from whatever that cartoon is. I was really focused more on the point that there was a dialogue between the United States and the parties involved, and that those parties came to a consensus. In fact, when I read, it might have been, I guess it was Thursday, that Iran had seized an Iranian cargo ship in the Straits of Horus. Then there was the missile launching, and then that drones were used as the kind of foray or entree into all of this and that the drones traveled as far as they did. I said, oh, well, Iran was really sending a message more than they were an attack. And I think the message was, and is if you're looking for trouble, you found it and you found a very big bag of it, and you really don't want to mess around with this. It seems as though the Biden administration is starting to get that message. I don't know that Netanyahu, I think it seems like it's falling on deaf ears in Israel.
Scott Ritter (09:45):
What Iran did here is I have said that I've called it one of the most impressive military victories in modern history.
Wilmer Leon (09:57):
In fact, let me interrupt and say, folks, you need to read Scott's piece, the missiles of April. You can find it in Consortium News, Scott, you can tell me where else, but it's a phenomenal assessment of what recently transpired. Scott Ritter.
Scott Ritter (10:14):
Well, thank you very much. It was originally put out on my substack, it's scott ritter extra.com, but then Joe Luria, who I have a very good relationship, he's the editor of Consortium News, asked permission to publish it with Consortium News. And then he and I had a discussion and he asked some questions, follow on questions based upon the article, and I gave him some answers.
(10:38)So he added some material. So for anybody who read my article on my substack, there's additional material in on the consortium news variant. You might want to read that as well. It's just basically an update when you write things about moving targets such as breaking news, you write based upon the data that's available. And in the time between, I published on my Substack and I spoke with Joe Lauria, there was additional information necessary that provided additional clarity to some of the points I made. So it's not that I changed anything in terms of my assessments, although that's possible too. When you get new information, assessments can change, they should change, and you shouldn't be afraid to change them. But my assessment regarding the Iranian, the efficacy of the Iranian attack remains the same, one of the most impressive military victories in time. Now, people say, well, wait a minute, how could that be?
(11:29)They didn't blow up Israel. They didn't destroy anything. War is an extension of politics by other means. That's what everybody needs to understand. Military victories basically mean that you have achieved something through the use of military force. That's impressive, especially an impressive military victory. What Iran did on April 14th, on April 13th, 14th, and this attack is established deterrence, supremacy over Israel. Iran has had a problem with what I would say, making the world understand its declaratory policy regarding deterrence, it's deterrence strategy. Deterrence is basically a policy posture that says, if you want to hit me, understand that I'm going to come in afterwards and pummel you to death, that the price you're going to pay for hitting me is going to be so great that you don't want to hit me. I'm not threatening to hit you first. I'm sitting here saying, live and let live, but if you attack me, the price you're going to pay will be so overwhelming that it won't be worth what you thought you were going to achieve by hitting me in the first place.
(12:44)Iran has established this deterrence superiority over the United States. We saw that when the United States assassinated QM Soleimani in 2020, the Iranians responded with a missile attack against the Alad airbase that didn't kill any Americans. It was telegraphed well in advance, but the purpose was to demonstrate the Americans that we can reach out and touch you anywhere, anytime with devastating force, and there's nothing you can do to stop this, nothing you can do. So now we get to William Burns meeting with his Iranian counterparts, and when they say, and we will strike American bases, burns is going, and they can, and if they do, there's nothing we could do to stop it and we will suffer horrific losses. Therefore, Mr. President, we should heed what the Iranians are saying. This is deterrent superiority over the United States, that the United States understands the consequences of attacking. Iran is not willing to live with those consequences.
(13:45)They'll be severe even more so in an election year where any disruption of the economy is politically fatal to the incumbent seeking reelection. So they have successfully done that with the United States. Iran has also used missiles. Again, part of declaratory policy. It doesn't have to be necessarily spoken policy, but demonstrative, and we've seen Iran use missiles to strike targets in Iran, in Syria, Pakistan, in Pakistan.
Wilmer Leon (14:17):
In fact, on that Pakistan point, that was what about a month ago, maybe month and a half ago, and when I heard that Iran had sent, I think it was a cruise missile into Pakistan, I did my best to calculate how far that missile traveled. And then I checked, well, what's the distance between Tehran and Tel Aviv? It was about the same distance. And I said, I think Iran is sending a message to the Israel that we can strike Tel Aviv if we so choose.
Scott Ritter (14:57):
Yeah, I mean, first of all, just so people understand historically during the Gulf War, and not too many people know this, so Israel was very perturbed about Saddam Hussein's scud missiles hitting Israeli cities and locations, and they were threatening direct military intervention, which would've destroyed the coalition that George W. Bush had built up. And so we were doing everything we could to convince the Israelis that we had the scud problem under Control Pro. And you mean that you were personally involved in doing that? Yeah, no, this was my part of the war that, I mean, first of all, I wasn't a general, I wasn't a colonel. I wasn't lieutenant Colonel. I wasn't a major, I was just a captain. But as a captain, I played a bigger role than one would normally expect from a captain. I mean, when my name gets briefed to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff, and when General Schwarz cov not only fires me, but arrests me because of what I'm doing, I'm having an impact larger than what I was wearing on my shoulder, and I'm pretty proud of the work I did during the Gulf War, but that's beside the point.
(16:04)The point is that Israel was being told, don't intervene because we've got it under control. But Israel needed to make a statement, and it was a statement being made not to Iraq, because what they did is they brought out a Jericho missile, which is a nuclear capable missile, but also can have control warheads, and they fired this missile into the Mediterranean Sea, and when you measure the distance that it went, it's exactly the distance from Israel to Baghdad and what the Israelis were telling, not the Iraqis, because the Iraqis couldn't monitor the attack and it wasn't publicly announced. They were telling the Americans who were monitoring that, if you don't solve this problem, we're going to solve it for you, and this is the weapon that we're going to use. And it was a wake up call. I remember when that happened. We're all like, stop.
(16:55)We were only getting two hours sleep at night. No more sleep at night. Do everything you can to stop these Iraqi missiles from flying. We never did, but Israel stayed out of the war. But my point is, when you talk about, because to the lay person, they might be like, come on Wilmer, you're getting a little too creative. They're a little too conspiratorial.
Wilmer Leon (17:17):
I heard that. I heard that last Saturday night. I was at a buddy's house and he said to me, I walk into his house and CNN is on, as it always is, chirping in the background. And so finally he says to me, so what do you think? I said, think about what he said. What do you think about the Iraq? I said, oh. I said, man, that was collaborated. That was done with collaboration. He said, man, you always come in here with this junk. I said, well, okay. So I hear that a lot.
Scott Ritter (17:53):
Well, but in this case, it's not junk because I'm telling you, as somebody who has been in the technical analysis business of ballistic missiles for some time now, there are various ways to send a message. To give you an example, in the arms control world, sometimes the way to send a message is to open up telemetry channels that are normally closed down and launch a missile test. You're not saying anything. You don't put out a press release, but the people monitor because you don't want to say anything. North Korea does this all the time, all the time. They open up some telemetry channels and they just go, Hey, listen to this. And they send a to the Sea of Japan, and the technicians are going, ohoh. They got, oh, they did this capability. Oh, no. And then they're writing secret reports, and that message gets, meanwhile, the public is just sitting there, going to the beach, surfing, smoking dope, and doing whatever we do because we are not meant to get upset about this or worried about it.
(18:52)It's a subtle message being sent to leadership through the intelligence agency. So your notion that the distance mattered because Iran didn't need to fire at that distance. They just could have fired at a closer range, whatever, but to fire at that distance is a signal to the people who are that distance away, that what we're doing here we can do here. But the problem is the Israelis weren't listening. This is the problem. Iran has through very indirect and direct means. First of all, Iran has never issued a public declaratory policy on deterrence and ballistic missiles until now. And it's one of the weaknesses of Iran is that they didn't make it clear what the consequences would be. The United States got it because they hit us and we're smart enough to go, oh, we don't want that again. Pakistan sort of gets it, but I mean ISIS and Syria, when they got hit with missiles, ISIS isn't going to sit there and go, oh, you're going to hit us with missiles, so we're not going to carry out terrorism anymore.
(20:03)No, that was a punitive attack. The same thing with the various missile strikes in Iraq. It was punitive attack. It wasn't meant to be a declaratory policy statement. And so here you have a situation where Israel just isn't getting it because Israel believes that it has deterrent supremacy over Iran. And why would Israel believe that? I don't know. Maybe they've assassinated a whole bunch of Iranian scientists in Iran with no consequence. Maybe they've carried out covert direct action sabotage in Iran blowing up nuclear related facilities with no consequence. Maybe they've struck Iranian revolutionary Guard command positions in Lebanon, in Syria, in Iraq, inflicting casualties with no consequence. So maybe Israel believed that it had established deterrent supremacy over Iran. Therefore, when they saw a meeting at the Iranian consulate in Damascus of these major people plotting the next phase of the operation against Israel, they said, take it out.
(21:04)There won't be any consequence because the Iranians are afraid of us. The Iranians won't strike us because we have deterrent supremacy. Iran believes that if they attack us, we will come down on them tenfold. And so they struck the consulate and Iran went, guess what guys? Nope, it's over. We're done with the subtlety. We warned you don't attack our sovereign territory. The consulate is sovereign territory. We're going to respond. But now the problem with the Iranian response is you have to put yourself in the Iranian shoes because the last thing Iran wants, it's just like the United States. They don't want a war with Israel. They don't want it, as they said in the Godfather, it's bad for business, it's bad for business. And business right now for Iran is improving. They're members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. China has brokered a reproachment with Saudi Arabia, dismantling an American strategy of creating a Sunni shield against the Shia crescent and provoking permanent conflict that would empower American defense industry, Israeli security credibility and economic co prosperity between that part of the ward and Europe with Israel in the middle.
(22:25)Israel's going, wow, we're back in the game, guys, when Israel was Benjamin Netanyahu, for all the criticism that people have out there, and I'm one of those biggest critics understand that on October 6th, he was on top of the world on October 6th, he had created a geopolitical reality that had Israel normalizing relations with the Gulf Arab states, Israel becoming a major player in a major global economic enterprise, the India, middle East, economic C and the world, not talking about a Palestinian state anymore. Israel was entering, becoming legitimate. It was like Michael Corleone and the Godfather when he was saying, I'm going to put all that behind me and I'm going to become legitimate, reached out and just drag them back in by October 7th. And then Israel was exposed for the criminal enterprise that it is, and now Israel has collapsed. But Iran, that was the Israeli process.
(23:27)Iran is sitting here saying, we don't want to war. We're members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. We normalized relations with Saudi Arabia. We have an axis of resistance that's holding Israel in check and these plans, Hezbollah is very strong. The militias in Iraq and are strong. The Anella movement in Yemen, the Yemen strong, but we don't want to provoke war. What we want is to become economically viable again. The promise that we, the theocracy have made to the Iranian people over time that trust us, things will get better. We're in that, Hey, you trusted us. Now things are about to get better. We're joining bricks together with Saudi Arabia, so we're going to work with Saudi Arabia and these powerful economic interests that no longer are turning their backs on us to create economic opportunity. And the last thing Iran needed is a war with Israel. It's bad for business.
(24:29)It's bad for business. And so now the Iranians are like, how do we set declaratory policy to achieve deterrent supremacy? I mean, not supremacy, superiority supremacy is where you have everybody just totally intimidated. Superiority is where you put the thought in people's mind, and they now need to tell the Israelis, you can't attack us or the price you're going to pay is tenfold. Normally you do that. It's like going in the boxing ring. Mike Tyson, even now, I don't know if you've been watching his training videos of him getting ready for this fight he's got in July 20th. The man's a beast. I'm intimidated if I could 57, what he's doing.
Wilmer Leon (25:10):
Well, lemme tell you. I don't know if you saw the report of the guy that was kicking the back of his seat on the airplane, and he came over. He kept asking the guy, Hey man, can you stop kicking my seat? And the guy wouldn't leave him alone. And the folks on the plane said, finally he came over the top of that seat like Iran and pummeled the guy. They had to carry the guy off the plane and a stretcher.
Scott Ritter (25:42):
Well see, that's deterrence supremacy. There you go. Deterrence supremacy is when I jump into the ring with Tyson and Tyson knocks my face in, kicks my teeth out, and I'm on the ground hospitalized and bites your ear, pardon? And bites your ear. That is a bonus. Yes.
(26:02)The deterrence superiority is where I jump in the ring, ent Tyson comes up, takes the fist right to my nose and just touches it. But he doesn't in a way that I'm in my stance, but he's already there and I'm like, oh, oh, I got a problem. Yeah, okay. I don't really want to be in this ring, Mike. It was a misunderstanding. I'm backing off. I'm just going to go out here and pee my pants in the parking lot. So that's what Iran needed to do. But how do you do this? It's very delicate operation. That's why this was one of the most impressive military opera victories in modern history because what Iran did was make all the demonstration necessary to show potential, and in the end, they hit a base nem. And this is important for your audience to understand. The Naam airbase is the single most heavily protected spot on earth when it comes to anti-ballistic missile defense.
(26:55)There's no spot on earth that's better defended than nem. It has at the heart of this defense, a and I'll give you a fancy name, a N TP Y two X-Band radar sounds like, well, not one, not one, but two. Well, it's the number two radar, not two radars.
Wilmer Leon (27:13):
No, I'm saying because I got one over my house. Yeah, they got two over 2.0. This is 2.0 man.
Scott Ritter (27:20):
They got this radar there that has the ability to do overheard the horizon surveillance, but it's not just the radar, which is the most sophisticated radar of its type in the world. It's linked into the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization in the United States Strategic Command and the satellites that we have over hanging over the area. So all of that's linked in into a common command center that's shared with the Israelis. So this data is fed to the Israelis and around Nati.
(27:48)And why is Naam important? I don't know. The F 35 I fighters are there. This is Israel's best fighter plane, their strategic deterrent. They have F fifteens, F sixteens, and they do other secret things there as well because of the notice that they were given, if I understand it, they were able to move those F 35. So the F, again, it was coordinated 100%. I mean, we'll get to that in a second. But they have the arrow two and arrow three missiles, which are joint Israeli American projects are deployed around Nevada. David Sling, which is another anti-ballistic missile capability, is deployed around Nevada. Advanced Patriot missiles are deployed around Nevada. And the US Thad system is deployed around Nevada. The bottom line is they have, and there's Iron Dome as well. So what they have is this multi-layered defense using the world's best anti-ballistic missile technology linked to the world's best surveillance and tracking technology.
(28:56)And you read the literature on this stuff, we hit a bullet with a bullet. Okay, wow, you guys are good. Now here's the other thing. It's all specifically tailored for one threat and one threat only. Iranian medium range ballistic missiles. That's all it's geared to do. It's not like there's confusion. It's not like you have a multitude of missions. One mission, Iranian medium range missiles. Okay? So now that's like me watching Mike Tyson training videos, and I'm watching the training and I'm like, I got 'em. I can move. I got this guys, I got this. I go into training, bullet, hit a bullet, hit a bullet. I got this. And so now, Mike Tyson, Iran, they go a step further. Not only do they do the Pepe Escobar advanced notice, they build the attack in a way that says, Hey, this is really happening. They announce that the launch of the drones, and these aren't just any drones, guys.
(29:57)These are slow, moving, loud drones. So you couldn't get a better air alarm system than what Iran gave Israel. They unleashed the drones, and here the drones go. Now Israel's got, they're like flying bumblebees six hours of advanced notice, which gives the United States time to say, take your F 30 fives out, anything value out. But the other thing the Iranians did is they told the United States, see, I think they went a step further. The Iranians made it clear that they will only strike military targets that were related to the action. Iran's whole argument. And again, I know in the West, we tend to rule our eyes, like when Russia says, we acted in Ukraine based upon Article 51, self-defense, preemptive self-defense, the Caroline Doctrine, all the people who hate Russia go, no, no. That was a brutal roar of aggression. Unprovoked. No, the Russians actually have a cognitive legal case because that's how Russia operates based upon the rule of law.
(30:57)Now, the rule of law, Wil, as we all know, can be bent, twisted, manipulated. I'm not saying that the Russians have the perfect case. What I'm saying is the case that Russia has made is cognizable under law, right? It's defendable. You could take it to a court and it's not going to be tossed out asr. It's not Tony Blinken rules based order. It is not. And so now the Saudis, or not the, I'm sorry, the Iranians, they have been attacked and they have cited Article 51 of the UN charter as their justification. But now you can't claim to be hiding behind the law and then just totally break the law yourself. If Iran had come in, you can. You're the United States, correct? But that's the rules based international, not the law based international. That's the difference between the two. The rules say we can do whatever we want.
(31:50)The law says no, you're constrained by the law. So in order to justify self-defense, Iran had to limit its retaliation to the immediate threat that was posed by those who attacked them, which means you can hit the two air bases where the airplanes flew out. And there's a third site that nobody's talking about yet. Is that the CIA site? Well, it's the 8,200, the Sgin site on Golan Heights that's looking out into Damascus. And according to the Iranians, that's the site that gathered the intelligence about the Iranians being in the consulate and then shared that intelligence with the airplanes coming in. And so these three targets are the three. Now, in addition to that, Iran is allowed to strike facilities and locations that are involved in the defense of these three things. So the ballistic missile defense capability becomes a legitimate target. But now, so Iran has to hit these three, and so they've broadcasted, we're coming, we're coming.
(32:55)And that gives the United States do something politically smart, which is to tell the Israelis, we will defend you, but we will not participate in any Israeli counter attack. So we've limited the scope and scale of our participation in this. And so we came together, we started shooting down these drones, creating a fiction of Iranian incompetence, Iranian lack of capability. So this is part of the plan. This is all part of the plan. Now, Iran didn't sit down with the United States and say, this is what we're going to do. This is what we want you to do. Iran is scripting it for them. I mean, this is basically United States going, damn, I forgot my lines. Here you go. Here come the drones. Here come the drones. Shoot them down. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Thank you. And so we're shooting it down, and then we're sending the cruise missiles, just in case you don't know, we're launching them live on TV Here.
(33:51)Let me show you a closeup of what they look like so you understand the operational parameters of the system. And off go, the cruise missiles. Don't shoot pigeons, shoot cruise missiles. So now they're shooting. But then as they're doing this, the Iranians are sitting there going, okay, so we sent the drones. What's lightening up, guys? First of all, what people don't understand is before all this happened, the Iranians did a very targeted cyber attack and shut down. They attacked the Iron Dome system. Now, why do you want to attack the Iron Dome system but not attack the others? Because the Iron Dome system isn't designed to take down big ballistic missiles. It's designed to take down the other stuff. Medium range cruise missiles. No, well, cruise missiles and drones, low flying. It's actually designed to take down kaka rockets and the Hamas rockets. Okay? That's what it's supposed to do.
(34:44)So you disrupt this so that the other systems have to take priority, and then the arrives, you go, oh, thank you very much. Now, some of the drones that were sent in aren't armed with explosives, but armed with radars and signals intelligence collection, which they're broadcasting the data back to Iran. These are guys are very sophisticated ladies and gentlemen. These aren't amateurs you're dealing with. And so they're sitting in going here. They come turn it on, collect, thank you. And now they have their targeters looking at a big map going, okay, we got a radar here. We got here. Okay, now they're shooting. Okay, we got missile launchers here, boom, boom, boom. It's all there. And they've looked at all. Then they say, okay, remember, because the goal now is to get the glove to touch the nose. The goal isn't to hit the knockout.
(35:33)So they say, what do we need to do to demonstrate capability the Iranians used? Now, there's some mixed reporting out here. The problem is I like everybody else, I'm held hostage with the Iranians. I don't get to go on the ground anymore and look at the debris and do technical analysis. I used to do that, and I used to be able to come back. One of the things we did with the Iraqis, just so people understand, I am not the dumbest marine in the world. I'm one of the dumbest Marines in the world, but I do have some capability based upon experience. And when my time as a weapons inspector, I worked with the Israelis, their technical intelligence people on looking at debris of the missiles that Iraq fired against Israel. And we were able to ascertain several different variants of scud missiles that have different capabilities that the Iraqis had been denying or not declaring.
(36:27)And by coming back to them with the technical intelligence from the debris on the ground, the Iraqis had to admit to certain capabilities that they had been denying. And this is important when you're trying to be able to stand before the world and say, we understand the total picture of Iraqi ballistic missile capability, and we can certify that we can account for it all. Because imagine going before the security council and saying that only to have the Israelis go, yes, but what about variant 3D alpha four? Well, I don't understand what you're talking about. What's 3D alpha four? That's the point. You're making a report and you don't understand what we're talking about, which means you don't know everything, do you? I don't like to be in that position as an expert, or I want to know everything. And so we did, and we got the Iraqis to come clean.
(37:14)So when I say we could account for Iraq's ballistic missile program, we could account for every aspect of it. So I don't get to do that right now. So I'm at a disadvantage where I have to rely upon information. So I don't know if Iran used their hypersonic missiles or not. I don't know that, okay, reports, it's reported. There's reports that they did, and then there's reports that they didn't, and it's conflicting. The most recent press TV report and press TV is a organ of the Iranian state, says that they did use the fat two missiles against thetan airfield. So I'm going to run with that, but I want to put a big caveat on that, that I don't know for certain.
(38:01)But we do know, just looking at the characteristics of the missiles that came in, that they used at least three different kinds of, they used more than that, but three that were designed to put the glove on the nose, other missiles that were sent were designed to be shot down again as part of the intelligence collection process. So you send in an older ballistic missile that comes on a ballistic missile trajectory. The first thing that you do by doing that is you are training the defense systems. These Iranians are smart. They understand these things. You're training them because you see, there's a whole bunch of computers, software, artificial intelligence. This is the proof that ai, please don't do it better than ai. Is the brain a train brain? Because ai, listen to what everybody's talking about. I mean, I get this phone call. I don't know if you get this up, Scott, I'd like to take the transcripts of your discussions and use them to train my ai. I don't know if you've ever received that request. And I'm like, no, I don't want you to do that. But I just personally go. But the point is, that's how ai, it's not artificial intelligence, ladies and gentlemen. It's just programmed, just programmed in a different way. And you can program in stupidity, which the Iranians said, which they usually do. Let's program in stupidity.
Wilmer Leon (39:24):
Well, for example, just for a quick example, that's why facial recognition technology fails to the degree that it does. It's limited by the abilities and capabilities of the people that are programming it. That's why facial recognition technology doesn't work on Asian people, and it doesn't work on people of color. Dammit, I'm the wrong race. I could have put that a long time ago. Go ahead,
Scott Ritter (39:57):
Touche. So the Iranians are programming the ai. They're sending missiles in, and the system is starting to normalize to come up with a, because it's wartime now. So now you're actually detecting tracking and firing. Then what you do is you throw in, it's like a pitcher, fastball, fastball, fastball, changeup, and here comes the changeup. First changeup they do is, and I don't know the sequence that they did this, but we see the video evidence. There's a warhead that comes in, and again, it's about timing. So you're sending these missiles in. Now they have separating warheads. So what happens when a missile has a separating warhead is the radar's picking one target.
(40:44)All of a sudden, the radar is dealing with two targets, but it's not just two targets. When you separate the warhead from the missile body, the missile body starts to tumble and it starts sending differentiating signals, and it's no longer a ballistic trajectory. So the computer's going, oh my God, what's happening here? Meanwhile, this warhead's going this way, it's tracking that, and it has to make a decision. Which one? Which one? Which one, which one, which one? This one, pick this warhead. So now they've trained it to discriminate onto this warhead, which is what they want. Now, you'd say, why would they want to look at that warhead? You'll find out the warhead comes in and they're timing. It's like a track coach got the timer, warhead comes in, and the missiles fire up to hit it, and you go, we got it. We now know what the release point is for the missiles being fired.
(41:29)So now they send in this other missile, it comes in, warhead separates the AI says, go with the warhead baby. They ignore this thing, which is good. It's just a distraction. They're focused on the warhead, they're on the clock. Everything's getting queued up just the way it's supposed to be. Everything's optimized. We're going to take this thing, a bullet hits a bullet baby, and all of a sudden, the warhead right before the launch on the ground, fires off a whole bunch of decoys. It's like a shotgun shell. And the computer goes, damn, what the hell just happened? We don't know. It's going crazy, trying to differentiate between all this stuff. And they're firing a whole bunch of missiles now in panic overload, and they're trying to deal with this. And meanwhile, they have a warhead here. They accelerated these shotgun shells out. So they're going faster.
(42:17)Now, the computer's adapting to that. Oh God, what do we do? Fire, fire, fire. That warhead's hanging back. It's not the priority right now. And then once everything's committed, you see it on the film, boom. It has a booster engine on it. It gets fired through the chaff. Nothing's intercepting it, bam hits the ground. But not only that, as it comes in, it makes an adjustment. I don't know if people saw that. It comes in and you see it go up, up. Again, terminal adjustment to hit the precise target it wanted to hit. Iran sent a couple of those in, and they took out the Iron Dome sites, et cetera. A signal just got you. And they know that the Israelis are smart. They know that there's a bunch of Israeli guys who were smarter than I am that I used to work with who were looking at all this stuff going, oh God, they got us.
(43:11)They got us. Damn. Now we come to Nevada, and it's the same thing. They send in the missiles. This is the most heavily layered system in the world. They send in the missiles, and this one's not even as sophisticated. It just comes in. They release it, hyper accelerates down. Then wham hits the ground and the Israelis, because the Israelis are like, okay, we got it. We got it. We don't have it. It's like a catcher used to catch 70 mile an hour fastballs, and it hits him in the head, and then the guy fires the 102 mile an hour. Bam. What happened? I wasn't ready for that. It comes in and it hits it.
Wilmer Leon (43:47):
Well catcher called a change up, and a fastball came through. Fast ball came in.
Scott Ritter (43:52):
So then they came into Na, Nevada, and they touched Naum at least five times. The Iranians were saying seven times. I would probably go with five. And the reason why I say this is that there is a chance the most heavily defended space on earth, there's a chance that they got two of 'em. I'm going to concede that point to the Israelis and the Americans that you put all these hundreds of billions of dollars into building something, and you got two out of seven, but five hit. But the idea, none of them were meant to be a knockout blow. Each one was just a, Hey, hey. And the Israelis know that They're sitting there going, and now they've come to the realization, and this is the whole point. After all of this, the Israelis have come to the realization that Iran can reach out and touch us anytime it wants to, any place it wants to, and there's nothing we can do to stop them. So now the Israelis are in a quandary because Iran has war is an extension of politics by other means.
(44:51)So Iran has established a political reality using military means to establish a deterrence superiority without creating the conditions that mandate an automatic Israeli response. You see, they've allowed the situation a narrative to be developed by the United States and Israel that says, Iran sucks. He sent everything in there. We shot it all down. We're better than they are. We actually established deterrence over Iran by telling the Iranians that no matter what they do, you thought you were Mike Tyson. You came in and swang gave us all your punches. You miss, you, miss you, miss you, miss you, miss. It's like, Ali, I'm still here. You didn't touch me. You punched yourself out. Can't touch this. That's the narrative that Iran was allowing the West to do. But the reality though is that the Israelis got down there, and there was an interesting text, I don't know if you saw it by, not text, but a post by an Israeli insider who has connectivity with the war council.
(45:58)And he said, if the Israeli public heard what was being said in the War Council, 4 million people will be leaving Israel right now. I'm going to tell you right now what was said in the war Council, Iran can destroy us. Iran can flatten us. There's nothing we can do if we allow this to happen to remain unanswered. We've lost everything that we've fought for over the past several decades. This deterrence, supremacy that we thought we had has gone forever. Nobody will ever respect us. Nobody will ever fear us, and therefore people will attack us, and we will be in an untenable situation
Wilmer Leon (46:39):
Wait a minute. That's that's very important politically, because that is part of the whole Zionist ideology, is we we're the persecuted people, and you all need us to protect you because the wolves are always at the door. And now what is the reality is all that insurance money you've been paying for those insurance policies, you've wasted your money.
Scott Ritter (47:15):
Absolutely. I used to live in Turkey, and when I've traveled through the planes of Turkey, they have shepherds with their flocks, and out there amongst the flocks are the sheep dogs. I don't know if you've ever seen a picture of an Anatolian sheep dog. Yes, big.
Wilmer Leon (47:34):
I'm a big dog guy. Yes.
Scott Ritter (47:35):
Okay, so these are like bears, right? Some of them are bigger than bears. And I remember we were walking once in a Kurdish village and we got too close to the sheep, and all of a sudden, these two things coming at us, and they're bigger than we are. I mean, these are bigger than humans, and they're coming at us, and they're going to kill us. And we knew that it was just all over. Then you hear, and the shepherd gives whatever signal, and the sheep dogs stop, and then they come up and they sit down and you pet 'em.
(48:04)They have no ears because their ears have been chewed off. Their noses are scars their faces. They got these giant collars with spikes on to protect their throat, their faces like that, because they fight wolves. They hold the wolves off. Israel has been telling the world that we are the anatolian sheep dog. We are here and we will protect you. The rest of the world, the sheep from the wolves, they're getting ready. What Iran just did is went, took off the cloak, then went, you're just a sheep. You're just a sheep. We are the wolves. You're just a sheep. And the sheep's going, I don't want everybody to know this. We were faking them out, that we were the anatolian sheep dog, but we're really just a sheep. So that's a political problem for the Israelis, and this is important, and this is probably the most important part of this discussion, believe it or not, this isn't about Israeli security. This isn't about a real threat to, because Iran is a responsible nation. When Iran talks about deterrence,
Wilmer Leon (49:07):
oh, wait a minute now, wait a minute. Now, Scott, now you've crossed the Rubicon is Iran is responsible? Yeah, Iran is a, they're ravaging. Crazy. Raghead. Come on, Scott.
Scott Ritter (49:25):
That may be true, but they're ravaging, crazy Raghead who operate based upon a law-based system as opposed to a rule-based system. Not only that, a law-based system that is based on thousands of years of history and culture, right? I mean, that's their own national culture. I mean, a lot of people go the theocracy, the theocracy, theocracy, yes, but Persian. Persian, Persian. I understand that this is a civilized people who have been around. They invented cataract surgery. They invented a lot of stuff. They invented the agrarian watering system, the irrigation, the irrigation system. They invented the wheel. I think they probably did.
(50:20)We've been reinventing the wheel over time. But mathematics, psychology, the whole thing, sociology, all comes out of there. And today, you see it when you Google International Math Olympics, the teams that are coming in at top are Chinese teams and Iranian teams, MIT, California technology, they're coming in down at the bottom. They're not one in this thing behind it. The Indian Institute of Technology, the Indians are getting up there too. They have good applied science and good applied skills. And it's not just that. I mean, to give you an example, the Iranians have the highest percentage of peer reviewed, not percentage, the highest number of peer reviewed PhD thesis published per year. So it's not like, excuse me, Iraq, I, forgive me for this, but under Sadam Hussein, where you went to an Iraqi university, it used to have a good reputation, but they were just punching out, handing out diplomas to Kuai.
(51:26)And the thugs who went in there and said, I went to school. Here's your diploma. See, I'm a doctor. No, in Iran, you earn it. You go to the school, you earn it, and you earn it the old fashioned way, peer reviewed, which means your thesis leaves. Iran goes out of ranks the world, the experts, they review it, they come back and they say, this is PhD level work.
Wilmer Leon (51:46):
I just had a conversation with another dear friend. And when you look at their diplomats, when you look at their leadership, many of them are engineers. President Amad, the first time I went to Iran, I got to sit for two hours with then former president Amadinijad has a PhD in engineering and teaches engineering at the University of Tehran. I sat there for two hours listening to this cat going, oh my God. Yeah, he's not what?
(52:22)He was sold deep. He's not some short madman. He's a short, brilliant man.
Scott Ritter (52:31):
A brilliant madman maybe. But the point is, brilliant dude, genius. No, they're all that way. They all have extraordinary. First of all, let's stop picking on Ayatollahs. If people understood what it took to become an ayatollah in Iran, the level of seminarian study, what you have to know, not just about. And here's the important thing about the Shia theocracy for all the Shia people out there, if I got this wrong, please forgive me, but it's my understanding, especially in the Iranian model, they have something called the Marja, which is basically, it's like your flock.
(53:14)What do they call it? A diocese in the Catholic church, right? Congregation. Thank you. There's what we want, congregation. It's a congregation. Now, you have to, because in Iran, it's not just about knowing the religion, but having a philosophy that is derived from absolute understanding of the religion that is approachable to the people. It is religious democracy, because now I've done my ayatollah training and they go, Huma, I can't do the cross. Sorry, God, I just made a huge mistake. Forgive me. But they anoint you. They say, you're the dude. You're the guy that can do it. But now, to survive, you have to write a document that says, this is my religious philosophy as it applies to something today. There's a name for that, the, or something. Again, I apologize, but they put that out there. Now. People read it, the public, it's there for the public.
(54:10)And then people go, I like this guy. I'm going to hang out at his marja for a little bit and see what he does. Now, if they come to the Marja and he's not impressive, then the Marja dissipates and they shut 'em down. They say, you failed. You couldn't win the people. It's not just about imposing religion on people. It's about getting the people to buy into what you're saying religiously.
Wilmer Leon (54:35):
That's what the Ayatollah Khomeini was doing when he was in exile in France.
Scott Ritter (54:39):
Bingo. Okay. But you have compete, for instance, Al Sistani in Iraq, he has a competing the Najaf. Marges compete with the coal Marges that compete with Carval, which compete with, there's competing margins. And even within Comb, there's different margins.
Wilmer Leon (54:59):
I'm drawing a blank on the guy in Iraq that was raising all kind of hell. Muqtada al Sadr. There you go. Yeah. Who is the son, if I have it right? He's the son of a the, Grand Ayatollah
Scott Ritter (55:17):
yeah, yeah, yeah. And he, in order to become credible, had to go to Cole and study and learn things because everybody, when he was out there talking, he had a lot of personality. He had the name, but people are going, you don't have the credentials, man. You can't sit here and play religion because we take our religion seriously. So we had to go disappear and go to calm and train up and all that.
Wilmer Leon (55:45):
Had to coach him up a little bit.
Scott Ritter (55:48):
But he also then has to go out and sell himself right? To an audience. And a lot of people weren't buying what he was selling. I mean, he's a very popular man, very influential in Iraqi politics today. But it's earned. It's not given. But the point is, the Iranians are a responsible nation, and if Israel was smart, they would've said, okay, we're in a bad position here, bad position.
(56:12)It's not a good position for us to be in. We need to take a step back, take advantage of the fact that the Iranians have written a script that makes it believable that we did some amazing stuff. And then we have to reassess where we are. What do we have to do to get our defenses back up? What do we have to do to get capabilities to strike Iran? When do we want to do it? Because the United States isn't on our side right now, behavioral modification to get the world to love us. Again, things of this nature, strategic thinking. But Israel's governed by a crazy man named Benjamin Netanyahu, who doesn't care about Israel. He doesn't care about the Israeli people. He doesn't care about Israeli security. He doesn't care about alliances with the United States. He's a 76-year-old man in bad health who only cares about Benjamin Netanyahu.
(56:58)And he right now has his butt in a sling because he got embarrassed on October 7th, and now he was just humiliated by the Iranians. And he can only stay in power as a wartime prime minister. And if they're going to either, they have to ratchet it up in Gaza. Every Israeli knows that they lost in Gaza that they haven't won Harts the day before, the Iranian attack front page headline, we lost. We lost everything. We haven't won anything we've lost. And that's the assessment of the Israeli intelligence service. And people who don't know need to know that Harts is a very prominent Israeli newspaper with a very good reputation of like, well, you said good reputation. I was about to compare to the New York, used to have, right? There you go. There you go. Like it used to have. But so he's lost in Gaza.
(57:52)He was looking to maybe promote a conflict against Hezbollah to expand the war. And there's always that hope that we can drag the United States into a larger war with Iran. But the United States, it says, no, we're not doing that. Hezbollah now is linked to Iranian deterrence, superiority. So you can't do the Hezbollah thing like you wanted to do anymore. You're in a, and now you've got Ansara Allah in the Red Sea shutting down the Red Sea, shutting down the Israeli economy.
Wilmer Leon (58:22):
And on the other side, you have Iran shutting down the strai of Harmouz. And that's why I go back to that ship that they captured because they wanted the United States to understand will shut your oil off.
Scott Ritter (58:36):
And the United States, remember, we've been running guardian prosperity or something like that, whatever the name of our wonderfully named operation to deter the Hootie. And we, I don't know if everybody understands, we had to approach the Hoothie last week and beg them to stop it. Please, please, please, please, please. We'll stop bombing you. We'll do everything. We'll lift the terrorism thing, but just stop this, please, because we can't force you to stop it. And the Hootie went, no. Yeah. They said, here's another one. The missiles, you guys are deterring. That's a failure. But that's the thing. The failure of deterrents policy has been played out with the Hoothie and it's being played out. See, America no longer has deterrents, superiority. We no longer have deterrence. We can't deter a minute.
Wilmer Leon (59:25):
Wait a minute. We sent the Eisenhower into, now this takes me back to, so we sent a couple of aircraft carrier groups into the region when I think it was the Eisenhower. Oh, it was Gerald Ford. We first sent the Gerald Ford in President Putin says to Joe Biden, why did you do that? You are not scaring anybody. These people don't scare. And oh, by the way, we can sink your carrier from here with our Kenjal missile. Hypersonic missile. So stop it, Joe. You're not scaring anybody.
Scott Ritter (01:00:08):
But here's something else that happened, and I'm glad you brought this up. This is an important thing. The United States linked at least two of its ships to this system, and this is part of the American anti-ballistic missile strategy. We do this with Japan, we do this with Korea, we do this with Europe. We have a whole bunch of ages, class destroyers in Spain that we now are going to fan out to protect Europe from Russian missiles. And we're telling everybody, no worry. We got this. We got this. Remember guys, when that satellite was coming down, we shot it down. We're that good? We can pull it, hit a bullet kind of stuff. So we went to the Israelis and we plugged in to the world's most sophisticated anti-ballistic missile shield in the world. We plugged in and the Iranians went.
(01:00:55)What the Iranians proved, and I just want this to sink in there, they can hit any American ship anytime they want with a warhead that will sink that ship. They just sent a signal to the United States that we will sink every one of your aircraft carriers. We will sink every one of your destroyers, all these wonderful ships you have. You can't stop it. The missile we sent in and touched, Nevada can sink any one of your ships. And how do we know? Because you plugged your ships into the system. Guys, up until then, we might've been theoretical about this, but now you plugged it in and you were playing the game. You committed your best anti-missile ships to the defense system, and you didn't stop us. We went in and went pop, pop, pop, pop, pop five times on the target. If Nevada had become the Gerald Ford or become the Eisenhower or the Carl Benson, we would've sunk that ship.
(01:01:52)That's the other thing that the Iranians did here that nobody's talking about, because this is the scariest thing in the world to the United States. Iran just told the United States, your Navy is useless. Useless. It's done and now, but it's not just the Iranians, the North Korean, China China has everybody out there who has hypersonic missile capability is now basically saying, oh yeah, we can sink American ships too. And this is important thing.
Wilmer Leon (01:02:22):
I was talking to KJ Noh last week, and KJ was talking about the United States sending all kind of hardware into Taiwan and that the United States may even wind up sending personnel in Taiwan and in anticipation of China making a, I think this is what KJ said, making a land invasion in Taiwan. And I said, kj, why would China do that when all they got to do is sink an aircraft carrier with a hypersonic missile? And he said, well, that's a good point.
Scott Ritter (01:02:58):
No, I mean the United States, but now we come to, because America's facing the same problem that BB Netanyahu is, except there's not a political dimension to it. BB Netanyahu right now has to do something to stay in power politically so now
Wilmer Leon (01:03:15):
and not be prosecuted for theft.
Scott Ritter (01:03:19):
Correct. For his corruption. Yeah. Second, he leaves office, he gets arrested and he gets put on trial.
Wilmer Leon (01:03:25):
Ala Donald Trump.
Scott Ritter (01:03:27):
Except, yeah, I mean, yeah,
Wilmer Leon (01:03:32):
that's a whole nother story. But I'm just saying that right now is what Donald Trump is facing.
Scott Ritter (01:03:38):
Correct.
Wilmer Leon (01:03:38):
And I'm not saying it's legitimate or not legitimate.
Scott Ritter (01:03:41):
Yeah. That's my only reason why I did that is I don't want to get into the, no,
Wilmer Leon (01:03:47):
it's happening.
Scott Ritter (01:03:47):
Because Netanyahu is a criminal. He is a corrupt person. Donald Trump is an imperfect human being who may have committed some crimes, but in America, you're innocent until proven guilty. And he has these trials, many of which people believe are politicized, designed, and diminishes. We can move on. We don't need to go down that rabbit hole on this episode. But the fact is Israel right now is desperately looking for a face saving way out of this because the fiction of we were so good that we stopped this Iranian attack is not believable. It's not believable domestically. So now the Israelis are looking for the ability to do something that if not gives them deterrence, superiority they're looking for right now, deterrence, parody. Parody. And so here's the question, because you remember now we come back to Pepe, and this is probably a good way to spin this around.
(01:04:53)William Burns met with Iranians beforehand and came up with an elegant solution to an extraordinarily difficult and dangerous problem. Iran now has established a deterrence philosophy, and they articulate the second Israeli airplanes take off. We launch our missiles. We're not waiting for Israel to attack us. The second your planes take off, we're firing. And Iran has said, we consider the matter settled. Settled. We consider the matter over. You struck us, we struck back, let it go. Correct. But it's not settled because there's thing called politics. And Iranians, again, are some of the most sophisticated political players in the world. So my guess is as we're speaking, Hey Pepe, if you're out there, call your source. I'm giving you a hint that behavioral patterns, one thing I used to do as an intelligence officer is do analysis and assessments, predictive analysis based upon behavioral patterns. Humans tend to repeat behavioral patterns.
(01:05:59)And so now the CIA and the Iranians have talked to prevent one crisis. They're talking right now and the CIA saying, guys, what can we do to prevent Israel from doing something really stupid, which is the big attack, which politically we need a safety valve. This is the equivalent of a methane tank getting heat on it. And if you don't have a safety valve that goes, it's going to blow. So how do we get a safety valve? What can Israel do to save face that doesn't impact you? And you see the Israelis now ratcheting it down. It was, we're going to strike nuclear facilities. We're going to strike this, we're going to strike that. And now they're saying, well, what if we strike something outside of Iran? But it's clearly Iran like at seven 11. Yeah, at three in the morning when it's been closed and nobody's there strike at seven 11.
(01:06:53)And so they're desperately looking for this outlet. The question now is, what will Iran do? My bet is that Iran will facilitate a face saving gesture by Israel because the Iranians don't want and don't need a war, a major war business. Well, it's horribly. The Iranian foreign ministry, just so everybody understands this, their number one priority now, one of their top priorities is they have all of their smart people right now writing papers for the Brick summit in October, which Iran will be attending and will be playing a major role in establishing new global infrastructure and institutions on how the world's going to be governed and a possible international currency off of the dollar bingo. These are big ticket things. Business. They don't need to be business. They don't need to be dragged into this stupidity of a mafia family dispute
Wilmer Leon (01:07:54):
Really quickly. One of the reasons why President Putin went into Ukraine light in the beginning was he doesn't want a war because it's bad for his economy.
Scott Ritter (01:08:11):
But the West didn't pick up on that. Now we got thing.
Wilmer Leon (01:08:15):
And now he's kicking ass and taking names and folks are all befuddled. Hey, you started. You went looking for trouble. You found a big bag of it. And now, so thank you for your time, Scott. Two things I want to hit quickly. One is the estimates are in very simple terms, that Iran spent a million dollars on this attack and Israel lost a billion in their response to it.
Scott Ritter (01:08:50):
I'd say 60 million for the Iranians, about 3.2 billion for the Israelis and the United States altogether.
Wilmer Leon (01:08:55):
Okay. Okay. And this other thing, is it velvet or violet, this AI program that Israel has developed that they assign a score? Are you familiar with this? They assign a score to Palestinians based upon a number of predetermined social behaviors. And when your score gets close to a hundred, you get assassinated. And this is all generated by artificial intelligence. You mentioned ai, so I want to just to quickly drop that one in there before we get out.
Scott Ritter (01:09:31):
No, I mean, again, it's a criminal enterprise. It's about killing innocence. And part of this AI too is that it calculates the number of civilian casualties that'll be assigned to that thing target. And unfortunately for the Palestinians, one would think if you're a rational, look, I keep telling people, I'm not a pacifist, and if you want to go to war, I'm old. You're the guy. But guys, I have no problem killing you. I mean, I know you're trying to kill me, so I will kill you, and I'm not going to weep at night when you die because you wanted to play this game. But I'm not in the business of killing you and taking out innocent civilians. Okay?
(01:10:17)That's where I draw the line. Now there's collateral damage. If it happens, I'll be upset, but I have my parameters. If I'm going to take you and they're saying, you're going to take out this many civilians, I'm going, that's a bad target. Not the right time. Not the right place. We're not going to do it. But the Israelis have the opposite thing. It's not just when you're going to take out the target, but when you get the maximum impact of civilian casualties. The Israeli approach is AI program is designed to kill the maximum number of family members and civilians to maximize the impact of the attack on the morale of the Palestinian people. But see, that's where AI fails because it doesn't understand the human heart and doesn't understand rage, it doesn't understand hate, and they don't understand that the more Palestinians you kill, the more you train them to hate you.
(01:11:05)And not only that, the world is turning against you. See, the AI program hasn't figured out the global factor that every time they do this, the world hates Israel even more. Hamas is a political organization. Hamas is a military organization. Hamas is an ideology, and you don't kill an ideology with weapons. You defeat an ideology with a better ideology, which is generally linked to a better lifestyle, better standard of living, economic prosperity. Again, Jane Carville's mantra, it's the economy. Stupid isn't just an American only. It's a global human reality
Wilmer Leon (01:11:52):
about the way of life and quality of life. Yeah. Scott Ritter, my man, as always, thank you so much for joining me today. Greatly, greatly, greatly appreciate your time.
Scott Ritter (01:12:03):
Thank you very much for having me. It was an honor and a privilege. Thank you folks so much for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wimer Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Also, please follow and subscribe. Go to Patreon. Please contribute because this is not cheap to do. Leave a review. Please share the show. Follow us on social media. You can find all of the links and all of the information in the show description. And remember, this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge, talk without analysis is just chatter. And we don't chatter here on connecting the dots. See you next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Woman Leon. Have a great one. Peace
Announcer (01:12:53):
Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.

• Download111

Find me and the show on social media @DrWilmerLeon on X (Twitter), Instagram, and YouTube
Facebook page is www.facebook.com/Drwilmerleonctd

FULL TRANSCRIPT:
Announcer (00:06):
Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.
Wilmer Leon (00:14):
Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon. And I'm Dr. Wilmer Leon. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they happen in a vacuum, failing to understand the historical context, the broader historic context in which these events occur. During each episode, my guests and I have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between current events and the broader historic context in which they occur. This enables you to better understand and analyze events that impact the global village in which we live on today's episode. The issues before us are, what are the anticipated results of the most recent China Russia meetings is the US pivoting from Ukraine and Russia to China, and is the US independent is the US as an independent actor in Haiti as it claims, and we'll also discuss some other issues. My guest for this iteration of Connecting the Dots is a man who I am very proud to call a friend. His analysis is always spot on, and he's really just cool people. He's an author, two time Pulitzer Prize finalist, a Knight Fellowship recipient with more than 20 years of journalistic experience. He's a former Washington Post Bureau chief and award-winning foreign correspondent on two continents. John Jeter. John, my brother. Welcome to the show.
Jon Jeter (01:51):
My pleasure, brother. Thank you. That's an outstanding introduction. I really appreciate
Wilmer Leon (01:56):
It. Well, I know my check is on its way, so I'll sit by the mailbox. So, hey, so earlier this week, the Global Times reported Chinese President Xi meets Russian foreign Secretary Lavrov and reaffirms China's emphasis on partnership with Russia and Chinese analysts said the meeting sends a strong signal that China will firmly develop its strategic partnership with Russia despite pressure from the West, and that the China Russias partnership continues to be key for the global strategic balance and the hope of promoting a multipolar world in which countries in the global south will have greater roles to play. John, your thoughts?
Jon Jeter (02:49):
Yeah, no, this is a tectonic shift and we've been talking about this for quite a while on your show, and it's like a tanker. And of course it takes a while for that tanker to move, but it is moving. It is in motion. We see that geopolitical shift from the west as the United States, as France, as the UK gets increasingly desperate as they grow increasingly out of favor with what they're doing in Gaza and backing Israel's genocide. And we see this is a victory lap for Russia, what they've done in Ukraine. It is all over. But the shouting, if I can use a phrase from my southern cousins, and this is, from what I understand, it's very rare for the president of China or any other country to entertain the foreign secretary. Usually it's foreign secretary or foreign secretary.
(03:48)Yeah, exactly. So this is a big deal. Again, it's like a tanker movement. It takes a while. And if I can sort of mix metaphors, like Lenon said, history moves and spiral. So this thing is not just sort of a linear thing, but it's just kind of moving in a certain direction. And we see Russia and China starting to sort of take charge, starting to ascend very much like the United States did almost exactly a century ago. After World War I we're seeing China and Russia start to make their rise as this geopolitical force, the geopolitical almost like a ruling party for the global elite. And it's almost inevitable. It's almost inexorable at this point. The only real question is how will the United States respond? It can sort of go kicking and screaming or it can negotiate sort of its dissension into second place. So we'll see what happens. I think history says, of course it will go kicking and screaming, but hopefully cooler heads will prevail at some point and we'll see what happens. But this thing is going in a very definite direction. I don't think it's at this point, I don't think you can put the genie back in the bottle. And I think China and Russia see the future and it's theirs.
Wilmer Leon (05:13):
I think people really need to pay attention to the next statement that I'm going to read because the western narrative of this is militarism. The focus of the West as it relates to this rising partnership is militarism. But Lee Ong, a professor at the Chinese Foreign Affairs University, said China and Russia will not target any third, but if hegemonic forces threaten China and Russia or threaten world peace, China and Russia will stand together and fight to protect their own interests and safeguard world peace together. And I want to reiterate, they will not target any third party. So I take this as they're saying, don't start, nothing
Jon Jeter (06:17):
Won't be, won't be none.
Wilmer Leon (06:20):
We're going to handle our business.
Jon Jeter (06:22):
Yeah, yeah,
(06:26)I think so. I don't know if you've ever seen Oliver Stone's history of the world was the history world or history of the United States, I can't remember. But he talks at length about the relationship between the Soviet Union and the United States and the Soviet Union, despite the depictions by Reagan and other presidents of the Soviet Union as this sort of aggressively hostile evil empire that want to take control of the world. The Soviet Union was really just terrified of the United States. They thought that the United States was insane that it was run by mad men. I think that still very much holds true. I think Putin understands that his error, if he made any his error, was entrusting the United States to some extent and hoping I think that he could sort of find some common ground within United States. I think he sees now that that is not possible. Although he said, interestingly enough, he said, apparently in a speech sometime ago, I heard someone else say this. I think it was Ray McGovern, former CIA operative who said that Putin said,
Wilmer Leon (07:30):
Analyst.
Jon Jeter (07:31):
Yes, analyst. I'm sorry. Yeah. He said in a speech recently that Putin had once said, or very recently said that the United States and Russia at some point will find common ground, but the EU in Russia will never find common ground. I think very interesting, but I think don't think the Putin, I don't think he's ever read Maya Angelou when she wrote, when someone tells you who they are, believe them, believe them. But I think he believes them now. I think he believes in the United States. And so we see this alignment where China and Russia, and this is our shock in all moment really. Right? We are not looking for the smoke, but we here for it. If you've got some, for us, I think this is a very direct message at Washington. At France, this thing in Ukraine is over. I mean, it's all over, but the shouting again, there's some loose ends to wrap up, including this terrorist attack that was very likely staged by Ukraine and Russia a few weeks ago. So there's some loose ends to wrap up, but this thing is all over, and I think the Russia and China are now turning to the next phase, which is this inevitable rise to the top of the geopolitical order. Again, it's not a linear thing. Take some time. We see them sort of orchestrating bricks and bricks has not really been the dynamo that we expected, but what we see is that other,
Wilmer Leon (08:56):
It's coming.
Jon Jeter (08:57):
It's coming though. And we also see that there are other countries, particularly in Africa, particularly in Latin America with Mexico and Venezuela has been there for a while, but we see countries sort of mimicking bricks, parroting bricks in terms of Zimbabwe is talking about a gold back currency. And we see, of course, what South Africa is doing, which is sort of defining itself outside the US orbit, the Western orbit. So we see some things that are in motion, and Russia and China are at the center and the United States and the West, the collective West is increasingly being pushed to the outer margins.
Wilmer Leon (09:38):
Well, and I'm going to stay with that pushed, let me just say, because people, I'm glad you brought up bricks because people have to understand that this isn't just China and Russia. This is China and Russia, and the Bricks is an acronym for Brazil, India, China, I'm sorry, Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa. And then you have the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. So there are a number of countries that, Venezuela, Iran, there are a number of countries that are looking to join this group as well. And I'm glad you used the point that the United States is going to be pushed to the margins because what a lot of people really, particularly in the West really have to pay attention to is the fact that it's the sanctions regime of the United States. It's the threat of militarism by the United States. It's the blowing up of the Nord Stream pipeline by the United States that has really forced this relationship to develop and to grow, and now to become to the part where you've got G and Lavrov meeting for what will eventually be a meeting and a signing of documents between G and Putin. It's the United States fault that they have come to the point that they have John G. Yes.
Jon Jeter (11:16):
No, that's exactly right. And a couple of things I think it would be important to note. One is that Janet Yellen was just in China and compare her meeting with, I don't know if she met with G or not, but she met with, I know she met with her finance people.
Wilmer Leon (11:35):
She met with the finance people, and I think she met with Wang Lee, the foreign minister.
Jon Jeter (11:39):
Yes. And so her message was, you're overproducing and it's hurting us, which is foolish. And I'm being generous by saying that it's fool. That's a foolish message. It's almost like Rip Van Winkle waking up after 50 years saying, you're over producing too much. It's hurting us. What did you think was going to happen? Do you not understand how this capital system works? So you compare
Wilmer Leon (12:05):
That minute. And also I thought that the United States was all about free markets.
Jon Jeter (12:12):
Right, exactly.
Wilmer Leon (12:16):
I thought the market was supposed to determine what succeeds and what fails. The invisible hand and all
Jon Jeter (12:25):
This. Yeah. Jack Young's a socialist who knew, right? I think that's amazing though that we see this desperation.
Wilmer Leon (12:35):
She was begging
Jon Jeter (12:37):
Yes and no. I said this before, but I keep returning to it. It's amazing how this self adoration and self worship by the United States doesn't lead to self-awareness, right. This idea how this looks like to the rest of the world. The other thing too, I think this is a perfect segue. It is what the rest of the world is starting to see. And you might argue that it's late even for that to happen for them to see what's happening, but at least they are starting now to see that this world that was defined by the United States with neoliberalism, beginning with Ronald Reagan, really pushed by Bill Clinton, this whole neoliberal idea has failed, has failed. The idea was that if you do these things to open up your markets to us, you'll look like the United States one day. You will be as rich and prosperous as we are.
(13:36)That hasn't happened anywhere, not even in the United States. It has not happened anywhere. No one looks like the United States in some ways. That's very good. And so the world is seeing that this was a snake oil, right, being sold by the snake oil salesman. And so we're at this pivotal point, and this is very much like what did Mike Tyson used to say? Everybody has a plan. You get smack in the nose, you get punched. Yeah. The United States has been smacking nose in Ukraine, and let me end with this. And the other thing in terms of it not working, and everyone else sees this, everyone else in the world, especially China and Russia, the United States, we have stolen money. We've stolen oil from in Syria. We are in Iraq, and they have problem, I think is at least two times, told the United States, one of the United States to leave Iraq.
(14:33)And we're still there, like the guests from Hurricane Katrina who never want to leave. That's what the United States is there in Iraq. And now we've stolen money from Afghanistan, stolen money, we've stolen money from Venezuela, and now we're about to steal money. The international reserves from Russia. And so this is going to destroy the United States as a reliable or trusted partner in any kind of commercial transaction. If they're just going to steal money, no one's going to trust them. So they're really in a very difficult spot. The rest of the world sees what's happening. The United States has no idea, or at least the American people don't. I think our leadership knows, but they have no way out.
Wilmer Leon (15:20):
To your point about stealing money, for those that may not understand what you're referring to, many people remember the United States froze Iranian assets and was slowly returning some of those assets to Iran. Then the United States, when Juan Waid do became, was forced on the Venezuelan people in the world. Then the United States froze Venezuelan assets that I think were held in British banks, and now the United States is talking about freezing some of the Russian sovereign wealth fund that is being held in banks around the world. But the interesting thing is, a lot of those banks are telling the United States, that's not a good idea. Don't drag us into this because we don't want to have to deal with the repercussions of what Russia will do to us if we steal their money. And I think some of that perspective is coming from the reality that the United States is not the only game in town anymore. That's right. And Debo, if we go back to the movie Fridays, Deebo got hit with a brick,
Jon Jeter (16:46):
Right? That's right. He got knocked the F out,
Wilmer Leon (16:51):
Laying out on Craig's front lawns. So this is, man, this thing is unraveling. It is unraveling quickly, and folks really need to pay attention. President Xi said, he said, China and Russia have embarked upon a new path of harmonious coexistence and win-win cooperation between major countries and neighbors, which has benefited the two countries and their peoples and contributed wisdom and strength to international fairness and justice. A couple of things in that statement. One, win-win cooperation. A lot of people need to understand that win-win is not just some euphemism that is thrown around carelessly win-win is an actual international cooperation strategy that Russia tries to reach with the countries it does business with. They don't go in and overthrow your government. They don't come in and tell you how to run your country. You have resources, they have money. They want to buy your resources at relatively fair market value, and they want you to be happy and they'll be happy. And that's how they do business. And they contribute wisdom and strength to international fairness and justice. That's not just rhetoric that they hide behind as some kind of excuse for overthrowing your government. That's right.
(18:48)People need to listen to Xi. People need to listen to Putin because you listen to what they say, and then you look at what they do. And those things seem to be simpatico, John.
Jon Jeter (19:01):
Yeah, there's no doubt. I just think as someone who considers himself a Pan-Africanist, I think this is a very exciting time. It's not written in stone yet, but there's a very real opportunity, I think for, we see things happening in Africa now, some bad things with the militarization of Africa by Africa in the United States, but we also see in some ways that has backfired. So we see this militarization as a result of, in these cos by soldiers who have been trained by the United States, but who are representative of their people, particularly in Burkina Faso with this young man. And these, we see Africa turning more towards Russia, which is actually where it was during the Cold War. But we see it turning back towards Russia finding these
Wilmer Leon (19:52):
Ties. Where is Patrice Lumumba University?
Jon Jeter (19:56):
It's
Wilmer Leon (19:56):
In Moscow. That's
Jon Jeter (19:58):
Right. That's right. And the Chinese, I don't think it's a thing where African countries can sort of just lay back and be passive and say, oh, China's going to save us. And I think they know this. I think China has cut a better deal than the United States, but one that's so far has not necessarily been favorable and has led to economic development, which is what Africa most needs is economic development. Their own industrial sector at this point, one that is more environmentally sustainable, but they need their own industrial sector. They, they grow coffee, but they don't actually roast the coffee. Things like this. This is what they need. But I do think this,
Wilmer Leon (20:36):
They need to wait a minute to that point, because that's a brilliant point. People need to understand that we all know that the continent of Africa is the repository of minerals, but in most instances, they don't process the minerals from raw form, raw ore, for example, into a marketable commodity
Jon Jeter (21:10):
Value added.
Wilmer Leon (21:11):
In fact, I think it was either Ghana or Guyana that makes cocoa, cocoa
Jon Jeter (21:19):
Beans, Ghana, I believe it's Ghana.
Wilmer Leon (21:20):
Okay. So Ghana had been selling the unprocessed cocoa beans to Switzerland, and Ghana decided we're going to start processing our own cocoa bean into cocoa powder domestically. Switzerland said, well, then we won't buy your product. China said, we'll buy it. You processed it, buy it.
Jon Jeter (21:51):
That's what I'm talking about. Yes, yes. That's a very different relationship. That's one where there's an opportunity to grow to, because these value added industries are where the money is, right? Correct. They raise wages for people. I'll tell a very quick story about my time in South Africa about 25 years ago when I was a young man, and I had a girlfriend at the time, and I was famously cheap. I'm still famously cheap, although I'm also broke, but I thought, I'm going to South Africa, so I'll buy some gold. And they have diamonds here, so I'll buy her a nice tennis bracelet. I thought thinking it would be cheaper there actually turned out it costs more there because while they mine the gold and the diamonds in South Africa, they have to send it all the way to Antwerp to get it cut, then send it back to South Africa.
(22:33)That's where the money is. So this is what I think can happen if Africa, they have to be strategic, they have to cut better deals with China. But China, there's some daylight with China that did not exist with the United States or the West, where China is a better grade of capitalism, and they get very much like what China did with the United States, beginning with the Nixon administration, where China basically cut these deals. They knew what they were doing, and I don't think they knew that they were playing into the United States racism. And I'm not saying that China is racist like the United States, but they cut this deal knowing that eventually it would lead to this industrialized economy, right? Africa can do the same thing with China's investments. If they're strategic, I don't think that China's going to offer it just off the top of their head, but they can negotiate these things. I think China is willing a willing partner in this enterprise. So we're on the cusp of something I think that is transformative, not just for the United States, but for the world. And so it's exciting at the same time, of course, it's sort of traumatizing to see what's going on in the world, but it's just, what did KY say? This is the interregnum, the oldest dying and the new
Wilmer Leon (23:46):
Cannot be born, has yet been born or cannot be born. Cannot
Jon Jeter (23:51):
Be born, right? Yet
Wilmer Leon (23:54):
Two things, and we'll move on to talking about what's happening in Haiti. And that is, I was listening to Lloyd Austin, secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, and his testimony before the Senate, and I don't remember the senator, but one of them asked him, can you tell us that you'll support our move to break the ties, the supply chain with China? Because the Department of Defense, all of this rhetoric about China is our enemy, and we hate China. The Department of Defense buys critical components from China for defense equipment, for drones. And it's not just as easy anymore as saying, we're not going to get this stuff from China because some of these things, China is the only place you can get them. That's right. So on the one hand, we're standing here beating our chests about screaming at China, and at the same time, we're getting key military components from them. And by the way, Janet Yellen is there meeting with them about trade and finance. Why? Because they hold so much of our debt. That's right. That's right. And so those are elements, that's why I say, folks, you've got to connect these dots and things don't happen in a vacuum. There's a much broader historical context in which these things are operating, but CNN and M-S-N-B-C-I-A and the Washington Post, they won't give you the context. That's one of the things that is so invaluable, I believe about this show. And guests like my good brother John Jeter.
(25:59)Oh, before we get to Haiti, one final point on this too, and that is there was a piece in the South China Morning post, the United States leaves a mess in Ukraine and moves on to China as the State Department, I'm sorry, at the State Department, the Ukraine girl is out, and the China guy is in. From Washington's perspective, it was a right assessment, whether that's good for Asia and world peace is a different matter. So basically what they're talking about is the United States has decided that Ukraine basically is lost, and they're now trying to pivot, going back to Barack Obama and the pivot towards Asia. They're trying to pivot away from Ukraine the same way they did in Afghanistan. 25 years of getting your hin parts whooped in Afghanistan, then you cut and run. And was it ironic that you then start the fight of Ukraine? And in fact, in listening to Lloyd Austin, they said since 2014, the United States has spent 300 billion in Ukraine. And I know that's a low estimate, but it's the number they quoted during the hearings, 300 billion.
Jon Jeter (27:33):
What did Tupac say? You got money for wars, but can't feed the poor. There you
Wilmer Leon (27:37):
Go. And what did Dr. King say? War is the enemy of the poor.
Jon Jeter (27:43):
That's right. John Jeter. Yeah, no, that's exactly right. I was listening to Jeffrey Sacks the other day. I spent half my time just listening to these podcasts with people like Jeffrey Sacks. But he was saying he was answering, he was on that show Rising, I think, and he was answering a question about his critics who said that he was a Putin apologist. And the anchor asked him, what do you say to your critics? He said, I told you so.
(28:08)That's how I answered. I told you so. Right. Ukraine is wrecked, and the money they're trying to send over there now, it's not going to make any difference on the battlefield. This is war profit change. This is how the United States makes its money now. And this is all, it's very seamless too. You won't hear it in the press, but it's very seamless. We began to ship our manufacturing sector overseas, beginning with China in the seventies under Richard Nixon, in part to punish the radical black political movement that was kryptonite to capital, very much like Kryptonite. What kryptonite is the Superman, the radical black political movement was to our oligarchs. And so we started sending this.
Wilmer Leon (28:56):
How so explain that for the audience,
Jon Jeter (28:58):
Because what you'll see, and you'll see this actually cyclically going back to even radical reconstruction, where this radical black political tradition, what it's allowed to express itself freely as a way of galvanizing the people, or if you are Marxist or Marxist friendly, the working class, that's just what it is. And so I've interviewed people like Bernadine Dorn who was with the Weather Underground. She says she spent her first year as the head of students for a Democratic society going around to these white college campuses telling them the first thing you need to do is get in touch with the black college, the historically black college down the street. You need to get in touch with them, see what they're talking about. So this is, that's
Wilmer Leon (29:48):
Part of what Bois was writing about in reconstruction in America.
Jon Jeter (29:53):
That's exactly right. That's exactly, it goes back to that reconstruction. If you look at that era, right? A lot of things happened, but there was Confederacy in the former Confederate states. There was a interracial political party of some type in every Confederate state in the union after the Civil War. And they all had varying degrees of success, but they all redistributed wealth from the top to the working class. They have some success in doing that. And so it is that black political voice that really has shaped and modernized this country, especially when you look at the New Deal. We look at the blacks who are allowed finally to join the labor unions. And together we fought. And of course, I mean, honestly, whites just went back to being white after that battle was won or after we were winning the battle, they started going back to being white in the seventies. That's what Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan were about. Really fast,
Wilmer Leon (30:46):
But minute, minute. Wait a minute. Just take a step back there, because I think it's important for people to realize that post the abolition of enslavement, you had newly freed Africans that were actually joining forces with poor whites. Oh, no question. And the industrialists realized that's a force that we cannot allow to grow in this country. And they then started injecting the whole construct of race into that relationship to draw a wedge between the two. So when you say that in the seventies, whites went back to being white, I wanted to be sure that people understood where that mentality came from.
Jon Jeter (31:36):
And just to be clear, if you understand, people who are of a certain age will remember in the seventies when we started to see these movies, I love Paul Newman, but he was in that movie, what was it? Ford, Apache, the Bronx, these movies and these television shows, which starts to show basically, blacks is unfit for public office or blacks is unfit for public to participate in public affairs. That's what it was, right? So we're criminals, we're drug dealers, we're unpatriotic. Just as one example, if you remember the movie Alien from 1980, the most dangerous thing, that movie, other than the monster that had crept on board was Koda, who didn't want, who was just concerned about his pay, right? So this image is what has shaped modern politics. The black as unpatriotic, as unfit to lead is unfit to participate. And so this is what we're really dealing with at bottom. This is why there's never been a socialist movement or working class movement in the United States the way there's been, even in Europe.
Wilmer Leon (32:38):
And Point could take us into a eugenics conversation. Yes, Dr. Chantel Sherman, I'm going to give you your props here and now, in fact, I got to get Dr. Chantel Sherman on, because you're talking about the way that we were misrepresented in the films. That's also been a history of eugenics supporting the whole argument that scientifically, that biologically, we are incapable of managing and blah, blah, blah, because our brains are too small, our heads are too big and all that. So anyway, again, connecting the dots, folks, this is why you watch this show. I'm sorry, go ahead, John, you.
Jon Jeter (33:28):
No, no. Yeah. So I was just saying, I think the understanding these connections are what really helps us find a way forward. I don't know, honestly, if black and white can unite and fight the United States at this point, but I do believe that as Fred Hampton said, we can achieve black power for black people, white power for white people, yellow power for yellow people, and X power for all the people we left out. I do think that's possible if we can start to eradicate this tribalism, or at least put it aside long enough to work together and understand that we're at war Ukraine, not because Putin is trying to
Wilmer Leon (34:07):
Take
Jon Jeter (34:07):
Over Europe. Yeah, he's not trying to. There's no history of that, right? Either the Soviet Union or for Putin, this is about the Wall Street profiteering. They don't have any way to make money. They shipped all the jobs overseas. They killed the goose, delayed the golden egg, and now they're trying to make money. That's what I'm just looking at at a television ad. I was watching the NBA game. They had an ad about gambling, and the gambling is illegal everywhere. Now why is that? Where Cuba is, like Cuba was in 1958, right? It's because they can't make money any other way or through gambling through these Uber, which is basically just rent seeking what the French call rent seeking, looking to profit off something that already exists. This is how they make money, and war is part of that. So you really do have to connect the dots. Your show is aptly named. You really do have to connect the dots historically and contemporaneously to understand what's going on, because that's the only way you can actually work your way out of this. As my father would say, my late father would've said this trick bag that we find ourselves in,
Wilmer Leon (35:09):
And the new Deputy Secretary of State, Kurt Campbell, to your point about profiteering quote, I would argue that working closely with other nations, not just diplomatically, but in defense avenues, has the consequence of strengthening peace and stability more generally. So what he's saying is dumping more military hardware into already very tense situations and making them more volatile somehow is going to strengthen peace and stability. Or as Orwell said, in terms of doublespeak war is peace.
Jon Jeter (35:54):
Right? I think Obama said the same thing. Did he not?
Wilmer Leon (35:57):
Yes, he did,
Jon Jeter (35:59):
Basically, which tells you a lot about Obama and why he was put in that place, why he was installed. It says a lot about Obama and this country.
Wilmer Leon (36:08):
So let's quickly move to Haiti because there's been a lot happening over the last, a lot of negative things happening for Haitians in Haiti. The Washington Post of all places had a piece. When Haiti's gangs shop for guns, the United States is their store. Now, there's a lot of crap and a lot of garbage in this piece because again, it is the Washington Post. But
Jon Jeter (36:38):
My former employer, I should, I should.
Wilmer Leon (36:40):
There you go. So am I wrong?
Jon Jeter (36:43):
Not at all.
Wilmer Leon (36:44):
Okay. Not
Jon Jeter (36:44):
At all.
Wilmer Leon (36:46):
So heavily. This is the Washington Post. Heavily armed gangs controlled 80% of Port-au-Prince, according to a un estimate where they rape, kidnap, and kill with impunity. Haiti doesn't manufacture firearms, and the un prohibits importing them. But that's no problem for the criminals when they go shopping, the US is their gun store. And what there is so much context and so much reality that is omitted from this piece. For example, Haiti doesn't manufacture weapons, but that's no problem for the criminals because the elite in Haiti that control the ports A, allow the weapons into the country. John Jeter.
Jon Jeter (37:34):
Yeah. And I even take issue with that phrasing, the criminals who exactly are the criminals.
Wilmer Leon (37:38):
That's my point. That's why I mentioned the elite.
Jon Jeter (37:41):
Yeah, yeah, exactly. I mean, the problem with Haiti, people think it's just these sort of animalistic Haitians who are always fighting. And this guy named Barbecue was just this crazy maniacal cannibal Haitian. Yeah, cannibal. Right, right, right. They
Wilmer Leon (38:03):
Were talking about him eating people last week.
Jon Jeter (38:06):
Yeah. Well, but if you ask the Haitian people, right? I mean, really the Haitian people, right? Not the elites, but they'll tell you if you really, everybody of course knows what happened with Haiti and Napoleon and then the debts and the United States going in in 1915. But they'll tell you, people in Haiti will tell you, well, you can trace this back to when they got rid of John Tron Air, Steve Credit elected president, who is I think still
Wilmer Leon (38:34):
You said they, who was the they?
Jon Jeter (38:36):
Oh, the United States. Thank you. Who at gunpoint. At gunpoint went in. They
Wilmer Leon (38:41):
Kidnapped him,
Jon Jeter (38:43):
Kidnapped him, and then would not, Obama did this first black president, my president is black, would that allow him back in the country to run for president? But when let baby doc back in to run for president? And then part of the reason was, and they've got all these arrangements sweatshops there. They're taking land that can be used for agriculture. Your
Wilmer Leon (39:05):
Levi jeans are probably made in
Jon Jeter (39:07):
Haiti, baseballs are made,
Wilmer Leon (39:09):
Baseball are made in Haiti.
Jon Jeter (39:11):
And this is a company apparently that Hillary Clinton fought to keep the wages low to make these baseball. I can't even watch baseball anymore knowing that. Right. And so we always,
Wilmer Leon (39:22):
Hang on a second, because you talk about the wages. So let me make this point so I don't forget it. So they talk about the arms that are trafficked, however you say it to Haiti, are purchased by straw purchasers in states such as Florida, a 50 caliber sniper rifle that sells for $10,000 in the US can get as much as $80,000. In Haiti, a 50 caliber sniper rifle that sells for $10,000 in the US can fetch $80,000 in Haiti. What is the average annual gross income per capita income for a Haitian,
Jon Jeter (40:21):
I don't think it's $8,000. I don't think it's one 10th of that. It's
Wilmer Leon (40:25):
1000 as of 2022, which is the last time the data was collected, $1,247 and 89 cents, which averages $3 and 42 cents per day. So how is somebody who makes on average $3 and 42 cents per day going to buy an $80,000 50 caliber sniper rifle?
Jon Jeter (41:07):
Right? Right. Who's buying these weapons?
Wilmer Leon (41:09):
Thank you, John G. Who's
Jon Jeter (41:11):
Buying these weapons? The job of the media today is to, and it's always been this way, but now it's worse than ever. The job is to decontextualize the news is to disconnect it from the history. And that's why you get this sort of constant barrage of, well, the economy's doing great. I don't know why people are so upset because they're broke, fool. That's why people saying
Wilmer Leon (41:34):
To the position of decontextualization. So you see these pictures, or you see this footage of these Haitian young men roaming the streets with AR fifteens, AK 40 sevens. 40 caliber Berettas, which will run you close to a 40 caliber Beretta, depending on a model will run, you say between $700 and a grand. And nobody asks the question, where'd that kid get their pistol from? That's
Jon Jeter (42:10):
Right. That's right. That's right.
Wilmer Leon (42:12):
He's making $3 and 42 cents a day, $1,200 a year, and he's walking around with, and we aren't even talking about putting bullets in the thing. Nobody's asking that question.
Jon Jeter (42:29):
Right? Right, right.
Jon Jeter (42:31):
Yeah. Well, we are right. But the media doesn't want to ask because the answer is very uncomfortable. The answer is very discomforting. It's the
Wilmer Leon (42:38):
Core group. They're called the core
Jon Jeter (42:40):
Group. That's right. That's right. They're
Wilmer Leon (42:42):
Called Montana Group.
Jon Jeter (42:44):
Was it six families that run Haiti basically? Right. None of them black, by the way. None of them black. I think they're Lebanese and something
Wilmer Leon (42:52):
Else like that, that I'm not sure of. I think,
Jon Jeter (42:55):
But they're not black. Maybe some of them are, but most of them are not.
Wilmer Leon (43:01):
Most of 'em are not. Okay. So folks, you've got to understand the context here. And now, I can't remember the guy's name, but the United States has just appointed a new ambassador to Haiti. But here's the trick bag. If I can quote the late Mr. Jeter, in order for an ambassador to be recognized, he or she has to present his or her credentials to the president of the country that he's going to.
Jon Jeter (43:43):
There's
Wilmer Leon (43:44):
No
Jon Jeter (43:44):
President. There's no president. How does that work? So
Wilmer Leon (43:48):
How does an American ambassador land on the ground in Port-au-Prince? Who does he turn to? Jimmy Rizzi.
Jon Jeter (43:59):
Right? Barbecue. Right. Who
Wilmer Leon (44:01):
Does he turn to? There's nobody home. But again, I didn't hear Rachel Maddow asking that question. I didn't hear Joy Reed asking that question. And folks, look, you can look in the US Constitution article under Article two where they described the responsibilities of the president, one of the responsibilities of American president is to what? Recognize ambassadors from other countries. That's how the international diplomatic game is played. The American Ambassador to China presents his or her credentials to Xi Jinping and Xi Jinping goes, okay. Or Get out of my country.
Jon Jeter (44:55):
I don't think so. Right, right, right.
Wilmer Leon (44:57):
Don't play that.
Jon Jeter (44:58):
Right. And on another note, I related, but not quite at the point, but I just think this is so interesting. I was reading a recent piece, I cannot remember where, but they were talking about the origins of Hades gangs, and if you read it, they didn't mention this, but I know the history. It's the same as the gangs in Chicago, Los Angeles. They were formed to protect the community from the police, right? From harassment. The Black
Wilmer Leon (45:23):
Panthers.
Jon Jeter (45:24):
Exactly.
Wilmer Leon (45:25):
The Black Panther party for self-defense, for
Jon Jeter (45:28):
Self-defense. That's exactly right. And Huey Newton and Bobby Seale got their start getting a traffic signal on a particularly dangerous stop in Oakland. So this was, now, I'm not saying that they're still necessarily representing the people, but that's how they got their start. They filled this void that was left by the state because the state was just serving the interest of rich people and the United States and the West Canada and France and all that. So I just wish people was such a dumb down nation. I don't mean that to be judgmental, but it's just the case.
Wilmer Leon (46:00):
What was one of the major actions that the Panthers in Oakland performed every day on the street? They were policing the police.
Jon Jeter (46:12):
That's right. That's right. That's
Wilmer Leon (46:13):
Right. So when they came across cops in a traffic stop, they would pull over, locked and loaded. Right? Right. No, you couldn't have a round in the chamber, but they were armed, and they would stop and be sure that the traffic stop was proper and that the person being pulled over, usually the African-American driver of the car was not going to be. In fact, folks need to understand what was the Mulford Act in California? The Mulford Act was the law that was passed in California, I want to say 71, 72, when the Panthers went into the California State House, state House armed, legally armed, so long as you didn't have one in the chamber, legally armed. And the folks in California said, oh, no, we can't have this anymore.
Jon Jeter (47:20):
Gun control.
Wilmer Leon (47:21):
Gun control. That's why I've been saying for years, if you want gun control in the United States, let the government see law abiding black people legally buying and legally training with firearms. You'll find gun control, as they would say, liquidity split.
Jon Jeter (47:45):
It is gun control in the United States is very similar to our edict that Iran can't possess nuclear weapons. Why can't they? They're a sovereign country, right? Because we know we don't want them to defend themselves. That's why, just like we don't want black people to defend themselves. We've got this plague of black people being shot by the police, and we don't want black people to be able to shoot back.
Wilmer Leon (48:06):
And quite as it kept, Ron is a signatory to the nuclear nonproliferation
Jon Jeter (48:11):
Degree, read the Israel Is Right, Israel, and they got, I think something like 300, 400 nuclear warheads. Iran don't even want nuclear weapons. They want nuclear energy. They've said that they banned, they had a fat wall that banned or needed from the, I told it banned nuclear. But on the news here, including one of my former colleagues of the Washington Post Gene, I can't remember his name now, but he says, well, of course I ran once nuclear weapons. Really? So you know something that the intelligence agencies of the United States don't know because they say that there's no such nuclear weapons programmed by Iran.
Wilmer Leon (48:48):
There isn't, and they don't need one because of the missile technology, the hypersonic missile technology that they have developed. And also they don't want a nuclear weapon because they understand the attention that brings to them, and it's negative. They don't want none of that smoke because also their military perspective is defensive, not offensive. Right,
Jon Jeter (49:23):
Right, right. Very protect the Soviet Union. Very protect the Soviet Union.
Wilmer Leon (49:28):
That's why Ukraine is being turned into rubble.
Jon Jeter (49:30):
Right? That's exactly
Wilmer Leon (49:31):
Right. Is because Russia has been planning for 25 years for this very type of ground ballistic missile ground or artillery driven ground war, war of attrition. I will just send missiles into your bathroom all day, every day for the next 10 years, and eventually you'll call and ask me, will you please stop sending missiles into my bathroom? I do
Jon Jeter (50:03):
Appreciate it. I don't know much about militarism and war strategy and things like that, but I've been reading up a little bit on Russia, and what I've concluded is you don't want nothing to do with Russia. You don't want no smoke for Russia. Look,
Wilmer Leon (50:20):
When the United States sent, I think it was the Eisenhower, I think it was USS Eisenhower into the Mediterranean about three or four months ago. No, it was in October in response to October 7th. Oh, right,
Jon Jeter (50:37):
Right. That's right. I
Wilmer Leon (50:38):
Remember that. The Biden sent, I think it was the Eisenhower Aircraft carrier group into the Mediterranean, and Putin called Biden and said, Joe, why did you send that aircraft carrier group into the Mediterranean? He says, you're not scaring anybody. Because he said, these people don't scare. And oh, by the way, I can sink your aircraft carrier from here with our SU 35 fighter jets with hypersonic Ken Jaw missiles. I can sink the thing before you even know the missile has been fired,
Jon Jeter (51:24):
Joe. Whatcha doing?
Wilmer Leon (51:25):
Yeah.
Jon Jeter (51:26):
We started by talking about Mike Tyson's theory about everybody's got a plan. I think it's appropriate to mention, just like Mike Tyson, he beat all these people, all these other boxes because they were afraid of him until he met Buster Douglas.
Wilmer Leon (51:40):
Buster Douglas.
Jon Jeter (51:41):
Buster Douglas was not afraid. He did not back up. He kept coming. And I don't want no smoke from Mike Tyson, but Buster Douglas was ready for him. And so yeah, this is the United States. Now we're Mike Tyson, but we're in the ring now with Buster Douglas. Putin is not afraid. Right.
Wilmer Leon (51:57):
And to your Mike Tyson analogy, the thing that Mike Tyson was always susceptible to was a jab. The problem was he didn't come across an opponent that was big enough in stature that had the jab until he fought Buster Douglas. That's
Jon Jeter (52:20):
Right.
Wilmer Leon (52:21):
What's his name from Easton, Pennsylvania, the heavyweight he was in.
Jon Jeter (52:31):
Larry Holmes.
Wilmer Leon (52:32):
Larry Holmes. Larry Holmes. Larry Holmes would've wiped the floor. Oh, is that right? Hands down. Yeah. Man, Larry Holmes had a jab.
Jon Jeter (52:44):
Oh, I remember Larry Holmes. Yeah, I know. He was a bad man.
Wilmer Leon (52:50):
I didn't mean to turn this into a boxing conversation, but just for the point. Larry Holmes' problem was he came in the shadow of Ali. Of Ali. Right. But you go back and look at footage of Larry Holmes in his day, man, that brother, he would've wiped the floor because that's, and I go through all of that here. I'm going to connect the dots, is you have to understand the weakness of your opponent and exploit that weakness. And that's what Russia does. That's what Iran does. That's why President Raisi of Iran, in response to the Syrian bombing of the embassy in Syria, he said, we will respond when we are ready. The United States Intelligence Services told us last week, expect a response within 48 hours from Iran. I said, no, we'll get to it when we're ready. And what has Israel already done? Closed 30 embassies around the world. So in Iran's mind, we've already won. You've closed 30 embassies. We didn't have to strike one of them. We skewed you into action.
Jon Jeter (54:20):
And from what I understand, again, I'm new to this sort of military strategy, but from what I've understood that the weakness of the United States is this overconfidence, it's arrogance that beginning, I think with, what was it? North Korea and China, when they lured them into the United States, lured them in and basically just, they just trapped. They knew they would come because they're so arrogant. They knew they would take the bait. And that's the Achilles tea of the United States is their overconfidence.
Wilmer Leon (54:49):
Look, that's what Iran isn't doing. They're not taking the bait. Russia did not take the bait as they went into Ukraine, but they went into Ukraine, not in the manner in which the United States thought they would. They didn't take the bait. China as it relates to Taiwan. They're not taking the bait. They hence the adage, you have the watches, but we have the time.
Jon Jeter (55:20):
We got the time. That's right.
Wilmer Leon (55:22):
We'll handle this our way when we are ready. Look at what's going on right now in Gaza. You've got Hamas, right? Hezbollah hasn't really jumped in like everybody thought they would. Right? You've got the Houthis or Ansar, Allah in Yemen. They're handling the Red Sea, but they aren't really in it. Not everybody's in the pool yet. And see, this is something that folks really need to understand is they are biding their time. All of those entities are sitting back watching the show, and there's a reason that Hezbollah hasn't jumped in because Hamas is winning.
Jon Jeter (56:08):
Yeah. I'm a big fan of all the podcasts. The one that I watched the most is Ali Abu Ma with the electronic ada. And from everything I'm getting from there, and they seem to really know what they're talking about. Hamas is handling this business.
Wilmer Leon (56:21):
And when I say Hamas winning, folks could look at this and scratch their head and say, Wilmer, have you seen Gaza lately? Yeah. Here's the thing. Hamas wins by not losing. When they live to fight another day, they win. Israel comes into Gaza. What is Israel saying? Now? We're getting out of Gaza. They come in, they get thumped, they get out. When the dust settles, Hamas will still be in existence. And by being in existence, they will have one.
Jon Jeter (56:58):
That's right. And I think this was all very calculated by Hamas. I'm not sure if they even understood this kind of blowback, but again, they were trying to pull Israel under this war because they realized they
Wilmer Leon (57:08):
Knew what Israel would do. I'm glad you brought this up because when you talk about that, I was trying to get that together in my head, and that was a point that I was trying to make, was that Hamas lured the IDF into strategy. They knew what their response would be because of their arrogance, and they are thumping them,
Jon Jeter (57:36):
And there's no way out. I can't repeat the lyric. I want to, I think it was Ice Cube said, I don't want to hear that. I ain't mean it. Right. That's what Hama is saying to Israel right now. I don't hear none of that. I ain't mean it. Right. I don't. Don't gloat for anyone's death. And what's happening there is horrific, and I'm not sure if it's worth the cause. It's a period victory if it is one for Hamas, but this is the way it's going to end. Israel is not going to exist as we have long known it. If I can quite a phrase from Bill Clinton,
Wilmer Leon (58:13):
Let's wrap up with this. The Nation magazine reports more than half a million Democratic voters have told Biden Save Gaza, the campaign to use uncommitted primary votes to send a message to Biden has won two dozen delegates. More than 500,000 Americans in states across this country have cast Democratic primary votes for either uncommitted, unconstructed or no preference.
Jon Jeter (58:48):
That's right. That's
Wilmer Leon (58:48):
Right. I think the Democrats are shaking in their diapers.
Jon Jeter (58:55):
It's a wrap for the Democrats, certainly for the Biden administration. And of those 500,000 votes, I believe a hundred thousand are in Michigan. Joe Biden can't win Michigan. Joe Biden does not win reelection.
Wilmer Leon (59:07):
And Joe Biden only won Michigan by about 130,000 votes.
Jon Jeter (59:11):
That's right. Yeah. If the vote was today, he would not win Michigan. Not because everybody would vote for Trump, but because a whole
Wilmer Leon (59:18):
Lot of people, a lot people stay home
Jon Jeter (59:20):
And Michigan, lemme just say this very quickly, Michigan and the Arab community and the board, I lived in Detroit for a couple of years in the early nineties. They are really impressed in terms of their organization, and they're showing us a roadmap for how we can fight back as a people.
Wilmer Leon (59:34):
Exactly.
Jon Jeter (59:36):
Organized,
Wilmer Leon (59:37):
Organized. And I've listened to a number of interviews from Arab Americans in Michigan, and the reporters will say, well, don't you realize that your uncommitted movement could wind up resulting in the election, the reelection of Donald Trump? And they look in the camera and say, we know. And we don't care about that. We have a bigger point than Donald Trump that we are conveying. And plus they realize, is it a blue car or a green car? It's still a car. You're going to wind up basically. And for the most part, in the same circ*mstance, because to a great degree, and you are much more adept at this than I am to a great degree. It's not Trump policy. It's not Biden policy. It's American foreign policy.
Jon Jeter (01:00:37):
That's right. That's right.
Wilmer Leon (01:00:38):
Irrespective of who the president is, John G. Yeah.
Jon Jeter (01:00:42):
No, and I just don't think they understand. What part of genocide. Don't you understand? I'm not voting for a genocide.
Wilmer Leon (01:00:48):
Well, if you ask Lloyd Austin, he doesn't understand it at all. He said during the Senate hearings, there's no genocide in Gaza.
Jon Jeter (01:00:56):
If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck
Wilmer Leon (01:01:00):
And it dies like a duck, it's genocide.
Jon Jeter (01:01:03):
Right. That's the genocide, man. It just is. You're a lawyer. So what is it low?
Wilmer Leon (01:01:09):
I went, I went to law school. I went to law school. I'm not
Jon Jeter (01:01:11):
A lawyer. Okay, okay. I mean, I didn't mean to defame you like that,
Wilmer Leon (01:01:16):
But I did stay at Holiday Inn Express last night. So what you got,
Jon Jeter (01:01:20):
So what is it, low ipso Ur, is it? The B is as it appears? It is as it looks. No,
Wilmer Leon (01:01:29):
You just combine two phrases, rest ips, aquir.
Jon Jeter (01:01:33):
Okay. Thank you. Sorry, I didn't even go to law school and I didn't understand the Holiday Inn Express
Wilmer Leon (01:01:39):
Rest ips. Aquir, I think is what is the Latin you were going for?
Jon Jeter (01:01:42):
Yes. The thing is, as it appears, right, it is as it looks, yeah, that's the genocide. But it's most horrific thing I've seen in my lifetime, and it's just nothing else to say. I don't know how anyone's going to pull the lever for Joe Biden seeing the horror that's happening in Gaza. It's traumatized. It's traumatized. So I don't think there's a path victory. I didn't think there was a path of victory to victory for Joe Biden before October 7th. I certainly don't think there's one now. And I still think people laugh at this. I know Joe Rogan said, and I don't know that I believe very much in Joe Rogan's political acumen, but he said that he thinks that Democrats are going to replace Biden in May. I don't know if they're going to do it. I don't know if they're going to do it in May, but I still,
Wilmer Leon (01:02:24):
I've been saying that for a year and a half.
Jon Jeter (01:02:26):
Yeah, I think they might. I think they're looking to, I'll say that I think there's a fact of the Democratic party that's looking to, I think a year and a half ago, they were actively looking at Michelle Obama. I know that, as a matter of fact, I don't think she's going to do it. I'm not sure if that's still a movement, but I think because they know he can't win and it's too important, it's money that they will lose if he's not president. Because Trump, for all his flaws, is not the war profiteer that Obama was. And the Bidens,
Wilmer Leon (01:02:55):
I've been saying for almost a year and a half that I don't think that when you come out of the Democratic convention in August, I think right now it's the 19th, but we just found out that Ohio has told the Democratic Party that if it's held on the 19th, Joe Biden can't be on the Ohio. Oh,
Jon Jeter (01:03:18):
I heard that.
Wilmer Leon (01:03:19):
Yeah, because it has, you have to be the nominee 90 days before the election to be on the ticket in Ohio. And so Ohio has told them. But anyway, no, I've been saying that, I said almost a year and a half ago that when you come out of the convention, it's not going to be Biden. It's most likely going to be Gavin Newsom and what's her name from Michigan, Gretchen. And I said, the top of that ticket could go either way.
Jon Jeter (01:04:01):
That would be the best foot they could put forward. If they can't get Michelle Obama, that would be, and I don't think they can beat Trump, I'll be honest. But
Wilmer Leon (01:04:07):
No, I'm not saying that's going to win. I'm not saying that's going to win. But when you look at the numbers, and since I said this, Biden's numbers have only gotten worse. And Gretchen Whitmer most likely brings the Democrats, Michigan, the governor of Michigan. And because they're also, when you get rid of Biden, you got to get rid of Kamala Harris as well. Oh, yeah. So then you're going to wind up with a bunch of angry women, and you're going to wind up with a bunch of angrily black women.
Jon Jeter (01:04:40):
Oh, that's good. Yeah, that's good. So
Wilmer Leon (01:04:42):
Gretchen Whitmer brings the women back into the game. And I think, and I'll probably get bricks thrown at me for saying this, but I think a majority of black women will fall in line with the Democratic party. I seriously doubt that they would get so angry that they would abandon the party. I think they would be convinced to fall, because Kamala will be convinced to go away quietly and be a team. They'll offer her,
Jon Jeter (01:05:20):
Oh yeah, like they did with Al Gore. They'll offer her a bunch of money
Wilmer Leon (01:05:24):
Or something, or tell her, this is not your time,
Jon Jeter (01:05:28):
Dean of some university where she can go and Oh,
Wilmer Leon (01:05:32):
They might make her secretary of, I mean, ambassador to, I don't know, Botswana or,
Jon Jeter (01:05:38):
Right, yeah. I can play the Botswana might run her outfit into the seat though.
Wilmer Leon (01:05:44):
That's why they'll send her there. So anyway, so Gavin Newsom, young white cat, governor of California looks good in a suit, is articulate, can raise money, can raise his own money. And so I'm not advocating this. I'm looking at the landscape and saying they have no arms in the bullpen. I
Jon Jeter (01:06:07):
Wouldn't bet against that. I would not be.
Wilmer Leon (01:06:08):
This is baseball season. They have no arms in the bullpen, but Biden is behind in seven of the nine battleground states.
Jon Jeter (01:06:20):
Yeah. He can't, I think Pennsylvania's tied, but even that is trending
Wilmer Leon (01:06:24):
And trending in the wrong direction
Jon Jeter (01:06:28):
Because
Wilmer Leon (01:06:29):
In a lot of these states, in a lot of these states, Donald Trump is now ahead outside the margin of error of the
Jon Jeter (01:06:39):
Polling
Wilmer Leon (01:06:40):
And growing. So no, I've been saying that Joe Rogan, and I agree on that, and I've been, I'm on record for a year and a half saying Joe Biden is, and I don't think they can do it in May because the voters will cry foul at then. Why did we have primaries? You haven't had any debates. So I think they have to make the switch at the convention. I think the vote has to go down to the floor and it'll be the way it used to be when we were kids watching the conventions on television where there was all of this tension and all of this anxiety over how were the votes going to go as they did the roll call for the states from the floor. I think it's got to go that way. I don't know how they make the switch now before the convention.
Jon Jeter (01:07:39):
Yeah, I don't either. I don't know this though. What they don't want, their worst nightmare is for Joe Biden to appear on a debate stage with Donald Trump. They not, can't have that. They don't want that. That's just
Wilmer Leon (01:07:53):
No. Yeah,
Jon Jeter (01:07:55):
That can't happen. No, can't happen.
Wilmer Leon (01:07:58):
You don't even want to see, and I mean this very seriously. You don't even want to see Joe Biden, walk to the podium versus Donald Trump. Just the appearance of that. Stiff.
Jon Jeter (01:08:13):
Yeah. Oh, I,
Wilmer Leon (01:08:15):
No, no. You think
Jon Jeter (01:08:16):
About that. Yeah. Donald Trump is a dinosaur, but he still looks better than, he still is. More commanding than Joe Biden. Mr. That's,
Wilmer Leon (01:08:28):
Do you want pterodactyl or do you want, anyway, so I want to thank my guests and my dear brother John Jeter for joining me today. And John, when I say that you say,
Jon Jeter (01:08:40):
Thank you, brother. It was wonderful to be here. Wonderful.
Wilmer Leon (01:08:44):
And folks, thank you all so much for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wimer Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Also, please follow and subscribe. Leave a review, share, share, share, share, share the show, subscribe. Doing this every week is not cheap, trust me. We need your help. Also follow us on social media. You can find all the links below in the show description. Go to Patreon. Please contribute to the Patreon account. And remember, folks, that this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge. Because talk without analysis is just chatter, and we do not chatter on connecting the dots. See you again next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Wilmer Leon. Have a great one. Peace. I'm out
Announcer (01:09:41):
Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.

• Download91

Find me and the show on social media @DrWilmerLeon on X (Twitter), Instagram, and YouTube
Facebook page is www.facebook.com/Drwilmerleonctd

FULL TRANSCRIPT
Announcer (00:06):
Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.
Wilmer Leon (00:15):
Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon. I am Wilmer Leon. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they occur in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historical context in which most events take place. During each episode, my guests and I have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between current events and the broader historic context in which these events occur. This enables you to better understand and analyze these events that impact the global village in which we live. On today's episode. The issues before us are, what are the three steps leading to war, and what's the real story behind the so-called Uyghur genocide or oppression in China? My guest today is a peace activist, a writer, a teacher, a political analyst, kj, no, kj, welcome to the show.
Speaker 3 (01:22):
Thank you. Pleasure to be with you.
Wilmer Leon (01:24):
So in talking with you yesterday, you had expressed this concept that there are three steps leading to war. You talked about an information war, you talked about shaping of the environment and provocation. As we look at what's transpiring between the United States and Russia, as we look at what's transpiring more specifically between the United States and China over Taiwan, walk us through these steps and how these steps apply to where we are today.
Speaker 3 (02:03):
Yes, this is exactly what is going on. So the first thing to understand is that before the US goes to war, there is an information campaign, which we can understand as both manufacturing consent and stirring up people's emotions to demonize and to other the opponent. And so we see that very, very clearly in China. That's been ongoing for many years now. But if you look at all the polls, everybody is convinced that China is a threat. So the first step is information warfare, which is the pre kinetic sube dimension of war. The second dimension is shaping the environment. The US never likes to go to war without shaping the environment first. So in order to do that, it wants to weaken the adversary and it wants to bring as much force to bear as possible against its opponents. So we see that right now with the United States.
(03:08)It's created a vast set of alliances against China, Aus Jaas, JAAS, the Quad, NATO plus, and then you can see that there is the first island chain, which it has completely militarized, and it is prepositioning supplies, materials, troops, all along it, including troops, right on Gman Island of Taiwan, which is less than three miles from the mainland. So you see the constant shaping of the environment. Also, you will see preparations for war in terms of massive military exercises. You see this in Korea, which spent 200 days out of the past year in constant military exercises. You see the military exercises all over the Pacific, which are essentially nonstop. And then the last step is the provocation. That is you want to provoke the other side to fire the first shot. You want to wrong foot them so that then you can build on all the demonization and the ally building that you've created and then use that as a ally to start the war.
(04:25)And we see these provocations happening more and more frequently. We see the provocations by the Philippines against the Chinese overtaking their boats, trying to cut them off and seeing if they'll get rammed. You see the provocations on the Korean peninsula where there's this constant in your face provocation against North Korea, threatening to decapitate, sending the message to Korean troops to shoot first and report later, shoot, first report later. And you see the provocation, as I just mentioned, in Jinman Island where you have US special forces troops parked permanently three miles away from the Chinese mainland. Imagine if the PLA stationed Chinese troops on Key West or Galveston Island or the Farone Island just right up against the nose of right up against the US coast. Would that be considered provocative? I would think so. And so essentially we see all these three steps happening, the information warfare, the hatemongering, the shaping of the environment, the very, very deliberate shaping of the environment for war, and then the constant provocation. So this is why I think that we have to be very, very careful that it will just take one small misstep in this minefield for something to go off, and that will create a chain reaction that will affect the entire Pacific.
Wilmer Leon (06:06):
So we saw in the seventies, we saw Nixon go to China. Henry Kissinger helped to orchestrate that entire process and a development of a reproach mon with China. And one of the objectives of that was to be sure that China stayed on our side of the equation as the United States was still involved in the Cold War against the Soviet Union. When we got to, I think it was the Obama administration, that's where this whole idea of the pivot towards China started to manifest itself. What, first of all, do I have my history? And then secondly, if so, what is it that or who was in the American foreign policy elite that decided that this pivot needed to take place?
Speaker 3 (07:09):
Yeah, that's a really, really good question. I have to go back to a little bit of the history. You absolutely are about Nixon. Nixon tried to peel China off away from the Soviet Union as part of their Cold War strategy, and then they engaged with China, and then they dumped Taiwan, which previous to that had been considered the legitimate China, but they were always hedging, so they always kind of had their foot partially on Taiwan because they didn't want to give it up completely.
Wilmer Leon (07:43):
They who
Speaker 3 (07:44):
The US establishment didn't want to give it up completely as a US outpost. And so they always kept a little foot in there. And so this is what they call strategic ambiguity. But the official line was the one China policy. The Shanghai communicates essentially there's only one China. The PRC is the legitimate government of China. Taiwan Island is a part of China, and any issues between Taiwan province and China are to be resolved amongst themselves. The US is going to withdraw troops, it's going to withdraw arms, and it's not going to be involved. That was the agreement, and that was the foundation of the relationship between the US and China. All of that is now completely dissolved. It's gone. There is no defacto one China policy anymore. But who started this war? That is the $64,000 question. In 1992, Paul Wolfowitz, the NeoCon Mino, Greece, he wrote a document called the Defense Planning Guidance Document, and essentially it was declaration that the United States would be the uni polo global hegemon, regardless, and at any measure, uni polo global hegemon simply means that it would be the boss of the world and it would take any measure, it would go to war, et cetera, as necessary.
(09:12)This document, the defense planning guidance document, became the project for a new American century. The project for a new American century was unquote disavowed, but it's simply mutated, and then it was picked up again by a group of people at Center for a New American Security. And those two words, new American, they are not a coincidence. The CNA or Center for New American Security is a kind of a reestablishment of the neocons who started pen A. And so you see this entire chain of ideology continuing from Wolfowitz and the people around him, the neocons around him, the Cheney,
Wilmer Leon (09:57):
Dick Cheney,
Speaker 3 (09:59):
Yes,
Wilmer Leon (10:00):
Richard Pearl,
Speaker 3 (10:01):
Richard Pearl, all of these neocons, they simply bequeathed their legacy onto a younger group of neocons, the neocons who are associated with the Center for New American Security.
Wilmer Leon (10:13):
In fact, let me jump in. I'm sorry. Just really quickly on the pen side with Wolfowitz and Pearl, I think Scooter Libby, when George HW Bush was in the White House, that crew came to him and wanted to promote all of this rhetoric. He referred to them as the crazies and said, and this is from Ray McGovern who was in the White House at the time with the CIA said, get these crazies out of here and keep them away from me. And I think it was George HW that by pushing them out, that moved them to Form P NAC and all of that.
Speaker 3 (11:02):
Absolutely. And remember, these crazies also wanted to go to war against China in the early two thousands. So it was actually, and
Wilmer Leon (11:12):
They also wanted Bill Clinton to overthrow Saddam Hussein. They sent, and folks, you can go and look on the, you can Google this and you can pull up the letter and see all the signatories to the letter. They sent a letter to Bill Clinton when he was president, asking him to invade Iraq. And he said, no,
Speaker 3 (11:35):
Exactly. And then nine 11 happened, and the Pen Act document actually said, we need something like a Pearl Harbor in order to be able to trigger our plans. And so then conveniently, nine 11 happened, and then Iraq was invaded. But anyway, these crazies never went away. They went into various think tanks, but one of the key think tanks is CNAs, which is an outcome. It's a kind of an annex of CSIS itself, one of the deep state think tanks. And starting 2008, they drew up a plan for War against China specifically. There's an organization called CSBA, which is, it's a kind of a think tank. It's a procurement and strategy think tank associated with the Pentagon. And it was once again, related to another deep state think tank inside the Pentagon that does long-term strategic planning. And they came up with something called Air Sea Battle, which is the doctrine of war against China.
(12:48)So since then with Air Sea Battle, air Sea Battle is actually, it's derived from Air land battle, which was the doctrine of war against the Soviet Union, which is why it has a similar resonance to it. And that itself was derived from the Israeli doctrine of war from the Yom Kippur war where they did massive aggressive strikes deep inside their opponents infrastructure. And that became Airland battle. Airland battle was never used against the Soviet Union, but it was used in Iraq, in Kosovo, et cetera. Colloquially, it's known as shock and awe. And they created a shock and awe version for China called Air Sea Battle. And that was developed in earnest starting around 2009. And then remember 2012, the US declared the pivot to Asia. So this is the Obama administration. They essentially declared in so many terms that we are going to make sure that China does not develop any further.
(14:06)We're going to encircle China, we're going to station troops in Australia. It was declared in Adelaide. We're going to encircle the entire, essentially it was a plan to encircle China all along the first island chain from the corals to Japan, to Okinawa to Taiwan Island along the Philippine Archipelago, and then all the way to Indonesia. This very, very deliberate plan to encircle and to escalate to war against China. 2008 and 2009 was really the turning point, because it was the time of the change. It was the global financial crash, and the people who engaged with China, they engaged with China under the conceit that China would essentially be absorbed into the US capitalist system. That is, it would become a tenant farmer on the US capitalist plantation.
Wilmer Leon (15:11):
That's what they tried to do with the Soviet Union.
Speaker 3 (15:13):
Exactly, exactly.
Wilmer Leon (15:15):
Under Gorbachev,
Speaker 3 (15:16):
Exactly right. Yes. So we would become a tenant under the global US capitalist plantation, or it would collapse. That was what they believed. And then in 2008, the Western Catalyst financial system collapsed on itself, and it turned out that China was not going to collapse. It was actually incredibly strong, incredibly resilient, and they actually had to go hat in hand to China to beg for support, in order to prop up the system and then to do a controlled demolition on the backs of the working class here. And so when that became clear that China was not going to collapse and it was not going to be subordinated, then the DCAS came out and explicit doctrine of war started to be prepared. This is what I referred to as Air Sea baffle. So that doctrine of war was created inside various think tanks, CSBA, and then supported by css, CNAs, et cetera.
(16:18)And then when the Obama administration transition, those plans were simply kept alive with CNAS, and some of it was incorporated into Trump's strategy, but Trump had neo mercantile tendencies, so he was not as aggressive as they would like him to be. And then when Biden came back, the pivot to Asia was rebranded as the Indo-Pacific Strategy, and it's gone full tilt since then. So we see this constant escalation, as I said, the information warfare, the shaping, the environment, the exercises, the alliances, the prepositioning, and then we see the constant provocation. So we are well on the way to war. Henry Kissinger said that we were in the foothills of a cold war. No, we are high up in high altitude and very, very close to kinetic war.
Wilmer Leon (17:14):
I think I said when I made the reference to Russia that that's what they try to do with Gorbachev, but I think it was Yeltsin to Gorbachev is where all of that financial intrigue was taking place. And I think it was Gorbachev who realized the danger on the horizon and shifted the game plan on the United States, which is why one of the reasons why Gorbachev Gorbachev had to go leading us into where we are now with President Putin. But that's another, I hope I have again, that history, right? Yes,
(17:50)Absolutely. So with all that you've just laid out, and before we get into some of the specifics about the info war, as all of this is going on, what we also have is the de-industrialization of the United States and the offshoring or outsourcing of American manufacturing to China. So how do you, on the one hand, offshore or outsource your manufacturing, particularly as a capitalist economy, going to China in search of cheaper labor to make more profit, but then at the same time, you're planning to go to war with the people that are manufacturing a whole lot of the stuff that your country consumes? Is that a good question?
Speaker 3 (18:53):
Yeah, no, it's absolutely valid. I mean, it's a very, very good point. That's the core contradiction. The US has outsourced
Wilmer Leon (19:00):
Needs, and by the way, the country that you go to buy your bonds so that your economy can stay afloat.
Speaker 3 (19:07):
Absolutely. Absolutely. Right. So not only has China financed the United States and supported or propped up the US dollar as the global reserve currency, but also the US exported its industrial base to China because it thought that it could simply exploit the hell out of the Chinese worker at the cost of the US worker,
Wilmer Leon (19:33):
The sick man of Asia mentality, and we can just play these Chinese people for fools.
Speaker 3 (19:38):
Exactly. Exactly. So exploit the hell out of them, make a killing, and then eventually China would be completely absorbed into the US capitalist system, or it would collapse, right? It was either collapse or be absorbed. This is what Bill Clinton believed. So that was the plan, except that China developed on its own terms, and it showed that not only is it possible to develop that it doesn't have to become subjugated to the west, to the western institutions, that's when the daggers came out. But now there is the contradiction that on the one hand, the US wants to go to war against China. On the other hand, it's significantly, it's so deeply enmeshed with Chinese industry and the Chinese economy that it is not easy. And so it's trying this very delicate operation of what they refer to as de-risking, but it's really decoupling, and they're trying to separate themselves from China as you would try to separate conjoined twins.
(20:43)Except the problem is that China has the beating heart, the beating heart of the industry. So if you separate that out, then you're going to give yourself a lot of problems. And so they have not thought this through, but these are people who are not known for their clear thinking. As I said, they're neocons, they're neo neocons, they're crazies. They are drunk with power. They do not want to give up their power and their dominance over the planet, certainly not to China, and they would rather end the planet than see the end of their hegemony, of their dominance. And that's the really dangerous moment that we're in. I've referred to it as a drunk who as the bar is closing and your credit cards are being rejected, you've struck out with everybody. You're just spoiling for a fight, a fight. You're not going to go home without a fight. And that's currently what it looks like right now.
Wilmer Leon (21:44):
So the first element of the three that you mentioned is the info war. So we're being told that President Xi is an authoritarian. We're being told that China has stolen American manufacturing secrets and has exploited American manufacturing processes. We're being told that China is trying to take over Africa. There are a number of stories that get repeated ATD nauseum, very little if any evidence to support them. But this is the info drumbeat that you keep hearing on M-S-N-B-C and CNN and Fox News. So let's start with the G is a authoritarian, and he's the dictator of China. China is a communist country, and therefore everything is evil that comes from China.
Speaker 3 (22:48):
Yeah, I mean, this is warmed over Cold War rhetoric. It's essentially a red scare plus yellow peril, right? I mean, we've heard this stuff before. I mean, if you go to China, you realize that there's nothing authoritarian about it. Actually. You feel much freer and much more at liberty to do what you want and to be who you are than you do here. It's not at all an authoritarian state. It's simply the US plasters, the label authoritarian against any country that it doesn't like and where it's usually planning to go to war against. So that is a very, very clear signal. I mean, just from a kind of statistical polling standpoint, the Chinese government is the most popular government on the planet. It ranks in the 90th percentile, and this is
Wilmer Leon (23:42):
High 90, I think 96 was the last number I saw,
Speaker 3 (23:47):
Something like that. Yes, certainly in above 90 percentile. And this is from Harvard University, correct? With longitudinal studies. So clearly they have the trust and the full faith of its people.
Wilmer Leon (24:01):
Repeat that, because most people, when they hear, I know this, when I say that to listeners or if I'm in conversation and I say, well, when you poll the Chinese people, they back their government at around 96%. And of course, the response I get is, well, of course they would, because that's Chinese polling, and that's Xi telling them what to think. And if they don't do what Xi tells them to do, then they wind up missing.
Speaker 3 (24:30):
No, no, no, that's sorry. Yeah, I mean, it's good. It's what people think, but first it is not Chinese polling. It is US polling, it's Harvard University doing this over a longitudinal study, I think over 10. It's over a decade, maybe 15 years long. And so it's us polling, not Chinese polling. The second thing is that over 150 million Chinese travel abroad every year, they travel all over the world. They go as tourists, they go as students, et cetera, and then almost every single one of them goes back home. You would not get that in an authoritarian state. You think that if you live in a prison or a concentration cab that you go free and then you come back of your own volition? No, that's not possible. It's absurd. So as I said, the Chinese travel all over the world, and then they simply come back because that's where they want to be.
(25:34)So this notion that Chinese are authoritarian, that it's an authoritarian state, nobody's allowed to do anything that's completely fault. It does contrast, for example, with the east block where it was very, very difficult to travel abroad, and once when people did travel abroad, they did defect. That much is true. That is certainly not the case with China. As I said, 150 million people travel abroad and then go back home. So that is a lie from top to bottom. I mean, of course you have a few people who defect. I think the defection rate from China is about the same number of people who defect from the United States. So if you want to, oh, really?
Wilmer Leon (26:16):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (26:16):
Okay,
Wilmer Leon (26:17):
I didn't know that.
Speaker 3 (26:17):
Yes. So it's about the same. So it's a kind of a net zero. So anything that says otherwise is usually an exaggeration or a misconstrue of the actual numbers
Wilmer Leon (26:30):
To this idea of authoritarian, and I was just thinking about this as you were talking. I think one of the great misnomers is the conflation of a planned economy versus an authoritarian government. I don't think I'm off base to say that China is very, very focused on planning its economy, and that makes it very nimble. That makes it, in my opinion, easier for the government to shift as world economic dynamics shift. Also, because it doesn't have predatory capitalism in China, corporations in China and the Chinese government that owns corporations, they reinvest their money into their economy as opposed to into stock buyback programs and high executive compensation packages. Hence, we wind up with a lot of technological advancements coming out of China, which to a great degree is what is scaring the hell out of the United States government. Yeah,
Speaker 3 (27:49):
You're absolutely right. Yeah. So the Chinese system is planned, but it's planned in a very rational way. Most of the leaders are unlike the United States, most of the leaders in the US are lawyers or failed business people in China. Most of the leadership are scientists and engineers, and they go through an incredibly complex vetting process where they have to show their capacity and show their ability over and over again before they even reach to the level of becoming a city or a province governor. And then from there, it just gets harder and harder. So you really make sure that the top people are leading. And then there's a system where there's a constant process of feedback and consultation with the people. So the government makes sure that it's doing what the people wants. And so it's planned
Wilmer Leon (28:42):
In political science. That's the Easton model, I think James Easton model of the feedback loop, how effective governments are supposed to function. They implement policy, they get feedback from the populace on how that policy is being implemented. They then translate that into better policy. That's the eastern model of called the policy feedback loop.
Speaker 3 (29:18):
Yes, exactly. There's this policy feedback loop, and once again, as I said, the Chinese leadership are scientists, so they do this thing called a trial spot. What is when they have a policy, they try it out in one city or one area, and if it works, then they scale it up and they try it again in a larger province on a larger scale. And if it works, they scale it up even further, et cetera. So it's a very kind of scientific method that they use called trial spots where they're essentially using the scientific method and a vast system of feedback and consultation in order to see if something works or not. That's why they're, for example, creating sustainable cities, sustainable energy generation, mass transit, et cetera, all sorts of public goods. But the problem with this is that the Western concede is that if it's not liberal capitalists, that is if you don't let the capitalists do whatever they want to, this is an infringement on freedom, and that's the framing that they use.
(30:23)If you don't let the predatory capitalists do anything and everything, they want to, you have infringed upon their freedom. And so that's where this authoritarian trope comes from. The thing to notice once again is as you do this extensive planning, what you get to do is you build out the foundations, and those foundations are in public health and in public housing and infrastructure and transportation and education. Once you build out all of those foundations, then you can build up real human capacity, and then you build up a real powerful economy. And so for example, if you look at the 20 largest corporations on the planet, the majority of them are Chinese. But the other thing about those large corporations is the majority of them are state owned corporations. That is to say they're owned by the people. For example, the largest banks in the world are Chinese banks.
(31:25)How much do the leaders of these banks make? Well, they make probably they wouldn't make enough to rent an apartment in San Francisco, maybe two times, three times max, what their average income of their average worker is, as opposed to Jamie Diamond, who makes 18,000 times what his lowest workers make. And so it's a very, very different system where you bring up the highest most qualified people. At the same time, you do not reward them for greed. You do not reward them for, with exorbitant pay, essentially, you give them a decent salary, not an exorbitant salary, but a salary, which is good enough for a decent level of standard of living in China. You may give them an apartment and you may give them, there may be a canteen where they can get discount meals, but that's about it. But it's understood that you are going to really work to improve your country, serve the people, serve your countrymen, and then make a better society.
(32:39)And you see this real kind of whole society effort to improve the country, which is why over the last 30, 40 years, wages have flatlined in the United States, but wages in China have gone up anywhere five to 10 to 15 times for your average worker, for your average blue collar worker. I mean, they see their lives improving, and also you see the bottom being lifted up where they essentially ended poverty. You go to China, you will not see any slums. I mean, it's kind of astonishing. You go to almost any city in the world, you will see homeless. Or if you don't see homeless, you will see slums in China, you will see neither. And in the past few decades, they brought 850 million people out of poverty. 850 million people were brought out of poverty. This is the world's greatest economic accomplishment in the history of the world.
(33:43)And essentially, they show that poverty is a policy choice. You don't have to have poor people. The Bible says the poor will always be with us. No, it's not true. It's an ideological choice, and you can end poverty in a country, and for all of these reasons, by showing that a planned economy where there's reasonable and systematic feedback can have deliver better results. This is why this example is why the western liberal elite class feels the need to destroy China because it cannot have that example, cannot have an example, which puts the lie to the massive exploitation and mystification and deceit that this system is built on. The suffering that we undergo on a daily basis is not necessary.
Wilmer Leon (34:45):
I want to go back to the point. China has brought 800 million people out of abject poverty over about what? The last 10 to 15 years
Speaker 3 (35:03):
Over the last, I would say over the past 40 years. Okay, 40 years ago, China was poorer per capita than Haiti.
Wilmer Leon (35:14):
That's poor.
Speaker 3 (35:15):
And now there's no comparison, right?
Wilmer Leon (35:17):
The United States has on the upper end, in terms of what the government numbers are, not 800 million unhoused, 800,000,
Speaker 3 (35:32):
Yeah. Somewhere in that range.
Wilmer Leon (35:34):
And so me being from Sacramento, California, you go to north side of Sacramento near the American River near the Sacramento River, people living under bridges, you go to Oakland, people living under overpasses, you go to San Francisco, people living under overpasses, people can't even afford the middle class in San Francisco, can't even afford to rent an apartment that people that work in San Francisco can't afford to live in San Francisco. Okay, pick a city, Detroit, Cleveland, Philadelphia. Pick one. You see people standing in the medians of intersections with signs and cups begging for money. 800,000 people homeless in the United States. We can't fix it, but China brings 800 million people out of poverty. Folks do the math.
Speaker 3 (36:37):
Yeah, I mean, it's pretty astounding. I mean, the 800,000 homeless is probably an under count because it's hard to count.
Wilmer Leon (36:44):
Sure. That's why I said it's a government number.
Speaker 3 (36:47):
Yes, it's a government number. But even without looking at the homeless, think about the fact that 60% of the people in the United States do not have $500 to their name. That means if they get a flat tire, if they need to change their tires, fix their car, or get a parking ticket, they are in real trouble, right? I mean, there's just no margins. And so the vast majority of working people in the United States are struggling, and they see no light at the end of the tunnel at the same time that they expect their children to have even worse conditions. No longer housing is no longer, nobody can think of housing anymore. Now its cars are no longer affordable. Right? When I taught in community college, I was told that 80% of the students were housing insecure. When I taught, most of the students would come to class and they couldn't focus because they were hungry.
(37:52)I mean, you have adjunct professors living out of cars. So this is the level of ridiculous, absurd maldistribution of wealth that you can do everything right, work your rear off, and still end up with nothing, just barely be treading water if even that. And on the other hand, you have a country like China where if you work, you will see your life constantly improving from year to year. On average, your worker has been seeing their wages increase 8% every year for the past 20, 30, 40 years. I mean, that's astounding. Wilma, have you had an 8% increase in your salary for the past 30 years?
Wilmer Leon (38:45):
Can't say that I have.
Speaker 3 (38:48):
You must be doing something wrong then.
Wilmer Leon (38:50):
I can't say that I have. Let's move to element number two, shaping the environment. What are the techniques and what are some of the tangible elements that we can point to in terms of shaping the environment?
Speaker 3 (39:05):
Okay, the first thing about shaping the environment is creating alliances. So the US is creating multiple alliances. That's alliance between the United States, Korea, and Japan. I refer to it as jackass or jackass. You see the alliance between Australia, the United States, uk, to prepare for war, nuclear war against China, Aus. You see the Japan, Philippines, US Alliance, and the South China Sea jaas, which is once again unthinkable as it is with Korea, that the colonial dominator, Japan would be creating a military alliance with the colonized. But all of this is mediated and midwife by the United States. And then you see NATO coming into Asia. So already when the US does military exercise in the Pacific, you see the LFA flying over. You see NATO exercises. You see that Korea is linking up to the NATO intelligence system, B-I-C-E-S, bcs. And that Taiwan is getting the link 16 tactical data link, which allows the US to create a common tactical and operational picture of the Warfield in order to create what they refer to as a transnational kill chain.
(40:29)That is, you're using all of these countries for combined joint all domain command and control. It's simply one large military machine, all of these different countries together. So that's one part of shaping the environment. Another part of shaping the environment is pre-positioning troops, pre-positioning material, and also doing these constant military exercises and escalating to industrial war footing, which is what they are talking about. They're saying the US has to shift immediately to an industrial war footing. Certainly South Korea and Japan are already expected to do this. The plans to use shipyards in Korea for to repair us battle damage, and then the constant escalation into what I refer to as the third offset. The third offset is that China has the capacity to respond. If the US and the US has over 300, probably close to 400 bases right around China, China has the capacity to fire missiles and keep the United States at bay.
(41:50)It has the Don Feng missiles that are very, very precise. And the US offset to that has been to disperse its troops all around the first island chain, prepare for island hopping, prepare for Ace agile deployment, and essentially to attack China through diffused, distributed, dispersed warfare. All of this is preparation. And then the other way, which is traditionally the environment is shaped, is through information warfare and economic warfare, trade warfare, tech warfare. The idea is that you are going to try and try to create as much disruption inside China itself, create as much descent inside China itself, and also try and degrade its economy before you go into war. Ideally, you want to level sanctions on it before you go in, but in the case of Russia, for example, they will level sanctions after the war starts. But the idea is to degrade the economy and the will to fight, and the capacity to fight as much as possible so that you enter into the battle with an unfair advantage, an overmatch.
(43:12)The analogy that I sometimes think of is that when a matador goes into the ring to fight a bull, what they've done is they've drug the bull, they've starved it, they've beaten it, they've dehydrated it, et cetera. And then you go to war, and then you have this theatrical presentation of how you've dominated the bull. In the bull fight, usually the US tries to do this kind of degrading before it enters into war. So for example, it sanctioned Iraq for a decade before it blew it up into smithereens, et cetera. So you see all of these things happening in terms of the hybrid war, the preparations, the alliances, the exercises, the prepositioning and the military preparation.
Wilmer Leon (43:58):
In fact, the sanctions regime that you've just talked about as it relates to Iraq is exactly what the United States has been trying to do with Russia, has been trying to do with Iran has tried to do with China. And what the reality that the United States now finds itself dealing with is that sanctions regime has forced those sanctioned countries to establish relationships amongst themselves and relationships amongst themselves. So they've entered into trade agreements. They've entered into the bricks, for example, the Chinese development Bank. There are a number of elements now where China and Russia have developed trade agreements, have developed defense cooperation agreements. So really what the United States has done through this sanctions regime is really shot itself in the foot because what it thought it could do with economic pressure and other types of sanctions has actually created a much bigger problem than the United States ever could have imagined.
Speaker 3 (45:15):
Well, I mean, the US has sanctioned what something close to one third of the countries on the planet or something approaching that. I mean, the idea is that it's simple. A sanction is like a siege. It's like you're building a wall around a country. The problem is if you build a wall around a country, you're also building a wall around yourself, and eventually you're walling yourself in, which is what the United States is doing here. And so with the financial sanctions, with the trade sanctions and economic sanctions, essentially it's strengthening China, Russia, Iran, and the countries of the global south, and it's weakening itself. And so that is the contradiction there. But they don't understand that, and they think that they're still capable of destroying, for example, Russia. I mean, they still believe that they almost brought Russia to its knees, and it's just a matter of applying a little bit more pressure. They're not reading the situation directly. But yes, this is what they want to do, and they consider this to be part of shaping the environment.
Wilmer Leon (46:24):
And one quick example of that is the whole chip sanction where the United States figured that it could cripple the Chinese economy from a technology side by prohibiting China's access to high processing chips. What did China do? They figured it out. They make their own and better than the ones that they were getting from Taiwan. And an example of that is the Huawei made 60 telephone. A lot of people in the West think that the iPhone is the greatest phone on the planet. No folks, it's a phone that we can't get in the United States. It's the Huawei mate, 60 plus, which not only is a cell phone, but is a satellite phone as well.
Speaker 3 (47:15):
Yes, it's an extraordinary piece of technology, incredible engineering, and it just goes to show that when the US tries to sanction China or even a single Chinese company by putting it in a choke hold, and its CFO, China just responds with even greater strength and better technology. So it's not happening. It's not happening to an individual corporation, and it's not going to happen to China in general, which is why the US wants to pull the trigger on war. I think there's a part of the NeoCon elite that are so desperate, they see that kinetic war is the only thing that it's the only Trump card that they have left.
Wilmer Leon (48:00):
And I've been saying for a while to Jake Sullivan and to the Secretary of State, to the President, be careful what you pray for because you might get it even with the hypersonic missile technology. I want to say that, what was it last year or about a year and a half ago, the United States War gamed against China 25 times and lost 25 times.
Speaker 3 (48:38):
Yes, each time it lost and it lost faster, and then eventually they had to deposit all kinds of hypotheticals that didn't exist in order to give themselves some kind of pretext of winning. Clearly, if they do the math and if they do the simulations, it's not going to work out for them. But the really dangerous thing here, and I'll be very, very honest here, the dangers is that because the US no longer has overmatch and none of these offsets work, it's going to go back to the final first offset, which is mass a bigger bomb, which is to say that they're going to go nuclear on this war and going nuclear against another nuclear power is a very, very bad idea. The US is doctrine of counterforce, which essentially argues that in order for us to prevail, we have to strike first with nuclear weapons.
(49:30)That's the idea. It's not counter value. Counterforce. We strike with nuclear weapons first. We knock out as many nuclear targets as possible, and that way we come out ahead and we can shoot down anything that's left. This is the US nuclear position, the nuclear posture. And this is very, very dangerous because it's clearly an act of madness. But as I said before, the ruling, ruling elite, the imperial elite believes that they signal that they would rather see the end of the world than the less than the end of their power, than the end of their domination. Because for them, the end of their domination is the end of their world, not the end of their world, but the end of their world, and they're very happy to bring down the rest of the world with them.
Wilmer Leon (50:21):
Provocation is the third. We've talked about the info war. We've talked about shaping the environment. And now the third element is the provocation. And we are seeing this play itself out damn near daily, right before our very eyes. And thank God that President Rai in Iran, that President Xi, that Kim Jong-un in North Korea and President Putin, thank God that these are sensible, sensible people that are not reactionary and engage in knee jerk responses to provocation. Because if they weren't as thoughtful as they are, we'd be in a much, much different world circ*mstance than we are right now.
Speaker 3 (51:12):
I agree with you. I mean, I think it's the sober sanity of US opponents, which is keeping the world from exploding into war. Just as during the Cold War, it was Russian officers who understood US culture and for example, understood that when there were signals of a nuclear attack being launched, they also understood that the World Series was happening at the same time, and they thought it was unlikely the US would launch a nuclear attack during the World Series. But this is predicated on the idea that you have cultured intelligent, calm people who are able to make clear distinctions. And we see that in RACI and President Xi and President Putin, who are very, very measured in their responses. And they're not seeking war. They're seeking diplomacy and peace. And you can see that there is a constant attempt to provoke them and to demonize them and to trigger war, but they understand that time is on their side, and these are the mad thrashings of a dying empire, and their approach is not to engage.
(52:34)The problem is that the provocations become even more extreme, more and more extreme as they become more and more desperate. And there's another piece of the information war that I didn't touch on, but I think it's worthwhile touching on, is one of the key tropes of information warfare is that the other country is a threat to the people of your country. Not simply a threat, but an existential threat, A WMD type of threat, a genocidal threat. We saw that WMD type of language when it was alleged that Covid was a Chinese bio weapon, which somehow was being paid for by the United States. So that doesn't make any sense that research was being funded by the United States. So how is the US funding that research for China to attack us? Nobody seems to be able to explain that piece, but so they're WMD type allegations, and then the China is genocidal in intent, and this is most commonly demonstrated by the allegations of a genocide happening in Xinjiang. Now, just to go over the facts, there
Wilmer Leon (53:51):
Is, wait, wait a minute. Before we get to that, I want to touch on one thing you mentioned not firing the missile. And I want to say that that was a Russian technician, Vasili arch, about what, 65 years ago, who was looking at his radar screen, saw what most would've perceived to be an incoming nuclear missile from the United States on his screen. And the protocol was you got to push the button. And he, to your point, said, wait a minute. This doesn't make sense right now. This might be a mistake, and thank God he was right. It was a mistake. I wanted to make that point because you kind of glossed over that point. But it's very important for people to understand how perilous the circ*mstances are that we're in today.
Speaker 3 (54:55):
Absolutely. I mean, there were so many close shaves during the Cold War, and they're even more now, and the world owes a debt of gratitude to vestly ov. I think he's one of the unsung heroes of world history, but we can't rely on the fact that there will always be a vasili arch of a patient measured, well-informed, educated person on the other side who exercises prudent caution. There's no guarantee of that. And everything that we are doing on our side is simply escalating the danger that that will not happen and that this could end in a nuclear conflagration.
Wilmer Leon (55:41):
Final point on that, then we'll go to the Uyghur issue. And that is, that's one of the points that President Putin was making about NATO and why his perception was a uk, a Ukraine in NATO means NATO missiles in Ukraine, which means his response time to a message of incoming would be cut more than in half. And he was saying, we can't do that. You can't put these missiles on my border and cut my response time from 16 or 17 minutes down to seven minutes. That means if my system say incoming, I got a button to push. I don't have a phone to pick up. I don't have questions to ask. I got a fire on receipt.
Speaker 3 (56:37):
Absolutely, yes. Launch on warning,
Wilmer Leon (56:39):
Launch on warning.
Speaker 3 (56:41):
Yes. And that's exactly the danger. And this is why this was so important that by bringing NATO right up into Ukraine, the Soviet Union, well, Russia lost all of its strategic debt that it had no cushion with which to make a rational decision. And that is a very, very dangerous thing to do against a nuclear superpower that you have designated as an official enemy. So yes, it's absolutely correct, and this is both the danger and what we are seeing replicated in against China. Once again, the US used to have nuclear weapons in Taiwan Island. Right now, they're probably preparing more nuclear weapons, certainly the tomahawks that are being prepared for Japan or nuclear capable, they can carry nuclear warheads. And if you take US troops and place them right three miles from China's mainland, I mean, you've essentially said that you either have to preempt the attack or you are going to be annihilated. So that is the danger here.
Wilmer Leon (57:58):
The other great myth, one of the other great myths is the genocide of the Uyghurs and the oppression of the Uyghurs who are a group of Chinese Muslims in a region of China. And also if they're not being genocided, then they're being put into reeducation and concentration camps. Where did this myth come from?
Speaker 3 (58:28):
It was started by a guy called Adrian Zant, working for the victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, which is extreme far right organization, fascists, Nazis, anti-communist, who essentially have it on their banner head to destroy communism. Adrian ZZ himself believes that it is God's mission, his mission from God to destroy Chinese communism. And he essentially pulled those figures and those facts out of, pardon my French, his rear end. And so initially, so
Wilmer Leon (59:07):
Actually French kg would be ass, he pulled those data, excuse my French, out of his ass.
Speaker 3 (59:14):
I think the French word is true or football.
Wilmer Leon (59:20):
But
Speaker 3 (59:21):
Yes, the BBC asked him to do the research. He said, I can't do it. And then they offered him more money, and then suddenly all of a sudden he was pulling numbers out of his rear end. Apparently there were perhaps a few dozen people that were interviewed. A small percentage of them said that certain things happened to us, and then they extrapolated that, and all of a sudden we have 1 million, 2 million, 3 million, 5 million, 7 million uighurs either in concentration camps or being genocided. Okay,
Wilmer Leon (01:00:00):
So how does that jive with the population of Xinjiang, which I think is the western part of China, which is where these folks are supposed to be.
Speaker 3 (01:00:09):
There are about 12 million Uyghurs. And so if you had even a million that had been disappeared or in concentration camps, you wouldn't have a functioning society. You would have almost every adult male in prison. And that's certainly not the case. 200, 250 million people visited Xinjiang last year, and it was fine. The people in Xinjiang were doing fine. It's a vibrant, multicultural society that is thriving and happy, and anybody can go there. You and I could go there. Anybody listening to this podcast could go there tomorrow. You don't even have to. A visa. China allows Americans to go to China without a visa now for a short period of time, and you could go immediately to Xinjiang and see for yourself. But essentially the fact is there is no Chinese genocide happening in Xinjiang because there's not a single shred of credible evidence. Let me emphasize that. Not a single shred of credible evidence. This is the only genocide in history that one has no deaths. Nobody can point to a body, no refugees.
Wilmer Leon (01:01:24):
Well, that's, they've been disappeared. They've been taken up by the mothership, and I guess they're floating around in the nuclear. I mean the, what do you call this? The nebula
Speaker 3 (01:01:38):
In the fifth?
Wilmer Leon (01:01:39):
Yeah, they're in the nebula somewhere,
Speaker 3 (01:01:41):
Right? Right in the fifth space, time war somewhere. But look, there are five Muslim majority countries. China has borders with 14 countries, and Xinjiang itself has borders with five Muslim majority countries, very porous borders. If there were any credible oppression, you would see massive refugees going to all these countries right next to it. But it's not. Instead, what you see is preferential treatment of the Uyghurs. For example, they were exempt from the one child policy. They had two, three, sometimes more children. They received preferential treatment in school, admissions and employment. The population has increased sixfold since the start of the PRC, and the life expectancy has increased 150%, and you can look high and low and you will see no hate speech and no tolerance of hate speech against Muslims, and no messages or rhetoric targeting the group whatsoever. In fact, the organization of Islamic Corporation, which represents the rights of 2 billion Muslims in 56 countries, commended China for its exemplary treatment of Muslim minorities.
(01:03:00)So this is completely and totally fraudulent. There are 24,000 mosques in the region. People live their own lives, they speak their own language. And then here's the contrast, or here's the test case, because when you want to make a proposition, you also want to make a test group against that. Okay? In Gaza, there is a real genocide happening, either sheer unspeakable, barity and atrocity, the daily massacre of men, women, children, infants, starved to death, unimaginable privation and starvation and suffering, and compare that. And nobody can get into Gaza, right? Nobody can get into Gaza. Anybody can get into Xinjiang any day of the day or night. So really this fraud about Xinjiang being some kind of genocide, this is as much a signal of the dying empire as the real genocide in Palestine, it's foundationally mating, and it's a foundationally violent lie, but it's the other side of the same coin that is you are enabling and covering up a real genocide while you were fraudulently concocting a non-existent one. But the thing we have to understand is the invention of a false genocide cannot cover up a real one. Those of us on the right side of history, we know what to believe and we know how to act, and we know who's responsible, who's covering up what and why they're doing it.
Wilmer Leon (01:04:53):
And the United States is also trying to foment another genocide in Haiti. So there's a false one in Xinjiang. There's a real one in Gaza, and there's another one on the horizon in Haiti, and thank you United States because it's our tax dollars that are fanning the flames and funding all three kj. No, my brother. Thank you, man. I really, really, really appreciate the time that you gave this evening and for you coming on connecting the dots, because as always, kj, you connected the dots, man. Thank you for joining me today.
Speaker 3 (01:05:39):
Thank you. Always a pleasure and an honor to be with you.
Wilmer Leon (01:05:43):
And folks, I want to thank you all so much for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wiler Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Also, please follow and subscribe, leave a review, share the show, follow us on social media. You can find all the links below. Go to Patreon. Please contribute. Please, please contribute because this is not an inexpensive venture to engage in. And remember, this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge, talk without analysis is just chatter, and we don't chatter on connecting the dots. See you again next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Woman Leon. Have a great one, peace and blessings to y'all.
Announcer (01:06:40):
Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.

• Download119

Find me and the show on social media @DrWilmerLeon on X (Twitter), Instagram, and YouTube
Facebook page is www.facebook.com/Drwilmerleonctd
Find our guest on his website MikoPeled.com and on X/Twitter @MikoPeled
TRANSCRIPT:
Announcer (00:06):
Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.
Wilmer Leon (00:15):
Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon. I'm Wilmer Leon. Please forgive the hat. I was supposed to go to the barbershop today and get a haircut and I didn't. So please forgive the hat, but you do not want to see this crazy head of hair. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they happen in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historical context in which most events take place. During each episode, my guests and I have probing, provocative, and in-depth conversations that connect the dots between the current events and the broader historic context in which they occur. This enables you to better understand and analyze the events that impact the global village in which we live on today's episode. The issue before us is how long can the United States and the Biden administration continue to support genocide in occupied Palestine? My guest is a mid press news contributing writer, published author and human rights activist, born in Jerusalem. His latest books are The General Son Journey of an Israeli in Palestine and In Justice, the Story of the Holy Land Foundation. Five Miko peed, my brother. Welcome to the show.
Miko Peled (01:40):
Good to be with you. Thank you.
Wilmer Leon (01:42):
Let's start with some of the current events and work back. The UN Security Council demanded and immediate ceasefire in Gaza and the US abstained from the vote, and Israel was incredibly, incredibly angry that the United States did not vote no on this. Talk about the significance of that.
Miko Peled (02:12):
Well, it's the tail wagging of the dog. That's really what this is. Somehow the Israel feels, and rightfully so, that anything that has to do with US policy regarding the Middle East, regarding Iran, regarding the Arab world, Israel needs to call the shots. And so if Israel wants America to veto America vetoes, if Israel doesn't want America to veto, it doesn't veto, and it's happened now. And it happened I think once or twice before where America abstained, where Israel wanted it to veto. So now Israel is and Israeli prime minister are having a tantrum. They're in the middle of a tantrum right now, anger tantrum. How dare the United States not obey the orders of how the dog dare not obey the tail? That's really what it's all about. That's what we're seeing.
Wilmer Leon (03:08):
So how do we now really reconcile? Because we're hearing now that the relationship, all these great tensions between Netanyahu and Biden and Netanyahu now is not allowing the defense ministers. I think that were supposed to come to Washington to have a meeting. They're not coming, but at the same time, Palestinians continue to die. Palestinians continue to starve, bombs continue to be dropped. So on the ground, there does not seem to be any significant shift in the reality. It's the rhetoric that has changed at this point.
Miko Peled (03:53):
Look, you're confusing what's important with what is not important. Palestinians dying, starving and all that is immaterial. They're not Europeans, they're not white, they're not Christians, most of 'em, it's really immaterial. What's important is that Israel is satisfied. What's important that the Israeli, the Israeli, different lobby groups, Zionist groups in America are happy. What's important is that the Biden administration, Congress, all the different school boards around the country, chiefs of police tow the line. That's what's important now, and there seems to be like that. There might be a little tiny bit of a shift in this wall of support that this is massive support that Israel has in the United States. It's a very small shift. Mind you, it's nothing major. So this is the important story, the fact that tens of thousands of innocent people are being murdered, and not only does America not try to stop it and nothing to stop it, not only are they selling weapons, they are negotiating.
(04:57)They're allowing the perpetrator of this mass slaughter of innocent civilians determine the terms upon which they may or may not agree to stop the killing. So there's no precondition for them to stop the killing while the negotiations are taking place. It's an absurd reality of a kind that is really, I think the only way we can understand just how absurd this is, is to try to imagine that while millions of people were being slaughtered during World War II by the Nazis, that the world would wait for the Nazis to agree to the terms of a ceasefire, supply them with the means to continue the genocide, and then just let them wait for them to agree while people were being slaughtered. I think that is really the only appropriate comparison here to demonstrate just how grotesquely absurd the reality is right now.
Wilmer Leon (06:06):
So in terms of negotiation, there was a group of Israeli government representatives and Hamas representatives in Qatar, and when the United States failed to veto the ceasefire resolution, Israel threw a fit and the reporting is they withdrew from the negotiations but left a few people behind to continue negotiations. Some people have said to me that what this really represents is Hamas right now has the upper hand and that Israel is losing or realizes that it's damn near lost this war, and that they're trying to find some way to extract some safe face saving element from this. Your thoughts?
Miko Peled (07:09):
I don't know. I'm not sure. I'm not sure that I would categorize it quite like that. Israel is achieving everything. It wants to achieve. Tens of thousands of Palestinians dead is a good thing for Israel. This is an accomplishment. Over a million close, a million and a half starving homeless people, famine basically this entire log jam taking place around the Gaza Strip, the fighting going on, the Palestinian fighters and Gaza are still fighting. So it shows goods Israel opportunity to still utilize its army. There's no downside here for Israel. Israel has no motivation to end this. The more Palestinians die, the more Palestinians suffer, the happier Israelis seem to be the happier seems to be. And this is really the goal of this whole thing. The goal of this whole thing was not to achieve some kind of a military objective or political objective. It was to slaughter people and the slaughter is allowed to continue.
(08:24)The United States is applying all the arms that Israel needs to slaughter these people. And so for Israel, this is all upside. I don't know why people have the impression that Israel wouldn't be happy. They're very happy, and the fact that the negotiations are not working, the fact that first of all, the fact that anybody's negotiating with Israel is absurd, but the fact that not only is Israel showing up, but it can leave the negotiations because it's unhappy. Again, this is all upside for Israel. I don't see any downside here as far as Israel is concerned.
Wilmer Leon (08:55):
On the 7th of October, I think it was Hasan Nala from Hamas said we weren't ll, I'm sorry,
Miko Peled (09:05):
Hezbollah.
Wilmer Leon (09:06):
Hezbollah. I'm sorry, not Hamas. Hezbollah, thank you. He said in his speech, we weren't in it on October 6th, but we're in it on October 8th, and many have been waiting for Hezbollah to get more involved. Folks have been waiting, I believe, for Syria to get more involved. Do you see that on the horizon? People have been waiting for Iran to get more involved. Do you see that on the horizon or are the Palestinians to a great degree being left hung out to dry
Miko Peled (09:49):
The Palestinian? No, it's not a question of them being left hand out to drive, but I think it was very clear from the very beginning, this is not going to be a regional war. I think it was several weeks into this where there was this much anticipated speech by na. I happened to be in Jordan at the time, and the streets were empty, shops were closed. Everybody was glued to the radios and to the TVs to hear what he was going to say. And he made it absolutely clear this was a local issue. This was not a regional war, so nobody's going to intervene. I think it was obvious from the very beginning that militarily, nobody's going to intervene. That's not what this is about. And when you come to think of it, I think it's probably the responsible approach. We do know that the Yemeni forces are closing.
(10:38)The Straits of Bab are disrupting the naval commerce going through the Swiss canal, which of course is a responsible thing to do. But I think we're not going to any of that. We're not going to see that kind of scenario play out in any way, shape or form. What I think we should be demanding is that this government, the US government be held accountable and stop talking about a ceasefire and begging Israel to agree to a ceasefire and negotiating or allowing Israel to negotiate. The sixth fleet is in the Mediterranean. The sixth fleet should follow the example of the Yemeni forces and place a naval blockade against Israel, provide humanitarian aid to the Palestinians in Gaza and impose an arms embargo on Israel. That's really the only thing that that's what we need to be talking about. That's what we need to be demanding of our government. But I don't think there's a realistic expectation that either the Arabs or the Iranians or anybody else would get into this militarily.
Wilmer Leon (11:52):
So there's a lot of discussion about Israel going into Rafa. If you could talk about that. I can't remember who it was, but I remember somebody telling me that because of the specific geography of that space and now the number of people that are in that space, that this will be worse than what we've seen up to this point, if that's even possible.
Miko Peled (12:22):
I don't know if that's possible. I mean, I don't know. Worse means the numbers are indicating over 30,000 people murdered, which means realistically probably closer to 50,000, and those are the ones that were fortunate to die immediately. Then you've got, God only knows how many tens of thousands that are dying of their wounds, dying of starvation, dying of disease, dying. And so under the rubble, suffocating to death, it's going to be more of the same. I mean, unless there is an absolute force that places pressure on Israel to stop, there's going to be more, there's going to be another raha. Now they focus on Shifa hospital, then they focus on this, then they focus on that. There's always something that everybody's focused on. The bottom line is the genocide of the Palestinian people is an ongoing process. Unless the perpetrators with genocide are forced to end it, they will not end. I mean, again, I've, I've never used these comparisons before, ever at all in speaking. But in this particular case, I think the appropriate comparison is to Hitler and the Nazis. Unless if the Nazis were not stopped by force, then there would be a lot more millions more dead in Europe. I mean, I don't think there's any question about that. And Israel is the same. Unless it is forced to stop the killing to end the genocide, there will be tens of thousands, more, hundreds of thousands, perhaps dead Palestinians.
Wilmer Leon (13:55):
I understand the reluctance to use that Nazi comparison. I know I understand the reluctance to use a Hitler comparison, but it seems to be fitting in this context, and this is a question that a lot of people wonder, but because of the threat of being accused of being antisemitic, people don't want to ask. And that is, how can a people that experienced what they experienced during the Holocaust now do exactly the same thing to another group of people?
Miko Peled (14:35):
Well, that's a question that is asked a lot, and the answer is it's not the same people. Very few survivors of the Holocaust ended up in what became Israel ended up going in Palestine. Many of those that did go there left because they couldn't stand this militaristic, racist state that was established there. And so it's not the same people. The Zionists had planned the genocide and ethnic cleansing and Palestine years before the Holocaust, and the perpetrators of the ethnic cleansing and the genocide are not survivors of anything. These are Zionist colonizers. And so it does a disservice to the survivors of the Holocaust. So had nothing to do with perpetrating these crimes. And it's historically untrue. These are not the same people just because these happen to be Jewish people and these happen to be Jewish people. It's not the same Jewish people. And as a matter of fact, there were many survivors of the Holocaust who stood up very firmly and opposed Zionism and opposed the crimes of the Zionists.
(15:45)Many of them unfortunately have passed on, but some of them are still alive and are fighting and speaking out. And many of their descendants, I mean, you've spoken to Rabbi Weiss and others from the ultra-Orthodox, and that entire community are Hungarian Jews. Their families perished in Holocaust, and nobody stands more firmly against Zionism and the crimes of Zionists than they do. And they know firsthand about the Holocaust. They know firsthand, they know the names of the relatives that were murdered during the Holocaust. And so I know this question comes up a lot, but it's not the same people.
Wilmer Leon (16:25):
And elaborate, if you would please, on the point that Zionism and antisemitism are not the same thing. That the Zionists, Joe Biden is an admitted self-admitted Zionist. Not all Jews are Zionists, not all Zionists are Jews. If you could, because that whole narrative and that mythology is starting to unravel and people are now coming to understand that this is a Zionist issue, this is not a Jewish issue. If you could unpack a little bit of that.
Miko Peled (17:06):
Sure. That
Wilmer Leon (17:07):
Narrative, please.
Miko Peled (17:08):
As people know, Jews are a religious minority that exists everywhere throughout countries of the world. They have for since time. I Memorial, the Zionists picked on an idea which originally was not a Jewish idea. It was a Christian evangelist idea, which is that the Jews are not just a religious minority. They are part of a nation, and they are descendants of the ancient Hebrews. And therefore, in order for there be a second coming of Christ or something, the Jews have to return to their ancestral homeland. The who later established a Zionist movement who were secular Jews who wanted nothing to do with Judaism. They were completely secular. They wanted to have nothing to do with religion or with Judaism. Always Jews who were religious picked up on that and said, well, maybe this is something we should build on. And they built on this idea, which, by the way, contravenes Jewish law because Jewish law prohibits Jews from sovereignty in the holy land.
(18:20)I'll say that again. Jewish law, Jews, according to Jewish law, according to their own religion, are prohibited from sovereignty in the holy land. Now, the Zionist having been completely secular and had completely total disregard, if not contempt for religion, particularly the Jewish religion, decided that they would adopt this idea that they named Zionism, which today we know as Zionism, which is a central colonial idea, which was to create a European, Jewish, European colony in Palestine. And since we were talking about Europeans taking over the land of people who are not Europeans, white people who are taking over the lands of people who are not white, the world around plotted this, and the British are plotted it, and the Americans plotted it, and others have plotted it and supported them and so on. So this is what Zionism is. It's a racist, settler, colonial ideology. It's violent.
(19:23)It produced a militaristic, violent state, an apartheid state, which is known as the state of Israel. And for the last 76, 7 years, it has been engaged in three, not one, not two, but three crimes against humanity. And these crimes were initiated only three years after the end of the Holocaust. And these crimes are genocide, the definition of which as a law was established after as a result of, to large degree, as a result of the genocide of the Jews in Europe, the crime of ethnic cleansing and the crime of apartheid. So three years after the world made this effort to fight and defeat the Nazis and end the genocide of Jews and so many others by the Nazis, they allowed, the world allowed the Zionist to embark on and of the genocide in Palestine. And that is what we're seeing today. So certainly today, the numbers are very, very high. The violence is extreme, but it's not unique. It is part of something that's been going on for a very long time. It's just now people are paying attention because it is so extreme.
Wilmer Leon (20:43):
What point, well, before I get there, let ask you this, people can understand your history born in Jerusalem. Your book, the General Son, your father is a historic Israeli general. Your grandfather signed the Israeli Constitution,
Miko Peled (21:05):
Declar Declaration of Independence. Yes.
Wilmer Leon (21:06):
Declaration of Independence,
Miko Peled (21:07):
Yeah. Yes. I come from a, we, and I had this conversation before. I didn't learn about Zionism in a college course or in a textbook. I learned Zionism at the dinner table with my mother's milk, if you will. My family were all deeply patriotic Zionists. They believed they were true believers. They were zealots, if you will. Every conversation around the dinner table, every conversation of family gatherings was about Zionism and how do we further the cause of Zionism and what can we do more for Zionism and how do we contribute to the state and the state, the state, the state, the Jewish state, the Zionist state was the most important thing in every conversation, in every conversation, whether it was a military conversation, whether it was political conversation, whether it was a cultural conversation, whether it's how do we get countries around the world to support us more and all of that sort of thing. This was everything. So that's where I come from. I heard these conversations every single day growing up. And of course, it was very difficult for me to make the transition and to realize what,
Wilmer Leon (22:13):
And it was also reinforced in school.
Miko Peled (22:16):
It was reinforced in school, it was reinforced in the media. It was reinforced in culture and literature. It was reinforced in popular culture in everything.
Wilmer Leon (22:25):
The dehumanization of Palestinians was taught in schools similar to apartheid in South Africa.
Miko Peled (22:32):
Yes, it was a lot more subtle actually, but it was very, very effective. So you thought you were learning about human right, humanity and liberal ideals and that sort of thing in terms of human rights and people's rights and so forth. And we learned to admire Nelson Mandela and MLK and so on. At the same time, we were perpetrators of these horrific crimes. But because the segregation is so effective, because Israelis, and again, we're talking about very small country, because Israelis live and exist in spheres that are completely, for lack of a better word, cleansed of the other. The segregation is so absolute, so complete. There's no connection. There's no sense that we're causing an injustice because everything, the only thing we know about the other is what we're hearing from our own environment.
Wilmer Leon (23:29):
It's so insular.
Miko Peled (23:31):
It's completely insular, very insular. And so you can see when you're on the beach in Tel Aviv, and Tel Aviv is known for its beaches, it's bars, it's restaurant, it's this happy Mediterranean city. And when they bomb Gaza, you see the smoke, you can hear the bombing. Now, there's never been a military in Gaza. Palestinians never had an army. Palestinians never had a tank. At best. They've had grew small groups of resistance fighters, many of them in flip flops and jeans carrying semi-automatic with a handful of bullets. That's it. So that's a Palestinian military, the scope of the Palestinian military. So how can you exist so close to a genocide? Not to mention the fact that my generation, our fathers and mothers participated in these horrific crimes upon which the state of Israel was established and we're proud of it. And you can see today on YouTube, you can see there's lots of footage of that older generation, the generation, my father who was still alive, or before they passed, they were interviewed and they talk about the murder, the rape, the pillaging, the burning of villages, the mass killings and so on. And their other thing is the way they describe it. We had no choice. What else could we do? I mean, if we didn't do it to them, we wouldn't be where we are, which is true, but they justify it. So again, that's where I come from. And the ingenuity of the system is that you can live so close to the other, yet not see the other and then kill the other with a sense of impunity, with a sense of righteousness. Even
Wilmer Leon (25:19):
Your father is attributed with developing or at least articulating the concept of the two state solution. Isn't that? Is that correct?
Miko Peled (25:29):
Yes, yes, yes. Immediately after the 1967 war where Israel took the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, he was one of the generals who orchestrated and then executed this war, which people consider so heroic that it's, some people call it a miracle, which of course none of that is true. And I talk about it in detail in my book and the general song, as soon as it was over, he stood up still in uniform. Literally the last day of the war, the first meeting of the Israeli high Commandants said, well, now we have a chance to make peace. Let's allow the Palestinians to have a state in these newly occupied territories, the Westpac, Gaza, give back the other territories that we occupied from the Syrians and the Egyptians, and then we can have peace. And he was taken aside by Rabin and others who are the other generals and said, what are you talking about? Why would we do that? We're strong. It's all ours now. And he said, well, because if we don't, we're going to end up with this catastrophe, something that's not going to work. Everything we accomplish is going to be lost.
Wilmer Leon (26:39):
So
Miko Peled (26:39):
Anyways, he did, and then he retired a year later. And the rest of his life, he dedicated, he died in 1995. The rest of his life, he dedicated to this idea of a Palestinian Israeli peace based on the two-state solution as the Israeli establishment made it absolutely clear that was never going to happen and did everything they possibly could to make sure that it would never happen by building for Jews only in the West Bank and so on and so forth. So that is true. He was probably one of the earliest people who talked about this concept of a two state solution.
Wilmer Leon (27:16):
And your father was a linguist after he left the, was it literature and language?
Miko Peled (27:24):
Arabic literature? Arabic literature was his topic. And so he taught Arabic literature in universities. In Israeli universities, yes, ISTs. He was Arabic literature forte. And he spoke and read, and he was completely literate in Arabic.
Wilmer Leon (27:43):
So how does a Israeli general that was as committed to the state of Israel as your father was the son of a signatory to the Declaration of Independence, and now you as their son slash grandson, move beyond the Zionism and the racism and the apartheid to the work that you do now, how's that? Talk about that transformation in your life, in your reality.
Miko Peled (28:22):
Well, when my father was asked about this, how could a man who was so such a hawk as a general, he was known as a hawk. He pushed for war, he pushed for conquest, suddenly turned around, and he said, well, there was no turnaround. The most important strategic objective for Israel at one point was war. And another point, it was peace. And so as far as he was concerned, he thought, well, we created this Jewish state. Granted, we want all of the land of Israel, but we can't have it because we want to live in peace, so we need to compromise. He was deeply interested in literature. He was deeply interested in Arabic literature. He wanted to know about the neighborhood in which he and others established a state. And so to him, it made perfect sense. Where I think he was misguided, naive, I'm not quite sure. Sure. What is that? He thought that racism and violence can stop at a certain point. And the problem with racism and violence, the problem with settler colonialism is that it has an insatiable appetite. And so there was no way Zionism was going to end at a particular border. The Zionism is a zero sum game. The entire cap tree belongs to us. Nobody else matters. There's no room for compromise. And he was a highly regarded general. He was a highly regarded person in general, and he's a
Wilmer Leon (29:47):
Historic figure in
Miko Peled (29:48):
Israel. And then he became a traitor. He was an outcast. And so because he suggested compromise. So moving forward, all these years later, I began engaging in this and became an activist and so on. And I remember the moment where I looked around me, I was in Palestine, and I realized that two state solution is a lie. There was always a lie. There was no chance whatsoever for it ever to be to materialize, because Zionism is a zero sum game. Because the reality that Israel created in Palestine does not allow for compromise. Unless Palestinians go down on their knees and completely surrender or die Israel. That's
Wilmer Leon (30:35):
Capitulation. That's not compromised.
Miko Peled (30:37):
Exactly. And that's exactly what Israel wanted. Capitulation. And it's interesting that you use that word because there's a great Palestinian writer by the name of Hassan Canani, and he was assassinated by the Israelis in 72 Lebanon in Beirut. He and his 16-year-old niece were killed in a car bomb that the Israelis placed put in his car. And there's an interview with him, which I strongly recommend. You can find it everywhere, but it's on YouTube where he's questioned, this is 1971 maybe, or something like that. And he is questioned by an Australian journalist, why are you opposed to making peace with Israelis? And he looks at him and says, you don't actually mean peace. You mean capitulation? And he uses that word, you mean capitulation? And the reporter kind of pushes and says, well, why not negotiate? He goes, well, he says That would be a very strange kind of negotiation.
(31:37)It would be like negotiations between the sword and the neck. And he made it this point very clear. And he was right. And history has proven him right. And sadly, he was 36, I think when he was assassinated. He's a prolific writer. He is written incredible work. And I strongly recommend people look up and read his stories, his short stories against Ani. But he used the word capitulation because that is the intent of the Zionist from the very beginning, ethnic lensing until the capitulate, and then it's all ours. And if you heard Jared Kushner speak about the wonderful beachfront property,
Wilmer Leon (32:19):
That was one of my next questions. Go ahead, please,
Miko Peled (32:22):
Guys. A strip.
(32:23)And that's what this is about. It's about getting rid of these brown people so that we can enjoy this beachfront property. And that's exactly the point. We want to get rid of these other people so that the settlers can have it. And you'd think Palestinians have known and enjoyed this beachfront property for thousands of years. Now, suddenly you want them. You think that they don't know that this is wonderful property. They enjoy the beaches. They have homes, they have restaurants and cafes and hotels, just like anybody, any other nation enjoying their beachfront property. Gaza used to be known for before the destruction that Israel brought in 1948 for its beautiful dunes, beautiful beaches, wonderful seafood, magnificent views, the fragrance of the citrus trees that grow there. And I mean, that's what Gaza is known for, wealth, commerce, many education institutions, universities, and so on. That's what Gaza was known for. So now, Jared Kushner finally found out, discovered that this is beach pro property. So he thinks the Jews, white Jews are the ones who need to develop it and enjoy it. And he even used a term similar to the final solution or something like that, which again reminds us of the Nazis. But that's exactly the point. They want it all and they want it for themselves.
Wilmer Leon (33:48):
Chuck Schumer, Senator Chuck Schumer in the well of the Senate gave a very impassioned speech a couple of weeks ago where he called for Benjamin Netanyahu to step aside, and he many in the west praised Chuck Schumer for taking such a principled stand. He didn't call for a ceasefire. He didn't call for an end to the conflict. In fact, he said, when this eventually ends, and Netanyahu accused him of interfering in Israeli politics, was that Chuck Schumer really just either reading the handwriting on the wall that Netanyahu's got to go, and when you replace him, chances are you're going to get somebody that's even more extreme than he is like Smo. Is it Morich or Gantz, which
Miko Peled (34:57):
Gantz? Well, nobody can take his place. I mean, this is just talk. There's no one who can take Al's place. But there are several candidates and who knows what Israeli politic guy.
Wilmer Leon (35:14):
My point in the question is that for Netanyahu, for Schumer, I get it confused to call for new elections. Chances are because of the coalition that Netanyahu had to form, he had to move hard, right? Harder in order to formulate his government. It's only going to get worse. It's not going to get better.
Miko Peled (35:44):
Well, I think Chuck Schuler doesn't give a damn one way or the other, but there's a lot of pressure in the Democratic Party for the people who are represented, the Democratic Party in important positions to speak up. And so Chuck Schumer, I think he was feeling the pressure and he had to say something. So he said something that like you say, is completely irrelevant.
Wilmer Leon (36:06):
Well, in the words of that brilliant African-American philosopher, James Brown, he was talking loud and saying nothing
Miko Peled (36:14):
And being a career politician, and I think he was probably born in the Senate if not conceived. This is what he does. That's what he does for a living. I think he's been in the Senate, or maybe he was in the Congress before that. But I mean, he was a politician his whole life. That's what it's all about. It's talking and talking and talking and saying absolutely nothing of any significance. Now, Netanya created a situation where there's no opposition. So let's say Israelis went to, now, there's no reason for Israelis to go to the elections because it hasn't been four years since the previous elections. And the government is strong, and it has, as long as they have a majority in the House of Representatives, it's a parliamentary system. As long as they have a majority, they don't need to go for elections. And they have a very strong, he has a safe majority. That's why if anybody remembers last year, there were all these massive protests against Netanyahu, but this was from the people, the 45%, not the 55%. So he didn't care. They could protest as long as they want. He was safe. So because he's so safe, there's no reason for elections. And let's say there were elections, he's still the only guy who can form a coalition. He's the only one who can form a coalition. He's the best at it.
(37:36)And he has no qualms about who he sits with. And ideologically, I don't think he has a problem sitting with these right wing, neo-Nazi Jews because he agrees with them ideologically, they have a different take on it because they kind of put a kind of a religious spin on it. So they wear the kippas and they pretend to pray and so forth. But
Wilmer Leon (37:57):
They're arguing over process, not ideology.
Miko Peled (38:00):
Yeah, exactly. And not even process. I mean, he's very happy to see what is happening in Gaza. This is all, like I said earlier, this is all for him, for Israeli politicians and even for the public. There's no downside.
Wilmer Leon (38:16):
There has been talk, we were talking about Israel going into Rafa. There's been talk also about Israel going back into Lebanon. Do you see that as a realistic option? Because I would think if they tried again, they'd meet the same fate.
Miko Peled (38:38):
Well, they're not going to put boots on the ground, that's for sure, because Hezbollah taught them a lesson. And we see in Gaza too, as soon as they started putting boots on the, I didn't think they would, but as soon as they did put boots on the ground in Gaza, they're heavy. Heavy casualties. Heavy casualties. And more than any time within the history of Israel, we see the number of high ranking officers among the casualties, much higher than we've ever seen before.
Wilmer Leon (39:09):
In fact, from what I understand, before the 7th of October, the average age of an Israeli, I think say from captain on up was like 46 years old, and now it's down to almost 30.
Miko Peled (39:28):
It could be. It could. There are many, many high ranking officers and commanders of units, commanders of brigade, commanders and so on that have been killed. So they're paying a heavy price. So they're not going to do, I don't believe they're going to make that same. Now, there was a reason to do this in Gaza. I think the Israeli government wants these casualties. It helps morale, it helps unify the country and so on. To do this again in Lebanon, that's a whole other story. Israelis are still, I think, traumatized from what happened in Lebanon in the past. So the only other option would be to bomb Lebanon from the air and again, create this catastrophe of refugees. And I think that's too much even for Israel to handle. So I don't think there's going to be an invasion or a war in Lebanon. Like I said earlier, I don't think that this is not going to lead to a regional war.
Wilmer Leon (40:23):
This may sound a bit soft morrick, but I think it is a worthwhile question to ask. So South Africa and some other countries bring a case against Israel to the World Court. The United States opposes the process. Also, once the decision was rendered, the United States opposed the decision. This most recent vote in the un, Linda Thomas Greenfield, somebody finally whispered in her ear and said, keep your hand down. Don't vote. Yes. What do you see as being the change in that dynamic? What brought about this most recent action by the United States?
Miko Peled (41:13):
There's a lot of pressure. Look, there's a lot of pressure today on the Biden administration. There's a lot. People are angry in the State Department. People are angry in the White House.
Wilmer Leon (41:21):
People in Michigan are really pissed.
Miko Peled (41:23):
People in Michigan are very, very pissed. I think Joe Biden is in a very, very dangerous position politically, which means the Democratic Party is in very dangerous, very precarious, I should say, position. And so again, that's why we suddenly see Chuck Schumer say something, and then we see this in the un. We see some changes, but this is nothing significant. This is just an attempt to kind of temper the, and kind of calm down the voices that are angry. I don't think it's going to do the job. I think the anger is real, the frustration is real. But these are changes in the margins.
Wilmer Leon (42:07):
And I know your time is short with me, and I greatly appreciate you squeezing me in. So what happens now, your thoughts on over the next few weeks, what happens over the next year?
Miko Peled (42:27):
It depends on us. If we act and we start to change the conversation in Washington, then this can end. If we don't, it won't. Look. Does the
Wilmer Leon (42:38):
Trump administration make a difference?
Miko Peled (42:41):
Not for the better. I don't think it's about an administration. It's about, it's about,
Wilmer Leon (42:47):
It's American foreign policy. It's
Miko Peled (42:49):
Not just American foreign policy. Look,
(42:52)To be fair, when you take into consideration what Americans know, what do Americans know? It doesn't matter if it's the president or a member of Congress or it's somebody running for school board or just somebody. It was not a politician. What do we know about Israel? What Americans know about that part of the world is leads Americans to support Israel no matter what. Maybe there's a little bit of shift in the margins, but basically speaking, nobody learns about Palestine. Everybody learns about Israel and a lot the Holocaust, the creation of Israel, Exodus, mega exodus, all this kind of stuff. It's heavily, heavily ingrained everywhere in education, in the media, in culture, in movies, in, I mean, everywhere in the press, in philanthropy, I mean, everywhere. Everywhere. There's so many Zionists nonprofits in America that people would not believe. I mean, how many there are in every state and every city and so on.
Wilmer Leon (43:58):
And our elections as APAC is spending a hundred million dollars to unseat. So-called liberal Democrats.
Miko Peled (44:06):
And on top of that, you've got that. So that's on top of that, right? So what do we expect Americans to know? So then somebody comes up and says, we have to boycott the only Jewish state. Well, you've got to be antisemitic to say that somebody says, we need to have a single democracy with equal rights from the river to the sea. People say, well, what about the Jewish state? Do you want to eliminate the Jewish state? There's no context to understand that it's apartheid. Even though Amnesty International provided an excellent report over two years ago that there was the crime, apartheid is being perpetrated. There's no talk about that. There's no understanding that there was a Palestine that was tolerant. There was a Palestine where Jews and others lived. Of course, Palestinians and low Jews live together. There's no context, so there's no understanding.
(44:53)So obviously nothing's going to change unless we fill that gap. And to be honest, I'll just say real quick, we're working on initiative here in Washington C to remedy that. It's going to take some time, but at least we're going to try. So without change that is systemic and deep and is based on a solid strategy. We're not going to resolve this, and things are going to go better and better for Israel, and even worse for Palestinians. If anybody can imagine that, that's the only change. Those are the only two options. I don't see a third option.
Wilmer Leon (45:30):
Miko. ett, again, I know you've got an awful lot to do. You are so gracious with your time. I greatly, greatly appreciate it and look forward to other conversations, and hopefully there'll be under better terms.
Miko Peled (45:45):
Thank you. It's always a pleasure, my friend.
Wilmer Leon (45:48):
Folks, what can I say? Thank you to Miko Ped for his time with me today. Thank you all so much for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast. I'm Dr. Wiler Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Also, please follow. Please subscribe. Go to Patreon. You can go to patreon.com. Wilmer Leon, please contribute. This isn't cheap. Y'all leave a review and share the show. Follow us on social media. You can find all the links to the show below in the description. And remember, this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge. Because talk without analysis is just chatter, and we don't chatter on connecting the dots. See you next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Wiler Leon. Peace. Have a good one,
Announcer (46:48):
Connecting the dots with Dr. Where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.

• Download101

Find me and the show on social media @DrWilmerLeon on X (Twitter), Instagram, and YouTube
Facebook page is www.facebook.com/Drwilmerleonctd

TRANSCRIPT:
Announcer (00:06):
Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.
Wilmer Leon (00:14):
Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon. I'm Wilmer Leon. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they happen in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historical context in which most events take place. During each episode, my guests and I have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between current events and the broader historic context in which these events take place. This enables you to better understand and analyze the events that are impacting the global village in which we live on today's episode. The issue before is what are the problems facing African-American aviators and other aviators of color in the commercial aviation space? To assist me with this discussion, let's turn to my guest. He's a man with well over 12,000 hours in the co*ckpit. In the commercial co*ckpit. He is Captain Clovis Jones, retired. Captain Jones, welcome to the show.
Capt Clovis Jones (01:23):
Thank you so much for having me.
Wilmer Leon (01:25):
If you would please introduce yourself. You have such a broad, such a vast resume. I don't want to give short shrift to any of your accomplishments, so please take a moment and introduce yourself, sir.
Capt Clovis Jones (01:39):
Okay. Clovis Jones Jr. Born in Dawson, Georgia. I wanted to be a pilot since I was four years old. I actually turned down a scholarship to Morehouse College in premed to go to the Army High School to Flight School program. However, my recruiter put something different on my contract. One reason is that he didn't get credit for recruiting officers and secondly, and that part of the world as a black person, that was not something that people who looked like him wanted people like me who looked like me to do so. I wound up in the infantry for three years, got out and asked for my scholarship back and went to Morehouse for a semester and was called by the Army's Aviation Department to see if I was still interested in flight school and I said yes. So I reenlisted into the army and did go to flight school, completing flight school.
(02:35)I was a turnaround flight instructor for both the Huey Helicopter and for the Huey Gunships. Deployed to Vietnam as an instructor pilot, the safety officer and assistant officer officer. My second two in Vietnam. 10 days prior to that end, I was commissioned in the Army Field Artillery branch as a second Lieutenant Aviator returning to the states, I went to the basic course field artillery, then to the Army Aviations school at Fort Rucker, Alabama and became an academic instructor leaving the army. After about 10 years of active duty, I got my first line job with Hugs helicopters when they were working on the Army's new attack helicopter, the Apache and I was there from its flight test department, the Hughes helicopters from the building of the helicopter to its initial test flight through its delivered to the Army. Then my second flying job was with Xerox Flying Executives, third flying job with the Western Airlines, which is now part of Delta Airlines. Then to California, which is now part of American, and I found a home at FedEx and retired from FedEx as an MD 11 captain. I have been involved in flight organizations, both black and white and current president of the United States Army Black Aviation Association, and former president of the Organization of Black Airline Pilots, which is now the organization of black aerospace professionals. And my most recent flying job was with as a captain with JSX, a regional airline.
Wilmer Leon (04:16):
You are rated to fly both, as you just mentioned, helicopters and fixed wing aircraft. How unique is that for an aviator, particularly an African-American aviator?
Capt Clovis Jones (04:30):
Well, I don't know how unique it is, but there are a few of us who are dual rated and even fewer who were black. During Vietnam era, there were only about 600 black army aviators. So there's a book 600 more or less. And so to be dual rated, that's rare
Wilmer Leon (04:54):
To be dual rated. That is rare. Before we go any further, I'd be remiss if I did not mention the passing of Captain David E. Harris, the first African-American pilot for a major US passenger carrier. He died March 8th at the age of 89, and he once said, there's no way I should be the first. It should have happened long before 1964. I know you were friends with Captain Harris. If you could speak about him and his accomplishments.
Capt Clovis Jones (05:37):
Well, Dave Harris, just a principal gentleman, he was just outstanding and always he was a mentor, he was a good friend based on his experiences, he basically told us what to look out for and that was a time where the airlines use sickle cell trait testing to keep us from being hired. Yes, either you have sickle cell and one blood test says it all, but they would continue to test you to see if you had the trait. And that was one way that they would not bring us on board. Another was testing, so Dave Harris with American Airlines, he challenged that. So with the psychological testing, which had no barrier on you becoming a pilot. So he challenged that as well as the repeated blood testing to see if somehow if we didn't have the sickle cell trait with the first blood test, they would keep testing you hoping that you would show the trait and they could deny you hiring. So that was one of the milestones, and he was one of the presidents of the organization of black airline pilots. But just a principal gentleman
Wilmer Leon (07:00):
Mentioning the psychological testing, one would think someone with your background, Vietnam aviator, that all of the trials and tribulations that you went through overseas that the fact that you survived, that should be enough psychological testing to warrant you to be a commercial. I mean, if you can fly there, you can probably deal with passengers going between Dallas and wherever it is you're going to go. But that sounds as though that was another exclusionary process, not an inclusionary process.
Capt Clovis Jones (07:40):
Yeah, that's correct. That is correct. And when Marlon Green won his Supreme Court decision, Supreme that broke the barriers of us being kept out of the industry. He was hired but not trained, so he didn't get a chance to fly. So it was a delay even in that process. So there are a lot of delaying tactics that were used and there are those that are still out there.
Wilmer Leon (08:07):
Talk a little bit about Marlon Green. He was an Air Force aviator hired by Continental in I think 1957, but they rescinded his offer and then it took about six years for it to go through the Supreme Court, and the ruling was in his favor and sent a very wide message to the US airline industry about hiring. And I think he started flying for Continental in 65. Is that right?
Capt Clovis Jones (08:39):
Roughly around that time. I'm not sure exactly on the exact year or date, but you look at his background, he was well qualified to be hired, but then when they found out he was black, they rescinded it. So that's when he engaged in the lawsuit that wound up making his way to the Supreme Court. But this industry was supposed to be all white. Curtis Collins, a congressman from Illinois. She knew some of us filed it, and we talked about the challenges, trials and tribulations. So a congressional study was initiated and the University of Pittsburgh did that study, and it showed that the airline commercial airline industry wants to be all white, not a janitor, not a baggage handler or anything.
Wilmer Leon (09:33):
Even down to that level,
Capt Clovis Jones (09:35):
Down to that level. The other piece is that the Airline Policy Association Alpha had a clause in its bylaws that if you were black, you could not be a member. So even if an airline did hire you, you were not allowed on the property. So it was no point in them hiring you.
Wilmer Leon (09:54):
That sounds like the American Bar Association sounds like the American Dental Association. There were so many professional organizations. I know for example, my grandfather was a dentist. He graduated from Howard in 1911 and was the first African-American licensed dentist in New Orleans, but he could not join the American Dental Association, so he had to go to their conventions and wait tables so that he could be in the room while the latest advances in dentistry were being discussed. So it sounds like the airline industry was right along the same lines as so many of the other professional organizations in this country in terms of their restrictive, restrictive covenants and whatnot.
Capt Clovis Jones (10:48):
Well, that was just a reflection of America, what it was all about. We were to serve others and we were not to advance and we would to have restrictions on what we could do, what professions to go into. Nevertheless, with that in place, there was no profession that we were not proficient in. And as a point of history from Pineville, Louisiana, there was a gentleman by the name of Charles Frederick Page who had a flying machine. It was a lighter than air, kind of like a balloon, but it had directional control as well as a propeller, so it could move and change directions rather than just go up like a hot air balloon and let the wind take it where it would. 1903, you had a patent. The patent was finally granted in 1906. Well, here was a black man who was born during enslavement, taught himself how to read and write, invented this flying machine, filed for a patent and eventually was granted a patent. So we've been in and around the industry for a long, long time.
Wilmer Leon (12:03):
Over the past three years or so, we've been hearing a lot about DEI, diversity, equity, and inclusion, and according to McKinsey and Company in the workplace, these are three closely linked values held by many organizations that are working to be supportive of different groups of individuals, including race, which is an artificial construct, but they list it, so I'll say it, ethnicities, religions, abilities, genders, and whatnot. With that being said, according to NBC, news Tech, billionaire and Tesla, CEO and SpaceX, founder Elon Musk has drawn a lot of recent criticism After he criticized efforts by United Airlines and Boeing to hire non-white pilots and factory workers, he claimed in a series of posts on X, that efforts to diversify workforces at these companies have made air travel less safe. Of course, he offered no evidence to support that claim because there is no evidence to support it, and he winds up getting into this exchange with people talking about it'll take an airplane crashing and killing hundreds of people for them to change this crazy policy. Do you want to fly in an airplane where they prioritize DEI hiring over your safety? And he then went on to say, this is actually happening. That post got 14 million views with just a few hours. I know you've got some ideas on the issue of DEI as well as some of Elon Musk's comments, and of course, we all know Elon Musk being a South African. He was obviously well-trained and well-versed. But your thoughts
Capt Clovis Jones (14:08):
Well, on the subject of DEI or as Elon Musk assembles, those D-I-E-V-I-E want to doc, first of all, when I hear the word diversity, basically it's a non-starter, and I don't like the term when it applies to black people, because black people have been in every industry. We have been from the White House to the outhouse, build a White House, build a capital, had engineers doing the building of the White House who were black, even though enslavement was the status of black folk in the country for the most part.
Wilmer Leon (14:58):
And to that point, design the city of Washington DC That's
Capt Clovis Jones (15:01):
Right, that's right.
Wilmer Leon (15:02):
Since you mentioned the capital in the White House design, the city of Washington DC after having designed the city of Paris.
Capt Clovis Jones (15:08):
Yes. Well, here you have us serving from the highest levels down to the lowest level and excelling. By the way, the first book on hospitality was written by a black man, and it is in the archives of the University of Massachusetts. Here's a successful man who basically set the standards for how you serve people in terms of accommodations as well as restaurant service. So we've been at the top of the games in every industry. We wouldn't have the space program that we have. We wouldn't have the internet that we have today. We wouldn't have self lubricating engines if it wasn't for black people wouldn't have turbocharges if it wasn't for black people.
(15:54)So when I'm hearing this diversity piece, to me that's just the way the headcount, because now we can say we are diverse. We want to include everybody, and yes, they are, including everybody, because between all different groups and categories that HR departments have now, they can reach out and say, we have the most diverse work group because we have Pacific Islanders, we have Latinos, we have Africans, we have whatever other category you want to name. But then when it comes to the crux of fairness of black folks, there's an exclusion because you can hire all these others and fulfill your diversity claim, yet avoid hiring black people. So that's one of the reasons to me, if you are fair in your hiring and you have the standards set and you know what it is that you want, you're going to have a range of people from all colors, all genders if it's fair. So if it's not fair, then you have these made up constructs to basically for exclusion purposes. Now, that's my personal view.
Wilmer Leon (17:07):
Well, and to that point also, when you start looking at the categories and the qualifications or the demarcations within the categories, you start drilling down into, okay, you have 15 African-Americans. What positions do they hold? Is your CEO African-American is your CFO, African-American is your COO, African-American within your management structure and management chain within your elite classification of managers? Then all of a sudden we start to fight a different day.
Capt Clovis Jones (17:44):
Yes. One of the young fathers that I knew, he was asking me, I was flying for this company, he says, Clovis, why don't I have you as the chief pilot? I said, Hey, I don't have the complexion for the connection. So that ends that.
Wilmer Leon (18:02):
Did you fly President Mandela?
Capt Clovis Jones (18:05):
No, that was Captain Ray Doha.
Wilmer Leon (18:08):
Ray do. Oh, okay. Ray did that. Okay. Okay. Okay.
(18:13)So give us a little bit about your background getting into the industry and overcoming the barriers that you had to overcome and how prevalent are those problems today? Because when I look at the data today, 90% of the pilots are still white male, 3.4% are African-American, 2.2% are Asian, and half of a percent are Hispanic or Latino. So those numbers tell me that we're still having a problem. In fact, I got a little bit ahead of myself because the question I was going to ask you to get into this conversation is we've spent a lot of time in the fifties and since the fifties singing we shall overcome. We can now board a plane and see African-American captains and first officers. Have we overcome?
Capt Clovis Jones (19:21):
By no means things have changed. There are things that are different. There are some things that are better, but the underlying system has just changed. So we still have this system where the overarching piece is that we're encapsulated to only hold certain positions, and that of course depends upon the company and the culture of the company, but we don't have, for example, desegregation. You had that and then you have the opening of opportunities for the airline at for minorities and women were considered a minority. So there were more white women, higher than black pilots, and that's still the case today.
(20:05)So overcoming obstacles, my first day on the flight line to be trained as an army aviator, I had an instructor from the Northeast from either Vermont or New Hampshire, I don't recall exactly which. But en route to the helicopter for our first flight, he said to me, you look like a pretty good athlete. Do you know who Jackie Robinson is? I said, yes. Jackie's cousin lives down the street from me, says, well, I think you should get out of the army and go play baseball because black people don't make good pilots. And here's a person who is telling me that I shouldn't be a pilot and he's going to train me, but blacks don't make good pilots, so I should leave the program. So I knew what was in front of me. So I went to the flight commander and asked for a change of instructors, and the upshot of that conversation was, well, both of you are new.
(21:03)He's a new instructor. You are his first student. You are a new warrant officer candidate, and this is your first flight, so it's going to look bad for both of you. And he wanted to know why. And I explained to him without saying, the guy's a racist. And he says he mulled over it for a second or two and says, this is what I'll do. I'll ensure that you have every opportunity that any of the other one officer candidates have in this program. And I said, okay, that's good. However, when I come back and ask for a change of instructors, I want a change of instructors, no questions asked. And that is what happened. This gentleman was, you can read the syllabus, you can understand what is to be done and you can mimic it, but there are certain standards or there are certain ways that the army wants you to fly.
(21:59)And if you aren't trained to do that during your check rides, you get downgraded. He was teaching me wrong. So I had a progress ride. A young instructor who was about the same age as I was, was about 21 years old, and he'd been flying. He had his license when he was 16 to 17 years old. His came from a wealthy family and his family got him trained in the helicopter instructor and all that. He asked me to do a taxi, oh, this is not how we do it, asked me to do a takeoff. Oh, I got the aircraft. This is not how we do it. So he demonstrated every maneuver that he asked me to do because I was doing it as I had been trained to do it. When he showed me the way that I needed to do it in order to meet the standards that were expected of me, I did them as he demonstrated.
(22:50)And at the end of the flight he says, I've got to talk to the flight commander. That's something not right here. You started this flight off unsatisfactory now, but you end it. You're above average. But I can't give you an above average because where you started, I just got to talk to the flight commander, and I just smiled. And so I said to myself, I already have. So my next day of flying, the Deputy flight Commander, Dick Strauss, need to give him props. And also the flight commander, Sam Countryman, Dick Strauss, we got into the helicopter, flew out to the stage field, we landed. He says, take it around the past three times and park it on a certain spot. And that's what I did. I soloed that day with this gentleman just flying with me from the main hella Ford at Fort Walters, Texas out to the stage field that we were operating from that day.
(23:42)And at the end of my primary flight training, Dick Strauss showed me some things that you could do with a helicopter that were not in the syllabus. He said, it may come in handy one day, and it did for me because in a COBRA helicopter, which is know is heavy, I was an instructor giving an in-country orientation to a new pilot. And on very short final, we lost our 90 degree gearbox and tail rotor. And without a tail rotor, you do not have directional control in the helicopter. So we went from a nose up attitude to a nose down attitude spinning right, and it wanted to roll inverted left. And all of that last day of flying that Dick Straus showed me what the helicopter could do. Instinctively I did it. I stopped the turn by closing the throttle right rear cyclic to level the aircraft, pull the collective up, and we spawned about 1800 degrees like in about two seconds. But I was able to land the helicopter with just minimal damage. And I was told that's the first time that you'd had such a catastrophic failure that either the helicopter was not destroyed or the palace would not either killed or injured.
(24:51)So everybody encounter is not against you, but you do have the remnants of the shadows of the echoes of you still have the echoes of slavery. You still have the echoes of containment of us being in certain categories, and there are people who really want to keep us there and some people who want to put us back there. So that is prevalent in our industry as well.
Wilmer Leon (25:17):
You're 21 years old, you're in the service, which is a hierarchical organization, and your instructor tells you that you need to leave the service and go play baseball.
Capt Clovis Jones (25:30):
Yes.
Wilmer Leon (25:31):
Where did you find the intestinal fortitude to manage that circ*mstance? By A, not punching him in the face, B, not saying anything derogatory to him and then punching him in the face. You see, I got to think about punching people in the favor, but no. So where did you get that ability to manage that circ*mstance to your favor, not your detriment?
Capt Clovis Jones (26:09):
Well, I learned firsthand about white racism and at four years old, and we had black insurance agents and white insurance agents come to the house to collect whenever that cycle was. And this one agent, he had a white car. My father had a black car, and so it happens that my father's car was parked in front of the house that day. He pulls up and he calls me over, and I was hesitant about going, but then I did go. He says, come over. I'm not going to hurt you. I'm not going to do anything to you. He says, put your hand on my car. And I hesitantly raised my hand. So he put my hand on his car. He said, how does that feel? I said, it feels okay. He said, now, go touch your father's car. So I put my hand on my father's car, and because it was about 11 o'clock in the day, sunshiny day in the summer, it was hot.
(27:02)I jerked my hand off the car. He said, that's what I wanted to show you. White is better than black. And from that point on, I didn't like that gentleman anymore. So I realized there are people who will be encouraging to you and people who will try to convince you that you should take some lesser position or that you are inferior to them. So with that background, it's like then I knew about the Tuskegee Avenue at that point. Plus one of my mentors, Carl Bohannan, who was the first black presidential pilot when I was in an infantryman, he was flying the flying cranes in Vietnam in the first cab division. So I had examples of excellent black aviators that I knew about. So with that, I'm thinking, this guy's totally out of his head, and I know he's not going to train me properly. And so that's why I went to the flight commander and asked for a change of instructors, and it worked out in the end, but I had to put up with this nonsense and even accused me of leaving, of causing a circ*mstance where the engine could fail because he said, I didn't put the Carter pin back in the oil cap, and the vibrations could have caused the cap to unscrew, and because we of flying, the wind would pull the oil out of the reservoir hints causing the engine to seize, and we would have to do a forced landing.
(28:34)I know that I didn't do that, and that was the day that I asked for change of instructors
Wilmer Leon (28:39):
Because
Capt Clovis Jones (28:39):
This guy, if he's going to lie and say that I did something that I know I didn't do because I was meticulous about everything, but you just have to understand who you're dealing with.
Wilmer Leon (28:50):
That was my second question on this issue, which was the subjective nature of your instructor's evaluations. So knowing that in circ*mstances like you're articulating, there's the checklist that he would go through, but then there were also the subjective factors that would enable him to fail you if he so chose to because he didn't like the fact that you tied your shoes because you're right-handed versus tying your shoes because you're left-handed or whatever it might be. Speak to that, please.
Capt Clovis Jones (29:32):
Well, that was the case. In fact, one of my dearest friends who's now made transition, Robert B. Clark Jr. He and I started in the same class. We didn't graduate in the same class because Bob was terminated from flight training because his instructor said that he could not fly. However, Bob knew how to fly helicopters before he came to flight school. He had the syllabus, he knew everything, and he appealed it all the way to the Department of Army. And the base commander was asked to get involved. So he asked Bob, can you fly this helicopter? He says, yes. Well, let's go out to the airfield and let's go fly to the stage field to where your flight group is flying. He did. I mean, he was off for three months, got in the helicopter, flew out there, landed, and they went and talked to the flight commander. And also that instructor, that instructor was fired on the spot. Of course, the flight commander was trying to protect him because it was civilian pilots training us, and they were with Southern Airways based out of Birmingham, Alabama. So again, that cultural piece,
Wilmer Leon (30:40):
Was that Birmingham or Bombingham? Well, both. What year are we talking about?
Capt Clovis Jones (30:47):
We're talking about 1967.
Wilmer Leon (30:49):
Okay, we're talking Bombingham. Yes.
Capt Clovis Jones (30:52):
Yes. 1967.
Wilmer Leon (30:54):
Okay.
Capt Clovis Jones (30:54):
So you have people who don't want to see you there in the first place. And there was this rule, there's only going to be one black graduate per class, just one. I don't care how many start, there's only going to be one. But after complaints by Bob, by me and others about what the situation was, in fact, that was a program. You had these data sheets that you would answer your questions on when the final exam for any of the courses we were taking, and they could program things based on the way we were using social security numbers. Then even if we knew that we scored a hundred based on going down after the test was over and looking at what you had marked versus what the answers were, black pilots could only get in the eighties if you got everything right, you were in the low to mid eighties, you never got higher than 86 on any exam because if you were just average going through your flight training and you were excellent with your academics, you could wind up being in the running for honor graduate for that particular class.
(32:10)So they program that the black pilots could not score 100 on all of the written exams. So that was another trick, and it was proven that that was the case. So there are all kinds of obstacles out there, but you just have to be well versed enough to understand and identify and just not take things. I saw during the civil rights era of where corporations would come and they'd say to people who had, do you have a college? Oh, you're different. They try to tell 'em, oh, you're a different kind of black person, and they give them jobs. So jobs that black people never had an opportunity to have, make the kind of money. And then you have some of these people who got that because people were demonstrating an industries and some people got killed. They said, well, I have to pick my fight. Well, no, the fight picked you now. Do you have the fortitude to stand up and fight the fight, or are you just going to IQS and say nothing and go along with maltreatment?
Wilmer Leon (33:10):
What you just discussed in terms of taking the exams and the particular scoring parameters that were set. One of the things that both of my parents would say to me repeatedly, but my mother was incredibly emphatic, you have to be three times as good, four times as smart, and worked seven times as hard because you're black in America. And with that, you'll only get half as far. Because when it came to education and grades, my folks didn't play, and that was their thing. You have no idea how hard you are going to have to work to be successful because you are black in America. And what you just articulated is the living example. And the other thing, when I went to law school, what I found out my first year was if I was in a class, actually it was my second year, I was in a contract negotiating class and kicked everybody's butt in the negotiating rounds that we would go through, only got a B. And what I found out was the a's were reserved for the third year, students who needed that A, there were only going to be a certain number of a's awarded, and they were reserved for the third year students who needed that grade to increase their GPA.
Capt Clovis Jones (34:48):
Yeah. The thing is, this system was not designed by us. It's not a fair system, but we have to learn how to navigate it. And unfortunately, some of what I call the under 40 crowd, young people who are 40 and under, maybe I could increase the year by another five years or so, they came up thinking that things are fair, and it's all about your qualifications and your abilities, but there is a whole nother system that governs whether you get an opportunity, whether you succeed or whether you fail. The thing is you need to be aware enough to navigate those challenges. And some of my young people,
Wilmer Leon (35:30):
Well, you just said, be aware enough. And what I have found is a number of my contemporaries, they don't want to have these discussions with their kids. They don't want to. When I taught at Howard, I would say to my students, you got to be three times as smart and workforce. Many of them, they never heard that before. Dr. Leon, what are you talking about? Well, that's life in America. Oh, no, no, no, not anymore. Oh, Dr. Leon, you don't understand.
Capt Clovis Jones (36:07):
Well, that's the brainwashing. That's the brainwashing that's taking place. Yeah, it's example. I used to wear a P 51 pen and I'd paint the co*ckpit black, and that was several of those black pilots who did that, and that was just honoring the Tuskegee ever because they were the first to people in mass to show that we could do this. But you had pioneers like Eugene, Jacque Bullock, who was a World War I fighter pilot, had to go to Germany, not Germany, to France, France, France. But he caught a ride to France on a German boat, learned to speak German in route, and he wound up during World War II of being in the French Underground because he had a nightclub in Paris. And the German officers wanted to come and enjoy the entertainment and the music and the atmosphere. So he got a lot of intelligence that he passed on to the French Underground, and he and Charles de Gall were good friends, and he was given
Wilmer Leon (37:12):
Awards, the Legion of Merit.
Capt Clovis Jones (37:14):
Say again,
Wilmer Leon (37:15):
The French Legion of Merit.
Capt Clovis Jones (37:22):
Well, I'd have to do the research, but Charles Gall came to the US and he wound up coming back to us, and he was an elevator man for the NBC where the NBC studios were in New York, and he was interviewed, but his background is phenomenal, and I happen to know his grandson and other members of his family, a cousin,
(37:49)But he couldn't fly in America. But in France he did Bessie Coleman. And you have Chief Anderson, who was the civilian chief pilot for the Tuskegee Airman, who by the way, trained Captain Dhar. He taught himself how to fly. He wanted to fly. His father borrowed money from the white person that he worked for, bought a plane for his son. No one would teach chief how to fly, but he'd go to the airport every day and he'd listen to the white policies. They came back and talk about what they did was successful and the stupid stuff they did. And Chief would get it in his airplane every day, crank it up and taxi. And one day he taxied it fast enough that he lifted it off the ground. He said, now I got to figure how to land this thing. Eventually he did get some instruction from the Wright brothers, and I've had the opportunity to fly one flight with Chief. So I guess I'm one degree or two degrees away from the Wright brothers and my flight journey. But you have all those obstacles in a way.
(38:57)You have other pioneers, Janet Bragg, Cornelius Coffee, you have Willow Brown, and there are any number of others that have pioneered the way for us. Chauncey Spencer, Edwin Wright, Dwight, the sculptor. He was chosen to be the first black astronaut, but again, he was a pilot, but then that didn't the astronaut program because they didn't want any blacks in the program. And he had difficulties there. But he wound up being followed his passion in business and with art, and he is one of the most prolific sculptors in the country and doing art eye kind of art for us to recognize our heroes and sheroes.
Wilmer Leon (40:01):
You had as a Morehouse man, you had a relationship with Dr. King.
Capt Clovis Jones (40:08):
Yes, yes, I did.
Wilmer Leon (40:09):
If you could elaborate on that a little bit, please.
Capt Clovis Jones (40:12):
Yes. During the Albany movement, I would go down and listen to Dr. King's speech almost every night that I could. So I would catch a ride with teachers who lived in Albany, but worked in Dawson, walked to the church, and because we were young, they would put us young people right on the front row below the pulpit. And my minister of my church and Dr. King were Morehouse classmates. They graduated at the same time. So he said, well, when you see Martin again, you tell him I said, hello. I did. So that started a relationship with Dr. King and I, and after my tour in Vietnam, my foxo buddy invited me to Chicago to work on a political campaign, which I did, and that was this organization called the New Breed Committee. And they had a bunch of black organizations that were meeting with Dr. King on this one particular night when they were planning to march through downtown Chicago.
(41:17)So I go to Hyde Park, and who do I sit next to? Dr. King. So we reignited our friendship, and he was saying during the meeting, we need some young people to lead our march through downtown Chicago. And I said, well, hey, I'll do it. And some of my Vietnam buddies, and we led that march through downtown Chicago. And then when I did leave Chicago and went to Morehouse for the second time, he would come, well, for the first time actually, because that was 1966, he says he would come to the college, Hey, come by the office and talk to me. And I just thought he was being nice. And that's one regret that I have that I did not take him up on just going to his church office and sitting down and having a conversation with him. But I did become good friends with his press secretary, junior Griffith. So he and I would have wonderful conversations, but I'd see Dr. King often come into Morehouse and every time come by the office and talk to me, come by the office and talk to me. And that's something that I didn't do because it's like he's just being nice. But now I wished I had
Wilmer Leon (42:29):
You do your tour in Vietnam, you go to Chicago, Dr. King asks you to lead a protest in Chicago. How did you reconcile what you fought for in Vietnam versus what you were subjected to when you got back home?
Capt Clovis Jones (42:56):
Well, during those days, it was tough with Vietnam veterans coming back didn't call us baby killers and spat on us. It was no reconciliation. Thing is is that Vietnam was dangerous. Being black in America was dangerous. So it was no different than walking through downtown Chicago for a purpose for black people in America than going to Vietnam, supposedly fighting for democracy when all they wanted to do was have their own independence. Because Ho Chi Minh came to America and he was trying to speak to the President of the United States, and that never did happen for whatever the reasons are. I mean, there are a number of stories as to why it never happened. And Ho Chi Minh lived in Harlem. He worked in a restaurant, but he lived in Harlem, so he understood the plight to black people in the country. That was one patrol we on. You have North Vietnamese out in the middle of nowhere, and they see that the unit is mostly black, wave at each other and keep going. Why are we going to fight each other out here? For what? So it was dangerous. It was dangerous in Vietnam. It was dangerous here in America because then as well as now you get in the wrong situation, in the wrong part of town, you can wind up dead.
Wilmer Leon (44:21):
You can wind up dead in the right part of town.
Capt Clovis Jones (44:23):
Well, look, you can wind up dead in your own house with no consequences. Nobody held accountable, nobody indicted. And Dr. King's last book, where Did We Go From Here,
Wilmer Leon (44:38):
Chaos or Community?
Capt Clovis Jones (44:40):
He said that shooting was the new lynching, and that is what we're living through right now.
Wilmer Leon (44:49):
I asked you that Vietnam question because I had an uncle, senior Master Sergeant George W. Porter, who was a Tuskegee Airman, an original and flew World War II and Vietnam, and I'm originally from Sacramento, California, and Uncle George lived around the corner. And so the Sacramento Kings honored him at a basketball game, and he could barely walk. By this time, he was about 89, maybe 90, he could barely walk. But when they played the national anthem, he stood up so fast and so erect. And so when it was all over, I said, oh, help me understand something. He said, what's that son? I said, how is it that with all that you went through? And he used to tell me all these stories about all the stuff that he was subjected to. I said, how is it after all that you went through, you still have the reverence that you have for this flag? And he looked at me like I had three heads, and he said, boy, that's my flag. I fought for that flag. I risked my life for that flag just because they want to claim it doesn't make it theirs. Do you understand me? Yeah, unc, I got it. And so that's why I asked you that question.
Capt Clovis Jones (46:30):
Well, just on the question of flags, black people live under a lot of different flags, but almost anywhere you go in the world, we're treat it the same. So just to me, a flag is just a marker. It is not something to be reverenced. Yeah. America treated me poorly in some instances, but America gave me opportunities as well. So just need to understand. This is where, to me, the principle that's going to liberate us all is where is the fairness? Where's the fairness in this whole process? Because you have communities that have been deliberately destroyed by local, federal, and state governments because black people were successful. Jacksonville, Florida, for an example, highway five, right through the black community, destroyed it. Other places,
Wilmer Leon (47:28):
Oakland, Detroit, Cleveland, urban Renewal, and the interstate highway system has decimated African-American communities.
Capt Clovis Jones (47:41):
Yes. And you have off ramps to get into the community, but you don't have on-ramps for people to leave the community to get back on the freeways.
Wilmer Leon (47:52):
The freeway in New Orleans that goes past, I don't remember the name of it, but it goes past the Superdome. Yeah. That's another example of how that has decimated the communities.
Capt Clovis Jones (48:07):
Yes, yes. And that's by design. And people talk about the government. Well, the thing is the government, you have to demand treatment from government, from anyone who have laws. And of course, you have to understand laws are things that are written on paper, but the real law is whatever that judge says, and you can appeal it if you want to, but you might fight for who knows how long and how many different appeals to different courts. But the laws, whatever that judge says, look at Plessy versus Ferguson. Separate, but equal is the law of the land. Then you have the 54 Brown versus Board of Education, no, separate. It is not equal. Okay. Same document, different judges. So when that happened, in my mind it's like, wait a minute. That's something not right about this whole picture because why you have the same document. Where is the fairness in all of that? What is really right? And now you have school desegregation, but you have most of the teachers a female, and they are not black. And you have this whole school system of charter schools being created by white women who didn't want their children to go to school with black children. So you still have people say, oh, we have overcome. Oh, it is better now. Yes, it's different, but in a lot of ways it's the same.
Wilmer Leon (49:40):
So what do you see as being the, if we look at the, again, I gave the data a little earlier, about 3% of commercial pilots are African-American. The system that they're flying under down does not seem to be that much different from the system that you flew under when you were in the commercial space.
Capt Clovis Jones (50:10):
Well, that's true. You have airlines having their own programs, which we tried to get them to do decades ago. They didn't do it until they have the critical pilot shortage. But it was oap that had the first US based flight training program from no Time to getting you into the commercial space. That was a venture between oap, the organization of Black Airline Palestine and Western University. With the support of Kellogg and the transportation department. You had foreign pilots being trained from no time to becoming first officers for British Airways, Emirates and United Arab Emirates, and Air Lingus and Ireland. I'm saying, well, wait a minute. Why don't we create a program where black people who want to become pilots, who have degrees go through the interview process, go through the testing process, and if they qualify and this meets the criteria for what the airlines want, then let's train them and let's move them into commercial airline space. Well, that program lasted until money was diverted from training black pilots to buying airplanes. And now the airlines are replicating what was done by BAP and University Western Michigan University.
Wilmer Leon (51:46):
Is there a sense of comradery today amongst black pilots that there was when you were coming through the system, or do many of them feel a sense of accomplishment and a sense of success and participation in the system to where that sense of comradery isn't deemed necessary? Hopefully that made sense.
Capt Clovis Jones (52:16):
Well, kind of both are true at the same time. Two opposites can be true at the same time. The younger group, if they kind of know each other, then there's that comradery, Hey, we're going to support each other. We're going to party together. Hey, we're going to have each other's backs when during the ups and the downs and all of that. But among those of us who came along early, we would talk about whoever was being put upon by the system or by that airline or by something we knew about it, and we would support, because if something was happening at one airline to a black pilot, we look for it to happen at our airlines. So how did we outmaneuver that? How did we navigate those systems? How did we learn from those challenges so that we wouldn't even be confronted with those issues?
(53:12)But now, the young people who know each other, they tend to have that camaraderie. But with us, Hey, if you were a brother, and when sisters black women became pilots, we embraced and supported them because we knew how tough it was going to be for all of us young people. They think, oh, well, hey, it is fair. And the story I wanted to tell about the pen I used to wear with the P 51 and with the co*ckpit painted black. Oh, there was a white pilot and a black pilot, and they were both academy graduates, air Force Academy graduates. And the white pilot said, oh, Tuskegee Airmen. I said, oh, yeah, yeah. I said, they're some of my heroes. And the black pilot says, what?
(54:05)And then the white pilot told him, oh, the Tuskegee Airmen did this, this, this, and this. He said, oh, well, I guess I need to brush up on my history. I said, yes, you do. I mean, you a Force Academy grad, and you don't know who the Tuskegee airmen are. That gives you some idea of the deficit in our history that is not being taught among our own people. And some people think that because they have a job and some money in the bank or millions in the bank, that they are immune. None of us are immune from how this system operates when it operates against us. And we need to own our own. We need to train our own. We're at a point now where there's no way that we should be dependent on somebody else to teach or train our own. Because as I experienced doing with my first stint with my first flight instructor, you can be taught wrong.
(55:09)The subject can be covered with the items that need to be covered, but you can be taught wrong. And sometimes, for example, just one degree off on a heading for 60 miles, you are one mile off course. So small deviations can cause you to be way off course if you continue on that path. So we really need to know our own history. We need the truth to be taught so that our young people understand, number one, who they are to this social system that we live under and who we are to each other, that we'd better have each other's back and hold each other accountable. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Just because you're black, you don't get a chance. And all this I don't snitch. Well, the thing is, is that what you need to do is hold somebody accountable for bad behavior and destructive behavior in our own community. And we need to understand that our communities are precious and that we need to maintain the land that we have, the homes that we have in our communities, because others will come in and you won't recognize it five, 10 years from now.
Wilmer Leon (56:22):
I'm chuckling, I'm debating. I'm going to go ahead and bring this up. Just to your point. When the Willis situation developed in Atlanta, I did a show criticizing her for the horrific mistake that she made resulting in the process that she had to go through, and the weapon I took mostly from black women because all I was saying was that behavior is indefensible, especially at that level. She's playing at the level of the game where she's going after the former face of the empire.
Capt Clovis Jones (57:13):
Yes.
Wilmer Leon (57:17):
And I made the comment, you have now brought this on yourself. You couldn't keep your panties on, and homeboy can't keep his fly up, man, they came at me, but I hate black women. I have a colonized mind. Oh, who am I to? Oh, because one of the points I made was the community should not be tolerating this type of behavior. We don't want to go and tell our daughters or go and tell our sons that they're supposed to engage like this in the workplace. Oh, man. It was brutal. It was
Capt Clovis Jones (57:55):
Brutal. And you can attest to this. There's a course that you have in ethics in law school. So hey, where's that? I like the philosophy of Maynard Jackson, first black man of Atlanta. He says, his philosophy was if you are close enough to see the line that you're not supposed to cross, you're too close. And young people need to understand that, hey, you can take risks, but don't take risks on things that are going to come back and hurt you. We used to be told there's always somebody watching you and they were talking about God, the creators. There's always somebody watching you. Well, now there's always somebody watching you because you have these devices that your cameras can be turned on, microphones turned on track wherever you are.
Wilmer Leon (58:53):
And what was one of the things that they got her on? Cell phone records?
Capt Clovis Jones (58:57):
Yes.
Wilmer Leon (58:58):
Yes. Cell phone records. Yes. Well, you said that you only visited him so many. Oh, but his phone seemed to wind up in your driveway 55 times. Now, when I worked in corporate America, at one point, I taught sales ethics to the sales team, and my line to them was the appearance of impropriety in many instances could be worse than the impropriety itself. So just ask yourself, how does it look? And if it looks bad, it's going to be bad.
Capt Clovis Jones (59:45):
Simple enough.
Wilmer Leon (59:46):
Hey, simple enough. You and I did a show last week, and as a result of that show, you got a phone call from a young man who was very, very encouraged by what you had to say, a lot of which we have covered in this conversation. And he said to you that you, through your story, let him know he had a lot of work to do in his community. Could you elaborate on that, please?
Capt Clovis Jones (01:00:20):
Yes. Well, it's a group of us who are in narrative and learning about our history, understanding the principles, Africana studies that no matter where in the world you are, you're an African and your black person, and there's a whole system that's designed not to have you rise above a certain level. How do we recapture? When do we start our history? We started in 1619. We've cut ourselves out of millennia of culture, religion, spirituality, science, inscribed on the pyramid walls. Our people have depicted surgical instruments that are used to this day. So the Greeks did not invent medicine. Hippocratic was not the one who basically founded medicine, not the father of medicine. It was African folk folks that look like you and I. So with that, where's our mindset and what are we waiting on? So it encouraged him to do the work in the community.
(01:01:35)So one of the things that I've learned through the years is that for a group of people to make progress or to make any change, good or bad, you have the square root of that number of people say 300,000. Well, you need 600 people, like-minded folks moving in the same direction, maybe not always agreeing, but you're like-minded in making things better, and you're doing the work on the ground to make it happen with whatever your talents are. That shifts the entire population. And so he talked about, Hey, we need to find a way to make this happen so that we can do our work on our own, teach our children. And he's on the ground doing just that. So he said, Hey, I figured it out. I know what we need to do. This is what we need, and these parts of town, now we have the template. Now we got to do the work to make it happen.
(01:02:38)And one of the elders said, Hey, we already have the teams in place. It's just a matter of educating the teams to get them to think outside of the borders that they live in and expand their minds and understand that, hey, we were educating folks long before we came to America. We had culture. We had all kinds of things. Now, again, I have to say that everything about Africa is not glor flyable, but there are some things that are so you pick the best because when you do your best, you're going to get better and you're going to advance things rather than destroy things.
Wilmer Leon (01:03:22):
Captain Clovis Jones, Jr. Thank you so much, sir. Thank you for your service. Thank you for your commitment. Thank you for your work. Thank you for joining me today.
Capt Clovis Jones (01:03:33):
You're more than welcome. It is my pleasure. And thank you for having me.
Wilmer Leon (01:03:37):
Well, I'm going to have you back, folks. Thank you so much for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wier Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Also, please follow and subscribe. Leave a review, share the show, follow us on social media. You can find all the links below in the show description. And remember, this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge talk without analysis is just chatter, and we don't chatter on connecting the dots. See you again next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Wilmer Leon. Have a good one. Peace. Some lessons. I'm out
Announcer (01:04:26):
Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.

• Download116

Make sure to follow this week's guest Mark Sleboda on X at @MarkSleboda1
Find me and the show on social media @DrWilmerLeon on X (Twitter), Instagram, and YouTube
Facebook page is www.facebook.com/Drwilmerleonctd

Announcer (00:06):
Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.
Dr Leon (00:14):
Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon. I am Wilmer Leon. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they occur in a vacuum, failing to see the broader historical context in which events take place. During each episode of this program, my guests and I have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between current events and the broader historic context in which they occur. This enables you to better understand and analyze the events that impact the global village in which we live on today's episode. The issue before us is the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and why does the United States keep throwing good taxpayer dollars after bad. To discuss this, we are joined by my guest Mark Sloboda. He's a Moscow based international relations and security analyst. Mark, as always, welcome back
Mark Sleboda (01:18):
Dr. Leon. Thanks for having me. It's always an honor and a pleasure to be on connecting the dots.
Dr Leon (01:23):
So it's been reported that an attack on a convoy of Ukrainian military equipment in the esque people's Republic was carried out with the use of short range ballistic missiles. And it also seems as though with all of this hand wringing in the US Congress about funding for Ukraine, all the US and NATO is doing, or seems to be doing, is sending more targets for Russia to destroy your thoughts, mark.
Mark Sleboda (01:52):
Yeah, there's some rather dramatic developments really under-reported in the Western press that have very large implications going forward for the conflict in Ukraine. The current situation on the ground, I think the Western mainstream media has finally their propaganda narrative bubble has finally burst. Look, in a span of how short a period of time we have gone from Ukraine is winning to
(02:34)Stalemate, it's a stalemate on the battlefield to, oh my God, we're losing to Nigeria with snow. I mean, that's the rather dramatic change in the propaganda narrative, and I think we can see it reflected in the political elite as well with the panic and desperation that is starting to sit in and become rather obvious among European leaders who really have the most to lose from this conflict, rather other than the Kiev regime in Ukraine itself. And this all occurs, these latest incidents in the final weeks of and the aftermath of the Russian breakthrough of the Kiev regime's most heavily fortified fortress city, these extensive defenses and fortifications trenches, concrete bunkers, pill boxes, networks of tunnels, layers of minefields, you name it, Inca, which is really quite close to Dan City, and a western journalist a couple of years ago already referred to it rather poetically if quite awfully as a knife pointed at the heart of Dansk.
(04:10)They meant that in a good way. Another way, of course, looking at it was a Jack boot pressed to the neck of the people of Donbass because it is from aca and the settlements shielded behind it that the Ki regime forces brutally shelled the people of Dansk for the last decade pretty much regularly. They didn't shell military facilities, they shelled civilian areas with artillery, with cluster munitions, with pedal mines. And this was to punish the people of done bus for choosing wrong, for not accepting the overthrow of the government by the Westback Maan butch back in 2014, and with the intention with driving Russian ethnic people who did not accept the new Ukraine into Russia. That was the intention and one of the primary reasons for the Russian intervention in the Ukrainian civil conflict, not the only one. There were security concerns as well, but this was loudly voiced as well.
(05:22)And when the Russians broke through it aga, they did it rather dramatically towards the end. It ended up much shorter than say the siege of Bach Mu, despite the defenses in a DKA being considerably stronger, and this is because of a sea change on the battlefield. The KI regime's initial a integrated Soviet legacy air defense network, the backbone of which was the formidable S 300 systems had been largely deteriorated at this point already a few months ago. And on top of what hadn't been destroyed, they were absolutely out of interceptor missiles for it, and there were none left in countries that are now part of the west former Eastern Bloc countries. Their supplies were all exhausted. So there was an attempt to put together a hodgepodge piece meal air defense system not properly integrated with using Western systems, but that has also been attributed away over the last few months.
(06:35)Russia launched an extensive campaign over the winter, and that was a primary target of their missile and drone campaign. So in afca, Russia fully unleashed the fab guided glide bombs on these defenses. And these are old dumb munitions with smart glide kits that turn them into precision weapons being able to fire from air at a distance of tens of kilometers. And because these are bombs, not artillery shells, they have a considerably bigger payload. They come in 500, 1000 and 1500 kilogram capacities and they just annihilate. I mean, if the Ki regime turns, say what they did pretty much to every building in the city, turning it into a mini fortress that has to be individually stormed one fab bomb, and it's gone. And particularly at the larger end, the 1500, they have an incredibly demoralizing effect on anyone within the radius of experiencing the explosion, the concussion and the like.
(07:57)And in the closing days of a dka, according to the Russian Ministry of Defense, they dropped over 500 of these, oh my God, on the fortresses in just the last few days, right? So that's why they collapsed so quickly and dramatically at the end and why there was such a route. And they're able to do this now because they can fly with a considerable degree of impunity over the battlefield because first, the Soviet legacy and now the Western Air Defense system sent us a replacement, have largely been destroyed. And immediately in the aftermath of Dfca, the Russian forces far from being exhausted, as many Western military analysts drinking their own propaganda Kool-Aid tried to claim claiming high casualties as they always do without evidence to back it up other than the say so of the regime in Kiev. Russian forces were not exhausted because they had not suffered any considerable attrition because they had been standing off and dropping an extremely large bombs from Sue, 30 fours from fighter bombers on ev dca, which is what did at least at the end the majority of their work for them once they were already ensconced in the outskirts of the city.
(09:24)So they continued on fallback positions in the next line of villages that Kiev regime forces had retreated to and were hastily trying to dig themselves in because they had not built proper defenses. And for instance, Laska and Severna lasted two or three days, and as Russia moved on the second line of villages even further, and we faced a real breakthrough in the Kiev regime defensive lines at this point, the Kiev regime became desperate to try to at least slow down. We're not even talking stop, but to slow down the Russian advance to give themselves more time to hastily dig as the Western headlines have now been talking about what the Kiv regime needs to do to dig new trenches, to dig new fortifications. So they moved a large number of what air defense systems they had left elsewhere in the country into an area far too close to the battlefield.
(10:32)And Russia at this point, not only of course, enjoys air superiority over the contact line, but they also enjoy drone superiority. And Russia has put a rather larger number of military satellites into the orbit in the last year, last few months that have started to come online. So they were able to track these air defense systems fairly well, and it's more than just three patriot launchers that have been destroyed. Also, one of the remaining older S 300 air defense systems, several NASS air defense systems supplied by the US and Norway, and also a number of books and smaller systems. By my count at least 11 air defense systems have been destroyed in the last two weeks over the area immediately to the west of F dca. And this is adding to the butcher's bill. Previously, the Kev regime has adopted a new tactic in several areas.
(11:50)We saw it over the sea of, we saw it also in Belgo where that Ill 76 transport plane shut down the KI regime shut down its own plane full of prisoners of war A couple of months ago, if you remember forced to admit it, they've been sending in an attempt to try to stop the Russian dominance of the skies. They've tried to use essentially not mobile air defense systems in a mobile capacity to set up ambushes for Russian planes to instill a degree of caution and restraint. But that has proven very costly for them because they've also lost air defense systems in that way as well, because of course, Russia was actively hunting them down and despite their claims to have shut down large numbers of Russian aircraft, there is zero evidence providing this zero. I mean, and there have been plenty of evidence, for instance, of the Kev regime's own aircraft, remaining aircraft being shot down when they're shot down.
(13:06)There is video footage, there is air wreckage and the like. So really questionable claims they may have sacrificed other than this, of course, the POW plane, which everyone noticed, but that was an undefended transport plane flying in what it assumed a mission of peace bringing POWs for an exchange. So they've lost a huge degree of whatever hodgepodge air defense they had left. Now, Forbes speaking just of the events in F dca, not of the rest of it, says that just in those engagements that the Kev regime lost 13% of its air defense capacity speaking specifically of the Patriot systems provided to it. And that's on paper because they're not acknowledging earlier patriot systems that have been shot down. So I would suggest that they have at this point lost far more. They probably have a number of patriot launchers in the single digits left in Kiev, for instance, possibly in Odessa.
(14:22)But the implications of this going forward is that Russian use of air superiority and even now close air support over the contact line is going to dramatically increase because there is no air defense left to deal with them, which means the pace of Russian advances are going to increase. And this is when even Western analysts and Ukrainians are talking about rather large concentrations of Russian forces behind the lines that have been built up but not committed yet. And there is the suspicion that they're going to launch a large scale big arrow offensive sometime later this year. In fact, the Kiev regime has just in the past week evacuated the entirety of Harko region. Some 85 settlements ordered the civilian evacuation because they fear a big offensive in the harko direction in the coming probably months, perhaps weeks.
Dr Leon (15:36):
President Biden told us during his State of the Union address that Ukraine can stop Putin, Ukraine can stop Putin if we stand with Ukraine and provide the weapons that it needs to defend itself. That's all he says. In fact, there are no American soldiers at war in Ukraine. My question is, who's operating these US supplied Patriot air defense systems and are there US special forces trainers that are on the ground training these forces?
Mark Sleboda (16:14):
Okay, so first to the last point, Joe Biden is lying genocide. Joe is flat up lying and we know it because the Western mainstream media has told us already in the summer of 2022 in the New York Times and the Washington Post talking about unusually large numbers of US intelligence and US and European commandos on the ground in Ukraine. Then later we heard there were hundreds of uniformed US troops on the ground, again from the western mainstream media that were doing tracking of Western supplied weapons. Now, if that's really what they were doing, then they weren't doing a very good job because it was only weeks after that we heard that the West couldn't track these weapons at all. So I mean either they were completely incompetent or they are doing something else on the ground
Dr Leon (17:15):
On top of them. Wait a minute, are these also, aren't these the same stories that a lot of these weapons are showing up in other battles in other countries?
Mark Sleboda (17:24):
Yes. Yes. With the idea that a tithe essentially of Western weapons is being sold through corruption in the Ukrainian military and the distribution networks off because of the prevalent corruption in the country to pad their own pockets. And then I don't think there's anything question about that. The Western mainstream media has long reported about that. In fact, early on, CBS noted that some 70% of the weapons supplied by the west were not reading the front lines. This was early on in the conflict. So on top of those commandos, we now the Russian government has long complained that these high-tech systems supplied by the west from the US in particular the high Mars and multiple launch rocket systems in the Patriot air defense systems, as well as some French air defense systems, Polish crab artillery systems, British storm shadows, cruise missiles, that these are all being operated by western military specialists who are being sent there under the guise of mercenaries or humanitarian and aid workers and the like, because it is impossible to train the Kiev regime forces in such a short period of time to operate these advanced western systems.
(19:09)The Russian government's been saying this for a considerable amount of time, but this was confirmed by no less a person than the German chancellor Olaf Schultz, who in an apparent spat back and forth with the French leader, Emmanuel Macron, and to the British as well, when the British were pressuring Germany to deliver the Taurus missiles, the context of Ola Schultz is we can't do what the British, the French, and the Americans are doing and have people obliquely. He admitted that the West had their military forces on the ground operating their systems and that Germany could not be seen as doing that. And this was reinforced in these leaked military calls from the German Air Force planning, a series of cruise missile attacks inside Russia with the expected to be delivered towards cruise missile system, at least expected by them. The political elites in Germany aren't saying that, but they also revealed that the German cruise missiles could perhaps be operated on the ground by the rather large number of Americans of people on the ground wearing civilian clothes with American accents, which of course is a roundabout way of saying US military personnel not in uniform on the ground in Ukraine.
(20:58)So I mean, they just have to
Dr Leon (20:59):
Be curious from Kansas that are wandering the fields and the step of Germany and Russia and Ukraine.
Mark Sleboda (21:07):
Yeah, they're not wearing boots. They're wearing ballet slippers or figure skates or something, I guess. So that's a lie. Second of all, the Kim regime can defeat. Well, Ukraine can beat Putin, right? The childish way that western leaders and media try to demonize any opponent down to just one leader and so forth. But if that was true, if Western military aid in Ukrainian regime hands was enough to beat Russia, then what happened over their failed summer counter offensive that was armed trained, financed intelligence planned and war gamed out by nato, primarily US by the Pentagon, that's who did it. They failed. They failed badly. They were mauled. They never even got past the first of Russia's five echelon defensive lines and suffered horrible casualties in the process. No one denies that. So there is no indication that however additional tens of billions of dollars of aid are sent that the West will ever again able to build an offensive force like they did for Ukraine in the summer offensive because they simply don't have the weapons in inventory to replace everything like that.
(22:50)They do have some things, they got plenty of Bradleys if they want. Obviously they're very reticent to allow the rather small number of Abrams that they've sent to be used in combat. Four of them have been destroyed after just appearing on the battlefield in the last week. But the rest of the Western militaries that supplied weapons, they're tapped out. France, Germany, Denmark, the United Kingdom, they've all said, we can't supply anymore because we've already dug past our stockpiles into our own military supplies and we can't replace these systems fast enough. For instance, one French Caesar self-propelled Howitzer, a total of 36 of these between France and Denmark were supplied to the Kiev regime for the course of that offensive. And they're practically through all of them, they have very few of them left because Russia's been hunting them down. And also they are subjected to considerable wear and tear, and they're not actually built for high intensity combat like this, much like the US' M triple sevens and the Paladins and the like. But it takes the French 18 months, the French military industrial complex, 18 months. 18 months
Dr Leon (24:20):
To
Mark Sleboda (24:21):
Build one
Dr Leon (24:22):
That's a year and a half
Mark Sleboda (24:23):
One Caesar. But we heard that they have shortened that time to 15 months. Oh
Dr Leon (24:30):
Wow. That makes me feel a whole lot better. You just mentioned the leaked recordings from the German Air Force, and is it a coincidence that after these conversations were leaked where the Germans were talking about taking out bridges in Russia with cruise missiles that Victoria Newland resigns because there are some who say that her name was mentioned in on these tapes and that the German Air Force officers were really talking about conversations either they had with her or ideas that she was presenting about these attacks inside Russia?
Mark Sleboda (25:16):
Yeah, there's a possibility there, and if that is the situation, then it appears that she was probably forced out by the Biden administration. But are I think there are other considerations in play. Victoria Newland, the Queen NeoCon of the us, she's married to Robert Kagan who is the arch NeoCon of the United States. Robert Kagan, his books, check them out if you're unfamiliar with his sinister work. I would say she has long dominated through several presidencies US policy towards Ukraine. She was instrumental in the actual Westpac, my Don pooch, if not the key architect of it. She was caught on recordings with then US Ambassador Jeffrey Piat, talking about how they needed to midwife this thing, bring then Obama's Vice President Joe Biden into midwife it picking the new Prime Minister of Ukraine, Arsen Ya from the leaders, the figurehead leaders of the Maidan, and then famously saying F, the when the idea that the Europeans might want someone else for Ukraine's next prime minister was presented. So I mean she's been instrumental and she briefly left office during the Trump administration and then came right back. She has been serving as under Secretary for political affairs, which despite the rather kafkaesque bureaucratic name is actually the third highest official within the US Department of War. I'm sorry, not the US Department of War, US Department of State. My bad.
Dr Leon (27:23):
I can understand the confusion.
Mark Sleboda (27:24):
I said the difference. Yeah, she a third highest official and she was actually operating as the second highest official just below the Secretary of State for about a half of year when Wendy Sherman, the previous Deputy Secretary of State stepped down. So she was doing the number two and number three job and it was widely expected that she would be permanently assigned to that position, a permanently elevated to Deputy Secretary of State. But we found out that just a month ago she was passed over for this position by Kirk Campbell. The Biden approved someone else, and Kirk Campbell is an Asia specialist. He's a specialist on China, which to my mind tells me that the Biden administration is tiring of this conflict in Ukraine and they're already looking past it despite the bad situation. Their proxy regime is in to China, which may indicate a planned change of policy or at least prioritization or at the very least an unwillingness to escalate further, I say may.
Dr Leon (28:48):
So does that mean then that the Biden administration is now following along the previous Obama administration's tilt towards Asia?
Mark Sleboda (29:02):
Yeah, that's entirely possible. I believe that's what the Biden administration always wanted to do. They wanted the Middle East to remain quiet and it was not a priority for them. That didn't go out down so well. Just a week before the October 7th, seventh launching of the all Axel flood operation by Hamas on Israel, Jake Sullivan was in an essay talking about how nice and quiet the Middle East was, which allowed the US to concentrate on other areas. Well, that didn't go so well then since then. But they wanted the Middle East to be quiet. They expected to finish off Russia quickly. They expected their sanctions to destroy the Russian economy, Putin to be overthrown, and because of the economic commiseration of the country
Dr Leon (29:58):
They wrong
Mark Sleboda (30:00):
And that they would now, their biggest concern would be dividing up Russia into smaller pieces and how to go about that. That appears to have been their plan. Okay, so not so good on the plan thing, but then they hoped they thought that would be finished quickly and then to pivot hard to China. I think that was always their plan to finish Russia off quickly, ignore the Middle East and pivot hard to China. And none of that, of course has gone according to plan. So with A and B having failed, they're trying to go to C anyway in very likely the months at this point that they have remaining to them. And I think that the passing over of Victoria Newland for that is a sign that the Biden administration is already lost interest, possibly due to inability to achieve their desired goals and is shifting to the next goals that they can't probably accomplish even more so I would say if they think that they're going to defeat China in some type of conflict off of their own coast in the Taiwan Straits and South China Sea. But anyway, I expect that Victoria Newland was extremely unhappy about being passed over. She was probably, she can see the bureaucratic writing on the wall that the prioritization is changing away from her reason for existence, which is fighting Russia. And I think that that probably at least as much if not more so played a role in her deciding to quit or being forced out. We don't know the real truth of that yet, although I imagine that she won't be able to keep her mouth shut forever on that score
Dr Leon (31:51):
Or her husband. So political reports that France finds Baltic allies in its spat with Germany over Ukraine troop deployment, that France is building up an alliance of countries to open potentially that are open to potentially sending Western troops to Ukraine. That Mark sounds to me like there's a lot of tension within nato. And going again back to President Biden State of the Union, he told us America is a founding member of nato, the Military Alliance of Democratic Nations, and that to prevent war, we've made NATO even stronger, which is the point that I was trying to get to about this element of his speech that we've made NATO even stronger, and now he also assigns or attributes Finland joining NATO as evidence of NATO's strength. It doesn't sound like, it doesn't sound like it's all good in
Mark Sleboda (32:59):
Yeah, I mean definitely. I mean, Hungary and Slovakia of course are the most egregious examples of this because they are completely against the proxy war now being fought on Russia in Ukraine completely. They won't have anything to do with it. But yeah, there are definitely, I think tensions and cracks emerging and a bit of a panicked blame game going on right now with different European countries all trying to blame each other saying You haven't done enough. And with Macron coming out now in the aftermath of the taking of a DKA coming out and openly talking about putting NATO troops on the ground, I think this is not something that is a secret, something that has not been discussed for, and something that contingency plans are not already in place to do in the future. They just aren't in a political situation to have it said out loud. Now, I think that's the real problem that Germany and other countries have. It's causing them, no one is ready to do it now, and the fact that it has been brought up now, they see as politically detrimental to them in their own countries
Dr Leon (34:29):
As in the farmers' protests in Germany,
Mark Sleboda (34:32):
Yeah, in Poland, yes, Poland. I mean there are protests across Europe, but also, yes, the fragile coalition government in Germany, the rise of the A FD, the alternative for Germany, the alternative for Deutsche Man, yeah, party in Germany. These are all blowback from the European involvement in the conflict in Ukraine, and they just did not need this. Now, I think Macron has pointed out two things. One is that levels of escalation in this conflict, red lines that we will not cross in terms of escalation have been passed again and again and again. I remember back in February and March of 2022 when Joe Biden saying that US tanks and jets us would never supply tanks and jets to Ukraine because that would mean World War iii, right? But US tanks are now burning in the urban agglomerations of the Donez region, and US F sixteens are supposedly on their way within the next couple of months to the Kiev regime.
(35:55)So again and again, these lines have been crossed, and I believe this line will be crossed eventually, but not yet. The second point, and Macron pointed this out, what we once thought was unacceptable has become normal operations repeatedly during this conflict as they've crawled further up or down the escalation ladder, however you choose to look at it. And he also then made a point that when French troops might be sent into Ukraine, when Russian forces move on Kiev or Odessa, which is most likely some time away, probably more than a year, maybe longer than that. So yeah, I mean, right now fighting Russia has a lot of advantages on the battlefield, but big advances can still be measured in a handful of kilometers, a tree line, a small village.
(37:04)The writing is on the wall in terms of the logistics of a war of attrition and everything, but I think there's still a lot of hard ground slogging into the future. Macron sees that as well, so they're panicking now. I think he's right that when Russia moves towards Kia or Odessa, there will be probably greater support for his suggestions, but we've already seen support from the Baltics. The Baltic leaders have come out and said, yes, we're ready to send the handful of troops that we have now, because if there's anything the Baltics country need is to come out on the losing end of this conflict, having sent their own troops to war with Russia and having a NATO either fall apart or turned into a toothless tiger as a result of this really, really bad geopolitical move to my mind. I mean, because they're of course the most vulnerable.
(38:05)They've got large populations of Russian ethnic populations that they have been rather seriously politically and linguistically culturally repressing, particularly over the last two years, even trying to expel as many Russian ethnic people from their countries as they can, practically inviting some type of Russian backed efforts against those governments in the Baltics, really not a smart move, but also Poland has made the Polish foreign minister Sikorsky back again, by the way, has also seemed to suggest contrary to statements by the Polish president, that at some point down the line, Polish troops could be sent into Ukraine and also Canada. Trudeau has also volunteered Canadian troops as well in non-combat roles of course, because that's what you do with your military troops. You send them into a conflict zone
Dr Leon (39:16):
Very as non-combatants
Mark Sleboda (39:19):
Like trainers. First you have trainers and advisors, then you have non-combatants. We know the way this goes, so obviously there is already, and check the Czech president has also suggested he is a former NATO official himself, a very big hawk on Russia, and he has also hedged his words and seemed to suggest that Czech might be able to consider it. So these are countries who are already coming out and we're just past aca, which is really only about 12 kilometers away from Donis city, right? I mean, there's a lot more to come and the panic and desperation will increase, and I think Macron will definitely find more countries down the road when it becomes completely impossible to deny as it will become in the future, the writing on the wall that the regime cannot hold militarily. The New York Times has already talked about the possibility, and I think it's a very strong possibility of later this year cascading collapses along the Kiev regime's, defensive lines, not me, but the New York Times has raised that as is talking to anonymous western military intelligence analysts about the probable course of the Ukrainian battlefield over the next half a year.
Dr Leon (40:51):
We mentioned Sweden joining NATO and Finland has joined nato, and we know about the very strong and robust social programs that those countries have because they, up until this point, have had a position of neutrality in conflict, which means they haven't had to send the public resources over to a defense budget. Now that that seems to be changing, are we looking at Finland and Sweden as having to shift those resources? We now see more NeoCon policy as well as what we'll call austerity measures. Can we expect austerity measures to creep their way into social policy in Finland and in Sweden?
Mark Sleboda (41:49):
Yeah, inevitably, I think we've already seen it to a certain degree. They've already, of course, suffered heavy economic consequences from their own sanctions on Russia, probably more significant than have been experienced by the Russian economy. Finland in particular did a very good cross border business. I was on the Finnish Russian border just a year ago at kind of a wilderness vacation place on the border there, well, actually a couple of years ago before the conflict, but very nice, and it was normal to cross the border from Russia and Finland to go to the store, for instance. Someone had this better, someone had that better, and there was a great deal of cross border business that has immensely suffered as a result already hurting the finish economy. The Swedes have suffered the same thing, perhaps to a lesser degree without sharing an open border, but experienced it as well, and now, I mean they've exhausted a great deal.
(42:58)Finland and Sweden have both provided outsized military resources to the Kiev regime already, and those resources like so much else, are largely gone. They're either up in smoke or filtered away in the Kiev regime's corruption, so on top of the Kiev regime, of course, loudly demanding more, more, they also have to replenish their own military stocks, and now they have to militarize their own borders, which were UNM militarized, particularly in the case of Finland, which has a very large border. It was demilitarized, it was not a militarized border. There was police presence, but it was not a militarized border that is now changing and of course, facing the prospect of Finland joining NATO and US forces on finished soil, Russia has reordered, completely changed military districting on the border there and provided tens of thousands of new troops to be placed on the border as having to potentially deal with US troops being stationed in Finland as defensive contingencies, Finland is going to bear an increased burden with military. I do not see how this makes them more secure than they were before. I mean, they weren't targeted with nuclear missiles, and now they will be.
(44:36)I guess that is the price of joining the cool Western Kids Club in nato, which it seems that the Finnish political elite wanted more than not creating economic and military problems with their much larger southern neighbor.
Dr Leon (44:57):
I read a story recently that elite units of Ukrainian armed forces are discussing overthrowing zelensky. Is that a rumor? Any traction of that story there in Moscow and any insight into commanders and soldiers in elite units of the Ukrainian armed forces? They're dissatisfied with the reshuffling of the leadership and they're talking about ousting VMI Zelensky.
Mark Sleboda (45:30):
Yeah. When Zelensky got rid of zany, and let's be clear, this didn't happen because of his military failures on the battlefield. It was done for political reasons because he saw zany as a threat as possibly running for president himself for staging a military coup and the possibility there were plenty of signs that the US was actually for a time considering switching horses, which is why he forbade elections in Ukraine, citing the martial law emergency powers, and so that he didn't have to face zny in an election, which the polls say he would've lost because zany has more support in the country than he does now. He didn't only get rid of ny, he got rid of whole streams of top down to low level commanders who were seen as loyal to ny. There was a huge reshuffling or replacement of Ukrainian of the Kev regime's military leaders. As a result of this, there's a lot of embittered military people because of this. We don't need to look in secret telegram chat rooms to hear this discussion because
Dr Leon (46:56):
Regime, which is where this story was originally attributable, yeah, the
Mark Sleboda (47:00):
Story is sourced from here, but there have already been open public statements by Kiev regime, military commanders on the battlefield saying to the Ukrainian journalists, this is wrong. There was a list signed by hundreds of Ukrainian military commanders serving on the battlefield, a petition asking Zelensky to get rid of Ky, whom he chose to replace Zelensky, whom is known as the
Dr Leon (47:38):
Butcher, the butcher
Mark Sleboda (47:40):
By his own forces, not because of the opponents that he kills, but because of his careless attitude towards the lives of his own people. So they made an
Dr Leon (47:54):
That's not a good moniker. As a commander, you don't want your own forces seeing you in the light of butchering them.
Mark Sleboda (48:04):
Yeah, I mean, my military experience tells me that that would not be the type of military commander that I wanted. Certainly, and I seriously doubt that they do as well. Plus Sirki is actually ethnic Russian. He was born in Russia in the Soviet Union. His family still lives in Russia, and they're actually quite Russian patriotic, so it's a rather bizarre situation, and in many ways there's a lot of
Dr Leon (48:30):
Parallels. It makes for a tough Christmas dinner.
Mark Sleboda (48:32):
I don't think it makes for a Christmas dinner at all. I'm pretty sure, and there are definitely parallels with the US Civil War to be drawn there and with so many other families across Russia and Ukraine. But yeah, they've made demands of Zelensky public demands that they replace, that they bring back zany and get rid of ky, and of course that was ignored and large numbers of those commanders were replaced. But if they're discussing it openly and he's already taking this vengeful action against them, there's no great surprise that they are talking about it in what they believe to be secret chat rooms about taking it into their own hands. It's rather interesting, of course, that the Russian intelligence chose to make this public because if they have penetrated this chat room, you can be totally sure that the key regime's military intelligence, let's say Ka bov loyal to Zelinsky, has penetrated this as well, and by going public with it, Russia might be forcing Zelinsky hand to take action against these coup plotting, even if it's in the very nascent, we hate this guy, why can't we get rid of him? Stage of, shall we say, trash talk. It might be forcing Zelinsky hand to take action now, probably because Russia sees Zelensky and KY in charge of the key regime, political and military as far better for them than ny, whom was not a brilliant military commander, but perhaps not an entirely incompetent one either.
Dr Leon (50:36):
Switching gears, the cradle is reporting US proxies fear, Afghan style withdrawal from Syria. The Syrian democratic force is the SDF. They're fearing that their US patrons will abandon them in favor of closer ties with Turk, what's happening here with the US military, their Kurdish proxies occupying northeast Syria and fearing a Afghan like pullout. Is that a serious cause for concern?
Mark Sleboda (51:13):
I mean, that has been a serious cause for concern since 2016, right? The Kurds have been thrown different Kurds, but Kurds have been thrown under the bus by the US government after having been turned into proxies again and again by the United States in Iraq multiple times in Syria, previously against Turkey. Turkey
Dr Leon (51:38):
Going all the way back to HW Bush,
Mark Sleboda (51:40):
Yes,
Dr Leon (51:42):
Throwing the Kurds under the bus. Yes,
Mark Sleboda (51:44):
It's primary routine, which really amazes me that Kurds keep willing to be US proxies when they see the long history, not just of the US abandoning proxies like say in Afghanistan, but the US specifically abandoning Kurdish proxies before and abandoning these same Kurdish proxies. When Turkey advanced into northern Syria, they still, of course controlled northern Syria while the US illegally military occupies East Syria. They with just withdrew their forces and said, we're not going to defend you. Sorry. You should probably pull back or the Turks will wipe you up. I mean, that has already happened. The Turks regard the SDF as the YPG, the Syrian branch of the PKK, which is opposed to the Turkish government and fighting for the cause of a Kurdish ethnic nation state that would have to be carved out of parts of Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and perhaps Iran. They are the biggest ethnic people in the world that do not have a nation state.
(52:55)And it was inevitable that at some point, if the US failed to overthrow the government in Damascus with their jihadi regime change, that they would at some point leave East Syria and they haven't done so yet. And despite the rumors to the contrary, I don't expect them to do so in the near future, but it is inevitable at some point is you can't maintain an open-ended occupation of a very large amount of territory forever, despite sitting on the Syrias valuable oil and wheat fields preventing the economic stabilization of the country seemingly out of spite geopolitical spite. If nothing else, you can't maintain this forever, especially with the increase in the number of attacks on US bases in Syria and Iraq from local resistance groups like Katai, Hezbollah who don't want the US occupying their countries, right, meaning Syria and Iraq. There's certainly a cost that has to be paid there, but the cost is still not extremely high, and Biden already being seen as responsible for the disastrous Vietnam style withdrawal from Afghanistan leading the Taliban to completely retake the country in rather embarrassing fashion.
(54:40)He does not want to be seen the same role in Syria, I think certainly not in the next year. Perhaps if he wins reelection against all odds, then there might be a possibility in his next administration. But a word of warning, if we do see Biden moving troops out of Syria and Iraq, the reason would probably be that they intend to strike Iran and they're moving their forces out of the range of Iranian ballistic missiles that would target them if that happened. There's a history of us withdrawals preceding attacks elsewhere when the US pulled out of Afghanistan. We found out later from the US Secretary of State that withdrawing from Afghanistan allowed the US to provide the resources to the Kiev regime in Ukraine that they would not have been able to do otherwise. So it seems that they already had intentions towards that regard, so watch it. If Biden does pull out of Syria, it may not actually be good for the Syrians or for anyone else in the region. It might actually be a signal that the US intends to escalate towards Iran.
Dr Leon (56:08):
Is there a possibility in terms of signaling here that we look at, of course, Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah is now talking about escalating in terms of coming through Lebanon. If this thing were to grow even more full, great even more bringing Iran in, you've got Ansar Allah in the game, does Syria get in the game as well? And so could the United States move out of Syria, be in preparation for a larger conflagration of that nature?
Mark Sleboda (56:52):
Yeah, I don't see that. First of all, I think the US and Iran are still doing everything possible to avoid direct conflict with each other, hence the stand down by Katai Hezbollah saying they wouldn't attack US military bases any further. And it is actually Israel who is talking about escalating against Hezbollah in Lebanon. I think the US and Iran are both doing everything they can to maintain their state's dignity and still dance around each other, avoiding direct conflict in the Middle East. That said, Israel is doing everything possible to incite conflict between the US and Iran, which makes that a non guarantee. But the Syrian government is in a very weak position economically. The US is still illegally occupying the entirety of the east of the country, including the country's oil and wheat resources. The country is, the government is unstable, it's economic, very hard times, and Turkey is still occupying the entirety of the north of the country, and they still have a hundred thousand jihadi under arms occupying those territories in northern Syria. And of course the US military occupation forces alongside the Kurdish YPG in East Syria. The Syrian government is in no geopolitical or military shape to contribute to a fight. I do not see this blowing up because no one wants to go to war with the US over Gaza. No one except for our sala.
Dr Leon (58:45):
Final question for you. The United States relative to Syria developing stronger ties with Toa, how can the US make Reproachment in this manner when Erdowan is so erratic and undependable?
Mark Sleboda (59:05):
Yeah, I don't think they can. Does
Dr Leon (59:06):
That make sense?
Mark Sleboda (59:08):
Yeah. I think Erdowan has become a perennial thorn in their side that they constantly need to keep appeased to prevent him from, shall we say, flipping into the bricks Eurasian camp, and Erdogan routinely plays the US and Russia off of each other to what he sees as his country's advantage. The US support of the Kurds in East Syria, of course, has infuriated him, as has the US withdrawal of the F 35 program from Turkey when Erdogan bought the S 400 Air defense system
Dr Leon (59:50):
From Russia,
Mark Sleboda (59:51):
Yes, from Russia, he also regards the US as at least being, if not complicit, then at least having knowledge of the coup attempt against him several years ago. Very bad relations there. The US cannot rely on Turkey and Turkey. Well, it sees itself as being betrayed by the United States. I don't see any ability to improve relations between the two until there is regime change perhaps in the United States, but more than likely it will require Erdogan passing on one way or another for a substantial change in Turkish US relations.
Dr Leon (01:00:37):
I know I said that was my last question, but this is my last question. Since you mentioned the coup in Turk a few years ago, Golan is still, I believe, somewhere in Pennsylvania at a property in Pennsylvania. Are you surprised that he has not been turned over to Turk as a way of appeasing erdowan, and do you think that Golan can be fairly confident that he's not going to be turned over as a fig leaf for better relations?
Mark Sleboda (01:01:16):
Yeah, I think the US constantly sees him as a bit of leverage. The US likes to keep shadow governments in place for just about every country in the world. Somewhere in the United States, leaders forces
Dr Leon (01:01:30):
The Shah's Sun is still roaming around Northern
Mark Sleboda (01:01:32):
Virginia. The Shah's son, Joe Biden just declared Yulia Navalny and then Yolanda, whoever she is, to be the new leader of the Russian opposition. You've got Juan Gau still out there. This is actually absolutely normal. There are entire communities outside Langley that are just exist of us backed shadow governments ready, waiting to be installed in foreign countries. But I have to say that I don't actually think the Golan movement had anything to do with the coup against Erdogan that occurred several years ago. This was almost entirely, once again, a military attempt to restore a kaist state in Turkey against Erdogan's Islamism. It was just sprung early by the Turkish government under what it believed to be controlled conditions, and then rather than admitting a secular Islamist divide in the country, they simply blamed it on a convenience scapegoat, which was the ING gong. I don't think that he actually had anything to do with that QI think that's just a rather vocal if unconvincing bit of Turkish propaganda that everyone has just played along with. So as not to anger Erdogan. In fact, the Russian president when asked about it a couple of years ago, when asked about their responsibility for the coup, his comments were pretty much to the point of if Erdogan says that's what happened, who am I to say otherwise?
Dr Leon (01:03:26):
Mark Sloboda, man, thank you so much. I always appreciate you carving out the time for me and for the show that you do. Mark Shada, really appreciate you joining me today.
Mark Sleboda (01:03:38):
Thanks for having me.
Dr Leon (01:03:40):
And folks, thank you all so much for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wiler Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Also, please, please follow and subscribe, leave a review, share the show. We're growing tremendously, but we can only grow as you allow us to follow us on social media. You can find all the links below in the show description. And remember, folks, that this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge because talk without analysis is just chatter, and we do not chatter on connecting the dots. See you again next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Wier Leon. Have a great one. Peace. We're out
Announcer (01:04:31):

• Download108

Hey folks! Thanks for joining us again for Connecting the Dots! This week we have a special feature. I recently appeared on the show Geopolitical Trends with David Oualaalou and we wanted to share this conversation with you. We're sure you will love it. Next week we will be back with a normal installment of Connecting the Dots with me, Dr Wilmer Leon.
Episode Summary:
It is becoming more evident that the era of western global dominance is coming to an end. For the last few decades, the collective West succeeded in dividing the world into their “vassals” and those they call a “rogue country” or “authoritarian regime,”. Yet, reality on the ground demonstrates the Western collapse as inevitable. Join me live 2/23/24 @ 1900 (CST) for this fascinating conversation with Dr. Wilmer Leon as he deciphers for us what this collapse entails.

Dr. David Oualaalou:
Dr. David Oualaalou is a geopolitical analyst, author, speaker. Award winning education, veteran, and a former international security analyst in Washington DC. In addition to analysis of security policy and intelligence, advice on security operations, leadership and managerial responsibilities, and successful advice on foreign military threats, economic trends, and security issues, David served high-profile U.S. military and civilian officials. He’s the founder of Global Perspective Consulting. David consults with organizations on a range of issues such as regional tensions, ethnic and ideological hostilities, trade and economic conflicts, energy supplies, technology, food, as well as threats to human security, and activities of non-state actors.LinksSupport the Channelbuymeacoffee.com/GeopoliticalTrendsTwitter: @doualaaloutwitter.comPaypalpaypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=MNJJNMKHXKCMGChannel detailswww.youtube.com/@geopoliticaltrends


TRANSCRIPT:
Dr Wilmer Leon (00:00):
Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon. And I'm Wilmer Leon. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they occur in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historical context in which they occur. During each episode, my guests and I have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between current events in the broader historic context in which they occur. This enables you to better understand and analyze the events that impact the global village in which we live.
Announcer (00:44):
Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.
Dr David Ouallaalou (00:51):
And welcome to geopolitical trends. Where to root matters. Let me bring in my guest, Dr. Wilmer. Leon. Good evening.
Dr Wilmer Leon (01:01):
Good evening, David. How are you?
Dr David Ouallaalou (01:02):
Good, sir. How are you? First of all, I want to say thank you for carving out time for me. You are a busy man during the week with all your talks around the country, and I am very grateful to you. I want you to know this on behalf of the entire community.
Dr Wilmer Leon (01:17):
Well, I'm incredibly humbled that you would invite me to this program, so it's my honor and pleasure. Thank you. Well,
Dr David Ouallaalou (01:24):
It's always my pleasure. Also, the reason guys just FYI. Here's one of the reasons why the moment I found out that Dr. Leon was available to this, I get so excited. Why? It's because I want you to know there are voices of reason inside the United States. There are voices of logic inside the United States, and I want you to hear it directly from someone whom I trust, first of all. And second, not only given his background as a political scientist, someone who understand the ins and outs of how foreign policy is structured and how the world operates. But I'm going to just give you a brief description about Dr. Weer Leon. Dr. Weer. Leon III is a political scientist for 11 years. He was a lecturer in the political science department at Howard University and has also taught at Morgan State University. He is also the host producer of Inside the Issues. It is also a nationally broadcast radio talk show on Cyrus SM Channel 1 26 for those who live in the United States, as well as he's also the co-host of the critical Hours with none other than Garland Nixon, by the way. So Dr. Leon is a nationally syndicated columnist with the Trace News wire and a regular contributor to over 200 newspapers and websites across the country. Dr. Leon can also be seen as a regular contributor and on international television news programs such as Press TV and RT tv. His latest book is Politics, another Perspective. Welcome, Dr. Leon.
Dr Wilmer Leon (03:12):
Thank you. Thank you. I greatly appreciate that.
Dr David Ouallaalou (03:14):
Alright, all you guys are in for a ride as far as understanding what's going on. Let's start with this weer, if I may. Sure. I would like you to give my audience here and the whole community your perspective about the state of affairs in the United States. I know
Dr Wilmer Leon (03:40):
The state of affairs in the United States at this point in time in the context of domestic politics is in a state of turmoil. And not only is it in a state of turmoil, but I think it is in an incredible state of decline. I say turmoil because if you look within the Republican Party, for example, they are in the midst of an incredible internal fight, internal struggle. For the last two days, I've been listening to as much as I could and as much as I can tolerate listening to the CPAC conference and what you seem to have going on right now at the CPAC Conference, the Conservative Political Action Committee is the Trump Wing of the party challenging what we'll call the established order of the Republican Party. And what I mean by that is Donald Trump and his acolytes are attacking people like Lindsey Graham and more importantly, what's his name from Kentucky, Mitch McConnell, Mitch McConnell, Mitch McConnell, and that ilk.
(04:59)And they're not only really debating political ideology, they're not debating policy. These are becoming incredibly vehement, incredibly personal attacks. And they are, because for example, Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy engaged in some negotiations with the Democrats according to the Maga. Trumpian folks, negotiation is off limits, and that's not hyperbole. These are the things that they're saying. These are some of the bases of the condemnations of the Republican party. And so when I listened to the CPA conference, when I listened to the rhetoric coming out of the CPAC conference, it's incredibly, incredibly dangerous. It's incredibly, incredibly concerning. On the other side of the aisle, I say that that's just as volatile as the Republicans. It's just not being articulated as clearly and as the Republicans are. And what I've seen, and I believe, I think what we are seeing is a move away from the stereotype of Democrats as being focused on peace, focused on the social welfare, focused on social programs.
(06:41)They have moved so far to the right that the Democrats are now the ones that are championing more funding for Ukraine. The Democrats are the ones that are championing more money to back the genocide in Gaza. And so to a great degree, the Republicans and the Democrats are two wings just about on the same bird. It's incredibly, incredibly concerning. And finally, the Democrats are not listening to their constituents because when you look at the polling data, the polling data says that an overwhelming number of Americans and an overwhelming number of Democrats want an end to the conflict in Gaza, an overwhelming number of Americans, an overwhelming number of Democrats wanting an end to the conflict in Ukraine, and I could go on and on and on, but the policies that are being articulated by President Biden, by Kamala Harris, by some of the old guard like Nancy Pelosi, they are totally out of step with their constituents and they don't seem to care.
Dr David Ouallaalou (08:04):
Okay? And by the way, we're going to be addressing Ukraine as we move along with this. So it is just for my viewers who just joining me here, I'm having a conversation with Dr. Wilmer Leon. We're going to be addressing a host of foreign policy issues. I just want at least the audience to hear from someone domestically that they are voices of reason, as I mentioned earlier, someone who understand the ins and outs of how the American politics operates and to give us the perspective about the foreign policy that is emanating from that. So let's me just move into, first of all, I want to say thank you to CJ for your super sticker. Truly appreciate it. cj, thank you so much. And I will address your comment later on. So I want to know your input weer as far as American foreign policy that we have been noticing, at least as one who worked in Washington back then and even back then, I started to notice that there is no cohesiveness in our foreign policy. Why is that? Why are we losing sight of what's need to be done, what the right thing to do?
Dr Wilmer Leon (09:20):
Well, because I think the right thing to do, the definition of the right thing to do has shifted from a moral human base to an economic elite base and from the United States perspective, as the United States has been involved in the de-industrialization of the country in order to provide for pursue greater markets, to pursue lower labor rates, all for the interest of the elite in this country, that same mindset has also been very dominant in international politics. And I say that clearly understanding that economics, political economy, that economics has been driving the policy for an inordinate amount of time. I understand that. But even with that, there was at least an articulation of concern for human rights. There was an articulation of concern for the ecology, and now unfortunately, so much of that seems to now have taken a backseat and sheer greed is now dominating the policy. As an example, the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline, the intentional de-industrialization of Germany, I almost said Republicans, the Democrats supporting genocide in Gaza, all of these, there was a time in the world when other countries would turn to the United States for leadership as it related to the social order. Now, the United States has abdicated that history. It has abdicated that mindset, and it's now just straight greed. Let's take as much as we can for as long as we can.
Dr David Ouallaalou (11:47):
Well, I look at it like yesterday, the vote at the United Nations Security Council. I mean to me as American, and I am sure, maybe I can't speak for you well here, but I was ashamed, I'll say it because it pained me to see how my country is behaving on the global stage by being the only country that vetoed humanitarian assistance, which to me was like, what the heck? What's going on? You can't do that just because the world has lost credibility in our ability to do the right thing. So to me, it's kind of like it's too late for that. So we can't,
Dr Wilmer Leon (12:30):
Lemme just quickly add to that because as part of that, you now have African-Americans becoming the face of the articulation of those policies. Linda Thomas Greenfield at the UN as an African-American woman backing genocide. You've got Kamala Harris as an African-American woman and the vice president of the United States going down to Racom, trying to convince Jamaica and some of the other Racom countries to be the face of the United States invasion or re invasion of Haiti, Lloyd Austin going to Kenya to create and foster this joint military security arrangement, convincing Kenya to be the forces on the ground going into Haiti. So the African-American faces that are being used as the cover of American imperialism is also incredibly disturbing.
Dr David Ouallaalou (13:39):
Well, that is the problem. That's why I put the title when the collapse of the Western liberal order, because this is almost not just at the United States. You look at the so-called democracies, all of them are behaving. I mean, we've seen what's going on in Europe. I have some viewers in some members of the community here from Europe, and they are sharing information with me as to they don't understand why their governments are behaving the way they are behaving. That defies logic what happened to the moral standing that at least the west was known for. We say one thing and do the opposite. That's to me problematic for us. Most of us Americans, they just don't understand the ins and outs of how Washington operates. And I found it very, very, very troubling. So I want to move the conversation to two main topics. One of them has to do with China. The one has to do with Russia. So let's start with China, shall we? Okay. I'd like to get your input weer as to how do you see American foreign policy towards China? What I mean by this is that on the paper we are recognizing one China policy, two systems, but in action we are doing the opposite. So why are we fermenting tensions into Taiwan straight to get to China? What for
Dr Wilmer Leon (15:14):
A couple of things. One is I believe since the end of World War ii, the United States has always felt that it needs a boogeyman in order to continue the perpetuation of the military industrial complex in order to continue directing limited American resources away from social spending to militarism so that the Raytheons of the world, the Lockheed Martins of the world, the Boeings of the world, can continue to generate incredible profit. Those that represent those interests have had to convince the American people that America is always under threat. So that's I think, an important factor in the equation. Another factor in the equation is the development and the very strong growth of the Chinese economy. And China was once just the manufacturing depot for the United States, and now China has taken the lead in terms of research and development in a number of areas. The Belt and Road initiative has enabled China to expand its reach and its influence all over the globe.
(16:59)And the United States sees that economic threat in military terms. And so that's another reason why there's all this jingoistic and militaristic language, this anti-China language as in the west. And then I think there are just some hardcore straight up racists that have been anti-China for a very long time. In fact, there are those who will say that China is the real fear and the way to get to China is through Russia. There are a number of elite that have believed that for a very long time. So there are a number of factors that contribute to the militarism, the violation of the one China policy and this ongoing threat that the United States keeps engaging in as it relates to China.
Dr David Ouallaalou (18:03):
But is it the problem, if I understand it correctly, is it the problem that because we cannot compete with China is that while we are fermenting those kind of tensions is because we are realizing technologically China is moving ahead? I mean, I've been keeping my eyes on the chip industry. I'm aware that China is in the process of developing or sort of perfecting the four nano tech for the chips. I mean, is it the problem because we cannot compete with that.
Dr Wilmer Leon (18:39):
I've had this conversation with a number of guests on my shows, and I don't like to use the term that we cannot compete. I think it is a clearer, we chose, we didn't see the need to compete because of these warped concepts such as manifest destiny and American internationalism and American exceptionalism. America has always seen itself as the best and the brightest, and everybody else is just everybody else. Well, China made a conscious decision, I want to say it was probably coming out of the eighties, that they were no longer going to be viewed as the sick man of Asia, which is how they used to not only be referred, but in many instances that's how they saw themselves. And so they decided that that was no longer going to be their reality. And so they changed their self perception in changing their self perception. They decided that they were going to play a different role in international dynamics. And so with a government that plans their economy, they were able to chart for themselves courses of progress because they're not a strictly capitalist country. All of the profit that was made from the things that they did, they didn't just put those profits in the hands of investors, they reinvested those profits into the development of their country. They focused on abject poverty in China, bringing over how many millions of people. Actually
Dr David Ouallaalou (20:44):
It was about 800,
Dr Wilmer Leon (20:46):
About 800 million.
Dr David Ouallaalou (20:47):
That's what I read, yes,
Dr Wilmer Leon (20:48):
About 800 million. They have been able to bring about 800 million people out of abject poverty over, I want to say it's about the last 15 or 20 years. Whereas homelessness in the United States is on the rise. So China has made a conscious decision to change self perception, to change its world dynamics. The United States has been focused on, capitalism, has been focused on the rights of the individual, not really paying attention, not really being concerned about the value of the whole. And so that is why now you see the wealth disparity in the United States being what it is, it's on the rise, and that is contributing greatly to the demise of the United States.
Dr David Ouallaalou (21:47):
And that's probably why Washington is in sort of living in denial, does not one accept the reality that the geopolitical landscape has shifted.
Dr Wilmer Leon (21:59):
In fact, let me give you one very real simple example that everybody here that has a cell phone will understand about probably 15 years ago, China reached out to the United States as China was developing 5G technology, and they reached out to the United States and they said, we would like for this to be a collective collaborative effort. Will you work with us going to their win-win strategy? That's not just a worn trope, that is a stated, established policy of the Chinese government. And so they reached out to the United States and they asked the United States, will you work with us on this 5G technology? And the United States said, no, we're going to do it ourselves. China said, fine. And what did they do? They created 5G. As we move towards the internet of things and the interconnectivity between say your cell phone and your car and your cell phone and your refrigerator and all these other things, China moved that technology. China is now, I want to say into six G, and the United States is crying foul, trying to prevent China from introducing 5G technology around the world because the United States realizes not only from a consumer perspective, but from a military perspective, being able to communicate at that level puts the United States at an incredible disadvantage. So that's just one example of how the United States is digging its own grave.
Dr David Ouallaalou (23:42):
Well, you are spot on weer, because I was aware of two cases, one of them in Europe, the other one is in India. The one in Europe is that some governments, including the UK and Germany were behind closed doors, were forced not to even allow 5G in their network. India went ahead and said to China, no, we don't want 5G because we pressured India to do so.
Dr Wilmer Leon (24:07):
And just a final point there is that the United States has gone around the world and has persuaded a number of companies, countries to pull out their Huawei to pull out their huawe routers and replace their Huawei routers with I think Motorola and some other US-based routers to the disadvantage of those countries. And Britain, for one, lost billions of dollars replacing their Huawei technology.
Dr David Ouallaalou (24:44):
Well, the next thing that I'm seeing coming Wilmer is the electric vehicles that China dominates the markets both in the US and the eu, but the US most likely is going to put that ban. You know how it is? They're going to say, no, no, no, no, you cannot. It's because the cost. I read the characteristics of BYD electric vehicle in comparison to that of Tesla. And when it came out to the cost $75,000 for Tesla versus $28,000, which one are you going to pick? I mean, for us, every citizen can afford $75,000 electric car. It ain't going to work.
Dr Wilmer Leon (25:26):
Not only the cost, but the quality of the product is also better. And one of the reasons why the United States that Joe Biden is now changing the US position on EV also has to do with the labor issue. And the unions in this country are afraid of losing jobs if the United States increases the production of electric vehicles. That was all a big part of the fallout with the negotiation with the UAWA few months ago. So instead of the United States investing in the infrastructure to make electric vehicles not only profitable, but to make convenient if the United States invests in the, if the United States looks towards the future, understands the future, and stops trying to control the future, and were to invest in infrastructure, making electric vehicles not only profitable but convenient, that could change the whole dynamic and put the United States on a totally different trajectory. But the United States, we can look at things as simple as seat belts and vehicles. The United States fought tooth and nail to put seat belts in. There are a number of things when it comes to the auto industry that the United States auto industry had to be brought into the future kicking and screaming because they wanted to stay stuck in the past.
Dr David Ouallaalou (27:17):
Interesting. Before we move into another one, I want to go back to China again, and the reason being because I had a chance to read up the summary of the Pentagon strategic, what did they call it? Strategic policy for Asia. Of course, it's all geared towards China. I had a chance to look at also the one in Canada. What I found very interesting, weer, just to share this with you all, is that Canada, Germany, and Japan, in addition to the us but the US was separate. Those three countries all share a common terminology as far as their strategic Asia policy. They all aimed at China. And the reason I want to bring this back because I want to get your input for the viewers to also know something about it. Are we looking at a military confrontation between the US and China? Because apparently we're not willing to accept the reality that an ascending power, it's going to replace a sitting power. And this way it comes with the trap theory. I'm sure you're familiar with it. Are we looking at a conflict here? Military?
Dr Wilmer Leon (28:34):
I sure hope and pray that we don't because that is a conflict that the United States cannot win, and it could result in the end of the world as we know it. I think what the United States is trying to do is it'ss trying to flex its muscle. It's trying to bluff China into acquiescence, and that's just not going to happen. Hence, the United States has just announced that it's sending five of its 11 aircraft carrier groups into the Pacific, and the United States hasn't won a conflict since World War ii.
Dr David Ouallaalou (29:21):
That's
Dr Wilmer Leon (29:21):
True. Folks need for as much as the United States spends on its military, not only domestically, but power projection with its however many hundred of bases around the world and all that other kind of stuff that we have. You
Dr David Ouallaalou (29:41):
Want the exact number? Walmart, please.
Dr Wilmer Leon (29:43):
756, 756 basis. We haven't won a conflict other than Grenada and Panama, the military giant called Panama. We haven't won a military conflict since World War ii. That's correct. And so the United States believes that by sending carrier groups into the South China Sea, that somehow China is going to quake in its boots and acquiesce and fall in line with the dictates and the demands of the United States. And I remember when the United States sent, I think it was the Gerald Ford Aircraft carrier group into the Mediterranean Sea President, this was just a month ago or a month and a half ago. President Putin said, president Biden, why did you send that aircraft carrier into the Mediterranean Sea? Don't you realize you're not scaring anybody? These people don't scare. And by the way, we can sink it with our kenza hypersonic missiles from here. So what are you doing? And I think that same thing applies to China because they have the hypersonic missile technology that has been tested and proven. I don't know that Iran has, if they've tested it, I don't know that the results of those tests have been made public. But I have read, I'm sure you have, that Iran has developed hypersonic missile technology. The United States is outgunned and doesn't even realize it.
(31:58)The warfare now has changed to more asymmetrical than what the United States is used to. And I hope asymmetrical is the right term has it's no longer we're going to put the Green Army and the green uniforms and the blue Army and the blue uniforms and let them march across the turf. And no, that's old school stuff. But that's the mentality that a lot of people in the United States believe is a winning strategy. And what we're, look, the Ansar Allah has changed international shipping. Ansar Anah in Yemen has been able to change the dynamic of international shipping with missiles that cost $2,000.
Dr David Ouallaalou (32:51):
Yep, it's true. It is true. It is true. And this is where I see, I mean for me now, I'm observing what's going on in Asia. I will be going to Asia soon in a few months, and I intend to see things with my own eyes. One of the things that I am concerned about seeing how these tensions is being rat up, for example, you look at what Naro has announced about opening an office in Tokyo, and the first question that comes to mind is, what the heck what for you? Look at what the Philippines signed the military agreement with the US right after it is what I found very troubling. Right after Marco Jr's trip to almost, I felt like he was given a lip service to presidency, went back to Manila, signed an agreement with the US to allowing five bases. Actually, the truth were about nine bases, only five were declared and four were not. And I believe as a former military, those four is going to be hosting some advanced weapons that even Filipinos wouldn't even know. Then you look at Australia, it's being synced into that trap. Then you look at New Zealand going into that direction, and of course, Japan and South Korea. So all this gives me an idea or a science right on the wall that we really want to have a conflict with China one way or another.
Dr Wilmer Leon (34:24):
We think we do, but that's a fight that it is a bad idea logistically. How are we going to travel 3000 miles around the world and think that we're going to be able to support a conflict of that nature, even with the basis that we do have in the region? Those things have to be supported. The logistics of this would be a nightmare. Not to mention just the, in fact, I want to say that the Department of Defense has run simulated war games over the last eight or nine months, 25 times in the United States. Lost every time. Wow. I want to say that again. Simulated war games that our own Pentagon has run the numbers. They've entered all the data into the computers, and we lose every single time. And I mean, I'm not making that up, folks. You can look that up for yourselves. That's a fact.
Dr David Ouallaalou (35:46):
No, it is. It is. I was aware of one even back then when we ran about 18 of them, 17 out of the 18th, we lost. That was back then. So that just gives you an idea. And I think the whole thing about vis-a-vis just will finish up with this China and move to another topic is that the idea that you look at where China is investing its money in infrastructure. I mean, I drive around the country, I fly from state to state and so forth, and I'm looking at an infrastructure that is very crumbling in front of my eyes and asking myself, why is the government not taking care of this? I'm not talking about handout here. I'm talking about everybody benefits from it. We paying the taxes. Well, we ought to see the improvements on bridges and airports and high-speed trains, and we have none of that.
Dr Wilmer Leon (36:41):
You mentioned high-speed trains. I was talking to, I think it was the Jammu Baraka who, he was in China a couple of months ago, and he said to me that he was on a bullet train and the train was traveling 350 miles an hour, and he had a glass of water that he had sat on the floor and the glass of the cup wasn't even shaking. And folks, 350 miles an hour, the train is traveling. We have nothing thing, but we're the exceptional entity. We're the superpower. No, only in our own minds
Dr David Ouallaalou (37:41):
Sad. It is sad. I want just to make it clear, I know there are those detractors that they saying we criticize our country law, whatever this is, because we love our country. That's why we have to say what we have to say. We cannot, and I speak for myself, I cannot sugarcoat things because I am seeing where my country is headed. So to those who's saying why you hate America, you do this. You talk negative about America, it's nonsense. I just want to put that out for the record.
Dr Wilmer Leon (38:12):
I got an email yesterday from a listener to my Sirius XM show who said, why is it that you only have negative things to say about Joe Biden? And what you're doing is you're creating the environment for African-Americans to think it's okay to vote for Donald Trump. And my point is, to your point, I'm just telling you truth. It's all. And what you do with that information is your business. But I can't sit here and tell you I am a political scientist. I am not a political operative. So my training, my job, my obligation is to look at the data. What does the data say and tell you the truth, what you do with it or don't do with it. That's your business.
Dr David Ouallaalou (39:03):
Well, that is, it is, folks, this is what I said. I want you to be here to listen to what Dr. Leon has to say because there is a voice of reason from within the us. There are people like Dr. Leon that speaks the truth.
Dr Wilmer Leon (39:18):
There are a couple of us walking around.
Dr David Ouallaalou (39:20):
Yeah. Well, just because a lot of people think that all Americans, they don't think straight or No, no, no. They are with voices out there.
Dr Wilmer Leon (39:28):
In fact, to that, again, I'll go back to the point I made in the first part of the discussion about the polling. When you look at the data, 70% of Americans want an end to the Ukraine conflict. 80% of Americans want an end to the Gaza conflict. It's the leader. So-called leadership in this country that is not listening to the folks, the elected representatives are not representing the interests and the dictates of their constituents because there's an elite class in this country that are paying for the policies that they're receiving.
Dr David Ouallaalou (40:16):
Wow. Instead of having the politicians working for the benefit and welfare of their constituents for presenting Elsa. Folks, before I forget, make sure to prepare a question or two for Dr. Leon towards the end. He is willing to take few questions. So we will do this at the end. So let's turn our attention to another major conflict, which is the Ukraine, Russia. And I would like to have your input as to first of all, why the conflict was created to begin with. Why? Because it was created, right?
Dr Wilmer Leon (40:56):
It was the United States started this fight.
Dr David Ouallaalou (40:59):
Why?
Dr Wilmer Leon (41:01):
Because when you go back and you read BR New Brezinski and let, oh, here you go. The grand chess board.
Dr David Ouallaalou (41:15):
Oh, yeah. From Brzezinski. Yes,
Dr Wilmer Leon (41:21):
The Grand Chess board. And oh, this one doesn't happen between two ages. He was, Abe and Brozinsky as a phobe was very instrumental in helping to create the American foreign policy mindset. And so when you look at the former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, Margaret, not Margaret, the woman
Dr David Ouallaalou (41:55):
From which country?
Dr Wilmer Leon (41:56):
From this country before Hillary Clinton. I just draw the short woman think.
Dr David Ouallaalou (42:01):
Madeline Al Madeline. Yeah.
Dr Wilmer Leon (42:04):
Madeline Albright is a disciple of Brzezinski. Hillary Clinton is a disciple of Madeline Albright. So that's the ideological tree that a lot of these folks come from. It is said that Brzezinski is the one that discovered Barack Obama when Barack Obama was at Columbia University. So Barack Obama comes from that brozinsky mindset. So Russia has been a perceived enemy since the collapse of the Soviet Union. And once Vladimir Putin took control of the Russian economy, and meaning that the United States was no longer going to be able to control the Russian economy and extract the profit from it, that American business elites were anticipating and financiers were anticipating, then Russia became an even bigger threat. And so there's been this whole Russia phobia mentality within the United States, and that now makes its way into Tony Blinken and that whole crew. I mean, we can go back to the Cold War. So Russia is a convenient enemy coming out of the Cold War and all. So there's been this distant memory that has now been brought back to the forefront that Russia is an enemy, ignoring the fact Russia wanted to join nato.
Dr David Ouallaalou (43:42):
That's correct.
Dr Wilmer Leon (43:43):
Russia wanted to engage and work cooperatively with the West, but Russia was not going to be a puppet. Russia was not going to to allow the United States to use it as it has used so many of its other allies. And that was something that the, and then to the military industrial complex, Russia becomes a very convenient enemy. And that's of course 30,000 foot answer to your question.
Dr David Ouallaalou (44:21):
You're right. One more, I mean, the most troubling to me was after the end of the Cold War, Naro expanded threefold. He moved from 50 million to 31.
Dr Wilmer Leon (44:38):
What did Secretary of State, the guy from Texas, I drew a blank on his name.
Dr David Ouallaalou (44:44):
Oh, the Secretary of State was the James Baker.
Dr Wilmer Leon (44:50):
James Baker promised Gorbachev.
Dr David Ouallaalou (44:54):
That's true.
Dr Wilmer Leon (44:57):
Baker promised Gorbachev, if Gorbachev allowed for the reunification of East and West Germany, NATO would not move any further eastward. And not only did Baker sign onto that, France did, Germany did, and I think one other European country signed onto that as well. And when people want to know why is there this conflict now? Well, the United States violating that commitment that James Baker made goes a very long way. And to those listening who will say, well, that was never a treaty, that nothing was ever signed, therefore it is irrelevant and isn't tangible isn't real. I think it's the international law case of Greenland v Norway. That was back in the thirties where the international court said Any commitment made by a representative of a country is a binding commitment. And so James Baker promising Gorbachev, nato, that was as good as a, it was a verbal contract. It was a verbal agreement and has standing in international court.
Dr David Ouallaalou (46:34):
Well, of course, the bad part is that the optics of it internationally when we won back on our word as far as what we're doing. So this is why, I mean, a lot of us Americans do not understand as to what is at the heart of this conflict and who created it to begin with
Dr Wilmer Leon (46:52):
The United States
Dr David Ouallaalou (46:53):
Thinking what we just have nothing to do. We're going to go look for conflicts around the world. Well, we've been in conflicts for years. The Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, you name it. And what do you and I as Americans, what have we gained from that? What was our interest? Death, exactly.
Dr Wilmer Leon (47:11):
No debt, death and the decline in the American standard of living. My son will be 22 years old on Sunday. He has never known a day of peace in his entire life. Wow.
Dr David Ouallaalou (47:28):
Wow. That's very sad. And that's just one example. A lot of people that age will be, which is, but that becomes also on us weer as citizens. If we're not informed, how do we expect to influence change?
Dr Wilmer Leon (47:49):
Well, it's very difficult to influence change when journalism in the United States has become co-opted by the military industrial complex. So the New York Times is known as the paper of record. The invasion of Iraq was sold to the United States, to the citizens of the United States to a great degree through the New York Times. The CIA was filtering those lies and that disinformation and that misinformation to the American people through the New York Times, through the Washington Post, through M-S-N-B-C and other network outlets. So it becomes difficult for the American people to formulate any kind of rational, reasonable understanding of the geopolitical landscape when all they're being fed is narrative. When you turn on M-S-N-B-C and you look at who many of their paid contributors are,
(49:02)Their retired generals, they're retired members of the intelligence apparatus, former directors of the CIA and all of these other organizations. They are former speech writers from the White House. All of the people that have spent their careers creating and articulating a narrative, they've left their positions in the government, they move into the private sector on the television, and they do what they do, what they've been trained to do, communicate the narrative. And anybody that comes that tries to break through with a contrary narrative fact-based contrary narrative is de platformed, is ignored, is called a conspiracy theorist. Which by the way, that term conspiracy theory was created by the CIA in response to those that were saying that John F. Kennedy was not murdered by a lone gunman. So anyway, I'm going off on a tangent. I know.
Dr David Ouallaalou (50:08):
I'm sorry. I know what you mean. I know what you mean. So yeah, it is, I couldn't agree more. And this is again, what concerns me the most about the narrative that I am really following closely emanating from Washington vis-a-vis China. That is my, concerns me the most because I can just see where this is going to go. Now.
Dr Wilmer Leon (50:28):
The spy balloon.
Dr David Ouallaalou (50:29):
The spy balloon, that's correct. The
Dr Wilmer Leon (50:34):
Spy balloon.
Dr David Ouallaalou (50:35):
What's next? Now, the AV is going to be spying if it's on the American roads. So now let me go back to the Russia aspect.
Dr Wilmer Leon (50:46):
Oh, don't forget the Chinese cranes. Now China's going to use the cranes at the American ports to disrupt our economy. That's the latest China story.
Dr David Ouallaalou (50:59):
It's pathetic. It is pathetic. So now for the Ukraine Russia conflict, by the way, I found out that President Biden is in Ukraine. He went to visit for Ukraine.
Dr Wilmer Leon (51:14):
Really? He's there now.
Dr David Ouallaalou (51:15):
I found out. And he met with the wife of Navalny,
(51:22)But he called her a national hero. Well, most Americans do not know the background story of that's for another day as far as conversation. What I wanted to mention here, weer is now you and I know because you've been talking about it. I've been on your show so many times, we addressed this so many times and it became evident that Ukraine has lost, Ukraine is a failed state. Yes. So why, in your opinion, why is the EU and the United States still pushing through with more money and now they want to even send them more weapons?
Dr Wilmer Leon (52:07):
Because the eu, for the most part, is the lapdog of the United States and the leaders of the eu. And an example of that, if you go back to when Olaf Schultz came to the United States and he was standing in a press conference with Joe Biden, and a reporter asked Joe Biden about Nord Stream, when are you going to turn up Nord stream? And Biden said, that's not going to happen. The reporter said, with Olaf Schultz standing right next to him. The reporter said, well, Mr. President, how can you stand there and say that that's not going to happen when that's not our pipeline? And he just looked at the reporter and said, trust me, that's not going to happen. Wow. And then about a week after that, boom, Nord Stream blows up. So the United States, it's analogous to a mafia operation. These are gangsters. These are just gangsters.
(53:11)And so there's now becoming an increased amount of unrest in France, in Germany, because the people, the farmers, the workers, they're watching their countries be watching the subsidies that their governments were providing. The farmers go away as billions of dollars are being sent to Ukraine and Ukraine, grain is coming on the market and lowering the price for French farmers and German farmers and whatnot. And so there's becoming an incredible amount of unrest in the street, and they can no longer, the French can no longer just say, let them eat cake because they don't have any cake to eat. As they look at the cost of their natural gas in the debt of winter, they're paying what, three and four times more to heat their homes in Britain, in Britain, in Germany, in France. And they're watching their standard of living decline as austerity measures are being imposed on these citizens at the behest of the United States. And people are saying, why? Why?
Dr David Ouallaalou (54:43):
Indeed? Indeed. Because I have family lives in Europe. So I kind of talk to them once in a while and they kind of baffled by the policies in both. I have the family lives in Germany and France. I talk with them kind of like, we don't get it. We don't get it.
Dr Wilmer Leon (55:05):
One of the objectives of the Ukrainian conflict was the de-industrialization of Germany,
Dr David Ouallaalou (55:12):
Germany.
Dr Wilmer Leon (55:14):
And now some of these German companies are moving to the United States, for example. Who would've thought that? Michelin, the French tire company, Michelin, that has, I think two factories in Germany, they've closed those tire factories. And I think they're looking to move those factories to the United States. And I think Porsche is looking to move the assembly of more Porsches to the United States.
Dr David Ouallaalou (55:46):
Wow. Wow. That's traveling for Europe. When I was in Poland last time, a few months ago, I had some conversation with some Polish people there, and they did made it clear to me that they don't understand what the policies of their governments. Well, of course I had to dig into some stuff only to find out who the US ambassador to Poland. You know who it is, right?
Dr Wilmer Leon (56:09):
The ambassador to Poland? No,
Dr David Ouallaalou (56:11):
Of the United States to Poland. Poland is the son of Brezinski.
Dr Wilmer Leon (56:16):
Oh, I did that. Okay.
Dr David Ouallaalou (56:18):
It's his son. His son.
Dr Wilmer Leon (56:22):
Mika's brother.
Dr David Ouallaalou (56:23):
Brother, yes. He is the US ambassador too. And that I put the two and two together and figured, now it makes sense to me as to why Poland is embarking on the people do not want any issues with Russia, but the government is pushing the policy because US Ambassador following the footsteps of his father. You're right. You are right. That's exactly. Now they got a little better. Well, maybe it's too late for all this. So now the idea of how it's going to end, how in your opinion, this conflict?
Dr Wilmer Leon (57:01):
Well, I wish I were able to empirically answer your question. Now you're asking me my opinion, and the only thing that I can see is that the United States is in this until the last Ukrainian dies. Because Russia is not going to stop. Russia has no reason to stop. The United States is doing everything it can do to continue to see to it that this conflict continues. And the folks that I've talked to about this that understand Russian strategy and Russian capabilities will say Russia hasn't even started that. Looking at the size of Russia's military and their ability to bring up forces, and this is the very kind of war that Russia has been preparing for 20 years an artillery battle. This is what they have been planning for and stockpiling and stockpiling and stockpiling. And that's why NATO is running out of ammunition. Russia just keeps sending shells.
(58:31)So I think at the end of the day, if there is a Ukraine left, it's going to be, I don't know about the size of London because Russia is not going to relinquish any territory that is taken. And why should it? The United States has forced its hand didn't want to do. And when I say it didn't want to do this, and folks say, Wilmer, what do you mean? Well, look at the Maidan coup in 2014, and look at how long it took. It took I think eight years for Russia to get involved because as the ethnic Russians and the Donbass kept begging Putin, will you please step in and stop this? Kept saying, no, no, this is not my, and then finally, when he understood that he really was left with very little option, he went in and once he went in, I'm not leaving until I accomplish what I set out to accomplish Deify Demilitarize. And you are not going to become a part of nato. And so they're going to keep moving forward. And it doesn't look like the United States is trying to find any way out. So all I can say to that is they're going to go till it's over, till there's nothing left to claim.
Dr David Ouallaalou (01:00:03):
Till the last Ukrainian,
Dr Wilmer Leon (01:00:04):
Till the last Ukrainian dies.
Dr David Ouallaalou (01:00:07):
And before I forget, it used to be it was a secret memo that was released back in 2011. At that time, I was still in Washington. And the plan has already been in motion per se, because a lot of people do not know that this started from 2007 all the way through to 2014. Of course, when the co happened, then it keeps going to what it is.
Dr Wilmer Leon (01:00:31):
Was part of that the yet means yet Memo from, was that Burns?
Dr David Ouallaalou (01:00:37):
That is correct.
Dr Wilmer Leon (01:00:38):
Okay. From
Dr David Ouallaalou (01:00:39):
Williams. And it was another one that was, because that was in a reflection of the book that was written by none other than Michael McFall. You know who Michael McFall? What was the book about? A short version of it? The seventh Key Points of Taking down a regime. So this is Michael mc ambassador himself, which one day I remember he put something on Twitter and I kind of answered him straightforward, never heard back from him because I faced him with facts regarding this because I was aware of the issue on
Dr Wilmer Leon (01:01:14):
What's going on. And there's another book by Blinken Ally versus Ally, which talks about the conflict over pipelines. And so in fact, you can see here it is Ally versus Ally. Interesting. Tony Blinken wrote that years ago. It might've been, yeah, wrote that years ago.
Dr David Ouallaalou (01:01:42):
Yeah. Very interesting. And speaking of the pipeline, I dunno if you were aware that Sweden officially closed the investigation on pipeline.
Dr Wilmer Leon (01:01:52):
Yes.
Dr David Ouallaalou (01:01:53):
Well, how can we close an investigation without knowing who the corporate is? It doesn't make sense.
Dr Wilmer Leon (01:01:59):
That doesn't make sense. And that also goes to a comment that President Putin made in his interview where he said that the whole pipeline was not destroyed. There's one pipe that is still functional. He says, why don't you turn that up? He says, you can get Russian gas to Germany through Poland. Why won't you turn that up? You can get Russian gas to Germany through Ukraine. Why won't you turn that up? So it's not that these problems can't be solved. And you mentioning that Brzezinski's son is the ambassador to Poland. Now I understand part of that question, but all of that factors into, it's not that the problems can't be solved, they can be solved simply, but the United States does not want those solutions.
Dr David Ouallaalou (01:02:53):
Yeah, well I look at it like what the Chinese proposed, the 12 talking points regarding the piece, and we rejected it right out immediately. We kind of like, no, we don't want the Chinese to get involved into this. But I read that proposal. Well, it makes perfect, makes perfect sense to me. But again, it's because the US is not going to allow that one. So alright, let me see. Any question from you guys? Oh, by the way, I'm seeing someone here I didn't see for a long time. Usually good to see you as always. Let me see guys, if you have a question for Dr. Leon, it'll be happy to answer this one here for you. And I am hoping you guys, there was some super stickers earlier. I couldn't read it. I am so sorry, guys. Let me see if there is a question here. Well, here is first one. I want to say thank you to Nick. Nick h thank you very much for your supers sticker. Truly, truly appreciate it. It was another one with a question. I believe if this thing in the chat box weer gets overwhelmed with when you have almost 800 people, it gets overwhelmed. But I
Dr Wilmer Leon (01:04:10):
Understand.
Dr David Ouallaalou (01:04:11):
Yeah, the guys usually put cues. So I know it's a question for you, and I'm scrolling down quickly here to see if that pops up. And I hope you guys enjoy Dr. Leon. We're going to have him back here. Don't worry. He'll be back here. Well, thank you.
Dr Wilmer Leon (01:04:29):
Thank you,
Dr David Ouallaalou (01:04:30):
Thank you. So he'll be back here. And I'm very grateful that you were able to, yeah. Here is one here. One word. Dr. Leon, our Congress members, they want you run for Congress.
Dr Wilmer Leon (01:04:42):
No, they don't.
Dr David Ouallaalou (01:04:43):
Corrupt. Brian, you are right. Thank you so much, Stefan. Truly appreciate it. I appreciate it. Let me just see one more here. If there is question, and I'm just scrolling down quickly here to see, yeah, interesting where things are headed. I mean, it is saddens me to see what our country is becoming.
Dr Wilmer Leon (01:05:11):
I agree with you, a thousand percent.
Dr David Ouallaalou (01:05:14):
Really sad. And
Dr Wilmer Leon (01:05:16):
Also,
Dr David Ouallaalou (01:05:17):
Oh, go ahead. Yeah, go ahead. I want to say thank you here to Stefan Hayes again. You put Chinese balloons delivered clean T-shirts and dog food like treats and Biden blaber about Ukraine, and people helped genocide in Palestine. Thank you very much for sharing this, Julie. Appreciate you. Super sticker. Yeah, go ahead. One more.
Dr Wilmer Leon (01:05:40):
No, just that a lot of the power projection and the violence, the war that the United States is engaging in on foreign soil also contributes greatly to the mindset of a lot of people in this country. And the violence that we see here, we can't really separate the two. And so in a lot of our urban centers, and we see a lot of these atrocious acts being engaged in by American citizens, some of that, what contributes to a lot of that is America is a violent country. It has always been a violent country. It was born out of conquest, it was born out of the United States, imposing its will on indigenous people, murdering those people and taking their land. And that's who America is. That's what our history tells us. And so you cannot separate the violence that we see at home on the domestic front with the violence that the United States is engaged in internationally.
Dr David Ouallaalou (01:06:55):
Indeed, indeed. There is a question from Army with harmony, and thank you so much for your super sticker. The question is how might the US respond to hi group? That is, we don't use the term here because you know how it is weller cutting submerged internet cable, in your opinion, if the us,
Dr Wilmer Leon (01:07:19):
I'm not familiar with the cutting of submerged internet cables, but what I'll say to you is that it was reported as far back as last month that the Saudis and Anah were about to engage in a peace plan. And the United States stepped in and told the Saudis, under no circ*mstance are we going to allow that to happen. And then it was just, I want to say about 10 days ago that the Saudis came out and said again, we've reached a peace agreement with Ansara, Allah. And the United States said, no, we're going to designate Ansara Allah as a terrorist organization. And so if you engage in that peace agreement, you will be sanctioned. And one of the big issues between the South had to do with the payment of Yemeni civil servants. They wanted to be paid and they wanted back pay. And they were negotiating that point. And the United States said, once we designate them as a terrorist organization, you'll not be able to engage in financial transactions with them.
Dr David Ouallaalou (01:08:46):
Interesting.
Dr Wilmer Leon (01:08:46):
So I'm not sure about the internet cable cut that. I'm not aware of that. But what I've just described is kind of the bigger picture on how the United States is why when peace is on the horizon, does the United States turn to darkness? Well, I mean that's rhetorical.
Dr David Ouallaalou (01:09:12):
Yeah. Yeah. Here is my last question here before we let Dr. Leon go from po. So thank you so much for being here. Question, not that it'll happen, but if war breaks out with China, with the United States, also fight with North Korea because North Korea will come to the China's aid.
Dr Wilmer Leon (01:09:35):
Unfortunately, I think the answer to that question is yes, and that will result in the end of South Korea and could possibly result in the end of Japan because the military support agreements, I believe are such that it's not just North Korea. South Korea would be the United States point of access there and Japan would be brought in as well. And I think Kim Jong-un is ready for that conflict.
Dr David Ouallaalou (01:10:11):
Yeah, that guy doesn't bluff. That's too much. That's too my ledge. He doesn't bluff. Well, Dr. Leon, I can't thank you enough for really carving out this time for me here. I truly appreciate it. Alright guys, I hope you all enjoyed this. And again, I wanted to bring someone from here, the United States, so you can hear it with your own sort of ears per se. It's because someone with the rationale thinking, logical reasoning, and there are voices of reason here in the United States. Not all are bad, but we all know if the government sometimes does things not on our name, whatever the government is doing in my name, I don't even agree with this government. I don't even recognize whatever. So that just, and this is the reason why I wanted to extended the invitation and I was very, very, or I am grateful that Dr. Leon agreed to come on on our show. We'll bring him over again. As always, guys, I hope you all enjoy this and I look forward to seeing you next time. As always, remember, geopolitics impacts your daily life in more ways than one. See you next time guys. Bye-Bye
Dr Wilmer Leon (01:11:23):
Folks. Thank you so much for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wilmer Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes that come out every week. Also, please, please, please, baby. Please, baby, baby. Please follow and subscribe. Leave a review, share the show, follow us on social media. You can find all the links to the show. There'll be, they are listed below. And remember that this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge. Because talk without analysis is just chatter and we don't chatter on connecting the dots. See you again next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Wiler Leon. Have a great one. Peace. We're out
Announcer (01:12:19):
Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.

• Download91

Find me and the show on social media @DrWilmerLeon on X (Twitter), Instagram, and YouTube
Facebook page is www.facebook.com/Drwilmerleonctd

TRANSCRIPT:
Announcer (00:06):
Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.
Drt Wilmer Leon (00:13):
Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon. And I'm Wilmer Leon. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they occur in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historical context in which they occur. During each episode, my guests and I have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between current events in the broader historic context in which they occur. This enables you to better understand and analyze the events that impact the global village in which we live on today's episode. The issue before us is the ongoing struggle for freedom and self-determination in occupied historic Palestine. And my guest is the award-winning journalist, broadcaster and political analyst who's based in Beirut, Lebanon, Laith Maru, as always, my brother. Welcome back.
Laith Mafour (01:12):
Thank you for having me. I was a pleasure to be with you.
Drt Wilmer Leon (01:15):
So let's start with the occurrence on Sunday, February 25th, where a 25-year-old active duty member of the United States Air Force, Aaron Bushnell, emulated himself outside the Israeli embassy in the US capitol of Washington dc This was a one airman revolt against the US backed genocide currently being perpetuated by Israel in the Gaza Strip. He has died from his injuries. Your thoughts Laith on the resonance. What's the resonance of this action in the region?
Laith Mafour (02:00):
Well, first off, I would like to send my condolences to the family of Aaron and to all American soldiers that are thinking about the consequences of the orders that they're receiving from the depraved leadership in the United States. Aaron right now has become a symbol in the region here he's called the Martyr by the people in the streets. If you look at the social media discussions that have arisen since his emulation and sacrifice for peace in Palestine, you could see so much art being produced right now with the visual of him on fire. And what does this mean for people of consciousness?
(03:02)I think right now the region was looking to see if there anybody in the west that will stand up against their violence of their governments and their participation in this genocide. And we saw finally now a human face to the American populace that they are not in alignment with the genocide being perpetuated in their name. Everybody here watched, of course, the live broadcast, the recording of that live broadcast that Aaron did. And there is now a clear just positioning between the selfless act that Aaron took and the security police that were holding a gun at him as he was burning alive. And this of course symbolizes on the one hand how the state and the police in the USA, how they respond to acts of sympathy and solidarity in general. And those images I think have entered now are human collective consciousness and it'll not be forgotten. It's the same as the images of the Buddhist monks that burned themselves during the Vietnam War. And of course American citizens that did the same during the Vietnam War that now are remembered as heroes of human consciousness. Aaron, while he's being attacked and by the Zionist right now after his martyrdom and by the American establishment and media after his martyrdom, he will be remembered 30 years from now by the American people as an icon of American humanism.
Drt Wilmer Leon (05:16):
Lathe, I appreciate you connecting the dots with the burning monk from 1963 because that's what exactly what I thought about when I saw the video. And for those that don't know, back in June 11th, I think it was 1963, there was a Vietnamese monk named thick Kwang Duk who a Buddhist monk who protested against the persecution of Buddhists in South Vietnam by the government of President dm. And some of the dots that I connected were that Vietnam was a failed French colony as occupied is a failed colony. And in both cases, connecting the dots here, the United States stepped in to try to save the genocidal colonies. And then this also made me think about France Fanon and his book Dying Colonialism, where he talks about the impact that this oppression has on the colonized and that once they finally come to grips with their oppression and how they must resist their oppression, they can't be stopped. And so errands, Aaron Bushnell's martyrdom from all the way across in the United States to me, shows not only the residents within Palestine, but what's happening around the world.
Laith Mafour (06:47):
Yes, definitely. Look, colonizers that are in Palestine right now are being emboldened by the support of the Western regimes. We see them filming themself committing war crimes and distributing it on social media because they believe that nobody will ever hold them responsible. And so to look at the demonstrations that are happening in the west and how it's been going on for five months now, almost these demonstrations and that they have either been ignored by western media and or have been repressed by the authorities in the West, we see, for instance, last week students, underage students coming out from high schools in New York and getting beaten up and arrested. We see the same happening in Italy where underage high school students walked out to end the war in Palestine. And again, they got beaten and arrested by the police in Italy. And so the population itself in the west who have awakened, who who've seen the same images that we all saw on this planet are reaching now a moment of realization that their own elite governments will refuse to represent them, refuse to listen to them.
(08:35)And this is why an action like Aaron's action of his martyrdom is going to be considered a turning point in this movement in the west. Now, he forced a discussion on the media that has been silencing the population for so long, and now more and more of the populace that are out in the streets will be willing to take more direct action. I say this because what Aaron did, maybe we don't need everybody to obviously emulate themselves, but it is the responsibility of specifically white people in the West to put their life at risk to end the genocide that is being committed in their name. And I would say this responsibility is even heavier on Jewish white people in the West. We've been seeing Jewish voices for peace or independent Jewish voices, all these organizations that are anti-Zionists doing regular demonstrations, blocking central square, whatever, a train station or going into a museum or what have you.
(10:10)These are all ineffective actions, number one. Number two, they fall way below the threshold of the responsibility of Jewish white people. Jewish white people have to put their life at risk and occupy apac, occupy the synagogues that are pitching hate from the pulpits and free Judaism from Zionists. This may mean they will go to jail. This may mean they're going to get beaten up by the police, but that's the least they can do. This is not the responsibility of a Palestinian Arab or Muslim American or even a black American where all these, our communities are already suffering from the repression of the states. Our communities are already counting their martyrs in Palestine and Congo and Sudan and Haiti. So if are viewers here that are Jewish, that are anti-Zionists or white that are anti-Zionists, you should take the lead of Aaron. And it doesn't mean that you need to emulate yourself, but you do have a responsibility to put your life at risk in order to be not sculpted in the genocide.
Drt Wilmer Leon (11:49):
To that point, what message gets sent when an African-American woman like US ambassador to the un, Linda Thomas Greenfield cast the vote against the peace settlement in the UN or US vice president, African-American woman, Kamala Harris, goes to Kom trying to pitch the US invasion of Haiti. Or you have members of the Congressional Black Caucus that are engaged that are coming to Israel on behalf of apac people like Congressman Gregory Meeks and some of the others. What signals are being sent? How is that being perceived in Lebanon? How is that being perceived in the region?
Laith Mafour (12:41):
You mentioned, what's his name?
Drt Wilmer Leon (12:45):
Gregory Meeks?
Laith Mafour (12:46):
No, the wretched of the Earth.
Drt Wilmer Leon (12:48):
Oh.
Laith Mafour (12:50):
And he obviously spoke to us about black faces with white masks. And this is what people see with the American ambassador of the United Nations. I mean, people are calling her Aunt Jamima, so she's selling the white flower on behalf of the elite. And so
Drt Wilmer Leon (13:18):
I wrote a piece where I called it minstrel diplomacy. It's black faces on white supremacy.
Laith Mafour (13:26):
Exactly. And this is what the west has been trying to do for the last 20 years with the bringing of Obama into power to give a black face to American imperialism and colonialism and destruction of seven countries under Obama. Of course, that never benefited anybody who's black or African in origin, nothing that came out of Obama helped the African-American communities. We watch this and I think the propaganda machine is collapsing of the West because there's nobody now that can be tricked the same way that people were tricked in 2008 to elect Obama. In fact, we see the Palestinian Arab Muslim communities in Michigan, for instance, saying that they will vote against Biden no matter what they want to punish him. So even trying to scare these oppressed communities in the US to vote Biden so Trump doesn't get elected, well, they don't care anymore. They all know these communities that it doesn't matter whether it's Democrat or Republican that's going to be in charge in the White House.
(14:49)They love to spill Arab blood and Muslim blood, and they will continue in their genocide of the Sian people. People are not going to vote for Biden, not because they think Trump is going to do better. They actually know that he is going to do the same, but they will refuse to be pawns in this duality of theatrics that is called American democracy. And I think the looking at the African-American community, they're also coming, many of them are coming to this realization also. And we saw the churches in the us, the black churches taking position for ceasefire and what have you.
Drt Wilmer Leon (15:40):
And that's a great, great, great point. There's another story that's in the Washington Post, Hamas leader hiding in Gaza, but killing him, risks hostages. Israeli officials say that they're closing in on yay the accused architect of the October 7th resistance, and they're questioning whether his death will help in the war. They say that that's up for debate and that he's hiding in this labyrinth of tunnels surrounded by Israeli hostages. And there's all this debate and discussion going on. How is this, what's the story there coming out of Lebanon as it relates to S, and hopefully I pronounced it correctly?
Laith Mafour (16:34):
Yeah, I mean, look, the Israeli propaganda has been flip-flopping for the last month about the whereabout of noir. For a while, they were telling us that he escaped through tunnels to Egypt, and he's hiding in Egypt while his people are being slaughtered by Israel. Now we're being told, no, no, no, he's actually underground. And he's not only using Palestinians as shields, he's also using Israeli POWs as his human shields. So the propaganda of Israel can't decide what it wants. It throws everything possible, every lie possible to catch the audience. We keep on hearing that Israel is that once the representative of Western civilization and that the attack on Israel is an attack on the West, and at the same time we're being told that Israelis are somehow indigenous to Palestine. So they can't make up their mind, and they will throw every possible propaganda point out there, and hopefully one of them will stick with some of the audience, and that's what they continue to do. So go ahead.
Drt Wilmer Leon (17:51):
Well, what about the subtle or not so subtle message that comes from stories like this one man versus the movement that in this Washington Post article, it says that the actions by the IDF cannot stop until he's captured as though capturing one man is going to have a dramatic impact on an entire movement. And from what I can discern, this whole one man versus the movement thing that left the station 75 years ago, Laith Maru.
Laith Mafour (18:36):
Oh yes. And the Israelis have periodically assassinated leaders of Palestinian resistance. Even just a few months ago here, the representative of Hamas in Beirut was assassinated through missiles in Al Southern suburb of Beirut. And Hamas still goes on similarly with Islamic shihad, similarly before them feta and the PLFP. I mean, look, the quest for liberation and the idea of liberation, you can't assassinate that, number one. And as we see Palestinians over the 75 years have built their structures of their organizations and the knowledge sharing and in ways that it doesn't matter if you assassinate one person, there's another 10 people behind them that have the same skills, have and have the same positionality, and they continue on. Of course, this is not to underestimate the human factor. I speak differently than somebody else. People like me differently than they like somebody else. And yes, sometimes assassinations of of resistance can have a deterrence, but not in the situation of Palestine.
(20:05)Palestine right now in itself is the symbol. And every Palestinian that is born knows how many of their families have been killed and raped and expelled. And why Israel? And this is enough fire to keep this struggle going till the end of this Zionist colony. And this is what is happening right now. We are witnessing the end days of the Zionist colony, and it's a bloody affair. It's going to be a bloody affair because the Zionists themselves and those who are behind them in the West are refusing the solution of South Africa. And they're also refusing the solution that aladin, as you'd call him in English, gave to the crusaders. So we will see a fight to the last man and it's going to be bloody. We're coming now to an end of the first stage, the direct war inside Gaza. We're now at the doors of the second stage, which is a wider war in the region that includes all the non-state actors, Hezbollah law, Iraq, and Syria resistance versus the United States and Israel. And this next second stage will last to four to five months. And as we get closer to the American election, we could be seeing a direct war between Iran and the United States.
Drt Wilmer Leon (21:45):
Hassan Nara, the head of Hezbollah, he said in a speech, I want to say it was last week, that this issue now has become bigger than just the Palestinians, that this is now a regional issue. And I interpreted that as kind of a clarion call, all adults in the pool. Now everybody's got to be in. Some people, I believe misinterpreted that as his kind of dismissing the Palestinian discussion, but I interpreted that as his saying. No, no, no. That's still at the heart of this struggle. But he's calling on everybody again, all adults in the pool. Your thoughts.
Laith Mafour (22:32):
Yeah, I mean, look at what's happening in Yemen on a daily basis. The bombings by the us, the UK on Yemen, on the capitol, on the had port, and the daily attacks by the Yemeni armed forces on American, British, and Israeli shipping boats and on the American and British Navy. So we've reached now the United States itself is admitting that they are now embroiled in the largest and most sophisticated naval battles since World War ii. This is not anymore just to confine to Palestine and the repercussions of this war. And as it rolls out even further, before it even opens up fully as a regional battle, we are already seeing historical things that have been set for 600 years. For instance, the naval supremacy of Europe and the United States and control of all waterways that has been now demolished by Yemen before we even got into a full war. It's done in 600 years of history thrown into the garbage, and now we're entering a new era in naval history and control and battle mechanisms and what have you. Similarly, as we now roll into a full war between Lebanon and Israel, we are going to see an end of air supremacy of the West, and we'll discuss that more as we go on with this hour.
Drt Wilmer Leon (24:36):
You mentioned just a couple of minutes ago about the end of the colony, and there are those who will argue, and I think this is a very valid point, that one of the reasons why the United States is backing the Zionist colony to the degree that it is, is because the West truly understands that the end of Zionist colonialism and occupied Palestine will bring about the end of colonialism itself, whether it's in Niger, in Congo, we pick a colony that this is the linchpin that as goes Israel, so goes the rest of colonization. Is that hyperbole or as we look at what transpired in Vietnam, as Dr. King said, the moral arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice.
Laith Mafour (25:35):
Yeah. Look, to make it easier for some of our viewers to understand what's the historical moment that we are living. At the end of the Soviet Union, collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States went into a stage of expansion, rapid expansion of its imperial borders, and try to swallow every state that escaped the colonial era after World War ii. And so Somalia, Yugoslavia, Iraq, blah, blah, blah, tens of states, Granada, all of those that got swallowed in by American imperialism. And this stage of expansion reached its furthest point with the capture of Ukraine and the war in Syria. So the fact that the United States lost the war in Syria, that was the furthest point of expansion of American imperial borders, taking one third of Syria and being defeated there. The war in Ukraine was the beginning of the stage of shrinking of the imperial borders, the Russia liberating east and South Ukraine, that meant the United States borders, imperial borders retracted.
(27:01)And today the war in Palestine, if Palestine is liberated and it will be liberated, I don't know at what cost humanly it'll be, but it'll be liberated. When the Palestine is liberated, it will force the United States to retreat to its natural borders. Okay? Palestine is the point of projection of power of the United States as an empire into all of Western Asia and into all of East and North Africa. And if the United States loses this base, it is forced to retreat to its natural borders, and that means an end of American imperial era. And this is why we see the United States fighting full force to maintain the Zionist colony because they know the outcomes of it will lead to the liberation of Palestine will lead to that all of Africa and Asia escapes its grip, and we will see revolutionary movements mushrooming across that continent. We already see how the West lost the Sahel countries, Maui, Burkina Faso and what have you that are entering into a federation Now. We're going to have a central African Federation of States that's going to encompass huge amounts of land resources and people that will rise into becoming a pole inside Africa. This is going to be just the beginning of the end of imperialism.
Drt Wilmer Leon (28:39):
There's another story. This came through Almadi English, Hezbollah Downs, Israeli Aires four 50 drone over South Lebanon. The Islamic resistance announced that its fighters successfully shot down a large air maze, Israeli drone, violating Lebanese airspace over the town of I TFA in South Lebanon using a surface to air missile. Again, hopefully I got that pronunciation somewhat close to reality. And they said that the downing of the drone could be seen with the naked eye. What is the significance of Hezbollah being able to down a drone, an Israeli drone of this type?
Laith Mafour (29:28):
This is the most advanced Israeli drone. It is the jewel on their crown of drone production. It costs them, I don't know, almost $2 million to produce one of them. And the Lebanese resistance shooting it down over the central part of Lebanon showed that the first off, they have the air defenses that can track this supposed stealth drone. And by the way, the Israelis had to shoot two missiles from what they call David's Lynch, or what do you call it? The swing sling Sling. David Sling, okay. It's such a blasphemous thing to name a weapon of war used in genocide in the name of our prophet David. So they used their most advanced air defenses to try to shoot down the anti-air missile from Hezbollah. They shot it from inside Palestine, probably stationed around 70 kilometers inside the occupied Palestine, so it doesn't get targeted by Hezbollah missile and shot it over Lebanon to try to stop these Lebanese air defense missiles that were trying to shoot the drone and they missed them.
(30:59)And so the drone was shot down, and within an hour or so, the Israelis started bombarding the area where the drone fell, including bba, the historical city in the RA valley in central Lebanon, a hundred kilometers away from the borders of Palestine. And they hit two different farms. They claimed that they were trying to target the air defenses of Hezbollah. And in retaliation, Hezbollah actually rained missiles and drones on an Israeli colony on the border of the West Bank, a hundred kilometers into occupied Palestine. And since the morning have bombarded the Maron airb base on top of Alger Mountain in north the Galilee, and the main control and command base of the Israeli military in the Gola and heights, hundreds of missiles since the morning. So we've now entered clearly a new stage. The Hezbollah has began showing some of its advanced weapons that up until now, it's been keeping for the right moment. And there's going to be much more surprises as this war breaks out on a full scale, but a hundred kilometers inside Palestine and a hundred kilometers inside Lebanon. That means both parties are willing and ready to hit their capitals. Tel Aviv and Lebanon. Beirut are at any moment could be the targets of these attacks.
Drt Wilmer Leon (33:00):
In fact, elaborate on that a little bit because it was,
Laith Mafour (33:08):
Sorry about that.
Drt Wilmer Leon (33:10):
It was a couple of weeks ago that Iran sent a missile into Pakistan. And the distance that missile traveled, as I understand it, was around 800 or 900 miles, and it struck its target. There are those who said then that that was as much of a message to the United States and to the west, that they could strike Tel Aviv because the distance between the two was about the same. And so now you've got the shooting down of this Israeli drone. You have Ansara Allah in Yemen that they're using, relatively speaking, very cheap missiles, something like $2,000 of missile to impact the global maritime trade through the Red Sea. The whole dynamic in the region has changed since the last Israeli Lebanese war. And if Israel couldn't beat Lebanon, then I don't know how they think they can do anything. Now, am I right to connect those dots?
Laith Mafour (34:29):
Oh, yes. Oh yes. And look, even Yemen, up until now, we were told by the commander of the American Navy in the region Central command in interviews to American media that not only is this the largest naval battle since World War II that the US is involved in, but this is also now the first time in history that a ballistic missiles are used to hit moving naval targets. So this is a huge advancement for Yemen, and it shows how greatly trained these Yemeni soldiers are. And they're using ballistic missiles. They're using cruise missiles. They're using drones and naval drones and submarine drones to hit American Navy ships, British navy ships and nobody can stop them. In fact, the Yemenis themselves shot down an MQ nine drone just last week, which is the most advanced American drone. It costs tens of millions of dollars. And then they also captured the most advanced American submarine drone, captured it as a whole Yemenis, and they brought it up to the beach, and they're going to hand it over to Iran and Russia who are going to reverse engineer it. And so Yemen in itself, we should not underestimate their capabilities. And I tell you, if this war breaks out in full, I think up until now, the Yemeni forces have been restraining themselves on purpose, not sinking fully American destroyers or aircraft carriers. But if we have a full war with Lebanon here, I bet you that Yemen will definitely be sinking American Navy ships.
Drt Wilmer Leon (36:41):
Help me with the history here. I think I've got a fairly rough understanding when we hear the name an Allah, I believe that that roughly translates into helpers of God and that the history is that as the prophet may peace be upon him, was going from Mecca to Medina. He went through Yemen and was assisted in his travels, was defended and supported in his travels by those who from that assistance called themselves the helpers of God. And so to me, going back to Fanan, this goes to the mindset of the individuals that you're engaging in. And so if folks have this mindset, this belief that they are truly helpers of God, you're dealing with an enemy unlike the American forces, who in many instances are in it for a job. This is one reason why these folks have been as the fierce fighters that they've been for the centuries that they've been. Again, is that hyperbole or am I connecting some dots here?
Laith Mafour (38:03):
No, you're connecting a lot of important dots. Anah means people in solidarity kind of so those who are in solidarity with God and the Yemeni people have a long history that much of you in the West don't know, but they are the original Arabs. The marriage between the Tite tribes and the Canaanite tribes is what gave us what we know as the Arabic people. It is one of the oldest civilization on this planet, queen Sheba and what have you. These are very faithful people that are very tough and humble at the same time, they were the first outside CCA to become Muslim and support the prophet Muhammad and stand in solidarity with him. And of course, they were known as some of the best seafarers in the world. They would travel from Yemen all the way to the Philippines and Indonesia and all the way down to Madagascar and Mozambique, and through their trade and good behavior and spread Islam and spread Islam without any fights.
(39:38)You couldn't say that they've ever forced anybody to Islam Yemenis. In fact, they're good deeds and they're good behavior. It's what spread Islam to the most populist Muslim country in the world, Indonesia and so forth. So the way that the West wanted to replace this honorable Arab that is symbolized by the Ani, by the oil sheikhs, the gluttonous oil shakes that the West created as the archetype of Arabs today, the Yei people with their outwardly behavior and stance to the world rebirthed, the honorable Arab to the world, and have frustrated this a hundred year propaganda machine that made the Arab into this filthy oil shakes that are hungry for prostitution and spending money.
Drt Wilmer Leon (40:44):
The Washington Post has reported that as ceasefire talks continue in Qatar, that the Palestinian Authority President has accepted cabinet resignations, president mah mud Abbas, the head of the Palestinian Authority. He has accepted the resignation of his prime Minister and of his cabinet, and they put this in the context of new, what they call political arrangements that are necessary to achieve Palestinian consensus. And I interpret this as really being a total misrepresentation of reality because as I understand it, particularly relative to this conflict, MABAS has almost no impact, has no control. The Palestinians don't trust him. And so he really seems to be operating as an emissary for the West as opposed to really being able to have any impact on the outcome of this conflict.
Laith Mafour (41:57):
Yeah, I mean, they're trying to create a Palestinian leadership before the war is even over. And of course, it's not going to go anywhere. The Palestinian groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the PLFP, all others other than feta have been constantly calling for a unity government for a representation at the Palestinian Liberation Organization for a disillusion of the Palestinian authority. And UD Abba as a good house slave is refusing all of these. And in fact, we heard them over the last few attacking the resistance in Gaza saying that they're kind of to blame for the deaths, repeating the racist words of his masters in Tel Aviv and dc. So he's irrelevant. And his government, whether they resign or not, I mean, what are they doing really? There's nothing that his government is doing except collaborating with the colonizer with a Zionist. And right now we can see that, for instance, Russia is trying to bring together the Palestinian factions. They've been invited to Moscow, the Fatma and Islamic Jihad. We'll see what happens there. That's a more logical path to creating a national government for the Palestinians than what the West is trying to do, which is irrelevant really.
Drt Wilmer Leon (43:44):
So it sounds as though in terms of what's being promoted through the Western media as in the Washington Post, that by going through the path of Mahmood Abbas, the United States to a great degree, is really negotiating with itself. And that because they don't have in the, they make it appear through their descriptions that they have the major players in the room. And I think I read today that a ceasefire is on the horizon.
Laith Mafour (44:20):
You put your finger on the right button there. You see, they've been saying that there's going to be a ceasefire yesterday. Biden is like, oh, we're going to have a ceasefire over the weekend. And Hamas is like, what are you talking about? We haven't got received anything. Who are you talking with? And this is what it is. There's a circle that's without using that awful word that you do it of Jordanian, Egyptian, Turkish Qari, American and Israelis, and they're all, so they're wishful thinking, but there's so much under so pressure that they're coming out. They're pressure
Drt Wilmer Leon (45:01):
From who, pressure from whom they're under so much who's under the pressure and under pressure from who
Laith Mafour (45:06):
They're under pressure from their own populace. They're under who's they? The west elite, the western elite, and the elite in Jordan, Egypt, qar and what have you. They're all under a lot of pressure. So they have to keep on pretending that there is on the one hand a ceasefire possibility and on the other that they can achieve it. Of course, the Palestinians are not going to surrender in Gaza, and the Israelis and the Americans are going to have to either end this war with a defeat and or actually continue to a larger war that's going to have a bigger genocide happening.
Drt Wilmer Leon (45:57):
There are reports that Danish pension funds are divesting from Israeli banks and companies that financial institutions across Denmark, they're facing new increased pressure from the Danish public to withdraw their investments. This is coming from the new Arab to withdraw their investments from Israel as demonstrations continue for the fourth month running in protest against the ongoing genocide in Gaza. What I see here now manifesting itself in Denmark, I connecting the dots to what transpired in South Africa with the Western move to divest pension funds and other interests from those doing business in South Africa. Are you seeing similarities here? And as we talk about the BDS movement, it seems now to be gaining a lot more traction. Speak to that, please.
Laith Mafour (47:06):
Yeah, this is one amongst many, obviously it's a huge success to have this withdrawal of all investments. We saw Spain stopped the sale and transfer of weapons to Israel. We saw Japanese arms companies cutting their contracts with arms manufacturers, and this will continue, hopefully, but look at the difference. We have to always, yes, we have to look for similarities with previous struggles, but we have to also recognize the differences during the war for the liberation of South Africa, Namibia and Angola from apartheid control and colonialism. We had Cuba come down with fighters to aid Angola and Namibia in their struggle. But we didn't see Americans come to the aid of South Africa militarily, openly, yes, they were supplying them with weapons, but they were not bringing their navy to fire at Cuban fighters. But what we see today is the United States, the United Kingdom, and pretty soon now we will be seeing European ships. 27 European countries said they were going to send their navies to support the US and the UK in their fight against Yemen. We will see now all of Europe fighting Yemen on behalf of Israel. So this is, I think the limitation of the comparison, the limitation of the comparisons. It seems that the West will fight all the way to maintain the Zionist colony. While they didn't do that, in the case of South Africa,
Drt Wilmer Leon (49:03):
There's another story. And this one they say was not widely reported if reported at all, Israeli operations in Gaza are in total chaos thanks to private privatization of logistics. They talk about in Tel Aviv that they begin a large scale invasion of Gaza on the 27th of October. And that this was basically a total failure that the Israelis really had no clue. They were in total confusion, they were in total chaos. And that this wasn't that widely reported. One of their retired generals, IDF, major general, its brick, said that there is a total mess that's not being talked about in the media. He was a veteran of the 1973 Yan Kippur War and the 1982 Lebanon War. He said, behind our excellent soldiers, there is total chaos, equipment, logistics, food, everything that needs to be moved forward is not working properly because the Army has entrusted everything to private companies. Because we had been led to believe before all of this started on the 6th of October that the IDF was the superior force, and that a lot of folks figured, oh, that once Hamas went in on the sixth, that oh, couple days this is going to be over. And now what we're finding is now they're struggling for survival.
Laith Mafour (50:49):
Yeah, they're struggling very, very hard. And remember, on October 7th, Hamas managed to take over 11 basis Israeli basis on the borders of Gaza and the main Shaak and Mossad base deeper in away from the border with Gaza and the main headquarters of the Israeli police special forces like the swat. And so they kept,
Drt Wilmer Leon (51:23):
Didn't you tell me that Israel lost 12 generals?
Laith Mafour (51:28):
Yes,
Drt Wilmer Leon (51:29):
On the 6th of October.
Laith Mafour (51:30):
So they lost 12 generals on the 7th of October and all their underlings basically also. And so these are the elite units that Israel had and the frontline units with Gaza destroyed completely. And since then, of course, everybody that they replaced these generals with has been practically slaughtered on the battlefield of Gaza, the ages of commanders in the Israeli military that are being declared as dead in the beginning of this war, the average age for a lieutenant colonel or major general were in their late thirties, early forties. Now the ages are in the early twenties, so this is around the 20 year drop in the age of officers in the core that the Israeli military has. So this means that they, they don't have the experience anymore. They don't have the knowledge of the battlefield. And now you add to it that you have mercenaries and private companies doing these supplies for Israel, and you clearly have chaos and add to it that you have American, British, French General sitting in the command center, everybody with their own views of things, it's a total mess. And it's showing that the Israeli military doesn't have options. They can't imagine options except genocide, which they are good at targeting civilians.
Drt Wilmer Leon (53:24):
In the couple of minutes that we have left, I want to give you the mic and allow you to speak to the West, speak to the world. This is an international program. What are the two major, two or three major things that you feel are not being communicated in the West that people really need to hear in order to have a better grasp of the reality in the region, to have a better grasp of the reality on the ground? Laith Maroth, the floor is yours.
Laith Mafour (54:01):
First thing I would say to our western audience is that they should be doing more to not only to help us in Palestine, liberation of it, but to get themselves ready for it's coming. For them, they already lost the right to speech, the right to media representation. The right to assembly is almost disappearing. And now, as we saw in the United Kingdom last week during the vote on the ceasefire brought by the socialist, this the Scottish Nationalist Party, they've also lost their right to representation, democratic representation at their parliaments. And if this war continues, as I am predicting, I'm telling you, it's going to be in the next few days, going to a much wider regional war with American and British soldiers coming back in coffins, people should be ready to even lose their possibility to have any representation. The democratic representation in the US and the uk, and people may think this is a little of an exaggeration, but let's just imagine it for a second that the United States goes into full war with Iran and all the access of resistance here.
(55:37)As the election is coming in the United States, will there be an election? I mean, Biden already knows that he is losing the election because of the Arab Muslim vote. It's already done. He wants to ban Trump. If he bans Trump, if he can't ban Trump, what is he going to do? We may find ourself in martial law in the West all to save the Zionist colony, and I would urge the public in the West to do something before we get to that point. Because if we get to that point and we're in martial law in the capitals of London, Ottawa and Washington, dc there's no way you can come back from that. It is the time right now to take action, to change the direction of these governments.
Drt Wilmer Leon (56:35):
If I'm not even going to think to put words in your mouth, but let me see if I can convey this a slightly different way. You're not predicting what's going to happen. You are looking at the current reality and discussing the possibilities of what could happen. And I remember talking with you, you and I talk all the time. I remember talking with you, I want to say last June, last July, last August. And you were saying to me, then something big is about to happen. And I kept saying to you, what are you talking about? You said, well, I don't know, but the sense on the ground is something big is about to happen. And you started saying that more even in September, you said something big is about to happen. And then October 7th happened and I said, that damn lathe boy. So it's a matter of being in tune to what's going on around you.
(57:49)And the other dot that I'll connect here, and again if I'm wrong, please correct me for those that don't believe that the Western governments would attack the media. Look at what's being done to Julian Assange, and that I believe is a clear signal the United States is trying to extradite from London, an Australian citizen who's never set, to my knowledge, never set foot in the United States, has no business in the United States, and they're trying to extradite him from London for violating American law, all in the attempt to scare Western journalists to not report reality. Am I wrong To connect those dots? Laith, Maro,
Laith Mafour (58:47):
You're not wrong, and I just want to be clear that I'm not a fortune teller, but because I live here and have been meeting with people, seeing the things that are happening, and because I lived 27 years in Canada and the United States and married to an American, my children are American and Canadian and have worked on these subjects and have seen the repression that came on myself for this work, I can tell you what is, we're not going to see the same things that happened 20 years ago. The expulsion of students, for instance, from universities, we're going to see them being shot as we saw chemical weapons being thrown at students at Columbia University. We are getting very close as we saw right now with the Vietnam emulation coming back right now, we could be seeing very any moment now American students being shot by the National Guard because they're demonstrating for the liberation of Palestine.
(59:56)This is the reality. And as we saw in Palestine here and the region expanding this war, if a war breaks out right now in Lebanon at a full scale, we're just still now skirmishes, the numbers of 40,000 dead in Gaza are going to be seen in one day. It's not going to be something. These numbers are going to explode, and this is going to drag us into those people that are demonstrating in the streets in the US and Canada and England. Are they going to demonstrate less or more when the numbers double and triple and quadruple in days of martyrs? Are they going to take more drastic action like Aaron or not? Of course they are. And how is the state going to respond? It is going to respond with more oppression and the minute the situation gets out of hand, we will see ourself in those possibilities of martial law being called in these countries.
Drt Wilmer Leon (01:01:04):
My dear brother, Laith Maru, I want to thank you so much for your time today. Thank you for joining the show.
Laith Mafour (01:01:11):
Thank you. Have a nice day.
Drt Wilmer Leon (01:01:14):
Folks. Thank you so much for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wilmer Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes that come out every week. Also, please, please, please, baby, please, baby, baby. Please follow and subscribe. Leave a review, share the show, follow us on social media. You can find all the links to the show. They are listed below. And remember that this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge because talk without analysis is just chatter, and we don't chatter on connecting the dots. See you again next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Wimer Leon. Have a great one. Peace. We're out
Announcer (01:02:09):
Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.

• Download59