"Hey Billy, why don't we tell them what we're about man?" So, we're here to welcome you to the Mad House Chronicles. It's a talk show with myself Billy Morrison. And me as yours boy. This man, Prince of Darkness, and we watch and react to the madest internet clips. What do we discuss Aussie? Drugs rock and roll aliens, all that kind of shit. Drugs rock and roll aliens, and all that kinds of shit. Come and join Aussie and myself, visit OzzballMediaHouse.com to get special access to... Come on! What do you say? Do you think it's the wildest show on the internet? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! When you earn your degree online at Arizona State University, you get everything the nation's most innovative university has to offer. The same internationally recognized faculty. The same nationally ranked programs. The same degree. Learn more at asuonline.asu.edu. [♪♪♪] [♪♪♪] [♪♪♪] [♪♪♪] [♪♪♪] [♪♪♪] [♪♪♪] [♪♪♪] [♪♪♪] [♪♪♪] [♪♪♪] [♪♪♪] [♪♪♪] Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to this week's edition of the Sunday Wire. I'm your host Patrick Henderson. We're streaming out live on the alternate current radio network and also at 21st centurywire.com. It's great to have you with us here live and direct. We're also streaming on X on YouTube, Rumble, and also on other platforms, Odyssey, as well as Facebook. We still have maintained some presence on Facebook, even though we're throttled heavily, throttled on a lot of platforms, probably because of the material we're covering, but more because of the way that we are covering it. So I want to welcome you to the program. Again, we have a special guest. We are sort of broadcasting on the road at the moment. We are in Europe at the moment, and I want to welcome, without further ado, our guest, which is a very unusual, unusual guest to have in studio, because normally we aren't just doing things remotely. We are already ponto on the independent researcher and journalist joining us right now on this live podcast. Freddie, thank you very much, of course, for being here. And yeah, for putting up with our technical traumas and dramas before this, but yeah, we're experimenting with a new three-camera system. But anyway, Freddie, it's great to have you in studio. Well, it's wonderful to be a Patrick and especially to have you around in South of France. I mean, it's fantastic. As you said, we work remotely, both of us. And to have you around here, it doesn't matter of technical. Well, we're so happy, we're thrilled to have you here. And of course, I think it's a human adventure at the end of the day, and let's not forget there are human beings behind this mic, and that's a reminder of it. Yeah, so, I mean, there's a lot, a lot of stuff that we could discuss. I mean, we do our sort of weekly segment with TNT. Today's news talk usually come on midweek, usually on Wednesday. And we'll do something a little bit different. Freddie, today, I mean, we will discuss the major stories that are major issues that are happening around the world. No doubt, but we're also going to be talking about, you know, how these things kind of affect people's lives. Your personal experience too. I'll start off with, you know, one of the big stories is, let's talk about this World War III sort of narrative. This World War III dynamic, which seems to be shaping up Freddie. And so a lot of talk about, you know, this inevitability about going to war. France is an NATO country. It's a lot of talk, Freddie, as well, about conscription. I find this to be really strange, really, really odd, is that everybody in all of these countries at the same time are making noises. I'm talking about the UK, talking about France, talking about Germany, of all countries, Germany, and other European countries, even in the US, talking about reinstituting the draft or mandatory national service. Or conscription, as they call it, Freddie. I mean, look, it's, first of all, do you find that to be just a little bit creepy? The fact that everybody, politicians are discussing this used to be a verbotent topic. We were told after the Second World War in America after Vietnam, never again, never again. We've got high-tech military, never again, don't have to worry about conscription. And all of a sudden, it's like the talking point, your thoughts on this one, Freddie. Well, I mean, as a French citizen, I've always looked at my country being interesting and defending itself rather than to go and attacking anybody else. And the term "resilience" is a term that has gotten traction, if you will, and under resilience lies a lot of meaning and a lot of possibilities. And that's what we need to be watching for. As far as I'm concerned, as I said, the idea of conscription, or sending young French people in Ukraine for a war against Russia, it's just simply so out there. So something that even no one would entertain in these countries. And I speak with a lot of people, as you know, on a regular basis. And I'm not getting any feedback, any signal that would indicate that the French people are willing or interested in going to any war at all. What's interesting as well, Patrick, is you've chosen to come to France in a very interesting moment. Of course, France is going through this legislative election. So it's also very important to look into what the politicians are saying, you know, on both sides of the spectrum and the political spectrum. So it's very interesting to see who is kind of very interested in entertaining a manual Macron's idea of possibilities of sending French troops in Ukraine. I think we're really talking about professional troops, more people like instructors, people that could come and provide the technology, the knowledge, the expertise for the Ukrainian to use the technology provided by the French Army. As far as moving to conscription, we are very far away from that, and it will be a political society to even entertain this idea. And by the way, we saw CNN even interviewing Marine Le Pen, you know, from the National Rally yesterday, and the interview is very clear. It's not really even remotely entertaining the possibility of sending French young people, you know, going to die in the mid grinder. It's a bad enough to think of how many Ukrainians have been trucked into this meat grinder, and people's, you know, the estimates or anything right now between on the low end, on the low end, 300,000 dead. Yeah, that's a national tragedy. It's like a whole generation of young men gone. And then on the high end, Fred, it's like 450, 450, that's approaching half a million. I mean, what kind of a, how devastating is this for Ukraine? So think about that. It's not popular to serve right now. They're having to like literally kidnap people off the street, press gang them. So what's going to happen in European countries? Well, it's just imagine it. It's interesting, because it's like, you know, I come from a generation's where they were compulsory military. So whether you like it or not, you know, you elevate and you're qualified to go and spend a year with the military, learning the basic skills on, you know, on how and what it is to be a soldier. Now, it doesn't take, you know, six months or a year to form a soldier. It takes three, sometimes four years to start to be comfortable in a war fighting and a battle for the environment. So one year you're not achieving anything. I know a lot about the training because I went through this military training myself and there's no way you could consider yourself as a soldier after just two months of military prep, you know, where you're going to use some, some weapon raise, then out to throw grenades and, you know, that kind of thing, but really doesn't make you a soldier at all. And then after these two months, most of the people that were doing their compulsory military services will never see a firearm ever in their life. So, as I said, there's a lot of people you can bring into the battlefield. They'll die probably the day one if they make it all day, you know, so I think they all think it's ridiculous any military professional person. I have the opportunity to speak to you. I say this is not in a million years, something that will be possible. And let's not forget, this is not part of our policies in France as far as, you know, conscriptions is something really when we are under attack. I mean, the enemies at the border, we're starting to, you know, bombs have been dropped on big cities. That's a different thing because I think at the time, you will see the French. You train or not train, you know, willing to defend their country. That's a complete different scenario. But be sent on the other side of Eastern Europe to go and die for some, you know, very debatable, very questionable war against Russia. And I can't think that still, you know, bugs my mind. This should have been done a long time ago. I yet were still you and I talking about Ukraine two and a half years down the line. It's ridiculous. You know, we're looking for peace and most of the people, as you said, after Vietnam, after all these big wars, Second World War, the spirit was, let's do everything. Make sure diplomacy does what diplomacy do, which is looking for solutions around the table. I'm making sure that there's no needless, you know, death on the battlefield. But here we are. The talk was, you know, remember, Iraq war posted on 11 rapid reaction force. We've got overwhelming air power. The aircraft carries pull up the F 16 take off targeted strikes, surgical strikes, remember that surgical everything was surgical. We watched it on CNN. We watched all the high tech camera work and so forth. We've seen all the Hollywood films don't need soldiers. They don't need to put like infantry out. That's so 20th century, Fred. And here we are. Our political leaders are basically putting the, they're planting the idea that somehow the only way to be ready to. What is it to defeat the Russians? Is it to, you know, defeat defeat the Russians defeat the Chinese evil empire, the Iranians, we need to throw, you know, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people to the front line. It doesn't make any sense. Look at the results in Ukraine. You can't say that this is a successful strategy that the only winning strategy here is not to go to war. I mean, yeah, am I oversimplifying it? You know, I don't know. No, that's all Patrick. I mean, this is common signs. Those are the people of reason, which were able to turn the outcome of the Cold War, you know, and we shouldn't be into this because this is a Cold War kind of environment in which we're living. That's what we are, but the outcome might be completely different because we don't have reasonable people around the table, not in the United States and not in France, not in the UK, and not in Germany. So it seems that people are kind of hanging on to the idea of having an open conflict with the Russians. They're not quite sure why they know that they have to do it because they've been told to do it. But yet again, I think at this stage, things are about to change in Europe. Europe is taking different directions. We can clearly see that the political spectrum is changing and those that pretty much managed over the last few years to control, to have the ability to govern, you know, with a very strong European policies allowing them to do pretty much what they wanted, you know, without any restaurant, many kinds of civilians opinion been asked. We've just been left outside of the democratic process. I think it's been centralized through Europe, and that is the reason why I'm a big sovereignist. I'm not interested in Europe. I'm not interested in supporting any of these super national organizations because you cannot govern the country if you don't have your own currency. If you don't control your borders and more importantly, if you cannot set up your own foreign policies. And that is really the debate, you know, at the moment, is do we actually have a foreign policy? Are we just following someone else track or recommendations coming out of the Pentagon or, you know, the European Union? So, all this is not making any sense, and we are clearly seeing those behind these great ideas. So they think it is losing weight, you know, losing power other European unions and on a national basis and these elections, European or national elections have shown result that clearly sees that the French people want to change, the German people and many others, Holland, Italy. People want to see something different, and war is not part of what people wants. We're not ready for that. We're not interested in that. And I think that for way too long, we've been looking at international matters and issues that are concerned us very little, where people wants to go back to domestic issues. And we can clearly see that in the United States, even in the current situation, you know, as you guys are sprinting towards the elections, people are interesting in domestic issues, which is a very strong trait of how American votes, anyway, they're not looking into foreign policies, they're looking out and what's going to affect their bottom line, where France is the same, we were interested about, you know, the price of fuel, you know, the electricity that has gone full time, 100,000 business that has gone out of business simply because they cannot afford to pay the electrical bills, and at least is very long. As you know, so we want to go back to basic common sense and making sure that we can have the countries that we've all grown up in, that the one that we know makes sense that can stand on its own, and then can say no to the United States and yes to the United States, you know, base on common sense and things that work for both of us, but also we're primarily for the French people, we don't have to align ourselves with anything coming on the other side of the Atlantic, and yet that's what we've been doing for the last about seven years, or even perhaps longer. Yeah, you don't, France has been out of NATO before, not so long ago, not so long ago, and France has been, you know, very independent as a European republic, you know, has had an independent foreign policy, that's very clear, even up to the Iraq war, that was very clear. So, this isn't like an unusual position for France to be in, what's unusual already is the France that Emmanuel Macron has this version of the republic, this is unusual, this is the break from tradition, am I reading this correctly? Yes, a lot of things that has been introduced in France over the last decades, not French in nature, this is not something that you'll find in traditional France, you know, on all aspects, whether it's the, the ideas around voting, creating grand coalitions, all these kind of things just doesn't exist in France, you know, we might be European, but we have a very strong identity and we've very very much attached to, to the way we do things, and that's what people like us or hate us, and it really doesn't matter as long as it keeps the country in the right direction. So I think the real problem that we can all sense is that we've lost our purpose, we've lost our directions, I would even go as far as saying that we've lost the part of our dignity, because, you know, if you're proud of being a French person, which is something that we we normally are having, you know, a super national organization like the European Union on NATO telling us what we should do and how we should do it, and subjecting us to all sorts of policies and doctrines that are not aligned with our culture. And that's a major problem, and when you have your own president Emmanuel Macron said that there is not such a thing as a French culture. Well, I think that's just surprised when you're standing, it's telling you you're not French any longer, you're European and you'll speak, you know, with an American accent in the next 20 years, you could carry on, but we're not interested. I love, I've got friends around the world, as you know, I'm probably more global, isn't anybody else, but I'm a French first, you know, and I want to see my country doing well. I want to see the CEO of this young generation coming with the hope that we have a place, we know our place in this world. And, you know, we can stand on our own fit and proud and with dignities and saying, put that, you know, put our foot down when things are unacceptable. And I think this Ukrainian, you know, as you described, you know, the loss of life in Ukraine is really, it's a terrible story, and it looks like we've learned nothing about history. And I think that France had a great opportunity here to stand whether with the Minsk agreements or any forms of contract and agreement that would have moved the dots closer to peace and unfortunately would let other other people go in the other ways and drag on self into this as disgusting. So your position, the position you just outlined is clearly a French nationalist position, but it's not, it's not a far right position. I mean, this is one of the problems that we have now in the political, describing the political spectrum, the discourse is so mired in old 20th century stereotypes and terms that it's actually doing a disservice to the discussion because everything that you just outlined is common sense, national sovereignty, good for the people in the country, good for their neighbors, quite frankly, good for Europe, I would think. But there's still some tribalism as well in Europe, which I find to be very interesting, political, national tribalism. I don't think so much on the people level, but on the political elite level, it still exists. It hasn't disappeared, even with two World Wars, the competition amongst elites, and America coming in, trying to basically, you know, micromanage. We see revelations of CIA activity in French politics, Fred, and Barack Obama exposed as, you know, trying to push Macron in at the time. I think it was 2017. He has no business interfering in French politics. Why were they so adamant in pushing Macron? Do you think there was US deep state involvement in the rise of Macron? Well, I think it started even before Macron, starting with Sarkozy, you know, Sarkozy was already very much under the watch of the CIA. CIA had many, many operations really understanding, not only if Sarkozy could be trusted, so understanding his relationship and the various discourse that he had with his partners, you know, political partners and corporate partners. So that's one side of the spectrum, and the other side is the allowing basically intelligence agency mingling and spying on various political parties and understanding everybody's program, true program strategies. I mean, when you look at these weeklings reports on 2017 activities of the CIA mingling with elections, and I mean, you know, all we hear from the other side of the Atlantic is that the Russians are mingling in the American, you know, and they're still those you know, and nonsense. And then, but these guys are just, you know, you know, you know, put in the door in France and literally turning, you know, people that should be working for Mackenzie and consults and CEO, you know, for mergers and acquisitions. That's what they should be doing, but not being, you know, not be at a position of presidents. You know, this is a two difference. You know, we're dealing with technocrats. This is the push of the technocrats movement for the last past 20 years. They've had, they've had their, they've had their up and down, you know, but I think they, this seems to have come to a model with the people of Davos. And this is a great research. I think it's all been part of a something that was cooked up, you know, a long time ago. And clearly, I think there is an element of intelligence that is guiding, that is controlling this this animal and making sure that they have their own people inside. And we can clearly see if you look at the political spectrums across Europe, you will see that these people have been put in place. They are not the best that certainly don't have their country's best interests at heart, but yet they're still in positions where they can all together, especially foreign ministers. If you look at all the foreign ministers in France, they all aligns on the same strategy. And there's no national policy or foreign policy. It's a European foreign policies, which Van de Leyen was trying to hijack for itself. This is no longer a democracy. You know, we couldn't even associate near to what we're doing, whether it's politically or, you know, geopolitically. We're not there anymore. There's no democracy in what we're doing because you cannot rule any European nations with having an EU operation above you and a military presence and a political presence that comes from the other side of the Atlantic that's telling us, you know, what's best for us. So anyone's for many political spectrums, whether you're far right far left, as long as you've not made the decisions and promise and been able to hold your grounds and making sure that you're going to get out of the European unions, get out of the Euro, get out of NATO, get out of the WHO. If you can't do that, you're politically immoral, immoral, because you cannot pretend that you can actually change the current paradigm, the current status code that we have all experienced over the past the past 10 years. The country is 3,000 billion in debts. And we're not going anywhere. Nobody's going to solve this problem. And the European, you know, banking cartel, the Central Bank of Europe is basically playing politics. These are not bankers, these are politicians. They're able to really, really make a difference in perhaps Milan in Italy. It's a great example of now the European Central Bank can influence you to the point that you cannot govern because you won't be able to buy anything. You won't be able to borrow money and you won't be able to manage your debt. So that's how this major banking cartels have been able to take over a major political decision. So can you imagine you get European Central Bank, you have EU and the politicians, and you get NATO. These are the guys that run their show. We don't run anything. That's interesting that you mentioned that that sort of financial takedown that central banks can quietly do. Look at what happened in Greece with Theresa, Cyprus back in 2012, 2013, the banking crisis. And look what's going to happen if what's going to happen, Freddie, if the national rally comes within some kind of a major working majority, they could just as easily trigger some kind of a financial crisis of confidence in the market, blame it on the far right. They'll say, "Oh, the markets are not confident about La Penne or what the far right or Jordan and Verdele can do." And we need to reorganize our politics. This happens so often. And this even happened in the UK, arguably as well, with Liz Truss and her short-lived prime ministership of 40 days. I personally think that there might have been more to that story, maybe to do with the Nord Stream pipelines. We can talk about that in a little bit, Fred, but the average person is just not aware of how much power the central banks have in terms of being able to manipulate political outcomes. And that's kind of what we're talking about here. Absolutely. They're extremely powerful. There's no way you can govern your country if you don't have the money. If you don't have a way to control and predict, predict the financial outcomes. Making big decisions for a country means that in access to the purse, if the purse is locked and the debts are starting to accumulate. And the interest rates are going to the roof. You get about three months of life expectations as a politician before the people go on the street. And then on the other side, you get also taken to consideration that you have the mainstream media. They are extremely powerful as well. So you get very lethal tools against you that can turn basically your presidency or even your governments. If the far right was to be elected with Jordan Baderler, the head of it. How do you rule? First of all, if you don't have a majority, which I doubt they will get despite their shenanigans and their various coalitions and agreement that has been passed with Republicans. But I doubt they'll get a majority. So we're going to have a rainbow governments like in the Hollands where nothing gets done. And who is the benefactor from that? Well, it's those that actually carry on on deploying their agenda and not getting any kind of hurdle from nations. Everybody's aligned with the program and we'll get very aligned for the next five years. Everything and the key position within Europe and the Parliament will be solidified, secured. What happens at the national level? It's becoming irrelevant, really relevant. So marrying the pen, what will become of marrying the pen and the national rally be exactly like any other party that is going against the wind. They're going to be taught the lessons and they're going to be streamlines and their program will not be able to see the day and very quickly they'll be on a survival mode, you know, because obviously they feel that they have to deliver some kind of change. So we'll see a lot of chaos and instabilities, which kind of serve even better purpose for for those that doesn't want to see them around. They'll say, look, they cannot govern. They're not good. The program is horrible. And that is the reason why it's falling. When the true reason reason why it's falling is because the democratic process has been injured, not allowed to govern the money is not there. And people are promoting chaos instead of being responsible and promote stability. So it's all perverted. I'm sorry to say I'm very optimistic as a person, but when I look at it from an objective on a few, I don't see how you can rule unless you get out of these institutions. And that's true sovereignism. And unfortunately it is only about five little small parties with Florian Polypo, which used to be with the National Rally as you know, with the foreign national and left simply because he understood that. It's a very intelligent money understood that is no way you can promise to the French people things are going to change for the best staying in Europe and staying with NATO and all the Super National Organization. So unless we can get enough of the French people to understand that it is time for us to regain control of our currency, our borders and our foreign policies. Nothing is going to change that trick. That is the reality. We've talked about this in the past, Freddie, about this idea of national sovereignty is very peculiar concept for Europe as well, very different than other parts of the world because of how many former imperial powers you have clustered in a very small space, geographical space. But things have changed in history recently, and countries have developed in different directions. They've relinquished their former colonial possession sometimes voluntarily sometimes not voluntarily in the case of Mali and the Francophone countries they, the Africans have put their foot down and decided they're going to renegotiate their relationship with France, the former colonial power, and that took some of the elites little bit by surprise took the media by surprise, but you notice how it's gone very quiet on that front. So I think that signals a very important change, but we've talked about this idea of sovereignty, that if, if, if you're a member of the European Union, you've already shaved off 50% minimum of your national sovereignty, 50%. Now, if you opt into NATO, you can then shave off another 25 made more. So now you're down, if you're a NATO member, and you're a EU member, you're down now to 25% remaining sovereignty. Now, if you're energy dependent versus energy independent, that's pretty much the one of the main remainders of your national sovereignty, you become a net importer, as opposed to have a balance of trade. And France used to be in very different positions in all of these categories previously, but now look at it Freddy so on the sovereignty index, France has lost tremendous sovereignty, and the single currency, by the way, single currency independent central banking policies, so as an EU member where I'm going to ask, where's the benefits now, maybe there were before some perceived benefits, but what about now, what are the, what are the benefits of, of European and NATO membership, Fred. There's no benefit, nothing substantial, nothing that can actually be seen and been, you know, it's just simply not there. I mean, as soon as we move to the European, the euro currency, things have become more difficult. It has been, you know, it has affected slowly, but surely it has affected the bank power and the purchasing power is on the top of the gender of the far right movement, for example. I mean, I call them far right, it's ridiculous. I mean, I know it's not right, it's not right. It's more central, it's more central for the show. I think it sounds more horrible to far left or far right, you know, it's more violent, it's more unstable and more unreliable, it's exactly a lot of things that are associated with these terms, but it's not far right. People, far right people will be suffering, you know, going and waiting for the European Union to give them. So we're selling money to Europe and what we get is only a part of it, all the rest in Europe to maintain their show, you know, say, and Germans and Dutch, you know, everybody does that. And nobody seems to care. So you can go out there and have a wonderful agenda about, you know, economies and that and then telling the people, this is my plan, but I will have to ask Europe first, you know, if I can get somebody back to do that, you know, if I can get some form of sovereignty to do that. But the overall idea is to surrender the sovereignty, I think that's really what I'm getting at here is the idea that's French people or German people, suffering people, people that have, you know, with thoughtful freedom for what we stand for is a lot of things we thought I was a long time ago, how do we surrender this sovereignty, what is the process, what takes a man, you know, which stands for ideas, politicians, he wants to support his views, and he wants to see them, you know, affecting the, you know, the destiny of your countries, and yet these people are happy to surrender this power, we saw that during COVID-19, where all the, you know, the head of health ministries and ministers of health, basically surrendering their power and say, oh, let's have a procurement scheme for the vaccines at the European level, let all the shiny again be done in Brussels, you know, let's keep it away from us. How do you expose your own people to a, to, to an organization that is not equipped, nor that is actually relevant to address, you know, domestic issues, public health issues, this was never in the matter of European Union, to address public health issues, actually absolutely one of the things that they left aside, part of the agreement and the treaties was that each country would be responsible for the public health, so how to come that was to COVID, the trigger that allows to say, well, now, I think it's better, we have more purchasing power if all European states come in together to buy, you know, a medication that's going to save, save the world, save Europe, at least, you know, so that you can see how these mechanisms are extremely dangerous, because under emergency rules, under, you know, emergency power, you can sell pretty much anything to anyone's and have, you know, people to agree to something that in normal circumstances that will never agree on that. So, yes, I'm, there's a lot to wonder about the real motivations of all these politicians, you know, and as I say, left, right, center, left, center, right, what are these people doing? What are they actually doing? Because, you know, politically what they're doing is not making any sense, and they already know that it's, it doesn't matter what they do, they're not going to be able to govern, and it's going to be less and less power in their hand. You know, longer we'll leave the EU in charge, you know, deeper, deeper the debt is going to be the industrial deconstruction of Europe has just been, it's been in the process for about five years at least where, you know, everything is, is living Europe. You know, so what's left of Europe, we have no more industry, we are in deep debt, that's where you start to understand who profit from that, who profit from that is those that basically gain a market that's going to need to buy all the time. That's going to be, that's going to have to outsource everything, you know, I don't want you to outsource from China, they want you to outsource from the United States, they want you to outsource with the partners. We're not getting any stronger, we're getting weaker. And we're promoting the idea of war, we're promoting the idea of a strong European army, you know, which Macron is always, you know, it's been his, it's been his, you know, he's one of his major projects, you know, creating strong European army. But who profit from that? We only got basically the tax been sucking up from us in projects that has absolutely no benefit from us. We have been sold the idea that we under threat when there's absolutely no one looking at the door. So the whole thing is a lie and this lies and it's to stop. If we want to see a future where our kids can decide of the destiny for their countries and for the world and for humanity, they need to regain control, the control needs to be in the hand of people and government is there just to do what we're telling them to do. We are far away from this idea, it's a noble idea. So think about it, Freddy, go turn the clock back a little bit. So you did military service back when you were a young stir, but that was during the latter stages of the Cold War. So it's a very, very different environment, and the res on Detre or the res on Detat of the state was different. It was within the Cold War. That was the threat. You had a clear mission. National defense had some kind of a meaning back then. It was post World War II. So firstly, you know, what, if you can cast your memory back, what was that like? How old were you? Because you were one of the last years where they did mandatory national service. They phased it out soon after you did it, not long after. What was that experience like? How old were you? Did you get a letter when you were in school? What was the process? It's interesting. I think it really depends on what's your situation at the time now back in the 90s. As soon as you are 18 years old, you can decide basically to join the army, whether on the professional level or whether you can just join it and basically do your compulsory military service and get rid of it in terms of having a year in the military. And then you can go back to your normal life. So, of course, anyone around 18, 19 years old, that's cool. You know, you're just graduated. You're going towards higher schools. You know, you focus on your studies. So everybody had to go around that. So there's a lot of things going on. The planning as well, you know, people to get out of it. I mean, you know, but as far as I was concerned, you know, I was 18 years old. I think I turned 18, two days later. I was in the army. I was on the train going to the army because I always I wanted to be part of it. I'm a French national. I know I have to give one year of my time to the military. And I've always been adventurous and I like sports and I was very sporty when I was younger and I like adventure. So for me, army, I had ticked all these boxes, not killing people. I was looking at it more as something fun where I could challenge myself, meet other people from around France. So it provides a lot of a lot of opportunity to meet your brothers and sisters, at least your brothers, mainly, and get to know your country, your countrymen's, you know, because we're all coming from different part of the world. You could be in a camp or you could be, you know, in a brigade, a platen, doesn't matter. You could be in any of these organizations with people from different walk of life, people coming from very privileged background. You could come basically with someone living in the north places you've never been if you're from the south, you know. So do we actually really know each other as French people, you know, as nationals? You know, so that's a great experience. That's a great takeaway. I made friends from all around France. Some of them are still friends today, you know. So it's just amazing how it's an important thing for a man. You know, I think a young man, you do your army, you've done your duty for your countries, you've learned some skills, but not the best, you know, not something you will be able to apply on the battlefield. But at least it gives you an idea of what it is to be around your countrymen's under the same flag, learn some patriotism, understanding, you know, history, and working together, some people do learn a skill during these 12 years and turn that into a career. I've seen that in many examples of that. I was in early copterationments. I was a firefighter to make sure that this helicopter is taking off. We're just not going to catch on fires. And, you know, we also had a civilian airport, so we work with civilian guys, making sure that if there was a crash there, we could cover their asses there. So that was interesting. We actually had one kind of emergency landing with the jet fighters. So we went there. It was a great experience, you know, and going around, you know, all these trainings and I really enjoyed it. To be honest with you, I don't see anything wrong with that. I think it was a bad idea to remove it. Because it turns you from a young, young dollar son to perhaps to a man. If you take it seriously and it helps you to stand your ground, understanding that you got to respect everybody from different walk of life. There's no privilege in Army when you're, you know, when you're doing this military services, you're all at the same way in the same food. We sleep in the same dormitory, and we do the same exercise. We run eight mice together. We were in mice together. It's a matter of your privilege or not. And we had the same shoes, the same, you know, tracks, and so on. And so it's nice to see that, because I think if you go back after to your normal life, you realize, you know, that we are not so different after all. The only thing that separates us is the comfort and the money. And so that was for your time, your generation. This was pre-internet. There's no mobile phones. You weren't distracted on social media. So this was a real genuine experience at a key to time in your life, preparing you for what comes next in life. Now, let's contrast that to today. 20, 24, 18, 19 years old. How difficult will it be to corral this generation, in your opinion, into the same type of system. Just think about that for a moment. What are your, I'm sure you've thought about it. Yeah, I mean, we, you know, it's all about drawing your values from different sources. Normally you draw your value from your parents, you know, that's what Neil Young say, you know, we are just the black and white of our parents. That's pretty much the idea, you know, we know nothing. We know nothing. Our parents tell us what's right, what's wrong, what's up, what's down, you know, and we just copy that. And that's how we get our value. And then you go to the military in my era, you get disciplined, because if you don't get it right, someone's going to come and they'll make your life hard, painful. So you compare that and you take it to the, you know, to the 21st century with generation Z and so on, you know, and walkism and all these kind of things. You know, where these people are during their value. Well, they're during the value from different sources, not much with their parents, because their parents now, both of them had to work because life has become hard. So you got to bring money, better bills. And these kids now have been left on their own with a plate with mobiles with internet. And that's where they draw their value from. And that's what became dangerous, because some of them will make the best out of it and become great people. So learning a lot and creating and being creative, which is part of the journey where we're here, you know, is to create something. Leave a mark behind is something that other people can be inspired by, or, you know, but yes, a lot of these kids will not survive. And they will all know what it is to, you know, to walk in the shoes of a men like me, you know, they won't know that because their values is different. Everything that makes them who they are is based on different settings. Settings are different and talk to these kids about war, the idea of going and die somewhere in Ukraine, which, you know, many people, most of us has never been to Ukraine. Nobody understands the language. I'm not even having Ukrainian friends. So why are we going to go and fight there? That's just something we just can't compute, you know, and it doesn't exist. It's just not there. The idea of having French people on the ground is not going to fly. You'll never go to a city like my word. You'll never see. Apart from professional instructors, you'll never see French civilians, you know, getting on a military outfit and going to war against Russia. Well, that day is not tomorrow. I can tell you that. There's another aspect to this as well. And I've been with the French and Russians together. And they interact extremely well. There's mutual respect there. There's a lot of natural, I think, cultural overlap as well. They share a lot of history, a lot of culture. Socially, I find them to get on very well. And so the idea that you can mobilize a French male population to hate, to hate the Russians. It's not exactly a natural sort of exercise. It takes a lot, doesn't it? A lot of propaganda, a lot of gaslighting. But even then, with the amount of propaganda we've had, has it worked? Is there an anti-Russian undercurrent in France or not? Now, there's no anti-Russian. We've never had any issue with Russians. We've always looked at Russians as a very strong nation. For those a bit more intellectual, we all study, you know, soldiering scenes and made various books, you know. And we've always been amazed. It's a bit of a mystery. For the French, Russia is a bit of a mystery. Because there's a lot of part of the Russian cultures that you find in our education. So we learn about history of Russia. We learn about Napoleon's and nonsense that he was doing out there. We've learned a lot about the Tsar and the cultures and the history of Russia. And then, of course, a big part of the aristocracy in Russia came to France, you know. So there's that. And then, of course, the Bolshevik revolutions and then the impact on the French revolutions, all that is. So we kind of have an intertwined destiny that makes Russia not an enemy, but more someone that we can work with. I have no, I have all the reason to believe that there is more to gain having Russia as a friend, as a partner, because technologically we have space program, Russian space program. We're very advanced in technology, nuclear technology. Russia is very advanced in nuclear technology. We have so many areas where we can, you know, richly move forwards, move forwards, get the best out of our people. And making sure that, you know, this detent, this politic of detent, create bonds that can not be broken. You know, that was the whole idea, you know, and to his Blinken's father, you know, Samuel Pizar was all about this. And this generation, Kissinger and all that, they were all on board, Brzezinski, all these guys, they understood that Russia was something special. And it's up to you to consider Russia as an enemy or Russia as a friendly nation, but you're going to have to work like any friendship. It's not given because we have our differences, we have our preconcept, but surely in the 21st century with all the tools that we've had so many French people outside of the country, so many Russian people outside of their own countries. We've mingled, we've met Russian people, we've met French people around the world, many have. So we've built these bridges and we've got to build upon it to make sure that this is how you avoid war and stupidity. Unfortunately, it just doesn't work for these elites, these elites have an author agenda that's quite clear. And I can tell you, I doubt any of our French elite aristocrat and politician will send their kids to a war against Russia. They'll send them, you know, probably in Florida or, you know, a nice place in Thailand, you know, but they aren't going to go fighting these guys. That's not our kids, that's for sure. I'll try, we won't let them happen, but yeah, that's just the old thing, it's ridiculous. Yeah, or maybe draw them from the former colonies, the way previous empires used to do. Yeah, it's a very important conversation, Fred, because we're constantly being blasted with these ideas, especially in the last year and a half that, you know, we've got to be ready to go to war. We see Jan Stoltenberg, the NATO Secretary General in his pencil neck suit, being all hawkish, you know, with the hands waving about NATO and what it's happy. I'm a bit shaky as well. Nice time to go off. Thank you. They've all understood that. Who's got his table himself, a central banker. And that's where he's going back. He's got a job waiting for him at the head of the Norwegian Central Bank. So, but they're constantly bigging up this war talk. And it's very good for politicians, makes them feel tough, makes them feel like, you know, they're sort of, you know, protecting the European population. They say, if we don't stop Putin in the Donbas, if Ukraine doesn't recover every last inch of its, you know, 1991 borders that Putin's going to be emboldened, and he's going to steamroll Poland. Then he's going to steamroll Western Europe, and then he's going to, like, end up wear on the shorts of Normandy preparing to launch an invasion of Britain. I mean, it's almost like this fetishization of the Second World War. They're saying, it's the Sudeten land all over again. He's looking for Lebensturm for the Russians. I mean, it's patently ridiculous. But yet, they persist with this rhetoric, and I find it to be at this point laughable, but it's not funny. That's the problem, Fred. It's not funny. It's dead serious. It is serious, and it's part of a bigger picture. So, it's a cult, you know. There's no other way you can describe it. I've not found any words that applies better than the word cult to what we're saying. This is a set of belief, right, which basically, in danger, there is a danger for the South Coast. There's a danger for these bankers of the world. There's people that have governed us for thousands of years. There's a danger, because the internet has awakened too many people, too soon. I mean, people don't know what to do with this knowledge and this, you know, this ability to communicate with one another, although we got pretty good at it. Look at us. But at the end of the day, I think when aristocrats, when elite fields, that they are going, you know, sprinting towards dangerous and unknown. They don't like unknown. They don't like unpredictable. They like to be in control. So, when you start to understand that control is everything, it's what basically motivates these people. It is what direct these people. And it's quite clear to me that all this supranational organization is about control. It's about maintaining this control. Why? Because of the multipolar worlds and the multipolar worlds is always predicted. I mean, I grew up, we were talking about the yellow peril. You know, the Chinese is going to invade France. We're all going to be speaking Chinese in 20 years, so the concept is not new. But in the reality, the economy, the world, the way it has been shaped over the last past 50 years clearly demonstrates unequivocally that other powers are starting to rival and more than rival to compete to the point that is endangering not the national security, but it's endangering with the very existence of this powerful block of people, aristocrat, elite politicians, bankers, you will put all these guys. And they've decided to not wait until to be eaten alive. They'd rather go offensive because that's what they do when you're scared and you don't know what's going to happen. You might as well go out there and try to give the guys a beating, bully them a little bit more, and hopefully they'll go down. But as we all saw with Ukraine and Russia, the plan didn't go down that well. It's a plan that went wrong. And when plan goes wrong, people die. That's exactly what I put in Ukraine. As you said, free, maybe 450s, who knows, contrast the media anymore, so you don't know. Nobody has really access to that. But eventually, these data will surface and we'll find out how much people on both sides really died for something that didn't need to happen. So that's what it is, Patrick. For us, as far as I'm concerned, this is people that are scared of losing control and they are prepared to destroy the world so that they can remain in power. That's what it is. Until someone comes that is stronger than them and I tell them, you can't do it. You can't do it any longer. You don't have that power anymore. You can't blame that in that league. And I think that's what we're seeing at the moment. What you say makes sense, Freddie, and it makes sense on a national level and an international level because they have no qualms about dismantling their own democracies. Look at what's happening in the United States. The Democratic Party desperate to stay in power basically destroyed the Democratic primaries to prevent anybody from even a minor candidate. From challenging Biden, they're doing presidential debates even before the DNC and the RNC national conventions, a total break. They're stacking up indictments to try to knock Donald Trump, the Republican out of the race through through the courts. Everywhere you turn, it's almost like this constitutional system of checks and balances. It's the thing everybody waves the flag for. It's the thing they go to war. They claim that they're going to work to defend the U.S. Constitution, but they're dismantling the U.S. Constitution. So if they're willing to do that to their own democratic systems, then what about internationally? World peace, stability, that's not a problem at that point. So it's a recklessness and I think you're right, it's on a national level, it's the staying power. On an international level, it's the staying power. And that's what we're looking at. It's kind of a terminal condition if you think about it. Yes, it is, and unfortunately, these kind of conditions, this kind of time that we are living does not bring the best of people to the power. You're going to have weak men, you're going to have perverted people, you're going to have psychopaths, you're going to have all sort of characters and people that will thrive and that will be promoted because they have no problem lying in your face. They have no problem in terms of plotting against their own people. They don't care about the American Constitution. They couldn't care less about it. If you do speak with people in this kind of level, you talk about Constitution, we're not asking. This is pretty much the mentality. We're done asking politely and we're done with that because it's unmanageable for them. They cannot go where they need to go by asking. They want to put it on you and tell you, go along with it, or you're going to be punished. There's going to be a price to pay for your arrogance or your defiance. That's really, really what people need you to awaken to is that we still have some kind of a bit of choice and we can still open our mouth. But in the greater things, in the bigger pictures, I think, if we keep on letting this happen, we might not have this for much longer because the levels of controls are in the wrong hands and in the hand of people that are not mentally stable and they don't have that humanity that you and I have and many others of our friends and colleagues have. And most of people have. They have a difference. They don't care. They care about what works for them, what can enrich them and their families and their love power. And that's what we are fighting. That's what we're exposing. But the window is closing. We need to push it down. We need people to start to really understand that. It is the future, our true freedom, our ability to take our destiny and make the changes that we want to see, not asking them to do it for us, to do it for ourselves. We're here with Freddie Ponton. He's an independent researcher and journalist. Great to have this kind of in studio discussion. Kind of different from what we normally do, which is we're hitting hard news and hard issues every week, Fred, and also, you know, you're also doing a lot of writing. You're very active on Twitter as well. You're doing reports there. You're also working on some, I think, important long-term investigations that takes a long time. You got to kind of get your heels stuck in for a year or two. This is something that used to happen a lot in journalism, not so much anymore. We'll talk about that after the break when we come back. And when we do, we're also going to bring up a couple of other important stories. We'll touch on a few more key stories, including the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which remains a mystery to so many people. So when we come back, we'll discuss that with Freddie Ponton, our guest, among other stories as we come into the final segment of Overdrive for the Sunday Wire. I'm your host, Patrick Kennington. We will be right back after this break. So enjoy this track from a great band called Red Rumble. We'll see you guys in a few minutes. We're in the final analysis. We all look at it. This is more of a planet, and we are more important. [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome back to the Sunday Wire. I'm your host, Patrick Kennington. We're streaming out live on the alternate current radio network and also at 21stcenturywire.com. Thank you so much for joining us on this live broadcast. We're also streaming out live on X, YouTube, Rumble, Facebook, Odyssey, and also on the audio podcasting platforms as well. It's a tremendous growth on the audio version of this program. We've been going for a little while. We've been going on this program on the Sunday Wire weekly since, I don't know, around September 2013. So, yeah, spend a while, spend a long run, had some great guests and some great people over the years. We've worked some fantastic relationships. We've done shows on the road. We broadcast live from places where they've never broadcast in English before internationally. We've done that on the road in Syria. We've done it in Iraq, with Lebanon in the United States, across Europe as well, other countries, Mexico. So, yeah, I've had an interesting in the Gulf as well, in the Middle East, Iran, Iran as well. So, yeah, we've done some interesting shows, and we're going to keep going. So, we do need your support for that. Those are you guys who do support us. We really appreciate it. If you go to our X, if you're watching on X, there's a donate option there at the top of my profile at 21 Wire, just click through and there's ways that you can support us. You can subscribe and become a member at 21 Wire.tv. That's one way you can help us as well. We really appreciate the support that we get. So, that's our shout out there. We've got some great affiliate sponsors as well. We'll hopefully familiarize you with some of those coming up soon. You're also probably seeing this program, the Patrick Hennings and show my program, other program on TNT. Today's news talk, Money to Friday. That is broadcast. We've got a new time slot, apparently this week. So, a little shuffle, little cabinet reshuffle on the schedule. So, we're going to be going out at a much more immacurable time for the US and Europe. We're going to be going at 6 p.m. UK time, 6 p.m. UK time. We'll start with an abbreviated show one hour. It might expand a little later on as they do some migration of content. But 6 p.m. UK time, and that is 1 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, EST, 1 p.m. EST. And if you're in Europe, yeah, if you're in Moscow, you're in the Middle East, you guys, so you'll like this new time slot. Definitely, we were the night shift really for the last 5 or 6 months in the Middle East. So, that's been an interesting, interesting experience broadcasting at that time slot. But anyway, catch us there at TNT radio.live. You can also catch us here on X. We're on the live stream as well during that time frame. So, again, thank you everybody for your support for joining us as well. This week on the Sunday Wire, and right now, very pleased to be in studio with our guest, Freddie Ponton. Live and direct, Freddie, it's been a great discussion. I'd like to do a longer one, but we're both kind of pressed for time. We've got other engagements we need to get to after this podcast. But suffice to say, it's great to talk to you outside of the news environment, like in a more relaxed sort of format. But we're still dealing with some heavy stories, and one of the ones that you've done some very good research on up to date. And by no means are you finished with this story, but the Nord Stream pipeline story, and we've discussed this before on the air, and also amongst colleagues, that let's not, let's not underestimate what it is. This is, no, to me, it's no less significant than 9/11. It's no less significant than the Gulf of Tonkin, and Vietnam. Add a few more metaphors, Freddie, in terms of the significance of this story, firstly, and I don't think we know quite nearly as much about it as we think we do. There's a lot more to learn regarding this story. I'm sure you agree. So, I mean, is it on par with 9/11? And it's kind of creepy that the mainstream and politicians are avoiding this story. I can't imagine why they would be avoiding it, Freddie. It seems to have been an open and shut case. They found a 50 foot sailboat with some Ukrainian crack super soldiers. A case closed, right, Freddie? Yes, absolutely, Patrick. It's a fantastic story. There's a lot of fantastic things that I've been said about the Nord Stream pipeline where you want to call it a sabotage or an act of terrorism. Look, I've been looking into this for a year and a half now, and I've discovered many inconsistencies in terms of the way the story was presented to us. So, it has kind of really grasped my imaginations, and of course, I feel concerned because I'm European after all, and this is happening in our backyard. But despite the fact that this is local, it's just a fact that this was allowed to happen without really anyone asking the right questions, really all the investigation, the mainstream media, the documentaries that has been made about the Nord Stream pipeline and then off this kind of offshoot narratives that has been promoted as basically the story to believe about the Andromeda and this 50 foot, 50 foot sailing boats crossing the Baltic Sea, the middle of kind of NATO exercises, you know, like nothing happened, and the whole story about this Ukrainian rock diving shawrinsky team, you know, who've been involved in that. None of it is making sense, none of it actually stood scrutiny because it's all in the details and when you really start to look into the details of the events that took place on the 26th of September 2022 and then, of course, before that, you start to understand that this is much bigger than what we've been told, and there's many, many different reasons, many different motives for that to have taken place. And that's what I was interested in, I was interested to understand exactly what we are looking at, and is it possible that this yelling yield, this selling boat sorry was involved in deploying divers, multiple sites across the Baltic Sea and placing explosive on the pipeline to trigger them a bit later on. It just didn't make any sense because of the boat, because of the timing, because of many, many operational details that just simply doesn't add up. Now, I'm not a professional military diver, I have a little knowledge, but not a huge amount of knowledge. So, I thought it was interesting to speak with those that actually know more than I do. And that's what I've been doing for the year, speaking with divers and people in the various the special operation. You know, people that know how to put together this operation, people in the United States, people in Europe, with various walk of life, various military experience. And it was clear to me by at least end of 2023 that there was a consensus about looking at these operations are something that really requires a huge amount of preparations and planning. And when you start to dig into that and understand what it really takes for an operation like this to take place in one of the most survell waters in the world, then clearly this story of Andromeda starting to become more and more irrelevant. Now, I thought I was probably one of the few people thinking that this is not making any science, but you even have Washington Post, very quickly reporting on the German investigations, establishing that this boat is certainly not the boat that was involved and rather more decoyed than anything else than other vessels and other people were involved in the job. And that's not me saying it as anybody can shake on the Washington Post. It's written in black and white, and it also explains the cover of which I believe will be able to explain in details why there is actually a huge cover up in Germany about disinvestigations under details of disinquiry by the BND, by the federal intelligence services and by the law enforcement. So it's very interesting to see how the government of Germany has actually almost went after their own people with launching an internal inquiry to understand and trying to stop people from speaking out, because as soon as people that were close to the investigations were starting to open their mouth and saying to say, "Look, what we are saying here, that's not computing. This is nowhere. This was done by the Andromeda. This was just a decoy story, just for the show, but something much bigger happened. And I think that's what I've tried to do over more than a year and a half now is to put it together. The real story of Nord Stream pipeline. And if you want to do that properly, then you obviously need to look into the geopolitical context, you need to understand the story of Nord Stream 1, how come we move from such a successful story with Germany, with European Parliament, European Council, everybody's backing up the Nord Stream 1 pipeline. Everybody wants it. It's good for business. It's good for Germany. It's good for Europe. Everybody's behind it. Of course Ukraine was a little bit upset. Poland was a little bit upset. I'll call it a problem of national security when it's not a national security issue. At all, it's business and some people will win. Some people will lose out, but to call that a problem of threat or national security threat is just simply an hyperbolic. And the data clearly shows that there was no threat whatsoever. The only threat there was is actually Poland very much involved in trying to undermine the project on the ground in the Baltic Sea. And we have the data of that. We have intermediations and very sort of maneuvers and military maneuvers trying to hinder the progress of the Nord Stream 1. But eventually, this project's sort of Diana's a very powerful project. It provides stability as far as energy stability for countries like especially for Germany, but other countries benefited from that. So there was no issue with getting cheap gas from Russia into Europe until it became a problem. And it became a problem with Nord Stream 2. So Nord Stream 1 is on one side. It's one project. And then in parallel, you have another project that comes later on with the constructions of the Nord Stream 2, where the Russians are forced to eventually basically sprint towards finishing the project because the sanctions, the economic sanctions are starting to pile up. And we can clearly see that something has changed, that Russia suddenly as part of the United States National Defense Strategy has become now a priority with China. So they become this near-peer adversary for the United States. And it's quite clear from the 2018 NDS, the National Defense Strategy, and all the various documents and annex on irregular warfare, it's in return. It's in black and white. It is really about shifting this policy towards basically stopping anything Russian, anything Chinese. It's really about going after these two. And whatever it takes, whether it's a war, whether it's a sabotage, whether it's a terrorism, it really doesn't matter. All the lessons that have been learned over the years from 2011 onwards were towards fighting terrorism. And we can clearly see that in 2018, there was a shift about attacking Russian and Chinese interests. They were become the people. They were the countries to take down. And it's an economic war. It's about destabilizing these countries, penalizing, punishing these countries. Not if committed any crime. It's just because they're in convenience. They become too powerful, too organized. And more importantly, they're getting way too close to Germany. And I think that all idea of having Germany and Russia to close is something that NATO and the United States will never allow. It's just not simply not something that they would. So not to fit into that equations. It's about this paradigm, this shift in policies where Russia has to go down. And if we need to basically penalize them with sanction, that's not enough to scare them away. We're going to take them straight to this, you know, the punishment will be done. We'll go kinetic, and it will go on to the infrastructures that feed anything that Russia is trying to achieve, whether it's the bricks, or simply basically the special operation when they started in 2022. So this is not new, but it's clearly, you know, part of the biggest story. And you cannot look at no stream sabotage, you know, in the vacuum of what happened on the 26th of September 22. It's a much bigger story, it's more complex. It is complex from a geopolitical point of view, and it's far more complex, as far as the operational aspect of this, this mission. So that's what I've done. And I think it has been a huge adventure, because I've realized how complex and how much work has been put into that to deceive the people to, you know, to hide away the truth. Because it's an inconvenient truth, and the bigger problems that I have with this no stream sabotage is the fact that it's happening with, you know, the complicit at least of another two or three states with the United States. So it's happening with the complicity of European states that are on board of this story and that we're happy to help enable and allow this to happen, and more importantly for this crime to remain unpunished. So that's where I am, I'm going to go out there live with this report. It's going to be extremely comprehensive, and it's going to be very difficult to challenge it, because the facts are the facts, and they speak for themselves. And we enough work with enough research, we managed to put something together, that is going to be very difficult to challenge, and it's going to point their fingers are more than one states. And that's all I would say for today, but what I can tell you is that more than one state involved in this no stream sabotage, and we can demonstrate that. It's very important because some super national authorities like the United Nations and others will be forced to look into it. They won't be able to ignore it. And that's what I'm trying to achieve as a journalist as a researcher is just to bring the fact and demonstrate that there's enough, enough on the plate, right, to start to ask the heart question, because right now with Denmark, as you saw in Sweden, closing the investigation. Earlier this year, only Germany remains open, but we already know Germany has already set their mind on this Andromeda story, which is the boat that is sinking every time you talk about it, or you move in it, it just cannot hold water. So, they're going to have to fail to face the truth, and when the truth comes out and the fact and the evidence comes out, I think it's going to be, I think, the hope, anyway, that the Nord Stream sabotage and the discussions and investigation will come from different people, away from, you know, conflict of interest, and people that must see it, you know, through the lens of an investigator's and been independent in their research and their assessment and been able to come up with conclusions and let the cheatful where they may. And that's what it needs to happen, because we cannot let this go unpunished. This is an act of terrorism, if not an act of war, and allowing this to happen sets of very dangerous precedents, precedent that will allow, basically, anyone involved behind a crime of such nations to feel and to think that it's okay to come in Europe and blow a key infrastructure, and if they can do it at the bottom of the Baltic Sea, they can certainly do it on any more dangerous assets like nuclear power plant and so on and so forth. So, we need to draw the line, and we need to remind our authorities on the national level and on an international level that we cannot allow that to happen, because it's plain dangerous, and it's unacceptable, and it's an international crime. And that's where I will leave it to die. This cannot go unpunished, and we're going to make sure, because we're not alone into that, and a lot of people have knowledge, have informations, we just need to put it together in a format that is acceptable on an international platform, and making sure it goes wide so that we can tell the true story of what happened, and making sure that those that were behind it are brought to justice. That's all I want to see. I want justice, because this is not acceptable, not in the 21st century, not for any reason, for any means, for any motives. It's a crime, it's just the crime, it's deliberate, it's reckless, and it needs to be punished. And that's not even to say about the economic damage that's been done to European countries, the cost of energy, fuel poverty, the flight of industry, away from Europe. I mean, huge, huge problems, and it's very detrimental on many different levels to Europe. And there are those in Washington and London and elsewhere in Paris too that believe that that's a necessary price to pay to somehow keep the Russians out of Europe, keep their gas out, keep their oil out. We're going to wrap up in a moment, but you were talking about the geopolitical context of this, and I think your analysis is very good. And unless you do the deep research on this, unless you do the deep research, you will know that there is a doctrine change in the West, and NATO, a doctrine change, regarding near peer competitors. And this is a doctrine change specifically tailored to the Nordstrom pipeline projects. And when you understand that, and I think you do understand this, Fred, because you basically elucidated this very point, just a few minutes ago, when you do understand this, you begin to realize that this wasn't a choice. According to Western geopolitical doctrines, the United States led doctrines. This was not a choice. If they couldn't stop the Nordstrom pipelines, i.e. direct supply of energy between Russia and Europe without going through middlemen countries like Ukraine, if they couldn't stop this through sanctions, which they could not fully. There's all sorts of legal problems with this in the courts precedent. There is only one option left. And that was, as you said, Freddie, the kinetic option. That's right. And that's what happened. When you understand this, the mystery doesn't become, it ceases to be a mystery at that. It almost looks predictable, but you can't understand this unless you can see the full political, geopolitical, economic, not just military. No, you need to see all of these different aspects. As you said, Freddie, this is a very complex story, incident, it's extremely complex. It's unheard of in our time. The level of structure, the mixing of various chain of commands, the political support. I mean, all the ingredients that are required in order for something of such natures to go through is, yeah, there's a lot of implications, which are, of course, dangerous. And I think it's going to, a lot of people are going to start to do it, to really think twice about who will you run the show, you know, and how they run it, because the bigger picture here is, is revealed in the aftermath as well as the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage. The Nord Stream one was not fully destroyed, there's still one, one part of Nord Stream one that is still today could be pressurized and deliver gas to Germany to Europe. So why Germany is not interested in doing it if Germany thought that with a victim of sabotage yet there are still a way to get the gas from Russia to Europe, but nobody is interested in doing this. Today you get the answers at all level of the investigation in the aftermath. If this was a problem for Germany and Germany felt that they were victim, surely they would want to reengage with Russia immediately and say, well, we're lucky they didn't get that side, let's repressurize that pipe and let's get the gas flowing. The gas is still flowing Europe is still getting Russian gas, you know, they're still from Turkey that's coming through for Ukraine a little bit as well so there's still gas coming from Russia it's not stop the business from going through. So why is this so special about the Nord Stream pipeline itself. Why they had to go after this pipeline that is the real question why because the gas is still flowing and you could still flow today. So what's going on there, and that's really, unless you can answer that question, you cannot answer any other question doesn't matter how many built ways above the crime scene and how many data you're going to gather from, you know, satellite or as it doesn't matter. All that is the indicators that might help you, you know, to finalize a little bit your investigation, but unless you can get that story right. You don't have an investigation, you know, and that's why I was very interested is not going after all these, you know, data analysis and plotting routes, some people are extremely good at doing that and that as, as I say, an important role to play an investigation. And only if you have your story together, and that needs basically research that needs proper investigation, that is a lot of time speaking with people knowledgeable. So that's you, you work in the real world of how an operation like the Nord Stream sabotage goes down. If you understand the process, the mechanisms and how it's put together and what it takes, then you don't have a story and if you don't have a story, it doesn't matter how much data you have from satellite or for terrestrial data. It doesn't matter because that can be tempted with. So get the story first and then eventually later you can get your satellite data that confirm your, your hypothesis, but your story should be so strong that you wouldn't even need to get the data. The story is strong enough and if you got it right. And I think we're pretty much there. Yeah, so there's, there's, there's a bigger, there's a bigger conversation to be had around Nord Stream and look, look forward to hearing more about this, you know, in the coming weeks and months and there's a lot at stake. Fred, let's not kid ourselves, you know, we're talking about the Third World War potential triggers in Ukraine in the Middle East. We're talking about major economic deprivation. If some of these things are not addressed, you know, we're talking about the future generations. And, you know, what they stand to gain or lose by the decisions made by today's political operatives. So I don't think it's an exaggeration to say this is very important. And really, when you drill down to it, I'll say this again because it's worth repeating. It's, it's consequential. And I think it's on the level of 9/11 in terms of a paradigm shift. Very important to, to understand this. And I think, I think your, your research does show this. And more importantly, we get closer to accountability. People want some accountability. Will they get it? Is another question. But at least, at least we have institutions. They need to be tested. They need to be tested. And I think this is what this effort is really designed to do. We can only do so much as journalists and researchers. But we have institutions, but they must be tested. Otherwise, what's the point? Exactly. That's exactly it. I mean, there's an appetite. You know, there's no doubt about that. Anytime when you mention Nord Stream, people, their eyes open up and they're like, tell me more. I want to know them. But as I said, sometime you, you, you have to stay quiet. You have to stay silent. I was hoping to, to issue the reporter earlier this year. But I decided not to simply because I want to get it to the point that it's almost impossible. Not to address it for any large institution, counterterrorism department sections. These people will take these documents and will have to look into it and admit that this cannot just be, you know, just disregarded. You know, because if you put what I'm going to present, again, what has been proposed with the Andromeda story, there's no, you know, there's no photo shot. It's, it's, it's quite clear that what we're dealing with is very different from what we've been told. And, and that's after, you know, those that are responsible to bring justice or to apply justice, whether it's the ICC, the United Nations, doesn't matter. There are institutions there. Will they provide, will they prevail? Will justice prevail? Are they still capable of entertaining justice, entertaining the truth? Or is the truth too inconvenient that everybody has to keep quiet because it is just too dangerous. It's, it is unsettling the balance of power in the world. That's what the Nord Stream is. It has the possibility of unsettling, really unsettling, the battle of power and especially native. So it's a very exciting time here for us journalists, you know, we like this kind of stories and we like this investigation. It's complex about your mind and sometimes you feel you're progressing, sometimes you feel that, you know, you're, you're literally stuck here, not going anywhere. But eventually you get to see the light and when you do, it's, it's, it's really exciting. And I think that a lot of people that are completely passionate about it, you know, like the 911, some people have dedicated their life way off to the 911 to find the truth. And they, they were lucky to, to gather a lot of support, you know, from professional, from architect, from, you know, engineers. And that's what we need for the Nord Stream. We need the professionals, you know, because people are very scared about talking about what they know, especially if you speak with militaries and different, you know, circles. They, they tends to be a bit cautious, you know, they don't want their name out. They know the price, you know, someone can pay for, for giving up too much information. But I think we're at a time with a report like that. And if we can get the weight of independent journalists, analysts, anyone that has really the credentials and has the credibility that they can, and they feel happy to, to add to this report, then I think we can go somewhere. And if we can go a long way, I think, that's, that's what we need to do. It's not just one journalist that's going to break the news. Look, Cyprus came out with his investigation. What are the consequences of, of Cyrus apart from maybe the Russians saying, look, we get this story. His guy is American. He's a legend. How can you deny everything he said, you know, you know, and, and did they actually prove him wrong? Was he proven wrong? Is there inconsistency in this story? All that are valid questions, but killing the divide and saying the guy is stopping nonsense and it's all gibberish and, you know, and conspiracy theory is just insulting for the intelligence. Every question has an answer. And I think an investigation that approached these questions from a pragmatic point of view with strong evidence and direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. I think could add to the, you know, to help anyone or investigators like stuff to get closer to the truth. We need people to stop to talk because people know what happened that I can guarantee you. Some people know exactly what happened and we need them to talk. Freddie Ponton, independent researcher, journalist, follow him on X Twitter at LFC news media. We'll put his Twitter handle down there just along the bottom of our lower third, our Chiron. But again, I want to thank you for being available for this. I think a very important interview, but also for us to get a chance to, you know, hear some of your more intricate views on all these important subjects. And thank you for the work you do as well, Freddie. I think a lot of people are grateful for, you know, the effort that you put in. And we're here to educate to enlighten. And I think you're doing a great job there. So again, thank you for joining us on this Sunday wire, this episode, 510 a memorable one, a memorable one. But thank you very much, Freddie. It has been a pleasure. Great to be with you, Patrick, as always. There he goes, ladies and gentlemen, that is Freddie Ponton joining us here. For our part, we're going to wrap up this episode special podcast, one of our special road broadcasts here, definitely memorable and also really informative as usual. And thank you guys for tuning in. Thank you to everybody on X on Facebook on Odyssey, rumble YouTube. We really appreciate it support 21st century wire. We are an independent media outlet platform podcast live radio as well, doing great investigative work, written work to which you'll find those archives on our website 21st century wire.com. But that's all we've got time for today, folks. So from all of us and our team here at the program. Thank you so much. And we'll catch you guys during the week Monday to Friday. I'll be on TNT, starting at 6pm UK time this week Monday, Friday, catch us there. And again, next week for the Sunday wire. Hopefully we'll have something special lined up for everybody there. All the best. [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] When you earn your degree online at Arizona State University, you get everything. The nation's most innovative university has to offer. The same internationally recognized faculty, the same nationally ranked programs, the same degree, learn more at asuonline.asu.edu. As a major research institution, Arizona State University offers the most online bachelor's degree programs, along with world-class faculty and dedicated support. Discover why ASU is ranked number one in innovation for nine consecutive years. Tap to learn more.
