back and choose today's news talk radio TNT. All right, folks. Welcome back. We're still in the first hour here at TNT today's news talk. Great discussion. Of course, with TNT's political editor Basil Valentine, nobody really has their finger on the pulse like Basil does. This is why we really enjoy talking to him, especially about UK politics and also what's happening in Europe. Basil also has his finger on that pulse as well. But somebody else who is in close proximity to the machinations of European elites, the EU and NATO is our next guest. He's an independent researcher, a journalist. He's also a contributor at 21st centurywire.com. Freddy Ponton joining us right now on the live link. Freddy, great to have you with us this week. Hey, it's good to be here, Patrick. Thank you for having me. Freddy, what can I say? I want to kick off and get your comment on NATO. There are announcements that Jan Stoltenberg, who's been occupying that chair for quite a long time, is going to be replaced by Mark Hoot from the Netherlands. And all I can say is like that sign on, we'll bring this picture up on this NATO picture up on screen here. But it's like that sign, Freddy, you ever see that new management, new management? And then parentheses, same as the old management. And as I tweeted recently this week, they've managed to pull off the Eurobot cloning experiment. It's complete. We have a new clone of Jan Stoltenberg from the Netherlands. What do you know about this guy? And what does this mean? Or does it mean anything? Well, it means a lot and it doesn't mean a lot at the same time. I think we got used to Jan Stoltenberg and his crazy statements and his reticle hands. I call it an anarchic hands. He's someone extremely nervous. And I've obviously never been a big fan of Jan Stoltenberg because simply, what he stands for and how he explains and the lack of, I would say, maturity in his discourse. We might disagree on the political aspect of it, but at least from a top leader of an organization such as NATO, you would expect some form of diplomacy, some form of coherence and common sense as well. But we can clearly see that these are people that are being closed by the United States and Mark Rutter is not going to be any different in that respect. Now, of course, we need to look a little bit further for Mark Rutter because he's less known. I mean, people have talked a lot about Jan Stoltenberg, but it's really interesting to understand a little bit more Mark Rutter as a possible Secretary-General of NATO. So, right now, what's happening is we have last week in Budapest, the NATO Secretary-General, Jan Stoltenberg, who basically announced that he was stepping down in October, but he wanted to get a deal with the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Oban to ensure that Oban would not block NATO plans for Ukraine. And the deal was very clear that Oban will only do that and not vet vital, basically Mark Rutter on the strength of an agreement. So, it's important to understand that NATO takes all its decisions by consensus and giving any of the 32 members, basically, veto power. So, at this moment in time, there's only two countries. There was, until yesterday, Bulgaria, and then still Romania is remaining as a possible veto power here to stop Mark Rutter from becoming the next Secretary-General of NATO. But that's, of course, very interesting. We saw Mark Rutter basically agreeing pretty much on all the requirements from Viktor Oban, and that's basically been inked. So, at this moment in time, I think he's got a clear go ahead from Viktor Oban. We'll see how Romania evolves. I mean, I don't see any real problem as far as Romania is concerned to let Mark Rutter go ahead with this position. So, of course, the real question, Patrick, is what should we be expecting from someone like Mark Rutter? I think that's the question that perhaps from your side of the world in the United States, people are going to want to know who's these guys. He's not known. He's known to European to a certain degree internationally, but in the United States, probably people will be wondering who's these guys and what should be expecting. Now, he's definitely, I mean, the bottom line, he's a very strong ally to Ukraine. He's a very strong critic of the Russian presidents. So, nothing is going to change on that front. And I suspect it might even be worse than what we have with Jens Staltenberg. So, that's where we are at the moment. And then, of course, we need to understand how these Secretary-General are vetted. How do you actually get the job? Why Mark Rutter? Why not someone else? And it's quite clear that the United States has a huge input in the decisions and they need to find someone that's going to take the knee at Washington, D.C. and make sure that these guys feel fulfilled to major criteria. One being pro-Israeli, that's absolutely 100%. And the second is to be absolutely pro-Ukraine. And then the rest is to be part of this global consortium, this global, make America, make the United Kingdom great again, build back better and all this great new set nonsense. This is a big family and they all know each others. And if you're not a member of the club, there's absolutely no way they're going to entrust you with a job like Secretary-General of NATO. So, no surprise, as I say for the candidate, perhaps on a more personal level, I think it's interesting to understand the career of the man. I can give you a very quick snapshot because it's very telling as well. And perhaps it's going to supply a few people in your audience. But Rutter basically was elected as a member of the parliament two months before the invasion of Iraq and he supported basically the 2003 invasion. And soon after, he became a junior minister and a leader of the free market conservative party known as the VVD in the Netherlands that was in 2007. And then three years later, in 2010, he became prime minister in the most right wing Dutch governments since 1945, which was supported by Gerd Welder's freedom party. And that's very telling because we're also builders basically is tracking a massive win last year during the general election in the Netherlands. Although it was not possible for him to rule because the Netherlands political landscape is extremely fractured and unless you're going to have a strong coalition, there's no way you can govern. And that is the reason why it did not take the job. So it's interesting to understand that Mark Rutter is really, really held a Myers film in furthering the mainstreaming of far-right ideologies and movements, if you will, in the Netherlands. So that's something that is important to understand because explained Dora Poshma with Netanyahu, Mark Rutter's basically, from September, October the 7th onwards, it was very, very loud about completely supporting Israel, being very, very much basically going in the sense of Israel at the right to defend itself and so on and so forth, visited Israel, went to Ramallah. This is someone that is extremely involved in this international scene and clearly is seen as a very strong delight to Israel even from Netanyahu. So here we go. You've got a man that is obviously have very strong views, very strong political stance and I think this is quite unbelievable because we've seen the European Union doing everything they can to basically salvage whatever there is to salvage at the European Commission and at the European Council to protect themselves from the surge of white populist parties, if you will, and you get at NATO someone that clearly thrives into the far-right environment. So that's a bit of a, you know, something that is a bit of a dichotomy, if you will. Yeah, no, the Dutch political scene, one must pay attention to this, Freddie, because as we both know, the Netherlands is one of the unsung financial centers of Europe, there is a lot of money that moves in and out of the Netherlands. A lot of power is there financially global shipping, NATO manufacturing. It's still very, very important in that respect plus an elite class that really counts itself at the top of the European pile along with all the top British and German elites and royalty as well and they're also a big feature at Bilderberg. So if you look at Bilderberg and how important that is for the Atlantis' block, the Netherlands are right there and on the top table of that organization. But I look at this changing of the guard, as it were, at NATO, is a big steam release for Jan Stoltenberg. So much bad energy has been built up. He will be, if he stays any longer, he'll be partly blamed for the debacle that's unfolding with Ukraine. And so he's done all he can to basically prod, poke, and provoke Russia and then just before, just after announcing, they need to activate more nuclear weapons on European soil. He literally makes a runner for the door. I mean, this is just so typical of these people. So just to avoid any blame, a little public steam release on this, and off he goes to the Norwegian Central Bank. So from NATO to the head of a central bank, isn't that amazing? Well, these guys have no spine. You know, we're not talking about leaders here. There's nothing, and there's no leadership in display. What we have is people that accept to be pawn. And when you're a pawn, you know you're going to be sacrificed, only a matter of time, in the geopolitical landscape, in the geopolitical chess board, you just a pawn and you will be sacrificed. So they accept that from day one. Marc Ruto will accept exactly the same thing. But they intend from themselves, they intend because they are a huge ego and these are people that are extremely politically that are very strong views, whether it's about Russia or it's about Israel, it doesn't matter. They are extremely strong views and they've been exploited, they've been proven to these positions and they entrusted. They entrusted because they've been basically consistent with their message and with their political career. So there's no much surprise. That's why we don't see leadership because these are very predictable people. No, indeed. Now, on the NATO front, Freddie, I want to get your opinion. We'll go to break in a minute and we got more to discuss after that. But there is a sort of opposition block that's built in NATO now. And the spine of that really starts with Victor Orban in Hungary and then Robert Fizzo, who everybody knows by now in his attempted assassination attempt on his life, he survived in Slovakia. And then we also have in the same neighborhood, Alexander Vucic, not a NATO member, not an EU member, but prospective EU member and allied with Russia. He's made a very strong speech, basically saying it's too late to stop the wheels of war. The elites in Europe have already decided the establishment that they're going to war with Russia and there's going to be a tremendous suffering and damage as a result. I mean, that was a pretty stark warning is a long statement. I think at least five or six minutes or something like that, he really lays out what the issue is. So, I mean, it's not as if it's completely unanimous, Freddie. There are dissenters in Europe. And the question is, do you see any other countries joining that dissenting block in central Europe against what everybody thinks is an inevitable war? Well, it's a tricky question because it is so political, you know, before being has nothing to do with NATO, you have to look at the political family of Europe. And clearly today, you still have 11 countries in Europe that are part of the EPP block, which is the center right for European political party. So, if you and that family, you go alongside whatever goes. So, there is no change that's going to happen there, because you're going to have, and you're going to want to have your champion at the European Commission or the European Council or the chief foreign policies like Joseph Boris, for example, in the European Council. So, this is what dictates really, NATO has a repulsion of, if you will, the European Union. So, all the decisions that are made, whether they are political, geopolitical or military, they always have, and they always carry with them, a European kind of political agenda behind it. And this has to be a line. And where you see the crack is where already there's already crack with the European Union. So, that's how we can predict, perhaps, what will be the next crack, which the next country to give in, in terms of, you know, moving away from NATO. And it will build up even more over the next few years, at least for the next five years, because we can clearly see, I mean, we saw last night, you know, the entire European families, you know, 27 countries coming together, trying to talk about, you know, how to protect themselves from the far, the far right populist movements and wings and political parties across Europe that are surging and that are usually smashing it and marking points. This is something they cannot ignore, because within five years time, if these people are allowed to mark points, deliver on their program, if they're allowed to, well, there's going to be some serious reshuffling going on, you know, India, at least the European block a political landscape, but also nationally speaking. So, it's a major political kind of renaissance, if you will, whether we like it or not, we cannot ignore it. And I think in this process of Europe reinventing this political landscape, we're going to see a lot of dissonance with NATO and the European Union. So, something to expect, yeah, it brings up a lot of interesting patterns in history, Freddie, I'll throw this out there. Actually, I want to draw a comparison to the years leading up to Second World War, and I want to get your opinion on this. Obviously, we're talking about the machinations of the EU in NATO and some of the political trends that, quite frankly, are undeniable. A lot of the people decrying these trends, Freddie will call them the far right. And we'll say as the old saying goes, not far right, just right so far. But it's interesting, if you look in history, what usually drives these types of trends is an economic recession, or a back-to-back recession, or depression, and a crisis in the cost of living, devaluation of the currency. We saw this, the reparations imposed, and penalties imposed on Germany after the Treaty of Versailles in World War I basically created the conditions for a radical national socialist agenda, or the Nazi Party is an example. We could talk about Italy as well with the rise of fascism in the interwar period there. But what's interesting, what happened in history, is the United States basically harnessed that. They bankrolled the Nazi war machine. Even during the beginning of the Second World War, there was still being financed and supported by the US. It wasn't until the US entered in 1941, at the end of 1941, that maybe that overt support ceased for IG Farben and all these various industries that are being bankrolled by the Union Bank of New York. George Bush's grandfather, by the way, Prescott Bush, Henry Ford, ITT, IBM, the list is endless. US corporations backing Hitler. It seemed like in that case, the US realized this, rode that wave, got the European countries to fight each other as a result, and then marched in as the savior, and then swept up the ashes of the disaster afterwards, and basically took over Europe after the Second World War. Let's not kid ourselves. Look at the dominance of US financial institutions, the Marshall Plan, the occupation of Germany, France, and Spain, Italy, all occupied Britain even by US military forces for many decades. Germany still somewhat occupied Freddie. So what I'm saying, Freddie, is this is an undeniable trend. There is a rising right wing in Europe. It's not going away, Freddie, is it? But what will happen? Would the US want to harness it, steer it, and then create some type of an outcome, maybe a war, in order to engineer some type of an outcome that they might benefit at the end? What are your thoughts on this, Freddie? Well, the problem this time around is the US has always been involved in European affairs, in NATO affairs. This has been since the Second World War, and it's quite clear after the fall of the Berlin War, the United States should have gone home. But they never left, so they had to find a way to justify the presence, whether it was from a military point of view, from a security point of view, but then later on, different phases of court, as in long discussions. But it's clearly about keeping control of the overall political and geopolitical agenda coming out of Europe, making sure that the communists is not going to get into it, making sure the Chinese are not going to benefit from the thriving Europe, and then controlling the reconstructions of Europe, controlling every aspect of the developments. But on the way, obviously, a lot of things happen. Germany rebuilt itself extremely strongly, managed to put back an economy on the rail very quickly and becoming a very strong, strong power, not only in Europe, but around the world. So this is a country that definitely the United States has kept an eyes on, really kind of keep the lead on, if you will, making sure that at any time, depending on which party really is on board, it's irrelevant from the United States. What matters is that there is a control, the level of control that available to them, and they always are. But we are dealing in a different era at the moment, because we are dealing with a global environment where the United States is in danger, is in danger, the Egyman is not working as it used to, and there are contenders. After the reconstructions, after the Second World War, there was no literally contenders, because there were so many people dead, and economies were collapsed. So it was about rebuilding, it was about injecting money, there was a lot of business opportunities, and the spirits, and the climate was completely different. So after the Second World War, there was a desire for peace. When you go through so much blood, so much suffering, people wanted peace, and there is no way you could have done anything unless you were promoting peace. So there was a beautiful 30-40 years where America played a role, but understood, and had the political acumen, had the political leadership that allows for peace. Today, the different animals we got in the Washington DCs, I couldn't care less about peace, they care about the Benjamin, they care about how much money and how rich they can get in the process. So the political tendency, the political reparations of dealing with far-right surge movements in Europe, I wouldn't say we must have their priorities, their priorities to maintain their people, those that build up the relationship with over the years in Germany, in France, in Netherlands, in Italy, and having these people under control. And you cannot, you cannot just control the left, and thinking the right will never be able to do something. That would be a huge mistake. So what you do is you bet on both sides, and that's exactly what happened after the Second World War, what happened during the World War, and that's what will happen within the next five years. The United States will not put all the eggs in the same basket. They'll understand the political landscape, they'll understand the demands, because these political parties exist, because they're, as you said, there is a demand, they fill a purpose, they provide basically what the other parties, what the left, are spelled to provide, and the lack of security, economic growth, and they're going to recoup all these little thematic and rhetoric and being able to build upon. And that's why it takes longer for the right and what this kind of movement to take root, if you will. And when they do, they don't move, they're very strong, and Macron knows that, von der Leyen knows that, all the globalist community in general knows that, and it's going to be very difficult to fight them, because it's a popular movement, it's what the people wants, and normally there's going to be a clash. And that's what we're going to see. We'll see that von der Leyen, you're still von der Leyen, talked about it during an interview with the build last week, when she talked about Macron's plan for France, why, and what was the reason behind him calling the snap elections after dissolving the National Assembly, explaining that the ultimate goal is to obviously bring chaos, because that's the only way they're going to be able to assert the power, if there is chaos, which they can, again, grab upon emergency power. And we can clearly see that in two different ways. First, Macron's plan is very clear. It's about, he knows he's going to lose poverty, the selection, and he's going to bring in basically the young Jordan Bardell, it's very talented, don't have to agree with everything he said, he's got good ideas, he's got obviously a lack of political experience, but this is someone that has the capacities, he's very much loved by many people in France, including the woman, seems to have a great appeal to women in France, but this is also very interesting, because we can clearly see that Macron's, if you will, mentality, the spirit behind his fight back is not about just letting the democratic process takes place. He wants to destroy it from inside, and the idea is to bringing basically the national rally into governance, and having them fell, and basically making sure that they're going to impede the process all along. A little bit like, basically, Trump, when he got into the prison financial office in his mandate, he basically couldn't do anything. He was hammered, he was basically all the time on the attack. That's basically the plan for Macron is to burn the national rally within them sitting in the government sits, and then from that, manage enough chaos and create the chaos in France, so that they can basically recoup that position. So you see, we give them a chance, they're really not good at anything. You need us, and that's exactly what's going to happen, and now we know it, and it's been confirmed by us to live on the line. So I think what we are clearly going to see over the next few months is a rise in chaos in France, in Germany. We don't start to see the springing, these groups left, right doesn't matter where they come from. We don't know where they're going to come from, but they're definitely going to go and make it difficult for the national rally to perform or to prove themselves. So yes, it's there. I think Freddie, the evidence is in your favor on this, and again, I'm going to look at the Financial Times recently. They sort of gave the game away. The headline says it all, Freddie, and it's right along the lines of what you're talking about. Headline says this, Brussels to chide France over deficit spending as clash looms, but the sub-ad is the important part. EU officials fear bigger battle with Paris on budget rules if, quote, far right, or far left, take power after the election. So at the ECB level, the European Central Bank, they suddenly turn on their fire alarm just as the national rally is coming in to challenge their guy, which is the banker's guy is Emmanuel Macron. So he's the one that overspent. He created the budget deficit, but they're going to blame the national rally for suddenly the poor economic performance of France. So this is a rigged game, Freddie, and the most. Yeah, go ahead. It is. Yeah, it's called engineering financial and fiscal panic. That's what this guy is doing. They, although they're not political in nature, but their role will be to smoothen basically a newly elected government to make sure that when they come into power, they're not going to let basically deal the borrowing costs or let basically interest rates go, you know, to record highs. Like it happens in Italy with Milani. When she got into power, you saw the market got absolutely mad and the borrowing costs were just skyrocketing. And they let it high until she eventually capitulated and took her knee and say, okay, I'm going to adopt the European political economy, immigration agenda. And that's it. She was, she was done. She was, she was cooked. So what's going to happen here? It's going to be pretty much the same. If the national rally in France of Marine Le Pen is elected on the 7th of July, we already see it. I mean, we didn't have to wait. They didn't even wait straight from the moment Macron called for the year to snap election. You consider markets go a wire. And that is simply because the European Central Bank is not doing its job. The market react, always react, but it really reacts to the extremely when the European Central Bank is not doing its job. And that's exactly what happened. And that's what happened on the 7th of July and the days after, if the national rally wins, they're going to play. They're going to blackmail basically this engineering of financial and fiscal panic. And then, of course, the media plays an important role. They'll do exactly what they did for COVID. They're going to inject a nice little amount of fear and panic in the country. So everybody feels, oh my God, what have we done? We have the national rally. The far right is governing France. This is the end of the world, or World War III. This is sad, but this is the game that is played. And I think Melanie is a great example. And now, you know, completely unelected bodies are capable of actually disturbing the outcome of an election and actually behaving undemocratic when they have no mandate. It's disgusting, but that's why it's very strategic at the Brussels level. And it doesn't get a lot of attention. People don't talk about it. It's kind of a stealth invisible hand to strangle any potential outbreak of populism. Okay, doesn't matter what side of the paradigm it's on. It could be right wing populism could be left wing populism. Look at what happened in Greece with the rise of Sarisa and all of a sudden a five alarm fired at the ECB love. They crushed the ECB crushed Sarisa. They crushed the left wing in Greece. They created economic hardship and turmoil, the likes of which no one had ever seen to that point in Europe. And they did so very strategically. And it had a political, it had a political element to it. And that's what people don't understand. The real political control is at the Brussels level, and it's to do with finance. They have the power to create, as you said, Freddie panic, financial panic, crisis, they can do it just by announcing a rate hike or a few headlines from the big, you know, media institutions and boom, the markets are reacting. People are saying, Oh my gosh, oh, we can't possibly have, you know, Janus Verfakas up there negotiating with the, it's going to be the end of the world. You know, the economy is going to collapse. And you have to also look at the other way. The other side of the coin, the other side of the coin is they really let you go with anything as long as you're, you're on the right side of the, you know, of the argument. So if you're pro, you know, pro globalist, if you're pro European, if you're advocating all this policy, whether the economic or geopolitics and like Macron did, for example, it doesn't matter if you're, you're, your race or even you're, you're, you're borrowing or your debt is, you know, out of bounds. It really doesn't matter. At this stage, they'll let you get away with it. They don't care, because eventually they'll pull the plug with a digital currency. So that's really not a problem. But right now, this is an important tool. And trust me, they're going to be using it, you know, they're going to abuse it when the National Rally makes it on the 7th of July. That's just the way that the game is rigged. As you said, it's the, yeah, it's the democratic. It is no democracy anymore. I think I'm the student now. And I think this is the reason why you're getting so many large scores on this right populist movement. I don't like to call them far right, because you can see some of the, the discourse, the agenda, some of them are more radical than others don't get me wrong. But there are some extremely intelligence and capable people. And I think you, you must just take the best out of these people and let them, and give them a chance to bring back the agenda that matters, that matters on the ground to the people. Because at the end of the day, this is about people. And if it's no longer about people and about bankers being able to read the game, don't call it a democracy, you know, we, we're no longer in any democracy. That doesn't mean anything voting anymore. If the games is rigged at the European Union and that the European Central Bank level. Absolutely. And you know, France is such a good case study, Freddie, because nobody was raising the alarm. Nobody was protesting when France started digging this deficit hole, which happened because of the magic virus. Okay, everybody. Oh, a Macron. What a great leader. He's implementing the WF protocols. He's getting those vaccines out in record time, paying people to stay home, shutting down businesses, shutting borders, a total disaster. It created a deficit spending trigger that now we're now we're seeing the after effects of this. And all of a sudden, the ECB is like, Oh, well, this is going to be dangerous if the if the national rally gets into power and La Pen. And but they were quite happy to extend all of that line of credit and just destroy the sovereignty of all these European states during COVID. They weakened them. They got them into debt. They got them used to deficit spending. And now all of a sudden, oh, it's a problem. They're picking winners and losers, Freddie politically. This is about control more than anything. That's what really Brussels is about. We're living in a big lie. There is no doubt about it. We're living in a big line. We've been living in the light for at least 40 years. You know, as I say, very soon after the Second World War, you know, you can clearly see it. You know, if you can see NATO. I mean, the chairman of the military committee of NATO was a general Nazi. His name was Adolf Adolf or singer. And he was very guys that plans all the invasions in Austria and Poland in France. And these guys end up little top brass, you know, military commands. He's a Nazi. I mean, the guys was in the world then with Hitler, you know, when there was an assassinated attack against it. Oh, don't forget about Kurt Waldheim. Get up in NATO. So why not Mark Wuto? Secretary General, the United Nations Kurt Waldheim. I mean, it's got some great Nazis in top positions. You know, it's a great on the resume. You know, when you're applying for the job, they're like, oh, very impressive, very impressive. Okay. I've got to come for something, right? Let's get it from from climate. They're telling you something. Freddie Pantan, independent researcher, journalist, I appreciate you joining us on TNT this week. That has been a pleasure. Here he goes, ladies and gentlemen, top of their news headlines coming up. We got a lot more on the other side. Alan Mizrahi is going to join us. Great political commentator. I'm looking forward to this discussion. Lock coming up. Stay with us. We'll be back in a few.
