In this interview on Mathew Crawford’s Rounding the Earth Podcast I discuss how the CIA via Edward Lansdale’s Saigon Mission orchestrated a migrant crisis to stoke the fires of the Vietnam War, as well as NATO’s Gladio operations in South America and its relevance to the migrant crisis affecting the United States today.
Terrific interview Cynthia! This really explains a lot and puts things into perspective on another level of analysis that is all too rare! Thank you for what you do!
I was listening to your talk at #755 shaun newman and i am close to end, taking notes. I found why catholics moved from north to south during Diem gov in the south as:
- Catholicism was introduced to Vietnam in the 16th and 17th centuries by Portuguese and later French Jesuit missionaries, such as Alexandre de Rhodes, who primarily worked in Tonkin (northern Vietnam) and central Vietnam.
- The missionaries established some of the earliest Christian communities in the Red River Delta and among the ethnic Kinh population in the north.
- The Nguyễn Lords (who ruled the south) were initially more resistant to Christianity than the Trịnh Lords of the north, where Catholicism found more fertile ground.
So it seems there was a denser catholic population in the north who moved to south for certain reasons during Diem gov ruling south
You mean, Mr. Square Head? Yes, right. Apparently I was really terrible to Bret in that write-up when all Bret did was simply compare China to a parasitoid devoid of human compassion. Bret did not simply "observe", he made assertions that were completely unfounded and accusatory. But yes, let us get our panties in a bunch over someone who is spreading reckless slanders and encouraging anti-China hate being called a "Mr. Square Head." Right...
People can watch for themselves and see Bret repeatedly said his observations were hypothesis and he didn't know exactly what was going on. These were not assertions and they were not claims.
Maybe you should rewatch that interview Kolokol because clearly assertions were made hence the massive anti-China frenzy, which also filled our inboxes with emails from concerned viewers of this interview wondering if China was plotting to take over the US. Where do you think the China panic came from off of this interview otherwise? Everyone had the same hallucination that Bret was stirring up anti-China paranoia when he apparently wasn't? He referred to the Chinese presence at this camp as "hostile" apparently this was an "objective" observation according to you? Also, why are you not holding Bret accountable for comparing China to a parasitoid devoid of human compassion? Why are you apparently really ok with this, but are extremely defensive of Bret? Perhaps you are the one offended at the end of the day Kolokol, since you share the same "concerns" as Panama military base lover Bret does. Either way you are really coming across as someone who puts their feelings as a priority over what the actually destructive consequence of this interview in fact was. You should hold Bret accountable for that if you are going to get all worked up about him being referred to as "Mr. Square Head" otherwise your "concerns" are transparently skewed and it is clear you were not bothered by the last bit of that interview that got increasingly more anti-China to the point that Bret "hypothesised" that China's one child policy was to somehow create some sort of evolutionary male soldier to create an army that he clearly viewed and portrayed as such in the interview as a threat to western freedoms. The fact that you are conveniently leaving all of this out as if Bret was completely responsible and "objective" in this interview betrays the fact that you lapped it up.
I completely agree with you Cynthia. All you have to do is look at the youtube comment section to the Bret interview with Tucker and it is clear as day how Americans understood Bret's message.
No one I know went into an anti-China frenzy about mere suspicions but maybe that's just the people I know.
There were lots of critical comments on your substack and Matt's too about these posts. I'm not the only one.
Was his characterization of meeting some migrants as hostile wrong? You want him to change his personal observation? Besides he never said it was 'objective' merely his personal observation.
Why am I defending Bret? It's a quirk, sometimes if I think someone is being attacked unfairly I end up defending them even if I don't really like them all that much. For god's sake I even defended Hillary once.
I must have missed this: "comparing China to a parasitoid devoid of human compassion? " Did he say that?
" Perhaps you are the one offended at the end of the day Kolokol, since you share the same "concerns" as Panama military base lover Bret does." Wow, you don't know what I think or what views I have or what my concerns may be, but go ahead and make your Bret-like assertions.
Yes I did think that his one-child policy notion was bullshit, and no I didn't Fisk the entire interview and I'm not about to, but the best way to tackle Bret is to have him on a show where you can disabuse him of his misperceptions or like in this post add context or hold some form of conversation.
You know it used to be common courtesy for one to ask the person being hit for a comment before publication.
It's now a "Fact" you say that I lap things up? I don't "Lap things up", Cynthia. Neither your hit piece or Bret's observations. Geezus.
Yes Kolokol, he did compare China to a parasitoid devoid of human compassion. The fact that you do not remember such a hateful reference shows a great deal. I have also clearly shown he is not OBJECTIVE yet you continue to assert that he is. You are clearly wanting to promote whatever you wish and do not care about reality at this point. What I wrote was not a "hit-piece" which appears to be insinuating that I went after Bret as a personal attack rather than what he said in an interview that was viewed by millions of Americans. Are you saying now that I am not permitted to write about Bret's statements in an interview? That I have to apparently outreach to Bret for any commentary on his own public statements?!? Mercutio has made a valid point, simply visit the youtube comment section to this interview to view for yourself how Americans reacted to this interview with Bret. You clearly don't want to acknowledge it, but it is right there for you to verify. So you can say whatever you want as how you choose to view this interview, which is clearly subjective on your part, doesn't discount from the verifiable fact that it has caused an anti-China frenzy. Lastly Kolokol since I am not going to be discussing this further with you since I have made all my points already, I do not need to ask someone's permission to write about public statements they have made. The fact that they have made public statements means they are fair game for commentary and criticism of those statements. Or you saying now that no one can write about Bret unless they get Bret to also chime in on their write-up??? Good grief! The fact that you are suddenly bringing this up for Bret is in fact you asking for "special treatment" of him. Or do you seriously think I need to ask everyone's permission I write about to give their rebuttal??? Common courtesy? I have clearly shown that Bret showed no such thing in this interview. I also clearly showed that Bret was not objective yet you continue to act like I have somehow taken liberty in my criticisms of his public statements. Why don't you ask Bret to conduct himself with a more responsible approach? No liberty has been taken Kolokol. Bret is responsible for the public statements he makes, especially when millions of viewers watch this. Who is going to correct his anti-China perspective to those viewers? You clearly do not care about that matter.
It is really striking to me that people like Kolokol are getting defensive of Bret, despite him being very clearly really racist in that interview against the Chinese and almost referring to them by the end as biologically evil or indifferent to human emotions. These people who defend Bret act like they are oblivious to this, yet Kolokol admits he remembers Bret's disgusting comments on the one-child policy meant for some kind of evolutionary plan to create an all male army devoid of emotion. So it is very odd that Kolokol would continue to portray Bret as well-meaning and not stirring up anti-China sentiments. And as you bring up Cynthia, that he refers to the Chinese as a parasitoid devoid of human compassion. The fact that he brings these things up and yet apparently we are supposed to care about Bret's reputation and possibly feelings in response to your write up Cynthia is really offensive and I really feel for you on this. People seem to be oblivious that you are of Chinese descent and they are acting like what Bret said should not be incredibly offensive to you. It again reminds me of what Putin said in his interview with Tucker, Americans suffer from "self-conceit". Anyway, I personally think you handled the whole Bret debacle fairly. Kolokol bringing up that some people think the way he does, as if this is supposed to discount from others clearly not agreeing with this viewpoint just shows how self-serving of a view this is. Anyway, I think that at least the world in general is waking up to what is the true source of the world's suffering and the Anglo-American imperialist machine is coming to an end. And thus this is cause for celebration, nevermind the China haters Cynthia.
have no other way to contact you - last week couple of vids 'proving' controlled demolition of towers 9/11 - not true - i believe this is a lead up blaming the russians for the 'demolition - on peter jennings
ABC reporting on 9/11 an independent videographer has vid shot less than 1 hour before appearance on ABC - i have the original broadcasts of that day from archives.org which i obtained in 2012 - the vids are now masked however i have permalinks which still play - in vid kevin sutebe the videographer says there was only himself and a friend also a photographer looking at the rubble - no firemen - he also says that there was a 'russian looking for his friend '- no firemen 3 people looking over rubble - this is a setup begun on 9/11 - peter jennings 3:28 last minute - continued in next clip - vigilantcanadian.ca
Excellent interview, thank you!
Terrific interview Cynthia! This really explains a lot and puts things into perspective on another level of analysis that is all too rare! Thank you for what you do!
I was listening to your talk at #755 shaun newman and i am close to end, taking notes. I found why catholics moved from north to south during Diem gov in the south as:
- Catholicism was introduced to Vietnam in the 16th and 17th centuries by Portuguese and later French Jesuit missionaries, such as Alexandre de Rhodes, who primarily worked in Tonkin (northern Vietnam) and central Vietnam.
- The missionaries established some of the earliest Christian communities in the Red River Delta and among the ethnic Kinh population in the north.
- The Nguyễn Lords (who ruled the south) were initially more resistant to Christianity than the Trịnh Lords of the north, where Catholicism found more fertile ground.
So it seems there was a denser catholic population in the north who moved to south for certain reasons during Diem gov ruling south
Somewhere around 25:26 minutes in Cynthia addresses some of the things Bret observed in Panama.
This is so much better than calling Bret names isn’t it? Great show as always.
You mean, Mr. Square Head? Yes, right. Apparently I was really terrible to Bret in that write-up when all Bret did was simply compare China to a parasitoid devoid of human compassion. Bret did not simply "observe", he made assertions that were completely unfounded and accusatory. But yes, let us get our panties in a bunch over someone who is spreading reckless slanders and encouraging anti-China hate being called a "Mr. Square Head." Right...
People can watch for themselves and see Bret repeatedly said his observations were hypothesis and he didn't know exactly what was going on. These were not assertions and they were not claims.
Maybe you should rewatch that interview Kolokol because clearly assertions were made hence the massive anti-China frenzy, which also filled our inboxes with emails from concerned viewers of this interview wondering if China was plotting to take over the US. Where do you think the China panic came from off of this interview otherwise? Everyone had the same hallucination that Bret was stirring up anti-China paranoia when he apparently wasn't? He referred to the Chinese presence at this camp as "hostile" apparently this was an "objective" observation according to you? Also, why are you not holding Bret accountable for comparing China to a parasitoid devoid of human compassion? Why are you apparently really ok with this, but are extremely defensive of Bret? Perhaps you are the one offended at the end of the day Kolokol, since you share the same "concerns" as Panama military base lover Bret does. Either way you are really coming across as someone who puts their feelings as a priority over what the actually destructive consequence of this interview in fact was. You should hold Bret accountable for that if you are going to get all worked up about him being referred to as "Mr. Square Head" otherwise your "concerns" are transparently skewed and it is clear you were not bothered by the last bit of that interview that got increasingly more anti-China to the point that Bret "hypothesised" that China's one child policy was to somehow create some sort of evolutionary male soldier to create an army that he clearly viewed and portrayed as such in the interview as a threat to western freedoms. The fact that you are conveniently leaving all of this out as if Bret was completely responsible and "objective" in this interview betrays the fact that you lapped it up.
I completely agree with you Cynthia. All you have to do is look at the youtube comment section to the Bret interview with Tucker and it is clear as day how Americans understood Bret's message.
Oh lord, don't make me watch it again!
No one I know went into an anti-China frenzy about mere suspicions but maybe that's just the people I know.
There were lots of critical comments on your substack and Matt's too about these posts. I'm not the only one.
Was his characterization of meeting some migrants as hostile wrong? You want him to change his personal observation? Besides he never said it was 'objective' merely his personal observation.
Why am I defending Bret? It's a quirk, sometimes if I think someone is being attacked unfairly I end up defending them even if I don't really like them all that much. For god's sake I even defended Hillary once.
I must have missed this: "comparing China to a parasitoid devoid of human compassion? " Did he say that?
" Perhaps you are the one offended at the end of the day Kolokol, since you share the same "concerns" as Panama military base lover Bret does." Wow, you don't know what I think or what views I have or what my concerns may be, but go ahead and make your Bret-like assertions.
Yes I did think that his one-child policy notion was bullshit, and no I didn't Fisk the entire interview and I'm not about to, but the best way to tackle Bret is to have him on a show where you can disabuse him of his misperceptions or like in this post add context or hold some form of conversation.
You know it used to be common courtesy for one to ask the person being hit for a comment before publication.
It's now a "Fact" you say that I lap things up? I don't "Lap things up", Cynthia. Neither your hit piece or Bret's observations. Geezus.
Yes Kolokol, he did compare China to a parasitoid devoid of human compassion. The fact that you do not remember such a hateful reference shows a great deal. I have also clearly shown he is not OBJECTIVE yet you continue to assert that he is. You are clearly wanting to promote whatever you wish and do not care about reality at this point. What I wrote was not a "hit-piece" which appears to be insinuating that I went after Bret as a personal attack rather than what he said in an interview that was viewed by millions of Americans. Are you saying now that I am not permitted to write about Bret's statements in an interview? That I have to apparently outreach to Bret for any commentary on his own public statements?!? Mercutio has made a valid point, simply visit the youtube comment section to this interview to view for yourself how Americans reacted to this interview with Bret. You clearly don't want to acknowledge it, but it is right there for you to verify. So you can say whatever you want as how you choose to view this interview, which is clearly subjective on your part, doesn't discount from the verifiable fact that it has caused an anti-China frenzy. Lastly Kolokol since I am not going to be discussing this further with you since I have made all my points already, I do not need to ask someone's permission to write about public statements they have made. The fact that they have made public statements means they are fair game for commentary and criticism of those statements. Or you saying now that no one can write about Bret unless they get Bret to also chime in on their write-up??? Good grief! The fact that you are suddenly bringing this up for Bret is in fact you asking for "special treatment" of him. Or do you seriously think I need to ask everyone's permission I write about to give their rebuttal??? Common courtesy? I have clearly shown that Bret showed no such thing in this interview. I also clearly showed that Bret was not objective yet you continue to act like I have somehow taken liberty in my criticisms of his public statements. Why don't you ask Bret to conduct himself with a more responsible approach? No liberty has been taken Kolokol. Bret is responsible for the public statements he makes, especially when millions of viewers watch this. Who is going to correct his anti-China perspective to those viewers? You clearly do not care about that matter.
It is really striking to me that people like Kolokol are getting defensive of Bret, despite him being very clearly really racist in that interview against the Chinese and almost referring to them by the end as biologically evil or indifferent to human emotions. These people who defend Bret act like they are oblivious to this, yet Kolokol admits he remembers Bret's disgusting comments on the one-child policy meant for some kind of evolutionary plan to create an all male army devoid of emotion. So it is very odd that Kolokol would continue to portray Bret as well-meaning and not stirring up anti-China sentiments. And as you bring up Cynthia, that he refers to the Chinese as a parasitoid devoid of human compassion. The fact that he brings these things up and yet apparently we are supposed to care about Bret's reputation and possibly feelings in response to your write up Cynthia is really offensive and I really feel for you on this. People seem to be oblivious that you are of Chinese descent and they are acting like what Bret said should not be incredibly offensive to you. It again reminds me of what Putin said in his interview with Tucker, Americans suffer from "self-conceit". Anyway, I personally think you handled the whole Bret debacle fairly. Kolokol bringing up that some people think the way he does, as if this is supposed to discount from others clearly not agreeing with this viewpoint just shows how self-serving of a view this is. Anyway, I think that at least the world in general is waking up to what is the true source of the world's suffering and the Anglo-American imperialist machine is coming to an end. And thus this is cause for celebration, nevermind the China haters Cynthia.
China's 1 child policy was a Kissinger
/Rothschild policy I believe!
have no other way to contact you - last week couple of vids 'proving' controlled demolition of towers 9/11 - not true - i believe this is a lead up blaming the russians for the 'demolition - on peter jennings
ABC reporting on 9/11 an independent videographer has vid shot less than 1 hour before appearance on ABC - i have the original broadcasts of that day from archives.org which i obtained in 2012 - the vids are now masked however i have permalinks which still play - in vid kevin sutebe the videographer says there was only himself and a friend also a photographer looking at the rubble - no firemen - he also says that there was a 'russian looking for his friend '- no firemen 3 people looking over rubble - this is a setup begun on 9/11 - peter jennings 3:28 last minute - continued in next clip - vigilantcanadian.ca
Cynthia..do we have any clue as to Chinas and Russia's support for the upcoming WHO pandemic treaty, and the amendments in May?