Speaker 1: From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History is
Speaker 1: riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
Speaker 1: learn this stuff they don't want you to know. A
Speaker 1: production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2: Hello, welcome back to the show. My name is Matt,
Speaker 2: my name is Nolan.
Speaker 3: They called me Ed. We're joined with our guest super
Speaker 3: producer Max the freight Train Williams. Most importantly, you are you.
Speaker 4: You are here.
Speaker 3: That makes this the stuff they don't want you to know.
Speaker 3: Calendars are made up, but a happy New Year, fellow
Speaker 3: conspiracy realist, that's right through the magic of editing and
Speaker 3: post production. This is the last episode the three of
Speaker 3: us will be recording together in twenty twenty three. Remember,
Speaker 3: just because a calendar flips a page, it doesn't mean
Speaker 3: the world suddenly stops. That's why tonight's episode is about
Speaker 3: a growing global concern that we learned about several months
Speaker 3: ago and have been keeping an eye on. Why are
Speaker 3: world powers multiple world powers accusing the Nation of India
Speaker 3: of running assassination rings And I think a fellow conspiracy
Speaker 3: realist of ours deserves a shout out.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, big shout out to head Master who called
Speaker 2: in back in mid August of this year and talk
Speaker 2: to us about the assassination of a guy named Hardeep
Speaker 2: Nijar that we're going to talk about today, and that
Speaker 2: was a serious rabbit hole, head master that we went
Speaker 2: down that has now led to new developments that this
Speaker 2: is the reason why we're covering it today in a
Speaker 2: full episode.
Speaker 3: Here are the facts, folks. As we have noted in
Speaker 3: the past, India is huge. Check out our episode on
Speaker 3: the Line of Actual Control for a brief look at
Speaker 3: just the amazing, deep, rich history of India and all
Speaker 3: the misconceptions that the West often carries about this beautiful country.
Speaker 3: It's huge. Maybe not in terms of geographical size, but
Speaker 3: it is absolutely huge in terms of the number of
Speaker 3: people who live there. There are so many people living
Speaker 3: in India.
Speaker 5: Dense, dense af with over one point four billion people
Speaker 5: occupying only three point three million square kilometers or one million,
Speaker 5: two hundred and sixty nine thousand, three hundred and forty
Speaker 5: five square miles, it is the world's second largest population
Speaker 5: jammed into only the seventh largest country.
Speaker 4: That's some mind blowing maths right there.
Speaker 5: Just by way of comparison, the United States is around
Speaker 5: nine million square kilometers or three thousand, six hundred and
Speaker 5: eighteen seven hundred and eighty three square miles. Thank you
Speaker 5: Ben for the conversions here, and only has a population
Speaker 5: of around three point three million.
Speaker 3: Oh, you're right off, Mike Matt credit where it's due.
Speaker 3: You raised an excellent point. India is technically neck and
Speaker 3: neck with China for the largest world population, and I
Speaker 3: believe they were projected in twenty twenty three to have
Speaker 3: a slight overtake in China. But I don't know whether
Speaker 3: that has been officially confirmed or whether we're still playing
Speaker 3: the estimates game, but.
Speaker 2: It's probably estimates. I've just got it right because I
Speaker 2: doubt there was some kind of census that happened this year.
Speaker 3: It's tough to count a lot of people. And also,
Speaker 3: Noel shout out for that comparison, because that comparison is
Speaker 3: quite clever. It does hold. We're talking about not just
Speaker 3: the land, but the amount of people I had. And
Speaker 3: this may be controversial, but a lot of my friends
Speaker 3: who live in India or or part of the Indian
Speaker 3: diaspora who have talked to me about this, more than
Speaker 3: one person has told me the biggest difference in India
Speaker 3: versus America that they see in terms of people is
Speaker 3: that wherever they go, they are just a bunch of people.
Speaker 4: Makes sense.
Speaker 5: But Ben Matt, why is all this important for the
Speaker 5: topic of this evening's story.
Speaker 2: Well, I would say, I would just say it's because India,
Speaker 2: like the United States, has a bunch of states within it. Right,
Speaker 2: It's not just one government, one power is It's like
Speaker 2: the United States where there is one government right in Washington,
Speaker 2: that is like the federal government. But each state within
Speaker 2: India also has its own governing powers, and a lot
Speaker 2: of the different states and regions have their own wants
Speaker 2: and needs that may be a little different from what
Speaker 2: the entirety of India or the federal government wants.
Speaker 5: Wouldn't you say, almost more so even than the way
Speaker 5: our state governments work, Like the identity of the states
Speaker 5: within India are more pronounced, perhaps even than here in
Speaker 5: the United States.
Speaker 3: That's a bit of a difficult I mean, that's a
Speaker 3: bit of a difficult I think comparison. I don't know
Speaker 3: whether we could say that authoritatively because we have not
Speaker 3: lived in India, but it's definitely true that we have
Speaker 3: to understand, regardless ofbout maybe portrayed in the news in
Speaker 3: the West. The nation of India is far from a monolith.
Speaker 3: Twenty eight states, eight Union territories. These literal billions of
Speaker 3: people obviously don't agree on everything, and there are a
Speaker 3: lot of fractures, internal instabilities with the government and the culture,
Speaker 3: tons of dissenting voices. To your point, Matt Contradictory aims
Speaker 3: secessionist parties, which do occur in the US as well.
Speaker 3: The US, of course, has a vested interest in not
Speaker 3: only containing secessionist parties, but making sure they don't get
Speaker 3: too much of a public platform.
Speaker 2: Oh completely agree, I think, Well, see, I don't know
Speaker 2: if this is accurate or not, but this is the
Speaker 2: way I'm viewing it. In the US, I'm often seeing
Speaker 2: those like we need to split Texas off from the
Speaker 2: United States, or we should split you know, California off
Speaker 2: and make it a separate region or a separate country.
Speaker 2: Those are often, at least from my view, not religiously motivated.
Speaker 2: Right in the case of India, I think one of
Speaker 2: the major issues we're dealing with here is the state
Speaker 2: of Punjab. Right that are there are many people who
Speaker 2: have formed movements at least to try and separate the
Speaker 2: state of Punjab off from India to create its own state.
Speaker 2: And it's religious. It's based on religion, correct.
Speaker 4: Well.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and religion in this case could be considered such
Speaker 3: a close Venn diagram with culture that the two indeed
Speaker 3: may be inseparable. We also have to remember that, unlike
Speaker 3: the United States, the nation of India did experience a
Speaker 3: partition in nineteen forty seven, the dissolution of the British
Speaker 3: Raj led to Pakistan and India, and they have been
Speaker 3: beefed up ever since with one of the most dramatic
Speaker 3: border openings and crossings that occurs today. Check it out
Speaker 3: in person if you get a chance to see it.
Speaker 3: If not, go to YouTube. It's worth it.
Speaker 5: I think that's maybe where my perception of the very
Speaker 5: strong identities of the various Indian states comes from. It
Speaker 5: is just that there are these different religions, maybe in
Speaker 5: a way that isn't quite something we're used to hear
Speaker 5: in the United States. You know, it's a very important
Speaker 5: part of these individual you know, parts of the country,
Speaker 5: more so I think than we have here, where there
Speaker 5: may be aren't quite as many options in terms of
Speaker 5: like varying state to state.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and look, the every country is its own story, right,
Speaker 3: just like every person, but on a macro cosmic or
Speaker 3: macropolar scale, and India, like China, is struggling continually to
Speaker 3: meain domestic unity. To your question, Noel, I think it
Speaker 3: would be. I think it's fair to point out that
Speaker 3: just the discrepancy between population size is a huge factor
Speaker 3: in this. And there's also, of course the shadow of colonialism.
Speaker 3: A bunch of different empires that existed were all grouped
Speaker 3: together by the British and they said, okay, now this
Speaker 3: is India, and look we I feel like we have
Speaker 3: to say it for the fellow policy wonks in the crowd.
Speaker 3: But the fact that India, China, and to another degree
Speaker 3: probably pretty soon the US struggled to maintain domestic unity.
Speaker 3: It is a known thing. It's led to a running
Speaker 3: dark joke in academia, where we love dark jokes. You'll
Speaker 3: hear the statement that India is the world's largest democracy.
Speaker 3: That is true. You will also hear the statement that
Speaker 3: because it's the world's largest democracy, it is effectively the
Speaker 3: best argument against the idea of democracy.
Speaker 2: That's interesting. Yeah, yeah, I don't want to get too
Speaker 2: deep into guys, but the discussions we've had in the
Speaker 2: past about governments and the way they function and how
Speaker 2: that changes as you increase in area and population. Right,
Speaker 2: Like we're talking about huge conquering armies that would move
Speaker 2: through when there was an empire, you know, in ages past,
Speaker 2: and how difficult it was to do that very thing, right,
Speaker 2: to basically engulf entire cultures and populations into your new
Speaker 2: thing that you're introducing to them, and then maintain control
Speaker 2: in that region while you still run your thing at
Speaker 2: your capital and all your major industrial areas or I
Speaker 2: guess not industrial then just the places where you make money,
Speaker 2: and then trying to get everybody to agree that this
Speaker 2: is how how life should be and these are the
Speaker 2: rules we should all live by. That sounds insane when
Speaker 2: you say it.
Speaker 3: Out loud, Well, yeah, it does, and it does sound
Speaker 3: conspiratorial because it is. Like, the reason there's so many
Speaker 3: problems in a lot of African countries is because European
Speaker 3: powers purposely sowed chaos. They put different communities that existed
Speaker 3: for thousands of years together and at the same time
Speaker 3: against one another. So, as strange as it does sound
Speaker 3: to say out loud, certain powerful forces profit from internal
Speaker 3: dissent from chaos so long as they can ultimately control
Speaker 3: that chaos, and that leads to a lot of you know,
Speaker 3: immortal technique. Not for nothing is correct when he says
Speaker 3: and beat me here, Max, You've the Middle East and
Speaker 3: gave birth to a demon like that, he's referring to
Speaker 3: that practice of sowing chaos and forcing domestic like forcing
Speaker 3: insurmountable domestic tensions. And look, you're right, that is a
Speaker 3: rabbit hole, isn't it.
Speaker 2: It is because it applies to South America, Latin America, sure,
Speaker 2: Caribbean like everywhere.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and Southeast Asia as well. Like so, India also
Speaker 3: has plenty of external struggles because India is a huge deal,
Speaker 3: not just in terms of people power. It's got a
Speaker 3: growing rivalry with China because they're two very powerful neighbors
Speaker 3: that live right next door to each other. It's got
Speaker 3: geopolitical power grabs going on, economic activity on the ground skirmishes.
Speaker 3: Please please please. The name sounds boring, but check out
Speaker 3: the episode on the line of actual control. It does matter,
Speaker 3: and it is frightening.
Speaker 5: And they're getting into the space game too, right, yes, sir, yeah,
Speaker 5: just becoming a super player in technology and innovation as
Speaker 5: well as X really truly beginning to have some big
Speaker 5: success and exporting what had typically been more of a
Speaker 5: regional thing with.
Speaker 4: Bollywood films like R R R.
Speaker 5: I believe one the Oscar for Best Song, which is embarrassing. Frankly,
Speaker 5: that movie deserved, absolutely incredible, But you know, typically Bollywood
Speaker 5: films have been more a thing that people that are
Speaker 5: from that community, maybe live in the United States would
Speaker 5: be more familiar with. In the area that I live,
Speaker 5: there's the mall called the South to Cab Mall that
Speaker 5: shows Bollywood movies on the regular, but there is a
Speaker 5: very large book population of Indian people who live in
Speaker 5: that part of town. But yeah, R was absolutely kind
Speaker 5: of an example of that really breaking through into the mainstream.
Speaker 3: Can make a similar comparison to K pop.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, I just saw some K pop group I
Speaker 2: couldn't tell you what it was at the Jingle Ball.
Speaker 2: It was great though, it was amazing. But with India,
Speaker 2: they're doing the things that we've talked about in the
Speaker 2: past about how you exert external control as a country, right.
Speaker 2: One of those main things is exporting your culture, right,
Speaker 2: and that's I think some of that we've talked about
Speaker 2: in the past. That's what they're doing. I just want
Speaker 2: to make sure we remember India had that successful lunar
Speaker 2: mission when Russia's mission failed very recently. So that is
Speaker 2: a again a major step one that the it's not
Speaker 2: landing human beings on the Moon the way the US
Speaker 2: did and had that big global Hurrah moment I guess
Speaker 2: or whatever.
Speaker 3: You cause it is easy, But it wasn't that.
Speaker 2: But it was still a successful lunar mission, right, And
Speaker 2: that's a big deal.
Speaker 3: Yes, yeah, And the it speaks to it speaks to
Speaker 3: India's growing role as a tech giant and as to
Speaker 3: be honest, as an expansionist power. Expansionist power carries some
Speaker 3: mean connotations, but we don't mean those mean connotations.
Speaker 2: It does mean they don't want to give away parts
Speaker 2: of themselves, right right.
Speaker 3: Well, who does nobody's really Countries historically don't have consensual
Speaker 3: fire sails on territory.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 3: But there is something, there's very exciting thing we're going
Speaker 3: to get to in twenty twenty four about the land
Speaker 3: that nobody wants even now in this human crowded world,
Speaker 3: terra nullius. I believe it's called.
Speaker 2: This Is it just a dead zone or something?
Speaker 4: Several well, it's several.
Speaker 2: Several.
Speaker 3: Some of them are dead zones like desert stuff with
Speaker 3: the arable land, and then some of them are areas
Speaker 3: where logistics of infrastructure are tricky. And then some of
Speaker 3: them are just land as leverage, land as ponds in
Speaker 3: larger negotiations. And speaking of larger negotiations, this is what
Speaker 3: we're setting up here. We know that India is modernizing
Speaker 3: and it is a brilliant, beautiful country. Like any other country,
Speaker 3: it is imperfect, but it is becoming a more powerful
Speaker 3: force on the world stage, and as such, naturally it
Speaker 3: will seek recognition in the global order. Getting that recognition
Speaker 3: it's like getting your own country. It's a tricky endeavor,
Speaker 3: somewhere between an art and a science. There's no real
Speaker 3: playbook on how to do this. And because there's no
Speaker 3: real playbook, every single country you can think of that
Speaker 3: you might think of as a global player, no exceptions,
Speaker 3: no hyperbole, every single one has done some incredibly horrific,
Speaker 3: sketchy stuff in the pursuit of that power. Shout out
Speaker 3: to Chinese repression of domestic rights and communities which continues today.
Speaker 3: We might not get into we might not pass customs
Speaker 3: for some of the episodes we've recorded in that regard.
Speaker 3: Shout out to CIA led coups from the US nineteen
Speaker 3: fifty for Guatemala, we see you, uh. And then the
Speaker 3: previously mentioned European colonialism. The question becomes how far will
Speaker 3: India go to maintain its domestic status quo, to twell
Speaker 3: descent and to further expand to seek power. According to
Speaker 3: the US, Canada and members of the very scary global
Speaker 3: intelligence community, this country is literally killing people, not just
Speaker 3: on Indian soil, but across the planet.
Speaker 2: What are we.
Speaker 3: Talking about while we got black baged? This is the
Speaker 3: end of the episode. Is the end of the show.
Speaker 3: We're not even doing ad breaks.
Speaker 2: We're we're telling you this from the bag itself.
Speaker 3: From the bag. We're reporting live from the Kittie. No,
Speaker 3: We'll we'll keep going until we get shut down, but
Speaker 3: we'll pause for an ad break, hopefully from the India
Speaker 3: Tourism Board. Here's where it gets crazy.
Speaker 2: So when we're when we're talking about this stuff and
Speaker 2: potentially a country assassinating people, I think just let's quickly
Speaker 2: make a distinction there, because we're going to explore whether
Speaker 2: or not this was some kind of the CIA like assassination,
Speaker 2: like something that an internal organization or governmental organization in
Speaker 2: India is carrying out assassinations with operatives that they basically
Speaker 2: control right and run and pay. Or is it some
Speaker 2: kind of sell within one of those organizations, like a
Speaker 2: breakoff group from one of those or is it an
Speaker 2: independent thing being carried out from the state of India.
Speaker 2: These are all big questions that we're going to be
Speaker 2: looking at because I think that's a big deal, right
Speaker 2: if it's a CIA in the US, at least, if
Speaker 2: it's a CIA sponsored assassination, that's very different from let's
Speaker 2: say an individual business person that hired an assassin, right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, just so, And we are going to have to
Speaker 3: dive into those possibilities listed there. The accusation of assassination,
Speaker 3: of conspiracy, they're not coming from Loan Gunman esque wing
Speaker 3: nuts posting on four Chan. And uh, I'm just putting
Speaker 3: that in there as a shout out to x files.
Speaker 3: I recently rewatched some of those older episodes and the
Speaker 3: ones that aren't tech centric episodes hold up very well.
Speaker 3: Ones there tech centric you know they've got their issues.
Speaker 5: Don't don't one of you guys or both maybe have
Speaker 5: a copy of that poster that a listener made where
Speaker 5: we were super imposed Aaron Cooper onto the loan Gunman.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there used to be one right there, but yeah
Speaker 2: we've got one.
Speaker 3: Okay, And thank you Coop if you're if you're hearing that,
Speaker 3: I hope you're well and great work. As always. He's uh,
Speaker 3: he's a legend in the game. So these aren't just
Speaker 3: you know, Reddit lower four chan type folks saying this,
Speaker 3: and they're not a bunch of Charlie Days putting red
Speaker 3: string together in a mail room corkboard. One of the
Speaker 3: first accusations that go public is from the Prime Minister
Speaker 3: of Canada, Justin Trudeau. It's September eighteenth, just a few
Speaker 3: a few months ago, back in twenty twenty three. Trudeau
Speaker 3: says there are credible allegations the agents of the Indian
Speaker 3: government carried out an assassination and they killed a Canadian national,
Speaker 3: Hardeep Singh Nijar, who we mentioned at the top here,
Speaker 3: a prominent Sikh activist. He was shot dead outside of
Speaker 3: a temple in Surrey, British Columbia, just a month before
Speaker 3: that announcement June eighteenth, twenty twenty three, and the timing
Speaker 3: here is important because pretty quickly after the murder or
Speaker 3: after the body is found, the leader of Canada is saying,
Speaker 3: we know who did it and it's not just some dude,
Speaker 3: it's some dude or dudes on the order of a
Speaker 3: foreign power.
Speaker 2: Well, and I think the timing is the most important thing, Ben,
Speaker 2: because it like three months, It is a pretty good
Speaker 2: amount of time for whatever, you know, Canadian intelligence organization
Speaker 2: to do their thing and find out everything they can
Speaker 2: and then come back with the report to then have
Speaker 2: you know, the Prime minister go oh wow, I need
Speaker 2: to say something about this. And I mean three months
Speaker 2: is exist. It's just perfect, I think for it to
Speaker 2: actually be an investigation, not just a prime minister coming
Speaker 2: out for some kind of geopolitical reasons making this kind
Speaker 2: of accusation, which I don't think he would do anyway, right,
Speaker 2: there must be sand to it for him to come
Speaker 2: out on the world stage and say something like this,
Speaker 2: or at.
Speaker 3: Least he thought there were sand I mean, maybe, you know,
Speaker 3: the think is a lot of genuine conspiracies have boring
Speaker 3: bureaucracy to them, so maybe they add like a net
Speaker 3: ninety day invoice and they had to make sure the
Speaker 3: invoice got fulfilled and then they're like, oh, okay, they
Speaker 3: did do it. So the that is a joke for
Speaker 3: like two people in an account department. But let's let's
Speaker 3: talk about how they found him, how did how did
Speaker 3: he die?
Speaker 5: So law enforcement found that Najar, in his truck parked
Speaker 5: outside of the Guru Nanak Sikh Gudwara Temple had died
Speaker 5: from apparent gunshot once uh And Najar was the president
Speaker 5: of that very same temple, which is located in Surrey,
Speaker 5: British Columbia. Najar was a Canadian national, but he was
Speaker 5: involved in a lot of Sikh activist activity and he
Speaker 5: was also a secessionist who advocated for the creation of
Speaker 5: a separate country for Sikhs independent from India itself in
Speaker 5: the current state of Punjab. In this proposed state would
Speaker 5: have been called Khalistan.
Speaker 2: Yes, so there's a lot to unpact there. So he
Speaker 2: he was killed, he was shot like outside work. Basically
Speaker 2: where were he and which is you know, could be anything, right,
Speaker 2: Maybe he had an enemy nobody knew about. Maybe it
Speaker 2: was local politics, you know, or what it could have been.
Speaker 2: There's so many reasons exactly, so that that is I
Speaker 2: think the first thing we need to think about. The
Speaker 2: other thing is Surrey, BC or British Columbia is just
Speaker 2: it's it's like a suburb of Vancouver, right so, just
Speaker 2: north of the northwest border of Washington State and Canada there,
Speaker 2: so again pretty close to US soil and nothing that
Speaker 2: has that has anything to do with it. But uh
Speaker 2: Njar had his own thing going on there. But he
Speaker 2: was also apparently, at least according to the Indian government,
Speaker 2: he was really influential in the stuff Noel was just
Speaker 2: talking about there about wanting wanting the Punjab state to secede,
Speaker 2: right like, according to the Indian government, he was a
Speaker 2: big player doing all kinds of crazy stuff on Indian soil,
Speaker 2: even though he out in Canada.
Speaker 3: Right he was working remotely. But with terrorism is the idea,
Speaker 3: And it's because of his affiliation with the Colistan Tiger Force,
Speaker 3: which is a militant, militant secessionist group. That part is inarguable,
Speaker 3: that is true. But he was also wanted actively by
Speaker 3: the Indian government. And we'll get to the Indian perspective
Speaker 3: in a minute. But the Indian government had for years
Speaker 3: and years and years said this guy and these following
Speaker 3: guys are terrorists, They are a danger to the national
Speaker 3: security of our country. Why on earth are you giving
Speaker 3: them a free pass? Like in their minds, it's similar
Speaker 3: to you know, it's similar to if Ben Laden was
Speaker 3: living in Germany and running a mosque and you wrote
Speaker 3: to you, wrote to Americael or something repeatedly and said, hey,
Speaker 3: this guy is responsible for hundreds of deaths, go get him.
Speaker 3: And then they said, oh, well, you know noted, I
Speaker 3: hear you, and then didn't do anything. So the Indian
Speaker 3: government was very frustrated with this for quite some time
Speaker 3: leading up to the murder, particularly something called their Research
Speaker 3: and Analysis WING. That is RAW. It's not a wrestling term.
Speaker 3: India's raw. Raw is India's external intelligence agency raw dogging
Speaker 3: it well.
Speaker 2: And they were creating all of these things called fi
Speaker 2: rs from I mean we're talking like twenty eighteen, twenty twenty.
Speaker 2: They were creating their first information reports is what they
Speaker 2: were creating, is what they call them. And they were
Speaker 2: reports about all kinds of activities. Most of it was
Speaker 2: like him having surveillance done on particular like government groups
Speaker 2: or military groups, and they believed that he was planning.
Speaker 2: Najar was planning an attack of some sort on one
Speaker 2: of those government groups.
Speaker 3: Right, and this is based on the actions of the
Speaker 3: Kalistan separatist movement in the eighties and nineties, in which
Speaker 3: thousands of people did die, there were terrorist attacks. Najarre
Speaker 3: had also been warned.
Speaker 5: Quick question, college town, does that exist or is this
Speaker 5: just a conceptual the right that's so.
Speaker 3: He had also been warned by the intelligence community of
Speaker 3: Canada several times. Officially, they said, look, there are active
Speaker 3: death threats against you. He was aware of this and
Speaker 3: he had also been He had also been given the
Speaker 3: chance to respond to accusations of the Indian government. He
Speaker 3: spoke to Canadian press and he said, look, I am
Speaker 3: not doing these things like, yes, I am an activist
Speaker 3: for Sikh ights. Yes, I do believe that the Sikh
Speaker 3: people deserve a homeland, a state of their own. But
Speaker 3: I'm not ordering terrorist attacks. I am not the monster here,
Speaker 3: I'm not the bad guy.
Speaker 2: But it is crazy because then, as an observer, everybody
Speaker 2: else on the planet has to go Okay, Well, I
Speaker 2: either believe him in his words and that he's telling
Speaker 2: the truth, or I believe the Indian government and what
Speaker 2: they're saying and that they're telling the truth, and it
Speaker 2: just it puts I think it puts the every third
Speaker 2: party that is not either that huge organization in state
Speaker 2: government or an individual man. You just have to kind
Speaker 2: of decide what you believe.
Speaker 3: Two categorical statements that contradict one another. Yeah, yeah, there's
Speaker 3: not really a third way.
Speaker 5: Well, and speaking of statements contradicting one another, the believe
Speaker 5: the Indian government, you know, vehemently denied those allegations leveled
Speaker 5: by Trudeau, calling them absurd, basically walking them up to
Speaker 5: some sort of political agenda, perhaps the smear campaigns. I'm
Speaker 5: sort and we'll get back to the statements a bit later,
Speaker 5: but why don't we continue on with the history and
Speaker 5: the timeline.
Speaker 3: Yes, so, the World Seek Organization of Canada, it is
Speaker 3: one of the first groups to say, don't believe the stories,
Speaker 3: even before Trudeau makes a statement. They say he was assassinated.
Speaker 3: Najar was assassinated by the nation of India upon their orders.
Speaker 3: And they said, what's more, he's only one of several
Speaker 3: people who were killed. And there's some stuff we talked
Speaker 3: about briefly off air. We'd love your opinions. Fellow conspiracy
Speaker 3: realist the WSO World Sikh Organization says that over the
Speaker 3: past few months leading up to Najar's murder, other pro
Speaker 3: Colistan activists have been murdered or died in suspicious circumstances.
Speaker 3: And again part in our pronunciations here we are not
Speaker 3: native speakers. They mentioned people like Peramijit Singh Panjhoir over
Speaker 3: in Pakistan who was shot by two gunmen on a
Speaker 3: morning walk.
Speaker 2: And then that guy was allegedly associated with the Kalistan
Speaker 2: Commando Force, which was which India, at least the government
Speaker 2: of India categorizes as a terrorist organizationization. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And while you're noticing here, folks, is something that
Speaker 3: you can see all the world around. One country, you
Speaker 3: may designate something a terrorist organization with just cause, with
Speaker 3: provable murders and acts of chaos, but other countries don't agree, right, Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well, in that organization believes it is a liberating force
Speaker 2: of some kind fighting for good.
Speaker 3: Freedom fighters, terrorists, what's your perspective? Yeah, And the other one,
Speaker 3: it's a little more controversial, is Avtar Singh Kanda in Britain.
Speaker 3: Avtar sing Kanda is the death in what they call
Speaker 3: mysterious circumstances. He's thirty e. He's thirty five in June
Speaker 3: of twenty twenty three, and he dies following a diagnosis
Speaker 3: of acute Mylloyd leukemia, which, if that is an assassination,
Speaker 3: does not seem like a very straightforward way to murder
Speaker 3: someone long game.
Speaker 6: Yeah, yeah, well then I mean impossible people, I mean, right,
Speaker 6: I mean, if you could touch the hospital, if they're
Speaker 6: in a hospital at that point.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it depends on whether it fake the diagnosis to
Speaker 2: have it be a cover story.
Speaker 3: You could just have someone who's not really who's You
Speaker 3: could have someone who works at the hospital do some shenanigans.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I touch it exactly. If he's in
Speaker 2: the hospital for that the cancer of the blood and
Speaker 2: undergoing treatment, right, you could kill him in another way.
Speaker 2: The police there in Birmingham, where he was when he died,
Speaker 2: are not investigating it because they're like, no, this is
Speaker 2: not suspicious, We're good to go. But that guy again,
Speaker 2: just to keep adding this, called himself at least referred
Speaker 2: to himself as the chief of the Kalistan Liberation Force,
Speaker 2: another group designated as a terrorist organization.
Speaker 3: So you can see already the roots of the Kalistan
Speaker 3: movement are deep. They are multipolar, right, and they have
Speaker 3: a lot of support amid the diaspora. Now, having support
Speaker 3: amid a diaspora does not mean everybody who wants a
Speaker 3: Kalistan around is a terrorist. Far from it. Their people
Speaker 3: are saying, hey, why can't we have our thing too,
Speaker 3: you know, and that's a very human question. The history
Speaker 3: also goes deeper because if you look at India's Punjab state,
Speaker 3: one of the larger states the twenty eight states of India,
Speaker 3: then you see that it is majority Seek, just barely.
Speaker 3: It's about fifty eight percent Seek, thirty nine percent Hindu
Speaker 3: self reporting. And that's why there was this violent Kalistan
Speaker 3: movement there, or this series of honestly just objectively horrific attacks.
Speaker 3: And today the movement's most vocal advocates are Punjabi diaspora.
Speaker 3: And India has again complained often repeatedly before and after
Speaker 3: those events of the eighties and nineties. They have complained
Speaker 3: about activities of what they say are Sikh hardliners, and
Speaker 3: they say, look, you know, you guys might not be
Speaker 3: reporting it in the western news, but these folks are
Speaker 3: planning horrible, horrible things, bombings of civilians right airports, hospitals,
Speaker 3: bombing airplanes and so on. And in March, Indian authorities
Speaker 3: called Canada's top diplomat in the country because Sikh protesters
Speaker 3: were gathered outside India's diplomatic mission in Canada. So it goes,
Speaker 3: it goes much deeper than one person dead in a
Speaker 3: pickup truck, right, And then there were more accusations. Right.
Speaker 3: Maybe maybe there's fog, war, smoking, mirrors, pomp and circumstance.
Speaker 3: Maybe Trudeau is being told to say these things for
Speaker 3: some ulterior motive. Maybe it's just one guy's allegations, one
Speaker 3: whistle in the dark. As you mentioned previously. The Indian
Speaker 3: government responded said this stuff is politically motivated. It's absurd.
Speaker 3: So they're saying there's an ulterior motive. But if we
Speaker 3: continue the timeline, we'll see that Canada, when they go
Speaker 3: public with these claims, everything goes wrong with their relationship.
Speaker 3: They're expelling diplomats left and right. Some of the trades
Speaker 3: deal stuff they were working on, which doesn't get widely reported.
Speaker 3: That hits a roadblock, and then a bombshell drops. In November.
Speaker 3: Uncle Sam tries to have off the books conversation and
Speaker 3: gets caught by the.
Speaker 5: Media so the United States actually claims that they've discovered
Speaker 5: a very similar plan to kill another activist that was
Speaker 5: stopped a dual US Canadian citizen by the name of
Speaker 5: Gorpa Twant Singh Pannun, who very similarly to U Nijar,
Speaker 5: was a prominent Sikh separatist, and the US government claims
Speaker 5: that an Indian government official paid one hundred thousand dollars
Speaker 5: for a plot to assassinate Pannun.
Speaker 4: Doesn't that seem a little.
Speaker 5: A little like like like a bit of a deal
Speaker 5: one hundred k or is that a standard?
Speaker 3: That's a lot of money.
Speaker 4: Ye, a lot, and there's a lot of money, but
Speaker 4: to kill somebody.
Speaker 5: I thought we were thinking maybe uh, upwards of that,
Speaker 5: but maybe I don't know what the going rate is
Speaker 5: for an assassination these days.
Speaker 3: Well it.
Speaker 2: That sounds weird, Like I know, I don't want to
Speaker 2: seem like I know too much about this around speaking
Speaker 2: with too much authority. I have seen allegations in the
Speaker 2: news for murder for higher plots that range from five
Speaker 2: thousand dollars to you know, ten fifteen, twenty five thousand dollars.
Speaker 2: This is actually actually really high.
Speaker 4: Oa to what that again, that's very interesting and helpful.
Speaker 2: But if it's at a government level that you know,
Speaker 2: those are the allegations that somehow, at a government level,
Speaker 2: there was going to be one hundred thousand dollars procured,
Speaker 2: procured to pay somebody to pull off a high level assassination.
Speaker 4: High level. Also for this rate, you'd be getting a
Speaker 4: real pro.
Speaker 3: It's also the smallest amount of money that sounds like
Speaker 3: a lot of.
Speaker 5: Money exist, true exactly, that is true, exactly.
Speaker 3: So when when this kind of stuff happens, if they're
Speaker 3: the if there is a government tie here, right, if
Speaker 3: you follow the money, then what this would indicate is
Speaker 3: it's coming from a slush funds coming from some kind
Speaker 3: of thing that gets misallocated in the budget. Right, and
Speaker 3: who knows, maybe they said, look, send us an invoice
Speaker 3: for one hundred grand. It's net ninety day turnaround. So
Speaker 3: you'll get the money at that point.
Speaker 2: But again, you just had a high enough level person
Speaker 2: with enough money, right, you could work that money through
Speaker 2: and wouldn't have to touch government ever.
Speaker 3: Or if there was somebody who was working with you
Speaker 3: middlemanning it through the government, then they give you three
Speaker 3: hundred thousand dollars, right, and you're a criminal. So a
Speaker 3: criminals like high profit margins, right, whether they're on Wall
Speaker 3: Street or in the backstreets of your city, criminals like
Speaker 3: high profit margins. So we just know that Uncle Sam
Speaker 3: is claiming this, and they're not saying approximately, they're saying exactly.
Speaker 3: And when they say this, this is the important part.
Speaker 3: They are not initially public about these claims. The world
Speaker 3: only knows that the US said this because of some
Speaker 3: badass journalists led by the Financial Times. True investigative journalist,
Speaker 3: your local investigative journalist is almost certainly underpaid, is almost
Speaker 3: certainly unappreciated. So next time you hang out with them,
Speaker 3: you should pay for the coffee, just just to help
Speaker 3: them out, right, and uh, in.
Speaker 5: Cases like this, they're they're putting themselves in harm's way oftentimes,
Speaker 5: you know, or and danger of retribution.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and also be careful of hanging out with journalists,
Speaker 2: and be careful if you're a journalist. We just read
Speaker 2: a story and listened to some reporting about pegasusts being
Speaker 2: on reporters phones in several countries, like major newspapers.
Speaker 3: It's and then known it's I know, but yeah.
Speaker 2: But just the infectious nature of being somebody that likes
Speaker 2: to bring truth out into the world to the light.
Speaker 2: Uh it seems it seems like a dangerous.
Speaker 3: Time well sporting several reviews we're disinfo. So I think
Speaker 3: we're fine.
Speaker 2: No, I'm not worried about I mean an actual investigative journalist. Jeez.
Speaker 3: So uh So the White House had to respond once.
Speaker 6: Uh.
Speaker 3: Financial Times, in a multi partner investigation, leaked this. What
Speaker 3: they said off the record is they told the Indian government,
Speaker 3: we have information that links you to a attempt to
Speaker 3: murder a dual US Canadian citizen. It's not even an
Speaker 3: Indian national, not that that should matter. We're supposed to
Speaker 3: prevent assassinations on our soil. So when this news comes out,
Speaker 3: the White House has to say something and it falls
Speaker 3: to another unappreciated job, having to be the spokesperson for
Speaker 3: the White House, having to go in front of the
Speaker 3: press club. I don't you know. I'm sure these folks
Speaker 3: get paid more than independent journalists, but boy, they have
Speaker 3: to take a lot of You think the customer service
Speaker 3: repic Comcast has it bad, These people have it worse.
Speaker 3: Adrian Watson is the spokesperson who takes the hit on
Speaker 3: this and says paraphrasing here says okay, yes, the Financial
Speaker 3: Times is right. We did speak to officials of the
Speaker 3: Indian government about this, and they expressed surprise and concern
Speaker 3: when we told them. They're like, what what's going on? OMG,
Speaker 3: you guys, and Watson said, we're treating this with seriousness.
Speaker 3: We're talking to the senior most levels about these attempts.
Speaker 3: And then later we know an indictment, an indictment was unsealed,
Speaker 3: not an in sealment was undicted. An indictment was unsealed
Speaker 3: in Manhattan's Federal court, and it finally named some names.
Speaker 3: There's a guy named Nikhil Gupta fifty two, an Indian
Speaker 3: national who had lived in India, who has been charged
Speaker 3: with murder for hire and conspiracy to commit murder for hire.
Speaker 3: In case you're wondering, we don't think he's going to
Speaker 3: be able to use that one hundred grand for legal fees.
Speaker 2: No, I don't know. I do not.
Speaker 3: I don't think that loophole is still a thing.
Speaker 2: Nope. Just to go back to the just the concept
Speaker 2: of the White House coming out and having to make
Speaker 2: an official statement on this, right, it's such it's such
Speaker 2: sticky territory for them. As we've talked about in the
Speaker 2: past and as you may have seen in the news,
Speaker 2: the United States has really been positioning a close relationship
Speaker 2: with India for all kinds of geopolitical reasons, right, And
Speaker 2: one of the main things is that it's a partner
Speaker 2: that is right there, literally adjacent to Russia and China.
Speaker 2: Just hanging out and having them as a close ally
Speaker 2: is extremely important for so many reasons to the US.
Speaker 2: And then to have to come out and say, yeah,
Speaker 2: it does seem like the country is assassinating people like
Speaker 2: over here, everything's fine. I mean, it's really a weird thing.
Speaker 3: We did talk, but it was like, you know, they said,
Speaker 3: everything but mission's mission siloing, right where you have those
Speaker 3: off the books conversations and then attempt to like make
Speaker 3: your off the book conversation the world you wanted to
Speaker 3: be without without inc looting the other people important to
Speaker 3: that conversation, which would be the people who were trying
Speaker 3: not to die, the public that is paying for your job,
Speaker 3: et cetera. India signals that they are investigating. They said,
Speaker 3: we're going to release a public statement. Don't worry, We're
Speaker 3: as surprised as you. Financial Time said its sources did
Speaker 3: not say if the US was It did not say
Speaker 3: whether the US got to India or got word to
Speaker 3: India before the assassination happened, and then the assassination was
Speaker 3: abandoned because it was still just planning stages.
Speaker 2: That would make sense, right if they were like, hey,
Speaker 2: we see you doing this, and don't do this. We're
Speaker 2: trying to make other things happen.
Speaker 3: Right, right, we got a good thing going here, Lodi,
Speaker 3: or if it was foiled by the FBI. All that
Speaker 3: the press can say for sure, All that the public
Speaker 3: can say for sure right now is that this investigation
Speaker 3: right The release from the Financial Times and the conversation
Speaker 3: that the US had with India appears to have occurred
Speaker 3: around when the Prime Minister of India, Neurendra Modi, visited
Speaker 3: Joe Biden in June of twenty twenty three. So again,
Speaker 3: at the time, I've been talking about a lot of stuff,
Speaker 3: and then they had a Hey, by the way, are
Speaker 3: you guys trying to kill some people?
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's exactly what it was been. Hey, Yeah, while
Speaker 2: we grab some tea, just bring it up just casually.
Speaker 2: So okay. That Financial Times article was released November twenty
Speaker 2: second in twenty twenty three, So yeah, it totally makes sense. Again,
Speaker 2: I'm just thinking about those timelines of investigation, right, It's
Speaker 2: exactly how long it would take, ben I think from
Speaker 2: those conversations and when it would have occurred, when the
Speaker 2: amount of time it would have taked for somebody to
Speaker 2: choose to release information or come forward with information for
Speaker 2: the paper to do the writing and their investigation. It's
Speaker 2: really gosh, really interesting that that, Sorry, just the idea
Speaker 2: of those powerful people were together, and I always imagine,
Speaker 2: I have this picture in my mind of state leaders
Speaker 2: talking to each other and I've never actually seen it
Speaker 2: in person, like that kind of closed door, just chilling shooting,
Speaker 2: shooting the stuff, you know, with two extremely powerful people,
Speaker 2: and just how much of a dance that must be
Speaker 2: with the things that each one knows about the other
Speaker 2: one because of their various intelligence arms or whatever.
Speaker 3: When when both people in conversation are lying and they
Speaker 3: both know they're lying, the content of the conversation gets
Speaker 3: very close to the truth, you know what I mean.
Speaker 3: It's it's a very strange double game, but and altering.
Speaker 3: These guys are rarely alone when they're speaking. It's it's
Speaker 3: pretty extraordinary, which is why the Russians is troubling, but
Speaker 3: the US Russian conversations years back. But the other thing
Speaker 3: here that I'm sure you're already thinking as well, Matt,
Speaker 3: is who was this leak co signed? Because whenever an
Speaker 3: official from the US who cannot be named or is
Speaker 3: anonymous is talking to the New York Times, there is
Speaker 3: a I would say, just spidey sense, there's a more
Speaker 3: than fifty percent chance that someone greenlit the leak and
Speaker 3: was like, contact our boy or contact our person, our people,
Speaker 3: and just don't put your name on it so it
Speaker 3: looks like a leak, so that we can say, oh, wow,
Speaker 3: the press is really good. And here's an inside look
Speaker 3: at the way the sausage is made. Yeah, it's a
Speaker 3: it's a chess move. But there's the other thing too,
Speaker 3: like if this so they're already there's already a lot
Speaker 3: of obstifcation, right, obsicication. We know that regardless of how
Speaker 3: this news got out. Unlike many other homicides or tempted murders,
Speaker 3: these activities carry some very heavy baggage because the US
Speaker 3: government is desperately working to have a bulwark or balance
Speaker 3: against China, as China continues to grow and expand India
Speaker 3: is the number one draft pick for that. And now
Speaker 3: you get to a disturbing cost benefit calculus. The appeal
Speaker 3: of being a citizen in any country is the idea
Speaker 3: that the government will protect you on some level in
Speaker 3: the grand Yeah, in the grand scheme of things, though,
Speaker 3: is a nation? How much will a nation risk for
Speaker 3: one person's life? Would a nation, any nation risk the
Speaker 3: future of the global order for one person, especially if
Speaker 3: some people already think that person is a terrorist?
Speaker 4: Oh it's that greater good man. One person doesn't mean.
Speaker 2: Jack Well, well, I don't know.
Speaker 5: I depending on the person, perhaps, I suppose, but your
Speaker 5: average you know, citizens kind of special.
Speaker 2: It's just so weird because if that person was extremely
Speaker 2: valuable for some kind of economic reason, I think that
Speaker 2: one person could be like held up right.
Speaker 3: I think that leverage for sure, like Ellon Gonzalez became
Speaker 3: very important because Gonzalez was able to be leveraged in
Speaker 3: the US political discourse.
Speaker 2: Dude, exactly. But this is all just taking me back
Speaker 2: to think about how these two guys that we've talked about,
Speaker 2: Najar the person who was shot back in June, and
Speaker 2: then Panun the person who was this murder plot was
Speaker 2: aimed at, right that survived, didn't get killed. Back on
Speaker 2: June twenty first of twenty twenty three, the Wire wrote
Speaker 2: a story and in that story, just a couple of
Speaker 2: sentences here quote Najar was a declared terrorist in India,
Speaker 2: wanted in several cases. He was the chief of that
Speaker 2: tiger forest that you talked about, ben and he worked
Speaker 2: closely with the Seekhs for Justice leader Panun. So it
Speaker 2: names Panuon and Najar together in the same article after
Speaker 2: Najar gets assassinated. I just to me, that is so
Speaker 2: interesting that these two guys both targeted and they're being
Speaker 2: talked about together in June around the same time when
Speaker 2: this plot is probably happening taking place against Panun.
Speaker 3: Curiouser and curiouser, let's pause for a word from our sponsor,
Speaker 3: and then to be objective and fair, we're going to
Speaker 3: go to the Indian perspective. We've returned, all right, So
Speaker 3: we've talked a lot about the ins and outs of this,
Speaker 3: the questions, some of which are still going to be
Speaker 3: very difficult to answer. I think for an interminable out
Speaker 3: of time. The Indian government has a weird, somewhat dichotomous
Speaker 3: approach to these claims. I mean, they're not mutually exclusive.
Speaker 3: You guys, tell me what you think. On the one hand, officials,
Speaker 3: high level officials, deny any knowledge of any shenanigans, And
Speaker 3: originally they said they were scandalized by the Canadian accusations, absurd,
Speaker 3: politically motivated. If you have proof, show us the proof,
Speaker 3: and then that will help us help you. But on
Speaker 3: the other hand, they're saying, look, Canada, uncle Sam, you're
Speaker 3: providing refuge for enemies of our state. We warned you repeatedly.
Speaker 3: You never ever listened. The implication being, so, what are
Speaker 3: we to do to protect our people? How far would
Speaker 3: we go? What is one life in our costs benefit calculus,
Speaker 3: or even a couple lives? I mean, I was thinking
Speaker 3: it might be helpful, Like do we flip the players
Speaker 3: in the roles here? If we do, we see a
Speaker 3: crazy precedent, because the United States can, has, and absolutely
Speaker 3: will go into a sovereign country proactively eliminate anyone it
Speaker 3: feels is a threat past a certain threshold. And the
Speaker 3: US isn't usually too quiet about it either.
Speaker 2: Guys, because in order for the US to actually get
Speaker 2: their hands on this person that they were investigating, Gupta,
Speaker 2: the person who's charged with you know, the murder for
Speaker 2: higher plot. Didn't they use extradition and like go to
Speaker 2: another country that then cooperated with them to get the
Speaker 2: person they wanted.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he was in Uh, he's currently in the Pancrack
Speaker 3: prison Pncrock prison in Prague. I think he's still there
Speaker 3: as of December. But yeah, they're gonna get him.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, and he was. He was in the Czech
Speaker 2: Republic when he was arrested, so like and there there
Speaker 2: was a bilateral treaty but or an extradition treaty between
Speaker 2: two countries to get their hands on this guy. So
Speaker 2: I don't know. That's just the kind of weird thing
Speaker 2: where it does feel like playing different playing with playing
Speaker 2: the same game with different rules.
Speaker 3: What do we say Earlier? The US says you want
Speaker 3: the smoke? Turns out you're in the smoking section wherever
Speaker 3: you live. And that still doesn't answer who actually did it?
Speaker 3: Who killed this guy in Canada? Right? Who killed Najar?
Speaker 3: Who are they related to these other deaths? Is it
Speaker 3: one entity planning these things? They successfully conspired in one case?
Speaker 3: Did they almost succeed in another. We have to say,
Speaker 3: given the historical precedent our earlier series on targeted killings
Speaker 3: and assassinations, we can walk through some hypothetical possibilities and
Speaker 3: maybe the plausibility. Number one fair question, what if the
Speaker 3: Indian government is aware of this at the top level
Speaker 3: and does not care. That's very unlikely. That's not how
Speaker 3: black ops work. I mean, look at you or wherever
Speaker 3: you live, however you feel about your leaders and politicians.
Speaker 3: If you don't live in Russia, then civilian and political
Speaker 3: leadership has a series of firewalls between these activities. This
Speaker 3: is why, like this is why when your government, any government,
Speaker 3: gets up to Shenanigan's, the leaders of that organization can
Speaker 3: technically be telling the truth. Well when they say, well,
Speaker 3: holy cow, man, I didn't know that happened either, that's crazy.
Speaker 5: Indeed, another option is that a faction of the Indian
Speaker 5: intelligence community may have triggered perhaps the poor choice of
Speaker 5: words this, or knew something was coming and helpfully kind
Speaker 5: of turned away to well bird of the sea here,
Speaker 5: or provided some kind of perhaps even help.
Speaker 4: This is both plausible and plausible.
Speaker 5: We can call it plausible because the intelligence communities often
Speaker 5: act with this siloed kind of level of autonomy that
Speaker 5: verges on like you were saying earlier, planned by a
Speaker 5: different set of rules. According to them, you know, the
Speaker 5: business as usual, but to the outside it could appear
Speaker 5: to be criminal activities, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so okay, forgive me bro In my mind, if
Speaker 2: if this person was targeted right from the top levels
Speaker 2: of an intelligence community, wouldn't that assignment basically go to
Speaker 2: one or two people or you know.
Speaker 3: Yes, yeah, it would go to typically what would happen
Speaker 3: is you want to be very buttoned up and close
Speaker 3: to the chest, so it would go to one or
Speaker 3: two people, and then from there maybe only one person
Speaker 3: knows who gets the contract or you know, the subcontract,
Speaker 3: et cetera, et cetera, which one is as many shells
Speaker 3: as ideally one as many shells as possible, but really
Speaker 3: every one of those, every new piece you add, presents
Speaker 3: countless vulnerabilities or possibilities for exposure, so you want to
Speaker 3: keep it like quiet. The best secret is the secret
Speaker 3: no one knows, right, So I mean, there's another badger
Speaker 3: in the bag though here, Matt, which is this murder?
Speaker 3: Or we have to say it in the interest of
Speaker 3: airness before we get to the really juicy stuff. This murder,
Speaker 3: other mysterious deaths, attempted murder. There is the possibility that
Speaker 3: they're all unrelated, you know, and these people carrying and
Speaker 3: participating in the movement for seekh rights and independence is
Speaker 3: a coincidence. That is highly unlikely. That is utterly impossible.
Speaker 3: Highly unlikely is far too kind because of the disturbing
Speaker 3: thing the badger just mentioned. Five eyes, five eyes is
Speaker 3: in the mix. Five eyes is how the US and
Speaker 3: Canada know what they know. I guarantee it.
Speaker 2: Let's just recap everybody on five eyes. That's the United States, Canada,
Speaker 2: not Mexico, United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia.
Speaker 3: And New Zealand.
Speaker 2: New Zealand, and they all share intelligence. The extent to
Speaker 2: which they share one of intelligence, We're unsure which players
Speaker 2: give eighty five percent, which ones give twenty five percent?
Speaker 2: Who knows they all?
Speaker 3: I think they all sort of share choice pieces of
Speaker 3: the puzzle when convenient for them.
Speaker 2: I think that's exactly how to do it.
Speaker 4: Yep.
Speaker 5: Some light reading on the subject can be found in
Speaker 5: these stuff they Don't want you to know.
Speaker 3: Book illustrated by the One and Only Admiral turbo nick
Speaker 3: you and so yeah, five Eyes is scary, folks. Does
Speaker 3: your religious, political, demographic stuff, your ideologies of choice, they
Speaker 3: do not matter. This is a very This is like
Speaker 3: the closest version to Big Brother in real life in
Speaker 3: terms of public public state craft. Right, private industries may
Speaker 3: be up to some other stuff, but Five Eyes touches
Speaker 3: them too. It is simply reality. So they we know
Speaker 3: Five Eyes is involved because an unnamed Canadian official said,
Speaker 3: we drew our conclusions based on intel provided by a
Speaker 3: major ally a member of the Five Eyes Intelligence.
Speaker 2: Sharing Alliance, Like yep, checks out.
Speaker 3: Checks out, because what can't those guys touch, you know,
Speaker 3: other than firewalled other than firewalled hardware, for like Iranian
Speaker 3: nuclear cap abilities.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but okay, so it makes me wonder if there
Speaker 2: were actually if there was an agent or two or
Speaker 2: actual human assets from one of these Five Eyes organizations
Speaker 2: in the Czech Republic checking up on Gupta before he
Speaker 2: was arrested, which it always i'll I don't. I always
Speaker 2: wonder about not jurisdiction, that's not the right word for it,
Speaker 2: but just operating in another country that has an extradition
Speaker 2: treaty signed with the US and they're you know, investigating
Speaker 2: a murder, a murder for higher plot inside the United
Speaker 2: States and New York City. So they just go to
Speaker 2: the Czech Republic and they like watch a person and
Speaker 2: then share some intel. But like, it could have been
Speaker 2: any it could have been any of the major Five
Speaker 2: Eyes countries that was actually that actually had agents there
Speaker 2: looking at which.
Speaker 3: Also gives them another version of plausible deniability. Right, it
Speaker 3: could have been one of the five So now we're
Speaker 3: playing the game of clue, right. So the it's it's
Speaker 3: strange too because Canada says that they caught they caught
Speaker 3: info from UH from a member of the Indian diplomacy
Speaker 3: outfit who was using a government phone to plan some
Speaker 3: of this, which is just egregious. And I don't know, man,
Speaker 3: I don't I don't buy that. Honestly, that's way too
Speaker 3: sloppy for a professional.
Speaker 2: I think, oh, yeah, that's hard to imagine unless they
Speaker 2: don't usually do that kind of thing and were instructed
Speaker 2: to somehow or were urged to, I don't know, and
Speaker 2: they didn't know what they were doing. But that doesn't
Speaker 2: that doesn't feel it feels to me.
Speaker 3: It feels like it feels like something you would see
Speaker 3: on HBO. I mean, maybe they just had really bad
Speaker 3: code phrases too. Maybe they were just like mister Gupta,
Speaker 3: I hear you paint houses, you know, like like that's
Speaker 3: I don't know, it seems weird. I mean, there are
Speaker 3: other possibilities not proven, and what if there's a criminal
Speaker 3: syndicate or something on the wrong side of the law,
Speaker 3: like the mob here in the US in India, and
Speaker 3: they're working independently because they they happen to have aligning
Speaker 3: interest right they don't want the colistan to exist for
Speaker 3: reasons of their own, or maybe there's money involved. I mean,
Speaker 3: the US historically doesn't mind working with the mob or warlords.
Speaker 3: The Japanese government has worked with the Yaquaza before, like it.
Speaker 2: Well, if you leave the stories about the MLK assassination,
Speaker 2: the US government worked with like small organized small town
Speaker 2: organized crime in order to carry out that assassination.
Speaker 3: And they did it with the approval of larger organized
Speaker 3: crime associates. And the thing is, the smaller you go,
Speaker 3: the less you have to pay as well.
Speaker 4: It's just so wow, No.
Speaker 3: It's it's crazy. I mean there's also okay, the last one,
Speaker 3: what if a third party threw some chaos into the dance,
Speaker 3: you know, because both Canada and the US are extremely
Speaker 3: focused on improving relations with India before this string of deaths.
Speaker 3: From a cost benefit perspective, if you wanted that not
Speaker 3: to happen, this would be a very cost effective, asymmetrical
Speaker 3: way of stopping it.
Speaker 4: So just sewing some chaos, you know, for your own
Speaker 4: financial benefit.
Speaker 3: Hey, Venezuela, you got to protect yourself from Guyana, et cetera.
Speaker 3: Walk down the street for that one. But so Prime
Speaker 3: Minister Mody recently, as of December twentieth, I think twentieth
Speaker 3: or twenty first responded publicly in his first real public
Speaker 3: statements about this. He said, look, these are a few incidents.
Speaker 3: We want to maintain diplomatic ties and improve diplomatic ties
Speaker 3: between the US and India. And also, and he spoke
Speaker 3: with the Financial Times by the way, he said, look,
Speaker 3: if someone gives us any information, we'll definitely look into it.
Speaker 3: Because I don't know what's happening. Is the implication I
Speaker 3: plausibly deny any activity in this regard. That could be sincere.
Speaker 3: It could be I don't know, if you since we're
Speaker 3: playing the paranoia game, that could also be a challenge
Speaker 3: to say, tell us how you know this, tell us
Speaker 3: how you collect information?
Speaker 4: Can we just.
Speaker 2: Stop playing the paranoia game, everybody, I'm so over it.
Speaker 3: Ah, it's weird, so over it. I mean maybe Mody
Speaker 3: is over it as well. He did reiterate the claim
Speaker 3: India has made again continually. He said, Look, this separate
Speaker 3: is violence is real. We're very concerned about terrorist and
Speaker 3: extremist groups and they're operating with a parent impunity from
Speaker 3: the safety of other countries. Help us, please, you know.
Speaker 2: And that's isn't that similar to the United States questioning
Speaker 2: a Pakistan right in other countries that were quote harboring terrorists, right,
Speaker 2: and like you're either with us or you're against us.
Speaker 2: It's this same thing in my mind.
Speaker 3: A false dichotomy perhaps, right like or a dichotomy. At
Speaker 3: least it reminds me of a Do you remember when
Speaker 3: Pervez Musherief showed up on The Daily Show? John Stewart
Speaker 3: interviewed him. Yeah, it was very weird situation.
Speaker 2: I remember reading about the production to make it happen,
Speaker 2: but I don't remember the interview at all.
Speaker 3: I don't remember well. With our powers combined because I
Speaker 3: don't remember, I'm sure there was a ton of weird
Speaker 3: stuff going into the production of that. But I remember
Speaker 3: the interview. I was like, either John Stewart is excellent
Speaker 3: at this job or Musha Reef is strangely charismatic. I
Speaker 3: don't like that. You're rolling with the jokes man, I
Speaker 3: know what you did. But anyway, that's the story for
Speaker 3: another night. Perhaps we see what appears to be a
Speaker 3: genuine conspiracy here. We just don't know all the pieces,
Speaker 3: but like they say in that tool song, we know
Speaker 3: the piece is fit right. We also know that there's
Speaker 3: no escaping the fact people are dead. Events have been
Speaker 3: set in motion, and maybe one of the best ways
Speaker 3: to end this is to say something to the Sikh
Speaker 3: communities in the US and Canada diasper. Overall, this is
Speaker 3: just regular people. They got all the joys and concerns
Speaker 3: and fears of any other civilian, and now as a
Speaker 3: result of these things, they're wondering if their own governments
Speaker 3: will protect them should assassins come to call. And that's
Speaker 3: a horrible thing to have to wonder.
Speaker 2: I don't know, Yeah, no, really, it really is. Hey
Speaker 2: yeah yeah, yeah yeah.
Speaker 3: Maybe maybe someone listening now knows the answer.
Speaker 2: I hope, So I hope you do and you'll write
Speaker 2: to us, but just quickly, if you want to dig
Speaker 2: deep into this, there is something of the Australian Broadcasting
Speaker 2: Company put out on September nineteenth last year called Canada
Speaker 2: and India have expelled each other's top diplomats in the
Speaker 2: last twenty four hours. Here's why Australia is deeply concerned.
Speaker 2: To me, that is one of the strangest titles for
Speaker 2: an article that I can imagine right the headline for
Speaker 2: an article like Okay, Canada and India are doing this thing.
Speaker 2: Here's why Australia is concerned. In my mind, I don't
Speaker 2: connect any of that stuff, but it takes us back
Speaker 2: to our discussion about five eyes, which is I think
Speaker 2: it's worth your time to dive into that. If you're
Speaker 2: listening to this right now, and there's so many articles
Speaker 2: out there that you do kind of have to go
Speaker 2: back in time and build like the story as you
Speaker 2: go if you really want to dive deep. So I
Speaker 2: just you know, a good place to start is probably
Speaker 2: the assassination that occurred in June of twenty twenty three,
Speaker 2: right one, the one that was in Canada. Like, start
Speaker 2: there if you're going to look into this and then
Speaker 2: just kind of let it flow.
Speaker 3: And go back to the early two thousands too. Yes,
Speaker 3: oh my god, Holistan activism anyway. Five is shys or
Speaker 3: watch it you You see your every move and they
Speaker 3: might know when you email us, we can't hear. We
Speaker 3: can't wait to hear what you Yeah, that's a setup.
Speaker 2: We'll say that, actually they will.
Speaker 5: Yeah, like for that's true, So tread lightly, use a
Speaker 5: spoofed email account, and definitely give yourself a fun nickname.
Speaker 5: You can also reach out to us online in other
Speaker 5: ways like social media where we are conspiracy stuff on Facebook,
Speaker 5: YouTube and x fka Twitter, Conspiracy Stuff show on Instagram,
Speaker 5: and tikeny talk.
Speaker 2: Hey, you can call us just like Headmaster did back
Speaker 2: in August last year. Call one eight three three std WYTK.
Speaker 2: It's a voicemail system. When you call in, you'll get
Speaker 2: three minutes. Please give yourself a cool nickname and let
Speaker 2: us know if we can use your message and voice
Speaker 2: on the air. You can always just say things like
Speaker 2: and hey, don't put this part in there, and then
Speaker 2: say something and then say okay, now you can keep
Speaker 2: going here. It's actually kind of cool. Give us edit
Speaker 2: points we'll make it work. If you don't want to
Speaker 2: do that stuff, but you still want to write to us,
Speaker 2: maybe send us links. You've got attachments, anything, pictures of
Speaker 2: your cat, We love those.
Speaker 3: We are the folks who read every single email we
Speaker 3: get conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com. Happy twenty twenty four, folks.
Speaker 3: We can't wait to hear from you.
Speaker 2: Stuff they don't want you to know. Is a production
Speaker 2: of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 2: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.