We discussed his book and ongoing research into the astonishing transformation of the United States from a constitutional republic into a pathocracy - a country ruled by psychopaths. Why and how does a country espousing such benevolent intentions as 'spreading freedom and democracy' wind up committing such atrocious crimes against humanity?
Running Time: 02:00:00
Download: MP3
Here's the transcript:
Niall: Hello and welcome back to SOTT Talk Radio. Happy New Year to all of our listeners. This week we're talking with Robert Kirkconnell. He's the author of American Heart of Darkness, Volume 1 - The Transformation of the American Republic Into a Pathocracy. Robert has taught high school level education for 14 years and before that he was a decorated combat veteran who served 27 years in the U.S. Air Force. So let's welcome Robert.
Joe: Hello.
Robert: Hi. Hi Joe.
Joe: Welcome to the show Robert.
Robert: Well thank you very much. And I'm delighted to be here. This should be a good time.
Joe: Yeah. Well as anybody who's listening probably knows having read the description, the show is basically about just an interview with you specifically on your book, as Niall just mentioned, American Heart of Darkness.
Niall: It's a foreboding title.
Joe: It is. It kind of sums it up. The reason I like the book a lot is because it's kind of - it's unique in that there aren't many other books that deal with this particular subject, i.e., America and the history of America in this particular context and also in the breadth of the scope that you deal with it in. Because as you say in your book, it's been more or less rotten, or set up to become what it is today from the very beginning, from the founding fathers. There aren't many other books that deal with that in such a broad scope in the sense of that they show people - other books tend to just pick on one particular aspect of the history of America. So that's one of the reasons I actually like it and why I think it's a very good book for the kind lay reader who hasn't focused on one particular aspect, who just wants an overview. It's kind of like a people's history of America as it really is.
Niall: Yeah, from beginning to present.
Jason: Yeah, a lot of people go on and on about the founding fathers and don't realize how actually they were pretty rotten a lot of the times. Nobody really deals with it. They kind of "Leave that alone. The American Revolution was pure and wonderful and America had good startings and it's just only now has it started to go south".
Joe: Was that what you kind of - obviously that's what you intended to do Bob, when you wrote the book or when you had the idea for writing it?
Robert: When I first started thinking about it, it was due to some of the experiences I had, as you read about, in the military, where I ran into, when I was a logistics specialist, and I used to research questionable travel and illegal travel and the use of military aircraft. And I ran into - I was asked to investigate parts of a drug case that involved smuggling heroin and human remains.
Niall: Human remains?
Robert: Yeah, killed in action out of Vietnam.
Niall: Whoa!
Robert: And it became obvious to me that our paradigm of these people smuggling heroin and so forth are mafia types and organized crime and from Sicily somewhere with a big moustache, and so forth, and South Americans, Hispanic, whatever, and the reality of investigating that case, led me to believe that there were agencies of our government that were complicit in it and in some cases played a role in smuggling heroin into the United States specifically the Central Intelligence Agency. The state department was complicit in it and had to have known what was going on.
There was quite a bit of heroin coming in, a lot of it on military aircraft. And I found out later on that the CIA would contract pilots and so forth to bring it into the United States, presumably that they were doing a test case and doing a test run and they were busting really bad guys. And by the time these pilots figured out that they were actually involved in drug smuggling, the CIA would get rid of them and oftentimes put them in jail and charge them with the same offence that they told them to do and then the courts were complicit in the whole thing and would rule that the CIA, any information about the CIA, having contacted and hired these pilots in the first place was considered irrelevant in court and so forth, and put them in jail. And things like that. There was this whole undercurrent of the drug trade that the reality of which was far beyond anything that we've ever seen or imagined, and totally un-American. As un-American as you can get.
Joe: You said that you were directly involved in that investigation into...?
Robert: Yeah, although I played a pretty minor role. It was just the manifest documentation and so forth of that case. It was a C5 that came in out of Thailand that broke and I was in Okinawa at the time. It was on the ground more than 24 hours where Japanese customs gets involved and so forth. My understanding was that there were caskets on there, transfer cases, GIs that were stuffed with heroin. When they - well that was discovered by - when the plane became operational and they went to load it again, there were two couriers that were with these human remains and both of them had disappeared, which is rather unusual. And they did some checking, our people did some checking and when I say "our people", the Air Force logistics people, and found out that one of them had flown to Hawaii and the other guy we never did find.
But Japanese customs got involved in that and there was heroin in these bodies and to make a long story short, we did catch one guy who - they had to take him into federal court in the Washington, D.C. area. It was actually in Baltimore, Maryland, and prosecuted this guy. And the evidence disappeared out of U.S. registered mail. I know that for a fact because I had come up with the evidence and these were manifests and travel documentation, orders and so forth. And disappeared out of U.S. registered mail. This kind of leads you to believe that there is somebody beside an Al Capone type involved in this operation.
Niall: If they're using military craft, then yes, that's what it points to.
Robert: Pardon?
Niall: Well if this heroin is coming in on their GIs, on American aircraft and the manifests are being signed off, all according to a lot of procedure ...
Robert: Yeah.
Niall: ... then of course it's ...
Jason: Well no matter how you slice it, you can't really imagine the "mafia" as it's sort of portrayed, as having enough power to use military aircraft to smuggle drugs. That's not the way they trade..
Robert: Yeah.
Jason: So either we've been misled about the mafia or we've been misled about the military. And I would choose the latter, actually.
Robert: Yeah. It was obvious that it went to high places. And so over these years, it wasn't only my conclusion. Everybody that worked on this was just befuddled, I mean astounded. It was really spooky. Over the years, none of us forgot about that. And I found out later on, this was before the internet, this was like 1972 and it went into '73 in a court case and so forth. I found out that - some of us reconnected. One in particular is a DEA agent named Mike Levine. He's the author of several books, but Deep Cover is one of them and The Big White Lie I think is the other one. And on his own he went into, when he was a DEA agent, and even before that when he worked for customs and drug investigations, where he found that every time he got close to a really big bust, the CIA would pull him off of the case.
And in this case in particular, he was in Thailand, under cover, working where this heroin is coming from, and the closer he got, it was right before he was about ready to bust some really big players, and the CIA called him in and said "We're concerned about your health and welfare" and sent him back to the United States. And Mike says "You know, for one thing, how did they know I was even working on this case?"
And my book led from there, because the question in my mind was if they, and by "they" I mean the United States government and instrumentalities of it, would do this, what else would they do?
Joe: Yeah.
Robert: It opened my eyes in the sense that I would see things that normally I wouldn't have seen, had this not happened to me, not to me but to all of us that had this case not happened. So I got to looking and this is where this book came from. I didn't plan on the seeds of destruction that you had talked about, that were in Jamestown, from the very beginning, we've never been able to deviate from, militarism, racism and genocide. I didn't plan on coming to that conclusion or illustrating that. That's where it led. When I looked at the dark side of America, when I followed the leads. Once you go into, from any direction, it could be drugs, it could be assassinations or whatever, but you go into the heart of it, the dark heart of it, and this is where it takes you. And that's where it took me. And that's why the book is a whole lot pushed into one book. It's certainly not a single subject because I get into assassinations. I get into the illegal drug trade, wars, genocide, racism, civil war, all these things, and they all come from that. And that's why I titled it what I did.
Pierre: Bob, to stick to this drug trafficking topic before skipping to other topics, ...
Robert: Sure.
Pierre: ... from reading your book obviously these drug smuggling practices were not isolated cases. It seems that it's pretty endemic, systemic, one of the main activities of the CIA. So can you elaborate on the magnitude of drug smuggling?
Robert: Yeah, I was astounded at these - between the CIA and the state department that compiles figures on drugs and the war on drugs and all these things, and where drugs are grown and how they get into the United States and so forth. Between these two agencies, they downplay the whole thing and have us really believing that there are people like Pablo Escobar and he's a big drug king and he's the one that's doing it and that these are independent operations when the reality of it is that the State Department will admit to a few hundred billion dollars a year, which is a lot of money, on the illegal drug trade, which most of this money goes through western banking, Wall Street.
If you take fractions of the trillion dollars out of that, that money that flows through Wall Street, you've got big problems on the stock market. You've got big problems in banking. You've got big problems in industry. It is wildly profitable and it is the ideal - drugs are the ideal product. People become addicted to them. There's your market right there. They're very light and easy to conceal and not heavy and six, seven times worth their weight - cocaine and heroin and so forth - in gold. This is more valuable than gold and much easier to smuggle and all you have to do is bribe a few officials and so forth. Some estimates go up to as much as $750 billion a year in the illegal drug trade.
Niall: Today.
Robert: Most of which goes into the United States. Yeah. There are some authors that have traced it that much. I think it's actually more than that. I wouldn't be surprised that it might really fund and finance a whole lot of things that the American lifestyle and so forth, even though we're in trouble, if you took that money out of there, forget it. I mean, we're down the tubes big time.
Jason: For sure.
Robert: Pardon?
Joe: We totally agree, but I was just going to add in the point that isn't the CIA's official budget is about $50 billion? Isn't that right?
Robert: Yeah.
Joe: That it gets from the American taxpayers.
Robert: Yeah.
Joe: And you're talking here about $750 billion up to that amount, and a decent portion of it is the CIA's black budget. So that's kind of like - it kind of dwarfs their official budget.
Robert: Yeah.
Joe: And it suggests that what's really going on behind the scenes also is - also dwarfs what the CIA officially does.
Robert: Yeah, and I really think that they don't do it for their own gains. I think they're an instrumentality of Wall Street and big business, JP Morgan and all the rest, that set the direction of what the CIA - the CIA does their bidding. Ostensibly they work for the President. I don't believe so. I think the President is just another finger puppet in that whole game. The CIA is considerably more powerful than the President of the United States.
Joe: Absolutely.
Robert: They represent the Rockefellers. They represent the Carnegies. They represent really big money and do their bidding. And I think drugs is part of that.
Joe: Yeah, and it's a good explanation, just for the people who tend to be kind of conspiratorially-minded about this. Like you just touched on a point there that if that kind of revenue was taken out of the system, i.e. if they stopped their long-term drug trafficking operations, that it would have serious consequences for the American economy and therefore every American citizen. And it strikes me that this is probably a way that they kind of rationalize it or justify it to themselves, that ultimately this is benefiting the American people.
Robert: Probably, although I think that a lot of these people might rationalize it on an interview or something, or if they're caught or whatever, they might do that. I think most of them are pathological, psychopaths. They don't ...
Joe: Okay.
Robert: They really don't care about anybody or anything other than money and power and things like that. That's it.
Joe: Yeah, they don't even think as far as justifying it or - they'll justify it to the public, via the President, or on TV as you said, but to themselves, they don't even think about it really.
Robert: No, no. I don't think so.
Joe: They don't think past their own noses, basically.
Robert: I think they're self-selected, the people that do this, select people that are of like mind and just basically evil people. And they're running the United States and arguably the world.
Joe: Most of the world, yeah.
Niall: So the heroin trade that you became aware of back in '72, Nixon's in power at that point, he declares the war on drugs, the amount of the drugs getting into the U.S. explodes as a result and the very opposite of what is allegedly intended.
Robert: Yeah.
Niall: And to fast-forward to today, I was surprised to see this report come out, but there you go, it is there in plain view. On SOTT late last year we had an article that's actually from the Business Insider. It is quoting a UN World Drug Report and it has some incredible stats in it about the current big - what do you call it - cash cow of the drug trade, methamphetamine.
Robert: Yeah.
Niall: Not methamphetamine, crystal meth, the meth, the thing that's even more toxic than heroin at the moment. It's like 80% of the world's meth is actually consumed in the United States. Now they pinned most of that trade on one kingpin, like you were referring to. They bring in a Mexican kingpin by the name of El Chapo Guzmán, but in the small print down at the end, is that he's named by Forbes magazine as having been a high-level DEA informant since the mid-1980s.
Robert: Yeah.
Niall: I mean, hello?! It's not somebody out there doing this to us, ...
Joe: It's one of our guys.
Niall: It's one of our guys.
Robert: Yeah, yeah. There have been some things I ran across, the history of the DEA. There were CIA operatives that created that. And to me the DEA, the funding they get, the war on drugs, now they're looting the American treasury of umpteen billion dollars a year, to put on this phoney war. And probably the only people that they're after or get prosecuted are their competition. It's the CIA and the state department, their competition. And to even think that there are hundreds of tonnes of meth, heroin, cocaine, all these things coming into the United States every year, they're probably not in a condom shoved up somebody's rectum. I mean that would be a lot of condoms.
Joe: A lot of people.
Robert: And who they catch. And you know some of them stuff the stuff in the tire coming across the Mexican border when probably with the NAFTA agreement where you can put a seal on a truck in Mexico and that truck can go all the way to Canada without being inspected, if it was me, I'd be putting it on that truck.
Joe: Do you have any idea, Bob, of when the CIA got into the drugs trade?
Robert: Yeah, and it was way back. America has been, as you probably read in my book, America has been involved in it, even when we were at odds with the British and the British and the United States were - the clipper ships and so forth in our history books that said that these were really fast ships and good for shipping and so forth. They they were an American invention and were primarily used to smuggle opium into China and they were the only ship that could tack into the monsoon winds from the Bay of Bengal all the way to China and make it in a matter of a few weeks, rather than months.
And those were American captains, American ships, and the British started building these clipper ships and all of this - there was a continuum of this.
The CIA in particular though, I think really got into it with General Chennault's Flying Tigers, that were supporting the nationalist Chinese against the communist Chinese. And they were using - General Chennault - they were using his logistics support that was presumably for parts for his Flying Tigers and so forth. Anybody that watches old movies has seen these - they're the planes, the P40's with the tiger teeth on them and the tiger eyes and so forth and they're big American heroes. Well they were using their logistics with the nationalist Chinese. They were flying in food and weapons, mostly weapons, and they were flying out the nationalist Chinese opium to market.
The CIA bought this airline from them. It started to go bankrupt and Chennault sold it to the CIA. That became Air America. And the Air America in Southeast Asia continued to do the same thing. That was a CIA proprietorship. They owned Air America. And they were doing the same thing with the Hmong tribesmen and so forth, fighting against the North Vietnamese. That started right away, pretty soon after World War II that they were doing that, that they were smuggling heroin in when it was heroin out and it was guns and rice in. That was the secret war in Southeast Asia, in Laos and so forth that we think of the war in Vietnam. It was that whole region. And that was the core of it, right there.
Joe: And you mentioned that it happened right after the second world war and I know you mention Colonel Prouty, Fletcher L. Prouty in your book, and his own books are very good as well. There's two of them, Secret Team and another one called JFK and something.
Robert: Yeah.
Joe: But he mentions that the CIA, or the precursor to the CIA immediately after the second world war, were already setting up in Vietnam, and that area. That's kind of suggestive that the whole Vietnam War that eventually evolved from that, was originally all about just control of drugs or access to the drug production and the revenues that they produced. And everything else was just kind of theatre, or was just built around it.
Jason: Well that sort of stuff has been going on since the 1830's or before. Like he was saying, with the opium.
Joe: Well yeah.
Jason: They realized real early on with China that, and the whole east, was basically drugs.
Joe: Yeah, exactly. Just to put it in context because people tend to think - when people hear of this idea that the CIA are running drugs, the golden triangle and Vietnam stuff and Air America, they're kind of shocked and they think "That could never happen". But if people are able to put it in the context, like you were just referring to Bob, the whole thing started with the opium wars with the British and the Chinese back in the kind of early-to-mid 1800's, where the British basically with their East India Company ...
Jason: Yup.
Joe: ... were producing opium in India and then selling it as a commodity to the Chinese, because the Chinese apparently had a particular taste for it, or that was the best market. And they were making large, large amounts of money from it. Then the Chinese rulers at the time decided this wasn't cool, this wasn't good for the population because thousands and thousands of people were getting addicted to opium. Society was kind of falling apart. And then the Brits basically bombed the crap out of them to force them to accept ...
Robert: Yeah.
Joe: ... this influx from the British ... [technical difficulties...] ... Good idea, thanks. It appears that you should do that. There's his number right there.
Robert: Hi. We back on?
Joe: We are. We can't blame it on Blogtalk Radio this time. Our computer just went to a blue screen and shut down. Yeah, it was interesting timing as well.
Robert: (laughing)
Joe: We were just talking about putting the drug trade in context ...
Niall: In a broader historical ...
Joe: In a broader historical context to the extent that any revelations about the CIA running drugs for the past 40 or 50 years into America is not so strange in the longer context of the British having done it 200 years ago, or 250 years ago, in China and used it essentially as a weapon of war. A lot of people suggest that as well, that it wasn't just about the money, that they figured "Okay well this opium influx into China isn't really good for the Chinese rulers and for the people and it makes them more easily controlled". So that whole idea of things that people are becoming aware of today, about the state of the world, putting it into a longer context is very useful because it gives people a better idea of ...
Jason: Well from a certain perspective the trade kind of funded the industrial revolution actually. All those big industrial giants who were pushing that stuff, they made a lot of their money, East India Trading Company type of people, you know, shipping and smuggling - well not at the time they didn't have to smuggle. It was all out in the open. It's a fact of history what they did. They didn't even take pains to hide what they were doing at the time.
Pierre: And what Bob shows in your book and maybe you can elaborate about that, is that war and drug trafficking are intimately related.
Robert: Yes. I don't think there would have been a British Empire without opium. The British had a nice little gig there because they made textile manufacturing machines and so forth, and they shipped them into the Bay of Bengal area, made money on that, loaded the same ship with opium, went to China, made money on that, loaded it with silk and tea and whatever and came back to England and made money on that. They made money the whole way. And if you could kick one of those legs out from under the stool, it's all over. In polite circles it was called "the business". Everybody knew about it. The British were smart in that they kept the drugs off their shore anyway.
Joe: Yeah.
Robert: They didn't bring it in and give it to their own people. My take on it is that the Americans, by bringing it into the country, and especially selling it in inner cities and minority communities and so forth, they extract the wealth and resources out of south central LA, Chicago, the big cities, and disempower, especially African Americans, selling them drugs, extract the money out, and let's go ahead and give them booze and guns and let them shoot at each other and whoever doesn't get killed we'll put in jail and then we'll contract out the services of the prison to the same companies that are involved in this. And you've got this just looting of not only the tax money, American treasury, but looting of our own communities and disempowering people and keeping them powerless. I think it's not an accident. I think somebody has thought all of this.
Jason: Yeah, for sure. America's the empire that was kind of created in a certain sense. And you can see that it's kind of been that way from a very early point in its history. Opium was at a certain point an actual pretty big problem in the U.S. and then it's just continually more so. You kind of begin to wonder if America really is the superpower and if it's not some group of individuals behind the scenes that are just using it basically as a drug testing ground.
Robert: Yeah, and a hyper-military state that you can use for enforcement against anybody who gets out of line in the world. Saddam Hussein, to me his cardinal sins were trading in Euro dollars for one thing, which we've got real problems, United States does, if the U.S. dollar is not the national or international currency, the world currency. And he was doing that. And he also privatized, or nationalized the oil trade and he was educating his people and providing health care and things like that in Iraq. That was a dictatorship, fairly brutal guy, but it was working. And we can't have that, so we went in there and hung him with the biggest rope in the world just about. And put it out there, you know, "This is what happens". I think that message was to Saudi Arabia and anybody else. "This is what happens if you get out of line with us."
Pierre: And you show as well that Cuba and Fidel Castro were major components of the drug supply chain management. Cuba before Castro.
Robert: Yeah, that was a drug conduit for quite a while there before Castro was in there. He shut down, that might have made - one of the reasons that the United States was so angry with him or U.S. institutions were, and private enterprise, all the corruption and everything. But it was a drug transfer point to Miami and New York, all over the place, that went through there.
Joe: It's really hard to get - I can understand why the average person on the street finds it hard to get their head around this kind of stuff and see it in - see America specifically as having a heart of darkness, or being the heart of darkness because of the propaganda and the mythos around America. But in a way you would expect people to really put two and two together a little more because in your book you make mention of the founding fathers and the different people who were involved in that and later the writing of the Declaration of Independence. And you say that in fact many of the authors of the Declaration of Independence that declared that "We hold these truths to be self-evidence, that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", the people who wrote that and have been held up as the epitome of all that is good and great about America and even humanity, were slave owners. Surely kids in the U.S. are taught that. Kids are taught about the Declaration of Independence and all that kind of stuff, but surely they know that these guys are slave owners as well, no?
Robert: Well you know I didn't really realize that until I was out of school.
Joe: So it's not taught then.
Robert: inaudible) right in there, it wasn't mentioned in our history books.
Joe: Because right there you have a really ...
Robert: They didn't deny it but they just didn't talk about it.
Joe: Yeah, really a pretty stark contradiction right there. If you read about that in school, surely even the average kid would kind of go "Isn't that kind of contradictory?"
Robert: Yeah.
Joe: But then again in your book you say that all throughout history and throughout the British Empire and the American Empire and the foundation of America, all of these excesses that you describe so well in your book against Native Americans, and against the South Americans, and against native people all around the world, that it was all justified at the time and even since, today, that these people were kind of uncivilized savages and therefore it kind of was their own fault.
Robert: Yeah, and that goes way back. I found some evidence that even the Romans with - and they were the ones that portrayed the native British, the people on the British Isles, doing things like, I think it was the Druids I think is who these people were, and they said "Yeah, when people get old they put them in a basket and set them on fire, burn them." Well you know there's no civilization that does anything like that. There are no people that did anything like that. But I think that was a portrayal. These people are just really awful people and we have to - it's rationalization. "We have to civilize them" or now we say "instilling democracy". I think the British was "civilizing savages" and it's pretty much all the same idea. Vilify people before you kill them and then it makes it easier because then their lives are worthless anyway.
Pierre: Actually what Joe described this the lie about men being equal goes back as you say, to ancient Rome and even ancient Greece, where there was this myth of democracy, of power in the hands of the people. Actually when you look at it, the people, it was only the citizens, the one percent of the population. The rest, the plebeians, the slaves and the barbarians, had absolutely not rights. So this democracy in the U.S., and democracy in ancient Greece or ancient Rome, was an illusion. A lie.
Niall: Bob, ...
Robert: Yeah, I think that ...
Niall: Yeah, Bob - go ahead.
Robert: I think that's true, that whole issue. I think what was a little bit different about America was that America outright wanted to kill the Native Americans, exterminate them. And I don't think the British, as brutal as the British Empire was, they generally wanted to exploit and control people and have them do work for them or something. They would extract resources or whatever. But genocide usually wasn't on the plate. I think with America, with the Native Americans and the true count of how many people far exceeds anything that's even in our history books now. Eighteen million in North America, easily. In all of the Americas, South America and so forth, it exceeded 100 million people of the Native Americans went down to a few hundred thousand. I think it was about 200,000, from 18 million. This is genocide on a scale that Hitler took notice of and how we did it. And what were reservations, we just called them concentration camps when it was the Germans, when Nazi Germany did that.
But they just flat out - and my take on it is, as you read, was that a lot of it had to do with the crops and the method of growing things that was far different from the Native Americans who could support a population, a large population, large cities, but their farming methods were far different. And they grew food among them, which meant they don't have to go steal somebody else's land. In Jamestown, especially with tobacco, incidentally a drug right there, they're going to make money on a drug from the very beginning. You need a lot of land and you need a lot of intensive labour. So that kind of drove "Well let's get rid of these Native Americans, take their land, import slaves and work the land because it's more work than we can do. And there's more land than we have so we'll do that". And as you read, that set the course, and militarism to drive those two, racism and genocide, and militarism to drive it, set the course. That was the wind in America's sails and we've never been able to change course from that.
Niall: Okay, so the seeds of today's pathocracy are there in the beginning and ...
Robert: Yeah, that was the premise, 1607 Jamestown, that little colony there. That set the course. There was slavery before that, but there were not people born into it. It was more like indentured servitude. If maybe you wouldn't be free, but your kids would not be slaves. And Jamestown, where people were born into servitude and slavery, that was something unique. And these things, these decisions that were made, you can trace a critical path of these three elements, these three critical elements of the American pathocracy that are coming to fruition now, in my estimation destroying the country. For sure it destroys the republic or any form of democracy. We have it on the books and we have allusions to it, but this is not a democracy anymore.
Joe: No.
Niall: Obviously a book that interests us a lot and yourself too, because it's incorporated into your history of the U.S. is Political Ponerology. We can completely relate to how this one book can open your eyes to seeing things completely in a new light. And I've got to commend you for doing what you've done. I'm sure you can understand when I say that Ponerology, the book by the Polish psychologist Andrew Lobaczewski is extremely dense and a lot of people struggle to understand what he's saying. But I think when you've taken the concepts in this book and applied it to history of the United States, it gives people a tangible, easy to understand, application of what he was talking about. And I think it's - I just want to say well done because it's a book that needed to be written.
Robert: I really appreciate that. It had a profound effect on me because when I was trying to figure out what were the essential elements of the macrosocial evil that was going on in our society, when you've got assassinating any transformational leaders of any kind, and you have the hidden drug trade and all of these things, this criminality, institutionalized criminality. I just couldn't get my mind around how this happens. And Lobaczewski's book Political Ponerology, the Science of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes, just illuminated all that and explained it. It's like a puzzle, that the pieces all of a sudden come together.
Joe: I think the problem that people, well the problem that you're kind of expressing there, that they're trying to grapple with and that most people try and grapple with, is how all of these things, as you describe in your book, can have happened or can happen up to today, and get worse and worse as time has gone on. In the context of the vast majority of ordinary people, generally being decent enough and not being of the kind of mindset where they just go out and rape, pillage and murder just because they felt like it. But yet that's what's going on from the top down, on our planet and the 99%, or whatever it is, 94% maybe, of ordinary people are unaware of it or somehow it gets passed off on them and it happens.
Robert: Yeah, I have found doing book signings and so forth and talking with people, they're, especially the white middle class, is starting to, not enough in my estimation, but they're starting to become aware of some of these things where at least when they see it and read about it, they're liable to entertain it. Before they'd generally just reject it and say "This is crazy stuff". And that goes back probably back, in psychology I think that's called cognitive dissonance. When you're confronted with things that threaten your fundamental belief systems, human beings will reject them. You and I will do that.
Anybody will do that because it doesn't fit into our schema of what's going on. And so we reject it. It doesn't matter whether it's valid, invalid, evidence or whatever, it's just off the table. People are starting to question now though, especially that white middle class that thought they were privileged all this time and they have been disenfranchised along with everybody else. They're starting to become at least somewhat aware. Maybe not enough, but maybe we have to suffer some more before we finally wake up.
But I've noticed people are interested in it and they tend to - you know the reason I wrote the book is because you and I talk about these things, and people look at you and just say "You're a raving maniac". I wanted to reference things. I wanted to cite things. I wanted to provide evidence. I wanted to back up what I was saying. I didn't want to just be running around talking about this stuff for the rest of my life. That's really why I wrote it, because I wanted to get that word across. It was quite a journey. I ran into Political Ponerology and some people do have trouble reading it. I think it's a little more eastern psychology than western psychology and some of the terminology is not generally used in the west. But the concepts are there, and they're the same.
Psychopaths and sociopaths and all these terms that he used, the concepts are solid. And his point that you get about 6 or 7% of a population that are psychopaths, and they recognize each other, and they network with each other, and they take over stuff. They've done it throughout history and he cites examples of it. I thought it was ground-breaking and I think that probably there ought to be - I'm sure you'd agree - considerably more research done on that, that probably won't get done because it would need to be probably federally funded. And you're asking people that are pathological personalities to fund exposure of themselves. There's no way they're going to do that.
Pierre: Bob, about Lobaczewski, one of his main concepts is this notion of hysterization cycle.
Robert: Yeah.
Pierre: How psychopaths take control of whole countries. In your book you explain how this sequence of schizoidal characters and characteropaths and psychopaths step-by-step take the control. You use the example of Leo Strauss and the neocons. So can you explain the theory of this hysterization cycle and give illustration with what happened in the U.S. during the 20th Century?
Robert: Yeah, I found that fascinating. I think we started with those, as you described, where you have these visionary people that - Lobaczewski's take on it, were schizoids. I think he cited I think Karl Marx and there were some others that had these visions because they wanted to create a society that they would fit into. So they created these utopian type ideas and so forth that were, arguably - you know Marx had some pretty good ideas, really. There was one of them, the father of the neocons, that, his name escapes me right now.
Niall: Leo Strauss.
Robert: Pardon?
Pierre: Leo Strauss.
Robert: Yeah, that's him. Yeah, Leo Strauss and a very unusual kind of guy that probably - maybe there was something to what he said but I thought he was pretty off-the-wall anyway. But he might have had some good sounding ideas and so forth and then the characteropaths take these ideas and twist them around to their own purposes. Then eventually there's a cascade of these personalities and eventually you end up with psychopaths running the country. My take on it was that - no I'm not a psychiatrist, I couldn't say that somebody like George W. Bush is a psychopath and so forth. But I can say that this guy took America in the wrong direction and I don't think he feels a bit guilty about it. As Lobaczewski pointed out, these people are not very bright, really.
Joe: No.
Robert: They're very manipulative and they can use people, they can use people, they can manipulate people, they're charming. Even though I don't think George W. Bush was even charming. I don't know. But a guy like that, to be President of the United States, that ridiculed prisoners when he was governor, that appealed to him for clemency on their death sentences. And here's this guy thinking this is funny and imitating them and mocking them.
Joe: Despicable.
Robert: This is not normal.
Joe: No.
Robert: And I don't think - I noticed Arnold Schwarzenegger doing the same thing with Tookie Williams. I think I've got his name right, that he appealed to Schwarzenegger for clemency or something and they put him to death. I think he was the guy that started the Crips, if I remember right, which was a neighbourhood protection kind of thing when it first started. I've got a brother-in-law that's a judge and looked at the evidence in that case and says that Williams - he says "I have serious doubts if Williams even committed these murders". He appealed for, I think it was clemency, to commute his sentence or something, to life in prison instead of the death penalty. And Schwarzenegger writes in his decision in there - I mean he vilifies the guy. I would have expected maybe somebody that was normal to say "This is a very tough decision, this person's life, but I'm not upholding the law in this case" or something like that. But he takes this to tie into Williams in words that were kind of like "Well you deserve it anyway". And it was just - to me he didn't come across as a normal human being that would do that.
Joe: Well it's not because what he was doing, like Bush, was getting off on the power that he had to essentially order someone's execution, someone who objectively there was doubts about whether they had done what they were accused of. Any normal human being would feel that kind of a certain empathy and they would certainly be troubled over that kind of decision, but certainly not have the kind of reaction that you're describing, that Bush and Schwarzenegger had. What kind of people get off on the power of killing other people?
Pierre: Psychopaths?
Joe: That's almost kind of like Hannibal Lecter, you know. So even though we say that psychopaths aren't like the Hannibal Lecters that they're described as, there's an essence to that kind of a crazed killer in there, but it's just well covered up.
Robert: Yeah, and I think, having read some of these things, it becomes aware to us in our consciousness. But I'm not too sure that most of the public actually picks up on that.
Joe: Yeah.
Robert: When they see something like that, I'm not too sure that it registers that this is an abnormal personality. This is somebody - this Alberto, his attorney general ...
Joe: Alberto Gonzales.
Pierre: Gonzales.
Robert: The guy's the first Hispanic attorney general and he makes a total ass out of himself, in that office. It was disgusting to see him do that. When he was in Texas Bush didn't want to really review all these cases to commute the death sentence, so he had Gonzales kind of come in and do a 15 minute talk about why this person should die anyway, or whatever. And here's Gonzales, Texas with this record-setting - I think they were the top or near the top in executions, 400 and some I think during Bush's administration. Something like that.
Pierre: In your book you mention "In his six years as governor of Texas he executed 152 prisoners, which is much more than any other state".
Robert: Ah. Yeah. And here's him doing this, you know, Gonzales coming in and how comprehensive can this be? Who else was there besides Gonzales? Gonzales putting these cases together, out of that number of people, you know there had to have been at least a few of them that were innocent. They say no, but some of the things that have happened in other states like Illinois where you had the governor say "I'm not doing this anymore because DNA has shown that a number of these people, more than you would imagine, are being put to death or on death row that could not have committed the crime. And they're convicted and appealed and whatever and as governor I'm not doing any of that". And he set all of those aside. But here's George W. Bush "Ah no, they were all guilty. They all deserved it". He'd go take a nap. It doesn't bother him a bit.
Joe: Absolutely. Bob, ...
Robert: It's astounding.
Joe: We might have a call here. There's a few calls that have appeared on the line here.
Robert: Sure.
Joe: But I'm not sure if they're actually calls because some people call in just to listen to the show. So I'm going to go ahead and try them.
Robert: Yeah.
Joe: See what's going on here. Hello? You're not a caller.
Caller: I'm just listening.
Joe: Alright. I'm sorry. There you go, that was just a listener. And I think we have this other one who's also probably just a listener. Hi. Are you listening also caller?
Niall: Hello?
Caller: Yes I am. I'm just listening.
Joe: Alrighty.
Pierre: That's a good connection.
Niall: It would be great if Blogtalk Radio could ...
Joe: Could at least tell you that, yeah. Which is which.
Niall: We need to suggest that to them.
Niall: Okay Bob, you cite a much more modern study in your book that really strikes home for me as well. I think it's something like - it was quite an intensive study and they found that 58% of Americans, ordinary Americans today, have more character - and they had a whole list of criteria for what they meant by that - but you know, basic moral character, than the average U.S. President. That's taking all of them going back. I mean that says it all. But you know the question that popped into my head when I read that was "What do we need leaders for?"
Robert: What do you mean? I didn't quite catch the last couple of words.
Niall: Well, if we're being led by people of lesser moral character ...
Robert: Yeah.
Niall: ... what do we need them for?
Robert: What do we need them for?
Niall: Yeah. Especially when we 're back in the soup.
Robert: Yeah, I was really astounded and it was one author, and I think he was a psychologist or a psychiatrist that had compiled this information. And he had most of the modern Presidents of having no character whatsoever. And no sense of right or wrong or any of that. I think some of them it was zero. What surprised me was that democrats were actually lower than republicans in that. That really surprised me. He said that if it hadn't been for Jimmy Carter, it would have been pretty much zero in the modern Presidents.
Niall: Indeed. Now Jimmy Carter - in today's sort of overall narrative, Jimmy Carter is seen as a useless one-off "Nah, didn't do much".
Robert: Yeah.
Niall: But he was the one little, little bit of light in the midst of people who, like Reagan, are fêted as greatest President ever, or next to greatest, whatever. I mean it's just - but you even say in your book that it's the ones that get remembered, as a general rule, who are some of the most psychopathic. I was astonished by what you said about Woodrow Wilson. Not astonished - I knew he must have been - well, in fact I had thought he had been played to be who he was, to do the things he did but that you know, inside he may have had good intentions. But you said something quite different about Wilson. You think he was a psychopathic leader in effect.
Robert: Yeah, he was a ...
Niall: One of the worst even.
Robert: This is a horrible guy. I really didn't know that either until I got to really researching what he did. And here's a guy that comes into office and he runs on this peace campaign of non-involvement in the European wars and things like this, and within a matter of months his administration is able to turn the American public into a Nazi-hating machine - or excuse me, not Nazi, but German-hating machine in World War I. And they put out all this propaganda about Germans eating babies and all this kind of thing. They had posters up and whatever. It was obvious that he had the intention of doing that from the very start, as soon as he got into office. That's what he did, he started working on it. A horrible guy. And I really didn't know that. I remembered him from my history books. It's "Well he really had some good ideas. He tried to have a league of nations for world peace and it didn't work out too well, but he's really a good guy". And absolutely the opposite of - I was astounded when I really did deep research into these Presidents, of what they were really like. There were facts of - here's Ulysses S. Grant owned slaves that were in the Lincoln White House. There were slaves in there.
Joe: Yeah, amazing.
Robert: It was - the one guy that that really - because to me the American Empire came right out of his head and that was Thomas Jefferson.
Joe: Say it ain't so.
Robert: And this guy ...
Niall: But Thomas Jefferson is like the founder of all things good, isn't he?
Robert: Yeah, but he wrote another President and said that - and he used the word "empire". He said that the Constitution that "no document has ever been crafted that was so well fit for empire, American empire, than the Constitution".
Joe: Bob, we have another potential call here. Let me just check to see. You're not a caller either?
Don: Hello?
Joe: Hi. Did you want call in or are you just listening?
Don: I'm a caller, if that's me you're hearing.
Joe: Yeah, go ahead. Do you have a question for Bob or a comment?
Don: Yeah, I have a few comments. This is Don from Massachusetts and hi Robert. I'm enjoying your book. I'm partway through it. And I just want to echo the - commend you for what you've done. It's a real model of objective history, taking maybe a personal experience like you had in the Vietnam era and then following the threads, without any - at least being able to disregard all the myths we've grown up with and everything. It's very rare and I really appreciate it, everything you've pulled together, all the different strands. One comment I wanted to make, you guys were talking about whether they mentioned slavery in school, that the founding fathers owned slaves. And when I went to school they didn't but lately they have. They can't get around it. It's a big issue. They brought African American voices into history books and everything.
But they have an interesting technique. They kind of say "Well, it was a problem, it was a contradiction but the rest of American history is about working that out". And then they use it as a segue to get into civil rights and the civil war and everything and how we've - the new myth is "Okay, yeah we weren't perfect at the beginning, but we've been able to work out those contradictions and perfect the union as we go forward in history". So that allows people to feel good about it. So it's kind of interesting how they're able to adjust the new facts and new perspectives, but still kind of keep the same obscuring myth going in some sense.
Robert: Yeah, and thank you for sharing that. I didn't quite hear. Is that Dan or Don? Did I get it right?
Don: It's Don.
Robert: Don. In Massachusetts. And thanks for getting the book in the first place. I really appreciate that.
Don: Oh yeah. Well thank you.
Robert: Thanks for your observations there. It's revisionist history that in my lifetime is like - I taught high school and I'm teaching some things about, like Vietnam, that are in the book that are inaccurate. In my own lifetime I'm seeing revisionist history, the Bay of Tonkin and that we were attacked by North Vietnamese in the Bay of Tonkin and that was the escalation of troops in Vietnam and so forth. All of that is a fabrication. That came out in the Pentagon Papers along time ago that this stuff was not true. And here we are today reading the same history books and I'm supposed to teach this stuff and I'm telling my students "I was there. It didn't happen this way". It's really incredible. And imagine what history was really like. I dug into it some but imagine what it was really like if it had - if they could do revisionist history since Vietnam and change things around and they've had hundreds of years now to change the founding fathers and so forth. These people are probably nothing like what they really were. Although I will say ...
Don: The thing it's doing is that a lot of students find history boring. And I taught history a little bit when I was younger and the tragedy is that it's a lot less boring, it's actually very exciting if you teach truth and not myths. It's the myths that are really boring. And the students end up thinking "Well we know everything and it's this great story" and somehow they tune it out. But I think if teachers were allowed to teach more truth than they are, it would actually be a more interesting subject.
Robert: Yeah, and I think you're absolutely right there. When I did of course I was like 60 or something. What are they going to do to me? I just taught them what it really was. But then you run into these things that are saying "Well your kids are not going to do well on this standardized test" which is a standardized test of revisionist history. So you're just messing your kids up by teaching them the right thing. Yeah, I don't know if you got a chance to read the book Lies My Teacher Told Me. It was by a history teacher ...
Don: Yes I did. It's a very good book.
Robert: Yeah. I thought so too. It was really good.
Joe: Alright Don ...
Don: I thought some years ago of getting back into teaching. I went onto a different path in my career. But I thought I'd like to teach high school history. So I took the Massachusetts teachers test. And a couple of things about that was interesting. You could see the ideological push in there. There were questions like, it basically came down, there was multiple choice, "What's the best economic system"? There was free market capitalism. So I said "Okay, I know what they want me to answer. It was actually a pretty sophisticated test. It was very difficult. I was impressed by it, the way they put it together. It wasn't easy to just guess all the answers. And so I did pretty well on it and then 911 happened and I said "You know I don't really want to" - and everything went crazy in 2002. It seemed like it was going to be total overt fascism instead of covert fascism. And everybody was so wound up with nationalism and craziness that I thought "I don't want to be in a classroom having to either bite my tongue or get into big trouble" so I bagged that idea.
Robert: That's a shame.
Joe: Probably a good choice.
Don: Well it would have been nice to have summers off.
Robert: Yeah, when we've got our best people - and these guys that are whistleblowers, Manly and this other fellow, and these are our most courageous, our most moral and ethical people, and they get slammed in jail, and the people that are - what they reported was war crimes, pedophilia in government agencies and things like this. And those people are doing really well. So if you're corrupt and you have no principles and you're basically a criminal working for the government, you do quite well. But if you're a moral, ethical person and do the right thing, the kind of things that they taught us in school, that we were supposed to do, you go to jail. It's upside down. This is inside-out democracy. It's not democracy anymore. It's not a republic anymore. It does not represent the people.
Joe: Alright Don. Thanks for your call and your comments.
Pierre: Thank you.
Don: Thank you guys.
Joe: Talk to you later.
Robert: Thank you.
Joe: I wanted to bring up, or maybe expand on a point, or a question that Niall asked you Bob was, the question was "Why do we need leaders at all, given their nature that is on display, why do people need leaders or why do we need leaders? Why do we have leaders?" It seems to me that there's something in the normal human psyche that makes them kind of naturally, or almost subconsciously have this need for some kind of leadership to take control of their lives. I look at it in terms of religion, for example, and why religion is so popular, even if people don't get very much out of it. And why people respect governments, and why even when governments are exposed in the mainstream media as being corrupt and evil and stuff, people will cut them an awful lot of slack. Ordinary people tend to be very reluctant to want to just get rid of it all or the idea of there being social chaos or nobody in charge, seems to strike kind of a terror into the hearts of a lot of ordinary people. And maybe this feeds into this major problem that we have where people will accept corrupt and evil leaders if the alternative is, or if they're told the alternative, or they think the alternative is something like chaos and just social disintegration.
Robert: It must be. I guess we're looking for parents all our lives, even when we we're grown up.
Joe: Yeah.
Robert: Somebody to tell us what to do or something then complain about it.
Joe: Exactly, yeah. Because that always strikes me as the fundamental problem, peoples' reluctance to kind of really take action and do something about it. And I think it goes to the heart of this problem that we have on the planet, where these people are entrenched in power. Okay, they employ all sorts of deception and lies and people would never believe that they would lie so egregiously in such a massive way and do the kind of things they do and then lie about it. But there's that aspect of it, ordinary people projecting their own morality onto the people in power. But I think it's that combined with this need for leadership that really is a recipe for disaster. A recipe for the disaster that we have right now.
Pierre: Yes. Along this line ...
Robert: You have reminded me of Archbishop Desmond Tutu. I saw him on an interview one time. And they asked him, they said "Wasn't that really difficult to pretty much overthrow the South African government?" is what they did. And he said that wasn't the hard part. He said the hard part was convincing the African people, South African people, having them make the decision and the commitment that they really wanted to be free. He said that that was the hard part. Because we buy into all of these things. And he said once they made that decision, the rest was easy. He said overthrowing the government and bringing down that government was not the hard part. I found that really interesting in that - I'm including me.
How many times - I chose a military career that is a career towards destruction, really is what we - people in - break things and kill people is what you're - how did I end up in that situation? Well there was a draft and I didn't want to go into the army. I went in the air force or whatever. I didn't want to go to Canada and hide for the rest of my life or whatever. But I didn't have to do that. I re-enlisted several times. Every time I got out there was a bad economy or something, I couldn't get a job so I'd go back to that security of "at least I'll be taken care of". And so I end up with 27 years of basically doing a real good job at things that are destructive in the long run and don't really contribute to society. And I think a lot of us do that.
We buy stocks and we buy annuities and things like that. People that are doing things with our money we don't agree with, they're destroying rainforests or whatever. But as long as we're making some money, we don't want to see that. We don't like Wal-Mart's hiring practices or employment practices, minimum wage, these people on food stamps. That's our kids now that are drawing food stamps because they can't make enough money to support a family. But we're shopping at Wal-Mart because their stuff is maybe a few cents cheaper than Costco or somebody else that treats their employees right and pays them well and so forth. But we're right there saving our two cents out of a dollar or whatever. Fast foods, they don't pay these people enough. It used to be an entry level job. Now I think the average fast food worker is 29 years old. These people have families to support on seven dollars and fifty cents an hour or something? They can't do that. But here we are eating in that fast food restaurant.
All we would have to do, we wouldn't have to fight anything. All we would have to do is stop supporting and stop financing our own enslavement and our own disempowerment. We're paying for that. We're going along with it. It's with our consent and our advice and our support that we're doing that. And it's amazing, you know?
Joe: Yeah, what you're suggesting kind of is that people need to have more of a conscience about the kind of things that you're describing, or people are aware of people on - homeless people in the U.S. and people on minimum wage being treated almost like slave labour and stuff, but they go ahead and go to those restaurants and eat there and it's almost like peoples' conscience, their normal human conscience has been kind of whittled away or diminished in some sense. And it seems to me that that process of kind of diminishing the conscience, normal conscience of the average human being has gone on for the past, well, for a long time, through successive generations of people.
But for example it seems to me that you can get people to maybe in some abstract way, lose a bit of their conscience, or the way that they actually think about things, by getting them to agree, through lies and deception, getting them to agree to conscienceless acts and ideas. Like for example, the whole idea of torture, torturing prisoners and stuff that was a hot debate several years ago in the U.S. Nobody stood up and complained about it and they kind of accepted - the American people were, and people around, in western Europe as well, were cajoled into accepting the idea that torturing another human being was okay. And as soon as they accept that, they lose something. And then you see the results of it in ordinary society in smaller ways.
Robert: Yeah. When I'm talking to people, there's also - there's this sense of powerlessness that we have no power, that people have no power. We could vote anybody out we wanted to. Well you don't really have a choice. No, if you're going to vote for a democrat or republican, you don't have a choice. But you can write in Mickey Mouse if you want to, or write yourself. I mean, you can vote for anybody you want. And people say "Well you have to - you're throwing your vote away unless you vote for these democrat or republicans".
Well the history of that is that third parties in America, had a profound influence on any of the things that - social security is really a good thing. And that came out of the progressive movement and it came out of the populists. They couldn't win a lot of elections but they could win enough votes to where neither of the other candidates would win a majority without their support. They could not get enough electoral votes to become President of the United States unless they had the electoral votes of these third parties. And so the third party doesn't win the election, but they say "If you want our support, this is what you're going to do". And that history is not known in the United States. And when I tell people that, and give them some examples of it, they say "I didn't know that". These are educated people. These are people with college degrees that don't know the history of third parties and these movements in America, much less the labour movement.
And what the labour movement actually - it was the rise of the working middle class in America, something that was totally different than anything that happened before, were labour unions. And they say "Well they're ineffective now". Yeah, well in the last 15 years or 20 - well since Reagan anyway, your - I think it was 40% roughly, of the work force was unionized and now it's down to 17%. The productivity of the average labour union employee, the efficiency of them, has far exceeded anybody else in the world, dollar for dollar, because the unions train people, their assembly lines and so forth, and they've been destroyed. This is what has destroyed the middle class, largely, in America. And you get people over and over again say "Those unions are ineffective". Yeah, they're ineffective when they're not there, that's for sure.
If there's anything that we need in the United States, more than anything, is organized labour, a resurrection of organized labour. That would put a stop to a lot of this crap.
Joe: Yeah, absolutely.
Robert: But get us to believe that.
Joe: We have another call here Bob. I'm just going to go ahead and take it.
Robert: Yeah.
Joe: Hi caller. What's your name and where are you calling from?
Elvira: Florida.
Joe: You're calling from Florida?
Elvira: Can you hear me?
Joe: Yeah. What's your name again?
Elvira: Elvira.
Joe: Hi Elvira. Have you got a question or comment?
Elvira: Yes. I just want to say that I am being targeted by - I'm 63 years old. I'm a human rights activist. And during that time, I've been - they started targeting me. They wanted me to stop protesting over the toxic mould, toxic, you know, just different human rights issues. And I also was in the anti-war movement. And then they shut me up.
Niall: Uh-huh.
Elvira: I ended up in Broward General Hospital. And so they wanted to shut me up so what they did was inject me with a toxin in my arm. I've been going - been to Los Angeles, Georgia, Pennsylvania, New York, you know, seeking medical treatment. But everywhere I go, what they do to me is - and right now I'm having internal bleeding on top of all that. Everywhere I've gone, what they do to me, they grab me and they throw me in a mental hospital, bleeding. Then they had to release me and send me to Springfield Hospital in Morton, Pennsylvania, Springfield. And then after all that - that was the first time since 2004 I was able to even get an IV in my arm. So now, fast forwarded, now what's happening, I come back to Florida because I said this is where it started and this is where it must end. But when I went to a doctor because I was so disturbed about what has happened to me in New York and in Pennsylvania, that I haven't been able to even go to a doctor although I'm bleeding. And so when they chemically sprayed me - all you have to do is go to www.freedomfchs.com. We're trying hard to get these issues out on the table. Aaron Alexis was also a member of that human rights group. What's going on in America and around the world is a shame. It's the V2K. You heard of the V2K, right?
Joe: No.
Elvira: It's called voice to scroll. Just look up Jose Delgado, what he did to his bulls.
Joe: Oh yeah.
Elvira: Well, they're doing it to humans, yes. We're human experimentations. And right now I need to be in a hospital but I dare not go near one because I may disappear. Now this is a shame, and I'm 63 to have to live this way. But I think the world should know what's going on. And we've got these bad doctors, bad social workers, that are keeping this thing alive. And it needs to be exposed. Now you can believe me...
Joe: What kind of human rights were you specifically - what kind of human rights were you advocating for?
Elvira: Teaching the poor how to help themselves. I started out going down into Overtown and Winwood and Miami, Florida. But then they chased me out by the time I got to Winwood. Because they don't want us down there with a tour because that's where they hide to do all their dirty work.
Joe: And who's they? Who is chasing you?
Elvira: The politicians, you understand? And don't take my word, just try doing something in the poor neighbourhoods and see what happens, you understand? And then ...
Niall: Yeah, I can imagine. Elvira, do you have a blog or a website people could go to? It sounds like your story needs to get up there.
Elvira: Well I be on the www.freedomfchs.com.
Niall: Okay.
Elvira: And also www.stopthecrime.net. We're trying hard to get this out. And Clinton knew about it. He even granted some people help for this thing. And you can find that on unwillingvictims.com. John Glenn. You understand? And this is a shame. And it's not just an American problem, it's a worldwide problem. And people really need to wake up to these smart meters. They're spraying. I can't think because they sprayed me to and it gets in my brain. I don't know what to do.
Joe: Are you talking about chemtrails.
Elvira: Chemtrails, yes. Not just chemtrails they're spraying on us.
Joe: What do you mean they're spraying on you? Directly on you?
Elvira: They come up to my window and they spray in the house. And then whatever it does - it takes my hair out. It burns my skin. I feel like I'm on fire and I'm being cooked from the inside out. It's horrible. And then I go to a hospital ...
Joe: Did you report this to the police?
Elvira: Oh the police know all about it. The police when I was in Morton, Pennsylvania, the police was the ones that was keeping me safe, you know.
Joe: Mm-hm.
Elvira: And then in my medical records it says "chemical spray" and then all you have to do is look up Yvonne Hiller. Yvonne Hiller worked for Kraft in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. She was also complaining about being chemically sprayed. And nobody would listen. Nobody listens to you when you try to get these things out. And so what Yvonne ended up doing, she killed two people and wounded another. And she's in prison and they were the ones who were spraying her. You understand?
Joe: Well Elvira, we'll definitely take a look at the links you mentioned and have a look into it. That's a pretty bad situation you're in and I really hope you can find a way to resolve it in some way, but the most important thing for you is to keep yourself safe.
Elvira: Yes.
Joe: More than anything. You don't want to put yourself out there too much to the point where you expose yourself to any kind of dangers in that way because it's not worth it, ultimately.
Elvira: Excuse me, but you've heard of Aaron Alexis, right?
Joe: Yeah.
Elvira: Well he was also on freedomfchs.com. And those people who try to say that we're mentally ill, I think that they are mentally ill. They are mentally ill because they are not willing to listen. And all you have to do, as I said, is go to those websites and you can hear, especially on freedomfchs.com, you can hear the people talking about what's happening to them as they speak. Now I want to thank you for listening to me and I hope that you don't just listen, but you look into it and contact Derek Robinson at freedomfchs and try to do something to help us, show us how to shield from these things or something.
Joe: Okay. We'll take a look into it Elvira and thanks for your call.
Pierre: Thank you for listening Elvira. Thanks.
Niall: Please take care.
Elvira: Thank you for listening. You too.
Pierre: Bye-bye.
Joe: Well there you go Bob, that was ...
Niall: I don't think that was a comment or question directed at Bob. However it did make me think of something. Experimentation, so-called experimentation, the CIA, mind control, the depth of this, I mean I don't know what's going on today, but you can only imagine what was formerly shut down in the early '70s. We know the scale of it. Bob you touch on this in your book of course. Maybe we should talk a little bit about this and how it ties into what happened to the U.S. right there in World War II where you've got all these Nazi scientists coming into the United States and taking with them their research and the kinds of gross experiments we've heard about taking place in Germany. And there's a kind of a seamless continuity where they just set up shop in the U.S. and elsewhere and the effects of which we still see today.
Robert: Yeah, I got into a few cases in my book. I found, since I published the book or since I wrote it, that it even is more extensive than what I had reported. It looks to me like the CIA had been doing mind control, MK Ultra, Project Monarch, Artichoke, all these things that come under the umbrella of mind control or MK Ultra. For quite a while they've been interested in controlling peoples' behaviour, which is an extremely difficult thing to do. And they've been fooling around with this and they started first with what everybody starts with, people with no power, people prison, sometimes college students on campuses and universities that need money, and they'll pay them - you know these things that go on, on campuses all over the United States. That started to catch up to them.
And so they kind of changed their venue and they went off into cults and so forth where they were doing their experimentation. Some of the places that that led, are really spooky. I finally got hold of a book, and a lot of my research that I did, the really valuable research, were the books that had been suppressed or kept out of the United States. And oftentimes they were quite expensive if you could get your hands on them. But every once in a while, I was able to get hold of some books that largely had not been distributed, or if they had been distributed, somebody had come and bought them up or suppressed publication of them and even printing them. Sometimes you'd have publishers that buy the rights to a book and then refuse to print it. And things like that.
One of those books was about Jamestown. And the Reverend Jones and so forth. And even though I reported some of that in my book, but I found out later on that that was far more extensive. Reverend Jones was most likely, in fact there's overwhelming evidence, he was a CIA operative himself. And a master one. He laid the groundwork for the Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba that is not known and fooled even Castro, all kinds of people. This guy was a - he was really a piece of work. You talk about one evil psychopath, Jones was really something. And it looked like, just a thumbnail of it, that that whole Jamestown experiment ...
Joe: You mean Jonestown, right?
Robert: I'm sorry, Jonestown. It was in Guyana. What they had done is they had divided up 900 and some people. Some say it was more than that, maybe 1,200 people. And they had divided them up into three groups. They had a control group and two other groups that they were giving psychotropic drugs of some kind to. And the experiment was to see if you could tell them "Okay well go ahead and drink this cyanide", if they would do it. And that's what they did. And all these people ...
Joe: That sounds to me like MK Ultra taken offshore, type of thing, in a real intense experiment done, not just on one person here and there, but because that idea - it's one thing to try and use psychotropic or hallucinogenic drugs and hypnotism or whatever, to try and get someone to be, for example, an assassin, to kill someone.
Robert: Yeah.
Joe: But further down the line, the real test is not will they kill someone else, but will they kill themselves. If you can get them to kill themselves through manipulation or mind control, or whatever you want to call it, then pretty much you can get them to do anything else.
Robert: Yeah. It looked to me like they were putting the ground work in to, as bizarre as this sounds, to have the wherewithal to do away with American blacks, African Americans.
Joe: To do away with them?
Robert: Yeah, yeah. Kill them. Have them commit suicide and so forth. Put them in - yeah, that's, as strange as this sounds, ...
Niall: Well you know it actually makes sense. When you consider some of the harebrained schemes that they come up with all the time, you name it, trying to reverse global warming by capturing an asteroid and having its dust spray around the planet, etc., etc. There are all kinds of things I'm sure that they think they're doing. So, for example, when they get 900 blacks into the jungle in Guyana and they actually call it an experiment, and you know, have scientific protocol and papers to sign, and it's all very formal, it wouldn't surprise me if in their mind they're thinking "This will be for the greater good of removing a problem we have".
Joe: They're just complete psychos. It's bizarre. It's not even human thinking. It's just non-human. There's something wrong there and maybe they're not all psychopaths involved but they get - if there's normal humans in there, they get them to engage in this kind of behaviour that is totally anti-human and it's horrible. Bob, we have another call here potentially. I'm going to go with this one and see what we get from it.
Robert: Sure.
Joe: Hi caller. What's your name and where are you calling from? Hello caller. Are you there?
Caller: Yeah, how you doing. I'm here man. How y'all doing?
Joe: Not to bad. Have you got a question for Bob or a comment?
Caller: I'm just listening man. I'm glad y'all making this show known man, because they've been trying to eliminate the original people of this planet, man, ever since 1455, man, but it's not going to work, by the grace of god. So I'm enjoying the show, man. Just keep on doing what y'all doing. I appreciate it.
Joe: Alright. Thanks. Take care.
Pierre: Maybe I have a question for you Bob. When you look at history, every since the 18th century, you have these recurring ideas and projects, plans about ____ism, racism, genocide, often focusing on this or that specific part of the population. But I'm wondering if ultimately, what the goal of psychopaths is, is to get rid of normal human beings that obviously they despise.
Robert: You know I think Lobaczewski's comment on what their motivation is, and I think he said something like "germs don't understand that they're going to be buried or cremated with the corpse that they created". And I think these people just do what they do because they're psychopaths. And I think it's all about as long as they can control, as long as they can intimidate, scare people and terrify people and all these things, it makes them feel powerful and I really don't think they think about in the end they are destroying the sustenance of the planet. Environmental concerns they certainly don't care about. They don't care about people. I don't think they really ultimately care about themselves other than just the immediate gain that they have right there. And they're unable to see the consequences or the ramifications of what they do.
Joe: Yeah, and you know, that's actually a much scarier proposition or presentation of the problem than the idea that they're just kind of evil people with a very definite plan. Because at least in that second - if they're evil people with a plan, at least they're in control and at least they have some kind of awareness, or there's some sense, even if it's twisted, there's some sense and they're going somewhere. And ultimately people would rationalize it as well. They may be evil but they're not going to kill us all. They understand that they need us at least and that kind of stuff.
But what you just described Bob, is that essentially it's people who are the closest definition to insanity that there is. They don't take stock of facts. They don't take stock of reality. They just make it up as they go along and it's all fuelled by their own just insatiable greed. And that is ultimately going to, really, it's going to run the entire planet into the ground. And they'll just hold up their hands at the end and say "Huh? I don't know. How'd that happen?" It's horrible. It's like there's nobody driving.
Robert: I think you're exactly right. I think that that is what's going on. And that ultimately, I think Lobaczewski pointed that out pretty well, is that, along with these people are the charcteropaths that do their dirty work and they're probably psychologically normal, but they, you know a false sense of loyalty. You see all these people when they get caught they say "Well you know, he's the President of the United States and I just I love that guy and whatever I had to do what he wanted, I knew it was wrong" or whatever. But all of these people, these characteropaths and the whole bunch of them that are leading us in that direction, they eventually screw up because they're stupid, for one thing. And they don't have any foresight. They don't understand people. They don't understand the ramifications of their disastrous decisions and they end up collapsing the thing and Lobaczewski pointed that out throughout history. And that it eventually goes back to normal people who are pretty good leaders and so forth, after all the destruction and millions of people killed and so forth, and then that cycle starts all over again.
And I think that's what's happening. I think they'll screw up the planet bad enough where they'll be out of power and perhaps maybe we will find a way to not have these cycles go over and over again. But you look at the economic models, you look at the environmental models, and I've looked at them carefully. We're in serious trouble in this century. And this planet, I'm seeing some figures like 2.5% less food being produced every ten years.
Pierre: That's ______.
Robert: Yeah, and we have 7 billion people on the planet, and there are going to be billions more and you're going to have less food with more people. This is not going to work. Something's got to happen.
Joe: And you've got a bunch of psychos trying to manage that.
Robert: Yeah. It's not sustainable. And there was somebody pretty smart that said things that can't go on forever, don't go on forever. And this is where we're at. We're using fossil fuels at a rate unprecedented. There's just been nothing like this in history. And we've been convinced that we have to do that. Fossil fuels is the only energy out there. Turns out that the whole - all the reserves of gas and oil and all this stuff all added together, is 1/20,000th of the available energy that we could use. This is ridiculous. And they've got us believing that you have to have it, that you can't use anything else. Like alcohol, you and I could put a still together in the back yard and run our car off of that. We could do that. But I can't drill a hole in the ground and pump this stuff out. I can't do that. That's why we're doing it.
And that's only an example. And got us convinced that it has to be that way. I think it was Rudolph Diesel or something, his idea was to run his engine off of renewable oil, soybean oil and things like that, which does not add carbon to the atmosphere. It uses available carbon out of the atmosphere in the form of plants and you use the plant and you put the carbon back. But you don't have a net gain of carbon in your atmosphere. That was his idea and that's what he wanted to do. He ended up, on a vacation, he gets dumped off the back of a cruise ship, happiest he's ever been in his life and they say he committed suicide, he jumped off a cruise ship. I don't think so.
Henry Ford talked about, and in fact he wanted to use, I think it was alcohol. Yeah, Henry Ford wanted to use alcohol to run vehicles and things like this. And he said he fought with these people for seven years and he couldn't - Henry Ford was not a real nice guy either, but had some pretty good ideas. And he could not do that. And why can't you and I make a still in the back yard? It's illegal, that's why. And there's a reason for it and it's not because "Well you know you have revenue or drinking's bad for your health. You can make alcohol out of it." It's because you can't put a metre on it and you can't charge people for it and so forth and you can oil out of the ground in Iraq or whatever. You can charge them whatever you want because you've got control. This is JP Morgan and all those associated boys who control that. And that's where we're at. And that's not a sustainable model and these people could care less. They have throughout history, thought that they would not be held accountable for their disastrous decisions.
Niall: They give lip service to sustainability, tell all of us we must be green, etc., while they pillage the planet at an ever more ferocious rate. More wars, more occupations, more oil extraction, etc.
Robert: Yeah. I don't even watch this stuff, but there's an uncle of mine that follows the stock market and all this kind of thing I think it was CNBC or something like that, where they have all these stocks and whatever. You should have heard these people talking about these pipelines and things and fracking and everything. It was like people opposed to that are some kind of - are insane. This is crazy. They've blown up our aquifers and they're mixing oil with water. I saw a program, this guy turned on his faucet and he actually took a lighter and lit it on fire.
Pierre: Yeah, we saw that.
Robert: Pardon?
Pierre: Yeah, we saw this footage. Actually, seemingly the psychopaths are treating the planet the way they're treating human beings. There's no notion of empathy, respect, sustainability, bad ends. It's all about greed and exploitation without any long-term vision.
Joe: Yeah, that's the problem. That's what we've been saying. It's greed. It's unfettered, insatiable greed that is really inhuman in the sense that it's not natural to human beings. These are like a different - they're a different species almost, essentially. But they're in human form and that's one of the major problems. They walk, talk and quack like a normal human. In fact some of them do it much better than the average normal human. They can pass themselves off in that way, but behind it all they're lacking something that makes the rest of us truly human. And it's empathy and observation of objective reality, and acceptance of objective reality and reaction to that. Whereas these guys just like as Bush insider, White House insider was quoted back in 2004 where he said that they were reality creators and that the rest of us would just have to sit back and watch while they create reality. That's the essence of it, you know.
Pierre: And look at the reality they created.
Joe: Bob, we've kind of got to the top of the hour here. We've actually run over the time that we said that we'd keep you here. So we don't want to keep you too much longer or even ourselves because it's getting late here. But I just want to again thank you for coming on the show and thank you for your book. Maybe I'll leave the last kind of word to you. What, if anything, can we do about this? One thing I would say is read books like yours that really paint the picture of where we're at and can maybe galvanize people to maybe do something about it. Do you have any other magic wands to solve this problem?
Robert: I think it's going to be a long process. And I really appreciate you folks having me on here. This has been a real pleasure. And the people that called in and shared some of these things. You know, what was it, Elvira, I don't doubt that she's had ...
Joe: Yeah, there's stuff going on.
Robert: ... horrible things happen to her. It might have been a long time ago I would have said "No, that's not possible" or something else. But with the things I've run into, I don't doubt her for a minute or anybody else who called in. And I really appreciate the folks that are listening out there. And thank you guys for illuminating some - the book. I always like that. I really appreciate it.
Joe: Yeah.
Pierre: Thank you for being with us.
Joe: Bob, the book is called American Heart of Darkness, Volume I - the Transformation of the American Republic Into a Pathocracy. Are you planning a Volume II?
Robert: Oh yeah. And that one's going to be American Heart of Darkness. And it's going to be Macrosocial Evil in the Post-JFK Era.
Joe: Cool!
Niall: That sounds awesome.
Pierre: That sounds promising.
Robert: The third one I want to get into more "what can we do about it?".
Joe: Okay.
Robert: And I think there are a lot of things, but we're out of time, but I think that realizing, empowering ourselves. Something like what Desmond Tutu said, is that we have to make a decision that we want to be free. And we can't do anything until we do that. And I think once we make that decision as a people, and not as a black person or a Hispanic person or a white - you know, somebody has, like we were talking about, the guy that his DNA went back to Africa and his name was MacPherson I think. There are people named Kirkconnell that are my relatives all over the world that in this country you would say this one's Hispanic and this one's black and this one's this and that. Most of them are in South America and Cuba and the Cayman Islands and so forth. And right within my family, you can see one of them might be blue-eyed and one has got curly hair and dark and all this. No, this guy didn't come from Africa and that one from Scotland. It's just ridiculous stuff. We're one people. And as soon as we realize that and work together and quit blaming each other for what these psychopaths have done to us, and start working together and make that decision that we want to be free, the rest'll be easy. I think Desmond Tutu is absolutely right.
Joe: Absolutely. Well I think that's a good note to end the show on. Again, the book's name for people listening is American Heart of Darkness, the Transformation of the American Republic Into a Pathocracy. Bob also has his own radio show here on Blogtalk Radio. It's called American Heart of Darkness Radio I think, on Blogtalk. Just search for that term.
Robert: Yeah.
Joe: You can check him out whenever he's doing his next show. So thanks Bob.
Niall: You can also check out our forum thread on this book where we're having a discussion about the book and obviously it's going into history, psychology and it's been really interesting debate and discussion we've had with Bob. Bob, as soon as your book is ready, you let us know, and we'll have you back on.
Joe: Yeah.
Robert: Oh well thank you so much Joe and Niall.
Pierre: Good luck for the writing of the Volume II.
Robert: Pierre and Jason. Thank you so much.
Joe: Alright Bob. Thank you.
Niall: Thank you Bob.
Robert: Alright. Bye-bye now.
Joe: Alright. Take it easy. Alright listeners, that's the end of it for this week. We hope you enjoyed it. We enjoyed it and we'll be back next week with a show, as yet to be announced, but you know where it'll appear, so check it out. 'Til then.
For the genocide of Native Americans, there is the possibility that the main factor had been epidemics. Check Charles C. Mann 1491 for this