In the following SOTT Talk Radio show from October 20th 2013, we discussed high drama in high places, the all-too-brief rise and fall of the Ride for the Constitution protest in Washingotn, DC, ongoing climate chaos and incoming meteor fireballs from space.

We took a look at the contrived theatre of Republicrats dogging it out on the political stage in the first US 'government shutdown' in 20 years, while a drama unfolded in which a mother with her young child in her car was accused of "ramming the White House gates" and ended up riddled with bullets near the Capitol building.

Meanwhile spectacular fireball sightings throughout the Fall produced some notable overhead explosions in the U.S. You know folks are noticing that something is 'up' when Anderson Cooper dedicates an episode of 60 Minutes to the topic of "cosmic roulette"...

Running Time: 02:09:00

Download: MP3

Here's the transcript:

Niall: Hello and welcome to SOTT Talk Radio. I'm your host Niall Bradley. With me tonight is co-host Joe Quinn.

Joe: Hi there.

Niall: And we're joined once again by Pierre Lescaudron.

Pierre: Hello.

Niall: And, back by popular demand, the one and only Jason Martin.

Jason: Hey everybody.

Niall: So this week we're going to do another episode of All and Everything. So we're going to look back over the last couple of weeks and just try and catch up with some of the crazier stuff that's going on above, on the surface and below, all around it seems. Of course what's going on right now over in the U.S., is the U.S. government has shut down. Now when I first heard this was coming up I thought "Oh that's great news! That's good news. What's everyone so upset about?"

Joe: I misheard it. I thought it said that they'd shut up.

Jason: Exactly.

Joe: But then I was very disappointed when it was shut down.

Niall: Everyone's so "Oh my god, oh my god!" I was "Oh great!" And I initially put it on SOTT and thought "Okay, well this is good news and maybe we'll mark it down as a bright lining, a bright spark..."

Jason: The silver lining in that cloud.

Niall: Exactly, a silver lining in the cloud.

Pierre: It might indeed be good news because there is a similar precedent that happened in Belgium a few years ago. For one year because of political struggles, no government could be elected because no coalition could be settled. And so for one year Belgium had no government, and retrospectively, when you check the figures, it was the best year for Belgium, GDP-wise, growth-wise, unemployment-wise. So it may be not such a bad thing.

Niall: Well, yes and no. When they talk about a shut-down in the U.S., it's different. Belgium is - in this case there was no government formed from successive elections because they couldn't get it together because there was no clear majority. There was no coalition that could be formed. This is a little different. Here you have elected government running and functioning in the U.S. When they do a shut-down, it's a kind of an - it's an automatic thing that kicks in because of a series of laws that have long been in place, where if there's a budget shortfall, services immediately start to be shut down. It doesn't mean that the actual executive is no longer in charge or that new laws cannot be passed. So in this case, well first of all, it's happened 17 times now in the U.S. The first time was 1976. The most recent was '95/'96.

Pierre: Yeah.

Niall: So nearly 20 years ago. And in that case, it was kind of similar. There were services closed down for a total of 21 days spread over two periods: November '95, January '96. And it was kind of similar. People were temporarily laid off. Government workers were not paid. Services were closed down. Things got back on track because they agreed - which we're seeing now, negotiations taking place to agree how to, let's say 'work the budget', make the numbers fit.

Pierre: Which is privatorising, basically. It's giving more importance to interest payments and reducing the amount given to other public services like transportation, hospitals.

Jason: Well at the same time you have to point out that when they say a 'government shutdown' what they mean is a government shutdown of all the services that people actually would use, but not a shutdown of any of the services like, oh the spy program...

Pierre: The CIA.

Jason: The CIA's still getting paid. All the spies, all the assassins.

Pierre: Congress.

Jason: The TSA and all the congressmen are still getting their paycheques. It's the little guy who's not getting anything.

Pierre: Yeah, public servants.

Niall: Yes. The good news is that the Congress gym is still open.

Jason: Yeah.

Niall: Because the employees there are still working. But if you're relying on paycheques or for example, here's a big one: 12 million people in the States - that's service members and their families - rely on essentially subsidized food...

Joe: Food stamps.

Niall: Even short of food stamps. This is just military personnel, because they get their goods from special stores. What are they called in the U.S.?

Jason: I don't know [they're called commissaries].

Niall: I think they're exchanges, postal exchanges or something. They're kind of onsite, usually at military bases...

Jason: On post.

Joe: Subsidized food.

Jason: Oh yeah, yeah. Okay.

Niall: And they are closed down. Suddenly for them it's like a 30% increase in the cost of goods.

Jason: And all the paycheques for the soldiers are being delayed apparently as well.

Niall: Yes. Delayed, although we're hearing that the Pentagon is reassuring everyone that "Don't work, the soldiers will get paid".

Jason: The special forces, you know, kill teams and death squads, they're going to get their paycheques.

Niall: Well we know they're still working because a team of them were sent into Somalia recently. We'll get to that.

Joe: That's because the CIA has their own budget.

Jason: Yeah.

Niall: Yeah, their own budget.

Pierre: Including the black one.

Joe: Well, over and above the one that Congress approves.

Niall: The state within the state.

Pierre: Previously you mentioned that this shutout process was due to some laws. And I think it's interesting to...

Joe: Shutdown.

Pierre: Shutdown. Okay. It's interesting to know what mechanism is at play here, is at work. If you check actually, you see that the main rule is this bureaucrat law or rule. That is an internal rule. Politicians, Congressmen who vote a law that says "Okay, beyond this level, that level, we cannot go anymore". Which is a big illusion actually, when you see most countries that defaulted over the last decades and got harsh IMF treatment, it's not the government that says "Okay, the debt is too high". It's the international bankers who after having injected massive amounts of money and put artificially the country into debt, suddenly pull out the plug and default the country and force the country to cut down most of its public services. So right now the U.S. maintains the illusion that the government is in charge, define the borrowing cap since we are close to the borrowing cap. The borrowing capacities are limited.

Niall: Well, let's build up to that. Let's break it down first. What we're hearing is that all these intense negotiations and debates and late night sessions are about the republicans stalling on extending the debt ceiling because they want to use this opportunity to block so-called Obamacare, which is something - the Prevention and Affordable Health Care Act, which is basically, in theory, it's going to completely overhaul the U.S. health care system. In practice...

Jason: It'll be exactly the same.

Niall: In practice, it's not. It's exactly the same, it's more of the same. Obama's promise in 2008 was that he would basically bring the U.S. in line with other western nations in having universal healthcare, like they do in the UK, Australia, Canada.

Jason: Even in France.

Niall: Even in France. But, in order to - he spent the last five years trying to win the republicans over and so what they've ended up with is a completely watered down, totally convoluted law, extremely complex, but it's just more of the same. In other words yes, it will be universal. In fact it'll be compulsory. You have to join in. If you cannot afford it, sure you'll get federal subsidies to make up for it, but you must sign up. And it in no way changes the fundamental basis, which is that private medical insurance companies will be the main beneficiaries from this. So this is the opposite of where the U.S. should be going, which is a single payer healthcare. In other words, it's funded by the state.

Joe: Well that's communism.

Niall: Exactly!

Jason: Damn commies.

Niall: He can't go there because that's socialism, right? No it's not, it's called being in the civilized world.

Pierre: It's solidarity. But maybe this Obamacare is one of the reasons, but not the only reason, because this whole story, to me at least, has the taste of a program of testing the waters, knowing how citizens would react to a real default and a real destruction of the few public services they benefit from. So once you test the waters. And the second point is also a way of desensitising people. You know, the boiling frog, the frog analogy, where you start to make people used to having no public services, no help from the state. Having to rely on themselves.

And one important point is, when you hear the word 'default', you might believe that okay, the government is bankrupt, the state is bankrupt and cannot pay its debt anymore, so everything stops, the state stops spending money. But this is not true. It's not about cancelling or stopping, it's about reprioritising. It means that Greece a few years ago, two states that are bankrupt, keep on paying totally or just partly, their debt. So basically it's a choice when such a crisis, or apparent crisis is reached, it's a state where the country chooses to pay its debt, or interest on its debt, instead of paying the social benefits, the public services the citizens benefit from. So in the end what it is about, is about taking the money that was going to poor citizens, and putting it in the pockets of bankers. That's the ultimate shift here.

Niall: That is the ultimate result. But what you have to remember is that all countries, at least in the west, are in debt to their eyeballs.

Pierre: True.

Niall: So when it comes to one country coming under the focus; Greece, Ireland, other countries in Europe, now the US, yes that means there must be other factors at play, because everyone's in debt.

Pierre: Exactly.

Niall: Now the U.S. has been in debt since the federal reserve was created. We've discussed it before. By the very definition of paying interest to a private central bank, you are permanently not going to have enough money in the money supply to pay back both principal and interest. So it will accrue over time. We're now 100 years later and that debt has steadily gone up. It's now at 16.7 trillion. And how have they dealt with it? Well they've just said "Okay, we've hit the debt ceiling again. Let's just change the law and push it off down the line." This time they'll do the same. I think they'll do the same. But it's getting close to the wire. This Thursday is the cut-off limit. Afterwards the U.S. is officially in default. Bankrupt.

Pierre: Well, officially. Yeah, that's interesting to think a bit more about this notion of official borrowing cap and being officially in bankruptcy. Because again, it's very subjective. As you said, and it's right, all countries have a lot of debt, which is interesting if you want to be in control of the countries. Because since they all have huge debts, anytime you can pull out the plug and say "Okay, the debt is too high. You're bankrupt, which means basically we, creditors are going to loot all your resources because you cannot pay your debts." But what I want to convey, that the way of pulling out the plug, of pushing one country into the IMF treatment is highly subjective. It can happen any time to any country. And the proof is that when the Ireland crisis or the Greece crisis or a few years ago, the Argentina crisis occurred, those countries were not the most indebted ones. There were far worse examples.

Niall: No, the UK's public debt is far higher than Greece's, for example.

Pierre: Of course. So you see how the debt is a tool of enslavement, of control of the country and destruction of the few social rights, social benefits we still have, citizens of the world.

Jason: What maintains that and allows them to quote/unquote "pull the plug", is actually all the surrounding countries continuing to play the IMF kind of game, this money, this debt game. Actually they really don't have the ability to do anything. If America says you can't have it, theoretically they could say that, but they won't because of course the senators and all that, they're in the pocket - they're playing the game as basically they're on the team of the IMF. Their whole idea and plan is to loot the American people and the American nation. They're nation looters. They're like a foraging party, or an advanced invasion squad, into a government.

Niall: The IMF is an agent of the U.S. government, so it's not like it's...

Jason: No, I don't agree.

Niall: danger of - it's already in extreme debt. It cannot give itself a loan because the IMF, ultimately the loans come from the same source.

Jason: But what if the IMF is kind of like a bug and has grown beyond the U.S. government?

Joe: Well it is and it has because it's a world bank.

Jason: It's a global - these are now global rulers.

Joe: They're just a bunch of bankers.

Jason: And now the U.S. government is just sort of, like a fraud front for their criminal organization.

Niall: I think the...

Pierre: Just one point about IMF. I think maybe you should not think about IMF in terms of citizenship and country.

Jason: Exactly.

Pierre: I think it's an organisation that is an elite organisation. The goal of this organisation is to destroy people and to loot the maximum of resources. It goes beyond borders. It destroys any country, including the U.S. It transcends the geographic borders we know.

Jason: Well what's interesting is that this kind of stuff is older than time. It's not even an American thing. And these people and that type of money-lenders and bankrupting nations has been going on for a very, very long time.

Pierre: Oh yeah, there's a very old practice, again and again, artificial crises are manufactured and the elites who manufacture those crises, take the benefits of the crises and it's very ironical, this drama around the borrowing cap and the delays, the rules defining the delays that are artificial and illusory because if the U.S. state, like all the states in the world, had the right to issue, create its own money, you would not have problems like that. For several centuries, when the country didn't have enough to fund its growth, it was issuing, creating more money. And maybe it was creating a bit of inflation, but not extra drama.

Jason: The thing is, no one has to default on their loan. Nobody has to. As in the system right now, you don't have to. They can - now it's just like numbers pretty much out-of-thin-air money basically. Money is basically numbers out of thin air for the most part. It's a debt. It's just created. It's on paper and now it's just in computers. Nobody has to...

Niall: Actually, history has shown that eventually it cannot last. Here we're just saying "You can keep doing it"...

Jason: It's a game. You can keep pretending. They don't want to.

Niall: But eventually the fundamental, the trust that is required - I mean the U.S. dollar is still the - it's basically the world currency. It's the thing that is used to trade most essential things in. Once that trust is eroded and that's no longer the case, it's game over. So it cannot actually go on indefinitely although...

Jason: It can as long as people...

Niall: ...Congressmen might like to think they can.

Jason: As long as people willingly play the game, it could.

Niall: But they don't.

Jason: They don't. And they won't. People will lose quote/unquote "trust". But they could just forgive the debt because it's fake money. It's play money. It really is. It's play debts.

Pierre: Just to clarify maybe better this notion of debt in the U.S.; technically we cannot say that the U.S. is paying interest, the interest relating to its debt, because they designed a system where to muddy the waters, if you the listener is the U.S. state, you decide to issue money. No, you cannot decide that anymore. You've lost this right. So if I'm the federal reserve, I decide to issue money. I go to you, U.S. state and ask you okay, let's issue tomorrow $1 billion. So you, the U.S. state, you go to the mint department that will issue a big $1 billion.

So now, this $1 billion is mine, property of the federal reserve. But the federal reserve won't lend directly to the U.S. state this $1 billion. It will buy U.S. Bonds, okay? So I buy U.S. Bonds from you, and in exchange I give you $1 billion. And by buying those U.S. Bonds from you, the U.S. state, you have to pay interest because there is interest for 5, 6% annual on U.S. Bonds. So there's a way you create the same enslavement, dependency, interest payment, as when you issue a loan, create a debt, but to this artificial mechanism. And so basically so all that thing is defaulting on the whole - on everything you have to pay as a state is only about the debt, the interest payment.

Jason: So I understand that mechanism as working for a bunch of people. But from what I've heard or what I've learned, basically, is that that's not an actual representation of what happens, right? Because the money that is created and loaned out, is never actually really printed on a piece of paper. It's not like they actually go and print $1 billion, like one billion entries of one dollar. They just kind of say conceptually "We created a billion dollars and there's some Bonds here and there, but no actual physical Bond is printed and changed hands" and stuff like that. So it's a game of make-believe. They pretend that they printed the money and they pretend that they bought and they just sort of skip the steps of actually printing out the Bonds and changing hands. And they just write a couple of numbers and said "Oh yeah, by the way on Tuesday, we bought this many Bonds and gave you this much money and alright, cool". And it seems like that actually - somebody said, I think it was this Ellen Brown, that only a really small fraction...

Pierre: Three percent.

Jason: ...of the money that is in the world of the so-called wealth that has been created, actually has any kind of physical representation in the world.

Niall: That's correct. Three percent.

Pierre: Monetary mass is M1, M2 and M3.

Jason: Yeah.

Pierre: M1 and M2 is about tangible money. But M3, 97% for the financial translation, is numeric. It's only one figure on the computer screen.

Jason: Right.

Pierre: But in the end, it's the same as a piece of paper or even a computer operation. In the elite system it has no intrinsic value. It's just...

Jason: Exactly. So that's was kind of like what I've been saying here. It's a game of make believe. They pretend that they created wealth and you pretend that you got loaned the wealth and you also pretend that you did some sort of exchange of fake Bonds, and it's a gigantic game. At such a high level, it's just a gigantic game of make believe. And when they pull the plug on a nation, you have to remember that that nation did not actually really default on a loan. It's a game of make believe. It's like a bunch of kids out in the back yard playing make believe with bows and arrows and one of them goes like this: "Toing!" and points it at the other guy and says "I hit you" and the other guy says "Ahhh, I fall down". And that's what they do when that happens, because it's the fake money. It's a game of make believe.

Pierre: What you say is true, however when they manage to "default" quote/unquote a country, the properties, the resources that are seized, are real properties. It's real assets.

Jason: Exactly.

Pierre: You see how they shift an imaginary debt, an imaginary money, into the seizing or seizure of...

Jason: Real assets.

Pierre: ...real assets and of your life. It's dropping the minimum wage. It's making you work longer hours.

Jason: And the only reason they can do this is because everybody's participating in the game and everybody enforces it. Because when the IMF guy comes into your nation, you just post up with some guns and you shoot them and they shoot you, right? When you bring it down to the lowest level, they come in to take your oil and you shoot them, right? That's the general idea. But that doesn't happen. When a country goes bankrupt, they pretty much roll over and take it because all the other countries are playing along and all the other countries say "You've got to roll over and take it too". But at any moment, all of them could come together and say "You know what? We don't need the IMF anymore and we're tired of the fake money so screw you". And the IMF guys are going to be like "Ah shucks, the game is over".

Pierre: Well...

Jason: It could happen. It won't.

Pierre: It's an appealing solution. Ellen Brown describes it in her book Web of Debt...

Jason: It won't.

Pierre: ...and she shows that the countries who dare going out, this international banking system, stopping these dependencies, detrimental dependencies, and created their own currency, publicly owned, publicly created, became the object of fierce financial attacks. Their currency was destroyed by international markets.

Jason: They're all players.

Pierre: And that's why China is doing so well, because one of the differences between China and the other countries without the international system, is that China made its currency, the Yuen, unconvertible. So you cannot raid the Yuen. You cannot sell it. You cannot short sell it. You cannot destroy its value.

Jason: Right.

Niall: What's sickening is that there must be at least some congressmen who are aware of this.

Jason: I think most of them are. And they're willing...

Niall: A lot of them - they all have stocks in something or other. Some of them actually have stock in the insurance companies that stand to gain from the so-called Obamacare that is supposedly holding the whole thing up here. It's just contrived from start to finish. I think they must, some of them anyway, must realise 'okay, so we'll just print some more money and put it off for now, go home for Christmas and see what happens next'. But at least some of them must not be that short-termist, and be able to see that 'well we need to have a serious solution because this won't go on indefinitely'.

Jason: But they're going to - again, it's when you play Monopoly, if you're playing Monopoly, you get into it and you're all like 'this is fake paper money', but you all want to collect it up. Naturally, it's fake. It's totally paper money. It's not even real. But once you're playing the game, you want to get as much, and you compare your stacks to other peoples' stacks, and they're doing the same thing. They're playing a giant global game of Monopoly, and they know it's a game, but they're having fun anyway.

Niall: I could be wrong. It could be that they really take manifest destiny and 'America's the greatest' to heart and they actually believe that god's on their side and they'll be alright.

Jason: Maybe.

Pierre: Again, unlike Monopoly, what they seize in the end, during those crisis times, are very real assets. The resources, the real resources in the lives of people, the working conditions of people.

Jason: It's like a game of Monopoly when you get stripped at the end.

Pierre: And in the end, what you get is real buildings and real houses.

Jason: Yeah.

Pierre: And you get citizens in the streets.

Niall: Well, they sort of told us what they're going to do this week, announcing the next federal reserve chairman, a woman for the first time. Her name is...

Jason: Her name is just as evil as all the old crusty white men [laughing], is her full name?

Niall: I think it's Ellen [Janet Yellen] something-or-other. Anyway, she's currently vice-chairman. She was working with Alan Greenspan in the '90s. So she's a career federal reservist and very much a believer in business as usual. So they're just going to print their way out of this for now. And the money, you can bet, won't go the one place where it might actually do some good, which is directly into the economy. It's going to go to the banks, the hedge funds, which will then take it and speculate on real goods, on the real economy, take whatever profit is left to be extracted out of the real economy and it'll give you a stock market value. The headlines will be "Oh my god, the Dow Jones is back up. Everything's fine". Meanwhile another 10 million people have lost their jobs and they don't care. They don't care because they don't actually need peoples' taxes anymore. I realised this, they don't need your taxes and they don't need you. They've got their fake money, their fake economy. They just need you to believe, or at least be confused long enough to get away with it.

Pierre: Well, I think ultimately capitalism needs something that it destroys - its labourers, and the labour of people. Because production is - capitalists say production comes from the convergence of work, labour and capital. Actually, capital is not necessary for production. Labour is. And there are many alternative ways to quantify wealth, apart from money like dollars. Anyway, without labour, without labourers, the creation of wealth is inexistent because all those buildings, all those road, those bridges, those planes, it's a result of people spending their life, dedicating their life, sweating, bleeding, to produce goods. And in the end, the wealth of a nation is the total amount of assets of goods it owns.

Jason: Right. Which is less and less in America because they export all the labour now.

Pierre: Yeah, de-localisation, depletion of resources.

Joe: Alright. We may have a call here. I'm not sure if this is a call or if this is our person who has to call in every week to listen, but I'm going to go ahead and try.

Niall: Let's say hello anyway.

Brian: Good afternoon. Well, good morning.

Joe: Hi, what's your name and where are you calling from?

Brian: California.

Joe: What's your name then?

Brian: I'm Brian Beasley and I'm in California.

Joe: Hey Brian. Welcome to the show.

Pierre: Hello.

Brian: I read the show description and I may be jumping the gun, and I'd like to consider myself informed, but I haven't heard anything about these fireballs.

Jason: Oh, we're going to get there, aren't we?

Brian: Okay. I figured I'd...

Joe: Which fireballs do you mean?

Niall: He means in general.

Brian: No, I just read the show description and I called in. And I was listening to the conversation but the fireballs is what got my attention. Also, I notice that you guys think that it's - well, it's implied in the show description that someone must feel that the woman who rammed the White House gates and was subsequently killed, that it's no coincidence or by chance thing happening, that there's some reason that this happened during the time of this governmental shut-down.

Joe: What do you think?

Brian: I don't know. That's part of the reason why I asked. But my mind is open. I'm willing to hear.

Joe: Okay.

Brian: I think - I don't see any evidence - or I haven't even heard - nothing - not that everything has to be laid out for me, where I have to - where I don't have to connect some dots.

Jason: I've got a question.

Brian: Go ahead.

Jason: I've got a question for you man. Have you ever watched - do you watch movies?

Brian: Yeah, I watch movies.

Jason: Okay. So you know how that there's these bad Hollywood movies, and in the bad Hollywood movies, like an action film, they always have the bad guy. And in his first scene he's usually - he usually kills somebody horribly in a totally meaningless fashion, right? To prove how bad he is. As a demonstration of how evil and how far he'll go.

Brian: It establishes him as the bad guy.

Jason: Right. So this happens and it's kind of like classic in a Don Simpson movie, and these latest Hollywood movies, and Wesley Snipes kind of movies. The bad guy kills one of his own guys for making a trivial mistake or something. He was blowing bubble gum and it popped and so he kills him horribly, right?

Brian: If you watch Breaking Bad at all, they did that quite a bit with the characters. Some of the characters would kill indiscriminately and you're like "Wow, what a savage!". And you found yourself rooting against this person and hoping for their eventual demise. But yeah, I'm with you on the point.

Jason: So what if the government kind of does that stuff as well? What if they just sort of do stuff to prove how far they'll go and show what they can do, and make you think twice about anything? What if they did?

Brian: Good point. No, no, no, I understand what you're saying. That if anyone were to think of fright - and you know what? And that's kind of known beforehand, that in this heightened state of terror alert that we've been in for the past 12, 13 years, or maybe even a little longer, that - I know better unless I don't care about what's going to happen to me, to go in an airport and create a ruckus or drive my car into these barriers. Just something that I wouldn't do because I like living.

Jason: This idea of having a bunch of trigger-happy cops that'll just shoot a woman in a car with her kids, if they think that she's even slightly - I mean how could they even think that she was anything other than a crazed woman?! Honestly!

Brian: You have no idea. You know something, I will never defend cops. I do not like cops. I do not like law enforcement. Even if you guys are in law enforcement. So let's make that clear, okay? But this woman - you have no idea of knowing what this woman is up to, if there was a possible bomb in the car...

Jason: It wouldn't matter.

Brian: Well...

Jason: It wouldn't matter. Can I just tell you why it wouldn't matter?

Brian: I'm just putting that out there.

Joe: That's fair enough but the thing about it is that the reports were that the baby was taken out of the car before she was shot. So there's very little information about what actually happened. They're being tight-lipped about that, but I think if you're going to look at it from a conspiracy point of view, you have to look at it from - almost from a symbolic point of view, in that they were sending a message. If there was a conspiracy here, if this was some kind of an MK Ultra kind of set up kind of thing, or if they used her in some way, and then more or less executed her, that they were sending a message to the American people that after the whole backlash against the government about Syria, and you know, there was a general feeling among the population, maybe a sense of empowerment that 'we can dictate to the government, we can control the government' to some extent, as it should be,...

Brian: If you get angry enough and if you think of attacking these institutions, that you'll be dealt with. I can't - I'm not going to discount that. I'm also not going to discount the possibility that technology was used, the satellite to skull and putting information in her head and waves that can be sent. I'm not going to discount that at all. But the only problem that we run into is that we don't know for sure. And that's why I said I don't know.

Jason: Right.

Brian: That's why - I don't know. But I'm not discounting. I'm not just going to attack any possible theory. I don't know and the more information that I get, it seems like the harder that it becomes to draw a conclusion.

Joe: Yeah. Well hard truth - smoking gun facts and truth is very hard to come by. It's basically non-existent. So you just look at a situation and you look at in the broad context of all the things that are happening around it, and you come to the most likely explanation. You don't have to go around telling people 'this is what happened' because you don't have the hard evidence. But you make up your own mind and you watch what's going on.

Brian: I do that, but you know I have a hard time drawing conclusions because I actually have an open mind. Can I bring something up that thought was interesting yesterday that hasn't gotten that much attention?

Joe: Go ahead.

Brian: And it's kind of right along the lines of what you guys are talking about. Yesterday, I think at around 7:00 a.m. California time, there was what is being called a computer glitch with the food stamp program. The EBT cards weren't working. And that went on for hours. In fact if you were to check the website, there's a little - they spoke about it and they had a little - they interviewed people coming outside of a grocery store in Hollywood. And my mind works just like yours does, along those lines. I was like 'what if this was a test run?'. If they could stop food stamps, okay? Just stop feeding people or stop - make these cards not work and what would the reaction be? Because this went on for maybe 10 hours before the glitch was fixed. And I thought that that was a possibility. Here's a test run in case they're planning on stopping the program, or they're unable to fund the program or they could choose not to fund the program. Could they shut it down just to see what people would do?

Just like in the same respect, just like the response that you saw in Boston where they shut the whole city down to look for one guy. Never been done before. Shut down an entire city and declare martial law without declaring martial law. That's exactly what it was. And you shut down the city for one day, just to see the reaction of the people. It's kind of almost like a dry test-run to see how people react. Also, maybe to condition people to something like this happening again.

Joe: I think there's two kind of ways to look at that, two main ways to look at that. And neither of them are very good. One is that the system is failing. In terms of the food stamps, the system's just falling apart. There's glitches happening because the U.S. as a state...

Niall: Is run by incompetent people.

Joe: Is run by incompetent people and corrupt people who only care for themselves and they're just not caring so much anymore and things are getting a little bit out of control. And in terms of the Boston thing, yeah, it could be just a natural outplay of the whole terrorism business. We've got a build up of the police force and the militarization of the country, and then you get cops acting the way that they act. You've got all these cops with all these uniforms and weapons and training. What are they going to do? As soon as a little bomb goes off...

Brian: You know what's funny, what just happened?

Jason: What?

Brian: You mentioned the likelihood or the possibility of a conspiracy when it came with this woman, and I made arguments to counter that. Now when I bring up the idea of a conspiracy or something contrived with the situation in Boston, and the food stamp glitch with the cards, you did exactly what I did. You applied some...

Joe: Yeah, well we're looking at it both ways. We're keeping an open mind and...

Brian: Exactly. And that's why it gets hard to draw the conclusion. That's why you don't know about a lot of these things.

Joe: Exactly. But either way, like I said, either way, it's not good.

Brian: No, it's not good.

Joe: Right? Either way. So we can all agree on that and everybody can be 100% sure that stuff ain't good right now and it's looking bad and it's going downhill and we all need to do something to kind of prepare for it in some way or other.

Brian: I agree with you.

Joe: Alright. Well listen, Brian, thanks for calling in.

Brian: Real good.

Niall: Thanks Brian.

Joe: Alright. Talk to you later.

Pierre: One point we need to add about this desensitisation and testing the water drills. Each time they test, reducing basically the rights of citizens, increasing the oppression, and each time citizens don't react, it's one victory of the elites. It's one loss because the citizens didn't step up for their rights, didn't defend their rights and accept it. Because doing nothing is accepting it.

Jason: Freedom is lost in inches. It's never a big thing.

Pierre: True.

Jason: It's not like one day they say "Oh, by the way you're not free!"

Pierre: Boiling frog.

Joe: Yeah, it's been happening for quite a long time. But on that food stamps thing, his point is valid in terms of it could be a preparation, because assuming there's some kind of intelligence, like in the movie Team America they have a computer that's called 'Intelligence' and it tells them what's going on in the country, that it's analysing the state of the American mind and what's going on among the society and the population and what the feeling is, where it's going. And if they see something down the line, or they expect something down the line where there's going to be some kind of major social unrest, like the CIA produced this report for Bush in 2004 where they said by 2020 things would have all gone to hell and there'd be mass unrest everywhere for basic supplies and food and water and stuff. If they believe that and they see it happening, they expect some kind of social chaos and unrest, they probably want it to happen on their terms, rather than on the peoples' terms. So there would probably be some level of stage managing it, at least putting things in place to prepare for that kind of eventuality. Obviously a militarised police force and security apparatus in the country are very important. And you'd see a lot of the elite kind of pulling themselves in type of thing, in terms of protecting their interests and blocking themselves off from the "great unwashed".

Jason: The rabble.

Joe: Yeah, the rabble, with a view to them "My god, these dirty, unclean poor people are going to revolt in some way that's not going to be good. And we're not going to like it! Ew."

Jason: Could end up kind of like Brazil, the South American countries where you have a street and on the left side of the street it's total squalor and on the right side of the street there's these gigantic walled fences with ornate gates and massive security armies.

Niall: Have you been to Detroit lately?

Jason: No, I've never been to Detroit and I never...

Niall: Or any other major city in the U.S. It's always good to look at things in the round. When we go back to the overall chain of events that led to this current financial crisis in the U.S., for me it's comparable with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Jason: Yeah.

Niall: This is what is happening to the U.S. If we look at it just in terms of psychopaths doing what psychopaths do, then the incompetence - yeah, there's a lot of contrived self-involvement in there, but the sum total is the collective incompetence. And I think - there are opinion polls in the U.S. and people are pretty clear that they just blame the fact that the politicians are incompetent. And in a way, they're on the mark. Whether its testing waters, this or that, it's the collapse of...

Jason: On that topic...

Niall: It was inevitable.

Jason: ...because I completely agree. And I was thinking before we even came into the show that, I don't know if you ever watch professional wresting. But in professional wrestling there's something called the heel face turn. And the heel face turn is when the bad guy suddenly does something to redeem himself and becomes the good guy. And then the good guy often will become the bad guy. And they'll just do - because it's like a soap opera. And I was looking at this whole situation with what's going on with America, and America has been sort of the face, i.e., the good guy, ostensibly. Of course obviously that's not the truth, but that's how they've presented themselves. And Russia has been the bad guy. And then now we see Putin coming out with this whole basically 'oh, America's doing this'...

Joe: Yeah. He's just on moral high ground right now.

Jason: He's got the moral high ground, and now America is just taking a complete tank, nose-dive off the end, and is becoming the heel of this particular story. And it seems like even more today, that politics is just show business. It's professional wrestling.

Joe: The think about incompetence is that if greed would manifest as incompetence to the average person, if you have a group of people who are meant to be responsible for a group of other people, and that group of people who are in a position of responsibility become greedy and stop providing for the other people, the people who aren't being provided for anymore will say those people are useless, they're not doing their job properly. Yeah, they're not, but what's the source of that? It's not necessarily that they're incompetent. It's that they're greedy. They're keeping all the stuff for themselves. They're not fulfilling their function. They're not being responsible. And people say "Well you're useless. You're incompetent." Yeah, you can call it incompetence, but behind it is greed and just a complete lack of care for the people under their care.

Jason: It's like that saying of 'any sufficient degree of incompetence is indistinguishable from malevolence'. Because any sufficient degree of greed is indistinguishable from incompetence, you know?

Joe: We have another call here. I'm going to go ahead and take it. Hi caller. What's your name and where are you calling from?

Michael: Hi.

Joe: What's your name and where are you calling from?

Michael: Wellington, New Zealand. Michael.

Joe: Hey Michael. How's it going?

Pierre: Hi Michael.

Michael: Live long and prosper!

Joe: Alright! You too.

Michael: This recent - I though I'd just change the topic a little bit. The recent sacking of generals from the nuclear...

Joe: Yeah.

Michael: What's your take on that?

Joe: Well I don't know if there's much behind that really. A bit of infighting? The official story is that they were incompetent or that they weren't performing their duties responsibility. They don't say exactly what they did. It could be some kind of a scandal. But I'm not sure there's much behind that in terms of just because they had some level of responsibility over nuclear weapons and stuff, that there's anything involving nuclear weapons behind that. I tend to think it's more along the lines of adjustment of positions within that military infrastructure and maybe somebody getting booted, for some reason or other, maybe through blackmail or...

Niall: There's a rumour going around the interwebs that a nuke was set off somewhere off the east coast of the U.S.

Joe: That's Sorcha Faal.

Niall: Yes it is. And her evidence for that was the fact that there was a minor earthquake...

Joe: Kremlin said it.

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: Do you have a take on it Michael?

Michael: Hard to tell because it's kind of strange to make - state that a general that's been in the service for 35 years suddenly has behavioural problems? I mean kind of....

Niall: Yeah, well it certainly smacks of an excuse.

Michael: Well it seems like - there was an interesting comment on that article about the infighting going on and they're trying to get rid of those who were opposing, I don't know, something.

Joe: Yeah. It could have been, yeah. Although again, I think the whole nuclear thing is a bit of a...

Jason: Red herring?

Joe: ...lame duck or red herring type thing, because it's used to scare people, nuclear weapons and stuff. And you see most of the really, really fringe conspiracy theorists coming up with all sorts of ideas about nukes over the years and stuff. I'm not sure there's any threat from anybody pushing buttons or anybody planning or desiring to use nukes against anybody else. Because I think there really has been for a long time, a moratorium on that in the sense of they all realise that, unless it was a small nuclear device or something like that, but in terms of nuclear war between two nuclear-equipped nations and stuff, I don't think that was ever going to happen and will never happen. Because it's...

Michael: I agree with you on that one. Great show lads!

Joe: Alright. Thanks for your call.

Niall: Bye Michael.

Pierre: Thank you Michael.

Michael: Thanks.

Niall: I think the conspiracy theory that people would like to believe about this new thing, is that something mutinous happened and that somebody in the general command is kicking up a fuss and is going to take over the government in a coup d'état that will be for the good of all. That was kind of the flavour of hope that came out of the whole Benghazi affair, when not just Petraeus lost command but like four generals in Africom were sacked in subsequent weeks. Turns out Benghazi - it wasn't a good/bad thing.

Joe: No.

Niall: It was because someone was caught with their pants down.

Jason: Literally.

Niall: Literally in Petraeus' case and it just risked exposure for the whole lot of them, altogether.

Joe: It's kind of like it's got so bad that when you see something like that happen where someone, a high-level military person or diplomat or whatever is removed, if they're removed because of infighting, while people would like to believe it's because that person wanted to change the system and fight for the people, it's usually because they want to do something that was equally as bad, but they were overruled. One of them wanted to attack this country and the other group wanted to attack this country, so they booted out the guys who wanted to attack - do you know what I mean? That's the level that it's at. There's no - unfortunately, inside that kind of a hierarchy and structure today, there are no good guys.

Jason: But that's what happens.

Joe: They don't get up to that position.

Jason: That's what happens in a pathocracy.

Joe: Yeah, absolutely.

Jason: There's two different psychopathic factions.

Niall: Yeah, you get factions coming up and fighting each other. I want to tie this with something that came up this week. Joe, you mentioned this 2020 Pentagon report where they projected the kind of global environment scenario for 2020. Well I found an article this week. It's about the research of a guy named Peter Turchin. He's a professor at the University of Connecticut, I think. He is looking at a lot of historical data; economic, social and showing that there are cycles. And basically pointing out the inevitability of the collapse of the United States, as we know it anyway. Now he's not thinking really of environmental factors, he's just thinking of political instability, that the signs are in place and that he predicts, he claims with mathematical certainty that by 2020 it will be a dead certainty. An interesting little footnote is that the research is part funded by the CIA. So of course they take an interest in this.

Joe: Absolutely. Somebody's taking an interest somewhere and they're trying to figure out what way it's going to go. And they're hedging their bets. Ultimately you've got an elite who are protecting their positions.

Niall: This guy...

Joe: And they're going to do whatever they have to do to try and keep those.

Niall: This professor said there were two key indicators. One of the problems is kind of a good one, which leads to a bad one. You have an overabundance of educated people, or at least people with higher education whose skills are not used because of waste an inefficiency. Resulting from this is that there's more competition for privileged positions, higher up the ranks. And things start to get rough. And they start to fight. And he said it's not so much that there's social revolution from below, it's because revolutions are inspired by factions up above stirring up shit down below... it's because they're competing with each other at the top of the pile!

Jason: Right. And one of them wins and gets complacent and the next one says, "Well, this isn't over yet".

Joe: Through their own hubris they fight with each other and kind of throw the...

Jason: The gauntlet?

Joe: Throw the baby out of the pram type of thing.

Jason: Oh. Throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Joe: And they throw in the towel or they just say, "Well screw it all", just through their own self-importance and hubris, they just, like you're saying, at that level, it starts to break down at the level of government or the controlling elite that are meant to keep things in place. And because people have submitted themselves, the masses of people, have submitted themselves to such people for so long, when that breaks down because of that kind of infighting, the whole system breaks down. No one knows how to go to work anymore because they're not being told to because the government - like in this government shut-down, the government shuts down, that means supposedly the whole country shuts down.

Niall: Well, a million people are twiddling their thumbs. There are a million educated, middle class Americans, on top of the millions already without work.

Joe: But they've created a situation, like we were talking about food stamps and food aid programs and stuff, that are all administered by the government. Through their corruption, they've created this underclass that is dependent on that kind of aid to live. And if the government collapses, if the government falls apart in any significant way, you're going to have a lot of people who are depending on that kind of government aid because of a corrupt system, who are going to be in difficulties and they might, like you're saying, they would then be the overt evidence of a revolution type thing: civil unrest. But as you just said, it started from the top where they just couldn't get their shit together anymore because they're just idiots. You've got a bunch of people in government suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect. They don't know they're incompetent. They don't know that their own hubris and greed is causing ultimately the destruction of all that they hold dear themselves, their positions and everything. It's just terrible.

Jason: That is exactly what Łobaczewski talked about when he talked about the upward addressment of the psychopath. They start bringing their own kind, the people who they party with in their back rooms, they bring them up to positions of power and these people are just incompetent. They can't manage an economy. They can't manage a welfare system. And so they just tank it.

Pierre: At the same time I'm not sure that incompetency and conspiracies are mutually exclusive.

Jason: Exactly.

Pierre: If you read the Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein's book, you can see that in dozens of countries for decades and decades, the same template has been applied, implemented successfully over years each time. It shows that this process of destroying and looting countries has been conducted by a few elites who benefited from it and who made it successfully. So on one side, you have some politicians who are led by greed, hence their apparent incompetency, but if the driver is greed, if they manage to get wealthy, they're not incompetent. They're competent to fill their pockets and empty yours. And at the same time, I think there's another level, a smaller circle of insiders who orchestrate those kind of operations, destroy countries and fill their pockets as well. Both co-existent.

Jason: Competent evil in my opinion, is the lesser. Because incompetent evil is the kind that just doesn't get it and they will mess things up in ways that even a competent evil person wouldn't.

Niall: It's a conspiracy of dunces.

Jason: Exactly. I was going to say beware the power of a conspiracy of dunces because just because they're idiots, together they're like a giant beehive of idiocy and incompetence but they still manage to do horrible, horrible things, simply out of just sheer numerical power of trying - if you have a million of them, they try 999,000 different ways that don't work and that one day that does basically blows the whole planet up.

Joe: So this weekend there were meant to be thousands, up to 10,000 truckers clogging up the roads around Washington, D.C., on the D.C. beltway.

Jason: After the shooting.

Joe: And it didn't turn out so well. It ended up rather than thousands, it ended up as dozens of truckers. So it was a bit of a damp squib. But interestingly, in the lead up to this, because it's been being talked about for quite a long time, quite a few weeks, certain individuals co-opted the Truckers' Ride for the Constitution, or Truckers to Shut Down America groups to the point that people who are running those, who came up with the idea initially, stated that there were other groups who were spreading false information. And one of those groups or one of those people, is a person known to us called Pete Santilli, who is a weird, freaky, fringe, conspiracy theorist, who bears all the hallmarks of being a CIA - well, some kind of an intel agency plant or dupe, or maybe he's just nuts himself. I don't know if he does it because he enjoys being an idiot, but he is an idiot. And he glommed on to this whole truckers' movement and he decided...

Jason: Is he even a trucker?

Joe: No. And he decided that - he claimed that they were going to - that if it didn't achieve the goals or - he even said if not enough truckers joined the protest, the ones that did arrive would arrest members of Congress and there would be violence, etc. So he kind of ran this particular train off the tracks, or this truck off the road, if you know what I mean, just by spreading disinformation and making them sound like a bunch of extremists. And he probably was largely responsible for such a small number of truckers joining because as soon as they heard of people like him and saying the kind of things he said, and he's also been making racist comments as part of this campaign.

And Pete Santilli was on our show a few months ago, on our Judy Wood show. He's a Judy Wood fanatic and he seems to have attached himself to Judy Wood to discredit her work, just by being Pete Santilli. He doesn't necessarily have to say anything anymore. You just have to say "Oh, Pete Santilli agrees with that" and then you're screwed because he is such a flaming idiot. And a disreputable kind of person. So I don't know if Pete's listening to the show. He probably doesn't, but Pete, sue me.

Jason: [laughing] Don't!

Joe: But I think he's a nice enough guy. He would admit that he's an idiot. Anyway, so that's kind of interesting in terms of coming at the time that...

Jason: I hate harping on this, but it's like, people have got to learn that they have to network together and you have to learn about these type of cointelpro individuals that get sent in. And they're not even trying to be your friend. They're just trying to talk loud enough for them to be on the podium next to you and for you to be associated by guilt with association. The minute they come in, you kind of have to be really decisive with calling them out, showing exactly what they're trying to do and...

Joe: It's amazing how easy it is for them to do it though. They have to expend so little energy. They just have to open their big mouths and start saying stuff to discredit it.

Jason: Because people are desperate to get people in. They want everyone in the door. They want to be all about equality and everyone's welcome. And then they get that one guy who knocks them off the podium and says "Yeah, then afterward we're going to arrest congress". And then everything's over.

Niall: It wasn't just people from the right. There were also groups from the left coming at this, as in "Oh, 'Ride for the Constitution'. That means you're right-wingers". There was one article in particular I came across from Think Progress. So it's kind of a lefty alternative news, pretty small, but it seems to get a large readership. And they were attacking it from the point of view of, "Oh they're right-wing nutsoids, so they're all Tea Party". The way to divide people, you know, if you look at what they were saying, the truckers, they were just saying "No, look, we're just sick of corruption period. We don't care who or what party the person says they represent". Corruption. It was very simple. Everyone can agree with that.

Joe: Yeah, but they subverted it and they co-opted it and Santilli and another fellow organiser who glommed onto this, Zeeda Andrews. Zeeda Andrews has stated in the past that - I'm not sure if it's a guy or girl - he or she believes that President Obama and Osama bin Laden are the same person.

Jason: I'll buy that.

Joe: So that's the kind of person that you're dealing with. It's not even real conspiracy theories. They just mix them up and throw two together and create a new conspiracy theory that's really ridiculous. No one can believe it. They establish their credentials as a complete nutcase because that's what they want to establish. So then they can go around attaching themselves to people who are genuinely trying to effect some change, and discredit them.

Niall: And then a few of them made extremist, racist comments on the Ride for the Constitution facebook page and facebook shut down their page after they got 80,000 votes.

Joe: It's pretty easy to do these days.

Jason: Yeah, and it's criminal. It really is, it's criminal behaviour but there's hardly a defence against it because they just have an army of people that they just send at you and they're posting on your boards and they're joining up on your groups and they're sending their letter campaigns and saying they represent your organization. And it's like yeah...

Niall: If there is a silver lining here. I really like their idea. So if you can imagine, even just 500 truckers. I mean, these are huge vehicles. Their plan was just to drive super slow the whole loop around Washington, D.C., take it in shifts I guess, for three days. That would be a serious message.

Joe: The point is they attract attention by doing this, attract national media attention, to what they were saying, which was that the U.S. government is corrupt and U.S. politicians need to stand down. And they were talking about wars, they were talking about the attempt to invade Syrian. They were bringing recent events into focus and trying to get on national media. They wanted the media to report on these basic statements that they're making that should be self-evident to everybody, and I think that most Americans agree with. That the government is populated by a bunch of corrupt creeps. And they just wanted the media - it was a bit naïve in a way, because the media is not going to allow anybody...

Jason: But it would be hard to...

Joe: Yeah.

Pierre: Because it was a serious threat, that actually they infiltrated this movement.

Jason: Coming back to our first caller though, who was talking about how difficult it is to make decisions about stuff. You're trying to keep an open mind, you don't know, whatever. So in that type of situation there's a very, very simple test to know if a person is just totally a wack job and probably a CIA plant. If the first thing out of his mouth is then "if it doesn't work then we'll go to violence", then you know automatically that even if he's not actually working for some sort of intelligence agency, he might as well be.

Niall: There was a guy... they had organized a protest for July 4th, Independence Day this year, where U.S. vets from Iraq and recent wars would march on D.C. And then it morphed into 'well let's march on D.C. armed with our rifles'. And the person leading that was a complete agitator. I've forgotten his name. I think Adam Kokesh. And he's always the one who will come out there with a violent option first and foremost. That's always a red flag for me.

Jason: The interesting thing is we've got a book upstairs. It's a little, tiny book. And it's from I guess the early 1900's, from the workers' movement, labourers were organizing, early union type of stuff. And the name of it is The Agent Provocateur where it basically talks about this exact type of person. And it's been a really - it's been the go-to strategy for dealing with anybody. It's why Martin Luther King was so adamant and up front constantly with this 'no violence, no violence, no violence, no violence'. And when you get somebody who doesn't say that, then you automatically know that they're not worth listening to and they're probably either an agent or at least they're serving the same kind of CIA masters, even if they're not actually working for them.

Pierre: If you look at the global picture, the psychopathic mind, the psychopathic elites are pursuing two mutually exclusive goals, i.e., greed and control. If you follow this greed goal, you will increase the oppression of people who will eventually, sooner or later, revolt. That means you lose the control. So here we are addressing a key point in this social experiment, that is control of the people during revolt time. And we know for centuries now the tools and the techniques the elites are using, the agent provocateurs, the infiltration of the so-called movements that defend the citizens' right, in particular unions, and setting the stage to conduct the "revolt" quote/unquote on their own terms, preparing people for crowd control, technologies, armies, that - actually they control both camps. They control the army, police camps and they control as well the so-called revolt camp, people camp.

Jason: Yeah, they create their own. But as an amelioration to that, one of the things that they do, one of their main tools is to create situations of desperation to get people to basically - for the paycheque, because they have to feed their kids - to compromise on their principles, ethics and their morals and work for them. So they create a situation where people basically have to sell out in order to survive, this highly competitive thing with a bunch of educated people who they now have this cut-throat kind of Darwin pool to see who's going to get the high placed jobs and who's going to get the position. They kind of want to create situations like that so that then they bubble up the best people to the top and they can kind of pick them and recruit them. And those people are willing to go further because of their desperate situation than they would be if things were better off.

Pierre: Yeah, and it's a tricky...

Niall: Like Hunger Games.

Jason: Yeah, like Hunger Games.

Pierre: It's a tricky combination because on one side the elites, they want good slave labourers, so they promote more and more technical studies. But it means that eventually people reach sometimes quick thinking capabilities. But at the same time because of profit maximization, you try to minimise wages and quantity of labourers because it costs money. So you end up with a society of these called developed societies, with a lot of highly qualified people who don't work while the bottom of the social class it means you have a lot of people who are not satisfied with the system, who are ripe for rebellion, but at the same time they have some knowledge which might bring some efficiency to this revolt dynamics.

Joe: Recently there was an Anderson Cooper show called 'Cosmic Russian Roulette'.

Niall: Just Cosmic Roulette.

Joe: Was it?

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: Okay.

Jason: I think Cosmic Russian Roulette is a little bit of a better title though. It's got all kinds of implications.

Joe: Well, it was interesting. The show was actually interesting, but mainly for being an example of how - because he interviewed a a bunch of different NASA scientists and different people involved in looking at the asteroid or near-earth asteroid threat. And this was in light of the Chelyabinsk meteor overhead explosion earlier this year. And it was interesting to watch the NASA scientists explain that it wasn't really a threat, while at the same time making it clear via the data they give that it really was a threat. And at the same time saying that 'it's a threat, but it's not a threat because there are all these space rocks out there and we can't really see them but we're working to be able to spot them and'...

Niall: '...except we don't have enough funding'.

Joe: '...except we don't have enough funding to be able to see them. So we would be able to see them and we would be able to protect everybody if we had that funding. And we have identified 95 percent of the really big ones. But there are smaller ones that could be continent destroyers that we can't really identify because there's too many of them. There's like a million of them...'

Jason: [laughing]

Joe: '...but we have the big ones'. And it was just this convoluted attempt to kind of like - that they really feel that - attempt to convince Anderson Cooper that everything's cool and that they had it under control because overall it was just - the impression you were left with was 'oh my god, these guys are just useless. Why are they even being paid? They should just be at home watching the sky. And there's no point in even reporting on anything', you know.

Niall: The Obama administration agrees because they just lost more funding. Whatever services they're providing have not been reinstated.

Joe: I have a little excerpt here of that Anderson Cooper show just to let you hear what I'm talking about. There's a few little excerpts from the show. So we'll go ahead and play that.
[ANDERSON COOPER]: This is video of that asteroid in Russia barrelling toward earth at 40,000 miles an hour. It exploded into pieces 19 miles above and 25 miles south of the city of Chelyabinsk. People thought it had missed them entirely until minutes later when the shock wave arrived, [explosive sounds, screams], shattering glass, crushing doors and knocking some people right off their feet. More than 1,000 were injured. [sirens]
[Question]: How much warning did people in Chelyabinsk get?
[CHODIS]: None.
[COOPER]: Paul Chodis is a scientist at NASA's jet propulsion laboratory in Pasadena, California. He and his boss Don Yeomans have been trying to track near-earth objects for decades.
[CHODIS]: We didn't see it coming. It was coming from the general direction of the sun so it was in the daytime sky as it approached.
[COOPER]: So how did you find out about it?
[CHODIS]: Twitter and YouTube, when we first saw the images.
[COOPER]: So the first people at NASA heard about it was Twitter.
[CHODIS]: Exactly.
[COOPER]: This telescope at the Table Mountain observatory in California is one of dozens all over the world that are used to track and study near-earth objects. Mainzer told us they're often very hard to find.
[AMY MAINZER]: Some of these asteroid are really, really dark; darker even than coal in some cases. Kind of like the soot at the bottom of a barbecue grill.
[COOPER]: So you're looking for something that's darker than coal against a black sky.
[MAINZER]: Exactly. And now you see the problem.
[COOPER]: Another problem is that ground-based telescopes can't see objects coming from the direction of the sun because they're in the daytime sky, like the asteroid that hit Russia.
[COOPER]: You see these movies with Bruce Willis where an asteroid is coming and it's going to destroy the world. Is that likely.
[CHODIS]: No. No. We found 95 percent of the large ones and none of them represent a threat in the next 100 years or so.
[COOPER]: What about the other five percent?
[CHODIS]: We're still looking.
[COOPER]: This is all the asteroids that...
[CHODIS]: There are about a million asteroids large enough to destroy a city out there.
[COOPER]: And right now we only know of what percent of those asteroids?
[CHODIS]: About one-half of one percent.
[COOPER]: Does it worry you that you only know one percent of these asteroids that are big enough to destroy a city?
[CHODIS]: Well most of those are really small and the odds are that many of these would hit in a remote area or could hit in an ocean. So that is why the larger ones are those that we're paying attention to first. Now the next size range is the one to concentrate on, those that can cause continent-wide extinction or destruction.
[COOPER]: That would be pretty good, to prevent that, continental-wide destruction.
[CHODIS]: Those are next ones. We'll continue to find those and when we work our way down to the small ones.
[COOPER]: But right now, an object that could wipe out the eastern seaboard or New York City could be a day away and there's a very good chance we wouldn't know about it.
[CHODIS]: Well we're working to make sure that we will know about it.
[COOPER]: But right now we wouldn't know about it.
[CHODIS]: It's possible.
[COOPER]: You can't deflect what you don't detect, which is why former astronaut Ed Lu has taken on a new mission.
[LU]: Here's the telescope that we're building.
[COOPER]: He's now chairman of the B612 Foundation which has designed a space-based telescope to speed up the discovery of near-earth objects. NASA's Amy Mainzer has been developing one too. Both telescopes would be able to find asteroids by using infrared sensors that detect heat rather than light. But a telescope like this would cost roughly half a billion dollars and so far neither the United States nor any other government has committed significant funds. So the B612 Foundation is trying to raise the money privately by reaching out to individual donors.
[LU]: I don't think there's any other global catastrophe, global scale catastrophe, that we can prevent. This is the only one that I know of. We can solve this particular issue for the cost of building a freeway overpass. That's literally what it is.
[COOPER]: But nobody has been killed by an asteroid.
[LU]: Yeah, and what I'm saying is that you can't wait 'til that point afterwards when you say 'We should have done it.'
[COOPER]: You have to think of this as cosmic roulette, right?
[LU]: The phrase that they have in Vegas is that the house always wins. And the sort of secret to all this is that we're not the house. At some point, you know, the solar system's going to get you.
[CHODIS]: They're very low probability events but very high consequence events.
[COOPER]: The problem it seems like is you're asking people to care about something which may not affect their lives, may not even affect their children's lives.
[CHODIS]: That's true. It's a tough concept to get across because, as you say, it's something that may not happen for another 100 years, 200 years. It may happen tomorrow morning.
Joe: The clock's ticking down folks. It may happen tomorrow morning.

Jason: I would just like to point out that that is some bullshit! It's just so much...

Joe: Which part?

Jason: They now apparently have portable x-ray scanners they're giving to police to carry around to inspect people and look into buildings, right? They're giving that stuff to the police but they can't launch a satellite that can find some rocks. We're going to use infrared!

Joe: Of course they can't fund it - they won't fund it. They can't get any government funding for it, $500 million. They can't get $500 million and they're having to look to individuals...

Jason: I don't believe it for a minute.

Joe: It's like these guys - those two individuals that want to - have designed this telescope that could detect the heat signal because they made it clear that if it's in the daytime and it comes from the sun we can't see it and at nighttime and it's black we can't see it, so it has to be - it can't be based on light. It has to be based on heat. And they're looking to ordinary people. So they're kind of appealing to the public. "Listen the government doesn't care about the threat as evidenced by the Russian meteorite earlier this year, that we could all be destroyed. The government doesn't care about that, so could y'all maybe in your own interests throw some money our way and we can launch this thing and maybe we'll have an idea?" Not that that would solve the problem necessarily but at least it would be something that was genuinely motivated and somebody really trying to do something but it's not coming from the government.

Niall: It's not just money they're looking for. They've been putting out feelers for months now, asking the general public to send in their ideas about how would we deflect incoming asteroids, because their own ideas, they wouldn't work. They're actually going 'what would we do? What would you do?'

Pierre: I think there's some truth. There's a lot of lies in this interview. It's probably difficult to identify soon enough a black body of a black background using light, so infrared technology makes sense and that's what they've been using in the military for years in order to detect nukes and missiles. However, if they are conducting an extensive asteroid survey program, infrared-based telescopic in space, satellites, maybe they would come to the conclusion that there is a lot of asteroids, that their number is growing, that they are major threats for the planet and worst of all, detection is good. But if you cannot neutralize the asteroids, it means a total hysterisation of the population. We're surrounded with asteroids and we cannot do anything against them.

Jason: Yeah, exactly.

Pierre: But they don't detect them unless - lie, and one of the main lies in this show - I've almost finished - one of the main lies of this show is that this guy says "Yes, we have identified 95 percent. So we still have five percent to identify." But if they cannot detect black bodies of a black background, how do they know that what they have detected is 95 percent.

Joe: Exactly.

Pierre: They don't know the total. And I'm willing to bet that the total is much, much higher than the estimated and the percent that is in their minds.

Joe: But the two guys at NASA, did you hear what they said? Ninety-five percent is the major, the big ones that are more than a quarter of a mile, or a half mile wide. The smaller ones are city-destroying meteorites and there's one million of those floating around.

Jason: They said that they had less than one-half of one percent...

Joe: Of those. So they basically felt there's a million more or less there that are floating around, that could destroy cities. And the NASA guy said "Yeah, but they're small". You mean they're small in the sense that they could only destroy a city and couldn't destroy a continent, so you're not concerned about them?" And he was like "No, we're looking at the ones that'll destroy the world first and we haven't got all those down yet. And on the other point where he said - where Anderson Cooper said "Nobody's been hit by a meteorite", and people have been hit by a meteorite.

Jason: Yes, and people have died recently. Several people - three or four people died.

Niall: Well that's not confirmed and you can be waiting 'til the end of time for them to confirm anything.

Jason: Exactly.

Niall: There have been a couple of incidents where residential homes have been completely obliterated. Calls unknown. Local witnesses said it sounded like an airplane came from above, kaboom!

Joe: Just to give you an idea of what the government is thinking, how the official government policy on this is, here's Obama recently talking about asteroids and how cool they are.
[NARRATOR]: But in April 2010 U.S. President Barak Obama announced an even bigger challenge.
[OBAMA]: By 2025 we expect new spacecraft designed for long journeys to allow us to begin the first ever crude missions beyond the moon into deep space. So we'll start by sending astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history.
[?]: In my experience as a college teacher, the younger generations, they want to go beyond. Yeah, my grandparents went to the moon. Let's go beyond. And so that was an inspiring part of the President's message that we need to get NASA back into the business of deep space.
Joe: Yeah, it inspired me, you know. The astronaut they're going to send to asteroids is obviously Bruce Willis, right?

Jason: Because we'll finally get rid of him. I wanted to point out that there's something fundamentally stupid about what those NASA scientists said, which is that we can't even deflect the small ones, right? But that seems like a tackleable problem. So we're going to waste all of our time and effort tracking the asteroids that if they were going to hit us, there would be absolutely no hope whatsoever in the world that knowing about them would be pointless. You would think that actually the higher number asteroids would automatically give you a higher rate of impact or possibilities of impact. More asteroids or more in-space bodies, more chances there are it's going to hit you. 'Oh, there's 10 big ones and we're spending all our money tracking those'. But it's all these other ones that are destroying like cities and half a continent but they're like 'Oh we don't have to worry about that because we want to get the really big ones that we couldn't stop ever because we can't even stop the small ones.

Joe: Yeah.

Pierre: There is a lie concerning the quantity, as we say, quantity of big asteroids. They have no idea how many around. They have no idea how many small ones are around when they say half a percent, half of one percent. They don't know the total quantity.

Joe: Well they said a million. They've tracked a half of one percent of a million.

Pierre: Yeah, but I don't think they know that the total number is one million.

Joe: No.

Pierre: Because there's a lot of small ones they cannot even see.

Niall: It's like the national debt. It's $16.7 trillion.

Pierre: Officially.

Joe: There's a black hole there.

Pierre: There's a black hole. And that's for the quantitative factor, but for the qualitative factor as well, for their weak assessment, they only take into account the earth impact, impacts on earth's surface. They totally neglect cometary overhead explosions. They totally neglect electrical discharges. They totally neglect electrophonics. And they totally neglect airborne viruses.

Joe: All of which have been happening, maybe not the viruses, we don't know, but the other stuff, the electrophonics and the electrical discharges, there's evidence that all of that has been happening over the past few years at an increasing rate.

Jason: Just to drive home what Pierre was saying, it's like the near-earth misses, the ones that come right next to the atmosphere and drop off a whole bunch of dust, that then falls down and has who knows what in it, because historically, plagues have come after cometary passes, not necessarily cometary impacts. So just because it missed us, doesn't mean that it missed us.

Pierre: It doesn't even have to be nearby. Like Comet ISON wouldn't be so close to earth actually, it would be more than one astronomical unit away from earth at its closest point. But a few weeks after Comet ISON followed this path, the earth's orbit will go through the path.

Joe: The tail.

Pierre: Through the point where Comet ISON was several weeks before. You're still far away, but in the end, the atmosphere is subjected to the trail, to the cometary dust loaded with who knows what?

Joe: In the aftermath of the Chelyabinsk meteorite earlier this year, Congress set up a committee to ask some questions about it, ask NASA some questions about, and there's a little short excerpt from that session that I'll play here.
[Congressman]: A big segment of the population thinks it's just a matter of calling Bruce Willis and you know, notwithstanding we don't have a shuttle anymore, you know, that's impossible. But things that beg for an answer, you know, scary of course that we only know about ten percent of the huge ones, the threats. And we virtually have no idea of the small threats, like the one that went undetected, that reached impact in Russia. You know, what would we do if you detected even a small one like the one that detonated in Russia, headed for New York City in three weeks? What would we do? [pause] Bend over and what?
[CHIEF OF NASA]: Congressman, I, you know - that is I don't - again, I have to go back to what I said before. These are very rare events. From the information that we have on asteroids that we've discovered of all sizes, we don't know of one that will threaten the population of the United States, you know, in three weeks. And we are trying very diligently, as I said before, with the President's budget, to put ourselves in a position where we advance the technology such that three weeks will not be something that causes us to panic because we will be able to respond. We are where we are today because you all told us to do something and between the administration and the congress, the funding to do that did not - the bottom line as always, the funding did not come. And I don't care whose fault it is or if it's anybody's fault. We all know what we're facing today and we are all sitting here today as the congress and the administration try to figure out sequestration, something that never should have happened, nobody planned to happen, but we're facing it today. And so the answer to you is if it's coming in three weeks, pray. If we find that out right now. And that's not bad.
[CONGRESSMAN]: that's reality.
[CHIEF OF NASA]: That's not bad policy. I am a practicing Episcopalian and I love what the pope's doing right now. I tell you, things have happened. You've got to pray.
Joe: There you go.

Niall: So even with...

Joe: NASA's answer. That was the chief of NASA telling people to pray. He's a religious man. You should be to. He prays that the asteroids won't come and kill us all.

Jason: Wow!

Niall: That is even with three weeks' notice. They cannot stop a city-destroying sized object with three weeks.

Pierre: There's a double twist. A small asteroid detected three weeks prior to the event, so it's a double optimistic hypothesis. So it means the big one that is detected one day before, few hours before, or not detected at all, like Chelyabinsk. That was not very big.

Niall: Well Chelyabinsk was just - I mean for a year or more, they had detected and tracked this other one, DA14.

Pierre: Yes.

Niall: It was scheduled to come in. We practically had a welcoming party for it. NASA was throwing special day events and people were coming. 'Bring the kids. Bring the whole school. All the kids can have a look at this thing as it comes in and we'll take photos of it.' Kaboom! The Chelyabinsk event happened six hours beforehand on the other side of the planet.

Pierre: And part of the narrative was that the telescopes were so focused on DA14 on the southern hemisphere that nobody saw the Chelyabinsk bolide coming in.

Joe: Well on the same day there was another one that passed 17,000 miles above the earth that they had no idea. It came out of nowhere.

Pierre: Which is very close.

Joe: It was a coincidence. It came between the satellite TV broadcast satellites, between the earth and our satellites. And that was another one on the very same day, just a coincidence though.

Niall: There was another one. There was a third, and it exploded over Cuba.

Joe: Yeah. That's right.

Niall: And scared the hell out of people there. It shook homes. It exploded loud enough to actually reverberate on the ground.

Pierre: And now there's a question about the behaviour of the elite concerning the threat. Either they ignore the threat and they evaluate it, so they do nothing. Or they're aware of it and obviously they're not doing much. So if they know about it, they don't do much, although they're building underground facilities for themselves. So if this second hypothesis is valid, they're happy with the depopulation consequences of an asteroid impact or overhead explosions. They will be safe underground. They will reduce the population and have a slave population more easily manageable. So I don't know. I'm asking the question. I don't know what's going on in the minds of elites. It's probably not...

Joe: I think most of them are all going to be as bewildered as most of the population if and when something does happen.

Jason: I think it's just the bunker mentality that makes them do that. They've got this whole burrower's bunker mentality, like back in the days when there was this whole nuclear scare. Everyone was building a bomb bunker. That's just - I mean when you're rich, when you're filthy stinking rich, what else are you going to do? Build a giant underground bunker and store stuff in it.

Pierre: That's true. That fits with this mentality. But at the same time we see that over the last years there's been an increase in the building of massive underground facilities, including the Svalbard one and other ones. So are they aware of the threat? Is it the asteroid threat they're aware of? Is it more like an ice age thing?

Joe: Yeah, there's multiple threats that they perceive, let's say and very few of them actually know that it's all connected, that meteorites, comets, that kind of activity, coincides with other activity on the planet that could cause serious disruptions on the planet regardless of whether or not any space rocks fall on their head; from space essentially, without coming that close to the earth, can cause massive disruptions on the planet as well. And that's more than enough for any government to have to deal with, like in terms of weather, weather changes, climate change, and I don't even know if over-population is an issue but this CIA report to Bush said 'there'll be wars for water and wars for food'. So too many things are climate change and meteorites and they're both intrinsically linked.

Niall: September was very wet. There was some serious flooding all over the place. I think of the one in Colorado. What did they call it? A one in a thousand year event? They have to call it that! It was so devastating and so sudden, immediately after a record period of draught. At the same time Mexico was hit with two hurricanes and record flooding on the west coast of Mexico. Right now India has been slammed with a super typhoon. Where else?

Joe: Just last night they...

Niall: Japan and the east coast of China were hit.

Joe: Yeah, and for western Europe the UK Met office yesterday just announced that they're expecting extremely cold, a horror freeze, this winter, that it's going to be the worst winter for more than 100 years. They finally got the message from observable data via looking out your window for the past four or five years during the winter and realizing that winters have been getting steadily worse and worse and they're saying that this winter it's going to last - it's going to start next month, they say, from November, and it'll last right through - I mean, at that point they're speculating, but the thing about that is, is when you see, based on previous years, when you see that kind of a weather system, extremely cold polar air being pulled down because of the stuck jet stream over western Europe, you get the same effects almost simultaneously, or similar effects simultaneously, on the east coast of the U.S. You can read one from the other really, because that's the way it's been over the past few winters. When there's been winter storms in western Europe, there's been serious storms on the east coast of the U.S. So that's something else to look forward to.

Pierre: You are describing the same weather system...

Joe: Jet stream.

Pierre: system. The jet stream for the listeners, is circling - the one we're talking about is the Arctic jet stream that is circling around the earth and that defines the limit between cold Arctic air and temperate latitude air. And when the jet stream - when the solar activity is low, the jet stream is low as well and the temperate latitudes, places like New York or Paris, or London, are exposed to this Arctic air directly. And so you have this factor, this jet stream that is really low because of low solar activity and the low solar activity per se is also a driver of this global cooling dynamics.

Joe: Tomorrow is Columbus Day.

Jason: I hate that guy.

Joe: It's a celebration and largely - in some South American countries, but in the U.S. it's actually celebrated in most states and it celebrates the activities of a murdering psychopathic maniac 500-some years ago who went to South America and butchered lots of Indians. And it's a very fitting day to be celebrated in the U.S., to be officially a federal holiday, officially designated by the federal government where they honour the memory of a murdering psychopath, because they're his ideological descendents.

Jason: I've got a quote from Columbus.

Joe: Carry on.

Jason: This is from the SOTT pages there. And he's talking about when he came to the Bahamas. He said "They brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks bells. They willingly traded everything they owned. They were well built with good bodies and handsome features. They do not bear arms and do not know them for I showed them a sword. They took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance. They have no iron. Their spears are made of cane. They would make fine servants. With 50 men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want". So yeah, that's the guy that we're celebrating.

Joe: Yeah. In a few South American countries it's celebrated but in Venezuela, for example, in 2004 under Chavez, he changed it to, instead of Columbus Day he changed it to the Dia de la Resistencia Indigena which is the Day of Indigenous Resistance, which was to commemorate the indigenous peoples' resistance to European settlement. So he just flipped it on its head. And actually there was a statue of Columbus that was set up before he was elected President of Venezuela. There was a statute of Columbus in Caracas and a group of people, pro-Chavez people, went and tore it down. And they said that just like the statue of Saddam in Bagdad, that of Columbus the tyrant also fell this October 12, 2004 in Caracas.

Jason: That just warms the cockles of my heart. I would just point out that one of the practices that these people used, I mean, just to understand how bad they were - they had this technique called clipping. Have you heard about it?

Joe: Mm-hm.

Jason: And clipping is basically when the slaves did something wrong, or stole something, or anything like that, what they would do is they would cut off their arms, basically "clipping" them. That was their way of punishing them.

Joe: I think that was for times when they didn't bring them enough gold.

Jason: Oh yeah, when they didn't bring them enough gold or something like that. These people were so evil and Columbus is such an evil person that anybody who looks at him with any kind of respect or admiration, you really have to question that person's moral compass.

Joe: Well of course it's all - it's sanctioned by the Vatican. It has a vested interest in it.

Niall: It's a history that's been completely whitewashed. I remember when the movie 1492 came out, and the anthemic song - I can't remember what the name of the piece was - for a while there it was going to become the European Union's anthem. In the end they chose Ode to Joy by Beethoven but this song is still used frequently at events. This is sort of to consolidate the European Union identity around Columbus discovering the new world. And I grew up with that, actually quite a bit, this halo view of Columbus. And when you later learn the reality, it's just...

Joe: Disgusting.

Niall: He was such an awful, awful person. Really, you could not think of worse. Cutting peoples' hands off, cutting peoples' ears off, noses. And the people were so generous and innocent and good to these new arrivals, within 50 years five million of them were dead.

Pierre: And things haven't changed much. Colonialism is now a neo-colonialism. The weapons are slightly different. But you see they have a small elite that is taking the resources of people, who are usually good people and nice people. Five hundred years and it's still the same story going on.

Joe: I mentioned the Vatican there. Obviously the Vatican was heavily invested in Columbus's voyages and bringing - there's many churches and cathedrals in Spain and Italy that to this day are decked out in gold leaf taken directly from South American and brought back by people like Columbus. But actually today, there's a news story. The Vatican beatifies over 500 martyrs of the faith killed during the Spanish Civil War. And this says the Vatican has essentially raised 500 peoples' stock in heaven.

Jason: In heaven, yeah.

Joe: They're not saints yet, but they're martyrs of the faith which is a certain level. And these are people who died in the Spanish Civil War who were fighting, obviously, on the side of Franco the dictator who was aligned with Hitler. So the Vatican just has - they don't care. They're totally shameless in the attitude that they take and making it obvious that their attitude is 'we're on the side of fascistic murdering of innocent people who are fighting for their freedom'.

Jason: Yeah, did we expect anything different from the catholic church? I mean, isn't that historically what they've always done?

Joe: Pretty much, yeah. They blessed - there's songs about them blessing, instead of the brown shirts, the blue shirts, the blue shirts that went to fight for Franco from different countries, the bishop's blessing, the blue shirts as they sailed beneath the swastika to Spain. That's just 60 years ago, 60, 70 years ago. And we're meant to think it's all different now? They've suddenly seen the light? They were different times? No they're not. They were exactly the same people, exactly the same mentality. They're just a bit more PC about it today.

Jason: I would have to say that I'm not an atheist, I'm definitely a theist. But if I had to have a choice between I could only believe in the catholic version of religion or had to be an atheist, I would actually choose atheism over that. Because Catholicism is really kind of disgusting, actually.

Joe: All Christianity is because it's based on a monstrous lie.

Jason: Yeah.

Joe: Hail Caesar!

Pierre: And the mind job, the mind job, this psyche instilled in our minds, this vision of the world, the submission, this slave mind, this acceptance of authorities, illegitimate authorities, bowing down our backs, accepting, giving the other cheek, they - actually when you see the global picture, you look about this elite versus people struggle has been lasting since the beginning of history. The catholic church has been playing a major role. Because ultimately it's all about psychology. And they manage to conform our minds to a slave mentality, basically.

Jason: The core of Christianity, really official Christianity, and we're talking about what's in the kind of book, is basically anti-life. It's the complete withdrawal from any kind of earthly responsibilities because you're going to go to heaven. So don't do anything, don't participate in anything, don't really learn anything. All you have to read is this book and then when you die, you go to heaven. And that's not Christianity as it's practiced by a lot of people who are all about 'oh, it's about forgiveness, it's about love, it's about community. But those people have obviously never actually read the bible or read anything about it because the bible really is just anti-life. It's all about completely withdrawing in upon yourself. And the whole 'turn the other cheek' and all this stuff is used to reinforce this idea of just don't do anything in life and read this book. Don't bother learning anything else and you'll go to heaven.

Pierre: And that's 180 degree turn compared to the initial Christianity, as we have discovered, the Christianity of the Caesarism. Julius Caesar was all for a better life for everybody in this life, on this earth, fighting for the rights, more equality, more justice, and transcending or destroying this elite versus people cleavage.

Jason: Well there was this fundamental idea about responsibility of the people on earth for what's happening in the cosmos or in this sense, or if Zeus is mad at you it's because you did something, not just because he's all willy-nilly throwing lightning bolts at people. And everything was about appeasing the Universe by acting in certain specific ways. Obviously, towards the end this got corrupted and they decided that there would be no cut up but a couple of lambs and everything was fine. And it was okay, go back to the raping and murdering because all those thing do get corrupted. But paganism, or Roman paganism and even Greek paganism before that, was more about personal responsibility for your environment and reacting to it and existing in it and that you contributed to either the pleasure or the displeasure of 'the gods' quote/unquote and this is just the language that they used at the time. And so Christianity was exactly as you're saying, a 180 degree turn from that. It was that you suddenly have no fundamental effect on the Universe, that god just does whatever he wants, whenever he wants, however he wants, it's all his will he works in mysterious ways. And all you have to do is bend over and take it for the next 60 or 70 years and then you'll get into heaven for all eternity, which is just a ridiculous idea, that all you'd have to do is pay 60 years for an eternity? It's a bargain you know.

Joe: Yeah. It's all about suffering. You're meant to get your reward for suffering, but wouldn't that make you more eligible for hell? Logically?

Pierre: Whether it makes you eligible for hell or not because actually...

Joe: If you show yourself good at being manipulated and lied to and taken for a ride and abused and stuff, and suffering for it, that's what the devil...

Pierre: The main tenet of the catholic doctrine is basically a trade-off. You accept to live 60 years of slavery on this earth, and in exchange you will have an eternity of pleasure and peacefulness in paradise.

Jason: Well, there's slavery there too.

Pierre: But the problem is that slavery, you're sure to have it for 60 years but the paradise after, it's something to be seen. So it's a tricky trade-off.

Joe: Well talking about lies and propaganda, there's a story recently: The Pentagon admits to holding phony arrival ceremonies for soldiers' remains. The Department of Defence unit charged with recovering service members' remains abroad has been holding phony arrival ceremonies for seven years with an honour guard carrying flag-draped coffins off of a cargo plane as though they held the remains returning that day from old battlefields. The Pentagon acknowledged Wednesday that no honoured dead were in fact arriving or in those coffins and that the planes used in the ceremonies often couldn't even fly and were towed into position.

Niall: How many are we talking about here?

Joe: All of them over the past seven years.

Jason: They never brought home...

Joe: All of those ceremonies were for public consumption to G-up and to galvanise the jingoistic patriotic fervour at our boys being killed and taken home.

Niall: So what happened to the bodies?

Joe: Well they were taken home or they left them there or took them home by other means. But those arrival ceremonies were not real. They did not contain - there were not the bodies of any soldiers, and the planes weren't even real...

Jason: That's disgusting.

Joe: People for seven years have been believing when they saw footage of a plane and a flag-draped coffin with soldiers standing guard and they're being carried of, that it actually was a real plane that had just flown them back and that there was a body in the coffin. And none of it was real. They may as well have done it in a movie studio. They pretty much did do it in a movie studio.

Jason: The point being is that you build up this whole idea of the military and the honour of dying for your country right? Okay, we believe it we don't believe it, that's not really the point. But in a certain sense, all of the men who died over there, regardless of how we argue about different particular things, they deserve the pomp and circumstance of the coming off with the coffin draped. That's the hero's funeral. If you're going to quote/unquote "die for your country", then you deserve the pomp and circumstance and the 21 gun salute and the proper thing and the flag-draped coffin. That's like a special kind of funeral that you get treated to, even though we might argue about how terrible it is, or whatever. And that's completely f-ing disgusting.

Joe: Yeah. Even for the family members who are still alive.

Jason: The family members who are still alive, that is so unbelievably, morally reprehensible.

Joe: Yep.

Jason: They didn't actually give them a funeral procession that they deserved.

Joe: It's family members just got a knock on the door and the bad news and then said "We'll send him back in a...

Jason: In a tent.

Pierre: It's all the worse...

Jason: That makes me so angry!

Pierre: It's all the worse that it would be totally possible to organize decent funerals for dead soldiers.

Joe: They do it for propaganda measures. The people that that was targeted at, that they went to the bother of doing that for, was the general public who had no real personal investment in the war because they didn't have anybody overseas, or a member of the military in their family, those people were in danger of really not caring anymore. So you've got to broadcast to them and make them feel like they're a part of it and get them to give a little bit of emotional energy to the whole deal.

Pierre: But you could have done that with real funerals.

Jason: They should have! That's what's supposed to happen.

Pierre: So it means that all that matters is the propaganda.

Jason: Yeah.

Pierre: This minimum level of decent respect towards the families of the dead ones. It's totally overlooked. It doesn't even matter for the psychotic minds.

Joe: Well from a bureaucratic point of view, or from a propaganda point of view, they didn't - they wouldn't do it - obviously if you're going to do it for real, it would be dictated by when the person died and how soon you could get him home and all that kind of stuff. So you wouldn't have complete control over it. But these were used at specific times and broadcast at specific times.

Niall: Yeah, because you don't see every single one of them.

Joe: No, but they were used - these faked funerals were used at specific times, at specific junctures when the elite decided that the populace needed a little bit of a...

Niall: A little bit of a jumpstart.

Joe: Yeah. A push.

Niall: Let's get some more cannon fodder out there. Okay funeral, play. Broadcast.

Joe: And it's strange, you know, you get people to offer themselves to be cannon fodder by showing cannon fodder coming back home apparently. Apparently that's how it works.

Jason: That's weird.

Joe: Here's a dead guy coming from war. I want to go...

Jason: The thing is, from the ancient city, this whole idea of your ancestors and the burial and stuff like that. Burials for at least westerners - I don't know about any other cultures - are very, very important. It's important to me too. How you treat the dead is - respect. You don't walk on graves. You don't be disrespectful. And this is such ultimate disrespect.

Joe: Yeah. That's what we're dealing with.

Pierre: Even if you are not aware today on the conscious level of the importance of this symbol, these rites have been permeating our society for such a long time...

Jason: Millennia.

Pierre: ...that it's still in us, on the subconscious level.

Jason: Exactly.

Pierre: It's still a very important thing.

Niall: Does it say there whether this was hired out to a private contractor to hold the funerals or anything? Because I would not put it past Donald Rumsfeld to say "It's a bit too expensive. Let's just have a cargo plane onsite or put in some cargo boxes draped with a few made in China flags over them. We can save money here".

Jason: Oh my god, this is so blasphemous!

Joe: Or record it and save it for later.

Jason: This discussion is so horrifyingly blasphemous.

Joe: Well it's what's happening.

Niall: Well we get an idea of their mindset. There was another article this week from the UK, wasn't there? Where they said something like 'let's send less regular soldiers over there and if we use special forces and military contractors, that's better because the public doesn't seem to get so upset about them.

Joe: Yeah, exactly. They wanted to reduce the number of actual...

Niall: And this is on paper. This was a matter of policy.

Joe: Yeah. It's the same idea behind it, stage managing the results, the real results of sending our boys off to invade countries and kill all the people and be killed. Smaller proportion than you kill, but still be killed. And it's not good. And people aren't going to support it eventually because they're going to get tired of it. They're going to question the rationale.

Niall: I think Obama's asteroid idea was a great one. Let's get them all shipped out there on the next incoming asteroid and let it go off on its way.

Jason: Let's forget...

Niall: Let's fire them into the asteroid.

Jason: Well exactly. Forget to convert feet to metres.

Joe: No, but they've tested - I think they've tested, they fired that, I think at Comet Temple, they fired that rod in a spacecraft into it, to see the effect and it actually, interestingly, showed an electrical effect because there was an electrical discharge before it actually hit, proving the electrical nature of comets theory. But they were testing the effects of a little spacecraft and some kind of tungsten rod or copper road hitting a spacecraft. But obviously the next logical step in this testing process, is to test the effect of a politician being fired at high speed into an asteroid and see what the effect is. And there's many members of congress out there. I mean, there's more than enough.

Jason: I think that we could get enough points to be statistically relevant.

Pierre: Would there be an electric discharge before the impact of the politician into the asteroid? Talking about the electric nature of asteroids, in the previous show we addressed quickly the electrophonics phenomena. Since then I've got some more data and maybe it can be explained in better terms.

Niall: Let's hear it!

Pierre: So, yeah, hear it. It's about sounds, all those strange sounds that have been documented extensively. Now on YouTube you have literally hundreds of videos reporting strange sounds.

Joe: And the SOTT Report.

Pierre: Yeah. Sounds, trumpet-like, trumpet of Jericho, and horns and eerie sounds.

Joe: Wookie sounds.

Pierre: Yeah. Often one of the characteristics of the sounds is that the witness cannot identify the source of the sound. And later we really understand why. In any case, these electrophonics or these sounds accompanying asteroid bodies has been documented for centuries. It's found in the oldest record dates back to Chinese writings in the 7th century A.D. So for a long time we've known about what we call now - what some people call now electrophonics.

In the western world, Halley, the discoverer of the comet of Halley, first documents those phenomena in 1717 after the London fireball. And here we're not talking about blasts. We're not talking about usual sounds, i.e., vibration in the air. Why? Because Halley noticed that while people were reporting the sound, at the same time they were seeing the fireball that was 60 miles away. So 60 miles away the sounds takes five minutes to travel and reach earth's surface. So obviously it was not a usual sound phenomenon because there was not this time delay. And Halley made his research and inquiry and theories and finally he dismissed the whole case saying it was psychological, it was hallucination, hysterisation.

And for centuries, these assumptions prevailed until the '50's, '60's and mostly the '80's with a researcher called Colin Heay, H-E-A-Y, an Australian scientist who managed to replicate the generation of those sounds, immediately transmitted at light speed from one asteroid-like object to a receptor at the surface listener. And the way he explains it, that's how it goes.

As we've said in previous shows, asteroid bodies are electric in nature and therefore they're magnetic as well, electromagnetism. Electricity creates magnetism. This magnetic perturbations coming from the asteroid body in the atmosphere set some form of resonance, not resonance of the air, resonance at the level of the magnetosphere, the magnetic field around the planet. And this resonance is the source of some extremely low frequencies, below 10 Hz. One of the specificities of those extremely low frequencies is that they travel at light speed. And that's the first explanation for this obvious paradox, this apparently paradox, that at the same time you see the fireball, you hear this eerie sound. Again, we're not talking about sound blast, not explosions here. We're talking about sounds that are directly, immediately transmitted to the listeners that are miles and miles, dozens of miles away.

But now the problem is that those extremely low frequencies are not audible. The lowest frequency the human ear can perceive is 20 Hz. It's lower than that, extremely low frequencies. So what happens is the second phenomenon called transducing. The bones of the skull that mostly external objects, metallic objects like glasses for example, acts as transducers and transform those extremely low frequencies into audible frequencies. Hence, the numerous testimonies converging and mentioning that there was this sound that seemed to come from everywhere and nowhere at the same time. Because you cannot transduce...

Jason: Skull vibrating.

Pierre: It can be your skull. It can be your glasses. It can be several metallic objects around you.

Jason: I see.

Pierre: And hence, as well those distortion effects that was reported by some witnesses.

Joe: They're not necessarily sound waves then.

Pierre: No. No, it's not sound waves because sound waves travel at sound speed, 1,000 kilometres an hour, roughly. Those extremely low frequencies are generated by a form of resonance of the magnetosphere, the magnetic shield of the earth, that travel at light speed and are later translated, transduced into sound waves.

Joe: But what kind of waves then are actually - or what is resonating? There's some kind of an emission that is causing these building or whatever to vibrate or to resonate. There's something being emitted. You just said it's what? Electromagnetic energy.

Pierre: They are both. Initially...

Joe: Yeah, I know that it resonates in your head and creates sound waves in the local environment, but the original source is electromagnetic?

Pierre: Yes.

Joe: So it's everywhere at once type of thing, because it travels...

Pierre: Yes, not necessarily everywhere...

Joe: this area.

Pierre: ... but it can be a wide area and then the resonance building, you can have transducers, small transducers but big transducers as well, resonating. Maybe parts of the building act as a transducer and it's accumulated, excited...

Joe: It sounds like it's a bit like the kind of things the CIA might have been doing with MK Ultra, you know? Creating voices or sounds in peoples' heads.

Jason: I was going to say that because it's kind of a proof that they can do that with electromagnetics. They could just be shooting it at a person's apartment and their glasses are actually talking to them.

Pierre: Yeah, and interestingly, those electrophonic sounds are also reported during aurora borealis that are massive electromagnetic discharges at high latitudes. It's also reported during earthquakes. And there are several scientists who have postulated that earthquakes are nothing more than electrical discharges phenomenon underground. In a sense earthquakes would be to underground regions what lightnings are to above-ground atmospheric regions.

Jason: So it's not the moving of tectonic plates that causes the earthquake necessarily.

Pierre: No, that's not the cause. It would more be a consequence, this moving, this shattering, on the mechanical level, would more be a consequence, an effect of electromagnetics discharges, charge balance, rebalance.

Jason: Isn't the earth kind of like a gigantic dynamo in a certain sense or something? It's kind of like got this metallic core and it spins and this is kind of what helps this generate the magnetic field or something?

Pierre: Well that's the main theory, that the molten steel in the mantel, to friction against the crust, is generating electromagnetic field. The north pole and the south pole as we know. The magnetic...

Jason: And it's probably not the truth.

Pierre: Probably not.

Niall: Another analogy, it's like the planet is a tuning fork and all these bodies passing us by, impacting overhead, are like, pinging it.

Joe: Setting up a resonance.

Niall: Boinnnng! The Chelyabinsk explosion was loud in the vicinity but it also sent a shockwave that went around the planet once, wrapped fully and then it came back and wrapped a second time. That was one hell of an overhead explosion.

Pierre: Yeah. And that's something that is not reported much, is the mutagenic effects we mentioned in previous shows. But just a reminder, those kind of waves have a metagenic effects. They can induce mutations in animals, in plants and in human beings. That's one of the nefarious consequences of asteroid activity that is not mentioned by NASA that focuses on earth impacts, mechanical impact.

Joe: Before we wrap the show up, because it's getting a bit late here, the show wouldn't be complete unless we said something about just how evil Israel is. There's a report pending on the results of the tests on the samples taken from Yassar Arafat's body last year. And these were - the exhumation was done at the request of his wife after Al Jazeera did an investigation and paid scientists in Switzerland and France and various places, to test his clothing, his possession that he was wearing and his clothes that he was wearing before he died. And the results of that initial testing on his clothing showed non-supported, i.e., not natural levels of polonium 210, an isotope of polonium. This is the same substance that was used - it's a radioactive metal essentially, or an isotope of a radioactive metal - that was used to kill Alexander Litvinenko. I wrote an article about that and about Litvinenko at the time and I made the case that Israel was to blame and they were trying to frame Russia for having done it, but the Israelis did it. And now we have the exact same isotope poison, radioactive poison used, to kill Yassar Arafat.

Pierre: The Ukrainian leader you mention. Ukrainian?

Joe: No, no. Litvinenko was a Russian. But anyway, the point being that there's only nine countries in the world that have nuclear weapons. Okay, you don't have to have nuclear weapons to produce polonium, but there's 30 countries that have nuclear reactors and from the U.S. to France to South Korea, Romania, Argentina, Iran, Switzerland. But among them is Israel. So ask yourself the question: among all these countries that could produce this, or that would be bothered to produce this, because it takes some refining to actually produce it in the form that it can be used to poison someone and it's invisible, it's a tiny amount; who has most to gain by poisoning Yassar Arafat? Obviously it's Israel. People are beating around the bush and nobody wants to talk about it. The French were involved in it. The French covered up because Yassar Arafat was taken to a French hospital and none of the French doctors that were involved wanted to talk about it. They won't go on record, etc., but it seems that they - and they lost or they threw out the blood samples that they took from him. It was actually the French police, some department of the French police, that actually did tests on his blood samples. And when they asked for them last year they were told 'sorry, we can't give them to you, we destroyed them' for some strange reason.

Pierre: And I think he was hospitalized in Paris.

Joe: Exactly.

Pierre: Military hospital.

Joe: Exactly, in a military hospital in a Paris military hospital. So obviously the Israelis had someone infiltrated into Yassar Arafat's entourage who was able to administer this radioactive poison. I just wanted to say that Israel's completely evil. I find it quite galling because Yassar Arafat was a great man, to the last day when he left Gaza to go to fly and was already very ill, to fly to Paris, he was smiling and blowing kisses at people. And just the idea that the Israelis would be so evil to poison somebody with a radioactive substance and then deny it and try and pin the blame on other people, etc., is despicable.

Niall: Yassar Arafat was a man of peace and Israel had to get rid of him because they do not want peace. Cannot have it.

Joe: He invented the two state solution. He invented the Israeli/Palestinian peace process. And that sealed his fate. The idea that any Palestinian leader would try and promote the idea of Israel and Palestine being two separate states, living peaceably side-by-side was just abhorrent to the Israeli psychopaths, so he had to go and they had to set up their own kind of phony opposition, mostly in the form of Hamas. And you've seen what's happened since. Since 2004 they've repeatedly bombed Gaza and they continue to expand the settlements and destroy Palestinian lands and Palestinian lives. There's something quite - the American elite are - by and large they strike me as somewhat naïve, especially members of congress. There's nothing - compared to the Israeli elite, there's something insidiously evil about the Israeli elite. There's something extra super evil about them that's just particularly calculating compared to the Americans. They're all evil, but I just have a special place in hell for some of the Israeli elite and the Mossad for what they have done over the years.

Niall: I reckon there's a comet out their with Shimon Perez's name on it, and Bibi Netanyahu's name.

Joe: Ariel Sharon. Well, he's already gone to meet his master.

Pierre: He's still artificially kept alive. For years. Did they unplug him?

Joe: Who? Sharon?

Pierre: Ariel Sharon.

Joe: Yeah. He was on a life support machine for a long time.

Anyway, we're going to leave it there for this week folks. On a sombre note. I hope you're not too depressed, but hopefully things will change for the worse sometime soon. [laughter] We'll all be happier. At least something will be happening to shake this place up a little bit. So until next week, thanks for listening, thanks to our callers, thanks to our chatterers for chatting away seriously as usual. We'll be back next week with another show and we will announce it during the week. We hope you enjoyed it. From us all.

Pierre: Thank you. Bye-bye.

Niall: Bye-bye.

Jason: Hasta la pasta.