Sott Talk Radio logo
In this our second show on 'All and Everything', we discussed current events, including the mass U.S. embassy closure across the Muslim world, the latest NSA mass surveillance scandal, the West on the verge of obliterating Syria, the popularity of the new pope Francis, institutionalized pedophilia, and the North American mass EMP/nuke drill in November, electrophonic meteors, sinkholes opening up everywhere, the civilization-destroying solar flare Earth apparently narrowly escaped last month, the fatal high-speed train crash in Northern Spain (was the driver to blame, or is there more to that story?), 50-year-old remote-hijack technology for commercial aircraft, Benghazi, the murder of Michael Hastings, and a whole lot more!

Running Time: 02:06:00

Download: MP3

Here's the transcript:

Joe: Hi and welcome to another SOTT talk radio. I'm one of your co-hosts, Joe Quinn. With me is Niall Bradley,

Niall: Hello everyone.

Joe: Jason Martin.

Jason: What's up.

Joe: And Pierre Lescaudron.

Pierre: Hello.

Joe: This week we're going to be talking about all and everything, and we really mean that. It's actually all and everything part 2, because we've already talked about all and everything, which might lead you to think that we don't have anything to talk about this week. But that's not true, because things are happening all the time. But seriously, our previous show, people seemed to enjoy the nature of the discussion that was just kind of - had an open-ended discussion, basically on what had been going on, what was trending in the news at the time and over the previous few weeks or whatever. So we are going to do that again, and as with the previous show, it's open to you our listeners to call in as you see fit with questions on any topic that you want to opine on, or you want to have us opine on.

Niall: Or if you just want to vent.

Joe: Exactly. If you just want to vent. So you can do that by calling in - details are on the radio page, or you can also send in your questions via the chat room.

Niall: Where do we start?

Joe: Where do we start? Well take it away there Niall.

Jason: In the beginning...

Niall: In the beginning there was the word... "No, Niall!" Okay that's for next week...

Niall: Well today is Sunday the 4th August. The news this week is that the U.S. government has closed, today, 21 embassies across the Middle East and beyond I think. Some of the countries on their list extend into Indonesia. Basically what they have in common is they're countries with predominantly Muslim populations. The reason for doing this - it's unheard of. They have closed embassies in the past, you know, one or two counties simultaneously. Twenty-one is big, it's new. And they're saying that there's some unspecified Al Qaeda, and/or affiliates...

Joe: Boring.

Niall: (Laughing) I know it's boring but...

Joe: I'm bored with it.

Niall: They don't get tired of it, do they?

Jason: I mean it's like there's only one bad guy! It's like a movie, you know? It's almost like this one dimensional word, you know. The only people that are a threat are Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda... It's all you ever hear from these guys. It's like there's nobody else out there. It's just a ridiculous proposition to me.

Joe: It is, but it obviously has some kind of effect on, probably a large number of people who are still true believers, or...

Jason: Emmanuel Goldstein!

Joe: Who haven't had their kind of knee-jerk reaction worn out yet, you know? When they hear the word terrorist or Al Qaeda, it's like...

It puts them in their primitive defence mechanism and they're... "Whatever the government wants, yes, do it, protect me!".

Niall: It's Martha Stout's Paranoia Switch being flicked (flick noise). And it works, so we'll do it again. I was trying to think of what's going on with the timing, is there some particular reason?

Joe: Well the obvious timing is to back up the bad press that the NSA has had over the past few weeks, months, with the whole Snowden affair, because this information about this kind of unspecified, or actually, they call it "Pre-911 levels of chatter".

You may remember that word chatter, but it's terrorist chatter. Terrorists tend to get on the internet and chatter together on the internet, via...

Niall: Convenient.

Joe: Yeah, they're like little birds in a tree and they chatter. And this is picked up, and it's undefined chatter, but it's enough to make the NSA and the government go "Oh my god, this is some serious chattering going on, we need to do something about this!"

Jason: Aren't you glad we're spying on everybody?

Joe: Yeah, so the NSA, you know, thereby proves it's value to the American people in protecting them. And obviously this threat is serious enough, and is being taken seriously enough, for them to close down all these embassies, so it must be real!

Niall: Yes, they would not do that, if it was not real. I heard, besides chattering, they were tweeting.

Joe: Well they do tweet as well.

Niall: Tweeting on Twitter.

Jason: Terrorist Tweets. Twittering terrorists?

Joe: Yeah...

Jason: Twerrorists.

Jason: Twitterists! We're going to be invaded by Muslim twitterists.

Joe: A raving twittering twerrorist.

Joe: Suffering succotash.

Niall: The other thing they could not help reminding us, besides generally reminding us why we need them, was that it's nearly a year since the Benghazi Embassy incident in Libya. It wasn't actually an embassy, but anyway it was the U.S. Consulate in the east of Libya. And there's supposedly an on-going investigation, so part of the fall-out of that was that the U.S. government was "criticized" by the press for not doing enough to protect its ambassador and his staff.

That's what got him killed, because of course doing this, doing a blanket sweep of the whole Middle East and saying "Right, we're going to close all the embassies," is pro-active, and it's seen to be doing something.

Jason: Well at the same time it's very, very intellectually dissonant, to have the NSA and the intelligence agencies trying to really push this idea that they're omnipotent, know everything, and hear everything, and yet they didn't know about this Benghazi thing and couldn't do anything about it. And it seems that the only time when you guys are listening is when it doesn't matter, you know?

Niall: Exactly. And that has spawned all kinds of ideas and theories about what was going on there in Benghazi: Was it allowed to happen, was it one faction against another, was the normal security removed such that Ambassador Stevens (I think his name was) ended up dead?

Was he about to say something? Did he know something? So there was some political shenanigans going on.

Joe: It's quite possible that, as they claimed at the time, that the security was kind of stepped down deliberately, to allow certain elements in Libya, of which there were many at the time, specifically they called themselves the Green Brigades, which were the remnants of the Gaddafi forces to have a go at a CIA station. And that's what they did. They may have allowed that to happen, basically cause they wanted to get rid of Stevens, because Stevens knew something about arms shipments from Libya to Syria to Syrian rebels. So there's a whole scandal there, so they may have just used that opportunity to get rid of him, you know?

It's possible, but it's hard to know what exactly happened, because either way it's like kind of implausible. Either argument is implausible in a way, so it's hard to know, you know? But certainly what happened is that somebody attacked the base and killed him and a couple of his CIA bodyguards. Who it was, don't know, but in these times it's reasonable enough to assume that when something like that happens, on a high level U.S. diplomat, there's a good chance that someone may have planned it, or allowed it to happen, or wanted it to happen in some way or another.

But then again, the alternative is that they're just stretched too far, like they claim the Roman Empire was, towards its end.

Niall: Overstretched.

Joe: Yeah, they're overstretched and they're not able to defend all these outposts they have, and eventually the people in local countries who are being abused in this way are going to get the better of them here and there.

Niall: Yeah. Could be classic blow back.

Joe: Yeah. But anyway, on this NSA 'chatter', chit-chat, chitter,

Niall: Tweeting.

Joe: Twit-twitter, terrorists tweeting, the NSA has said that there has been an awful lot of terrorist chatter, which is very reminiscent of what we saw pre-911. And that's - did you hear that word everybody? Talking directly to the American people here, and people in western Europe, I just said 911, reminiscent of 911. Remember 9/11, wasn't it scary?

Niall: Uh huh.

Joe: Do you remember?

Jason: I don't remember it being very scary to me.

Joe: Think about it for a while. Bring back those memories. That's the point. But then they also say that Interpol got in on the case, and said that for the whole month of August - this alert extends until the 31st August - when all of these embassies, and any western or U.S. infrastructure, or businesses, or people, in basically all of the Muslim world, need to be on high alert for the entire month of August.

Pierre: So they found a good excuse to get some holy days actually. They leave the embassy, they take a leave, they get free pay.

Niall: So hold on a minute, the embassies are going to be closed for the entire month?

Joe: Well no, not necessarily, but the alert is on for the month, so it will be heightened security etc. But they also put that in the context of over the past month, there have been in nine different countries, including Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, and Syria...

Niall: Yemen.

Joe: Yemen, yeah; three or four countries, plus five others, there were jailbreaks where they say that a bunch of Al Qaeda operatives, and other criminals and stuff, were released, which shouldn't be really a threat to anyone, because the people that they have in those jails, in those client countries of the US, the people who are in those jails are in there because they're essentially - well they're not really a threat to anybody. They've been put in there because they - in the modern world, Al Qaeda is being supported and funded by the U.S. government in various different countries.

So it's not true that the US and these client countries have been putting the Al Qaeda operatives in jail. They've been actually letting them out of jail, or they've been making sure that they haven't gone to jail, and been funding them and arming them, and the people that are in jail are the people who are actually the real threat to the U.S. presence in occupied countries, occupied directly or economically, and they're essentially the social progressives, the secularists and stuff like that; people who actually pose a real threat to what the U.S. is trying to do, which is prop up Islamic states and create the impression of there being this fundamentalist Islamic threat to the west.

Niall: Well that's what's really twisted about it. The people being released, or helped to escape, or who knows, from these jails are the extremists in said countries. In other words, they actually should be there, if we're following the script of the war on terror. And now they're all out on the streets. I think 5,000 broke out in Iraq last week? Iraq, by the way, 3,000 people dead since April in car bomb attacks, and it's gone back to 2006 levels.

Joe: Yeah. Well we've discussed that previously, yeah. I think it was in July, 642 people had been killed in Iraq in various car bombings and stuff. It's the most dangerous month in this year so far, and the majority of people who were killed or wounded were civilians, and it's been across the country and stuff. And this is just the legacy of the U.S. presence in Iraq, and as we've talked about in previous shows, the kind of death squads that they set up in those countries, that the government took over, as a way essentially to distract the population from the dire state of the country, the infrastructure, and the services that they're not getting. They just want to keep the terrorist threat there rolling. The US has spawned a child of itself in Iraq, and I think that's what's going on because there's no other good reason.

Jason: Yeah. Kind of like a U.S. franchise, McDonalds, you know?

Niall: It reminds me of Columbia. Columbia's kind of a base for the U.S. in Latin America. Iraq has kind of become the Middle Eastern equivalent.

Joe: Yeah. And if you want to maintain after you leave, militarily, if you want to maintain control before, you maybe can set it up exactly the way you want in terms of client state and the economic control, you need to have a period of instability that extends kind of indefinitely, until you're able to craft it into the hideous monster that you want it to be; the hideous, distorted version of freedom and democracy that you want it to be.
You've got to keep the terrorism rolling. The US has no other mandate, has no other reason to exist anymore in the world as it is, as a superpower, or world police, without this terrorist threat. So terrorism, it's business, producing it, engaging in it, staging it, blaming other people for it. That's pretty much all it is these days.

Niall: Do you remember the guy who was outed - or I don't know if he was outed -, it was just an article that you picked up. It included some audio. He was the American that was in charge of the death squads in Iraq. Is he still there?

Joe: Who knows? He could be. Things just went kind of quiet after that story.

Niall: He was a nutcase.

Joe: That story was about in years gone by, what's happened now after they've all supposedly left and stuff is anybody's guess. But he set something up there, he set up a system of, essentially, death squads, that go around planting bombs and killing people and stuff. And nobody taking responsibility for it this undefined terrorism and car bombs, and suicide bombers. The media is ridiculous. They keep calling them suicide bombers when there's no evidence whatsoever that there's any suicide bomber in there.

It's been proven pretty categorically that the whole suicide bombing meme, or idea, is based around someone - for one example, someone putting a bomb in some unwitting person's car, waiting until he drives down to the market, and then blowing it up, boom. Yeah people saw a car driving in with a driver, and it blew up. Suicide bomber. Nobody questions that.

Or like the Israelis have often done, which is, use one of the Palestinians that they've been torturing and abusing in Israeli jails, and cut them a deal and say "Listen, we want you to work for us".

Jason: "Here, make this video."

Joe: "Make this video."

Jason: "Go set off a bomb, and make sure your passport floats to the top."

Joe: Well not only that but... Yeah, exactly , along those lines. But it's like, "We want you to work for us so we're going to give you a pass into - we're going to set you free, give you a pass into downtown Tel Aviv, and we want you to take these documents, and put them in a backpack, and carry the backpack into this, and meet this guy. You're contact is going to be in a falafel stand (laughter) in downtown Tel Aviv. And when you walk in there, you'll see him, and you'll hand them over."

So they're sitting across the road watching this guy doing what they've just told him to do on the appointed day, and he walks in there, people see him walking in, but what nobody knows is a couple of days before hand the Israeli, Mossad, or Shin Bet have gone in there and put a bomb...

Niall: In the building.

Joe: ... a small, bit of plastic explosive somewhere. And as soon as he walks in, they're sitting across the street and they push the button, boom. And it's all over the news and there's no way to contest it. Yeah, a Palestinian walked in with a backpack, and the place blew up.

Niall: They have the story ready.

Joe: Suicide bomber. So easy, you know.

Niall: They got a profile on him. They've got a history, all his affiliations. They can say "Look, he was obviously a terrorist. He was from this neighbourhood. He was seen walking in. He was seen with his backpack." Boom.

Joe: And the only reason why anybody would say that that couldn't happen is because they wouldn't do that, "that's so inhuman". But it's so easy, and achieves their goals, and furthers their aims and their agendas of demonizing Palestinians so easily, and so well, that why wouldn't they do it? Step out of your 'holier than thou', 'we're all the same, people are all good people ultimately' and stuff, and think about the way things are actually done in the world today. You know, get off your high horse and realise that it's very simple for these things to be done, and stop being fooled. And the media, just forget about the mainstream media, because they're just the mouthpiece of the government.

But talking about funding Al Qaeda and stuff, there's a guy, John F Sopko, he's the special investigator, he works for the government - special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction. And he produced a report not so long ago that basically states that billions of dollars in supposed reconstruction money for Afghanistan is probably going to the Taliban, and other Al Qaeda groups in Afghanistan. So this means that, this is obviously a problem, not just on a - well it's not a problem on a practical level, it's a problem on a PR level.

Because it means that, well first of all, the State Department, when they got this report, said that they couldn't really cancel any of those contracts that they've given to Al Qaeda in Afghanistan for reconstruction, because if they did, they would be infringing - they would be going against due process, which is basically the legal rights of the people they've signed the contract with.

They've signed legal contracts to give them millions or billions, collectively billions of dollars in U.S. taxpayer money, to the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Iraq, and they couldn't infringe their legal rights. Yet at home, due process, and American's legal rights, are being crapped on all over the place...

Jason: Well it's just ridiculous.

Joe: the name of - but they're destroying legal rights and due process in the U.S. for Americans, in the name of national security, which is essentially a threat against the American people, presented by the Taliban and Al Qaeda, who they are fighting in Iraq, but also giving money to, under this reconstruction, and upholding their legal rights.

Now if that isn't being royally screwed by your own government in a really egregious way, I don't know what is. How much more - Jesus Christ, how much more? Hmm, I'm really being screwed over here. That's just like in your face! You know it's like being slapped 20 million times in the face by your own government. "You like that? Here's some more!" I mean it's terrible!

I mean, they're giving taxpayer money - think about the circular kind of loop that it is. They're giving your money to the people that they are supposedly fighting, and taking away your rights because they need to protect you from them, but they're giving money to them, and also, in other places, weapons and training. And you don't care.

And I understand yeah, you don't care because there's nothing you can do about it, but there is something you can do about it, and that is at least recognize it, and go "Oh my god, things are pretty bad".

Niall: The rule of law is a great thing, you know, it's so flexible. It's crazy. These are the people who've been getting up there and telling you how you should live your life, how immoral it is to cheat on your wife, to not pay your taxes, to go to church.

Jason: It's immoral to go to church? I think so.

Pierre: It's a bit like religion, you know. For normal people the law, the religion is right. For the elite the law, the religion, is useful.

Joe: Speaking of religion, I have to say something about the pope.

Jason: Oh dear.

Joe: Francy. Francy, baby.

Jason: Did you subscribe to his twitter feed?

Joe: Yeah, I'm going straight to hell, and I subscribed with so many different accounts that I'm actually...

Joe: I'm actually going straight through purgatory and into heaven.

Jason: Yeah.

Joe: I'll be hitching a ride on his silky...

Jason: Pope-mobile.

Joe: Silky pope-mobile. Or on his (laughing) silky gown tails.

Niall: Was it his first trip away he went to Brazil?

Joe: Yeah. Oh it's just terrible. Three million people on a beach, all just crying and cheering and clapping,. You could have just put Justin Bieber up there.

Jason: Probably would have had more people.

Joe: You would've had more people, yeah, but it would be no different whatsoever, you know. You just switch from footage of them screaming and cheering for the pope, to any pop concert or whatever, and there's no difference.

Jason: I bet you it was a Justin Bieber concert and they just inserted footage of the pope.

Because nobody showed up.

Joe: So yeah, it's kind of amazing and depressing at the same time to see so many people fawning over one person as though he's like - and he's just this, you know... He doesn't even have an illustrious history. He's got a really terrible history in Argentina where he basically supported the military dictatorship in Argentina, even when they were...

Jason: Why else do you think he's pope?

Joe: Yeah. When they were killing, 'disappearing' priests and stuff, he kind of like said, - he tried to put a cap on it basically, and not complain too much. He collaborated with a dictatorship 30 years ago. And now he's the pope and he's being worshipped by all these people, and they don't even get it that it's exactly the same as just a bunch of people going to a pop concert, the same feeling that they're getting, you know? It's hero worship.

But the problem is that, I suppose, people who go to a pop concert ultimately wouldn't say, or don't think that their idol is going to save their souls or anything like that. But I suppose Catholics tend to think that...

Jason: I don't know, you haven't seen many Justin Bieber fans.

Joe: Well maybe Justin Bieber fans do believe that (laughter), and maybe they're right. Maybe he will, you know!

Jason: I think so.

Joe: Yeah but, just thinking about him in the terms of the recent stuff we've been talking about, in terms of, in previous shows about...

Niall: The Jesus/Caesar switcharoo?

Joe: Yeah, and what the founders of the Christian church, who they are, the type of people they are. I mean, they're no different from the corrupt politicians today. They were the corrupt politicians of the day, and they just handed out bishop bricks, is that the term? Or, you know, these positions within the church. They just switched people over, people who were - a guy who was a consul in a certain area of the Roman Empire, you're a bishop now. No training or anything.

Jason: This is your diocese.

Joe: Now you're a bishop, we're just going to call you bishop from now on. These are the original corrupt elite who just became - the corrupt political elite became corrupt religious elite, and nothing else changed except their message, in terms of how they justified themselves. But nothing else changed in how they operated, and the corruption and the abuse of the lower classes, nothing changed. And the guy in the Vatican today is their descendant. He's in the direct lineage, ideologically. He's no different.

Niall: That's why I think we're still living in the Roman Empire.

Jason: In a certain sense we are.

Pierre: And with my experience, the same perspective as the Roman Empire. But this week we made an interesting discovery about historiography, you know, the way history is written. And interestingly, most of the manuscripts today date back to the 10th or 11th century. Nothing is much older than that. And this elite was, during this time that written language switched from capital Greek to miniscule Latin, so everything had to be re-written. And people who analyzed this re-writing process discovered that most of the manuscripts got altered, some were destroyed, some were cut in pieces, and various chapters were removed.

And interestingly, almost only one antique writer survived, it was not Altair, it was Josephus. But the interesting thing is that Josephus, 70AD-100AD, he's the one who transformed the Caesar story into the Jesus story, during the Flavian Emperors.

Joe: What's his name?

Pierre: Flavius Josephus.

Joe: Yeah, okay. He was a Jew.

Pierre: Yeah it's interesting we were talking about the black being white, and white being black. He was a Jew, yes, and he was a very proud Jew. But at the same time, he was one of the leaders of the Jewish wars in 70AD. But then he kind of changed sides, and he was an avid supporter of Flavin, the Roman emperor. And he developed this ideaology. He developed what is known today as Christianism, by using a lot of Divus Julius symbology in story, by including some Jewish symbology in it, and historical reference, trying to - and a new Christian twist, trying to include the Caesarean supporters, and the Jewish believers, into this new composite religion, called Christianism and that had, that was not founded on any truth. It was a total distortion of the existing Caesarean cult.

Joe: Uh hmm. Yeah, and Josephus is an example of someone with no real principles, of which there are many in power today.

Jason: Well I don't know.

Joe: Well, principles in the sense of principles which they officials espouse, publicly espouse, that they can turn around behind the scenes, they go completely against it. So they may have hidden principles, but he switched from being...

Jason: I think he was trying to - I don't know if he was really trying to be evil when he did that. I think he was trying to do a good job. I think he was trying to create a religion to bring everybody together, and I think he was trying to, in a certain sense, rehabilitate the Jewish people after the wars, you know? To integrate them into the empire, which has always been a little bit of a problem for Jewish people. They had always found it very difficult to integrate into the foreign populations. And of course it continued, and it wasn't successful. It was a good try, but it didn't work. They fundamentally rejected Christianity and bounced around for a while, and then came back a few hundred years later or something like that.

But I think at the time he didn't do it like "Ooh yeah, I'm gonna screw this people over, ooh yeah I'm an evil, evil Jew!". Nah, he wasn't like that, he was, I think he was really trying to integrate them in, he was trying to give them a version of the Roman worship - which was fundamentally different from Judaism - integrate them both together in a nice little amalgamation. He wasn't good at it, he kind of sucked, but again, this is quite a long time ago. He didn't have a word processor and find and replace, so sort of like three feet up the scroll he was like "Oh crap, I forgot what I wrote here!" or something like that. I don't know if it was so black and white.

Joe: Yeah but, the problem is that the people who were ushering in the new Christianity or Christianism at the time, they must have known, they could see that it was based on the same kind of class warfare, or essentially class division, where the lower classes or the poor people were rabble or scum, and they were not catered to in any real way whatsoever. And Christianity was brought in to perpetuate that kind of corruption and inequality.

Jason: From their point of view, in a certain sense. I mean it's not quite exactly like that. There are elites that are not necessarily all like "Oh they're just there for us to exploit.". I think a lot of them do feel a little bit like shepherds, in that they - because the "rabble" sometimes do act very wilfully ignorant, you know? They don't really seem; they really believe in very superstitious things. We see this all over the place. If you leave a group of people alone on an island, they'll just go crazy, and somebody's going to get thrown in a volcano the minute it rains too much.
And we have observed this, we do know that's true, so I think that some of those religion makers, I don't think that they had a completely negative desire when they made them.

Joe: I disagree, but there you go. I mean the history of Christianity right from the get go was one of

Pierre: Oppression.

Joe: Oppression of the...

Niall: Yeah, whatever way... Whatever Flavian, Josephus Flavius, his intentions, the result was the creation of the Vatican, a religion that oppresses people, that teaches them that poverty is good.

Jason: There's 300 years of history going on between any of that stuff, really kind of...

Niall: I'm bringing it to where it is today.

Jason: Right. The Vatican wasn't all bad, Catholicism wasn't always all bad.

Pierre: The thing is, it's a big debate. I think it's one of the fundamental paradigms that differentiate the optimates' position from the populists' position. In the optimates' mind, you have these strong beliefs that people are stupid, that they tend to rebel, they can be violent, they're uncontrollable, they are lazy, they want more and more free bread. This perception of the people legitimizes a lot of actions and reactions, including actions that are beyond acceptable. And at the same time, those same elitists, who define the people in such negative terms, don't assess objectively what the elite is committing.

Joe: No it's, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. I mean if they treat the poor badly, the poor will turn into a rabble who want to overthrow them, and will have riots and all this kind of stuff, and they say "See, we need to keep these people down, because they're just going to attack us and try and destroy civilization over and over again." And they never take into consideration the idea that, "Well, if we treated them fairly ... have we ever tried treating them fairly to see, if they gave them proper housing, and proper food, and a bit of self-respect, would they live peaceably?" But that's never been tried, because people who are greedy just want more and more, and they want to live on opulence while people around them live as slaves, you know.

Jason: Well it's not quite like that, I don't think. If you talk about people as a giant mass, which I think is not necessarily the best idea, because there are lots of different types of people - I think that there are large sections of the population, who, in a certain sense, do fit the bill, and give a disturbing amount of evidence in favour of an elitist view of the world. They do act very much like that, they can be very bad. Not everybody who's in prison in the United States is a political prisoner who didn't do anything wrong. There are quite a number who are actually very bad. And there are a lot of people who rob and steal and cheat, and who do act very unfairly. So in a certain sense they have this evidence.
Now of course, they take it too far. They say "Oh, they're all this way, and this justifies us", and then they don't apply it to themselves.

Pierre: Yeah they don't look at the crimes, at all the abuse that are committed by those elites. It's a very asymmetrical evaluation of the elites versus the people.

Jason: But then the people give the same asymmetrical evaluation of the elites. And I would say that it's kind of like one of us is going to have to grow up, and it's not going to be the elites, so the people are just going to have to learn to start acting a little bit better, taking more responsibility, and being more active.

Pierre: You know if you look at the societies, still today. Say you have 99% people, 1% elite.

Jason: Well it's really more like a per cent of a per cent, but yeah.

Pierre: Yeah, it's true. So we simplify it here.

When you see the violence, the abuses, the crimes committed by the elites, the quantity of people who directly suffer because of their unfair decisions, there is a huge asymmetry between the people, and the wrong behaviours they can have some times, and the elite on the other side, that usually have a fundamentally toxic behaviour, toxic action towards the whole of humanity.

Niall: Yeah it comes down to, were they made that way, or were they born that way? And I think the people, for the most part, who end up in prison, especially in a pathocracy, were made that way. Those that are born that way don't generally get caught up.

Joe: They're few and far between, and because of their numbers they're not in a position to create any kind of a major disruption in society. And history testifies to the fact that nearly all of the mass revolts throughout the past 2,000 years across the world, have all been by the lower classes, because they were being treated, objectively and very clearly, unfairly, and being oppressed. And I mean there's not really any incident of people...

Jason: But look at what they do when they revolt? If you take away all the evidence that most of the time they are sort of prodded in that direction by one-half of the elite by the other, look at how they behave. It's fundamentally inappropriate and completely unjustified, the way they behave, when they do have enough. They go in, and they start chopping everybody's heads off, and they really get very indiscriminate and violent, and you understand, right? But then you understand why the elites use that so much and wants to suppress them even more.

Joe: No, but Jason, there's no point in taking a contrary view just for the sake of it, and secondly it's not about people revolting when they have enough, or are feeling well treated. People don't revolt when they're...

Jason: Exactly, they don't.

Joe: Exactly, so it's only in a situation where they're being mistreated that they revolt, and in that situation you can't blame them for any excesses that they... well that's human nature. If that's human nature, they should not be put in that position in the first place. A responsible elite, or a responsible governing group, should understand the nature of these people. If they're so much more intellectual and superior to them, they should understand their natures, and work with them so that that doesn't happen. And it's very easy to make sure that doesn't happen and if you do not oppress them, and do not treat them like slaves and cattle.

Pierre: There's a good example, Julius Caesar, who ruled the Roman Empire for several years, when people were able to see good, and to see bad. People were able to evaluate the meaning of a political decision. People loved Caesar, and Caesar gave them a lot. For once - there are very few examples in history - for once you had a leader, a populist leader, who was really serving the interests of the people. He was giving land, he was giving citizenship, he was giving food, he was even giving money. And people didn't abuse it, people didn't ask for more, people didn't complain, people didn't start a civil war, people were just happy.

I think most people, they just want a happy normal life. It's most basically, what they don't want , since the beginning of history, people don't want what they are being served with. They don't want to be cannon fodder, they don't want to be slaves, they don't want to be exploited, they don't want to be lied to. People don't want oppression.

Jason: I'm not being contrarian just to be contrarian. I'm not even being contrarian at all. I'm just saying, you want the elites of the world to act better, and that's never going to happen.

Niall: Who wants them to.

Jason: But Joe was sitting there saying they shouldn't be oppressing, they shouldn't be doing all this stuff, that's just never going to happen, okay? And you're never going to get rid of the concept of elites. We've been trying for a very, very long time. And no matter what kind of society, Communist society, you always end up, people just float to the top, and it never ends.

And everyone's like "Well they shouldn't". And then "If they do this, if they do this" and it just goes on, and on, and on. And then everybody rises up and it's "Let's have a revolution!" And then they get very, very indiscriminate with their killing. Then, when everything settles down, everyone's like "Whoa, let's not do that again. Okay let's organise this to be cool". They organise it to be cool, it lasts for a while, elites float up to the top, and then those elites that float to the top, they start saying, "Well, what if they try to do to us what we did to the last group of elites? Oh shit, better suppress them".

You know, it's just a vicious cycle when you use that kind of violent reprisals, from either end. But the elites are never, ever, going to change.

Pierre: This being said, it is tricky to say that the people, when they've had enough, they start revolution and they chop heads. History shows that most of these so-called "revolution" quote-unquote, is usually engineered.

Jason: I already said that.

Pierre: And the true revolutions, like, there was one attempt, called the Commune in 1871 in France, it was repressed in blood, and the elites, they killed all of them.

They killed 50% of the skilled workers in Paris. Fifty per cent. So it's a good way to differentiate true revolutions, from fake, co-opted revolutions. The true revolutions are started by the people, followed by the people and the people in it will be killed, all of them. The fake revolutions are engineered by one elite, that will replace another elite, by instrumentalizing, using the people, but the people is only a tool in those fake revolutions, and also a victim. See the French revolution of 1789, you switch from aristocracy to a regime that was even worse, the terror that killed indiscriminately, millions of people.

Jason: So again, and also, there's not this sort of lineage of elites where they - it's such a complicated situation that it's hard to make just a single statement, oh it's like this, or oh it's like that, it doesn't work that way.

Niall: Well it's pretty simple for me. As far as I'm concerned, the elite, I mean the actual elite, are all a bunch of twisted psychopathic paedophiles. They work together to oppress people the world over, even when they directly don't work together the result is that they are cooperative, even when they're actually trying to get one over each other. They have so many skeletons in their closet, of which, if people had the slightest idea, the whole thing would be quote-unquote "blown wide open".

Now that is not a subjective statement on my part, that this is what I would wish. I accept the reality that this is not going to happen, or it is very unlikely to happen. Still, I can see how much it has angered me, and inspired me, to learn about what they do, go as dark and as deep as it takes to see them. Because the more that comes out, the worse it is. There are no redeeming features whatsoever about an elite that...

Jason: I wouldn't support that opinion, I just...

Niall: Well let's talk about this, because in the last 20 years - probably more, but certainly I think since the 90's - successive countries in Europe, and in the U.S. as well, there have been little glimpses of light peeking through, where there were outbreaks of evidence for high level paedophile networks.

Now paedophile probably isn't the right word, the French have a better word. They call them pedocriminals, people who commit crimes against children. Paedophile in English suggests a lover of children, of course it's nothing like that at all. We're not talking about the odd case here and there, we're talking about the systematic plunder of orphanages, homes, schools, and just off-the-street kidnappings, of thousands of children in countries of western Europe.

And there is a lot of evidence that the same few people in each locality get together, and conspire to effectively consume children, and work very, very hard to cover it up. There's the infamous Dutroux case in Belgium, where Belgium was on the verge of - I'm not going to say revolution, but there were spontaneous mass demonstrations for about a week, the white marches, when, more or less the full extent of what was going on came out. I think people were right in their suspicions. People obviously prefer justice rather than just having names thrown out there, but they had seen enough to make them go "This is probably true". Royals were being named, judges were being named, the prime minister himself, and his office, were named, by numerous children, who did not know each other, in testimonies in affidavits they gave to investigating police, and magistrates in 1996 in Belgium.They did eventually cover it up, but it was a close call. And in the meantime we've had this emerge in other countries, in France.

Joe: In the UK. In America.

Niall: In the Netherlands.

Jason: Portugal.

Niall: And we're talking about a very small number of people, but they are the king makers, and/or the kings and presidents. We're talking about the elite, and beyond that, the bankers and - we're talking about a few people, but the same pattern repeats over and over.

Pierre: Yeah, the modus operandi, the specifics of all those cases, are almost always the same. That's what is fascinating when you study those cases, the Dutroux you mentioned, the Portugal case, the Kapandra (???) case, the Papillion case, the Toulouse case, the (???) case. So you see basically that always the official story is the "lone predator", like Lee-Harvey Oswald. But the truth is that, systematically, you have a highly organised network, with at the bottom some kidnappers like Dutroux, that can possibly be sacrificed if things get really bad.
But you also see that there is a strong involvement of people in power, judges, attorneys, police officers, ministers, royalties, representatives of the elites. And that's what makes those networks so powerful, one thing that is almost systematic is that they manage to introduce attorneys that they control, to allegedly defend the victims, the mother and the children. Very often you have a court decision that says okay, the custody is removed from the mother. The whistleblower, the mother, who wants to protect the children, and custody is given to the predator, often the father.

And another fascinating thing is that when you read those cases, some of them are very detailed. A very good account has been written by Regina Louf, who was a victim of those networks for 15 years, from an early age. And you realise that sex, actually, is not an end, and rape is not much compared to what is really going on. You discover that the end, naturally, is destruction of the children, and power, exerting power.

So you have a lot of occurrences concerning murders, ritual murders, torture, hunting parties where the prey are not animals but innocent children. They usually use crossbows. First they rape the prey, and then they kill the prey. And that's a fascinating, but very scary, insight into the psychopathic mind and psychopathic behaviours.

You know, Regina Louf, for example, she describes how Dutroux was not so bad, he was just raping, he was just what they call a paedophile, or pedocriminal. It was mostly sex for him. But the worst ones were torturers, basically. Physical torture, but also emotional torture. She talks about the case, she was with a quote-unquote "client", and this guy, what he liked to do with her - it's not sexual, but it's emotional torture - what he liked to do was to behave very nicely with the little kid that was in the bedroom, you know? Plaiting the hair, giving sweets, giving compliments. And the children, you can imagine the level of trauma of those children. And Regina Louf developed 200 alter egos to cope with the level of violence, it's indescribable what they went through, you know.

So you have these little children who is being taken care of, apparently, who start to open up, be a little convinced, to bond a little bit. And then the guy says "okay, have one more sweet and you can go". And then the kid leaves, and he's so happy, you know? For once he was not abused, he was not molested, he was not raped. And just before the kid reach the door, then... uh, you can imagine the rest... It's switched, it's mental torture, physical torture.

And yeah, its endemic, it's epidemic, it's systemic. It involves part of the elites. Also something else, it's not black and white as well. Some of the elite members that get involved in those networks, despite what they really want - I'll give an example. For example, they're going to organize a party with children, but no so young children, like teenagers, fourteen years old, fifteen years old, girls. And they will invite this lawyer, or this judge, and they will make him drink, maybe put some drug in his drink. And they will propose "Ah, we have this woman, this young woman". And the young woman, she's set up, you know, she'd seduce him, and they go in the bedroom, and in the bedroom there is a camera. And then the network get proofs that this bourgeois, this member of the elite, is involved in paedophilia, and they can blackmail him.
So it's not black and white.

Joe: Yeah. I was thinking the other night that, the nature of human existence, or human life on planet Earth, that it's not about creating some kind of utopia. Because there's something programmed into the system at a very fundamental level, that can't be changed, and that seems to be psychopaths. And the various types of psychopathy and characteropathy, whatever, that's genetic. So at a genetic level, in terms of human beings on this planet, there are, interlopers, or intra-species predators, as they've been called.

And they - it seems that, looking at history - they are there to ensure that no kind of utopian life on planet Earth can ever evolve, or can ever be maintained for any significant amount of time. So that kind of leads me to conclude that, and a tentative answer to the question of what's it all about, what's the purpose of life, the meaning of life? And it's certainly not to try and create, or to have a utopia, but rather to - I mean obviously this kind of psychopathy, at a genetic level within the species, creates a lot of suffering ultimately when it rises to the top. So obviously it's about, suffering is a part of the game as well. But obviously with suffering, you have an opportunity to learn from suffering, so it seems to me that ultimately, the point of life here is to learn from the experience, not to create any kind of a utopian world, because it seems to be impossible, essentially. With this factor of psychopathy.

Niall: Yeah. Try and learn, and try not to add to the existing, massive debt, karma, whatever you want to call it. Try your best to avoid not adding to it.

Jason: We kind of are saying, basically, the elite - so called, as we keep calling them, it's not necessarily the best word - are themselves prey, in many instances, to psychopaths as well. That they're their infection at all levels of society. And it's not simply because they're elite that they're so called pedocriminals. Just being an elite, or being a judge, president, or even a king, does not automatically mean that in order to get that position you have to be a pedocriminal.

Joe: No, no, not at all, I mean...

Niall: Of course not.

Joe: And the idea isn't that there can't be an elite on the planet. The idea is that the elite has to be - there are differences in human beings, and there are people who have proclivities for intellectual pursuits, and for figuring things out on a bigger scale, and others who just like to get on with the basics of life and stuff. There are divisions in human nature, and it doesn't mean that there can't or even shouldn't be an elite, by that definition. But the problem is, is that, if there is an elite that has been corrupted, and has been ponerized, or contains a lot of psychopaths, well then you're going to have that type of person that shows no concern whatsoever for other people, and tend to want to victimize other people.

So you're going to have - it's not that there shouldn't be an elite on the planet, but that the history of the elite on the planet seems to be infected with this kind of psychopathy, and always seems to have led to a corrupt elite that in a serious way, pisses off the lower classes, treats them badly, leaves them to want to rebel. And you know, they're not exactly skilled at, necessarily, rebelling.

I mean the lower classes in that way being forced into that position, are being pushed into a position where they have the rebellion, and then they, by definition, of the kind of people they are, don't have the wherewithal or the abilities to be the managers or the stewards of the nation. Because that's not their position, and that's not even what they're happy with, or what they want to do.

Pierre: Knowing the level of ponerization in society today, and in the past too, there is a strong correlation between psychopathy and elites, unfortunately. Because the system is set in a way that to reach the top of the ladder, you have to exhibit some strong psychopathic traits. This being said, it's not black and white. In the elite you have very good guys, who usually end up "suiciding", committing suicide with three bullets in the head.

Jason: In the back of the head, after they fall down an elevator shaft.

Pierre: Yeah, or drown in 5cm deep pond. But yeah, it's not black and white. And just going back to what Joe was saying about this notion of utopia, in the end, it might not be exclusive, mutually exclusive, because if human beings could learn about psychopathy and ponerization, and act upon it, i.e., minimize the damage induced by ponerization, we would reduce, dramatically, the level of suffering of humanity. And we would give rise to some sort of utopic word, a golden age.

Jason: Well, some sort of.

Joe: But that in itself...

Pierre: It will reduce suffering much.

Joe: That in itself would require a lot of ordinary people. Because, from what we understand about the nature of psychopaths, and different characteropathies, and stuff like that, how difficult it is. There's that book by Cleckley, the Mask of Sanity, and there's various reports about people who have studied, like Robert Hare has studied psychopaths, and been up close and personal with them, his whole life, and still gets fooled by them? So it seems to be an extremely tall order for people to just, en mass, be able to identify them.

Jason: It's something they're going to have to do.

Joe: Yeah well that's what I mean, I don't think it's possible for that to happen.

Jason: But this is exactly what I'm saying. It has to be possible, it's the only way to solve the problem.

Joe: No I don't think the problem is, as I was just saying, that in my opinion anyway, for me, and something that makes sense for me is that, which gets back to the meaning of life and the nature of life on Earth, is not to solve that problem. That this is like, just a place where it serves a specific purpose, and it's for people to deal with all the problems caused by the situation, and it's set up in such a way that it's not solvable, because a utopia is for some other planet.

Jason: I mean no person's immune from disease. No person is completely immune from getting any kind of particular disease, left, right or centre. And social bodies are the same. Elites, you know, your local gang, your local PTA can get infected by a psychopath, and it happens, and many movies are made with those types of characters. And solving the problem is not eradicating the psychopaths, because it's fundamentally impossible. They can be born into any class, any area, you know, it doesn't matter. You don't have to be an elite to be a psychopath, you could be a bum in the gutter and still be a psychopath.

The solution is not to get rid of them, it's to learn how to deal with them, I think. And that's very important, that's what I was saying earlier, is the only way that this situation is going to get any better, is for people, en mass, all sort of normal people, to educate themselves. To get more educated, to be able to be a little bit more discerning about things.

Joe: But that's what I also said, was that I think that's an extremely tall order, and effectively impossible to do as well, because of the nature of psychopaths and how difficult they are to spot.

Jason: Then let's not do anything.

Joe: Yeah exactly! Except talk about people, and the people who can get a clue. Yeah, revolutions are a bad idea because they're always co-opted, and you know, it's about learning. And wherever people can learn, a bit here, a bit there, a person here, a person there, that's maybe the point. It's a bit of a fatalistic approach to the situation, but maybe it's all just a school anyway, for learning.

Pierre: There's another fascinating aspect of the pedocriminal networks, that puts some light on the gradations of ponerization. The typical path followed by a victim, children victims of those networks, is as follows: Most of the time, the children starts his life in a poor family, but not only poor, but in a family where there's a lot of negligence. That's the first step of ponerization, somehow.

And then the children wants to escape this escape this familial environment that is not supportive, and will fall into the arms of the first pedo-predator, who has a nice car, and give money, who is the basic supplier of the network. And then you have the second level of ponerization somehow, like Marc Dutroux.

And then you have a third level, like Michel Nihou, that are mostly users, that are these kind of people, leaders and users. And the higher you go, somehow, the stronger the level of ponerization of darkness, you know? You have this gradation among the clientele. Evilness, somehow.

Joe: Yeah. Just getting back to our thing about the terror alert over the entire month of August, one other possible angle on it is that; there's a report just recently, from a couple of days ago, and it starts off with "Just think. A nuclear device, carried aloft by an Iranian rocket somewhere near the gulf of Mexico, and a blinding flash in the skies. Within 12-18 months, experts predict 90% of Americans will be dead."

Jason: (Laughing) It's so ridiculous.

Joe: "That's the catastrophic threat from the resulting electromagnetic pulse signal, or EMP, that an upcoming conference will address." So there's this group, the United West, is scheduling on this Friday, of next week, scheduling a conference to discuss this topic. And scheduling this Friday of next week, is scheduling a conference to discuss this topic. And th group itself is, in its own words, "dedicated to defending and advancing western civilization against the kinetic and cultural onslaught of Sharia Islam".

So it's an interesting, there's a three way split there in a way. First of all it's an Iranian rocket, so it's targeting Muslims or Iranians, and it's also dedicated to stopping the kinetic and cultural onslaught of Sharia Islam, so it's like radical Islam, or "we're here to stop it". And it's positing this idea of an EM pulse that takes out the power, that takes out everything electrical supposedly in the U.S.

Jason: Which will lead to 90% death.

After 200 and some million people were...

Joe: Well they say after 12-18 months, but, you know.

Jason: Oh yeah, because, why?

Niall: What they're saying is...

Joe: No, they've predicted that that's how long it takes for somebody to die when they don't have their iPhone. It takes them 18 months of non-iPhone use to die from...

Niall: What they're saying is that it would knock out transformers. And the way that the U.S. electrical grid is set up, everything relies on electricity, so they would not be able to replace the key transformers, there are 12 or 13. Because the parts for them are either in Europe, or just simply because it takes so long to rebuild them. Part of their argument is that the transformers, the actual stations themselves, are unprotected from being knocked out.

Jason: I don't understand how it leads to 90% deaths.

Niall: Because without electricity... everything is dependent on it. And people starve and,...

Jason: Oooh! Everyone would die, because it's not like they had like 1.3 million years of history where we didn't have electricity.

Niall: No but they're, people aren't growing food themselves.

Joe: They're entirely dependent on the store...

Niall: The U.S. is importing most of its food now.

Joe: But, the interesting thing is, tying it in with this 30 - it's a different story to this 30-day month of August terror alert, and then claiming that - positing this situation where an Iranian rocket creates an EMP, fires an EMP, and destroys the U.S. It's interesting to parallel that with obviously, the number of meteorite impacts, and the one in Russia, which we can play if you want (laughter), earlier on this year and stuff. It will be interesting to see if - it's a bit of a stretch maybe - but the idea that a major meteorite detonation above the U.S., would that be distinguishable if nobody said where it came from? Would that be distinguishable from this scenario, for the average person? Of a nuclear bomb being detonated...

Pierre: No. And especially in one of...

Joe: It seems a bit crude. Okay, I admit that it's a bit of a crude attempt to kind of set that up, as if they could see that there was something coming in, that they're predicting in their super-secret technical NASA labs, where there is, maybe, the possibility of an incoming meteorite, and they're setting up this scenario so they can at least try and blame the Muslims.

Pierre: Well I reached the same conclusion as you, and we didn't discuss it. So there's an analysis on the political level, blaming the Iranians. On a weather level, or cosmic level, it's a good way to prepare the ground for covering up an overhead cometary explosion, that can be a strong source of EMP, electromagnetic pulses. Covering it up with allegedly Iranian weapons.
And there's another twist. So first, on the cosmic level, they cover cometary activity, but also implied that the solar activity is going through surge.

Niall: No, no.

Pierre: Because there is one article...

Niall: This is something different.

Joe: Yeah.

Niall: At the same time, brewing in the background, is another political lobby called High Frontier. Also staffed by former CIA directors, former ambassadors, former U.S. ministers under Reagan, Bush, Clinton and so on. And their angle on it, in fact two weeks ago a story broke out, "Massive solar flare narrowly misses Earth, EMP disaster barely avoided". And it goes on to give the same kind of scenario where, if that had happened, "Oh my god, communications, particularly the electric grid would have been knocked out, it would have been a total catastrophe, we need to do something to prepare for this."

Pierre: So there are two lies...

Niall: They're doing two things at once, coming at it from two angles.

Pierre: Yeah, and they cover the two main factors that are affecting the future of humanity: the reduction in solar activity, by suggesting that the sun is currently producing strong EMP, which is not true at all, the sun is amazingly quiet, that has been since more than ten years.

Niall: Well I think we should clarify for them, this story came out in the Washington Examiner, so it went nationwide. "Oh my god, we barely missed an EMP that would have fried everything?" It forced NASA the next day to say ", there was nothing".

Pierre: It's not true.

Niall: Of course there wasn't!

Pierre: Yes, because people were checking the solar records, and there's been no major solar flares, no major coronal mass ejection. The sun is almost totally inactive, there is no EMP coming from the sun in July.

Joe: Well here's the thing, could that not be setting the narrative up in advance? Because if something like that did happen, there's not really going to be anybody around. I mean there will be people around, but there'll be - well, set it up in a sense so that it's in the narrative, in the news, so that what news services are available afterwards are able to refer back to this, and say "this is what it was". That it was either a nuclear weapon or it was a solar flare. Because who's going to be able to check the NASA databases the day after something like that happens? It's going to be chaos, people aren't going to be able to get on the computers necessarily.

Jason: Well I mean the only people observing the sun are not NASA.

Pierre: Yeah exactly. So they're ready, they're preparing the ground, because it's not difficult to see that cometary activity is increasing dramatically. They know there will be overhead cometary explosions, and they're preparing the cover up, and they will either invoke an Iranian missile, or a sudden increase in solar activity. Which, at the same time, is convenient, because it hides the fact that the sun is extremely quiet, which is a worrying factor, as we have described in previous shows.

Jason: I don't think so...

Pierre: So they kill several birds with one stone.

Niall: Part of the narrative is that we are currently in solar maximum. And they give a timeframe, they say, into 2014, we're basically on red alert for a solar flare that's going to come and knock out the electrical grid. So they've given the timeframe of the solar maximum. It is a solar maximum, indeed. What they leave out, what they haven't told anyone, is that it's the quietest solar maximum in 100 years.

Pierre: Yeah, more than 100 years. The official figures have been published yesterday, concerning solar activity for the month of July, and the total number of sunspots is 58. So just to give you a bench mark - and we are right in the maximum of solar cycle 24 - 58 sunspots. To give you a bench mark, the maximum sunspots per month, about 30 years ago, it was about 200. So it's extremely quiet, small number of sunspots.

In addition, the sunspots are not active at all. Because there are different kind of sunspots, there are the small ones, and there are the big ones that generate coronal mass ejections or solar flares. These ones, they're not numerous, and they're small. And in addition, you have a very strange pattern, where the solar cycle took a lot of time to start - solar cycle 24 - for two years it was totally quiet, which didn't happen since the Maunder minimum, the little ice age in 1645. And the maximum, actually, has been reached almost one year ago. And instead of having a nice inverted bell curve, you have a kind of meandering solar cycle 24 curve, as if the sun was hesitating.

Joe: Well if that is what they're doing, then it really smacks of desperation.

Jason: Smacks of stupidity.

Joe: Well, stupidity born of desperation. That's assuming that there is any awareness of potentially incoming - I mean first of all, if we're aware of the number of meteorites that have been flying around and hitting the earth, and people seeing them, surely there's somebody, somewhere, aware of it, at least to the same extent as us.

Niall: Absolutely.

Joe: We can't go any further than that, they don't necessarily know any more than we know, but, ...

Niall: Somebody said James Woolsey, the former CIA director, who said this, who said that we just narrowly missed the mother of all solar flares two weeks ago. Somebody fed him this information. He would not just go and say that, and then NASA would come out and say that's absolutely not true.

Jason: There's this new economy of consultants ...

Niall: Yeah, he's on this group too.

Jason: Hold on. There's a new economy of consultants in the world. It's become the new American export. Defence contractors, defence consultants, and defence think tanks, and they justify their existence by coming up with plausible - in their mind - scenarios that they can feed to these department of defence briefings and CIA briefings, about what could be coming, to justify the money that they make.

They just make this shit up. They sit there and they say, oh my god, what's going to be our gimmick? It's like in ministries, you know? If you ever watch the Martreaux (???) documentary, he talks about the ministry is all important. What's your ministry? What's your gimmick? What are you selling?

And these defence contractors are the same. One of them says "Oh the Iranian EMP, that will be our ministry", or "that will be our gimmick". And the other guys are like "Oh no it's a solar flares!"

Niall: Well actually what they've done in this most recent story about the alleged solar flares, they conflated the two together, just seamlessly. But anyone surely with plain eyes certainly look at it and go hang on a minute. So they said the earth barely a massive solar flare, blah, blah, blah, would have caused an EMP so big it would have knocked out power, cars, iphones, boo hoo. Two EMP experts told the examiner that it flashed through earth's typical orbit about two weeks before the planet got there, blah, blah, blah. "The world escaped an EMP catastrophe" said Henry Cooper, who led strategic arms negotiations with the Soviet Union under president Reagan, and who now heads High Frontier" - this consulting group - a group pushing for missile defence.

So that's actually another angle on this. Their answer, their solution to how to fight the sun and solar flares, is to set up Star Wars Plus, or whatever. Star Wars version 2. They want to set up a missile system, I guess, to in their minds, or at some level, fire at the incoming space rocks, and/or fire them up and use them as cover.

Jason: The thing is, these two groups ought to realise that there's a lot of money to be made if they joined together, and claimed that Iran is going to fire a missile into the sun, to cause a solar flare to hit the Earth. I mean that's just going to be the next stage of ridiculousness

Niall: There's a really, really ironic comment here. One of these other consultants says - oh he's a guy who's served on the congressional EMP threat commission, from 2001-2008, so this has been going on in the background for a while. Anyway he says, "Basically, this is a Russian roulette thing. We narrowly escaped from a Carrington class disaster". That refers to the last time there was a major solar flare. A Russian roulette thing? Hmmm.

Jason: Really.

Niall: Russian meteors. I mean it is like Russian roulette, the game they're playing.

Jason: How is it like Russian roulette?

Niall: Again it comes back to this desperation, just a plausible narrative that will cover up and/or prevent enough of an outbreak of "Oh my god, what the hell's going on?"

Joe: Well several years ago, I think it was 2005, that NASA stopped publishing its reports of near-Earth objects that it had been identifying, you know? It just stopped, for no reason, no explanation, just stopped publishing them in 2005 or 2006, and no one ever found out why. And since then, that was around the time that we had this stark increase in sightings by ordinary people all around the world.

Pierre: Exactly. Almost exactly at this time, or a bit earlier, 2002. But I think NASA, some people in NASA know, at least partly, what is going on. Remember McCanney's description of NASA. There are three levels in NASA. There is the first level, basically those journalists and vulgarisation scientists, who feed the mainstream media and mainstream science. So basically it's almost pure disinformation.

You have a second level, which are the operators, the scientists, researchers. They are given a topic, and they research the topic. And the third level, people who give directions, research topics, and who agglomerate the results, the true results, and who feed the disinformation, who define the axis of disinformation.

So in NASA there are some people who know, because I mean it's not rocket science, no pun intended. The proofs are all over the place, even for normal people with no specialised equipment. So when you're in NASA, when you have telescopes, when you have satellites, when you have space probes, you can see it all around, the asteroids becoming more and more numerous, more and more massive. So yeah, they know, at least partly, and they're feeding people disinformation to lure them away from what is really going on, to keep them in darkness, in ignorance.

Niall: I try and keep an eye on fireball news, keep an eye on the skies. Some of my favourite pastimes. I kind of noticed the end of May and into June, it seemed to drop off. Now I didn't do any rigorous number counting, but what I mean is that I didn't notice a dearth of stories making either local or national news, certainly in the English speaking world. But it seems to have picked up again in July. I have a list here.

We've got one in the UK: "A bird, a Plane? No, a meteor over Exeter" 8th July.
"Bright meteor spotted over southern Ontario" 12th July.
"Meteor spotted over North Carolina", the next day.
"Massive fireball with long tail", New Zealand, doesn't have a date.

And then there was a huge explosion reported in Orange County California, and they did not say one way or the other whether it was a fireball, but they interviewed people on the streets. And without having any information, awareness of the fact that this is going on all the time, they instinctively said that it sounded like it was a meteor, or a comet exploding. I think people know, they seem to know that when something goes boom in the sky, they instinctively seem to pick up on "okay, that came from out there".

Pierre: The monthly figures can be misleading, because there are cycles within cycles; it's not totally linear, asteroidal activity. Because every year the Earth crosses several clouds like the Leonids, the Perseids, the Taurids, etc, etc. However, when you look at some average over more extended period of times, you see that there is a steady increase. The first six months of 2013 displayed a 30% increase compared to 2012. So overall, it's on the rise and it's quite an important ...

Jason: How many were there in 2012?

Pierre: 2012 you had about 2000 reported asteroids.

Jason: So 30% is actually a lot.

Pierre: You had 1300 for the first six months of 2013. So your annual basis of about almost 2000 asteroids. I mean it's a strong increase. In 2005, you had about 400 reports. Your almost multiplying by ten, over 8 years.

Niall: I've got a question for you then. Is it that the regular meteor streams that we get at certain times of the year, is it that they are being supplemented with new material, and/or are there extra streams?

Pierre: Yeah, the thing is, comets, or so called asteroid clouds, they exhibit different periods, various periods. They are, let's call them the stationary ones that we cross every year. They are stationary on the orbit of the Earth, okay? The ones we mentioned, Taurids, Leonids etc. So now there are cometary swarms, cometary clouds, that are following short orbits, three to twenty years. They usually circle around the sun and Jupiter. There are longer period swarms, that usually circle the sun on the outside of the solar system. And there are even longer cycles, including the Nemesis cycle, which is a very long one, and even longer than this one, 186 million years. Basically the galactic arm or the Milky Way rotates every 186 million years, the galactic year, goes through the same areas of space.

So you have all those cycles that move together, and to complicate the matter you have the Earth that is moving too. So if you take one comet that crosses the earth orbit, one passage, it cross the Earth orbit, but say the orbit is on the other side of the sun, no asteroid activity. But then, 10 years later, or 30 years later, or whatever, the asteroid swarm crosses the Earth orbit again. But this time, the Earth is on the right spot, and you get a high cometary activity. So you have all those cycles to factor in at every moment, all those factors can combine, and can have influence on the total asteroid activity. But what is the most important is there is a steady increase for 10 years. It's a sign that we're entering a substantial cometary swarm, that is not a stationary one.

Joe: Well here's a more complicated question, that may not have an answer.

Niall: More complicated!?

Joe: More complicated than that. It's from a listener, Pashalis, who has said that, why is it that chemical plants seem to attract so many meteorites in the last couple of months?

Niall: Yeah I was getting to that.

Joe: And what about all the recent big explosions that have been reported? Okay, there seems to be an uptake going on there. I mean, I'm only aware of two.

Niall: Well I have them all here actually. In the last 4 days there have been 5 really big ones.

Joe: But chemical plants.

Niall: I know. One of which was really big. In fact it was described by the local media, probably correctly, although they were poo-pooed and told they were incorrect by the experts. It was described as a comet because it appeared as a comet with a triangular tail behind it in the sky. It was seen from Honduras, to the Cayman Islands, Jamaica. And that night, there was a..

Joe: And Florida.

Niall: ... interesting incident in Florida. Let me just get the news report of it here. "A large series of explosions rocked a gas plant in Florida, forcing evacuations". Now the descriptions from people on the ground are interesting. "I heard a loud bomb sound", said Lisa Gardner, 43, who lives in Lakeside, Tavares county, Florida. And then she says something odd, well it seems odd. "I thought somebody ran into my house", I'll get back to that in a minute.

"Other residents described sounds similar to a shotgun or fireworks, and saw bursts of light, and a bright orange glow above the treetops. Some reported a giant fireball in the sky, and the sounds of the 4th of July." That reminds me of the - Sometimes it's not just a loud boom like that we heard in Russia. Sometimes the sound can actually sound very close, weird, almost like you think it's in the same house as you. I've experienced this myself, although of course I don't know that what I heard was an overhead explosion. But it ties in with studies that are done on the electrophonic nature of meteors, exploding meteors. They can produce sounds that are not the sounds that follow the explosion and the shockwave, they seem to be sounds that travel ahead.

Joe: Preceded, yeah.

Jason: (inaudible) comets.

Joe: Electrophonic?

Pierre: Concerning the first question, it's difficult to address, but there's some maybe tentative explanations.

Niall: Oh well, about those plants. On the same day of the Florida plant explosion, "Explosion hits chemical plant in east China". In July there were three chemical plants hit in the US, one in Iowa, and two in Louisiana, one day after the other, two consecutive days. Japan, in April, "Chemical plant blast. No explanation given. The blast broke windows of about 270 buildings over a wide area". There does seem to be a...

Pierre: There seems to be places on Earth that attract meteorites more than others. There is this example we mentioned previously, this house in Croatia. This guy reported six meteorites falling on his house. Not the same day, yeah? Over an extended period of time. As if there was some kind of strange attractor. That's the first thing.

The second thing is that comets or meteorites are highly electric charged bodies. They have a very strong negative charge, and they are magnetic as well because of electromagnetism, they generate magnetic fields. Now, the Earth is also a charged celestial body, with a overall negative charge, too. However, this charge is not homogenously spread, because the crust is not a very good conductor, and like sea water for example. And then you can have local build up of negative charge of positive charge, depending on many factors, the content of the ground, the location in the magnetic grid, the nearby volcanoes, tectonic activity, etc.

So what we can posit at this point is that chemical plants, maybe because of the kind of elements/material processed - there is a lot of ionisation going on, oxidation, oxides, i.e., charged elements, you know, with a positive charge or a negative charge, may become, electrically speaking, attractors to the electromagnetic bodies that comets or meteorites are.

Niall: And then, of course, there's the west Texas explosion as well. That was a huge unexplained explosion.

Joe: Say all that again. No, I'm just kidding.

Pierre: What was not clear?

Joe: Well the the problem is that you have gas plants, some kind of gas, then you have ammonia, as in solid ammonia fertilizer, attracting it for some reason? It seems to be a diverse kind of variety of substances, you know what I mean? So maybe it's got nothing to do with the particular kind of gas or chemical at all that's being stored at a particular sight. Maybe it's got something else, something that's just coincidental.

Jason: Well here's a theory. Generally speaking, they don't build a chemical factory on farm land. They don't build a chemical factory in a place that is a good quality housing, or good quality living space or quality field. They build it probably in places that are a little bit barren, or not particularly one way or another, that may have say, for instance, a high content of some kind of magnetizing material in the soil, or some types of material in the soil that make it unproductive for a field or something. They could have very hard, rocky ground, that may have lots of iron-esque, or some sort of metallic deposits in it. Things like that.

So it's not so much the fact that there's a chemical plant there, it's that the types of places where they put plants, in a sense of chemical or manufacturing plants, are places where it might be more likely for there to be a positive charge in the local surrounding area, that could attract it. So it doesn't necessarily have to be it's because there's a plant. It could be because the places that they put plants typically are not the types of places where you would have a field or a house.

Pierre: That's a possibility. But chemical processes, one of the fundamentals of chemical processes is oxidation and reduction, electro-reduction, exchange of electrons, while making oxides and those types of chemical components. So maybe there's an increase in electric charge?

Niall: The thing is, these plants are getting hit - well, we don't know if they're getting hit, but they're exploding head on. It's the actual facility that's going up in a huge ball of smoke.

Pierre: That makes sense. An explosion - before the impact, it totally makes sense. Let me explain. Comet Shoemaker-Levy, 1994, is going to hit Jupiter. Two-point-three million kilometres or billion kilometres before the impact, you have a huge explosion. It's a highly charged cometary body, that electrically connects to the planet, Jupiter, and creates like a enormous lightning, electron discharge.

So the same with a meteorite. A meteorite is very negative, so it wants to give away electrons. It reaches an area, and it should be more positive than the surrounding Earthly surface, those chemical plants, oxidation processes. And this cometary body, when it's close enough, it wants to give electrons, and the plant wants to get electrons, to simplify. And at the point there is a discharge, ionisation of air, the air gets to be very conductive, and might form lightning. You have an electron discharge from the cometary body to the plant, simply to re-balance electric charges.

And then after, you have the cometary body that travels at the - it doesn't travel very fast. It travels about 20 kilometres a second, so slower than lightning.

Joe: Well Marceau just said that maybe the one in Waco, or west Texas, since it was a fertilizer plant, maybe it was the universe telling us that the manure is going to hit the fan. Or the fan's going to hit the manure.

Jason: Yeah, in this case.

Pierre: And to comment on your point about electrophonics, so in a similar way, we can see that there are things that precede the body...

Niall: Like a forward action or something.

Pierre: Exactly. Some electromagnetic activity precedes, is faster than, the celestial body by itself.

Niall: Yeah, these things are not just space rocks, they're all kinds of - they're much larger. Their effect is so much larger. This thing in Russia, they're trying to play it down and say "Well, okay it was big, but it was still just, you know, a few metres across". It created a shockwave that went around the entire planet twice.

Pierre: That is a problem for the mechanistic paradigm, is because of this paradigm, we perceive the nefarious effects of cometary bodies as limited to the mechanical action, i.e., the impact, momentum.

But the most nefarious effects of cometary bodies are the ones that are ignored by the mechanistic paradigm, i.e. all the EMP, electromagnetic pulse, including electrophonics that can be mutation inducing. Electromagnetic fields, or electrophonics, it's been documented in Tunguska, you had a lot of mutation in animals, in trees, other plants. It can induce mutations in animals.

And another factor that is rarely developed by mainstream science, yet that has been documented now by some brilliant scientist, that cometary bodies can bring viruses. And it's funny that you mention ammonium, because actually ammonium is a marker of cometary activity. So maybe it's like-attracts-like, some law of this kind? And the two major plagues humanity documented, the Justinian plague in 536 or 540 AD, and the Black Death in 1347, where both happened, the same year, in both case, there are strong suspicion of high cometary activities.

You have observation of cometary activities, and you have two major spikes over the last 2000, 3000 years, two major spikes in ammonium, occurred in 540AD, and 1347 AD. So yes, plagues, virus, and comets, show a positive correlation that can be worrying more than the mechanical impact.

Joe: Mm-hmm. So what about all these, the spate of trains, planes, and other - have you got something to say before that?

Niall: Yeah I'll give it another, kind of a question. I mean, the number of sinkhole reports is just...

Joe: Off the scale?

Niall: Insane. They're trying to say oh, it's just sewers are bursting, and oh, we better replace them. But I have a list of ten here from the past four days.

Joe: Wow.

Niall: "Large sinkhole discovered in western Kansas". Large. It was over a hundred feet across, about fifty feet deep, in a field. No one knows where and how it happened, where it came from. It actually looked like a crater or something.

"Twenty-five meter diameter sinkhole opens up in New Zealand", August 1st.

"Pastor plagued by third massive sinkhole on church property in a month", in Oklahoma, two days ago.

"Sinkhole swallows chunk of north-east Houston Street", that's July 30th.

"Massive sinkhole swallows entire intersection in Philadelphia". If you look up the video of that, it's hilarious, it literally ate, I mean four streets met and sank into the ground. That was Wednesday just gone.

"Another sinkhole opens in Philadelphia, exposes green fluorescent water under city!" It looks like radioactive goo or something. Apparently it was some dye that got in the sewer.

A third sinkhole, on the same day in Philadelphia, swallowed a car. The day before that, in China, a sinkhole swallowed an entire cement truck.

An entire apartment complex in Cobb County, Georgia, is sinking into the ground. Look, they're trying to attach it to heavy rainfall, but the most recent one I just mentioned in Kansas, is practically in a desert region. Certainly now with the drought.

Jason: I'm thirty years old. I've heard of sinkholes before because I come from Florida, but I think maybe in my entire life, up until today, I had heard of about five. And today you're just like, ten in four days. It's just really strange, because it didn't use to happen this way.

Niall: About fifteen people have been killed by them this year.

Pierre: The thing is, there are probably sinkholes that are caused by the causes listed by mainstream science, that rocks are dissolving, yes there is fracking, yes there are droughts. Many factors can explain sinkholes, and some of them explained by those factors. However when you check the increased rate of those factors, those causes, and increased rate of the sinkholes, you see it doesn't compute. The causes are increasing slowly, or are stable, and the number of sinkholes is increasing dramatically, since roughly 2004. So the cause ...

Joe: It's a non-answer as well, because to turn around and say that the sinkholes are being caused by floods, well exactly. Qhat's causing floods? And are they related? And not directly related, but are they - maybe it's not even that the floods are causing the sinkholes, but whatever's causing the floods is also related to the cause of sinkholes, because sinkholes aren't always being caused by floods.

Pierre: Yeah, we're going there. So one tentative explanation to make sense of this dramatic increase in sinkholes since 2004, roughly, is that; let's try to make it simple. Let's say the sun, charged positively the ionosphere (the ionosphere is the upper atmosphere, okay). Positively charged solar winds increase the positive charge of the ionosphere.

So, the Earth is negatively charged. So when you have a lot of solar activity, you have a lot of positive charges on the ionosphere, and those positive charges, they start to attract the free electrons in the Earth. Positive attracts negative. So the free electons they tend to go at the surface. So it means in the end in the Earth, you have a surface that is very negative, and inside it's less negative. So you have an attraction within the Earth, between the very negative surface, and the less negative core.

And basically it's a binding force. Now imagine - it's more than imagination - now the sun's activity is dropping. So you have less positively charged solar winds reaching the ionosphere. The ionosphere therefore is less positive. Therefore it tends less to attract free electrons in the Earth to the surface of the Earth. So in the end you have less potential difference, charge difference, between the surface of the Earth and the core. So you have less binding force.

So literally it's been progressive, but let's say solar activity drop around 1998. And, so literally, and I heard this expression somewhere else, and it's a very apt expression, literally, the Earth is opening up. And one of the consequences of this opening up, this reduction in electric binding force, is sinkholes. But it can also explain increased volcanic activity, increased earthquakes. The crust, and the mantle, they are less held together. They are loose.

Niall: The depths of hell have been unleashed.

Jason: Yeah exactly (laughing).

Joe: Earth is getting payback!

Niall: On the world's scumbag elites.

Joe: Well if it opens up enough, maybe hordes of demons will just spill out.

Niall: Zombie apocalypse.

Joe: It could be the zombie apocalypse. You know maybe there are zombies living under the earth.

Niall: Is this related? All these planes, trains, and automobiles falling out of the sky, running off the tracks.

Joe: It's really bizarre, you know?

Niall: I think we're not alone. People are noticing it. I've seen people commenting on their - I think by the time the crash happened in Paris, people commenting under the articles "What's going on here?" There was, of course, the big accident in Spain. Then there was the one in France. Before that there was the one in - did I get that wrong?

Joe: Before that I think there was one in Canada, then the plane in California, Los Angeles, the plane that crashed.

Niall: Yes.

Joe: And then you had the French train crash, then the Spanish train crash. Then you had an Italian bus crash.

Pierre: Germany train?

Joe: Then there was a commercial train, not a commercial train, a freight train. Yeah, so there was a spate of them over the past...

Niall: There was one in Thailand, there was one in Switzerland. Trains derailing. And there was one in Russia, all within ten days.

Joe: Now, to explain that by any known physics, theory of physics, or science, might be a bit more difficult.

Niall: Well the Russians gave it a go and they said it was because of the heat waves melting the tracks. But the heat wave there, like anywhere else...

Jason: Melting the tracks?

Niall: Well, deforming them in some way. It wasn't that much of a heat wave, nothing that they're not used to.

Joe: The thing is, I looked back on it, cause there are a lot of train crashes on a regular basis, or train incidents, and some months are higher than others, you know? But when you correlate that with buses and planes as well.

Niall: Oh yeah, the bush crash in Italy.

Joe: Yeah that was horrible, and they were all a bunch of pilgrims. And that happened very close to the train crash in Spain that killed 78 or 79 people, and they were pilgrims as well, going to the Santiago de Compostela celebration. So both of those happened.

Jason: Wasn't there also a series of catastrophes that followed round the pope or something, somebody was saying? Wherever he was going, there was problems?

Joe: Well I don't know. The association between the train crash and the bus crash in Italy - which were quite close - was that both of them were ...

Niall: Pilgrims going to ...

Joe: Catholic pilgrims, going to some kind of catholic celebration. Now we kind of thought it was quite interesting, because it came at a time when we were talking about the true origins of Christianity.

Niall: Then there was this giant lightning bolt that hit the Vatican, didn't it?

Jason: Really? Oh my god. That's awesome.

Joe: No that didn't, that was on the day that - it was really like out of a movie type of thing, you know. On the day that, what do they call him, Benedict, the emperor from star wars? The day that he resigned, two lightning strikes hit the dome of the basilica in the Vatican.

Pierre: And as we know, lightning strikes never twice in the same place.

Joe: Unless you're the pope.

Niall: Well, I've got a few questions about this, the Spanish train crash in particular. Right away they fingered the driver, but there are just a few things that, I'm not so sure. One of the first reports, a witness near the scene told a radio station she heard an explosion before seeing the derailed train. Now the video has come out, and you don't see any explosion, that's obvious anyway.

Joe: Well what's kind of interesting in the video is that the train hadn't actually entered the tightest part of the turn. That doesn't necessarily mean that it couldn't derail, but t only just entered the corner. And also that the first carriage behind the engine was the one that actually came off the tracks. The engine had actually passed that point, supposedly, that was the point at which it was going too fast and would have derailed the train. The engine didn't derail, but the second carriage, you see it kind of lifting up, just in the video, and then that's what caused the rest to follow. It pulls the rest off, and then pulls the engine off as well.

The driver was very laconic, I suppose you could say, in his response to questions, or actually refused to speak. Didn't want to talk about it, and then didn't really give an explanation as to what happened. I don't think there's been a convincing explanation. We're left to decide that he simply kind of zoned out or something, and was going too fast into that turn.

Niall: There have been contradictory reports, which, you know, can happen. So he's supposed to have made a call moments before the crash, saying that the train was going too fast.
"I'm at 190 kilometres an hour, and I'm going to derail."
And he was speaking with the rail network operator, Renfe. It says two men were at the controls, and yet just today they said no, there was only one driver in there, because the second driver - there's always a spare driver - he was back in carriage seven. Then there's the fact that he happened to crash on a particular section of track, where a kind of an automatic warning system that's normally in place kicks in, and if a train is going too fast into a bend, it will be ...

Joe: It warns the driver, and if the driver doesn't respond then it applies the brakes automatically. But it wasn't that there was normally; it was a transition between two different kind of rail network alert systems. One is European and one's Spanish. And it was transitioning from the European one, that's kind of in various European countries, that's homogenized for the different countries, and the one that's uniquely for Spain. And there's a transition. There are two beacons, the beacons that sit below the tracks, and they're basically microwave transmitters that inform the train computer about where it is, and the speed it's going and stuff. And then it informs the train what's happening, basically, and it then can alert the driver etc.

So it was transitioning between these two systems, and supposedly that was known. It's only a kilometre long or something like that from one to the other, where it's a kind of dead zone as they call it. But this guy has been doing it for 11 years?

Niall: Yeah, I mean what, he just fell asleep at the wheel...

Joe: On that one. It's probably the only, on that trip, it's the only area where the driver actually has to sit up and take notice, because it's basically automatic the rest of the way. And it's only in that one kilometre stretch where you just have to be aware that there's a bend there, there's a sharp bend, coincidentally, in this area, which is the dead zone. And he had to basically go to manual control and slow the train down. And for some reason he was, you know...

Pierre: Probably unable, because from what I understand, his phone call where he says "I'm driving 180 an hour, I'm going to derail", strongly suggests that previously he tried to slow down, and he didn't manage to. Because if you are speeding - allegedly he was used to speeding - if he was speeding, he thinks "Okay, I'm goning to go 180 in this curve", if he sees it's too fast, he tries to brake, and he derails, he doesn't have time to call and say "Oh I'm 180. I'm going to derail".

Joe: Exactly.

Pierre: He had time to think, to try to slow down, it didn't work, and then he called. So...

Joe: Suggestive of something going wrong with the system, not human error basically.

Niall: He's been found guilty by media, "Oh he was a reckless driver". His colleagues and his union described him as a responsible and cautious driver.

Joe: Now there was a campaign from the very beginning and someone released a photo from his facebook page where he had posted a picture that he had taken while in the train, going at about 200Km/h. And they're saying "Look, he's a reckless driver". But those trains, they have to go that - first of all, they're designed to go that speed, and they have to because they're high speed trains, and if they don't go that speed then what's the point in having a high speed train? You're meant to get there on time. So it was designed to go, they can go up to 250Km/H but they're limited to 200. So he posted a picture of it going at 200, but they all go at 200. But that was used to demonise him and say he's a speed freak.

Jason: That's a perfect example of the irresponsibility of the media and people not just recognizing - that's totally inappropriate. The media has no business declaring someone guilty of anything.

Pierre: It suggests something else, you know.

Joe: (inaudible) an agenda, you know.

Pierre: Yes.

Niall: I am blaming the government.

Pierre: From the beginning they were claiming yeah, he's a speed freak, he tweeted, on his facebook page, he posted this picture. From the very beginning. And to me it suggests that before the event happened, they set him up. So it was engineered, it was pre-prepared.

Joe: Well there's two scenarios. One, there's this extreme conspiracy theorist scenario, which is that it was deliberately set up to distract attention away from a kind of corruption scandal that the Spanish prime minister was involved in, and is involved in, over the typical campaign finances, illegal fundraising, and stuff like that. So there's a conspiracy theory that the state did this, as a way to distract and take attention off; I don't know if that's true or not.

But the other conspiracy, which is more mundane and maybe more plausible, is that in that scenario where something mechanical went wrong, or electronic went wrong, with one of the trains, the first thing that the chiefs of Renfe, the Spanish rail company, would want to do, would be to say "Okay, we don't want to take the blame for this. We don't want to lose confidence in our own rail system, which generates billions of dollars every year for us. We need to put this on the driver, because if people think there's something wrong with the trains, people are goning to stop using them. But if it's one driver..."

Niall: I can actually give you a value of how much this train accident would have cost them. Renfe is among the teams, firms consortia, bidding for a €13Bn contract to build a high speed rail link in Brazil. The terms of the tender reportedly exclude firms involved in the running of high speed train systems where an accident has taken place in the preceding five years. So this actually killed their deal.

Joe: They were going to lose thirteen ...

Niall: They have lost it, basically. But they still tried to push it off, "oh it was human error."

Jason: There is a slightly interesting thing that happened. I can't remember the guy's name, it's Jack, Jack something. He's a famous black hat hacker, who was a white hat hacker, who got killed. We don't know if he got killed, but he died very suspiciously right before - I can't remember what the convention is called -

Joe: It's called Black Hat, I think.

Jason: It might be, yeah Black Hat, a hacker convention - he's famous for showing how to hack embedded computer devices, and he was doing like cash machines and stuff like that.

Joe: ATMs.

Jason: ATMs, and now he was going to show how to hack pacemakers. And I thought that that just kind of seemed very connected, that such a thing could have been forced. Because of course, if the plane has a kind of embedded computer system that detects these various things through signals, it would be fairly trivial based on that guy's work, the type of work that he was doing, to fool such a computer into thinking it was on a long stretch of straight track.

Joe: Or even worse, to override the controls so that the driver couldn't even do anything about it, you know?

Jason: And one of the conspiracies, or one of the suspicions, around his death, is that it's the pharmaceutical companies, or the people who make things like pacemakers and insulin pumps, that they don't want to have to revisit their design, they don't want to be punished, or anything like that.

So that they may have contributed to his death in some sort of organizational capacity, because his revelation would cost them money, kind of along the same lines as this train thing.

Joe: Absolutely yeah, that's an interesting story.

Niall: Yeah, the Spanish government's response, that has not been covered at all, was appalling. It wasn't just that they're obviously trying to pass off the blame onto a scapegoat. There were delays in coordinating the rescue operation. The locals actually pulled out all the survivors. And then, finally, this emergency team arrived there. I mean, from start to finish, it's like...

Joe: It has a stench of conspiracy.

Joe: But then it could have also the stench of ineptitude.

Jason: Yeah, kind of like FEMA ineptitude.

Pierre: Yeah. And there is the series that is puzzling, you know. Beccause we're examining each case separately, but also when you see the global picture, the occurrences of all those similar events, accidents, almost at the same time.

Niall: Well the Spanish scandal, corruption scandal, going on in the background, is that basically when the prime minister dashed his cabinet, they were siphoning off public funds to bank accounts in Switzerland. Now get this. Two days before the train accident in Paris, somebody rats out 15 politicians, including members of the current French government, for embezzling funds to Swiss bank accounts.

I thought that was interesting and, if nothing else, it's just symbolic. Then, after these two accidents there's a train crash in Switzerland, and everyone who's ever been to Switzerland knows that train crashes just don't happen there.

Joe: So what you're saying is that there was a scandal breaking in Paris about 15 members of the government, who were embezzling funds into bank accounts in Switzerland. Then, there's a train crash outside Paris, not long afterwards, that killed six people and injured dozens more. And then, a few weeks later, when an on-going scandal of Spanish government officials embezzling funds into a Swiss bank account, also at that time there's a Spanish train crash that kills 78 people. And at the same time, as Jason was just mentioning, this guy, this hacker who's shown how to hack into ATM machines, and died in suspicious circumstances, and he was going to show how to hack into a pacemaker.

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: And the money that companies that make pacemakers would have lost because of that. And then, at the same time, well a few weeks ago, or a month ago, you had Michael Hastings, the Rolling Stone reporter, who pretty clearly had something done to his car by all accounts. It screamed down the street in Los Angeles, I think, and into a tree in the middle of the night one night. And he was a very careful driver according to his family and friends. And he had contacted a lawyer beforehand saying the FBI was after him, he contacted a Wikileaks lawyer.

Niall: Actually, no. Someone has inserted something there. He sent an email round to everyone on his contacts list, he hit 'select all', and send. Included was someone who was associated with Wikileaks, but isn't it interesting that they got in a little headline there, that he specifically contacted Wikileaks. No he didn't.

Joe: At the same time there's a story, it's not a new story, but it was released again at the same time, another story that was in various different newspapers, about how hackers can hack into cars, and how it's very easy to do into a modern car, to take it down. They showed a video of these guys doing it, and they can take control of the car in every single way, they can even lock your seatbelt down and stop you moving, basically, take control of the steering wheel, the breaks, everything. So that was in the news at the same time as this guy Hastings died. And then, at the same time, a few weeks later, you have this bus crash in Italy. And the details of the bus crash are that the driver was just going down this road. Well the eye witnesses said that the bus just started swerving as it was going down a hill, started swerving left and right, banging into different cars, and then went straight off the edge, you know. So it's just synchronous, that...

Jason: We might be seeing a test run.

Joe: Well who knows, yeah.

Niall: It's just a pattern, and we don't have to try and explain it.

Joe: No, but it's just interesting. Because you seeing these things all happen in the news at the same time, and you go, well, you know, are they connected? Don't know, but...

Niall: Michael Hastings, just today, his family said he was cremated without their permission.

Joe: Yeah, I mean his story is just so - it just checks all the boxes for someone bumping him off.

Niall: They wanted an autopsy.

Joe: And someone spread the story about what he was involved in, because everybody was wondering why he was investigating for Rolling Stone. He had taken down Petraeus, and he was against the system, he was outspokenly against NSA, against the government, and he was working on a really - and he told people before his crash, that he was going to have to lay low, because he was onto a big story, and he was going to have to lay low and get out of sight for a while because he claimed he was being investigated by the FBI.

Niall: It's a crying shame.

Joe: So people tried to say; there was some story put out that he was involved in a Jill - his major story was Jill Kelley, which is associated again with the Petraeus affair, where he was, you know...

Niall: And that ties into Benghazi...

Joe: Yeah, but his wife said he was not involved in that, because that's not a big story. He had already done that story. It's like someone spread the story that that's what he was researching, to put people off in the wrong direction. Because it seems to me that if he was going to lay low, and he was pretty freaked out by what was going on, and he was saying that he had a big story, if you watch videos of the guy, and know what he's talked about before, when he said that he's got a big story, that he'd have to kind of stay quiet about for a while, he was talking about something far bigger than General David Petraeus having an affair with some...

Niall: Floozy.

Joe: Intern or something, you know what I mean? But that's all gone now, he's been cremated.

Niall: Well, the crying shame, Michael Hastings was actually a real journalist, I mean, dying breed. And that's another one that's bitten the dust.

Jason: Well it's a bit intellectually dissonant, though. I mean if they have such a death grip on the media, and such total control, why would it be necessary to kill him?

Niall: Why is it necessary to kill anyone? I mean, people are whacked every day by US drones, I mean...

Jason: Exactly.

Pierre: And I'm not sure they have a 100% grip on the media.

Jason: That's what I'm saying.

Joe: The internet poses a problem for them in that sense.

Niall: Hastings had actually established himself; he was actually independent, he was no longer in the employ of Rolling Stone, or Buzzfeed after that. He was actually a real independent investigative journalist. Sadly he didn't quite understand the imminent danger of just saying anything.

Joe: Anyway, are we going to wrap it up for this week, or do we have any major breaking stories that you want to bring to our listener's attention?

Niall: Just a little flashback about remote controlling, electronic devices, and gadgets. In an interview with the German newspaper Tagesspiegel, on January 13th 2002, Andreas von Bülow, Minister of Technology for Germany in the 1990's, a person who first worked in the Secretary of Defence 30 years ago in west Germany, told about a technology by which airliners can be commanded to remote control. He said that the Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, whereby they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening in the computers, in the piloting, in the computer of airliners. He said this technology was named "Home Run". So a little perspective.

Jason: On French TV, late at night, I can't remember where I was, I was watching it. It was in French, but it was a documentary about the American trip to the moon. And one of the things, I think it was MIT they were showing, the MIT scientists, before they even landed on the moon, they tested an autopilot system. It was like this big gyroscope, it was quite large. And they put it inside the plane, and it flew the plane, and there was a guy sitting there in a chair, and he flew the entire flight, and it took off and landed in the plane, or something like that. It was in French, I didn't get all the specific details. But I mean autopilot systems have been around.

Pierre: And remote control, RC planes, remote control small planes, it's even easier to do on a big plane because you have more space to install your controllers, your captors, and your motors.

Joe: It's all pretty obvious to be honest, if anybody just does some cursory research, it's pretty clear. At least on certain things, what's going on. But if you keep your head buried in the manure provided by the mainstream media, you're not going to know anything. So that's the problem. So anyway, I think we'll leave it there for this week. Thanks to all of our listeners, no thanks to our callers, because there was none of them.

Niall: They're on strike

Pierre: They were on holidays.

Jason: They were intimidated by...

Niall: Nobody's listening, they're at the beach.

Joe: Yeah there's nobody listening, we're just broadcasting to the ether here. No anyway, seriously, thanks for listening guys. We hope you enjoyed it, and we will be back next week with another show on some...

Pierre: ...exciting topic!

Joe: On some exciting topic, exactly. So until then, have a good one.