Wildfires in Russia
© Unknown
'Worldwide travel alerts' urging Americans to remain within the US; wild weather; missing crop circles; strange lights in the sky; trains running off their tracks; animals dying in droves; record profits for some while debt explodes for most; hunting down al-Qaeda in the War on Terror; sending weapons to al-Qaeda in the War on Syria; countless senseless murders; crops failing; food prices skyrocketing; chemical plants exploding; "solar flare killshots"; fireballs raining down from the sky... Is this the end of the world or something?

'All and Everything' returns to SOTT Talk Radio this week to offer our listeners a show packed with 'condensed Truth' on various different current (and perhaps not-so-current) topics. We'll aim to deal with each discrete topic in about 5 minutes and then see if our analysis leads us to an overall view of 'life on planet earth'.

What's the weather like where you are? More importantly, what are the people like where you are? Are they getting worked up about the state of the economy? Are they noticing the extreme and unusual weather events? Or are they just totally oblivious to anything beyond their daily routines?

Running Time: 02:09:00

Download: MP3

Here's the transcript:

Joe: Hi and welcome to another SOTT Talk Radio Show. This is No. 28, Sunday August 11th 2013, just in case you were wondering. I'm Joe Quinn. With me are: Niall Bradley.

Niall: Hello to all our listeners.

Joe: And Pierre Lescaudron.

Pierre: Hello.

Joe: This week we're doing another All and Everything show which our listeners seem to enjoy, even if they don't call in, which they should. Maybe they'll find the courage.

Pierre: Please call.

Niall: We don't mind. We don't take offence.

Joe: No, not at all. It's just that they shouldn't feel...

Pierre: Compelled?

Joe: Well they shouldn't feel compelled, but they also shouldn't feel...

Pierre: Shy?

Joe: Shy or inhibited in any way because we're very nice and we don't bite.

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: And we like to talk to people, so if anyone wants to call and just talk to us that's fine. But as we say on these shows, you can call with anything that you are interested in or would like us to discuss or want to tell us about. So feel free.

Niall: The bottom line is, it's all connected so don't worry about jumping in. Something that seems off-topic; it all comes around to the same few topics in the end.

Joe: Yeah, pretty much. This week, as in past weeks, we're going to be discussing the various stories that have been in the news that have caught our attention that we think need to be front and centre in everybody's attention.

Niall: Yeah, and maybe truthified somewhat.

Joe: And perhaps truthified a little bit. Obviously this involves current affairs and stuff, but very often you have to delve into a bit of history to really get the proper context, which is very often the case actually, that to understand present events, you really need to look at them in the historical context because things do repeat over and over again. And it's only when you see this repeating pattern that you understand that things, generally speaking, aren't random and when things happen in politics, generally speaking, they happen for a reason, i.e., someone is planning it. It may not pan out how they planned it to pan out, but generally speaking, there are a bunch of conspirators in the world today, the elite if you want to call them that, who get together and have been for a long time, planning various nefarious things involving pretty much maintaining their positions as the elite and keeping we the little people in our places.

Pierre: Yeah, beyond the status quo, when you look at the trends, there's an increasing chasm, an increasing gap between the wealthiest and us the people, who are becoming poorer and poorer. So obviously the elites never have enough wealth.

Joe: No. And you see that tends to suggest it goes beyond just finances or wealth for these people because...

Niall: Yeah, if you've got everything and you want more...

Joe: At a certain point it goes far beyond money, when there's more money than you could possibly spend in a lifetime, it becomes about control and power and the exertion of that power; just the feeling of the exertion of that power supposedly, by these people. So wealth doesn't really describe it. I suppose you could maybe call it resources and that obviously involves ultimately human resources.

Pierre: Yeah, that's an interesting point and history shows that during the reign of Augustus, after Julius Caesar, Augustus became a real dictator. And he got all the power, all the control. And the Senate, the Optimate, got rid of all his power. It became nothing more than a consenting chamber. They were just here to sign and give some suggestions; Augustus had all the power. However interestingly, the Optimates didn't rebel against this change because while removing their power Augustus increased their wealth, which suggests that for at least some of the elites, what really matters is just more and more material wealth. However it might not be black and white, and power is certainly, from what we've learned in psychopathic literature, power is in the dominance and suffering of others, it is also the main driver of this psychological profile. So it's not mutually exclusive, wealth and power, it goes hand-in-hand actually.

Joe: When you consider the modern American empire or previous empires like the British empire, the people who were and are working to expand those empires, they themselves weren't becoming rich or enriching themselves as a result of what they were doing. They were providing money and wealth for the state coffers essentially, that were then used to further expand the empire and to oppress other peoples. It's really hard to put your finger on what these people were actually after because they could have easily gotten out of politics, for example, and earned much more personal money than they could have put in their own personal bank accounts, than if they stayed in politics. But they stayed in politics because it gave them access to making decisions that directly influenced or often directly harmed or abused other people.

So I think for those people it's more about the exertion of power. Sure, they want money for themselves, but once they reach a certain amount, like we said, you very quickly reach a certain amount of money - once you've got a yacht, a private jet, several big houses, that's not a lot of money compared to the kind of money that some people have. You look at people like Bill Gates with supposedly $40 billion. He doesn't know what to do with it anymore. He has nothing to spend it on. He has everything he could possibly ever have purchased with that. So it's very easy for people in politics, for example, to have sidelines where they enrich themselves personally to a sufficient level but they stay in politics because the real exertion of power isn't through personal wealth necessarily; it's to be found in the power conferred on them by the people, supposedly, to act in the name of the people and to order armies around the world, to make decisions that influence millions of people at home and abroad. And to see the effect of that, supposedly.

Niall: Maybe they want to be remembered as heroes.

Joe: It's got to be some kind of narcissism or psychopathy or something like that, that drives someone to want to have that kind of an influence. Maybe misguidedly they want to be remembered as heroes. For example, look at Winston Churchill. Winston Churchill is known as a hero to most British people and probably to a lot of Americans or anybody else who knows of him. But the objective facts of Winston Churchill's life and what he did, make him a bloody murderer and tyrant. So the only way that those people can actually set themselves up as a historical hero figure, is to distort history and that's what they have done. The official story of Winston Churchill is a lie basically, what people believe about him. And the same is true for most other historical figures in fact. The ones who actually did any good, which are very few, their histories are also distorted. They are downplayed whereas the evildoers, they get their evil histories whitewashed and presented as real heroes.

Pierre: About wealth: there is a study reported by Daniel Kahneman, psychologist, who says there's a strong positive correlation between wealth and happiness, from zero dollars monthly income to three or four thousand. Within this range, the more you earn, the happier you are. Above $4,000 there's no more correlation. Making $5,000 or $20,000 doesn't change anything.

Joe: It kind of plateaus?

Pierre: Yeah. And for normal people there is this notion of sufficiency, that is, enough money, and more money doesn't change much in your life since you already have everything you want. However, among the elite I was thinking about this example of yachts. If you have a big yacht, you can only park it in a deep water seaport. If it's in the French Riviera you will have to park your yacht in Monaco. It means that your very big yacht, like 100 feet, will be surrounded by very big yachts, 130, 150 feet. And here the psyche of those elites may be different in the sense that there's no sense of sufficiency of your own needs. Maybe there's so much narcissism and comparison in status, that they live through the comparison with others and they're animated by this permanent illusory quest of being on top, having the biggest yacht and the biggest jet, which is unattainable. Maybe that explains these insanely rich elites that still want more and that still get more. And here we're not talking about the one percent of the population, that is what's called the ultra-rich category, the 0.01 percent. It's a very small minority driven by a very specific frame of mind.

Joe: Yeah, well there are problems, but what are you going to do about it?

Niall: Just a couple of big stories in terms of the disparity of wealth. This week we've got an AP report: "Reality Check-Four out of five people in the U.S. are facing near poverty and no work." Four out of five! I mean that's enormous.

Pierre: Eighty percent.

Niall: At the same time in the UK, something I'd never heard of until it came out: "Zero hours contracts cover more than a million UK workers." I had to look it up. Zero contract basically means the work is not guaranteed and neither is your pay. You may not be paid for the work you do. It's like flexi-time taken to a whole new level.

Joe: And who's offering these jobs?

Niall: Oh, McDonalds, your big merchandising sports stores and stuff.

Joe: And this is a government...

Niall: High Street.

Joe: Is it government funded or government inspired?

Niall: No, it's very much a corporate function.

Joe: A bunch of different corporations latched onto it.

Niall: And they've got away with it because of 20+ years, in the UK and the U.S., of the neo-liberal model of de-regulating. There are basically no more workers' rights. And they can do this. They call it "self-regulating". Corporations are free to just do as they please.

Joe: Well, it's the logical ultimate end result of letting corporations ultimately decide what kind of rules and regulations they will impose on their workers. If you don't have any oversight whatsoever, they will basically serve their own interests. The corporation's bottom line are the managers' or the board members' salaries, so yeah I'm not surprised.

Pierre: It's a measure of social regression because during the 20th century, unions, people, a few politicians, made a lot of effort to establish some decent labour laws and labour contracts. But this zero hour contract, it reminds me of the 19th century when you had poor workers queuing at the factories at five in the morning and then the boss was saying "Okay, you, you and you, you come in and you work today in my factory for a miserable wage and tomorrow I can drop you like a disposable napkin."

Niall: That's exactly it. In the last 10 or so years, there's been a regression back 100 years. You went back and you compared ancient Rome with today, with the extreme concentration of wealth but actually you can see this pattern on a smaller, more recent scale, where real wages go up and down for most people and the concentration of wealth also goes up and down with it. There's a great book by economic historian David Hackett Fischer called The Great Wave and he's charted this. He's shown that there have been four significant waves just in the last thousand years where wealth concentrates and then breaks up again, concentrates and breaks up again. And there are good times for most people, where real wages, the actual amount of purchasing power the little man has, increases and then regresses, again with the fall of each price wave. It's a bit complex. I won't go into it in too much detail but according to this pattern, we are currently on the crest of another wave.

Joe: And the fall.

Niall: Which is the extreme disparity. It happens over and over again.

Joe: The rising and falling of wealth are correlated with social upheavals at the time of the falls.

Niall: Exactly. Social upheavals and climate change.

Joe: And it's a build-up of corruption among the elite where they abuse their power, people get less and less, and less and less, the whole system kind of collapses and, at that time, there may be some kind of environmental effects or cosmic cometary effects as well. Not every time but certainly sometimes. And it's a repeating cycle that goes round and round and round. And just like we were saying at the beginning, you need to see these cycles to realise that there's nothing new under the sun and we are in a certain sense, stuck or trapped in these kind of loops or waves where things just cycle round and round and nothing ever changes. This has been going on for most of modern human history. It's not modern human history, in the sense of the past known human history for 2,000 years plus.

Pierre: Easily; it's known in some circles as a dynastic circle and basically if you start from a collapse, after the collapse you have pockets of survivors that take decades or centuries to build a proto-civilisation. Among the pockets of survivors, you have a few tribal leaders that get the leaderships. When they reach a critical mass threshold, they start rewriting history giving themselves historical legitimacy and erasing traces of cataclysms, known as: 'the Linear, Uniformitarian Paradigm', that we've been submerged in for two centuries now.
That's when you have a warm period, weather-wise, less cometary activity and it's easier to rewrite history in a sense. And the population grows and we tend to neglect or under-evaluate the influence of climate and weather on the development of civilisation that is by far the most important factor.

Joe: For example: the availability of food.

Pierre: Of course.

Joe: The one thing that would make people go crazy...

Pierre: The population go.

Joe: ...or destroy their societies or social breakdown, would be the unavailability of the basic staples of life.

Pierre: And if you look at historical records of temperature over the last 5,000 years, you have a few crests. One period is an exception, it lasted three centuries maximum. You have; the Minoan crest; you have an Acadian crest; you have an early Roman empire; late Roman empire; you have a little crest in the 11th century A.D.; and you have a crest now, the 20th century, that was exceptionally warm. But usually the default setting for our weather is: ice age. And if you go with this dynastic cycle, during this warm period the population grows, you have oppression that grows as well. There is a critical mass of lies and suffering because there are more people, so more people are oppressed and you have those elites that always want more, as we were mentioning before. So more oppression, more lies, and it leads to this collapse, at the human level. Those civil wars and social unrest and on the cosmic level, those are major disruptions. And then your population is almost fully destroyed, your focus is survival and we start another cycle.

Joe: We've got a call, one of the first callers I hope. So we're going to go ahead and take it. Hi caller, what's your name and where are you calling from? Hello. You are live on SOTT Talk Radio.

Chandra: Hello?

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

Chandra: Chandra Dickenson, Mason, Tennessee.

Joe: Hi Chandra.

Niall: Welcome.

Pierre: Hello Chandra.

Niall: Do you have a question?

Chandra: I did. I just wanted to comment on why some people stay in politics when they have more wealth than they can spend; I think it has to do with fear. If they aren't in politics, if they aren't in control, their power may go away if they don't stay on top of everything.

Joe: You mean they just kind of get addicted to the power that they have and they don't want to lose it.

Chandra: Well they may have more money than they can ever spend in a lifetime, but there's always that fear that they're going to lose it and if they don't stay in politics and stay on top of everything and in control, they aren't going to have that assurance; as far as they're concerned, they're going to keep that. It could go away at any time. I think anybody who has a large amount of money or power has that fear.

Joe: So in a way you're saying that there's a link between the political power and their personal wealth, that it sustains their personal wealth, or they have connections that allow them to increase their wealth while they're in political power.

Chandra: I do. I think that and I've often thought about winning the lottery, what would I do? And I think I would be scared I would lose it. I almost don't care if I win the lottery ever again or ever at all. Because I'm scared of what it would do to me.

Joe: Yeah, I think I would spend it all straight away on something good.

Chandra: I would hope that I would do that.

Pierre: If you hold a political position you can have influence on laws, you can prevent some impeachment, so in a sense you can protect yourself from legal actions against illegal wealth accumulation. So indeed a political position can be a way to sustain your wealth position. Is this what you meant?

Chandra: That, and also to put more laws and more controls in place so that the chance that you would lose it is, in their mind, lessened.

Niall: Yeah.

Chandra: As you can see what's happening in the United States right now. There's things that are passed and people don't even realise it because they're distracted by this supposedly two-party, three-party system. Even though they have more than they could ever spend, they have the fear. Fear is the main motivator there, I think.

Joe: Yeah, the fear of the masses and the rabble who would rise up and destroy their wonderful civilisation and the class structure they've created.

Chandra: And they don't care if they destroy everything as long as they think that they are protecting themselves.

Joe: Absolutely. It's maybe the idea that, generally speaking, these people who are in positions of political power and also have a lot of wealth, they see themselves essentially as an elite that's better than other people, that by the very fact that they're in these positions, they believe that that means they are better because if they weren't better they wouldn't be in that position, right? It's a self-fulfilling prophecy or it's kind of circular logic, essentially. And they probably have an investment in maintaining that kind of social structure where people like them remain at the top.

Pierre: It reminds me - go on Chandra.

Chandra: I was just going to say I agree but I think the main motivator is that they are scared to lose it. No matter how much they have, they're scared to lose it.

Pierre: It reminds me of a law that was operational during the Roman Empire. If a slave rebelled against his master, or the family of his master and killed one individual from the family; the law stated that the master's family kills all the slaves. Sometimes it was hundreds of slaves. And during the Roman Empire there was this fear among the elite of the slave rebellion; the slaves looting us, the slaves killing us in the night. It's quite similar to what we're describing now, this fear of the elites, the elites fearing the people. Well, there will be legitimate reasons for the elites to fear the people when you see the abuses that they commit.

Joe: Yeah. Okay Chandra, thanks for your call. Have you anything else to comment on?

Chandra: Oh I have a ton of things, but I think that I'll let you get back to what you're doing. I appreciate you letting me talk.

Joe: No worries. Thanks for your call.

Niall: Thanks for calling in.

Pierre: Thank you very much.

Chandra: Thank you.

Joe: Bye.

Niall: I wonder though, if, as we think a lot of them are psychopaths, is it that they feel fear or they instinctively sense the pressure from below and sort of react to it, that they're driven by. It's not so much out of fear as it is a calculation of risk: "Well if we do this, what's the risk of this and this and this?" And they think they've got it all under control, and they do to a large extent.

Joe: Sure there's psychopaths in positions of power, quite a lot of them, but I don't think that all are clinical psychopaths for example, but all of them are certainly ponerised and in many other ways character disordered. But I think people today, if they were to get a look at what their so-called leaders actually think about them; it's only in the 40 or 50 years or probably less actually, that there's been a kind of political correctness come in where leaders realised that they should not express elitist and very often racist ideas in public because in history, when you read the words and the ideas expressed by various very well-known political leaders from 50, 60-plus years ago; it's shocking just how racist and elitist they are and how happy they were and how unconcerned they were about actually expressing those opinions and it leads you to believe that people accepted it as well. A lot of ordinary people accepted those ideas that they're better than us and we're inferior essentially. It's only in the last...

Niall: I think the invention of PR and mass media trained them in a little bit of discipline."Be careful when and where you say this."

Joe: Just don't say it anymore basically, but they still believe it fervently, that they are fundamentally superior to...

Niall: Yeah, a race apart.

Joe: ...superior to the rest of the population. And that may be true in terms of psychopathy and it may also be generally true, it's a twisted version of a truth that everybody isn't born equal; there are people who are more adept at different areas of intellectual pursuits, for example: scientists who are more adept or more inclined towards that. I don't know if you would get into that at a genetic level type thing, or whether there's something fundamentally true about that, that anybody could be it. So that's kind of a stony question that not just anybody could be a scientist or a great philosopher or a great anything else, that anybody could be that, given the right opportunities in life.

Pierre: Yes, you're right. This being said, the duality between the elites and the masses is usually not based on merit. Those members of the elites, they're not specifically more brilliant. They certainly have more power but I'm not sure they got it because of their merit. And what you say is interesting because when you look at the way history's been written, there is a movement called: "gentlemen historians". And when you dig a bit you realise that most historians, the people who write history and define our past, come from these gentry, from the gentleman class and one of the fundamental paradigms that was structuring their mind was this contempt for the masses. And so everything then, the whole history, the way they presented the whole history is done through this deforming lens where the elites, whatever they do, they are brilliant, they have knowledge, they have nobility and moral values and they decide the masses are rabbles. They tend to rebel, they can be violent. They're little more than animals. How can you have an objective history? How can you have an objective connection to your past when it's interpreted through such a subjective lens?

Joe: Absolutely. Like you said, they have rewritten history because all the writers of history, going back 2,000 years, but also in the last 50 or 60 years; all of them have been of a certain clique who have all written to justify the social order. Even science and the investigation of genetics and all that kind of stuff was distorted and twisted to serve that end.

We talked about it a few weeks ago with Hank Albarelli about the experiments that were done and the attitude that was taken toward blacks and other minorities in the U.S. You had psychiatrists basically coming out and opining and giving these clinical definitions of minorities in the U.S., as essentially being genetically inferior. I don't think that's true. I think it may be true that certain people have certain proclivities, but that's been twisted to make an inferior/superior kind of paradigm where anybody who has that proclivity, to do great research in science or something like that, is better than the person who works building houses. That's where the twist happens, to say one is superior, one is better than the other. There's nothing wrong with there being differences and people having different proclivities or different tendencies, just innately. But it's when it's used to create an elite that abuses the lower classes, as they're called, that's where the twist comes in.
But just getting back to our stories. You started off with one there about four out of five Americans are...

Niall: Basically at the poverty line.

Joe: On the poverty line. There's several stories, this is just from this week. There's a story called: "The Summer of Hunger", 'a huge rise in food bank use as demand linked to welfare reform'. This is in the UK. There's a trust that runs the UK's largest network [of food banks]. It says that some branches have had double the number of requests for emergency parcels since the start of the school holidays. What this means, basically, is that there are a large number of families in the UK who are having to go to food banks - they used to be called soup kitchens in the Great Depression in the 1930s - during the summer holidays when the kids are not at school, they're not getting free lunches at school. So the fact that all these families are having to provide one extra meal for their children during the summer holidays, means that they do not have...

Niall: They can't.

Joe: ...they can't do it. They don't have enough money to buy the food to do that. Now that's a very, very precarious position to be in that just highlights just how bad it's gotten. It's not that people have less money or their purchasing power is down a bit, whatever you're talking about here, a few extra meals per day for children are beyond the financial abilities of many families in the UK. There's also several stories about food price hikes in the news: "Canadian consumers cope with dramatic increase in food prices", that's from a few days ago. And there's a story in the Irish Independent about the elderly facing the choice between food and fuel as the gas company seeks to hike prices again. The national gas company in Ireland is increasing their prices again. They want to increase it another seven percent and these various welfare groups are saying that there's going to be large numbers of elderly, particularly, who will not be able to meet those costs and will have to choose between buying food for themselves or buy gas to heat their homes.

Pierre: And here you see how wealth transfer can work. On one side you have the supplies that are getting more and more expensive. Goods are sold by corporations. It means corporations are making bigger profits basically. The rich are making more profits, to simplify it a bit. And on the other side you read that people are more and more poor, they have less and less income. Their wages are plummeting. So it means again, the wage costs that corporations face are dropping. So on one side they increase product prices, increase their profits and they decrease wages and increase their profits as well. That's how you transfer wealth from the poorest to the rich. For years now we've been hearing about the crisis, the deficit, or the debt or the banks and bankruptcy, etc. etc. while all of us have to sacrifice. That's BS. All the time, it's always the same major target: the middle class and poor people with pensions; increased VAT, reduced wages. Always the same line of thought. At the same time when you look at figures, one percent of the population owns forty percent of the world's wealth while forty percent of the poorest half of the world's population owns one percent, so it's not rocket science. To find money, is easy; you have to get the money from this top one percent and there's a lot, a lot, a lot of money. At the same time by bleeding the poor ones and the middle class ones, you won't get much money. They own only one percent of the wealth.

Joe: They continue to do it and it's insane because maybe they haven't read history but this has happened over and over again, in a cycle, and what happens is that there is usually some kind of a revolution and the overt established order falls and depending on the times that they are in, they may lose more than just their wealth. Yet no one seems able to take note and say "Even for our own self-preservation maybe we should do something about this". They seem incapable of doing that, which gets us into the idea of psychopathy and studies that have been done with psychopaths who have a very poor ability to imagine consequences of their actions, in this case, for a genetic reason, it seems. They're fundamentally unable to do that.
Yeah, you talked about wage declines, there's a story about it in the UK "Wage declines amongst the worst in Europe in the UK" saying that wages in the UK have seen one of the largest falls in the European Union during the economic downturn over the past two or three years.

Niall: And on the other side, UK companies have seen some of the highest profit margins. Here's a headline from someone who should know - Tesco is like the UK's Walmart - "Tesco boss says era of cheap food is over." And he says that major food price rises are all but inevitable. He's blaming a few contrived incidents like the horse meat scandal and rising global demand, i.e. too many mouths to feed; meanwhile Tesco's profits go through the roof.

Joe: He's not too unhappy about saying that. He's saying that unless more food is produced, prices must go up, that it's a basic law of supply and demand and he's saying "Well that's kind of cool for Tesco because prices have to go up." Say for example he thinks to himself "Well, Tesco has ten million customers and they're all paying an average price for their goods of such and such an amount. Well it doesn't really bother us if we have to charge twice as much for half of those people. Five million people paying twice as much gets us the same amount of profits every year. And the other five million, they just don't get any, but no skin off of my nose. It's all about the economics."

Niall: They're just taken out of the equation.

Pierre: Talking about equations, if we do some simple arithmetic, we go back to the previous example. One percent of the population owns forty percent of the world's wealth. And forty percent of the poorest owns only one percent. So this forty percent of the wealth owned by the one percent richest, if you just take one percent from them, of the world's wealth, they jump from forty percent to thirty-nine percent, so it's nothing for them. They're still superrich, okay? And this one percent of the world's wealth, you give it to the forty percent of the poorest, so they don't retain one percent of the world's wealth now, they retain two percent. So by just removing...

Joe: One percent from the top, you double the wealth of the lowest.

Pierre: Exactly! It is that simple and it is cynical what's going on now; it gives you an idea.

Joe: It gives you an idea of just how much wealth is contained within that one percent at the top; when one percent of what they own can double the wealth of the forty percent at the bottom, like everybody at the bottom, that's forty percent of the population that could theoretically have twice as much.

Niall: Pierre, you're not allowed to point this out because then you're a communist traitor. It's really, really sneaky and cunning how they graft any discussion of some basics in terms of redistribution, it immediately lands you in the "kooky" category. No, no, no, that's against the rules.

Joe: Well I think at the very least it makes you un-American, but then that wouldn't matter to you since you're French. (laughter) But it should matter to you.

Niall: Even here in Europe. Talking about food price rises, I'm looking at the headlines coming from specific countries. The price of vegetables in the Middle East up 17% just in the last month, in the course of Ramadan, so I guess that's local suppliers taking advantage of the fact that it's Ramadan so let's bump the prices up. We've got other stories about food prices going up ten percent and fifteen percent, projected to go up ten percent in the U.S. in the fall, next month. And then yesterday, the U.N. FAO has a headline that's been picked up by just about everyone: "World Food Prices Fall: Food prices have continued to decline in July" says the U.N.

Now, I don't know where they're getting the numbers from or which agency they're...

Pierre: They don't seem to check their own numbers because on the FAO website you have an average price curve and it displays a plus 120 percent increase over the 2008/2012 period. So here there's not only speculation. There's probably some speculation, but there is a fundamental systemic program that is - crop yields have been dropping since 2009. Crop yields for the four major crops have been dropping. It hasn't happened for decades and there are several factors to explain this, but one of the factors clearly is the weather changes; more heat, more sun, more chlorophyll, more organic matter; more vegetable matter is more food basically. Simple.

Joe: Yeah, so things aren't looking good and we just have to keep an eye on that basically. But the impression I get is that it's going to reach a critical mass, a point at which it's no longer sustainable, where they can't even cover it up anymore or there will be a critical mass of people who are going without enough food...

Niall: Well two years ago, there was a massive heat wave in Russia and Putin decided "We're not exporting any more wheat because we need it." And I remember seeing reports at the time. Jesus, if there's another big systemic shock, we're in serious trouble. Well, this year China is set to become the top wheat importer because of major crop failures. Now because of a heat wave and previously because it was too cold, earlier this year. That's over one billion mouths right there.

Joe: Yeah, and it gets worse in wintertime. So there's kind of a period where it's not so noticeable.

Niall: There's a lag.

Joe: There's a lag, essentially, because for this year anyway, they're still to finish harvesting, for example, and to take stock of what they actually have. But in wintertime the consumption of food generally goes up because there's a lot of animals that actually need feed over the wintertime, when they're housed inside. And I wouldn't put it past certain big agricultural companies that have large numbers of animals, in the meat industry, to give the food to the animals rather than the humans.

Niall: I was reading somewhere apparently meat prices are not skyrocketing like grains and vegetables yet because they slaughtered an awful lot of animals because they can't afford to feed them. So for the moment there's a reservoir in the system. But that's only a temporary measure of course.

Pierre: Optimal growth of vegetables occurs within a very narrow range of environmental parameters: humidity, temperature, etc. And what we have noticed over the last 10 years, roughly, is that weather is much more chaotic. There's the beginning of a global cooling, but worse than that, there's a lot of variability and that's what we've been talking about. It's heat waves. It's cold spells. It's hail, massive rainfall and drought. And all those events are outside the optimal range for vegetable growth. That's why crop yields are dropping because the weather is too chaotic. It's not stable, it's not optimal enough.

Niall: This is from this week: "Freak Hail the Size of Eggs Destroys Ninety Percent of Bordeaux's Vineyards". Wipe out.

Joe: Zoya had just asked that we talk about that, about the floods. They've been going on for quite a while, several months at this stage, but they're continuing. We've noticed there were flash floods in Colorado Springs just a few days ago. In Russia there's a lot of serious damage to... Floods in Russia's east coast, about 30 million in damages as the result of heavy rains.

Niall: Yeah. And also in southern Siberia, while northern Siberia's having record wild fires and a heat wave.

Joe: And there's been wild fires in California. This is a really bad combination. In certain areas you have massive rainfall and flooding washing things away; flooding fields, destroying crops. You have major hail storms destroying crops. Okay, maybe wild fires haven't reached major agricultural areas, mostly they seem to be in mountainous, hilly regions. But it's an example of the chaotic weather patterns. I suppose floods really are the worst. Drought is an issue as well, but when you get both of them together, it's terrible from one year to the next, or in the very same year you can have the first half of the summer a drought and then you have water.

Niall: Yeah. The theme seems to be...

Joe: ...and then you get floods that come just as the plants are able to take root and start to grow, and they're all washed away basically.

Pierre: There's a lot of stress on plants and there are several factors to explain this change towards the more chaotic weather. We mentioned already the meandering jet stream, what separates cold air pockets from warm air pockets. A meandering jet stream means in the same location you get a sequence of alternating warm air and cold air, and much more precipitation overall. And there's another factor explaining the increase in floods. Rainfall basically comes from clouds and the two major factors to create clouds is the presence of dust, which are the nucleation agents around which droplets form and cooling down air. If you have air that cools down and you have a lot of dust in the atmosphere, let's say dust having cometary origin, you will increase your cloud coverage. And it's even worse if after say 10 years of global warming, during the '90s or one century of global warming during the 2000s - you had a lot of evaporation from the oceans, so you have a lot of steam, of water vapour in the atmosphere. And then you start to have global cooling where you have major condensation processes; a lot of cloud formation, a lot of rainfall.

Niall: The thing that strikes me is that you've got these extreme side-by-side geographically and in time. So, you can have a major wildfire in Colorado and the next week there's a flash flood. One doesn't cancel out the other, they both heap more misery on the land, the environment, the people. How does that fit into it? We talk about general trends of warming, general trends of cooling, but clearly if northern Siberia is experiencing 35 degrees centigrade...

Pierre: Before, when you had strong solar activity, you had the jet stream that goes fast, in a narrow way. Narrow way means: at the same latitude that would separate neatly in a linear way what is south-warm, what is north-cold. When solar activity drops the jet streams start to become weaker and to meander more. It means that in one location, say Colorado, you can be south of the jet stream for a long time, have a drought basically, and one day it can change, you can have a meander and you're on the cold side of the jet stream and all of a sudden you have very cold weather, so it accounts for the temperature change. You can have a long warm period and then a long cold period but when you change from a warm period to a cold period, you have a lot of condensation, you have a lot of floods as well.

So that explains the precipitation. And if you're in a location where you have this alternate circumstances of warm and cold, warm and cold; each time you switch from warm to cold, you have condensation, you have rainfall. So you are in a far less stable and predictable weather pattern with this meandering jet stream. You can have anything and it's what we see in Europe. Sometimes we have a jet stream that's really high up, like we said in July and you have basically weather from North Africa here, because you're south of the jet stream. And sometimes again and the jet stream is very low and you have directly, Arctic air coming down, to Siberia, to Europe and you experience minus 15 degrees Celsius.

Joe: In wintertime, but the problem is that when that happens in summertime, when you have the change in the jet stream as happened just recently, particularly for the UK and for France and various parts of Europe where you had a spell of very hot weather and then the jet stream loops down and brings down kind of cold polar air, and that meets the warm air that has been predominating up, that you have serious rainstorms and massive precipitation, like floods. That's what we're seeing, floods, and also major hail. That's the kind of pattern that we're in right now and it's not good. People need to take stock of the implications that it has for the food in their fridge.

Niall: "Put food on your family."

Joe: Put food on your family as Bush would say. It's going to be hard to put food on your family. We need to plan for it basically. There's a little story here I was going to mention: there's an independent scientific research organisation in Orlando, Florida called the 'Space and Science Research Corporation' and it has become the leading research organisation in the United States on the subject of the science and planning for the next climate change. And they have recently issued a report saying that - it was basically a nationwide campaign that they launched in the U.S. to encourage the largest U.S. academic institutions to become active participants in getting the U.S. prepared for the next climate change. Which they say is to be one of decades of extreme cold. So global warming, my derriere.

Pierre: So you had Bilderberger in 2004 announcing global cooling. You had Pentagon papers in 2010.

Joe: The opposite.

Pierre: So in 2004 and 2010 you had Pentagon papers and Bilderberger announcing global cooling and now it's this new research institute. Just one point about hail, one factor that may explain the higher frequency of hail. First is the temperature difference between the fronts because of this chaotic jet stream. Another factor may be the high concentration in cometary dust in the atmosphere because dust has an electric field. Dust can increase the electric field and the electric field tends to stimulate the accretion of ice crystals and droplets. So that might be another reason why we are witnessing such serious, severe hail episodes.

Niall: Yeah, there was one recently I think in southern Germany. I think there were many episodes but this one stood out. Somebody posted images and video footage. And this town was destroyed. Roofs were smashed in. Cars were shattered by hail the size of baseballs; and bigger. I've seen reports of it in the U.S. but I've never heard of it in Europe before. Enormous hailstones. They'd kill you if they hit you.

Pierre: When we think about temperature gradients, the temperature difference is usually visualised as a horizontal gradient, you know? Up north it's colder or warmer than here, etc. But there's also a strong vertical gradient right now. Some NASA sources announced two or three years ago the massive cooling down of the upper atmosphere, magnitude 10. So it's a very important cool down. So sometimes you can have the co-existence of the very, very cool higher upper atmosphere, and you can have a very heated up lower atmosphere. And that can be the source of such dramatic events.

Joe: Last week we were discussing this alleged solar flare that we just missed. We just missed a solar flare kill shot a couple of weeks ago. It was a group of fairly high-level Washington type outsiders...

Niall: Lobbyists.

Joe: ...including William Colby I think, former CIA director.

Niall: I think he's long gone. I think it was James Woolsey.

Joe: I'm sorry, James Woolsey. Got the wrong one. So this is the idea, that two weeks ago we missed a major solar flare. And this is a group that kind of call themselves EMP experts and they've been lobbying the government to try and take note of the threat.

Niall: From the sun.

Joe: Yes. E-mpact. E-M-P-A-C-T. To take note of the dire threat to humanity from a major solar flare. And they claim that two weeks ago we just missed one, except that the sun wasn't square on earth, we missed it. But if it had have hit, it would have knocked out all of our electronics. And they've been trying to lobby. And they aren't just anybody. These are the former CIA director and another guy Henry Cooper, who led strategic arms negotiations with the Soviet Union under President Bush, I think. And he now heads a group called High Frontier, which is pushing for missile defence. Anyway, these are the kind of people we're talking about. They're not just nobodies. And they claim that two weeks ago this kill-shot solar flare, EMP, would have knocked out everything on the planet probably. And all the electrical grid. iPhones would have been the least of people's worries, having access to their iPhones. The main problem is the electrical grid would be gone and it would take a long time to get it back up and running, i.e., therefore no refrigeration, a lot of factories not working; no electricity means pretty much everything.
But then Niall, the story was that this was exposed as...

Niall: Not exposed but one of NASA's outlets, the guy called Dr. Tony Phillips who runs SpaceWeather.com, he made a statement the next day and said "No, no such thing happened" and that was it, it was just dropped. But the point they wanted to make was: "There's a threat! There's a threat!" It's like Al Qaeda.

Joe: So we've been seeing this and we've also been seeing what's interestingly converging with this website that has been publishing bogus stories about Snowden and supposedly, the documents that Snowden still has in his possession and are still available to be released and they talk about just such an event; a threat and this is taken seriously deep in the bowels of the elite.

Niall: The beast.

Joe: It's a terrible image. (laughing) Don't want to go there. But basically deep in the bowels of the beast they take this seriously. But this website has been producing spurious, bogus information.

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: But it's interesting that it's coming out the same time the former director of the CIA is claiming that it actually happened and we correlate it with what we understand to be the real threat, which is comets and their effects which can, in fact, be something along the lines of an EM pulse that would take out electrical grids, etc.

Pierre: Absolutely. We're going to talk about it more extensively soon I suppose, the EMP effects and electric effects of cometary bodies. This being said, as we said last week, it's a double lie because first it suggests that the sun is becoming more active, it is flaring. The sun is not flaring, it is quite the opposite. So those elites are probably perfectly aware that the sun is unusually inactive and that's the major worry, hence, those reports announcing global cooling, ice age. And while they're aware that the global cooling is coming, they make up lies pointing to the opposite, flaring, i.e., high solar activity, high warming, and at the same time it's destruction from a real source of EMP, i.e. comets, that are indeed on the rise unlike the amazingly quiet non-flaring sun.

Joe: We have another call here, so I'm going to see who it is. Caller, what's your name and where are you calling from?

Nathan: Well, this is me. This is Nathan Carney. I'm calling from Elk, Washington.

Joe: Hi and welcome to the show.

Nathan: Hi, how are you?

Joe: Pretty good. How are you?

Nathan: Good. That guy who you were talking about, got a lot of airplay on AM radio out here. I just came across him the other day talking about the sun things.

Joe: About Snowden you mean, or the think tank organisation?

Nathan: Yeah, it was really strange. It had very religious overtones.

Joe: Who are you talking about?

Nathan: I can't remember his name. He was on the AM radio. He's on all the time and he always pushes that whole sun/EM effects from the sun all the time. So the fact that it gets major play, made me pretty sceptical of him.

Joe: Oh yeah? But who is he speaking for?

Nathan: Some kind of religious organisation. I can find out more if you want.

Niall: That might be United West. They're another high-level lobby group coming at this from another angle. They're saying that the U.S. needs to bolster its defence against the threat of the EMP caused by Iranian's and North Koreans.

Joe: Oh yes, that's it.

Nathan: And he plays himself as kind of a local folksy kind of church guy rallying independent Americans. Kind of counter-pro I suppose. The whole AM radio's full of that kind of thing.

Joe: It's the Muslim/Iranian threat to America...

Nathan: Yeah.

Joe: ...from an Iranian nuke that would cause an EMP, yes?

Nathan: That's just so irresponsible for him to push that. And for people to buy into it is just sick, but they do it. They do it extensively in America, to the point where when I bring up issues of global warming, they don't know what my position is, so they'll say things like "You've got to really wonder about people who don't believe in global warming" (laughing). And I always just think I better not speak.

Joe: Yeah, the opposite is true. You've got to wonder about people who believe in it.

Nathan: Yes, exactly. But they've done such a snow job on the public it's outrageous. I was wondering about the melting of the Arctic ice, and I can do the research myself and find out things, I'm just sometimes a little lazy. But I was wondering if you could talk about the melting of the Arctic ice and the science? Because there was a protest a couple of years back in Amsterdam about the climategate and I brought it up to my brother and I said "all these people are protesting about this" and I said "what do you think they were protesting about?" He said "because they're not listening about global warming". I said "Well it was actually the opposite". And he didn't even know that. I was wondering if you could talk about some of that. Well, you already were really.

Joe: Yeah, in a certain sense. I think the general idea about Arctic ice melt is that you have these very chaotic weather patterns where you have extreme heat for a certain period of time. And even in the wintertime you can have warm winters, but in the summertime you can have - this summer we've had extreme heat.

Nathan: Oh, it's baking.

Joe: At very high latitudes though as well, in Siberia. There was a town in Siberia that was 30 degrees Celsius, like in the 90's almost.

Nathan: And the strange weather patterns in Alaska.

Joe: Yeah, exactly. So you have these kind of chaotic weather patterns with heat. It doesn't mean that the earth is overall warming. In fact global warming has stopped. It's pretty much officially recognised that global warming stopped in 1998 and it's been cooling overall, on average, since then.

Nathan: Right.

Joe: But when you have these summers where you have a lot of very high temperatures in the summertime, and you have a lot of Arctic ice sheet melts, all of that fresh water coming into the North Atlantic and the North Atlantic drift, and that plays a very significant part, especially in the northern hemisphere, in pushing the planet into an ice age because that disrupts the gulf stream and the North Atlantic drift that keeps a large part of the northern hemisphere fairly temperate. So it's an example where warming for a small period of time in northern latitudes can cause a rebound into extreme cooling. The Arctic ice melt might be quite high, for example this summer, and a few summers ago, the initial cover sheet lost 90% of the initial cover in a couple of days but...

Niall: Well they claim that.

Joe: Well they claim that, but the thing about it is...

Nathan: They claim it.

Joe: ...the following winter it's built back up to more than it was beforehand.

Nathan: Wow! They couldn't even get into Nome. They had ice completely starving them.

Joe: Yeah, so that's the thing. People go "Oh look the Arctic ice sheet is melting more than it has ever done". And then they don't think, okay, just wait six months and wait until you see what it's like then and wait until you see what northern latitudes in Europe and North America are like then. They'll be under ice as well.

Nathan: I hope I don't see it.

Pierre: There are local observations and global trends. Local observations are more chaotic now because of factors we have mentioned like the jet stream disruptions. Global trends show quite clearly since 2003, that by using the same probes as the one used by official global warming organisations...

Nathan: Suspect temperature readings.

Pierre: Yes. And those temperatures on average have been dropping since 2004 actually. So there are two trends going on: a) more chaotic weather; and b) cooler weather. And this being said, as Joe mentioned, there are some rebound effects and there are some feedback loops. And if you have a cooling after warming, which was the case during most of the 20th century, you have cooling that occurs with an atmosphere that is saturated with water vapour. And when it falls, it's major rainfall, major snowfalls and then it recurs; it's called an Albedo Effect. All this snow that falls will reflect most of the radiation from the sun which will trigger even more cooling, even more condensation, even more snowfall, even more snow cover, even more reflection, even more cooling. So you have a feedback mechanism and that's one of the reasons why ice ages don't set within decades, it was previously known that they might set within three months.

Nathan: The mechanism is cometary dust increasing the water vapour?

Pierre: Yeah, that's another factor that can trigger a feedback mechanism. Yeah, but you've got it exactly. You have two factors that are synergistic: cometary atmospheric dust that increases clouds, hence rainfall; and you have reduced solar activity that triggers cooling and therefore more condensation, more clouds, more rainfall. So actually you have two different mechanisms feeding each other and going together.

Nathan: It's been quite extreme here out in Spokane. It rained for almost a month straight.

Niall: It sounds like it.

Nathan: And then it just baked, no rain for a month. Last year was the same, real hot and dry to the point where I can't even get the garden completely watered.

Niall: Is it raining heavily there now?

Nathan: It isn't, but we're getting some thunderstorms, which is pretty common in this area. The jet stream seems to be coming down from Canada into the Midwest, as you're probably aware, but it's sort of missing this area right in the corner of Idaho/eastern Washington. It promises to have quite a bit of snow probably.

Joe: If I were you...

Nathan: Like four, four-and-a-half feet.

Joe: If I were you I would be thinking seriously about what you were do if you were seriously snowed in this winter.

Nathan: I've been there. I can handle the snow kind of. It's the heat that I worry about because the chances of wildfires - there's a lot of it in this area. But as far as the snow goes, I grew up in Alaska so I remember my mother shovelling snow every single day, and my father too. And everybody. We had to tunnel into our house.

Joe: Yeah, well it's one thing to be able to tunnel out of your house. What if when you tunnel out of your house there's no point because the supermarkets are closed because no deliveries are coming through so you can't get any food?

Nathan: That's right, yeah.

Joe: So that kind of thing, if you've thought about it.

Nathan: Well I'm trying to store some food.

Joe: Okay. That's a good idea.

Nathan: Pig broth and chicken broth, I'm trying to store it up, just because I don't want to focus on survival things, I want to focus on what I feel like I need to do, which is communicate with people, somehow help people, get information out there for people. But I also need to take care of...

Joe: Yeah, you want to continue to be able to do that, to communicate with people out there, you need to be able to have the energy to do that.

Pierre: You need to be alive.

Joe: So it's a good idea. And it's not about survivalism, it's simply, like you said, you're not surviving just to survive, you're surviving for a specific purpose, to continue to be able to communicate with people and get the message out. So that's the attitude to take. It's not a fear-based thing, it's simply being prudent, seeing the signs.

Nathan: Yeah, just like the same reason I go to work every day. Being prudent, needing to be prudent.

Pierre: I don't know Nathan if you listened to the previous show, but if this human-cosmic connection exists, and that's only a hypothesis, the more people who see reality objectively, the more truth they know and maybe the less the cosmic wrath. We might have an influence more than we think.

Nathan: Would it be safe to say Pierre, that we attract these cometary disasters by not being more of a good society of people, a community of people reaching out helping each other - when we're believing lies we attract destruction?

Pierre: Well it's a hypothesis.

Joe: That's the theory.

Pierre: In a nutshell, yeah it's probably...

Nathan: It can't any other way.

Pierre: It's probably on the quantum level that we might influence the probabilities of the collapse of this probabilistic wave and increase the probabilities of those cosmic issues, but yeah, historically there is a correlation between periods of oppression, lies and cosmic destructions. There is a very clear connection.

Nathan: You would think that the elites, with the Roman Empire, would at least have figured out that equation to some degree because they have a perfect example of what happened.

Pierre: Maybe some did. Maybe they figured it out, but what they did when they started to rebuild civilisation, they re-wrote history and they erased records of this connection. They created a scientist's paradigm where man's activities and cosmic activities were totally uncorrelated and they erased the records of any major catastrophes and so we are orphans of our history.

Joe: So there's this idea that at some level the elites maybe do know that but they're keeping quiet about it because they also figure that they don't have much concern for the human race and also they think their super bunkers two miles under mountains are going to protect them against it. I'm sure those kind of people don't blame themselves. They don't say "Listen, we are doing this. We are bringing on cosmic catastrophes." They don't think that far in advance. They think about themselves far too much.

Nathan: I don't think they do either.

Joe: They think far too much about themselves and their need to control and dominate, but there may be the few who realise as it starts to happen that there is a threat from cosmic catastrophe and they don't join the dots but they just see it as a threat and they've known about it for maybe x number of years and they just react in the moment to threats like that. So they build themselves some bunkers and think they're going to survive it, but they don't take into consideration earthquakes and the opening up of the earth and that no matter how far you go, you can build your tunnel under Mount Weather or something like that, big cracks can open up down there and your lovely new underground base can get all messed up with lots of lava. That would be terrible.

Nathan: I think so. And then they can emerge afterwards and cause all sorts of problems for people who are trying to just...

Niall: I think the answer to your question, does it depend to some extent on how well we live as a society? Is yes, but; the but is, that it's not in the same way that the powers that be are blaming the masses below them for global warming, bringing all this on.

Nathan: Right.

Niall: It's that most of the responsibility in this scenario shifts to the fact that we've got a pathological elite bearing down on the masses below them. So yes, people living well and a virtuous life is a major factor, but more importantly, it's the oppressive elites on top of that that's bringing this on, that is attracting this. It's not so much the people attracting it.

Nathan: You don't think that the biggest factor is the largest population of people buying into their lies though is the crux?

Pierre: Yes.

Nathan: Because they're not great in numbers.

Pierre: But maybe they only have part of the equation and they keep on blaming the people and for them the reasoning is as follows: okay there is a positive correlation between social unrest and cosmic destruction, therefore social unrest is because the uneducated masses tend to rebel and their inherent violence triggers cosmic reactions. But they miss out one main factor in this equation, i.e., the social unrest is simply a reaction to the oppression exerted by the elites. So they wash their hands of this major phenomenon.

Nathan: Yeah. But they don't actually acknowledge their responsibility for all the suffering of a great many people.

Joe: No. They think too well of themselves to think like that.

Nathan: And there's lots of people like this, who aren't even elite because the whole attitude of status and "I have to be unique. I have to be something special. I have to be like a psychopath at least in outward appearance. I have to put on that happy face and make a lot of money and have the status and pretend everything's fine and okay". And there's just a tremendous amount of people like that who aren't that particularly rich but would like to be, or hold it over other people.

Joe: But aspire to it, yeah. They've been ponerized. They've been infected.

Nathan: Infected, yeah. Okay.

Joe: Okay, well thanks for your call and your comments Nathan.

Nathan: I'm very happy to call in. I've always wanted to.

Niall: We appreciate it.

Joe: Don't be a stranger.

Nathan: Okay, absolutely.

Niall: It was great talking to you.

Nathan: Yeah, love your show. I love it a lot.

Niall: Thanks.

Pierre: Bye Nathan.

Nathan: Bye.

Niall: There's a study actually, that's recently out, that corroborates a lot of what we're saying, a lot more I think than the authors realised. I'll read out the headline. "Does climate change modulate human behaviour? Study finds that levels of violence increase during periods of climate change." I'm not going to read it all out, but they were looking over a long timeframe, 10,000 years. It's a Princeton study. It analysed 60 other studies from numerous disciplines: archaeology, criminology, economic psychology. And they were exploring the connection between weather and violence in various parts of the world from around 10,000 years ago to the present day. They found that while climate is not the sole or primary cause of violence, it undeniably exacerbates existing social tension in all societies regardless of wealth or stability.

Joe: They go into the specifics of climate change, i.e. like food scarcity, right?

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: They don't just say climate change. They say the reason there was social unrest was because climate change caused...

Niall: Because crops fail...

Joe: Exactly.

Niall: Supply and demand goes haywire, prices go up and down, there's increasing tension. And no matter what country in the world they were looking at, they found the same pattern. There's a quote from them. "We find exactly the same pattern over and over again regardless of whether we look at data from Brazil, Somalia, China or the U.S. We often think of modern society as largely independent of the environment due to technological advances but our findings challenged that notion. The climate appears to be a critical factor sustaining peace and well-being across human societies." And then a really interesting quote in passing: "The factors that interact with climate to produce chaos and discord are varied. A popular theory is that drought and flooding cripple an economy, especially one based on agriculture". That points to crop failures. "When people look for someone to blame, government leaders have a target on their backs." They saw that over and over again in history. Who gets the blame?

Joe: Well, they should get the blame...

Niall: Exactly.

Joe: ...when you've got centralisation of production of crops and animals and stuff. If people were living agrarian lives where they were looking after themselves, they wouldn't blame anybody because they would realise that they feed themselves. But when it's society or the government that controls the sources of food and feeding, or big corporations who need the government to control that, then who else are they going to blame? Because they have taken control and thereby taken responsibility for feeding the population and there's an unwritten contract there that 'okay, you're taking control of it, you're reaping massive profits from taking control of the food production sources'...

Niall: And therefore it's your responsibility.

Joe: Yeah, if you break that contract, i.e., stop feeding me, I'm going to blame you.

Niall: Yeah.

Pierre: And I think in recent history we've never been this technology-dependent. Centralisation exacerbates the problem. And technology is very sensitive. Centralised farming is very sensitive. In the past you had small units of production, localised, autonomous, independent; so one area is affected by cataclysm and collapse but other areas could go on. Today processes, production sites, storage sites, selling sites, are so interrelated, so interdependent that if one fails, most of the value chain fails. And technology, electronics, bridges, nuclear plants, are extremely environmentally sensitive. Fukushima for example. The dyke in Fukushima was six metres high because the historical records they checked were: the 1933 tsunami, they checked the 1896 tsunami and from that they deduced that the height of the dyke should be six metres. And when the tsunami occurred after this 9.0 magnitude earthquake, the tsunami was 14 metres high. So yeah sure, designing technology based on the past two centuries, in the cosmic sense, in a linear and stable environment, but when your two past centuries are part of a warm stable period that is not representative at all of the earth environment in general, your records are unreliable and your technology is not designed to face the environment that could be the one we experience in the near future.

Joe: On this solar storm kill shot that they've been talking about - whether or not there was one solar coronal mass ejection a couple of weeks ago that could have wiped out all of your iPhones and electrical grid; they refer to it as a Carrington class event. And that's from the 1859 solar storm that produced a coronal mass ejection that hit the earth's magnetosphere. But in 1859 that wasn't such a big problem. There were some telegraph poles at that time, but not across the world. So other than that, it created very little disturbance, people just saw nice auroras very far south. But of course today it would have a much more damaging, problematic effect on society because of what you've just said, because technology kind of controls pretty much whether or not we eat or whether a lot of people eat or not today.

But that's getting off the topic in a sense because we're not really concerned about solar storms or coronal mass ejections. Because you can have an EMP from an overhead cometary explosion.

Pierre: Yes.

Joe: Or an incoming cometary fragment or meteorite. But that would be the least of the worries because you'd not only have...

Niall: It's strange...

Joe: With EMP you would have the ablation of the land below. So not only would your iPhone not work, it would probably be broken into a million pieces and so would your house. And there might even be a giant crater downtown.

Niall: It's strange that they acknowledge the existence of a threat but go out of their way to point "over there", anywhere but where it actually is coming from. So for years we've been psychologically prepared for global catastrophe in the form of manmade climate change. Of course it's always projected 50 years into the future. So it's supposed to be a calming factor but; "We're going to terrorise you about this so take it easy. The solar flare, oh it could be big", but again...

Joe: Be afraid, but not so afraid that you lose the plot and go and burn Congress. Be afraid just enough to make you look to us for protection.

Niall: In the case of solar flares...

Joe: Thereby consolidating our position as your protectors.

Pierre: And in this article about the EMP Iranian weapon, they mention specifically yes, an Iranian rocket exploding high in the sky could trigger a massive EMP destroying 90% of the population, whatever. And this high in the sky was interesting because typically an overhead cometary explosion is focused high in the sky and triggers a lot of EMP effects. So to me, it sounds very probable that they're preparing the ground to cover up overhead cometary explosions and disguise them as Iranian attacks, rockets, anything manmade, because manmade means we the elites can control it; we can guarantee being the saviour to you the people, so you can keep on voting for us and keep on trusting us.

Joe: It's like a conditioning of the people's mind. It's almost like a mind programming in advance. So if they say it and they spread the idea out there, of a solar flare, EMP or Iranian rocket, Iranian EMP; if it gets into the mass psyche, if and when that happens, that will be the first thing that people will be willing to accept from the media as an explanation for what it was. It seems a bit farfetched that they would be able to really pass that off, if it was a meteorite or a cometary fragment that caused that because obviously, like we've just said, those kind of incoming space rocks don't just cause EMP effects. They very often ablate the landscape as in Tunguska, for example, where they knocked down trees over a 2,000 square kilometre area. And also the idea that it may not detonate in the atmosphere at all. It may just come on in for a more up close and personal experience.
But speaking of those things, we want to go back 10, 11, 12 years almost, to the 21st of September.

Niall: Way back in the mists of time.

Joe: 21st of September, 2001, another lifetime, when there was a huge explosion at the AZF fertiliser factory in Toulouse, France. This was a major explosion that was just 10 days after the 9/11 attacks. It was at a fertiliser factory that stored ammonium and there was 300 tons of ammonium nitrate at the facility. And it killed 29 people, most of them were in the factory or from the factory. And it was basically blamed on improper storage. It was a very vague explanation of why this facility suddenly blew up. "Just improper storage. Something happened. We don't know." And the report only came out a few years ago. It took years and years and years - typical French. By the time they released the report into the inquiry, you've gone insane waiting, so you can't read it anyway.

Niall: Just to give people an idea of how big this blast was: 29 people in the immediate vicinity were killed; up to 3,000 people were injured in the city of Toulouse. It was three kilometres away from the city. It's a big city and there were doors, shop windows, something like 70% of all the glass in the city had to be replaced.

Joe: Two-thirds of the city's windows were shattered causing 70 eye wounds. And how far is it from the actual city centre?

Niall: Three kilometres.

Pierre: It's a few kilometres south of the centre. Most of my friends were blasted.

Niall: Pierre's from Toulouse.

Pierre: Windows destroyed and they were blown away by the shock wave and they were kilometres away. So it was a massive explosion.

Joe: Massive, yeah. So the reason that we're bringing this up is because, apart from the topic that we've just been discussing, it also just suddenly occurred to us, we suddenly remembered this event and that it was a fertiliser factory, storing ammonium nitrate. And this made us immediately think of the explosion a few months ago near Waco, Texas, at another fertiliser factory that was storing ammonium. I'm not sure if it was ammonium nitrate but it was a type of ammonium fertiliser. And then also the gas plant explosion a few weeks ago in Florida. So we, kind of immediately, had a bit of an aha moment where we had forgotten about this because it's 12 years ago, we had forgotten about this explosion in Toulouse because as listeners will know, we have theorised and we've looked at the video from the Waco, Texas fertiliser explosion and it seems to us from the video that someone recorded, that something was incoming. Something entered that general area from above. Basically it was a space rock that hit in Waco and had the idea that the gas plant explosion in Florida was of a similar nature because that very night at about the very same time, right across from the Gulf of Mexico, there were a dozen or more reports from people from various different countries in the Caribbean and in Florida, of a fireball streaking across the sky, breaking up into pieces, etc. And then you have an explosion at a gas plant in Florida.

So we talked a little bit last week about the possible connection between, for example: fertiliser plants or chemical plants and the idea that they would possibly be targets for meteorites or space rocks. And Pierre has a theory.

Pierre: One hypothesis.

Joe: It's a hypothesis. Sorry, it's an assumption even. No, it's a hypothesis but just to try and understand why, if there is a connection between the two, why they might attract.

Pierre: Yeah, it exercised my mind because last week we talked about those meteorites hitting fertiliser plants again and again. And it was quite puzzling, so at the time we had some tentative explanations and I did some more research during the week. And it was during this research, I thought that in Toulouse at the AZF, it was a fertiliser plant as well. And I started to research the official story. The official story again, like 9/11, totally unbelievable, it's a complicated chemical reaction that cannot occur. So we can dismiss this official explanation right now. And often there is a double layer, there is a second rule of lies for the conspiracy theorists and allegedly, for the alternative media, the real culprit was terrorism. No wonder.

Joe: Was that the official report though?

Pierre: No, no, no. The official story was a complicated chemical reaction and the second rule, for the ones who dug a bit further and don't believe the official story, it was a terrorism attack, ten days after 9/11, the convenience of many helicopters that were around there and dropped some explosive charges. But then if you dig, you realise that: a) the 21st of September the earth was crossing the Pisces, not the Perseids, the Pisces, an asteroid swarm with intense shooting star activity and incoming meteorites; b) when you read the reports, some witnesses mention a light in the sky, fireballs; c) more than 800 witnesses mentioned two explosions, one that occurred eight seconds before the second one; d) according to experts that modelled the transmission of the shock wave, the first explosion did not occur where the plant was, but 3.5 kilometres above it; and e) dozens of witnesses mentioned lightning from the top of the chimney of the plant, vicious lighting coming from the top of the chimney to two points in the atmosphere, high above in the sky.

So that together suggests some cometary activity. And here is the assumption, the "theory": what was exercising my mind is why electric devices like major transformers or high tension electric lines don't attract cometary bombardments and chemical plants do. And actually one of the specifics of chemical plants is that they equate with those tall towers, those kinds of chimneys 40, 50, 100 metres tall. And with those chimneys, it's not only like an access pipe. Within those towers, there are chemical reactions going on. And when you produce fertiliser basically, the reaction that goes on in those big towers is, you transform ammonia, NH3 into ammonium, NH4+. And the by-product, what's released as fumes that go high in the sky, in the atmosphere, is NO3-. These are negative ions. So up those towers you have kilometres long electrically negatively charged fumes. And I realised then, unlike electric wires, power plants, these are like massive electrically charged antennae in the atmosphere. So it can be an attractor of incoming bodies.

Joe: That are positive themselves.

Pierre: Exactly. And that would explain why according to testimonies, the lightning didn't go from the top to the bottom. Lightning is electron circulation. So it goes from the most negative to the most positive, to balance the charge. But according to testimonies, indeed the v-shaped lightning went from the bottom, from the tower, to the clouds, to the sky, which would confirm this electric charge difference. And then you don't necessarily have to have an impact on earth. You can have just a discharge. The first explosion, 3.5 kilometres high, eight seconds before the second explosion, can be just the overhead cometary bodies discharging in the negatively charged plant, hence the lightning; lightning triggering massive explosions within the plant and with all those volatile, explosive gases and material; hence the crater that was witnessed in the middle of the plant, roughly. That's it in a nutshell. It's a plausible explanation. That fits well with the lightning, the double explosion. It makes sense.

Niall: What the eyewitnesses saw, that they saw this electric charge coming up and the two explosions they heard and some of them reported seeing a fireball.

Pierre: And they reported as well, very strong static. The breakers started breaking minutes before the impact. Some people got some discharges by touching the material of the plant. There was some kind of pre-connection, maybe, some kind of increase in the local charge in the plant before the discharge, before the connection.

Joe: Well I think it's a good theory.

Niall: It's fascinating.

Joe: And obviously the conclusion, if that theory is anywhere close to being correct, is that in this day and age with the increasing number of fireballs in our atmosphere, if you work in a fertiliser factory or live too close to one, you might want to consider changing your job or moving.

Niall: I think it's pretty interesting as well that the West, near Waco, explosion took place, a few days after the Boston bombings and this one took place 10 days after 9/11. I wonder if there's something there with the timing.

Joe: There might be. You never know, but you're getting off into weird science there.

Niall: Symbolically.

Joe: Yeah, well symbolism of course.

Pierre: There is some extra data about this AZF event concerning the lightning; the 164 testimonies mentioning the occurrence of lightning. There are several witnesses mentioning the fireball. And here I have the screenshots of the official declaration made in front of the police, so it's an official document. Several people working on the site mention they got electrocuted. And there you even have the electrophonics phenomenon which has been noticed during some cometary events. They describe an ultra-sharp whistling, like some firework rockets (makes sound). And the lightning was so powerful that one of the witnesses that worked near the site had his vision perturbated. He could only see in black and white for several days.

Joe: Wow.

Niall: I think I heard something similar with people who were near the Russian blast site. It affected their eyesight. I can't remember though for sure. It's very interesting.

Joe: Yeah, it's an interesting hypothesis and I think we will have to build on it as more data comes in.

Niall: It's getting into specifics, a specific local attractor. But to get back to the overall working hypothesis, Laura summed it up very well in a comment under the article I mentioned earlier. I was reading out from this Princeton study, looking at the correlation between social violence and climate change over thousands of years. And she goes further. The question in the headline asks "Does climate change modulate human behaviour?" Well Laura asked: "Does violent human behaviour attract cosmic disorder and planetary response? Is the rise of pathology in power the key element?" And then she sets out seven steps. So, stage one: psychopaths rise to power and inflict misery and suffering; stage two: the masses of humanity become unhappy and miserable but are forced to suppress this out of fear; stage three: the planet expresses the unhappiness of the masses in climate disorder which may be related to other cosmic processes; stage four: the climate issues exacerbate the fear and unhappiness of the masses; stage five: the psychopaths clamp down even harder; stage six: a breaking point is reached when humanity and the planet react to pathology and death and destruction on a massive scale levelling the playing field; and stage seven: the cycle begins with renewal of life. Human beings begin to learn to help each other to survive until psychopaths come along and subvert them again. The process begins anew.

Joe: That's what I was saying last week. I think that's pretty much the way it is and as I was saying last week, it suggests to me that the creation of a utopia or peace on earth; people need to get over that. It's not the point of life on planet earth. It's not our job and it's not only not our job but it's not possible. It's programmed into the system that it cannot be that way. That is not the end goal, or end result, or something to aspire to. So look for another reason why we are here and why these cycles seem to repeat and are programmed to repeat in the same way.
Speaking of psychopaths clamping down, I think that was stage six, right?

Niall: Stage five. It's late on.

Joe: Well we're obviously seeing that quite a lot these days. One thing that occurred to me is I've been noticing for the past few months, longer in fact, is the thuggish, brute nature of police, particularly in the U.S. There has been a real upswing in the numbers over the past few years, probably longer, maybe five, six years, certainly since 9/11, in incidents of ordinary police officers brutalising ordinary citizens for no good reason whatsoever. And it's interesting also that as far as I can tell, it seems to happen much more frequently in the U.S. than in other western countries. Certainly in European countries you see reports of this. I'm not aware of it happening quite so often, for example in the UK or in France or anywhere else really, you know? And I wonder is that indicative of it.

There was a story just recently. People probably know what we're talking about: cops beating children, punching children, tasering old men, tasering old women, tasering pregnant women. Just beating on people, taking them to police stations, people actually dying. In one case just from last week there was a 95-year-old man, a WWII veteran was killed. He's dead now, after police stormed into his retirement home with riot shields. They tasered him and shot him with bean bag rounds fired from shotguns. And apparently it was because he refused to undergo high risk surgery. He had something and he chose not to have the surgery because the doctors gave a very bad prognosis, that he might be on a respirator for the rest of his life after the surgery; a 95-year-old man. So for some reason they tried to force him to have the surgery. The hospital or the doctors or whatever decided to try and force him and they called in the police. And they arrived and they tasered him and that didn't work. Then they came back with riot shields and bean bag guns and they shot him with a bean bag gun. And the coroner said that he died from internal bleeding.

Niall: Well yeah!

Joe: Because he was shot with a bean bag gun. According to the Park Forest police department, the 95-year-old man had threatened officers with a two-foot long metal shoehorn and a cane that he was using to walk with but he was sitting down at the time. And he had a shoehorn. They turned a shoehorn into a deadly weapon that requires you to be tasered and shot with a bean bag gun even if you're 95 years old. So it's just horrible. It's almost every week that you have a report or something. And it's not just on YouTube, it's people who witness it themselves and it's not in the media. But it's also increasingly being covered by the actual mainstream media because they can't avoid it; police brutalising ordinary people. If what Laura has just said is true, if that cycle is true and that process is true, well then we're pretty much at the level of that precursor to disaster; where psychopaths have instituted a system where they are clamping down and tightening the screws on the population and it's in a very blatant way, like a police state.

Niall: And now it just remains to be seen how much people will take it. But there is a limit. Just like the climate, there's a narrow range of acceptability outside of which there's a breaking point.

Joe: You hear very often from different types of people, in the U.S. particularly, you hear them say that if you criticise the U.S. in any way or highlight these stories or say anything bad about America it's like "Well, if you don't like it here, go somewhere else" or more often you hear "Well you know America's still a democracy and in fact you're lucky that you're able to actually report on these things. You're lucky you're able to condemn the police because you still have freedom of expression. There's other countries where that kind of police brutality might happen but you're not allowed even to speak about it." But there's no difference between America today and many kind of dictatorships of old, past or present, that people refer to as a comparison, say "Look, you could be living in this dictatorship."

For example, under Stalinist Russia or communist Russia, supposedly you couldn't speak out or in China today, maybe you can't speak out about these things. But the thing about it is, is that the police state apparatus that is indicative of a dictatorship, is in place in America. For example, in a communist country or in China today, or whatever country you want to pick to hold up as this kind of example to set against the wonderfulness of America, in those countries people are aware that they have to bow their heads and keep their heads down because of this threat from the state itself. And they know that, obviously. In America, it's no different, except that what the American government and the American elite have done is that they have shifted that threat from the government itself to an external threat. And they have used that external threat to impose exactly the same police state policies and infrastructure on the American people. It's very sneaky and very cunning in a way because it puts the people in this kind of state of psychological splitting, in the sense that they still look at their government and are able to plausibly claim or see that it isn't the government doing this. The government is still 'on our side' but the government's simply being forced to impose these police state, authoritarian, dictatorial infrastructures into society...

Niall: Yeah. The government has no...

Joe: ...because of the external threat. If people understood the external threat is created by the government itself; it's just a proxy created by the government to do exactly the same thing as they would like to do directly, as all other dictatorships have done, well what's the difference? There is no difference. You're being cowed by a threat. It's not from the state itself overtly. It's from an external threat.

Pierre: Going back to the dynastic cycle, there's a feedback loop that didn't start yet and it should have started. Soon, we believe, that when people start to realise the cosmic mayhem that we are experiencing and start to see fireballs in the sky daily, major cosmic and earthly disruptions, they will start to look at the elites who are supposed to be responsible. And it will increase the social unrest and that will increase the violent reaction of the elites and the violence, which is a modulator we believe, of those cosmic reactions. So you're going to have even more cosmic activity, even more social unrest and even more oppression. We've not started this cycle yet. I think it's one of the most powerful feedback loops in this whole cycle. So when people start to become aware that all of this phenomenon is not unrelated, they are related, they start to realise those phenomena are not manmade, they are cosmically induced, when they start to realise those phenomena are not benign, they are major and they're deadly, you will have a high level of stress, total freak-out. And you will have this hysterization, this violence, these rebellions and very severe measures taken by the elites to worsen the whole situation.

Niall: I think we're already there.

Joe: Yeah.

Niall: This attitude of "Well if you don't like it, take a hike buddy" comes from the top down. When Obama's confronted with this current issue they have to deal with, the NSA leaks, he says smarmily "I'm really glad we're able to have this discussion in America because isn't it just great." And the crowd goes "woo-woo-woo-woo-woo".

Joe: "Isn't it great that we can discuss all the evil things that we are doing, all of the brutalisation of you the people. Isn't it great that we can put a young guy, Bradley Manning, in prison for probably 90 years for exposing the fact that we, the U.S. government..."

Niall: Created the war on terror.

Joe: Well, has been involved in war crimes, has murdered literally millions of people over the past 10 or 15 years. "Isn't it great that we can do that and also talk about it? Isn't it great that we can talk about this? That I, the President can carry out all of these draconian, dictatorial policies, how I can fleece you the people of your wealth, how I can wage wars and murder millions of people in your name, and have you accept it and all of us just get together and talk about it? Isn't that great that we can talk about it? Okay, well nothing changes, but isn't it good that we can talk about it? Is that not something to take away from it? When I put you all in FEMA camps, in prison and feed you gruel every day, wouldn't it be good that I can come down and talk to you about the fact that we've done that? That you can express to me how you don't like it in that prison camp? Or how when you can't feed your kids because I've robbed you, isn't it so great that you can tell me that? Doesn't that make you proud to be an American because you can tell me and I can go uh-huh, you're right."

Pierre: And keep on doing it.

Joe: "But it's good." Freedom of speech to say whatever you want and have nothing done about it. Good luck with that one.

Pierre: Interestingly, the number of U.S. citizens that gave up their citizenship...

Niall: Increasing.

Pierre: Yeah, by six [percent] between 2012 and 2013. So I think it's quite symbolic and means something.

Niall: It's still only a few people.

Pierre: Yes sure, but it's a strong increase. So it means at least within the mind already, there's a growing number of people who, obviously, are becoming aware that the U.S. is not the great democracy as is usually described and depicted in the mainstream media. A few people are opening their eyes, so there's a small positive note within a global gloomy situation.

Joe: And Yemen.

Niall: Well, you remember last week it was unprecedented in itself, the U.S. government announced they would shut 19 embassies for one day. Well they ended up keeping them closed for the whole week. Again, that's even more impressive. And in the meantime they've been massively bombing, stepping up drone strikes in Yemen, Pakistan, but particularly in Yemen.

Joe: Drone strikes, yeah. Why are they bombing Yemen? Does anybody know?

Niall: Oh, they have some vague reference to...

Joe: No, the real reason. Why do they keep attacking Yemen? It's in the news all the time. Just a few days ago a drone killed 30 people and they fired a drone missile at a school.

Niall: I don't know...

Joe: And of course they say they're suspected Al Qaeda terrorists who were targeted, blah, blah, blah. But that's not actually true. If you go and read reports from people on the ground and it's ordinary people, women and children.

Niall: I think it's to make real the threat they've just issued.

Joe: So why did they pick Yemen?

Pierre: Maybe the regime is...

Joe: It's not just Yemen, it's Pakistan as well.

Niall: Well they've got a massive, massive centre of operations in Djibouti, next door.

Joe: Well the U.S. military has a big military and naval base off the coast of Yemen on that island of Socotra, which is that island with the dragon blood trees. It's a very unique environment. And there's 55,000 people living there who are of Yemeni extraction. But the U.S. military a couple of years ago started building a major naval base there. In Yemen the impression I get is that it's obviously with the connivance of the Yemeni government, who are really just the descendents of the colonial puppet royalty that was in Yemen for a long time, up until its independence in 1950-something. Basically, it was a British colony.

And there was obviously a lot of social problems in Yemen. They have a lot of poor people and the source of what they claim is the Al Qaeda threat, is essentially a pretty well entrenched and longstanding movement for social justice in Yemen. And these are called Al Qaeda operatives. It seems to me, that it's with connivance, not only of the Yemen government but also with the Saudi government, which is right next door. The Saudi government has been involved in attacking in the north of Yemen, this group, I can't remember their name.

But they've basically been clamouring for a long time against the ruling elite in Yemen. And the Saudi government supplied arms and weapons to the Yemen government to fight against them. It has been for many years because the Saudis were afraid that any kind of a socially progressive or socialist kind of group would gain traction or power in Yemen and stand as an example and the infection, as they say, would spread over to Saudi, the best buddies of the Americans. So it seems to me that a lot of these drone strikes, at least one possible reason or part of the reason that these groups of people have been targeted in Yemen, civilians, these people are basically social agitators. Al Qaeda is commie, right? Everything that was done in the name of fighting the commies from 1945, basically until 1990, was the U.S. and other countries going around the world killing commies, fighting commies, but what they were actually fighting was any kind of socially progressive movement in those countries that would have threatened U.S., and to a lesser extent, British and French imperial interests in those countries, i.e., the wealth of those countries. That was true for all the overt wars, Vietnam for example.

But all of the covert operations that the CIA were engaged in "fighting commies" was basically fighting ordinary people who are clamouring for social justice and against the corruption of the ruling elite. So that has been changed now to Al Qaeda. So in most cases today, Al Qaeda operatives that are killed, behind the headlines there are ordinary people who are progressive and are inclined to fight for social justice in that particular country. That's who's being fought against. That's who's being killed. That's who's being bombed with drones. So I think that's part of what's going on in Yemen.

I think that explanation actually explains an awful lot as to why the U.S. attacks any country.

Pierre: Yeah, that's my take on it. Usually the U.S. attacks anti-American groups. If the government is not pro-American and pro-Israel enough, like in Libya or Syria, they try to destitute the government by directly funding what they call rebel groups or directly attacking the government. And if in the country, the population is not pro-American enough, there are some rebellion movements; then indirectly they fund the pro-American government and/or directly they start destroying the rebellion movement. It's basically spreading the pro-imperialist paradigm in the whole world.

Niall: Obama justified it by saying "We still have these regional organisation like Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula that can pose a threat; that can potentially drive a truck bomb into an embassy wall and can kill some people."

Joe: Right.

Niall: So that's, retrospectively justifying closing the embassy first based on some nebulous threat and then bombing the shit out of people and saying "Well, we do that because they might have done this."

Joe: Yeah. Minority Report.

Niall: It's all from this paranoid mindset that's running the country.

Joe: I don't even know if it's paranoia. It's just pure bullshit that they make up.

Niall: I think it ties in to the NSA leaks as well, that the purpose of this terror scare was just to silence criticism of what the NSA's doing.

Joe: Yeah, they're so transparent it's ridiculous.

Niall: You've got republican and democrat senators, they're like the Greek chorus for Obama here, Senator Saxby Chambliss from Georgia. Here's a quote: "There's an awful lot of chatter out there. If we didn't have these programs - NSA spying on everyone - then we simply wouldn't be able to listen in on the bad guys.

Joe: The bad guys. It's the goodies and the baddies. Are people that simpleminded that they believe that infantile explanation? The baddies are going to get you? Maybe they'll start firing drones into people's houses, through their bedroom windows and start blowing up their closets because the boogie man was there.

Pierre: Developing EMP weapons.

Joe: They'll have police raiding people's houses and overturning their beds, you know, the hunt for the boogie man living under your bed. And people will go "Okay".

Niall: I think they raided someone's house last week. The guy's wife was home. He was out. They were looking for the husband because he'd done a google search for a pressure cooker. On the strength of that.

Pierre: Stop making broth.

Joe: Yeah, they're trying to stop people making bone broth, yeah. That's how far it's gone.

Pierre: Major threat.

Joe: Anyway, I think we're going to leave it there this week because we've overrun our time and we hope you all enjoyed the show. Thank you to our callers and thank you to our chatters. Don't be chatting too much because you know that kind of chatter can get you in trouble, as we've seen; the NSA is listening to your chatter.

Niall: I think you should do the opposite. You should chatter everything and every opportunity you get.

Joe: Yes. A chatter war.

Niall: Terrorists, Al Qaeda, Pakistan, Bomb, Brooklyn Bridge.

Pierre: Pressure cooker.

Joe: Pressure cooker. Bone broth.

Niall: Overload them with data.

Joe: So thanks for listening guys and thanks for our callers and our chatroom where people are always very active and very informative and very interesting. So next week, tentatively, we are going to have an interview with Francesco Carotta who is the author of a book on a topic we've discussed before.

Pierre: Jesus was Caesar. That's the title of the book.

Joe: It's called: Jesus was Caesar. So we'll be re-visiting that topic next week with the author of probably one of the best books on the topic. So we hope you can join us.

Pierre: It's not 100% sure but it's very likely that Francesco Carotta will be with us next Sunday. He's sick. He's very busy so hopefully he recovers and I hope he will be with us next Sunday.

Joe: Until then, thanks for listening and keep the faith.

Niall: See you next week.

Pierre: Have a nice week guys.