Image
On this week's SOTT Talk Radio show we took a closer look at the latest developments in the never-ending 'war on terror' and the origins of the latest 'Islamic terror' bogeymen - ISIS. We delved (figuratively of course) into a new twist on the 'knicker bomber': the 'intrarectal terrorist bomb threat' that has appeared, on cue, for summer holiday season and is promising to make airport transitions as invasive (literally) as possible for millions of holiday-makers (the paedophilic elite can barely contain their glee!).

We also looked at the latest "global warming" data, and analysed the spectacular mental gymnastics that 'climate scientists' have been engaging in to explain the inexplicable. Speaking of the 'weather', we discussed the recent record-breaking flooding on every continent; 'haildrifts' up to 3 feet high being ploughed off streets in Tokyo, Spain, Istanbul and Mexico; and tornadoes touching down in the very unlikely locales of Norway, Sweden, Greece and Algeria.

From the stark increase in African immigrants risking horrific conditions (and their lives) on 'salvation seeking' boat rides to Italy that heralds an 'immigration crisis' for Europe, to the ongoing pedophilia in 'high places' scandal in the UK, the latest on the situation in Ukraine and the hard data linking fracking to earthquakes in the USA, we discussed all this and more on this week's Sott Talk Radio show!

Running Time: 02:08:00

Download: MP3


Here's the transcript:

Joe: Hi, and welcome to another SOTT talk radio. I'm Joe Quinn and my co-hosts this week are Pierre Lescaudron.

Pierre: Hello.

Joe: Niall Bradley.

Niall: Hey everyone.

Joe: This week we are talking about the general state of the world and the particular topics that have come to our attention, not just this week but over the past few weeks I suppose, and that we think really need to be talked about because many of them are outrageous for various different reasons.

Niall: They're outrageous and no one has quite expressed the outrage...

Joe: Yeah.

Niall: ...we feel about them so we're going to do it ourselves {laughter}.

Joe: Yeah, it's all a bit muted so obviously you can't expect much from the mainstream media, but even alternative news websites and bloggers and stuff don't really seem to be getting, or certainly are not expressing, just how crazy things are on the planet right now in all spheres across the board really. And I suppose maybe that's understandable because it is across the board and there are so many different topics, so many different areas of life on this planet that are screwed up. It can be maybe overwhelming for some people maybe to really just take it all in and try and make sense of it because a lot of it doesn't make any sense.

Pierre: What was the most outrageous event you witnessed over the last few days, the thing that really made you 'wow'?

Joe: Well, it's hard to pick one. It's because all of it stems from the same feckless insanity, if that's a proper description of the powers-that-be or the authorities, and the way that they are handling things and the things that they say and what they're doing and what they have done. They're sowing the seeds and they're reaping a whirlwind now and they're trying to pretend it doesn't exist basically. So it's across the board.

Pierre: One or two other points you mentioned that sowing the seeds that they're reaping. So the consequence of the past, it might be some factors linked to the future or so, if we take into account this cosmic information field hypothesis that transcends time, one could wonder if the PTB's, the psychopaths in power, don't sense at least on an unconscious level what is coming. And as an unconscious reaction they're exerting even more power, even more control because they have this fear of losing and the sense they will lose it.

Niall: That sounds about right. And it's producing bizarre results.

Joe: Yeah, maybe it's that then but it seems to me it has to be unconscious, like you said, because they just feel that something is going on, something is slipping away.

Niall: The way an animal feels instinctively...

Joe: Yeah.

Niall: ...when the wind is blowing slightly differently

Pierre: It's ironic in a sense that if the human-cosmic connection hypothesis is valid, it means that by exacting even more power, even more injustice, they increase the cosmic reaction that they sense, that triggered them to exert more control so you have a feedback loop here that is detrimental.

Joe: For everybody but especially the ordinary people of this world because they're the ones who are subjected to these ridiculous policies and the continuing violence and attempts to control that generally result in some form of violence against the ordinary people of this world. If it's not direct violence against human bodies it's violence against basic human rights. Here I'm thinking of the most recent scare about bombs on planes and stuff that probably a lot of people are immune to it or they've been subjected to it so often over the past 10 or 12 years since 911 that they probably just see it as more of the same and they just kind of keep their heads down and put up with it but it's the terror threat on planes that comes just in time for the summer holiday season. People travelling on planes a lot more frequently than usual and they've instituted, particularly in the UK and the US, transatlantic flights for people going between these two extra special countries in the world right there at the top of the pyramid.

Niall: 'Special Relationships'

Joe: Psychopathic assholes, they're up there at the top and they're the ones who has instituted these stricter controls at airports where you get an extra special aggressive grope from your friendly TSA agent or whatever he's called at immigration in the UK. It's based on the old scary terror tactic of hiding bombs on their persons, and in discreet places, and threatening to blow them up over the Atlantic. It's such a psychological kind of manipulation and fear-based ploy to do this, particularly on airplanes, a place where people will be extremely vulnerable.

Pierre: True, and at the same time if you're a terrorist and we see all those security measures applied in airports, you're wondering if you have a little bit of in-fighting among your terrorists, are you going to blow a bomb in a place that has less control like in a shopping mall, in a school, in any public place with less regulations. Or one could wonder how the terrorists are so stupid that they manage to engineer all those devices, all those bombs and go through all the security checks. They're very intelligent in a sense but they're very stupid because they put their bombs in the most secure places, airplanes, so there's a kind of paradox here.

Joe: Yeah, the most recent one we're talking about is tied to this whole ISIS situation in Iraq where this supposed group of Jihadi nutcases has taken over Iraq. And there's one terror mastermind, an evil genius as he's actually been described by US intelligence. They actually used the words 'Evil Genius'. It's straight out of a Hollywood movie. That term 'Evil Genius' just hits people where they've been infected with it via Hollywood movies and they recognize that 'evil genius, oh yeah, I've seen that on a movie, he's an evil genius'.

Niall: The other term he keeps using is 'The Mastermind'.

Joe: Yeah, the 'Terror Mastermind'.

Niall: 'The Brains behind it all'.

Joe: So this ISIS guy is a chemist. What is he called? Doesn't matter what his name is really because he's kind of insignificant.

Niall: It kind of does because it ties in with the theme, Asiri.

Joe: al-Asiri yeah. So he's a chemist, surgeon, terrorist-chemist-surgeon...

Pierre: Mastermind?

Joe: ...genius mastermind and supposedly he has associations with this ISIS group in Iraq and he's been possibly, according to intelligence agencies, training different people to either surgically implant or forcefully implant bombs on their person so they can get through airports scanners and blow up a plane. Now there's no evidence for it what-so-ever but they put it out there all over the place and then institute these stricter controls at airports on the basis of no evidence what-so-ever, just basically scaremongering and hearsay. But people are obviously effected directly by it because people in UK airports are waiting for 2 hours to get through it and getting groped repeatedly on their way to the US or coming from the US to Europe.

Pierre: I have a question at this point. If I understood correctly, the scanners have some color code systems and for each different substance, each different chemical, there is a specific color on the screen. And it's full body scanners, so how come this guy managed to design a bombing device that would not appear on full body scanners?

Niall: He hasn't, it's all completely...

Joe: There's no evidence for it, it's all conjecture.

Niall: It was an intelligence suggestion from the US to the UK. Literally two lines. That's all that got reported in the UK media: "A tough new security regime was imposed on passengers after American intelligence suggested that Al Qaeda was plotting to use western fanatics to bring down a US plane." That's it. That's the extent of it. And then the media filled in the gaps because this guy al-Asiri in the past has been associated with surgically implanted bombs..

Pierre: Really?

Joe: Well no, again it's all hearsay, it's all made up, there's no evidence for it. They make lots of claims about him that he was associated with the famous underwear bomber. That was one of his projects where he got this young Nigerian guy Abdulmutallab to get on a plane from Amsterdam to Detroit in 2009. And this guy supposedly tried to detonate the explosives in his underpants with a match or something and all it did was kind of fizzle a little bit and set his pants on fire. And this was big, big news at the time and it was this chemist, surgeon, Al Qaeda ISIS mastermind who carried this operation out. And of course there are lots of serious questions about that event in the sense that there were reports that he was escorted to the airplane without a passport by a well-dressed man in a suit and put on the plane with no passport and apparently no ticket either. So, somehow Al Qaeda was able to get past the Schiphol airport security and get this guy on the plane. And then not far from the destination he decided to light his underpants on fire and a Dutch guy who was in a seat near him watched him do this. He looked around and smelled smoke and he looked around and saw this guy just sitting there with his pants on fire. And the guy said the purported underwear bomber was just sitting there with this blank stare looking into nothing, into space while his pants were on fire.

Pierre: Which suggests mind control?

Joe: It suggests that there was something seriously wrong with the guy. Apart from his ill-fated attempt, his feckless attempt to bomb the plane. It was never going to work because of the actual way that it was constructed. It was impossible for it to actually explode. The only thing it was going to do was set his pants on fire with quite a lot of effort, even at that. He apparently was in some seriously dissociated state in the sense that you can argue mind programming or something like that. But anyway, this chemist guy who's now bringing fear back to western civilians or western European and American civilians through the renewed bomb threat, it's gone a little bit further. No pun intended in the sense that the new threat is not just that the bomb would be in the underpants but that the bomb would be inserted into the terrorist's rectum. And in this way they would be able to pass security. It's actually interesting because again they cite this terrorist, chemist surgeon. You know, he's probably got lots of other qualifications as well.

Niall: In fairness to the British media, one of the first questions I had was how big a bomb can they put up there? And they had an expert on and he said you could get up to 3 kilos up there.

Joe: Yeah.

Niall: With enough help.

Joe: With enough helpers. But the thing is, they associate this guy who concocts these plots, supposedly with a bombing in 2009 in Saudi Arabia where a Saudi prince [Saudi Arabia's Prince Mohammed bin Nayef] was supposedly the target of a bombing and it was a rectum bomb at the time. So he hid it in his body cavity i.e. up his backside supposedly and waited in line to see this prince and he apparently got through all the security checks and he detonated the bomb. And this was actually the terrorist mastermind chemist, ornithologist, whatever other qualification he has.

Pierre: Proctologist?

Joe: Proctologist as well obviously. This was his brother who blew himself up supposedly in Saudi Arabia in 2009 and tried to kill a Saudi Prince. The Saudi Prince was uninjured. He got quite close to him and he was uninjured because, as everyone said at the time, the intended victim escaped because the bomber's body appears to have suppressed the force of the blast.

Pierre: Exactly.

Joe: Duh! And Prince Nayef is the name of the Saudi guy who was supposedly targeted, he appeared on TV with two little Band-Aids around his two fingers, I think that was the extent of his injuries or I think he cut himself on a piece of glass or something. He said that "he surprised me by blowing himself up."

Pierre: Oh yeah?

Joe: Yes, so he was surprised {chuckle}. And so this is the history, this is the foundation, or the evidence for there being a threat to the entire western civilization from butt bombers; can we call them that? I don't know, Jihadi Butt Bombers. And this is the precedent for it where it seems it's been proven that if you stick explosives up your backside and then detonate them, you're just going to blow yourself up mainly and not do much damage to anyone else. For lots of anatomical reasons where you can't really get much up there and for mechanical reasons, you're not going to do that much damage. But, apparently this is still a good idea, having experimented with it in this way allegedly, they don't believe that this is what happened but anyway let's say that this is what happened, they experimented with it and it did no damage cause the force of the blast is contained in the body and it doesn't really do anything interesting to anybody. So this guy thinks that that was a good experiment and a successful test run of it and he's now a threat and he's threatening to do it again, or the threat is there that he could do it again according to western intelligence agencies.

Pierre: And what is an interesting analysis, I noticed you mentioned that the underwear bomber was brought through the security barriers by a well-dressed man in Schiphol airport. And if I correctly remember, Schiphol airport security kind of has a specific history.

Joe: Yeah, there's the specific history of the security at Schiphol airport being run by an Israeli security company, the same security company that was running security at Boston Logan.

Niall: ICTS.

Joe: Yeah, at Boston Logan airport on 911. And there are various different things that have happened through Schiphol Airport. I think there was this chemist guy who was supposedly behind a printer cartridge bombing scare a few years ago and I think that came through Schiphol Airport or was routed through Schiphol Airport. So yeah, it's very coincidental and interesting that people can pass through these airports really.

Pierre: It's a sad story actually because you have some Israeli operated company including this security company working for Schiphol Airport that ends up escorting this Muslim bomber who probably targets the good white and Christian and Jewish population, so, it's tragic.

Niall: Well, except that he doesn't actually. It's just a big terror plot scare story. Holiday makers in the UK and the US, if you haven't yet gone on holidays and you intend to fly anywhere, this is what you have to look forward to. Forget the X-ray scanners, they're already there. No, what you have to look forward to is more vigorous body searches. Clothing and shoes will be swabbed for traces of explosives. You will now be required to turn on your mobile phones, laptops and any other electronic devices as you pass through security. And, you're going to do it all twice. That's right they're going to do two rounds of checks.

Joe: Yeah, and if anything is discovered suspicious on your body you can be subjected to a strip search i.e. you can have an anal probe basically by your friendly immigration officer so As someone mentioned to me recently, it's kind of like getting into that area where the mythological alien anal probing that abductees are supposedly subjected to has come down to Earth {laughter}. But part of this whole scare business is as you know with the whole ISIS thing, and ISIS is a marauding band of bloodthirsty bearded Jihadist taking over half the Middle East, unopposed apparently, mysteriously. And also a major part of the fear from the west is Western 'radicalized', as they call them, British or American citizens who have gone to Syria and have come back and do this kind of thing carrying out bombings and stuff. There's an interesting story actually. You see this over and over again. How do they all get there? Well they just go there. But why won't they stop them? Well, because I don't know why they don't stop them. Blunders is usually the answer, it's a blunder.

There was a story just recently of a young guy from Cardiff who, he's only 17 years old, went to Syria just in the past few months. He followed his brother there and his brother was known to have gone there. So the British Police, British kind of Intel agents were on his case. So they interviewed him, took the younger brother in for questioning. He had been going to Mosques and doing radicalized stuff like that. So they took his passport away and obviously were keeping a close eye on him but he then just went along to the local passport office and applied for a new passport, got one and left on a plane. So they apparently, even after subjecting someone to this intense scrutiny and taking his passport away, they're still unable somehow to stop people like that from going to join Jihadist in Syria which supposedly is a major threat to the western civilization but they're somehow being allowed or able to go to Syria, so they're not willing or they're unable to put in any real controls to stop that kind of thing happening. But, they're able to stall ordinary innocent British and American citizens at airports for hours on end and give them intensive body searches. So there seems to be a bit of a problem there.

Pierre: The passport thing reminds me of Mohammed Merah. You know Mohammed Mehra was a Toulouse shooter. He was the prototype of the Jihadist, allegedly who went to the Middle East, got some training there and came back in his initial country, France, and generated chaos there. And what was interesting in that moment, Merah, while checking his history, appeared that he'd gone to Afghanistan but also had gone to Israel. But you know to be able to go to Afghanistan and then to Israel you need two passports because you cannot go to those two countries when being a traveler. So people who have two passports usually are secret agency members.

Niall: Yeah.

Pierre: So, is it really people who spontaneously join Jihadi training camps or they're also some intelligence assets that are sent there and brought back to their home country to create chaos and spread fear and give more opportunities to the elites to enforce unacceptable measures because in the end it's body searching, cavities, it's quite symbolic. It's almost the most intimate breach of the deepest, no pun intended, of intimacy. And even the timing, maybe I'm paranoid but right before the holidays it sounds like okay, you have been slaves, you work all year long and even your few weeks of hard earned holidays, we will spoil them. You're going to have to wait for hours and all the aspects of your intimacy will be breached, invaded. That's a humiliation.

Niall: Yeah. The link I drew is that, you've got the powers that be desperate to hang onto control and this is like a literal manifestation of it. They sense that they're losing control. So they literally, through their agents, the TSA and whoever else, they literally grope people more as a reaction. Oh, they're slipping away. Okay, let's grab them some more.

Joe: Yeah. We might have a call on the line here. Hi, do we have a call on the line?

Caller: Yeah, how you doing.

Joe: Yeah, what's your name and where're you calling from?

Ken: Yeah, this is Ken from West Virginia.

Pierre: Hi Ken.

Ken: When you were talking earlier about going to the airport and having your shoes swabbed and all this type of stuff and I know you lads from Ireland will remember the legendary glycerin test and Frank Skuse and the Birmingham Six and the story was that he swore up and down that this test detected only nitroglycerin and these lads were on the train playing cards and their glycerin coated cards and so you can imagine, I guess, nobody can get on the airplane or if they're playing cards or anything like that, that's a real serious factor to consider so that's how crazy it is.

Joe: Yeah, absolutely. It's because this new inter-rectal bombing threat thing that they're talking about, it's been said that one of the ways that they can carry the explosives is inside sausage casing. So that's the lining of a pig's stomach or whatever or...

Pierre: Intestines.

Joe: Intestines. So if they start testing for that anybody who's been to the butchers and has a sausage or something...

Ken: Yeah.

Joe: ...they're going to be subject to invasive searches because you maybe are a crazy bomber. Yeah, that's a good point Ken.

Ken: Yeah, because that was very famous. It sticks in my mind that big fat guy Frank Skuse strolling up the stairs to the courthouse and swearing up and down that that detected nitroglycerin and only nitroglycerin and those guys were playing cards and it came off on the cards. Of course he could have just as easily falsified and lied anyway.

Pierre: Yeah. Your point, Ken, reminds me also of the fact that for decades now drug smuggling has been using all kind of techniques including using the body as a place to hide drugs and using the rectum as a hiding place is a well-known trick and the border authorities, the police knows about it and have been conducting body searches and then the drug smugglers realize that. And now you have cases of smugglers swallowing plastic bags with huge quantities of drugs. How will they cope with a terrorist who instead of using the bomb the way we depicted it, would swallow it?

Ken: Well they'll have to cut us open and what do you think?

Joe: Yeah, exactly, yeah {laughs}.

Pierre: Yeah.

{Group Laughter}

Niall: You sir, step over here please.

Ken: Yeah, you know, they'll come up with like a keyhole surgery. They'll give you a local anesthetic and drill a hole and stick a little probe in there and then...

Joe: Yeah.

Ken: ...and put a Band-Aid over it and some modern surgical things. Alright, well that's my comment.

Joe: Alright, Ken. Thanks.

Niall: Thanks for calling, bye-bye. Alright, just in case anyone thinks this is just a blip on the radar, the hysteria will calm down, don't worry, the Deputy Prime Minister of the UK said, "This will be a permanent feature. We live in a new world now and more vigorous airport searches are going to be permanent."

Joe: Yeah, absolutely. I just want to get back to this ISIS business and stuff because they're really ramping that up.

Niall: There was a sensible reason for introducing this.

Joe: Yes. It's directly tied to it. It's on the back of it. It's been going on for the past couple of months and the ISIS business is on the back of the Syria business that has been going on. While very few, or no mainstream media outlets are actually making that direct connection of ISIS in Iraq, basically came from Syria. That's generally the case. That's where they came from and obviously have to factor in then all of the support that western governments, in particular the US and their client regimes in the Middle East like the Saudis and the Qataris, all the support they have been giving to the Syrian rebels over the past three or four years since this phony Syrian revolution started. So, essentially, ISIS is the child of western and western plant regimes in the Middle East. It's their brain child and they've supported, they've nurtured, they've created it and they essentially allowed it to enter Iraq and do what it's been doing. And even a few weeks ago in response to this, "Oh, this ISIS business, what are we going to do?" Obama has asked Congress for $500 million to support more moderate rebels in Syria and people in Iraq and to give this money to the US military to give it to other people in Syria. This is the result.

This is what I was talking about in terms of the fecklessness, the ridiculousness of the situation. Where they create this situation themselves and then essentially their response is to throw more money at it and to make it worse, to make it look like it's not their fault. It's not their responsibility. And at the same time, use it to try and terrorize western populations into giving up more of their freedoms. And they continue on with this ISIS business and in the news recently there have been stories about them wanting to establish a new Caliphate. Officially what they want to establish, supposedly is the Rashidun Caliphate, which was a Muslim Caliphate in that area in the 7th century and it spanned all of Saudi Arabia, basically from the Mediterranean. So all of Israel, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and went over into the north of Egypt and across the Maghreb over into Morocco even, and then also across taking in Iran and Kazakhstan and, ultimately, right over into South East Asia. So this is supposedly where they're going. This is the new bogeyman and it's not just a bunch of guys hiding out in a cave in Afghanistan who threaten our freedom and democracy. It's a new empire. The Caliphate was an empire spanning a large part of the Middle East and South East Asia.

This is what we're being told. This is what they claim, supposedly, that these are the guys who are being funded by western intelligence agencies to essentially say this to scare people. Because it's kind of interesting, in 2004, under the Bush administration, the National Intelligence Council, which is the grouping of all the intel agencies in the US, came up with a report and they predicted that in the year 2020 there would be a new Caliphate that extended across the areas that I just described and that these ISIS people are now saying they want to establish it. And they're demanding that all Muslims in these areas bow down to them and give allegiance to them. And so the US intelligence, National Intelligence Council said in 2004 that in 2020 this would be a reality. But they based their prediction, not on any actual evidence. They didn't provide any evidence to say why this would happen in 2020, at that time 16 years later. They presented it in the form of a fictional letter from Bin Laden's grandson to a member of his family saying that this is what we plan and have now. Essentially, we have this Caliphate. It was a ridiculous kind of fairy story. They didn't even try and make it sound real. They admitted that this was a fictional scenario, but we're using this idea, this concept to try and convey what we believe will happen. The report was called mapping the global future, a hypothetical letter from Bin Laden's grandson to a family member in 2020.

So the question there is how are we meant to interpret that now and how did they get it so right? This is 10 years after that report, mapping the global future by US intelligence, and 10 years later we're seeing that what they predicted about Bin Laden's grandson is actually at least being said or demanded by this group of modern jihadist. But they had no evidence for it. So how did they get it so right?

Pierre: Maybe because they engineer it.

Joe: Partially.

Pierre: Today, we can say Maghreb with those fake or the phony spring revolutions in the Middle East. We can treat it like Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the western powers have been systematically overthrowing democratically secular regimes in Arab countries and putting in power Wahhabis extremist, jihadist regimes.

Niall: Well, they weren't democratic, but go on.

Pierre: Or in some cases at least.

Niall: No, none.

Pierre: None?

Niall: No {laughs}.

Pierre: Anyway today we can start to say that the US is implementing the development of radical regimes in our countries. So they're creating this.

Joe: Yeah. But they're not using them.

Niall: Partially. They don't create this completely out of whole cloth. I think what they realize is that a long time ago they saw that there's a natural sort of, so to speak, undercurrent of integration in the Islamic world. Islam is a religion. It's also really a political program and I think a lot of moderate Islamic people, certainly the mantra coming through the Iranian revolution, is that the end goal for the Iranian visionaries would be that their type of moderate Islamic rule would span all Islamic countries. I think the US tapped into that, realized that's happening anyway and just sought to subvert that natural process of integration by inserting this extreme element such that they could hold up Bin Laden as a caricature of this natural tendency towards integration and then do what they will to it. Invade, insert jihadists, and make deals. And they got cooperation from the Gulf States because they're partly seeing the same vision too. They're buddy, buddy with the American plan to the extent that, at the end of it, it's going to be bye-bye America. That's what I think. Turkey as well, Turkey has dreams of being the center point for this Islamic Caliphate that spans most of the former region of the old Islamic Caliphate. So I think that's part of the internal power politics and why they're with the Americans and then suddenly distrustful and the Americans are tapping into that.

Pierre: Yeah. And what are your ideas concerning the way this integration is implemented?

Niall: The worst fear for the Americans is that this process happens and at the end of it, they do not have cheap oil. Same for Europe the worst fear is that the European Union becomes strong and independent and US troops are not there. And instead they're looking east, to Russia.

Pierre: My question is and I'm not an expert in this field so that's why I'm wondering. In the Islam doctrine, this notion of integration, expansion, and positivism that we can see in most doctrines, most ideologies are not necessarily bad. It depends on the way the integration and the extension of the sphere of power is conducted, so what's the ideology? How do Muslim leaders see the expansion of the territory?

Niall: Well, that's a complicated question because it's not just religion. It's really, at this point, hundreds of years into it. It's civilizational. It's partly cultural. It's historical. The things that connect people in the Maghreb with people in the Middle East proper, all the way across to Indonesia, yeah, on the face of it it's just Islam, just religion. But it has formed a kind of a uni-cultural homogenous...

Pierre: Yeah, okay.

Niall: ...similarity of cultures.

Joe: Well, to be honest I don't think there are any genuine leaders, Muslim leaders who have that kind of an idea of creating a new Muslim empire. That's just scaremongering by the west for the purpose of this promotion of the clash of civilizations, which allows the western powers to extend their influence and project their power around the world. In any normal human civilization those kinds of extremist ideas of conquering the world, or imposing their will on vast swathes of the planet or other countries are seen as pathological and the majority of people are not pathological. Therefore those people, generally speaking, don't rise to power unless it's by serious force. It kind of depends. You can see it at different points in history but, generally speaking, it's only pathologicals at the top who would aspire to that and unless they get support from not just internally in their country but from externally, history has shown this, they don't go anywhere because it's essentially anti-human. Anti-humanistic, it's not normal for human beings to go along with that.

So it's a very particular process that will be required to galvanize millions of ordinary people to support that and I mean an example of the particular process would be psychological manipulation on a mass scale like in 9/11. You have millions of Americans at least after 9/11 that supported that kind of expansion around the world, even though it was explained to them in a different context. They weren't told that this is what it was for, but they supported American troops heading off around the world on mass to conquer, invade and bomb other countries. But generally speaking, it's not normal it has to be manipulated to get people's support. The whole situation is kind of ridiculous.

Now we're just talking about this ISIS group and stuff and whether or not they're real. Obviously they are real but the result of facts on the ground created by western powers who give money and weapons and training to certain small groups who can go into a country and into several countries and create chaos and mayhem and then that becomes a reality for the people back in western countries. That "Oh my God, these Muslims are all going crazy. They're trying to take over the world." But, in that sense, that's a fantasy. That's not really what's happening because these people have extremely limited power in reality despite what the media says but it is actually happening. These ISIS nut jobs are going around in Iraq shooting people and killing people but it's no threat to the west. It's just used for propaganda purposes by the west to try and hold onto, like Niall was saying, these countries in the Middle East that are resource rich for western powers.

It has an end point where it can't go beyond. They run up against a wall ultimately where their machinations become exposed. They become more and more desperate and more and more extreme in the policies that they try and enact and it eventually it becomes more difficult for the media to spin it around to the whole, "Oh my God. We're all under threat," and you start to see the reality of the situation and it's just a kind of horror play and it has historical precedent as well. ISIS, for example, should be seen, as far as I'm concerned, in the same way as, and this is accepted historical fact that for example the Americans trained and funded paramilitary death squad groups in Latin America all throughout the '50s, '60s, '70s and '80s. And that was just people who were trained by American advisers in Fort Benning in the US and in other places and given weapons and money and go back to their country like Guatemala or several other South American countries to go and start killing people to maintain a regime, a dictatorial regime in the country that was compliant with or in line with American...

Pierre: Interest.

Joe: ... interest in that country. So ISIS is exactly the same thing in terms of the Middle East and it's simply been funded and trained to sow chaos and to kind of stir things up and ensure that no indigenous, nationalistic, progressive, moderate government or governments in the Middle East and beyond rise to power. Those kinds of governments tend to say, "Well, we want to keep our natural resources for ourselves. We want to build up the country. We want to become independent. We want to engage" like Russia, like Putin has been saying repeatedly over the past several months and years really, all normal leaders in different countries want to see what's going on in the world. To see this unipolar world and what the US has done over the past many decades of imposing its will on everybody. They say, "Well, listen, we don't want to impose our will back on you." There's a lot of projection there from the US in accusing other countries of trying to dominate the world and they're simply accusing other countries of what they themselves have been doing. What these countries want is, like I said as Putin was saying, they want to trade and interact with other countries in the world on an equal basis.

Niall: Just a fair deal.

Joe: Yeah, a fair deal on an equal basis and that is anathema to the American way of doing things because the American way of doing things is all, or the vast majority, of the land share of everything...

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: ...is for the US and everybody else gets what we allow them to get. And I think that's obviously unfair and it's amazing that's it's persisted for so long and in fact it has only persisted through the use of force and primarily American force.

Pierre: How do you interpret this movement of ISIS troops or mercenaries, I don't know how to call them, from Syria to Iraq? Does it mean that the western powers, the US Empire, drop the Al-Assad case and doesn't plan to get rid of the Syrian regime and therefore transfer the troops to Iraq because that's where the next project would be implemented?

Joe: I don't know. It's hard to know what exactly they're planning or what they're thinking at this point because it hasn't worked out for them in Syria. And as I've mentioned in previous shows, Putin kind of interceded there and he was the fly in the soup in that particular project of NATO bombing of Syria and finally getting rid of Assad. But, as I mentioned just a little while ago, Obama had asked for $500 million to support moderate Syrian rebels, as he calls them. So obviously the original plan of continuing their so-called revolution in Syria is continuing. They may just have said to put it on the back burner and keep it going. But the ISIS thing seems to have kind of come in and I don't know if it'll work but their idea is to try and spread as much fear and chaos, like to dismantle Iraq as we've mentioned I think in previous shows, to break Iraq up into three countries. Syria wasn't working so let's focus on Iraq now. We can get these people from Syria. Maybe it was the plan all along to develop over the course of the past three or four years this kind of group of mercenaries, paramilitaries essentially, ISIS in Syria. Get them battle hardened and trained in that theater and then moving into Iraq to get rid of the Maliki government in Iraq and, ultimately, create such a horrible situation there that there would be calls for that long held goal of the west to break up Iraq into three separate autonomous regions or whatever you want to call them. Obviously this is in line with what the Saudis have wanted for a long time as well. They wanted basically the Middle East remade or controlled and kept down in a way that would ensure that the status quo remains. But there's also evidence now that the Saudi's are getting a little bit suspicious,

Niall: The Saudi royal family is pooping their semtex lined pants.

Joe: Yeah, exactly. They're getting a bit scared. When you're dealing with someone like that and you've been dealing with that kind of a policy for so long where, basically, there are no rules and everybody grabs what they can for themselves. There's no love lost between people. There are alliances for a while but they can easily break down very quickly and it seems that the Saudis over the past few months have become more and more concerned about just where this whole ISIS thing and the Syrian thing and where it was going and where these partly or largely US controlled and funded paramilitaries in Syria and now in Iraq and what's going to be done with them? What they can do and where they might be encouraged to go next? Saudi Arabia is mostly desert and you just have some kind of bigger cities like Riyadh and stuff. Yeah, if the Saudis are smart enough they might be thinking, "well, you know, what's to stop them getting rid of us" type of thing, you know?

Niall: The fact that there's a report that they sent 30,000 troops to protect their border, the Saudi/Iraq border.

Pierre: And they're afraid that the conflict expands but, at the same time, the Saud family has been a close ally to the US for decades. They have had a lot of privilege that have been protected in the Middle East. They could breach human rights for years and years without having any problem with that.

Joe: Yeah, but things change. Everybody is getting a bit skittish. It's got to that point in the whole great game where all the players are getting a little bit skittish, getting a bit concerned about how is this going to work out ultimately in the end. Can I rely on this country or this group of people in the country that I've relied on for so many decades and things are changing? Especially with the resurgence of Russia, dwindling resources, climate change, and all this, many different things have come into play that is creating instability. Not only on the ground in countries, which we'll talk about it in a while, but Earth changes and climate chaos and also instability where psychologically, essentially, they see instability on the ground. They see instability in politics and then people start to get a bit concerned. They've become (laughs) psychologically unstable and all you have to do is just go the first step towards thinking that I can no longer trust this person and you take some little action based on that and then your partner in crime says, "What the hell are you doing? Okay, we need to do something. The Saudis look like they're getting a bit... we need to put this in place". Then it's a feedback loop.

Pierre: Escalation.

Joe: Yeah, it compounds.

Pierre: About this coming change, do you think that on a political level some leaders are realizing that we might reach the end of this uni-polar world and that the American empire is reaching its end? Here I have in mind the declaration of Vladimir Putin on the 4th of July, quite a symbolic day who proposed the creation of Eurasia, that will seal the fate of the American empire, by definition, because apparently the US are not welcome in this vision, this project.

Niall: It was a speech to the Russian Diplomatic Core, it's an annual speech that he gives in Moscow and he used the phrase from Lisbon to Vladivostok, i.e. all Europe.

Pierre: And Asia

Niall: And all Asia. Suggesting that, he's actually used the phrase before but he says it again, it's kind of a Eurasian agenda along the lines of Mackinder's World Island theory that this would naturally integrate to the exclusion of western preferences and he explicitly also said, "US world domination has ended." And then a commentator adds, "Russia will be reintegrating the Eurasian land, the former USSR, while promoting better relations with Europe, our natural partner."

Joe: Yeah, the thing, from a historical perspective, that people need to understand is that America, as this dominant force in the world that it has been, is an anomaly. It's a kind of an aberration. It should never have happened and it only happened because of a particular kind of avaricious and maybe psychopathic mind-set among politicians and the political leaders and the military leaders in the US over the past 100, 120 years. When you just look at that period of time, you had the industrial revolution and countries kind of tuning up and all the new technology that facilitated a radical change in society and the industrial revolution and then into the 19th century and into the early 20th century there were many kind of great powers then, several great powers then but the First and Second World War radically changed what would have been a normal development of the world at that point.

Russia should have continued on as it was up until the Bolshevik Revolution as a major power in the world because of its size and its resources. But that was thwarted by the First World War and the funding of the Bolshevik Revolution and the turning of the promotion of that kind of an ideology in Russia and the removal of the old kind of regime, the tsars. And then during the First World War and afterwards and then leading up to the Second World War, in both of those cases, the US consolidated its power, essentially, through finances. Russia and all of the European powers, including Japanese and Asian powers, were bankrupted essentially. And the US came out of it quite clean and in a really powerful position and that set the tone for the 20th century. And of course after the Second World War you had the communist threat that was used and promoted and it was bogus and it was one giant lie really.

Niall: The evil empire. Complete projection.

Joe: It was used for further consolidation of US control around the world because the US military and the CIA in particular went around the world invading other countries and overthrowing governments and then slaughtering dictators and consolidating US economic control of many countries on the basis of the communist threat. So that couldn't have happened in the way it did without that communist threat that was fabricated. And then in 1990 you see what happened all the way through the decades after the Second World War and the US became more and more powerful and then you have the fall of the Soviet Union which was just other reason for that. Well, we won't get into that. So the communist threat disappeared in 1990.

Within a few years, it had already been growing in the background, someone had been planning it apparently, but within a few years, in 1993 you had the first World Trade Center bombing and the rise of Osama Bin Laden and then within another few years it was 9/11 and that brings us up to today. So these are all very strange events that all conspired together, if I can use that word, conspired to create the US/American dominated world that we have today. As I said, it was an anomaly, an aberration, it was not natural, not normal and ultimately it was never going to be sustainable and it's not sustainable and it's breaking down right now. Russia, in particular, is a major player in this because of its size and its resources and Russia has been resurgent since 1990 and it took maybe a decade, but especially with the arrival of Putin and stuff and the policies that were implemented by him and the people behind him, it's tending towards putting the world to rights again. A more balanced world and the way it should be because in that context what you see is you have this Eurasian land mass that is all contiguous with all these countries. Put it this way, from Lisbon to Vladivostok and down into Asian stuff, you don't need the rest of the world. That part of the world, which is all one landmass, does not need America. It does not need even South America, but South America will be welcome, but the point is, "Listen, America, get with the program here and give it up, basically, because we don't need you anymore" and they're desperately trying to prevent that from happening. They are really going to extreme lengths to try and maintain this abhorrent status quo that was established over the past century.

Pierre: And from Lisbon to Vladivostok you can drive all the way. It's one landmass so it means you don't have to take a plane.

Joe: Of course.

Pierre: So it means you don't have to go through the previously mentioned security measures.

Niall: Yeah, the only one who has to fly anywhere is the people in Britain and people in the US.

{All laughing}.

Pierre: I heard there's a price to pay for imperialism.

Niall: Apparently they don't mind being groped which, to look at some of the recent stories in the UK press about pedophiles in high power, the two things seem to go together. I just want to make a sort of slight change in topic and make a comment about an iconic figure in the UK. I remember watching Rolf Harris on TV growing up. He was kind of like a kids TV presenter. He did an art show so, you know, completely clean and fun. Clean TV programming, right. Well, there's a case going on for a few weeks there in the UK. No one believed it until the verdict came down, guilty on all counts of child sex abuse from the '50s, '60s, '70s, and all the way up to recently. He is now the third, pretty much, iconic figure who was at the BBC to be sent down or to have been discovered in the last year.

Pierre: Who are the two others?

Niall: The two others are Stuart Hall, a famous BBC presenter and, of course, Jimmy Saville. Between the three of them you're talking about thousands and thousands of victims. That's just three. God knows how many more there are.

Joe: Yeah. But my problem with it is that, for me, the impression I get is that the people investigating this, okay there's the police investigating it, but the police are hamstrung by political considerations and manipulation. They basically take their orders from their higher ups in politics. So they have a large dossier, I would say, a very large dossier on possibly hundreds of people. Many of them, the vast majority, probably the majority of them are politicians, so they look at this and they pick from that dossier who...

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: ....they are going to kind of sacrifice to the public, to appease growing public anger and awareness of this kind of endemic pedophilia in high places in the UK. And there are reports coming out just recently and immediately after. Maybe something they didn't consider is that when they out one of these entertainers, one of these TV personalities, it kind of brings it back to the fore and they can't avoid then other kinds of journalists and whistle-blowers and stuff coming out and saying, "Yeah, but you know, there's more to this story," and then it goes back and then it focuses again on the politicians.

Pierre: And you see a pattern re-occurring here. Like in the case of the mass shooting or mass bombing or assassination, you have these mainstream media who support the lone gunner, lone bomber theory and here again, in the case of pedophilia like in the Dutroux case and many other cases, the mainstream media, the elites are promoting the lonely predator theory. And a famous journalist is a very convenient scapegoat or tree hiding in the forest because they're highly mediatized. So they satisfy this need of the public that we need a scapegoat. We need someone to be sacrificed, but at the same time, you have the story of 114 files missing from the Westminster pedophile ring.

Niall: Yeah, well so the sentence was handed down and another whistle-blower came to the fore. He's actually been in the UK press for a while that led to the police in the UK opening an investigation into 40 politicians, past and present. That was announced on Saturday, the 5th, yesterday. And yet today's headline: 'Child Abuse Files Lost at Home Office Spark Fears of Cover up'.

Joe: Well the details behind it were that there are apparently more than 10, now that could be a 100 or it could be 11 but it's probably more likely 100, more than 10 politicians on a list held by police investigating the Westminster pedophile ring; Westminster being the British Houses of Parliament or the British Congress. So this goes back to what you mentioned of 114 missing files, there was a dossier handed to the then Home Secretary, Secretary of State in the UK Leon Brittan and he continues to be an MP today and he's now Lord Brittan, was handed a dossier in 1985, I think, into a pedophile ring amongst high level politicians in the UK and he lost it. Well, he doesn't know what he did with it. First of all he said he didn't get it. Then he said "I got it, but I gave it to someone." And then, when it was actually dug up, there were 114 files missing out of 587 or something like that.

Pierre: 527.

Joe: But the interesting thing is this guy Leon Brittan, who's Lord Brittan, who's a politician who was handed this dossier and kind of went, yeah, let's put that under the table or the carpet or concrete, let's hide it somewhere, obviously, just yesterday it was revealed that he himself has been questioned by police over a historical rape claim. So really it's wonderful in the whole political milieu in the UK there. You just read some of this stuff and it's crazy. Everybody, well not everybody, but there's so many of them and they're all implicated. You have this guy who initially has been accused of hiding a file. He said, "No, I didn't hide it. I gave it to someone else and I've nothing to do with it." And then it's, "Okay, but now we're also going to accuse you of rape." And he's like, "Whatever", you know, "get out of my face."

Niall: Oh look, look, there's a war going on, look, look.

Joe: Yeah, jihadis! And then they're all coming out of the woodwork, all the older guys under Margaret Thatcher's government. This guy, Brittan, he was under Margaret Thatcher, he was the Home Secretary. And there's another guy, Tebbit, who has said he himself isn't implicated but he has basically come out and said, "Yeah, the government may have orchestrated an establishment cover up of child abuse by senior politicians when I was in government, yes." He was a former Tory party or Conservative Party chairman under Margaret Thatcher and he claimed there was a mindset to protect the system which has been shown to have gone spectacularly wrong because incidents of abuse grew. He said "At the time, I think, most people would have thought that the establishment, the system, was to be protected. And if a few things had gone wrong here and there, that it was more important to protect the system than to delve too far into it." I mean that's his attitude. I don't know, he may end up being implicated as well, but he's come out and said, "Yes, it was a cover up" but it was the establishment that needed to be protected and the horrible abuse of children, hundreds and probably thousands of children, and that 'Oh, there's a few things that went wrong and ultimately, the system had to be protected. This is what we all agreed on'. Incidentally this dossier that was given to this guy, Lord Brittan in 1985, allegedly had details on Saville and it was covered up. So Saville continued on for another 30 years, almost, abusing children because the system had to be protected. Now the system here obviously isn't just politics. The system is...

Niall: Media.

Joe: The media, entertainers. Children's entertainers had to be protected as well.

Niall: The entire psychiatric and hospital system basically.

Pierre: Judges, attorneys, police officers, businessmen, bankers.

Joe: I feel some vindication here. Well I don't advocate violence, but not long after this dossier that was never exposed until today in 1985 under Margaret Thatcher and this guy Tebbit who says that a few things had gone wrong and we had to protect the system, there was a Conservative Party conference in Brighton, UK and Margaret Thatcher was there and this guy Tebbit was there and other Conservative Party leaders or politicians and the IRA blew up the hotel.

Niall: So close, so close.

Joe: But they didn't. Margaret Thatcher was in the toilet at the time.

Niall: Ah, dammit {laughs}.

Joe: So I don't advocate violence and stuff but obviously at the time that was denounced as horrible, evil terrorism and stuff. But when you look at the people and the attitude they have towards children and the abuse of children, surely it would have been no loss. They can hardly denounce it as an act of evil when the people who are being attacked are apparently pure evil themselves.

Niall: I mean it's an objective statement that the world would be a better place if certain people were dead.

Joe: Yeah.

Niall: You can't really get around it. To bring this back a little just as an aside, I went to - this is for the NSA by the way, a confession - a jihadi website today, jihad.com. And I was just looking at some of their videos. They love killing people and getting those videos up as quickly as possible. So they've got lots of promo videos. Oh my God, it's really, it's just horrific. They just drive by people in their cars and just shoot it up randomly.

Pierre: And killing them from helicopters.

Niall: Yeah, it's just totally random. And they're laughing and they're truly hocked up on drugs or something. And invariably, you hear a Cockney or English accent and it has been said by a lot of the fighters in Syria they are the worst 'We're trying to do something here'. They're completely brainwashed as well, 'but at least we're trying to do something like win Syria back or whatever from the evil Assad', but these Brit jihadist who come over, they are the worst. They're the ones who go round cutting up people and eating their hearts, the stories are insane. Another aside, another video had a kind of passport burning session in Bagdad, I think, yesterday and you look at these guys, one of them gets up and makes a speech and I mean they're all Caucasian, they're all white {laughs}. I'm like wondering, where are these guys from, you know? I guess, they're supposed to be from Chechnya or somewhere in Central Asia.

Joe: They're mercenaries. They're hired and paid mercenaries by, ultimately, the western powers. That's all there is to it, because those kinds of people don't get very far and haven't gotten very far. Here's the thing. Throughout the period of the British Empire and the more modern American Empire, in countries around the world that were occupied by the British or by the Americans, particularly by the British because the Americans did a little bit better, but there were groups of ordinary people supposedly like the groups that are in the Middle East now and Syria and Iraq and stuff, who tried to rise up against the British occupying force and invariably, they failed, all of them failed. It wasn't very hard ultimately, for the British or the Americans to put them down. That's the historical reality of what happens when a group of, in the terms of the day crazy terrorists, revolutionaries, resistance fighters, whatever, try to overthrow the existing power. That's what happens.

The fact that today the narrative has been totally switched around and now it's a completely different world apparently, where these groups are just a bunch of a few hundred or a few thousand can suddenly take over all of Iraq unimpeded. What's changed? What is it, modern weaponry? I don't think so. They don't have modern weaponry. They just have the same kind of guns more or less. So, right there you have a problem in the narrative and trying to explain how this can possibly happen. It hasn't happened in history where a group of resistance fighters or terrorists or whatever you want to call them, tried to overthrow a power. So why is it happening today? It's happening today because they are being allowed to do it. You just have to switch the whole thing around. They're not genuine terrorists, they're the empire's terrorists and they're being funded by the empire, therefore, that's why they succeed.

Pierre: Do you think the same story will repeat in Ukraine, although it's slightly different, but basically from what I understand you have a neo-Nazi Ukrainian government with an official Ukrainian army, backed by the western powers, that seems to be quite eager to conduct ethnic cleansing of the Russian population in the east of the country. Recently they bombed civilians in Sloviansk, in the eastern pro-Russian part of the Ukraine. But the difference here that... in that you have some independent people who are trained to fight for their life I suppose because they see the ethnic cleansing coming, but the difference is that you have Russia nearby. So, how do you see Russia behaving?

Niall: First of all, can we just describe what's going on in the Ukraine?

Pierre: Yeah.

Niall: They have bombed the crap out of Sloviansk. The city is apparently retaken by the Kiev Junta. Just before we came on air, they've launched airstrikes against the next biggest city of Lugansk. Yeah, they're going all out, they're just firing at will at the moment despite all the talks about peace.

Pierre: What's their plan?

Niall: Whose plan, the Ukrainian?

Pierre: Yeah.

Niall: They don't have one. The plan works through them and I think the person who summed this up best was Putin's economic advisor recently, Sergey Glazyev, who gave a talk somewhere in Russia and it was put up on YouTube and translated and he made it clear that the Russians are fully aware that this is the US getting to Russia through Ukraine. Now was he being overly paranoid or was he being pretty realistic? He said he sees things developing like this: in February there were like a thousand or so nasty armed types. Now there's more like 10,000. By the end of the summer going into fall with the current pattern, they're going to have half a million armed Nazi, actual Nazis and they're going to turn them loose and they're going to invade Crimea or retake it as they see it. He's speaking as a Russian representative, what do we do then? He said, "I don't really know. Maybe they do have a plan, but right now, what can I do? Start a world war?" No, they don't want to of course. He also gave another clue in another forum recently which was interesting. He said, "The way the civil war in Ukraine will end is when the US dollar collapses."

Pierre: And he's working hard to de-dollarize the world.

Niall: Maybe. He didn't suggest any agency on his part. He was describing it as a process on the way. It is happening. So, I think for the Russian part it's a waiting game, try and keep the situation contained. The US is going to collapse sooner or later. For the America it's just smash and grab and take everything.

Joe: Yeah, you have to expect the Americans are feeling as if they're about to lose everything they've had. And I have a feeling that under pressure they're very dangerous. Not that there have been many things that they wouldn't do, that they haven't done in the past, but in that kind of situation where they feel themselves in the rather unusual or unfamiliar position of being kind of on the losing side. They become very, very, very dangerous. And in Ukraine, there are recent reports that pro-Russian independence groups, whatever you want to call them, have left Sloviansk and moved back to Donetsk. Basically, that the Ukrainian, Kiev let's call it, military has made quite a lot of gains and they've been upping their campaign against them, but ultimately those People's Republics, the pro-Russian Independence fighters are largely dependent on Russia for most of their resources to wage any kind of campaign and I don't think the Russians are willing to up the ante against Kiev and Poroshenko and the puppet regime in Ukraine. I don't think they're willing to ultimately be responsible for sacrificing thousands and thousands of civilian lives. I don't know, they may have different plans, different policies to try and get what they want out of it. I don't see it going that far.

It's a baiting game really what you see going on in the Ukraine. The US has been trying to bait Russia. Russia has been trying to bait the US in a different way. You have each of them trying to get the other tried in the court of public opinion as the war criminals or whatever, for killing civilians and stuff and there's been this kind of like struggle between them. Ultimately none of them want to look bad. None of them want to have UN resolutions passed against them. None of them want to get to the point where they're denounced as an evil civilian killing regime. But if they were to do what this economic advisor to Putin was suggesting. If the Ukrainians were to have half a million or however many invade either Eastern Ukraine or Crimea. It's whoever sets the first foot forward. Whoever takes the first action is ultimately responsible. If they invade Crimea and start forcibly trying to take back Ukraine and shooting and having essentially a civil war there, they're going to be the ones who look bad. Do they feel they can justify taking back Crimea, because it was taken from you without a shot being fired and it's the will of people of Crimea. It's very difficult there, but at this point the wildcard, like I said, is the US where they basically have nothing to lose and never had anything to lose with all the people dying around the world, so they're willing to encourage that kind of a policy. It's whether or not saner heads in Ukraine itself and then in Europe would intercede.

Pierre: Yeah, that's where I wanted to go. Europe could play a role in this Ukrainian conflict and it reminds me of this recent case of a double spy that was arrested in Germany and was working for the US. So it's reminiscent of the recent events last October when Merkel discovered Snowden's leaked information that she was taped by the NSA since 2002 and now again, there's a case of an individual spying in Germany against German interests for the US. So is it Putin who discreetly poured some oil on the fire and tried to gain the interest and the friendship of Europe?

Joe: It's possible that that's the case, but what I found amazing is that how there can be any trust, even at that overt political level between the Germans and the Americans after this came out. How can Merkel have any trust in the Americans or think why would they do that? How does she even talk to Obama or whoever she talks to at that level? I wouldn't be surprised if the Russians are engaged in this like they have been in the past few months with a leaked telephone conversation about Ukraine with Nuland and Pyatt. I wouldn't be surprised if that's a very smart move, because you understand the nature of the beast in America and that its basically is trying to screw everybody over and is double dealing, duplicitous, back stabbing, hypocritical partner and you want to bring that to light to the other partners and tell them, "Listen, do you really want to trust these people?" and give them evidence why they shouldn't trust them. It's all looking pretty bad for the US at this point in time. On many different fronts it's looking very, very bad for them. Ultimately, the real politic of, like we mentioned before, the whole Eurasian landmass and the fact that ultimately, they don't need the US anymore. What the US has over the EU, members of the EU and elsewhere, I don't know. It seems to me that right now all they have is attempts at dirty digs and manipulation and blackmail and that kind of thing. There's a blackmail case with, as an example of it, if you can just extrapolate out from the case where the...

Pierre: In France.

Joe: Yeah, where the French signed a deal with Russia to make Russia two large transport ships, military ships.

Pierre: Yeah.

Joe: And the US previously had by whatever mechanism, they had fined a French bank, BNP Paribas, $9 billion for trading with Cuba and Iran.

Pierre: Exactly.

Joe: The only reason that they fined them was kind of like, who the hell are you. But I suppose these are international laws that they agreed to. No trading with Iran and Cuba and Russia even. So BNP Paribas Bank had gone ahead and processed these financial transactions with these countries that they had agreed they wouldn't with the US and the US had said that they were going to fine them $9 billion, a French bank.

Pierre: Putin commented that he was blackmailed.

Joe: Yeah, well Putin said that, but what came out of it was that the US said, "Listen, you know that $9 billion fine against your French bank, we're willing to kind of make it disappear or overlook it if you will renege or cancel your deal to sell those two ships to Russia." And the French went, "Don't really like the sound of that deal," and they've gone ahead and they're selling the ships to Russia, cause just last week, 400 Russian sailors arrived in Saint-Nazaire, the shipyard to be trained on the two new ships. So that's why I say you can just imagine all the things going on. That's the strategy that the US has to stoop to that level, not that they've ever not stooped to those levels before. That's probably standard policy, but in the context of who they're doing it against or trying to stop economic and military agreements between France and Russia. And just imagine all the other things in the background that they're trying to do to stop that happening and why are they trying to stop that happening, because they're afraid of it. So, the wind is blowing against the US in many different ways and it doesn't look like it can rely on its partners any longer, because it has screwed over its partners for the past...

Pierre: Too many years.

Joe: ... a hundred years basically, it has never been a reliable partner and it's coming home to roost.

Pierre: It brings another question this Mistral case, Mistral being the name of those navy ships manufactured by France. The deal is 1.2 billion. Russia will pay 1.2 billion to France for those two ships. The fine, as you say, is 9 billion to BNP Paribas and now surprise, surprise, other French banks are being investigated for similar crimes. So, it will escalate to 20, 30, 40 million. So, the mathematical equation is how come France doesn't prefer to cancel the fines, gain 30 billion and cancel the transaction with Russia? Is there some deeper motives behind that?

Niall: Hmm, it's simpler than that because when the ships are sold, you get hard cash. Those fines are drawn out in law courts until the end of time. No one actually has to pay anything.

Joe: Exactly. There's no hard and fast mechanism by which BNP Paribas would immediately...

Niall: Their use is for this purpose. Oh, something came up here. I tell you what, we'll drop that case against you if...

Joe: You're establishing an economic business relationship with Russia in the selling of those two ships that cost 1.2 billion, but then there's more. Then there's maintenance, there's extra parts. It's looking long-term for the French economy.

Niall: It's worth more than the sum of its parts.

Joe: Yeah, it's actually defense capability. There's all of those and that kind of asset value that is not monetary that are involved in it as well and like Niall said, banks have ways and means I mean $9 billion for a bank?

Niall: Ah, whatever.

Joe: It's kind of funny money in a certain sense. It can be paid off in various different ways.

Niall: The French Central Bank just needs to go, "Okay, well we'll make it up good on your books."

Joe: Exactly.

Niall: Well actually no.

Pierre: I find it interesting because the asymmetry in lobbying power. On one side you have the banks that were being fined and we know the power of banks, those big banks. And on the other side the industry that benefits the most of this Mistral deal is the DCN [Direction des Constructions Navales]. It's a nationalized shipyard. So, at the top of the French state, the politician makes a decision to favor a one billion deal for public industry and in compensation accept a nine billion and growing fine that will have to be paid by a major bank. So the asymmetry in the lobbying power left me wondering.

Niall: Well, if you look at the last two leaders of the IMF, they're usually French and they were French.

Pierre: Lagarde and Strauss-Kahn.

Niall: DSK, Strauss-Kahn. Strauss-Kahn and I think Lagarde is also... I mean, they've been fairly raked over the coals in the US for not being Wall Street friendly enough.

Joe: Basically you can't compare the two: a $9 billion bank fine, whether or not it'll be paid, or $1.2 billion in hard cash for establishing a long-term kind of military business relationship with Russia. There are probably many other factors that played into that ultimately weighed in favor of that decision to go ahead with that deal with Russia. And again, it ties into what we were saying of the overall general slowly, step by step shift away from the US...

Pierre: Yeah, that's what I meant.

Joe: ... towards your home country essentially, your home continent which is the Eurasian landmass. Real politic is slowly creeping into the dynamic here. The Anglophiles or the 'USophiles', the 'Americanophiles' in Europe, as much as they might struggle against the breaking of that kind of like cozy relationship, ultimately these people aren't really idealistic. They're not ideologues in the sense that what if they see the writing on the wall, they'll switch allegiances in a heartbeat, type of thing.

Niall: I mean the term real politic originates from pre-World War One.

Pierre: In what context?

Niall: In the context that we're seeing a kind of similar crossroads here.

Pierre: I'm commenting about this ongoing geopolitical shift. There is the release of the GDP figure for the US economy recently, first quarter 2014, negative 2.9 per cent. When we know the discrepancy between official stats and real stats, we can imagine that the US economy is really collapsing. And the shift you mentioned, on an international scale seems to be happening on a national scale as well. We have two major US lobbies that are starting to complain about the policy connected against Russia saying it harms the economic industrial interest of those US players. So, what's your analysis on a US level, how the struggle between real politic supporters and anti-Russian ideologists and imperialists will interact?

Niall: No contest, no contest. The reality creators who wish things into being are in charge and all but a national revolution will change that.

Pierre: Okay.

Joe: Yeah, I would say that your question was basically, will business trump ideology?

Pierre: Yeah, exactly the end of the conflict?

Joe: Yes, you have these psychopaths in power in the US who have these ideologies. They're not inspired or driven by 'we have to get Russia'. It's more about personal power and simply America. They have this idea of America...

Niall: American exceptionalism.

Joe: American exceptionalism, always winning and having a right to impose this policy and winning in any conflict and they feel that at a visceral level that they can't take it basically. So it's not so much ideology as opposed to just personal kind of egotism and greed 'we rule the world and you will do what we say'. It's like someone who's always had their way and the problem with such a person ever being told no, they'll ultimately take action to stop people telling them no and always have people do what they say. They'll take action that will ultimately be self-defeating or shoot themselves in the foot essentially. They've lost control of their senses really. It's still about greed and dominance, but it's twisted and distorted and it's not taking stock of reality on the ground anymore and it's trying to impose a certain policy that really there's too many people opposed to it for it to actually be implemented, but they'll go ahead and try and do it anyway and people in that position will ultimately end up exposing themselves for what they are. Which is just greedy, mindless, and ultimately insane in a normal human sense.

Pierre: What do you think about this other possibility? Do you think psychopathic leaders in the US Empire, seeing the collapse coming or the ongoing collapse of the empire, by starting to implement an attitude of 'if we go down, we bring the whole world down', a World War Three scenario or this kind of war and destruction scenario, not losing alone?

Niall: It's been suggested they have such a scenario on the table, as they like to say.

Joe: It's possible there are certain people who would have that attitude, yes, but I don't think they'll be allowed to do that, because you can't have a nuclear war on this planet and expect there to be much left to fight over. And there are higher ups who their ultimate vested interest is in having a planet to play with and obviously people on the planet to play with. So if you decimate the planet and you wipe out 90 per cent, you don't get so much fun anymore from playing the game. So yeah, there are many different levels really and they're not all playing the same game. Essentially, they're not all informed in the same way and it can get very complex. I can imagine how it would get very complex in terms of the different levels of control and power trying to ensure that they remain on top essentially. That their policy or their plan is implemented and allowing the underlings to go so far, but only so far.

Pierre: Yeah.

Joe: And stopping them before they take any action that would undermine...

Pierre: If I follow you, maybe you can use some kind of analogy, a farming analogy. You can have a farmer that is employed by a shareholder who is the owner of the farm. So, the farmer in charge has to manage the farm. If at one point he turns berserk and decides to kill all the cattle, the shareholder, the owner might say, "Hey, hang on, my interest here is that the farm goes on and the cattle has to make business. That's my resource. So, don't touch it or I neutralize you."

Joe: Yeah, pretty much. I just wanted to get back to this little extra piece on the PFL scandal and political pedophiles in the UK. There's a guy, an MP, Simon Danczuk, who's been talking about this a lot. I don't know if he's there to simply run interference or know what his role is, but he seems to be saying a lot of very true things. He has an article in the Daily Mail recently where the title of it is 'Forget the Expenses Scandal. If MPs have Harbored Pedophiles...' I mean harbor pedophiles? If MPs are pedophiles themselves...

Pierre: Yeah.

Joe: ...the damage to British democracy would be fatal. So he's presenting it in a real light and the reality of the situation is that if, as we mentioned previously this Tebbit guy saying that the system has to be protected, this is why they've done it because they realize that if the truth about the level of abuse of children by pedophiles, right up to the very top level, we're talking about all of the famous people throughout the past 20, 30, 40 years and including up to today, have been abusing children in horrible ways, that this would undermine the entire system, the idea of democracy and leadership and authority in the UK. There would be something pretty bad to happen in the sense it would be the end or maybe the end and if you get so far, you'd have public outcry to the point where the entire government would have to go. Not only the government, but you would have an enduring loss of confidence in leaders, per se.

Pierre: Or worse. Maybe Niall can share your experience here, because in Belgium, the case was very similar with the Dutroux case, where a whole ring was involved with hundreds, maybe thousands of victims, including ritual murders, torture, new-born babies being killed, etc., etc. Involving a lot of elite members and in Brussels there was the two instances of the white march where 30 million people were in the streets, were on the verge of civil wars. Did you experience that? Can you describe this event?

Niall: No, actually I wasn't there at the time, but I do remember the atmosphere and it was yeah, something was in the air. I was too young to really grasp what was happening.

Pierre: What was the atmosphere?

Niall: Well, that something was wrong. People were carrying it around on their faces, like something really not right here. The problem there was it happened at a time when there wasn't enough momentum. It was taken care of and in stages they covered it up, killed people off, and changed the judge.

Pierre: They killed 40 witnesses in the Dutroux case.

Niall: Yeah. What's happening in the UK now's a bit different though. It's happening at a time when so many other things are coming together. I think the UK is finished. I think the Scots realize that. They're going to get themselves out of it this year, probably vote themselves out and then you'll be left with, well England and Wales. And the Westminster elite, I hope is finished {laughs} in some respect. They'll probably survive, like cockroaches, in some other form or another, but I just want to mention a particular guy, {laughs} Michael Gove. Most ordinary Brits hate this guy too. He is such a smarmy prat. He's the Education Minister in the UK. He's been saying, quite a few times now in recent weeks and it's clearly coming from the British Government, "We must defend liberal values. We much defend British liberal values". Now, the context in which he's making these statements, he's of course using the backdrop of Islamic extremism. But sometimes he doesn't mention it and you get the feeling that it's something more than that. We know and they know that Islamist extremism is a complete ruse. Behind the scenes, the British Government completely supports the whole project in Syria and Iraq. They send kids there from the UK but it's held up with a kind of limited hangout against which liberal values must be protected.

I'm listening to a lot of what Russian thinkers and geopolitical analysts are saying and one of them seemed to get straight to it when it comes to liberal ideology, especially as it's allegedly believed in by the US and the UK. They really get the core of its psychopathic nature, when you think about how free trade came about, about how the individuals elevated in place of God. The individual is the unit around which everything else forms. It's really selfish and psychopathic and I think it's brought about this unjust, repressive, chaotic world and whatever changes take place in the west, these very liberal values that Michael Gove and the British elite are harping on about just now, are the things that, I hope to God, they're going to make way for something more humane, more spiritual based, more based on objective reality.

Joe: But when he talks about liberal values he's simply saying it's a cult of the individual, like you were saying, and it's like do what thou will shall be the whole of the law, you know. It's like, we get to do whatever we want, because it's in the interest of 'freedom and democracy and we're spreading our values', but what they're spreading is their own personal values and their own personal values are extremely selfish and psychopathic ultimately where they have no concern for others.

Niall: It's the perfect cover for a psychopath.

Joe: Well it's a kind of Christian missionary thing where you're going to bring the word of God to the savages. It's predicated on the idea that other people around the world need what you want to give them. You know what? You can even get into the rapist mind-set and pedophile mind-set and all that kind of stuff. They're all very similar in terms of their fundamental attitude.

Pierre: Pedophiles invoke this liberal mind-set and have the same analysis. When I read this word liberal, for me it's a hallmark of the ponerization process. When I read liberal I think, libertarian, atheist, individualistic, and materialistic. These are the hallmarks of the psychopathic mind.

Joe: Yeah.

Pierre: Who killed God? There's no more good. There's no more bad. There's no more moral. There's no more ethics. There are no more other beings. No respect. No rules. It's the psychopathic destruction and anarchy.

Niall: I think partly it survived this long because previously it was held up against a liberal creation, aka communism and communism was this extreme manifestation of a collective. Some kind of political reflection of how the human species naturally is, which is it functions as one kind of social organism. Communism went and what you got instead and of course Gove holds this up instead of the rag, "Oh, we must defend these liberal values against Islamic extremism" it's just replaced. But what they're really saying underneath it all is, 'we must defend our right...' or 'I', he's speaking as 'I am God, I am psychopath. I God, defend my right, my liberty, to abuse the hell out of you, because I can and will get away with it'.

Pierre: We're talking about external parameters that might mitigate or modify the situation in Ukraine and ultimately help put in plan. We mentioned the financial crisis. There are also earth changes. So which do you think will come first: the de-dollarization, the collapse of the US economy or the earth changes that will create so much cause that a military operation cannot be conducted because there are no more soldiers, no more organization, and no more logistics?

Niall: Hope it all comes at once. I think it's almost kind of happening, increasing together. That seems to be what's going on. We always say the weather's crazy. I hope our listeners are not getting bored of us saying it, but it does seem to get worse month by month. We keep a close eye on it and try to compile...

Pierre: What is getting worse.

Niall: ...what's going on. Well I couldn't help notice last month the number of water spouts and or tornados touching down in places where they just don't; Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Istanbul, Greece, even Sochi, in the Black Sea of Russia. And then there's the hailstorms, they're just insane. You get hail, yeah. You get hail sometimes in places they shouldn't, yeah. Hail up to three feet deep in late June is just insane. Actually, looking at this before the show, somebody asked a question In a Yahoo group, something eight years ago they'd just watched The Day After Tomorrow where the world goes into an abrupt ice age, super storms, yada, yada and they tried not to be naïve for asking the question. The question was; did that scenario of what happened with the hailstorm in Tokyo could that ever possibly happen? And the best weighted answer in reply to her was this guy saying, "No, it's impossible. I've calculated the odds and it could physically never happen."

{All laughing}.

Niall: I just found it so amusing to read that a few days after three feet of hail washed through Tokyo. They had to get diggers out to clear this.

Pierre: Did you comment?

Niall: I did. I said, "Yeah, you were kind of wrong there mate and I sent a link too.

Joe: Yeah, the arrogance of these climatologists and climate scientists is just staggering with their head in the sand approach to stuff. Again, it kind of parallels the political thing where the reality is encroaching on their fantasy more and more and instead of actually accepting that reality, they fly further into denial and fantasy land. A notable example is there's been news recently in the media about the ice sheet build up in Antarctica and the Arctic all around. They have these computer models that predicted warming and all this kind of stuff years ago and they're wondering why it isn't staying warm. Why isn't the warming continuing? Why aren't the Antarctic and Arctic ice sheets kind of melting more and they're engaging in all sorts of mental gymnastics to try and explain it while they get frozen basically. They're calling it a new scandal, in fact, over the integrity of temperature data in America. Well first of all, the UN computer predictions have been subjected to ridicule. They have not been accurate for over 18 years. Across the globe there's about one million square kilometers more ice than there was 35 years ago. Just to show the length that they've gone to when I say denial, I mean denial literally, because much of the temperature data that they've been using to predict this and to claim that the planet is still warming is not based on any real thermometer readings because many of the temperature stations were closed down and instead of stopping the recording of the data from these posts, these climate scientists have taken the step of estimating the temperatures based on records of surrounding stations.

Pierre: And there's something more to that. A few years ago, the number of weather stations taken into account for the calculation of average world temperature was reduced and they closed a lot of weather stations, interestingly. Surprise, surprise, most of the removed stations were rural stations and as everybody, or most of us know, in cities there is a city warming effect due to human activity. And so, consequently...

Joe: Are you saying the heat's manmade?

Pierre: No. I'm saying locally, but I knew you were going there. Locally, cities do have a warming effect. Local, but it's not enough for warming the planet as the ice coverage records show. And what is interesting is how do you reconcile one median extra square kilometer of ice while two major statements propagated by the 'global warmists' was this poor polar bear hanging to the very last ice cube, remember, floating in the middle of the warm ocean. The other scandal was a statement by this Indian scientist stating that in 20 years or 50 years there will be no more glaciers on the planet.

Niall: Yeah, well eight years ago they said snow would be a thing of the past in the UK.

Pierre: What did they experience in 10?

Niall: 10 meters of snow, not that much, but...

Pierre: Accumulated probably.

Niall: Serious amount of snow these last few winters

Joe: Yeah, they tend to focus on one area rather than the entire global ice coverage. In Antarctica, this is even America's National Snow and Ice Data Center, which is funded by NASA, has had to admit that around the southern continent and around Antarctica the ice covers about 16 million square kilometers, which is more than 2.1 million more than is usual for this time of year. And it's by far the highest level since satellite observations began in 1979. But there's still some scientists suggesting this increased ice coverage in Antarctica is caused by global warming, but there is no sensible explanation for how that could actually happen even though they try to come up with different, convoluted theories. There are various authorities, one of them is the head of the climate science in Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, has said that the arguments aren't convincing and has had to admit that we do not have a quantitative, predictive understanding of the rise in Antarctic sea ice extent. So they're basically, at the very least, admitting that we don't really know why the icy thing is happening when it shouldn't be. When we should all be like drowning in warm water, it's actually we're seeing an increased ice coverage and they don't know. Of course, that's a bit disingenuous because there is an explanation and that's the whole point here. The whole counterargument provides the explanation for why that is happening, but they're not willing to go there. All they're willing to say is, yeah it's a bit puzzling. We're not sure, but you know, global warming and Muslim terrorists.

Pierre: Its all the more schizophrenic that the very...

Niall: Durka durka.

Pierre: ... data official that are provided by the IPCC show a global cooling since 1998. 16 years of global cooling. Global cooling, ice coverage increase, the relation seems pretty straightforward. So, it may be disingenuous, we don't know. They're very un-data sure. Cooling is going on and we have a reliable hypothesis to explain why global cooling is going on. And that branch with the previously mentioned hail storms.

Joe: Yeah.

Pierre: Hail storms are typical phenomena due to A) an increase in atmospheric dust that act as condensation nuclei around which water or ice and crystals form and B) to a cooling down of higher strata of the atmosphere and consequently, the ice. And these two factors, more cometary dust and cooling down of the atmosphere can be due to a single cause.

Joe: Yeah, where's Al Gore? He's gone quiet?

Pierre: He's taking care of the polar bear maybe.

Joe: He's gone all quiet. We might have a call on the line here. I just need to check. Hi, do we have a call on the line?

Caller: Hello, I'm John, how you doing?

Joe: Hey John.

Pierre: Hi John.

Joe: Welcome to the show.

John: I'm in South America.

Niall: Cool.

John: I would say somewhere in South America, but the question now for you guys is, how much of all this do you think is something or someone that's not of this world, un-worldly, un-earthly that has a hand, especially the political issues with the wars and all of that? The climate, it's very obvious down here that it's manipulated and it's very obvious the political...

Niall: It's manipulated by whom?

John: Well who, I don't know. I don't know if it's a who or if it's a what, but I know it's not human, whatever it is. And what I wanted to know, I remember reading something about your publisher; Laura Knight, where she wrote something about the Cassiopaeans or something. That's not really what I want to point to. Basically I want to know whether or not you guys have any idea or have you put that into your list of reasons why everything is screwed up; the political, the climate, the world basically? I just wanted to know whether or not you guys have considered that because that's where I'm coming from.

Pierre: Okay, we understand your question and thank you for asking this important question. From our research it seems that there's some universal law. So here we are not talking about any kind of being, human or not, there are some universal laws. One of the most fundamental universal laws seems to be this drive towards more creation, more intelligence, more creativity and that has been a law applying for millions and millions of years on the planet and maybe in other places. And when evolution goes wrong, right now we can say on planet Earth evolution has gone wrong, psychopathic elites have destroyed the planet, the minds, the bodies, and we are regressing. When regression occurs, the opposite of evolution, the universal laws intervene and bring the population, the species, back towards the right track of creativity and evolution. So in this sense, the cosmically induced events we're witnessing right now, these earth changes, this crazy weather, might be simply a manifestation of this universal law bringing back life on the true path of evolution.

Joe: But in terms of the wars and stuff John, our theory is that it's a direct result of a non-human kind of predator that are called psychopaths that are in positions of power and they do what they do. They have a destructive kind of principle towards all life and that results in wars and death and suffering all over the planet. And where those people come from, yeah it's possible that they were genetically engineered and dropped down here on the planet some time hundreds or thousands of years ago or something like that, and that's part of this idea there is a possibility that there are alien species or alien beings that have been visiting this planet or may have had some part in the evolution of the human race and that they could be a genetically engineered kind of a variety of humans that we call psychopaths. It's a possible explanation for it.

Obviously we don't have much evidence for it or any evidence for it, but again, there's the whole UFO phenomenon that has endured throughout history and that's a big question. As far as if there's something along those lines interfering on the planet, well, that's for each person to decide. The evidence is there that there is some kind of a UFO phenomenon that is taken seriously by authorities on this planet. If you look at Richard Dolan's book, UFOs and the National Security State, there's a lot of hard evidence there that the authorities, governments in the US and around the world, took that phenomenon very seriously and thought there was something very real to it. So that opens up a whole debate on it, but as far as direct interference and stuff, it seems it was set in motion a long time ago the course of human evolution and the humans on the planet. It seems that that was set in motion primarily by the imposition or the existence of psychopaths in power who tend to royally screw up human evolution and human society wherever they gain positions of power.

Pierre: And if I may add something. What Joe said and what I said is not mutually exclusive. You might have experiment within experiment. On a universal level, you might have an experiment towards creativity, towards evolution that is going on with some adjustment mechanism like catastrophes are changes to clean the situation and you can have a lower level experiment conducted, I don't know, by aliens or whatever, while human beings are just engineered, basically. If that's the case, obviously the alien conducted experiment is not complying with the universal law and seems to lead to some drastic earth and cosmic reactions.

Joe: So there you have it John.

John: Yeah, I've just come to the conclusion that it's just not human, whatever and I see it. I lived in Ecuador for a while and the way that the president of Ecuador is destroying the Amazon area on one hand and on the other hand, he's really anti-US, but his actions are just like a psychopath and the contradictions are just so evident, especially with him. Bolivia is another example. It goes on and on and on down here. How the president is just some influence. I don't know what it is, but you see the contradictions in what they do, what they say and it just goes on and on and on. And I just know that whatever it is, it's just not human. The question you guys answered, I can appreciate the universal laws, karma, etc., yeah, and that has a great impact as well. So I just wanted to know whether or not you guys had considered the fact that, whether you call it a psychopath or whether it's whatever it is, really behind this?

Joe: Yeah, we're being messed with. One way or the other John, we're being messed with. Obviously the human race is being messed with, either by the kind of standard elites or whatever or you can posit some kind of higher force that's unseen or whatever, but the point for everybody to understand is that you got to be aware of what's going wrong on the planet and then human relations and choose a side. See the way things are going wrong and the way people are acting and choose not to act in that way and do your bit to try and restore some balance.

John: Yeah.

Joe: We got to let you go John. We're coming to an end of the show.

Pierre: Thanks for your call.

Joe: Thanks for your call though, and have fun down there in South America.

John: Okay.

Pierre: Bye.

Joe: Take it easy.

Niall: Yeah, all the world is a stage and we're all playing our parts. Joe you mentioned something earlier this week about the kind of resurgence of Russia and its actions or whatever its strategy might be, about it being like witnessing the closing scene of a play.

Joe: Yeah, I know a lot of people and this isn't just on our website SOTT.net or on our forum, I see it in the liberal, if we can use that term, media stuff like on websites like The Guardian, people commenting about the whole Russian situation and about Putin and there's a lot of people who tend to want to see Putin as a kind of savior and he's coming in on his horse to kind of like beat up the bad guy, the US and stuff. People who are of that mind-set kind of look to Putin as a savior type of thing and I don't see any chance of that happening. Of the world being put to rights or saved and changed in any fundamental way from the trajectory that it's on by Putin or anybody else. As Niall was just saying, the kind of analogy I thought about it's a play in a theatre and the actors are on stage and it's going in a certain direction and it has an end point but that doesn't preclude the possibility that towards the end after a lot of stuff has been exposed through the play about all the different options, the arguments have been given by the different actors and stuff, at the end a narrator comes out and maybe provides a contrary view to the general line of force of the play type of thing or what the message of the play was, someone comes along and says, "Well, you've listened to all of the arguments. You've listened to what seems to be the main point of this play, but..."

Niall: And he kind of holds up a mirror.

Joe: Yes. Maybe this isn't the way it is. Maybe there's another option. Kind of just before the final curtain type thing as a kind of a gift or a gesture to the people who have been paying attention, or as a support to the people who have been paying attention or think in a different way or don't agree with the thesis of the play. But that doesn't, by any means, mean that suddenly it's all going to change. As we've said on so many other occasions, the world is the way it is. It serves a particular purpose, it's generally speaking, for people to learn lessons about life and it seems that one of the best ways that people learn and the fastest ways maybe that people learn the lessons is through some kind of level of suffering. Either their own personal suffering or trying to understand and empathize maybe with the suffering of other people and God knows there's more than enough of that and has been throughout human history. And it seems that that is the point of it and people shouldn't get too hung up on trying to change it because it serves that purpose and to change it would deny the opportunity for learning life lessons in that way. So that's what I think.

Pierre: Okay, I think that's very good concluding words.

Joe: Alright. Well, we're going to end it there folks. Thanks to our callers and to our listeners and to our chatters. We will be back next week with another show as yet to be determined or announced. But we hope you'll join us for that one. Until then have a good one and good night.

Niall: Bye, bye.

Pierre: Have a good one. Bye, bye.