Sott Talk Radio logo
This week on SOTT Talk Radio we looked back through world events in the last few weeks. With the US celebrating 237 years of 'independence', what is the state of the nation? With meteor fireballs appearing at the mass demonstrations in Egypt and Brazil, we discussed the 'human-cosmic' relationship and the likely connection between global suffering and our increasingly strange climate. What global suffering? Well, if it isn't wars or economic austerity, it's cops out-of-control cops abusing - killing even - people.

Running Time: 02:13:00

Download: MP3

Here's the transcript:

Joe: Hi and welcome to SOTT Talk Radio. This is Sunday July 7th. I'm Joe Quinn. With me is Niall Bradley, Jason Martin and Pierre Lescaudron.

Pierre: Hello.

Joe: Some of you will already know we had a show planned for this week with our guest Hank Albarelli Jr., but unfortunately today, due to unforeseen circumstances he was unable to appear. We'll maybe be able to schedule him again sometime in the future.

Niall: I hope so. He's got a lot to say.

Joe: Yeah. The show was gonna be on the two books that he has written, mainly to do with a deeper look into the JFK assassination and the weird and strange coincidences around that, specifically involving so many different actors. Not actual actors...

Jason: [chuckle] yeah.

Niall: Yeah, that word has forever been tainted!

Joe: People have actually picked up on that word. The people who are promoting the Sandy Hook and Boston Marathon actors theory were picking up on that word being used by various U.S. officials at different times to say that they were just basically coming out and saying that they use actors, totally missing the fact that the word is used as in the actors on a stage, on a political stage or a global stage.

Jason: I think we should refer to them as perpetrators.

Niall: Albarelli has also done a lot of extensive research into the CIA mind control and biological warfare experiments as well as the JFK assassination that Joe just mentioned. So it will be interesting to have him back on. We've got a couple of his books on the subject. We also have some of his articles on SOTT, so I think they were put back up on the page today or refreshed today so you should see them there. Search for Albarelli.

Joe: So in place of our interview with Hank we have decided to go to plan B which we always have ready and waiting, or not. Plan B today is basically to have a general open discussion on various different topics that have occurred to us or may occur to us during the show. But also to provide an opportunity for our listeners who have been faithfully listening in every week for the last 24 weeks.

And we have had callers most weeks. But we just wanted to dedicate, at least some part of this show or maybe as much as you want to, to our listeners to either write in via the chat function on the SOTT Talk Radio Show website or to call in, cause we like to hear your voice, with any questions that you have on really any topic that has occurred to you. Basically across the board anything you want to discuss or you want us to give you a canned opinion on.

Niall: Even if we've already brought up the topic in a previous show. Maybe there's something you want to clarify, or something you didn't agree with.

Joe: Or something we didn't mention.

Niall: And in the course of today's conversation even if we've moved on from something go ahead and bring it back up. So there's no problem, you don't have to wait for the right moment to interject.

Joe: And there's no time limit on when you can call in either. If you want you can call in right now.

Jason: We want to get lots of callers in. Have a question and let us get to it, type of thing.

Joe: Absolutely. So people have already, on our forum, mentioned a few topics immediately when they saw the opportunity to...

Niall: To grandstand?!

Joe: No, not to grandstand but to have their say or to bring up topics. The first one that I saw was the current events on meteors: the meteor sightings in Brazil and Egypt at the peak of demonstrations in those two countries. This is true. There appears to have been two meteorites seen flashing across the sky.

Jason: That's something we've been saying for a while. This stuff attracts that kind of thing.

Joe: Exactly. We've talked about that but it is interesting. On the one hand you could turn around and say "listen there's so many meteorites flying across the skies these days and nights, obviously most particularly when people can see them best, that odds are if there's a five day long demonstration over a major city in Brazil"...

Jason: With like a million people then yeah.

Pierre: You raise an interesting question though. Recently we've talked about the collapse of the probabilistic wave in quantum terms, i.e. what people think, information they store in their memory might have an interest, create a kind of signal that might modulate or increase the probabilities of some cosmic events. From this point of view we can wonder if it only works in a very global way, the lies culminating for years and years all across the planet and leading to a global reaction made maybe by a comet swarm. We have a lot of comets showering every day for several years. And/or is this cosmic human reaction more local and more specific and, while the right conditions are here, can a mass demonstration modulate within this global cosmic reaction some specific event, global reaction versus a specific one. Well, I don't know the answer but it's an interesting question.

Niall: Well, just as some background I have noticed that in fact there seems to have been a drop off in fireball reports. They were coming in all over the place every day throughout May and then they seem to slow down, at least let's say in mainstream reports and/or bloggers posting articles about them. People are still reporting them to sites where you can go and give your details, "I saw it here. It went in this direction. It was this big and so on". But there seemed to be a relative drop off and just as I was wondering about this, I saw these two reports, they're mainstream news footage of the demonstrations taking place in Rio, well, actually the one in Brazil was seen in both Rio and Sao Paulo, so it was big enough to be seen across...

Pierre: It is 400 kilometers between Rio and Sao Paulo.

Niall: Yeah. It seems to stand out so it's not just a small little localized thing, it did seem to be large enough.

Pierre: You know it might be the quietness before the storm but, in any case it's probably not a linear event. If there's really a cometary swarm we are facing with comets, comet fragments, comet debris, dust, various kinds of asteroids in shape and size, you won't have a linear progression of increased rate of observation occurrence. According to the official database of the American Meteor Society for the first six months of 2013, you had an increase of roughly 50% compared to the 2012 figures that were already very high, the highest since the beginning of the records in 2005. So over all global asteroid activity is on the increase up till now on average.

Joe: Yeah. I don't know...

Niall: So, okay, going back to this connection though, what comes first, the change on the ground and then some kind of reflection above?

Jason: Well you know they say that some types of animals react to earthquakes or any kind of storms. I've had dogs my entire life and they start acting weird preceding a storm. You guys have observed that our dogs go a little bit wonky when there's going to be some weird weather going on. Is all the trouble going on here on the planet is that like people sense something is going to happen? Now that might be true but, at the same time, there's also this idea that they could influence it, that the very fact that things have come to this head in the world, kind of, can bring that down. And I think maybe in a certain sense it might be a little bit of both.

Pierre: Yeah. I concur. I was writing about it today and I'm thinking that if we try to find what came first, the chicken or the egg, it's probably lies and the suffering of humanity that comes first.

Jason: Yeah.

Pierre: Okay, but once it's there and once it has triggered some cosmic reactions, you will have the government that will increase the lies spread within our minds in order to cover up what is going on. And basically to masquerade cosmically induced, related and serious phenomena as manmade, unrelated, minor phenomena. So that's why you have all those lies about the manmade chem-trails, manmade global warming, pollution induced or erosion induced sinkholes, unexplained weakening Gulf Stream, and unexplained meandering Jet Streams. So, basically while the process has started the lies to maintain power and add up to ensure imperial power, it adds up to new lies for the cover up, so that the lie factor - what they call the lie factor - increases and might increase even more the cosmic reaction. And more cosmic reaction, more social unrest, more doubts of the people increases the necessity of spreading more lies from the elites and you have a vicious cycle going on.

Niall: Yeah. It's amplified.

Jason: Yeah.

Pierre: Yeah. And it's a feedback loop, a negative feedback loop.

Niall: Well it's interesting that we've gone way out there to the global picture but, if you look at each of the major demonstrations / revolutions - I think the major ones are Egypt, Turkey, Brazil of course, and then Chile as well saw mass demonstrations recently - people looking at them and each one has their own overarching narrative about why it's taking place. And then, of course, within that you have people on the streets saying, "I'm protesting for this reason", "No, I'm here for this reason". Now, certainly in Egypt, it's pretty cohesive. The message there from the people on the ground of the reason they're doing it is, "we want the government out". Which pretty much is the same message across the board but, there are different background factors. When Egypt first flared up there was a major food crisis. They were rioting over food. In Chile, where a hundred thousand mainly high school students started protesting before it inflamed into something bigger, the reasons given were a lot more specific to things the government was doing. It was not that the people suddenly had their backs up against the wall and couldn't feed themselves. If anything, in fact, Chile and Brazil also, have become, on the whole, wealthier countries in recent years.

Pierre: I see where you're going and indeed, oppression has always been there, oppression goes hand in hand with empires in the past and present. So we can wonder if it's only operation and level of oppression that triggers social unrest. And maybe - while difficult to prove - but maybe, on a more or less unconscious level, humanity or groups are picking up what is going on. If you pick up what is going on, it proves it's an evidence of the breach of the fundamental contract that gives legitimacy to the elites, i.e. we are here to protect you. And even just unconsciously you realize what is going on that the elites cannot protect you, then that makes major clashes between the elites and the people very likely.

Niall: Yeah. That makes a lot of sense. This is something that is largely taking place in the unconscious even though it is made manifest, obviously, by getting out on the streets. If you're to actually look at someone's motives, they'll each give a different kind of angle on it but, what they share in common is probably what you suggested, a deep, deep, connection that something is fundamentally wrong here.

Pierre: Yeah, this unconscious collective sense that something wrong is going on. Just to go back to this cosmic human connection, it's quite ironic when you think about it, that people believing in the lies of minor man made phenomena, like what they call chem-trails, will increase the lie factor and therefore increase the cosmic reaction. So, by believing that it's minor you increase the seriousness of the event. So, ironically by believing in manmade global warming, if this cosmic-human connection is valid, you increase the cosmically induced global cooling. That's quite a big nail in the coffin of the new age crowd - you create your own reality - because somehow when lies are everywhere or really wide spread, you basically create a reality that is opposite to what you believe, wrongly.

Jason: Yeah, I suppose. I was going to pick out the one thing because, there is always a point that I like to harp on. This whole the elites promise of security right. They can't protect you from cosmic things and they can't protect you from natural disasters. But, in a certain sense, that would be okay if they could protect you from all the other stuff that goes on in the world but they're completely incompetent in that area too. They didn't protect the people from 9/11 - if you believe that that really happened - they don't protect you from all the murders and drug dealers and all this different stuff. A woman gets raped every three minutes in the United States, all this different stuff. There's all this stuff going on in your life like being taken advantage of by a conman, losing all your money, losing your job, not being able to feed your kids and not having health care. They don't protect you. Then there is this whole, "Oh yeah, by the way they can't protect you from cosmic stuff". It would be like, "can't do everything" but, they can't even do what they promise to do so they sure as hell can't do this other stuff.

Pierre: But if they did what they say, i.e. protecting us from Earthly events, you might not get these cosmic reactions.

Jason: True.

Pierre: Ironically, you'll see the lies. Actually the elites that we believe to be here to protect us against any threat, including cosmic threats, might be the very reason why those cosmic reaction occurs because of the lies they spread. You see how ironic it is?

Jason: Yeah, it's very ironic. But, even bringing it back down to a purely earthly level, totally on an earthly level, if everybody in America or something like that - because I'm an American I speak obviously about America but it's a problem all over the world right now - if everybody had a job, if nobody was starving, if there wasn't this rampant crime going on all over the place, if there weren't people being murdered and people being raped and people being scammed and cheated and stuff like that. If there weren't those things then you could almost say that it's at least kind of getting what you paid for when you trade off these certain freedoms and this certain privacy and stuff like that. You could almost say that "at least I'm getting something for what I'm paying for" but, here you're not getting anything at all. They haven't succeeded at all since the beginning, so it's even worse.

Joe: I don't know, I think at the basic level what people look to authority figures for is not necessarily to protect them but, to kind of make decisions for them. To take care of the big decisions, and stuff that is beyond what they see is their scope to decide upon, especially in terms of nation states and large numbers of people. They need the smart people to make the decisions on the important issues. What the average person believes is beyond his ability to really make a decision and a lot of people like that as well, because if they see there are major decisions being made, they don't necessarily want to take responsibility for making those decisions themselves. So I think the basis of leaders or the idea of leaders or an authority in society is basically for decision making and when important decisions for the group need to be made you have a small coterie of elected or appointed leaders who will take responsibility and that's fine for the average person as long as they make good decisions and nothing goes wrong. But, this idea that the leaders are there to protect people, I think that has to be introduced and has to be fabricated, in a certain sense, that some kind of enemy, some kind of threat to the people is used by corrupt leaders who really don't have the best intentions of the people at heart but they want to stay in power none the less so they fabricate an enemy from which they can then claim to have to protect the people. And the people believe that and they say "okay, you know, well we'll let these people stay in power because after all they did take care of the bad guys that were this threat to us".

Jason: To me that seems slightly, I don't know if the word would be like tautological or something but, states came into being and existed to protect people from other states. They exist to perpetuate their own existences. The state and government had to have started from, I think, another germ inside of society. Then nations formed after the concept of governments. They started in sort of like this tribal thing and a bunch of people running around in a tribe. Why would they have a head man in a tribe? You can't say necessarily that they only did because there was another tribe five miles down the place and they had to fight them or something. There's some other reason for people to actually choose leaders.

Joe: Well, that's what I just said.

Jason: Yeah, but not to protect them from other tribes.

Joe: But I didn't say that.

Jason: Or to make the big decisions.

Joe: To make the important decisions for the tribe, not to protect them. Well, the basis of it was of the capable member or members of the tribe who showed some natural proclivities for intelligence or whatever, who'd be looked to for advice on certain matters then became the head of the tribe who would then take care and make important decisions for the tribe.

Jason: Right.

Joe: That was the basis of the idea of leadership. But this idea of having to protect the people against a threat - obviously it could have evolved when there was a threat to the tribe - in more recent times a lot of it has been manufactured in order to justify their continuance of power of this elite who just say "listen well, here's a threat and we need to protect you from it and you need us so, shut up!"

Pierre: So, on an earthly level and a cosmic level it's the same. The leaders were supposed to protect us but actually are the cause of the earthly and cosmic events that are threatening us.

Joe: Yeah absolutely. So how did we get on that topic? Oh yeah, because of the...

Pierre: Comets.

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: I don't know, electrical? If they are an electrical phenomenon, is there some aspect of a large group of people together all getting very excited, generating some kind of electrical charge together that could attract? That's the question. I don't know. I'm a listener now Pierre and I'm asking you a question.

Pierre: I don't know.

Joe: That's a bit too far out there.

Pierre: For months I've been looking for this answer and there might be a connection between electricity and information indeed. Since electricity comes from some order within the movement and the localization of electrons. So there might be a correlation here between information, i.e. order and electricity. This being said, you have this study, I mentioned previously, conducted by professor Jahn and Dunne from Princeton which showed that human beings do have a very tiny influence on random events.

However, people that are related have a much stronger influence on random events. This being related it doesn't mean necessarily having the same genome type - same genes - because it was within family but this synergy also happened within couples. So, apparently it's more sharing the same cultural background, information, and beliefs - wrong or right - that creates this resonance, this synergetic dynamic in the way a group influences "random" events. From this perspective, reasoning by analogy, we can hypothesize that one million people thinking the same thing, believing the same thing because you can talk about what you think but consciously what you believe deeply are sometimes very different and what really matters is what you feel, what you believe deeply which is sometimes contrary to what you think consciously. When people resonate on the same frequency let's say - same belief frequency - they can have a huge impact on "random" events.

Joe: Well, there's a comment here from Pashalis who says - I'm not sure what he's disagreeing with - but he's says "I disagree. I think the main reason why humanity is attracting catastrophes is not because psychopaths are in control or power but because the overwhelming majority of normal people stay sound asleep about the fact".

Pierre: I think somehow he's right as far as the choice is concerned. Today the situation is that there's a huge amount of lies, a huge amount of suffering. It comes from the psychopaths leading psychopaths who inflict this misery on people. But what Pashalis says is true in that indeed if we want to change the expected gloomy future we cannot wait for the psychopaths to change because this oppression, these lies, and torturing others is their nature.

Jason: You can never get rid of psychopaths.

Pierre: And you cannot change their nature. They are the way they are and we cannot transform them into conscious, compassionate beings. So, indeed the responsibility, ultimately, to change this gloomy future lies on our shoulders, we are the only one. Only conscious people can change. Psychopaths will not change.

Jason: Yep.

Joe: Well, there's been a concerted effort to psychopathologize or to ponerize the population and to turn the population of the planet into psychopaths or to certainly, at the very least, make them view the world or life and human relations from a psychopathic point of view. That's been ongoing for a long, long time and it's kind of interesting because there's all this talk about how can we cure psychopaths when, in fact, it's the psychopaths in power and they're kind of infection of psychopathic ideas that has spread through the population has led to questions of how to cure human beings of their normal human responses or certainly that's the way psychopaths seem to kind of look at it.

Niall: Yeah. I think they see us, normal humans, as a disease that needs to be cured.

Joe: An aberration.

Niall: Yeah. It is they who have evolved perfectly and the normal population is where something is wrong and they need to be re-educated.

Joe: Well the whole idea of people doubting. It's so much easier if you don't doubt, if you're just totally sure of what you believe and you just go ahead. You see something you want, you go get it. It's all very effective and efficient the way they go about it I suppose. Of course it doesn't take into consideration human emotions and that's one thing they're severely lacking in terms of any real effect that those emotions might have on their lives.

Jason: I think what they're missing is the ability to agree.

Joe: Who?

Jason: Psychopaths. The psychopaths can get together and they can plan and plot for mutual benefit but they never really agree with each other. They're always trying to one up each other and stab each other in the back and that's their ultimate flaw is that they don't have this ability to network together and agree. And like how Pierre was saying there a minute ago about a whole bunch of people coming together and believing something deeply or feeling something very deeply, that has some sort of effect, energetically I guess, with the universe. And it says this kind of stuff in many religious text and Jesus even said 'Even if two of you should agree that will give you a great amount of power'. And that's what the regular human has, they have the ability to share each other's minds in the way that a psychopath never can.

Two psychopaths cannot share their mind but two normal people, through the process of empathy or the process of engaging those mirror neurons, can share each other's minds. In a kind of round about sense, not like this whole psychic, new age way but I can have some form of mental experience of what you are feeling or thinking or agree with you at a deeper level whereas a psychopath cannot do that. So in the immediate situation he just sees something, goes for it and it seems like such a successful strategy in the short term. And in the short term it's a very successful strategy and they prove that again and again but human history is told in millenniums. We look back at human history and the human has been kind of somewhat similar to what he is now for 60,000 years. How many empires have risen and fallen from their own interior corrosion and corruption of these psychopaths. They say "oh we're so good" and they get up to the top of the pile and then they spend so much time building it up really quickly, the foundations of it crumble and they topple down and everybody dies with them and so obviously they're not very evolved in that sense of the word.

Niall: I agree that no two psychopaths can agree however they're extremely mechanical nature means that they will always end up doing the same thing.

Jason: Yeah, mechanistically.

Niall: In a way it is a kind of similar bonding together that normal humans have except it doesn't work through a Limbic system because, for whatever reason, their Limbic system, that thing that gives people empathy between each other, is not functioning correctly or works differently.

Pierre: Remember one of the features of the Limbic system is limbic resonance so psychopaths, just to summarize, might be limited in two ways as far as this human-cosmic connection is concerned. First, they are masters of wishful thinking. They see the world as they want it to be and if this connection is valid probably the way to avoid a gloomy future is to see the world as the way it is, objectively. Which psychopaths are unable to so, they cannot change the future in this aspect. The other handicap of psychopaths is that they cannot tap, apparently in this field, in this system, this limbic resonance system or what we should call this morphic field, which allows people to resonate in the same frequency and to create some synergetic effect and of a more potent punch.

Joe: So Lisa asks "Why is it important for people to learn about psychopathy and how can it be used to help them defend themselves against those with a pathological mindset?"

Jason: Knowledge is power.

Niall: Well, we recently had what appears to be going down as the world's largest demonstration where 20 million people were speaking of the same voice in the same mind in Egypt. If those people were aware that cheering the military elite, who actually sit on top of their elected leaders, i.e. above and beyond, if they realize their true nature immediately that naivety about "oh the army can protect us" would fall.

Pierre: Another reason to be aware of psychopathy, which is probably the most important topic, is that I think that psychopathy is responsible for maybe 99% of the suffering on Earth, suffering of the planet, suffering of the animals, and suffering of the human beings. I think that without the psychopathic factor and the subsequent ponerization is twisting of our minds losing our most fundamental human values, I think that Earth could really be a paradise.

Jason: Absolutely. But let me ask this question: If you live in a jungle are you better off knowing about snakes or not knowing about them? And does just knowing about them protect you from snakes completely? Is it still possible to get bitten or will you, when you look out for snakes and know where snakes hide, you know don't step on certain areas, don't step on logs, don't step over them, things like that, if you know those rules, if you know that they exist and you try to watch out for them, you reduce the chances of you being a victim of a snake bite.

It's the same thing with a psychopath. It doesn't mean that you never will get bitten, there's no guarantee. But knowing about a danger or not, you should always choose to know about a danger. If they exist then you have to say "they exist and they're dangerous and these are the things that they do". Specifically reading something like Political Ponerology which has this systematic study of how they act in a macro-social political milieu, that's fundamentally important.

Pierre: And even if you know about psychopathy you're still partly blind about some facets of the phenomenon, i.e. even if you're an expert in psychopathy, I don't think you will be able to detect psychopaths.

Jason: No, not necessarily.

Pierre: So it's a partly unsolvable problem.

Niall: I don't think that is the goal to keep in mind when it comes to this. There is a lot of stuff out there and you get these new people on the scene who position themselves as educators on this topic. And one of their main selling points is this "oh, I can tell you in twenty quick steps how to spot a psychopath". They're "check out this video here, look at her eyes, see how she does that - definitely a psychopath". Not only is that nearly always wrong, but it's beside the point.

Pierre: Yeah.

Niall: It's an awareness that once you have it, stays with you.

Joe: If you take the fact or accept the idea that psychopaths are fundamentally different from human beings and that they lack empathy, then the best way to be able to spot a psychopath is to increase you own awareness and abilities in terms of empathy. Not that there are abilities but increase you own empathic nature, to pursue things that increase that because that's the best way you're going to be able to identify them as different from you. Because that's the problem the jungle analogy is a good one, but the problem is...

Pierre: You cannot see the snakes.

Joe: ...they can't see the snakes that are exactly like you. With a long process - with the snake analogy - there's been a long process of turning human beings or making human beings or encouraging human beings to act like snakes so they don't identify the snakes amongst them. In the modern world you take a person who could be clinically proven to not be a psychopath but you could identify many or several psychopathic traits within that person because they have been infected with them over many, many years, many generations.

Jason: Right.

Joe: And so probably the best way to do it then, and you kind of kill two birds with one stone in a certain sense, not only do you make the world a better place by increasing you levels of empathy or conscious, you also are better able to spot someone who is acting in an unconscionable way.

Pierre: Jason, I think that we cannot spot psychopath, unlike snakes, but what we can spot is the effects of psychopathy - ponerization- on the society. On the values, in books, in movies, in ourselves because nobody is immune to ponerization and everybody - to some extent consciously or not - has adopted some psychopathic trait. So what we can fight against is not psychopath but the effects of psychopathy. And in the end, if what really matters is the state of humanity, this cosmic reaction is the state of the Earth, having psychopaths or not is not really the problem. You can have psychopaths if you manage somehow to cancel the nefarious effects induced by psychopaths, i.e. ponerization.

Jason: Well that brings up this article on the SOTT page, you should go read it on, by Paul Levy who wrote the book about 'wetiko'. He's really into this whole shamanism stuff and he quotes from a book by a guy named Wessalman who went and interviewed some Hawaiian shaman and in part of his book the Hawaiian shaman talks about the e'epa which is the kind of the Hawaiian shamanistic tradition version of the wetiko who he describes them as kind of a malevolent energy that infects the minds of people. Which I thought was really interesting because they weren't necessarily saying so much about this whole idea of essential psychopathy but that there is something that actually goes out and starts to infect people's minds and then it slowly takes them over. So at first it's just small things and then they get more and more inured into this evil system. And the whole idea being basically is the e'epa, this wetiko kind of energy, basically starts to take over the person's mind and creates this facsimile of them that it uses - in their name - to do all these horrible things and slowly their inner essence gets suppressed deep inside them and sort of cornered off and so they have this little bit of actual humanity inside them but it becomes just basically bogged down by this evil kind of energy. So I thought that was interesting especially with where the conversation was going is that it's not just psychopaths, it's people who take on, they get ponerized, take on psychopathic traits and start believing psychopathic ideals.

Joe: Yeah. So there are some examples now, since we're on this topic we can maybe look at some examples of that ponerization or psychopathologization.

Jason: I like ponerization. It's a shorter word.

Joe: Yeah, just trying to make sure people know what [chuckles] - it's a shorter word, definitely.

Niall: Zombification?

Joe: Oh, zombification! There are a lot of zombie movies. That's a weird one. I can't get my head around the zombie movie.

Pierre: Psychopathification.

Joe: Yeah.

Jason: I think zombies are a totally separate thing than ponerization.

Joe: Well, but what I can't get my head around is the upsurge, or the plethora of...

Jason: Have you met most people today?

Joe: ...zombie movies that are just coming out in the past ten years. I know that idea has been around for a long time but there seems to be a lot of them. It's very popular these days.

Jason: Yeah.

Joe: Maybe that is a reflection of some kind of mass consciousness that is being given off and maybe this ties into the idea of comets and what we are trying to get at. It's a very abstract concept but maybe it ties into it in some way in the sense that human thought is actually in some way material.

Jason: Yeah.

Joe: People talk about a vibration of your thoughts and all this kind of stuff but maybe what they should really be talking about is the electrical polarity of the electrical charge in terms of differences in electrical charge given off by thoughts, simply what's in someone's head, and that in some way may gravitate some kind of other electrical phenomenon in the universe.

Pierre: Well zombies seem to me like a striking materialization of two phenomenon that are occurring more and more in our modern society: the feeding phenomena, figuratively speaking, and the dead inside phenomena.

Jason: The self-tranquilization.

Pierre: Sadly more and more people are dead inside - a living dead. And more and more you have people who feed or not, as you know, like those people who keep complaining or keep this emotional feeding mechanism.

Niall: We're speaking in psychological terms and you just said figuratively, but getting back to Paul Levy's idea about a virus, I wonder if there's a little content here. To go back to Lisa's question of what's a good reason for knowing about this and how it works. Well it could literally be that in some way we cannot see but perhaps feel in some energetic sense that your energy, so to speak, is taken from you.

Jason: Also you can take it even to a disease kind of analogy.

Niall: Well it is spoken in those terms. It is in Political Ponerology and by other psychologists today.

Jason: A communicative disease. A communicable disease.

Joe: I think there is a whole science here that has not been discovered yet or that is unknown to us. It may be as real as our current science is. There is another level of science that would define...

Jason: Psychological Oncology, or something?

Joe: Yeah! That would define human thought as something tangible and measurable.

Jason: Communicable.

Joe: Maybe, maybe the science is there for that but it's just not available to the public. Maybe the CIA have it.

Niall: But people have access to it none the less. When people see millions of their fellow people on the streets, I'm watching it and how could you not be affected by the energy. In some way you are drawn in and you are excited about it or you hate it, for whatever reason you are definitely affected.

Joe: That's a whole area that science should be looking into because it's talking about the mob and mob rule and the way that a large group of people will kind of like act as one almost and can influence each other. But what's influencing them? - They talk about these things where the fervor or the excitement amongst the mob where they all kind of work off each other. Well what's working off each other? Is there not something tangible there could theoretically be quantified in scientific terms?

Pierre: I think that...

Joe: It's not just visual. People describe a feeling or a sensation. It's more than just "I see the guy besides me doing something and I'm going to do the same". It's not just a thought process. It's an exchange of some kind of energy or something.

Pierre: There might be several levels but on the first level is information, memories. You have several cases showing that some human beings or even in rats - say rats cause it's less gross - so rats learned the path to get some food and had areas from their brain removed. This one area they try, and this one and that one. In the end all the areas - that were tested in various rats were removed - part A in rat A, part B in rat B. And all of the rats, sometimes they were really crippled, but they managed to go back and immediately find the path. So, that's one of the many researches about the non-material and non-localized nature of memory. So, in this sense the brain might be, in this physical realm, the emitter and receptor that connects us to, let us call it the memory field or thought field, which has so far been undiscovered, intangible, and unmeasurable so far. So I think to answer your question Joe, there might be both.

There's some tangible manifestation, electricity in the brain, neurological signals that are just a manifestation that are more global, non-local. And this non-local property of memories, of information, of thoughts can explain all those super-luminal transmission connections between individuals. There might be other ones at some other energetic level, instinctual level, and emotional level but the information is there.

Niall: Yeah. Like how do two people who - maybe they're friend or maybe they're related like twins - how do they pick up on the same thing simultaneously on separate continents? I know there are studies.

Joe: Yeah.

Jason: Well, even just like regular people inventing similar things or writing similar things...

Niall: Exactly!

Jason: ...without any possibility for communication. We're talking about historically.

Pierre: You know Rupert Sheldrake gives an interesting example.

Jason: He wrote a book A New Science of Life.

Pierre: He created the concept of morphic resonance, morphogenetic fields. He mentions all of the studies that show that on average people do cross word puzzles quicker when the cross words are old.

Jason: Right.

Pierre: As if somewhere, somehow what they call a morphic field, the solutions, the knowledge was stored and available, partly in an unconscious way to the ones that will do the old cross words after the pioneers that took more time to find the solution.

Joe: After other people did it.

Pierre: Yeah. You find it in apprenticeship, in learning acceleration basically of any learning curve. One fascinating example is the formation of crystals. You find that because, basically, a crystal as a solid form of a liquid is more organized, there's more information in it and you see that crystals form quicker and quicker, easier and easier with time. You use the same process, the same exact condition, the same temperature, same pressure and the process gets easier and easier.

Jason: Yup. He's got in his book A New Science of Life loads of great examples. The rat one I think is in that one and he's got great, great stuff. He did a video lecture that also has some supplementary material.

Pierre: And before we move onto other topics I would like to say two things. First, about the Brazilian demonstration, it's really interesting what triggered those demonstrations is that Brazil was supposed to organize the soccer world cup.

Niall: Yeah. Next year.

Pierre: Next year in 2014. Brazil is the main nation as far as soccer is concerned.

Jason: They love it.

Pierre: It's a religion over there. And interestingly the very same soccer fans - Brazilian soccer fan - are not for once investing all their energy, beliefs and cheerfulness into supporting soccer, but now they invest energy to protest against the World Cup because of the fact that billions and billions are being spent to build new stadiums etc., while people are starving to death which is quite a legitimate reaction.

Jason: Well, yeah.

Niall: Well, just one more question then. They are not starving to death. - There is a massive underclass in Brazil.

Pierre: It's getting better, agreed.

Niall: Their specific argument was that this should be money going into...

Pierre: Priority services.

Niall: Yeah.

Pierre: And the second point - to give us some hope - about this lie factor, about this signal that humanity might send. Lies versus truth. Actually truth has a fundamental advantage. Usually lies about one fact can have many, many lies, many wrong ways to describe the fact. Like 9/11 some people think this, some people think that, various people resonate on various lie frequencies. They add up various lies instead of the truth but the truth is one about this fact or that fact. So, it means the occurrence of the signal, why the lie signals are not perfectly coherent is because people believe different lies that might actually sometimes cancel each other.

Jason: Right.

Pierre: The truth signal doesn't require such a high critical mass of people to have the same effect or the contrary effect.

Jason: Right, because for the most part some complex truths might exist in mathematics and physics perhaps. But generally speaking most of the fundamental truths of the world are very simple and very direct. There's no complexity. People try to make it "oh, well it's not that simple" and it just sometimes is. The government lies, that's what they do.

Pierre: Most of the time I think it's a red flag when you see science mentioned, this highly convoluted explanation requiring all those complicated phenomena. Sometimes you read some papers and see that's a very complex phenomenon. And I think most of the time - not all of the time - most of the time it is a red flag because scientists are aware that what they are seeing is not totally consistent so they have to muddy the water.

Jason: Right.

Pierre: To lose the reader so the reader cannot see the flaws in the reasoning.

Joe: Speaking of football in Brazil. There's a story, I think I just saw it in the news relatively recently, and there was a football match in the Maranhão region of northeastern Brazil, not a major football match but a local football match where there was plenty of supporters. The referee gave one of the players a red card and the player didn't take to well to that and kicked the referee or attacked the referee in some way. And the referee was packin' a knife and pulled a knife out.

Jason: Pulled out his Kershaw.

Joe: Pulled out a knife and stabbed the player in the chest and the player then died on the way to hospital. The crowed - supposedly the supporters of the player that was stabbed - turned on the referee and they started to beat him. And eventually they cut his head off.

Jason: I think they cornered him and cut his head off.

Joe: Yeah. I saw a picture of it. They tried to cut off his arms and legs. They cut off part of his leg - well they kind of half succeeded - but they succeeded in cutting his head off. So, that's an interesting story from Brazil football related coming right after the protests but ostensibly about the spending on the World Cup in 2014.

Niall: I think we're going to see extremes of everything. So on the one hand people marching on the streets in unison is an extreme compared to the norm which is sit at home and watch T.V. and do nothing. And then we're going to see the other side which is well, cannibalism.

Jason: Right.

Niall: People actually devouring each other to pieces. I mean we've seen a few stories in the last couple of years.

Jason: I think if the world survives into the next ten years each year progressively things are going to get worse. And we're going to see these age old sins of governments and peoples. It's just going to get worse with these people.

Joe: Yeah. Disintegration I suppose.

Jason: Total disintegration of law, which we see today.

Joe: Well, it's starting already.

Jason: On the SOTT page there's this thing about the DUI stop on the fourth of July.

Niall: Yeah.

Jason: Now I remember when I was in America this was not really a practice. This whole traffic stop thing like this wasn't really a practice, I've never really heard of it. When I came to France it was very shocking because the French are really obsessed with this thing called the contrôle routier. It's very common and to me as an American, I came here and I thought it was like a military dictatorship when I saw the gendarmes and the police. They have these contrôle routier everywhere. And everyone is like "oh, yeah, it's totally normal" and for me as an American I thought that it's really, really unusual. I have to stop and give my license and answer a bunch of questions to this random police stop - I wasn't doing anything wrong. But there's this guy in America on the Fourth of July they had this DUI stop, I guess it's a practice now.

Pierre: What does DUI mean?

Joe: Driving under the influence.

Jason: To see you have any alcohol, which is definitely something they do in France. And so he's got this camera in the side of his car and he's videotaping this. And the cop at one point - and this is the craziest thing ever - cop at one point says to him "the constitution doesn't apply during a traffic stop" [chuckles]. For an American to say that is mind boggling. Of course a cop is going to say that. Now you expect it but really you have to remember a cop is still an American and in America even saying that the constitution doesn't apply is mind boggling to be honest.

Niall: They've been conditioned. They've been trained at this point...

Jason: This guy was, definitely.

Niall: ...that if somebody gives you cheek back and appeals to the constitution that means he's using that as a way to break the law or something, or hoodwink you. So in his mind he actually thinks "I am being totally constitutional, this guy is just using it to try and slither past me".

Joe: He's abusing the constitution. That'll be an offense soon, 'verbal misuse of the constitution'.

Jason: Pretty soon it's going to be either you're violating the constitution or you're not.

Joe: Yeah. Well I haven't spent much time in the U.S. but from what I've seen over the past few years, there seems to be a lot of police presence on the roads in the U.S., a lot of stops and stuff. And comparatively I thought that actually in France around here I see the keystone cops up the road there stopping people, but usually they're looking for dodgy looking people and dodgy looking cars and they're hoping to find that they don't have any insurance or something like that. I think once I've been stopped and asked to blow into a little tube. That was on a Sunday afternoon because they were trying to get people coming back from Sunday lunch where the French usually will be quaffing several bottles of wine of a Sunday lunch and then driving back home. So in France I drive around on the roads and stuff, especially on the highways, I see a lot of traffic cameras but I don't see a lot of police presence.

Pierre: That's a good point. Actually most of the contrôle routier, i.e. road controls are performed against foreigners, black people, and Arabic people.

Jason: Everyone Arabic.

Pierre: Yeah. That's a major offence in France, apparently it's highly suspicious.

Jason: Yeah.

Pierre: And the other thing is that while there is this major focus, this kind of fascism against speed with literally speed cams everywhere on the roads, you have a surprising leniency as far as alcohol consumption is concerned. Actually one of the main causes of death on the roads is young teenagers going to nightclubs, drinking on Saturday night, getting drunk and having a car crash. That's a sad truth. So, it would be very easy for cops to get people with an alcohol rate that is too high. You just wait at the exit of the nightclubs at three in the morning, on Sunday morning, and you get a lot of fines and a lot of money. But, they don't do that. Why? There are possible explanations that are not mutually exclusive. The first reason is that alcohol in France is a big business. It's a country of wine and you can have advertising for alcohol in France but advertising for cigarettes is forbidden, you see the asymmetry? It's a big lobby. Obviously the objective of the authorities is not to minimize the number of people dying on the roads. There are some other objectives that are at work.

Joe: Money.

Jason: Yeah, that's it.

Joe: Levying taxes.

Jason: Even then you'd think that they make more money if they actually went out. It's like Bill Hicks said; nobody smokes four or five cigarettes and runs over somebody because they're to inebriated to drive.

Niall: I think the reason in both countries is the same. It's to project a permanent presence of being watched.

Jason: Yeah, you're being watched.

Niall: We're watching you.

Jason: Even in France they call it 'un controle'. Every sort of government interference with people's lives is prefixed by the word 'control'. It's just amazing.

Joe: I think the problem in the U.S. has been, like we just said, a real upswing in the number of reports of police brutality or police strong arm tactics against civilians. I think it's fair to say that in the developed 'oh so wonderfully democratic and free west' the U.S. stands head and shoulders above the rest leading the pack in terms of these police brutality type situations. We just don't hear about them so much in other countries sure. There are countries, and this is always held up to people when they complain about the U.S., the very fact that you can drive down the road or the very fact that you can speak your mind - it's becoming less and less possible but still you can speak your mind - is evidence of the freedom that you enjoy where other countries don't. For example, sure like in the protests in Egypt recently several people were shot by the military. That hasn't happened in the U.S. Well because there hasn't been a mass demonstration in the U.S. I wonder what would happen if the equivalent number of people - like you said earlier on there was 20 million people in Egypt, about a quarter of the population - so you would have to have 70 million plus people in the U.S. all more or less together demonstrating. I wouldn't like to imagine what would happen in that situation if things got out of hand. The problem for the U.S. is that it comes in for maybe a bit more flack then it deserved in the sense that or for the reasons that they make so much of their freedom and democracy. If you're up there grandstanding and touting your wonderful freedoms and claiming that you're spreading it around the world well, then any incidences of lack of freedom, of clear breech of civil liberties is going to really stand out.

Jason: It does.

Joe: There have been plenty of them of late. For example, there's a few that I just noted down, one of them was recently in the Charlottesville Daily Progress, a newspaper, shortly after 10 pm, this is in April, a University of Virginia student bought ice cream, cookie dough and, a carton of sparkling water from a grocery store in a popular shopping center and she took this out of the shopping center, got into the car with a few of her friends, she was a teenager basically. Then half a dozen men and a woman approached her car flashing some kind of badges but they were in plain clothes. One of them jumped on the hood and another drew a gun and the others started breaking the windows. So this girl basically freaks out and tries to start her car up to try and close the windows basically. She didn't know who these people were, they were attacking her car. And she got a little bit out of the parking lot and one of them called 911 and there's a police car not far away and he came over and told her that they were actually members...

Jason: Some new thing that I've never heard of before. It's like some alcohol enforcement.

Joe: The girl's name is Daly, the people who had swarmed Daly's vehicle were plain-clothed agents of the Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.

Jason: I didn't even know such a thing even existed.

Joe: And they thought that the sparkling water was a twelve-pack of beer.

Jason: Wow.

Joe: Of course they didn't apologize. And what actually happened was that the girl, the owner of the car, was charged with three felonies. Two for assaulting an officer which was based on when she drove away, her vehicle had grazed two agents, neither of whom were hurt and one for alluding the police so obviously an outrageously disproportionate display of force.

Jason: I think ultimately they dropped the charges though didn't they?

Joe: They did when they showed that it was actually sparkling water rather than beer, which was the only reason. There's another guy AJ Marin was arrested in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania for writing in chalk on the sidewalk, you probably heard of this one. He was participating in a health care demonstration outside Governor Tom Corbett's residence when he wrote "Governor Corbett has health insurance we should too" and authorities charged him with writing a derogatory remark about the governor on the sidewalk.

Jason: Since when is that a crime? What about freedom of speech?!

Joe: And then another guy who also wrote chalk messages outside the Bank of America - this was last year - he wrote "stop big banks" in chalk on the pavement. They brought 13 vandalism charges against him and the bank actually claimed that it cost them six thousand dollars to clean up the chalk on the sidewalk. I didn't think a hose and some water was that expensive but, there you go. And in May this year - just two month ago - a Texas woman was arrested for asking to see a warrant for the arrest of her eleven year old son. So police came to arrest her eleven year old son and she said "can I see a warrant?" and so they arrested her, she spent the night in jail while her son was left at home alone.

Jason: But they came for him.

Joe: The son was never arrested.

Niall: This thing in the U.S. where 'resisting an officer' or 'assaulting an officer' because you showed the slightest bit of physical resistance to being pummeled by some ten-foot gorilla...

Joe: There are so many others.

Jason: I mean the idea that you can be arrested for resisting arrest.

Pierre: And that's very similar to what we were saying previously actually, the very people that we are paying for protecting us, i.e. cops, are actually the ones who are threatening us and acting violently against the people.

Joe: It's really getting out of control. There's the whole gun culture in the U.S. and the big news over the past year of the Department of Homeland Security that bought or placed orders for billions, I think 1.6 billion in total, hollow point bullets.

Jason: That's like three per person. That's like Mozambique.

Joe: More, yeah.

Jason: They're going to 'Mozambique' - the entire U.S. population.

Joe: Yeah and there's this story about a Minneapolis-based company called Law Enforcement Targets Incorporated that has received two million dollars in contracts from the Department of Homeland Security. They recently began selling cardboard cutout targets that were designed to desensitize police to non-traditional threats.

Jason: Right.

Joe: These non-traditional threats include pregnant women, mothers in school playgrounds and little boys as well as elderly gun owners in their homes. I have some pictures here of them actually, they're cardboard cutouts of real people: a pregnant woman holding a gun in the background of her home, an old guy holding a shotgun, a little kid holding a gun and a woman with a child and an old lady holding a gun.

Niall: Between this and the zombie apocalypse meme, they're conditioning people for the most horrific showdown possible.

Joe: Well the owner of the company who makes these said on a radio show - he's the spokesman for the company - said that the targets were designed to "combat hesitation on the part of the cops when deadly force is required on subjects of atypical age, frailty, or condition."

Jason: Yeah, 'atypical'. That's like Marine Corps research which found that soldiers predominantly shot over people's heads until they changed the targets to human shaped targets and improved the riflemens' efficiency.

Pierre: Yeah, it sounds like desensitization.

Jason: Absolutely, because people don't like shooting other people.

Pierre: A desensitization exercise for those pregnant women and children cardboard pictures.

Joe: It's done to ponerize the policemen, basically.

Pierre: Exactly, we're talking about the deepest human values: empathy and compassion. For human beings to kill another human being is something almost impossible. You have the statistics during the World War where some leaders realized that 95 percent of the soldiers were not shooting at the enemies. They were shooting in the air. They were shooting on the ground. They were not shooting the enemies voluntarily because you have to transgress a big taboo; killing someone. It's been going on for decades in these first person shooter games that are so wide spread. It is one way to further this desensitization, these cardboard things, and in the end what they want is a psychopathic individual, i.e. individuals who don't care about killing people or even enjoy killing them.

Joe: Yeah, absolutely.

Niall: The U.S. recently marked Independence Day, celebration of the Declaration of Independence. Independence from tyranny, independence from persecution, independence from government over-reach, independence from excessive taxation... and here we are 237 years later... could they be any more dependent?

Jason: There are no words to describe what a farce the whole Declaration of Independence in and of itself is. - We have the whole, "we find these truths to be self-evident", and the very next paragraph 'and if we find that our government doesn't satisfy us we are obligated to take it down' basically. It's just such a farce the way American is right now this Declaration of Independence and our independence and all this stuff. Did you know that Benjamin Franklin and all of those guys like Madison actually did not plan on being independent from the crown? They didn't want it. They just wanted better representation for taxes. It got conflated into this whole revolution but really they didn't want it, they just accidentally won. They decided to rewrite history into this gigantic conflated thing; it was all about freedom.

Pierre: Maybe the ones who were pulling their strings did not accidentally win. History shows that revolutions sometimes start spontaneously but, sooner or later, it's being co-opted, it's being manufactured to serve the interest of the ones who pull the strings. I don't know much about the French Revolution and the English Revolution but it was not as depicted by mainstream media as actual history, this spontaneous people movement who insurrect against an unacceptable regime.

Jason: Right. We had an article on the SOTT page some guy wrote about Andrew Galambos and I posted a comment saying that he kind of sounds like Ayn Rand. And then I started listening to his talk and he does give an interesting talk about the American Revolution; what it was, what was going on. And he makes a good argument for the fact that revolutions are kind of peaceful and that what happened in the American Revolution is that there were two things that happened at one time: there was a revolution and a rebellion. And the rebellion was by a bunch of people who only wanted kind of representation in Parliament. They didn't really have a fundamental problem with King George except they were not being represented. They didn't want to be overly taxed and they wanted to be represented. They said in all their documents "whatever you do don't say independence". And then at the same time there was this intellectual revolution that was going on which was "hey wait a minute, we don't need a king and we should be able to decide stuff". So these two things people conflate revolutions with rebellions. Armed rebellions are really kind of ineffectual things, as you have seen with the French Revolution or the French rebellion as it were, it just lead to one worse thing after another.

Pierre: Yeah, exactly. If you use your terminology and we study rebellions called revolutions, 'by their fruits you shall know their true nature' and when you check the results of these so called revolutions, most of the time it lead to regimes and to a state where people were even treated worse than previously. Right now if you look at the so called people revolutions in Northern Africa and in Muslim countries you can see that they lead to regimes that are even more despotic and more unfair to the people.

Jason: Did you know that after the American Revolution was over and the revolution was won they actually wanted to make George Washington the king of America. And the only reason it didn't happen was because he said no.

Pierre: He refused.

Jason: Because he had been converted by Thomas Paine to this idea that wait a minute there shouldn't be a king. That's basically the whole idea, they actually asked him to be king of America. There was going to be an American king. So this whole grand ideal about this stuff was not really what happen in the American rebellion, revolution and the same thing with the French.

Pierre: After the French Revolution there was a period of several years that was, rightly so, called the terror.

Jason: The terror.

Pierre: Because it was a time of terror where basically everybody was killing everybody, it was a blood bath when the guillotine was being used intensively.

Joe: Yeah, the whole idea of freedom and liberty and all those noble ideals don't really mean very much to the average person on the street.

Jason: No, the Constitution of the United States of America details the rights and privileges of the United States government. The government that they instituted, it does not say the people once. It doesn't even talk about the people until the Bill of Rights, the amendments that they put in after the fact but looking at the constitution you know exactly who was in there and exactly what they were trying to do and exactly what they were thinking. It was all about "we make laws and we can change them at any point without notice" and this whole "my constitutional rights" is really kind of a joke because the Constitution doesn't say anything about 'your' rights. It talks about the composition and the rights of senators and the representatives and who votes where and how much they get paid and who has control over what.

Joe: So to what extent then is it a natural development - based on the nature of human beings on the planet - that there is an elite in power on the planet today? Because the average person can entertain - and I'm talking here about differences in intellect and intellectual capacity let's say - not everybody is born equal in that sense. There are factors at work there. That doesn't mean that anybody is less than anybody else but there are certain people that are more inclined to intellectual or ideological kind of pursuits.

Jason: No one is equally smart. No one is equally tall, equally fat, or equally fast.

Joe: Yeah. So the average person on the street just wants the freedom to live their life reasonably comfortably and get on with doing what they want to do and they're happy enough obviously to work and ideally they would work at what they're inclined towards. You can see from that perspective how people who just have that limit on their priorities -which is totally understandable for most people because I think that's one thing that everybody shares - but then there are people who tend towards, wanting to look at the broader picture and to theorize and develop philosophies and ideas and intellectual pursuits basically. Not everybody wants that and not everybody is maybe even capable of that. So it seems to me that it's natural in a sense that there would be this spectrum, let's say, rather than a class division or whatever but a spectrum among humanity. So all these ideas that are touted and rooted to people about liberty and freedom doesn't really mean anything to the average person in America today. What does that mean practically to these people? My point here is that it's only when the practical application to all those noble ideals are infringed, are not put into practice, are not there, and not available for them. For example, they don't have the ability to even get a job or to feel productive or to have enough money or enough resources to buy food to feed themselves when they're suffering physically. That's when they start complaining. They're not necessarily complaining about "where are our freedoms and our liberties and all of our rights".

Jason: Where's my bread?

Joe: Where's my bread and where's the roof over my head?

Jason: Well generally speaking I always think that the mass of the people are really fundamentally unaffected by the presence or lack of liberty in any real sense. They never do anything that would call it into question. They never use it or exercise it in any real sense. A bricklayer who lays bricks every day of his life, the most free speech he uses is to curse the fact that he has to lay bricks, not that he doesn't have time or any real care for those things. I'm not saying anything against a bricklayer. It's perfectly fine but the average person in the United States. Look at ninety percent of the population - the fact that they have free speech they don't even use it except maybe to say a couple of dirty jokes every now and again. That's the extent of their freedom of speech. They listen to Eminem and for them that's freedom of speech the fact that he can talk about those things on the radio and things. That's to them as freedom of speech. None of them ever do anything or are assuming enough for the police to ever want to search a seize anything. They don't own anything that the police or the government would want to take or confiscate. They don't own any property that the government would want to confiscate. So that freedom and liberty more affects the people on the fringes of society. The only time that they suffer from it is when it's gotten to such a point that it's about to collapse and it collapses on their head and then they're like "oh why did this happen it's so horrible" and then of course they can be motivated to go one way or the next.

Joe: There're other people who can see that coming from a distance off.

Jason: See it coming from and distance off and say "you're going to be sorry if you don't stop this now because they're violating me now but pretty soon this is going to come on you".

Joe: To what extent can you really impress on people of that beforehand?

Jason: You can't. You've never been able to.

Pierre: It's as if there were a schematic here. It may be simplified so that if you have three kinds of people: you have the big majority of human beings who wants their simple needs to be fulfilled, which is totally legitimate and they should be fulfilled. Have a shelter, some clothes, some medication and some food and that's perfectly legitimate.

Jason: That's the purpose of government.

Pierre: So that might be ninety percent of the population maybe. And then you have those who are by nature mostly followers. They are probably aware that the leadership is not what they want nor might be able, for various reasons, so they are followers. And then you have two other categories: you have leaders who have ideas, potential leader and within the potential leaders you have a very small percentage that are really populists, in the fundamental sense of the term, serving the people. The JFKs or the Julius Caesars that go back in history who aim to serve the collective good and you have other leaders who aim to serve themselves. For a long time the ruling leaders have been the one in this latest category, the psychopathic ones who aim to exploit them.

Joe: It's people who recognize, what we just said there about the nature of human beings and perhaps the majority of human beings, that they don't have these high, elevated proclivities in terms of these intellectual pursuits etc. and they see that and they realize they have an empathic approach or feeling towards them that they need to be taken care of essentially, but then there are other people who see that equally as something to be exploited.

Jason: Well freedom and liberty shouldn't be seen as an affectation though, at the same time, it shouldn't be about sentimentality. I think that there's a group of people who recognize that humanity as a whole is this gigantic living organism on the planet and that not all aspects of it are active at any one time. It's a very large mass and from any area in that mass something wonderful can spring up, something evolutionarily beneficial to the entire race can come from any sector. A Mozart can be born to even the lowliest person in their thing. Some great, fantastic part of the spirit of man can come from anywhere and then therefore the mass of people should not be oppressed, exploited, destroyed, murdered, raped, nor pillaged in anyway. They should be made sure that they are provided for, that no one should be starving in the streets, no one should have to turn to lives of crime, they should be protected from predatory people and from predatory animals and from disease, that you should develop and cultivate humanity because we, as a massive body, have to progress into the future and be a part of the living system that is the Earth.

And there are some people who look at that mass and see them as a source of food for their greed and monetary work; build me bigger houses and bigger all this different stuff. They see them as exploitable and expendable for their self-aggrandizement, the STS way of looking at things, the very self-serving way of looking at things. So that basically when we talk about why people such as Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson of why they wrote and said the kind of things they did and wanted to create this idea of liberty - "let's get rid of the king" - because they saw that as being the ultimate representation of the other way of seeing kings and aristocrats and elites as being this kind of small mass of people who see everyone else as an exploitable resource that they can take from. A lot of them themselves came from somewhat humble-ish backgrounds in England and came over to America and then became the great thinkers that we think of them today through self-education. Benjamin Franklin was a great scientist and things like this. They realized that you can come from anywhere.

Pierre: Probably that the important thing is not so much concerning the masses who maybe have a majority of people being followers and their nature, their orientation will depend on the influence that their leaders exert on them and on the world they create for them or they create. So the influence is essential.

Jason: Right.

Pierre: So liberty and freedom is essential tool, not for the masses necessarily, not for the followers but for the potential leaders who want to change things and for the "good" potential leaders. Freedom, truth, information, liberty are essential tools because it's through those tools that they can reach the masses and show the situation as it is and try to change the orientation of the masses. So there is a big power game between these two different kinds of potential leaders.

Joe: We have a couple of questions here. Well this one is kind of on topic, "Is it even possible nowadays that any normal empathic human being can rise to the top of a Western country?" Or, in other words, is it even possible nowadays that and non-psychopathalogical can rise to the top?

Niall: No.

Pierre: We discussed that several times. Maybe the last one was Kennedy, maybe in some smaller countries it occurred more recently.

Joe: Yeah. There've been quite a few actually, even recently.

Pierre: In smaller countries, yeah.

Joe: Well Benazir Bhutto for one. Well, as you know, all of these people that I would cite are all people that have been assassinated.

Jason: No. I don't think so.

Joe: Why?

Jason: Not really. I don't think a good person would rise to the top. I don't think that that's what's necessary. I think that people are holding out for hope that somehow some good person is going to become president. I think that in a certain sense that maybe even Barack Obama really did have some genuine idea of being a decent person because you see how he has kind grayed and gotten old looking and he seems drained. Kind of like Jimmy Carter was, kind of got old real quick. But it doesn't matter if you're good in that situation. It's only going to get worse for you, to be quite honest. You are only going to get torn apart far quicker.

Pierre: Problem is you need two features to be a good leader or what we call a good leader. You need two features that are usually mutually exclusive. You need to have a good heart, this love of people and love of humanity. At the same time you need very sharp knowledge to not fall in the trap of the one who will pull your strings. Because a lot of good leaders with a good heart have been manipulated and ended up doing things that were detrimental.

Joe: They've been naïve essentially is the problem...

Pierre: Yeah, knowledge of psychopathy is the key.

Joe: The combination that's very rare is a good heart and the kind of deep understanding of evil or at least a good understanding of the evil and how it works in this world. Usually people with a good heart tend to get caught up in the love and light, everything is beautiful and they don't see evil. That or they don't want to see evil so they are almost mutually exclusive and it is very rare that you get someone who can keep those two within themselves.

Jason: In the 1700's there was this new idea - it wasn't so much new but it was kind of new for the English people - was this idea that people didn't need a king. People in America really thought that, "there's a king and there's the Lords and there's the Commons and that's how it works!" And all they wanted was a better king. Then some people came along and said to them, "Hold on a second, you don't need this. Of course there have been good kings but mostly there have been bad kings. Good kings don't really do much and bad kings don't really do much except what they do. You don't need a king at all." People always had this false question: we need a better king. And today we have this whole false question of we need better elites or better rulers. I think that the revolution of the mind that needs to take place is for us to ask exactly how much government do we really need? Do we actually need these elites? Do we need somebody to go in and get himself elected and clean up the whole situation? It is like do you need a better president? Maybe we should start asking how much government do we need.

Joe: You really do end up having to split humanity up in a certain sense because there's people who - not to go all biblical here - but those with eyes to see and are able to see and those with ears to hear are able to hear and all that business. Those who won't see or can't see and won't hear their fate that awaits them probably isn't that good. But then at the same time we can't look at it from our perspective. We can't look at the fate of someone who doesn't really see and doesn't really care and doesn't even have the capacity to really consider such things. You can't look at any kind of fate that awaits them from the perspective of someone who does care about those things and does feel strongly about those ideas and does have the interest and proclivities to look at those things.

Maybe they don't care. Not that they don't suffer but there is a certain amount of suffering involved among the people today who see all the stuff going on in the world and feel very frustrated and angry and sad about it. But you have to remember that there is probably a majority of people on the planet who aren't seeing things the way you are seeing them. Aren't seeing what you are seeing and aren't interested in seeing what you are seeing. They just want to live their lives out until whatever end awaits them. And of course there is an end to everybody's life. So let's not get too sentimental about that, everybody dies. So I would kind of caution against people worrying too much or getting too worked up about all of these people on the planet and what they could or couldn't do.

I think the majority of people on the planet can't do anything or won't do anything and don't want to do anything. They just want their normal simple lives. It's a thorny issue but maybe a lot of them actually enjoy it. They have been programmed and infected with this kind of like dumbing down and fed in a diet of crass pop culture and pondering their base human desires but who's to say they are not enjoying it?

Jason: It's really bizarre because there was an article on MSNBC about "The American Dream Is Not So Easy To Achieve" and this woman writes about this and the American dream apparently is to own a house in suburbia?

Pierre: Yeah, even if the dream is that.

Jason: What a horrible dream.

Pierre: I tend to agree with Joe when he said that there are some people who just want maybe a house and would quite enjoy their current life and that's probably true. This being said, imperial powers - and what we are living through now is called democracy but it's basically imperialistic - are based on the expectations of people. And the dynamic of imperial power is systematically increasing this exploitation. So it means: a) systematic reduction of the level of life quality of the masses. So even if a lot of people just have very simple needs and don't need much to be happy, in those imperialistic systems they get less and less. So inevitably you have a growing number of people who are unhappy. You look at statistics right now about levels of depression and levels of suicide, obviously the elites are exploiting so much that they are not even able to give the few things that most people ask for. Maybe as well at some point it's mutually exclusive - happiness or satisfaction of the elites versus satisfaction of the people - if you factor in the psychopathic nature of the elites and their tendency to enjoy the suffering of human beings. So if they are satisfied, by definition the human people will be suffering because that's the cause of their satisfaction.

Joe: Well obviously people aren't suffering enough yet, especially not in the US.

Pierre: That's the question.

Joe: Like we said maybe for a lot of people it comes down to the very basics and it is only when the very basics are taken away from them that they will complain. They won't be complaining, like we said before, about the stripping away of their liberties or the rubbishing or the tearing up of the constitution. They will be complaining about, "I've got no food and I can't pay the rent on my apartment therefore I have nowhere to live and I'm cold." For a lot of people it can be very, very basic needs like that. It's only when they are not fulfilled that they will actually do anything. Everything up to that point will make no difference.

Jason: By that point they won't be able to do anything.

Joe: Well exactly.

Jason: Right now - not so much right now, it's kind of gone, it's too late actually in my opinion - but the time to do something was probably maybe 20 years ago, 30 years ago?

Joe: I don't think there was ever enough people on this planet who ever would have done anything.

Jason: Yeah I know. No there wasn't.

Joe: Enough people who actually cared enough. Most people just simply do not care. And you know maybe I'm getting a bit cynical here but really, I don't think most people care. I have had enough experience of ordinary people who are fairly well educated who have shown that they do not care. They care in a kind of selective empathy kind of way but it's just like, "yeah whatever I just..." and really they just want to go back to their normal lives. If there is some kind of an ultimate "something is coming" in the sense of a disruption in society, it'll be the people at the bottom who have the least, who will first of all be rebelling because they have just a little bit of stripping away of their creature comforts which means that they will have nothing. Whereas people in the middle class and stuff, they have a ways to go. They can lose their house but then they can go into a smaller house. They have some financial resources, they can still feed themselves, that kind of thing and they will be happy with that. Those kinds of people ultimately will just go along to get along and do not want any upset because it is too difficult. They just want to live their normal lives.

Pierre: And that might be why the current Western model of happiness is so widely promoted. Having a car, a house, the debt, a wife or a husband, children, all those things are locking you and makes it almost impossible for you to rebel because you love your family and you don't want to put them in danger.

Jason: How horrifying is it though that a person's ambition in life is to be nothing more than a consumer?

Joe: But that's what human beings are.

Pierre: And that's the influence. We have to keep in mind that in the 21st century in this world, the ponerogenic influences are huge. When you have been programmed since birth and your parents and the parents of your parents etc. have been programmed in this same paradigm, you don't know anything else. So I would not blame such people. We were talking about suffering as a trigger for awakening or revolting, I think it is one necessary ingredient but it is not sufficient.

If you remember the Pavlov experiment with dogs - this transmarginal inhibition - you had some dogs after all those electric shocks that were just lying on the electrodes and not reacting anymore. So you need enough suffering but you also need some proper knowledge and some kind of specific wiring inside. Several ingredients are necessary. Suffering is not enough I am afraid.

Joe: Yeah. I think that if there were ever enough people on this planet to do something about the state of the planet and the downward trend it has taken, it would have been done a long time ago. The fact that it hasn't been done and isn't being done even right now, it kind of, for me, is evidence - even allowing for ponerization. The thorny issue of "would people really be in this state if they weren't under all of this influence from psychopaths in power" but you could also say that "Well, why did they allow it to happen? Was it so devious?" If people had the ability to see all of this, if they were evolved enough and developed enough and in touch with their own humanity enough to see the first few steps towards a kind of a fascist take over or ponerization of society, right then they would have all said, "Hang on a minute, this is not going any further".
But a whole load of them just went "cool". They didn't even notice.

Jason: Maybe that ultimately is the point though. If you buy into the whole evolution thing - which I don't but it is okay - the basic idea being there are a large number of mutations in a population and the majority of them don't succeed. And what really decides supposedly evolution is the population expands, lots of mutations, and then there is some sort of event and the ones that are the most adaptive will survive and the large majority of the unsuccessful mutations die off. And so if we are talking about like an evolution of the mind and the ability to be perspicacious then wouldn't this just be?

Pierre: It might be the main lesson. If you look at history and those cycles of cosmic catastrophes happening after the peak of imperialistic oppression, you start to wonder if every few centuries the same show starts and unravels. There are two solutions: either people open their eyes, react, and have some progress and trigger a positive cosmic reaction or at least no negative cosmic reaction, otherwise game is over, you didn't learn the lesson. We go back to square one. New oppression, new cosmic reaction.

Jason: We don't go back to square one.

Pierre: I mean we go back to square one in evolution of society, structuration. We start from shards and small population and we start to expand.

Jason: I think that there are more people today who get it than there were probably in Roman times.

Pierre: Well that's interesting.

Jason: If you go onto YouTube and this DUI guy put a camera in his car and he intentionally got that cop to do what he knew he was going to do so that he could film it. That guy is just a regular dude. He is not on our website. He is not some big, anti-government pundit. He is just a regular dude who got a camera hidden in his car and without being too overt, he hardly had to do anything and he suckered that cop into doing exactly what he knew he was going to do. And that to me is very impressive for some regular dude driving along in his car. He didn't seem to be terribly "smart" smart, you know, he just said, "this is messed up and I'm going to..." And he was brave, that was ballsy. That was ballsy! That's what he did.

Niall: He wasn't the first.

Jason: And he wasn't the first and he wasn't the only one. YouTube is littered with people doing that stuff. I think that it should give people a little bit of hope for the possibilities of humanity because a lot of people do see there is something wrong with it and are actively against it.

Pierre: Yeah, I think it goes both ways. You have more people who get it right now compared to the Roman times for example. At the same time the ones who don't get it, get it much less. Or it's much worse than people who didn't get in Roman times. Why? Because now you have this nefarious influence of the mainstream medias. Before you had populations that were scattered and you had a lot of farmers that basically their main source of knowledge was Earth, was the seasonal cycles, the crops, there was a lot of truth in it. So they didn't have much knowledge but this knowledge was based on a lot of common sense and there was a high truth ratio in their mind.

Today, if you look at the ones who don't get it, who are brainwashed by mainstream media, are fed a lot of lies and they have almost no truth in them. Now you see what I mean? So both extremes are developing: the people who get it and there are more people who get it, at the same time there are more people who really don't get it at all. When we are talking about this lie factor, of the mainstream media spreading the same lies, you have billions of people resonating on the same lie frequency. Buying the same lie, the very same lie propagated by mainstream media all over the planet. So it has to be factored in as well for this human-cosmic connection.

Joe: Yeah. It's a bit of a thorny issue but I think that this planet is kind of a bad place to be in terms of evolution and not being under the thumb of the psychopathic elite. It's a bad place to be if you don't have some kind of a sovereign spark of awareness.

Jason: Self-determination.

Joe: Or self-determination yeah, or an ability to kind of spot the bullshit from the truth, the lies from the truth. Because the powers-that-be are in a position where they have the ability to disseminate the lies and fill people up with lies and manipulate them and control them in that way. It is not an ideal world. It's a test essentially where you know all of these lies are spread around and those without the ability to spot them and to say, "well that's bullshit, I'm not going along with it". They just get filled up with lies and that's life and that's the way it is. There is no way to change it or to make it all better or to revolutionize the world and create a utopia Valhalla or whatever you want to call it. I don't know.

Pierre: It triggers another interesting factor. What I think is an aggravating circumstance. During the Roman Empire for example, you didn't have this much knowledge - true or wrong - available. Today a human being will choose consciously or not to believe a lie faces an aggravating circumstance in the sense that the truth for most topics is out there. So it is more serious, in a sense, today to embrace lies because truth is available. In the past most of the time you had one version that was available and the potential of what is called discernment - the freedom, the ability for discernment of available data - was less prominent, less developed.

Niall: Glenn Beck said recently, "We are living in biblical times. You better have your house in order." And that kind of rings true for those who can hear it. And the context in which he was saying it.

Jason: Well he is so fun. He is like the new Rush Limbaugh for me. I mean he is so fun to watch.

Niall: He dropped that little pearl of wisdom in among a conversation about Syria actually. It was the usual lies. In this case he was talking about this video of a guy who kills someone, cuts his heart out and eats a piece of it. I think we mentioned it on last week's show. And about how those evil Russians who are supporting this guy against our government who are supporting the other side which is a ball-faced lie, that these cannibals are being supported by the US. But he was using it as part of his sermon to say this, "We are living in biblical times." I think he meant it more in a sense of these are strange times. You better have your house in order.

Jason: There will be wars and rumors of wars.

Pierre: You know it might be worse than biblical times, in a sense, because when you think about the 2345 BC event - end of the Bronze Age - for some scholars it was the flood event and several evidences strongly suggest it was due to some cometary activity including endocrinology records and studies about the ecliptic tilt of the planet.

When you think about it, if the modulator of those cosmic reactions is this lie factor, this human-cosmic connection, at the time - 2300 BC - you had millions of people on the planet. You had a relatively small population and, as I said before, mostly farmers that had a lot of good sense and a lot of knowledge that was true. They were storing a lot of true knowledge. Today you have more than 7 billion people resonating on the same lie frequency spread by the mainstream media. So if there is a correlation, I don't know about that, if there is a correlation between the intensity of the cosmic reaction and the intensity, the coherence of the lie signal emitted by humanity, you can imagine that the flood, the end of the Bronze Age, the biblical times are nothing compared to what we might trigger.

Joe: Yeah, that will be fun.

Pierre: Exciting.

Jason: Tea and crumpets.

Joe: Make sure you have your dash cams on for that one.

Niall: The thing is I do not think all 7 plus billion people are on that same lie frequency. There are people who are paying attention in some way or another to something or other.

Jason: There is a large group of people.

Niall: And they are making their resistance known. For me people getting out on the street and this is the criticism I hear from commentators usually on the left: "Oh good they are out on the street but what good will come of it because they have not defined their policy goals? They have not come up with a four-point plan." I am like, "to hell with that."

The point is the people are not that dumb. They know they will have to go back to work because they got to feed the kids. They got to get home before the babysitter has gone home because the kids are at home and there will be no one there to look after him. They know that they are only there to make a statement. The point is that they are on the streets and they are saying to the cosmos, "I am here, I am sick of it, hear me!" I think that is the point of it.

Pierre: Yeah, there is an anecdote. We were talking recently about how people perceive the current regime. How people perceive the world right now, our modern society. It was really striking because maybe 90% of people I interacted with over the last month, they all were seeing the same. They all were so fed up with what is going on. They were all so disgusted by what we are doing to our fellows and to our planet. Sure they have to go on with their normal life, they have to feed the kids, they have to keep on working but at the same time, it's as if they are just awaiting a spark. They are just awaiting a leader, they are just waiting for this movement that answers their deepest aspirations to materialize in order to follow it and to join it because I think right now there is so much imbalance. There has been so much oppression that most people are not even happy anymore.

Joe: What people are you talking about?

Pierre: Various people locally here in France.

Joe: And they are complaining about what?

Pierre: It was about corruption of the politicians, about the destruction of the planet, about the lies in the media about 9/11.

Joe: And you think they are representative of them?

Jason: Supposedly, 80% of the French people polled believe that the French government is corrupt. It was some corruption index that they passed around.

Joe: But isn't that the same for every government? Even the French?

Jason: Yeah, but at least most people recognize that there is corruption and they don't think that is anything new. But before we get too far away, I think that the elites are planning for this movement that you are talking about. People are waiting, they are colluding, and they are cultivating the leaders of their resistance. They are cultivating their Emmanuel Goldsteins and people like, Julian Assange and even possibly this Edward Snowden character, I don't know. So that people, at the same time, see there is this mass wave of motion among the people to want something done and then I believe, my personal opinion, the strategy of the elites is to put in their path to become a leader of someone who will try to turn them violent. And it is the most important thing in the world that people understand that violence is definitely the worse idea you could possibly come up with against them because they have got these huge massive private armies with a billion hollow point bullets just waiting for that to happen. They are trying to cultivate that.

So when you see that you have this motion of people, it's a dangerous situation. It's good but the one thing that people cannot be naïve. They have to remember the experiences of the Civil Rights movement with Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi. The only solution is a peaceful solution. The only true revolution can be a peaceful revolution. It can only be a revolution of education and belief and philosophy. If you try or allow yourself to be seduced with reacting violently to what is going on, you are only going to kill yourself and you will not accomplish anything from it. Because you will justify what they will do to you, which is bomb the hell out of you, kill you all, arrest you, put you into internment camps and everyone in the middle classes and the satisfied classes will think that it is justified because you were being violent, it happens.

Joe: Well Lisa says that she agrees but, for example in Palestine, the people have been forced to using violence to defend themselves.

Pierre: Well it is legitimate self-defense.

Joe: Yeah but that's slightly different from what we are talking about. In Palestine it is a long-term, ongoing occupation.

Jason: Well Gandhi said that if it's only a choice between cowardice and violence then pick violence. If you have no other choice.

Joe: Which they don't.

Jason: Yeah, which the Palestinians don't in a certain sense. But they are not going to accomplish their goals through violence. Yeah, you have to do it. I mean you don't want them to kill your little child right there so yeah you are going to do something. But you are probably actually going to make it worse anyway. Basically, they are in a situation where they are going to lose.

Joe: The Palestinians have been put in a petri dish basically and have been experimented on in the sense that they have been corralled and periodically murdered and slaughtered and had their children killed to the point where people who have had a family member killed will just go and get a gun and go and attack the Israelis. That is not a planned kind of revolution in a sense. And Hamas have never done anybody any favors in Palestine really. It is a terrible situation actually in Palestine. It's a testimony of the evils of the dynast regime just how bad it is there. We are kind of talking here about some kind of a revolution either in one or two specific countries or in America or somewhere like that. Yeah, that violence is not the way.

Jason: Here's the thing: do you want to succeed or not? That's the question you have to ask yourself. You can't win by fighting them. The Palestinians are not going to win anything by fighting. They are not going to win anything period because the Israeli and all the other countries have conspired against them and, in a certain sense, they are kind of lost which is unfortunate. It is a terrible, terrible tragedy what goes on there. They can't win for losing. But in the West, when you are talking about Western powers and Western countries, the things that were shown by Gandhi and things that were shown by Martin Luther King was that you can only win by losing, in a certain sense, as unfortunate as it is. So it is whether or not you want success. Do you want success for your children and your children's children or do you want the immediate pleasure of getting revenge on the person who strikes you or spits on you or stomps you or presses you?

Joe: But that takes a particular type of person. Not everybody will have that perspicacity or that self-control to be able to do that.

Jason: Right. Martin Luther King in one of his interviews tells us a lot of black people had come up to him and saying that, "yes, but you ask us to go to these demonstrations and they are spitting on us, they are kicking us and they are setting dogs on us and they are beating us. I just can't take that." And he turns around and he says, "Your children grow up in abject poverty and their children will grow up in it. They are separated from society. They are abused and degraded constantly in every corner of their lives. They are prevented from ever rising up. You are prevented from ever rising up and reaching your full potential. You are denied education, you are denied the right to vote, you are denied all of these things. You live in constant suffering. But the thing that makes you want to do something about it is only if someone kicks you and spits on you or calls you a racial slur?" I mean, and that's the same situation that we have here. Think about the world, think about your children, and your children's children and what kind of world are they going to grow up in. You getting kicked or put into prison or even killed, wouldn't you die for your children?

Pierre: Maybe one point that has to be clarified or emphasized is that peaceful revolution doesn't mean doing nothing.

Jason: No.

Pierre: It means doing a lot.

Jason: Actively.

Pierre: Actively but in a peaceful way. Today we have to understand the premise that all the power, all the legitimacy, all the resources of the elite come from the expectation of the people. Once the people don't provide this work, don't play into this expectation, the elites are powerless. If tomorrow you have all the military and all the cops drop their weapons on the floor, you have all the power suppliers cut the energy provided to the government buildings, if you have all the chauffeurs stop driving the VIPs, and the mechanics stop fixing their cars, and the personnel stop cleaning their house then the king is naked. The elites have no more power. The people - it's almost a paradox - are the ones who give the power to the elites that use it to exploit and destroy these very same people.

Jason: Simply the act of not participating actively in the system is itself doing something. Not buying Coca Cola, not buying this stuff, not watching TV is actually really kind of an act against that system and you just go from there. Just things you don't do to support the system and if a lot of people don't do them, then you'd be surprised how quickly the power of the elites would fail when they don't have access because it's you constantly putting into the machine.

The more energy you put into the machine, the more they get to take out to do things to you. As long as you are participating in the system and participating in the machine, you are giving them energy. It doesn't require much at all from you. Just a little bit of will. Decide not to eat that particular thing or buy that particular product. The Civil Rights movement had great success with boycotts against certain companies to the point where a lot of them almost went bankrupt until they were forced to change their policies about African Americans. If they didn't they wouldn't have anybody buying from their stores because they were located in areas that were mostly populated by African Americans.

Pierre: Yeah and this consumerism awareness is positive, in a sense, but it is sad as well because apparently over the last decades, most of the political inclinations in the people were focused on the consumerist side, i.e. consume organic food or wear those shirts that were made by employees that were not exploited and that is probably a positive thing but at the same time...

Jason: How about making your own clothes?

Pierre: hides all the other facets of political activity. Consumerism should only be one small part of the political consciousness of people.

Jason: Well, there's this kind of an Aesop fable, which I am always a big fan of, where a man goes into a forest - I don't know if this is the Aesop version, it might be a different version - and he goes up to a tree and he begs him, "Please, please, please, can I have one of your branches?" And the tree says, "Well I have so many branches maybe I will just give you a branch." And the tree gives him a branch and he goes and puts a metal head on it and makes an axe and goes and chops the tree down. The moral of the story being we often give our enemies that thing which they require most to destroy us. That is what we are talking about here; our participation in such a strong consumerist system.

And even in the fair-trade thing that has become so commercialized. They now have these commercial organizations to put these stamps on them. Each little product has like 5 or 6 different, well designed graphically, stamps: "Bio, equitable, fair-trade", all this different stuff. And it's become a business. It's become the exact opposite of what it was intended to be. So you shouldn't just be buying products because of these things. You should start thinking of, "Do I really need to buy this product at all?"

Pierre: So I think that at least unconsciously in a lot of people there is this frustration, the desire to revolt, this sense that something is wrong. The elites that are not stupid probably are aware of that and channel this energy on the wrong causes, for the wrong battles. So, for example in France, for months and months the main topic has been "shall we authorize or not gay weddings?" And the French are split in two.

Jason: Ridiculous.

Pierre: So the elites are giving these wrong dualities, these wrong debates, these petty topics to channel this revolt energy or this sense that something is wrong at least in people and it is diversion. And by focusing their energy on these petty topics, they forget the bigger picture and the real fundamental problems.

Joe: Yeah, talking about non-violent reaction, I think if people just do what certain leaders throughout the ages have advocated which is non-violent civil disobedience and non-violence to effect change, what you are really doing in a world as ponerized as this one is that you are demonstrating your humanity in the face of inhumanity. You are asserting your humanity and that is probably the single most powerful thing you can do. Because obviously it's not natural for human beings to go on a bloody rampage and kill their neighbors and fight and have wars and cut each other's heads off and stuff like that. That's inhumanity and that's...

Jason: That's more like psychopaths.

Joe: Yeah. Like John Lennon said, once they get you angry and fighting, that's when they know how to deal with you because that's what they do basically. So to be violent in an effort to effect change is just playing their game and putting yourself where they want you to be and where they know how to deal with you. But to be peaceful it takes an awful lot more self-control, restraint and stuff but that has the best chance of effecting any change in the jackboot thugs that has been sent to wipe you all out. By demonstrating your own humanity, by not reacting violently to these people who come to do violence on you, any humanity left within them may be...

Jason: Shamed basically.

Joe: ...shamed or awoken or something and that's the best chance you have but like I said it takes a lot of effort.

Jason: Like right now, in Guantanamo Bay prison, there is a hunger strike going on. And they are force feeding and they are abusing obviously because they always do this stuff. This thing was supposed to be closed. Obama promised it and he hasn't and people should be up in arms about this. But I think that right now think of what would happen if everybody in America decided to go on a hunger strike. Not the people who are in prison. Just decided not to buy any food from the store for like one week, 7 days, you totally would survive. That would be like a crushing blow to the economy. If nobody bought food and nobody ate anything and everybody just sat around and said, "You know what I'm not going to eat either." Those are the types of things you can do in the world today right now. Just don't participate and say, "Hey, I'm not going to eat either." There are plenty of ways to disobey and protest things.

Pierre: For any peaceful action to be effective it has to be global.

Jason: No.

Pierre: For an action to be global or global enough to affect the leaders or the elites, it has to be coordinated. And we go back to the debate about the nature of the elites and the coordination and the leadership.

Jason: One of the main focuses that Martin Luther King always said is that you have to intentionally suffer yourself, that there is something transformative about consciously suffering for your cause. That was his main thing. His main point and he says it in all of his speeches - not all of them but most of his speeches - he talks about the transformative nature of consciously and willfully suffering for your goal. You cannot get it for free. You must purchase it with your suffering and that is ultimately the core of when you go to that demonstration. You do want them to get a little abusive. You don't want them to kill you but you expect to get beaten, you expect to get put into prison, you expect to be abused and called names, you expect to suffer at their expense because that is how you purchase the freedom that they wanted. He said this.

Joe: You are also increasing the chances that you will serve an example of the tyranny to other people.

Jason: Traumatization.

Joe: You can be the spark that awakens people up to just how bad things are when they see the cop beating you around the head type-of-thing. And the more people get beaten, the more other people who aren't there will sit up and say, "Hang on a minute, that's not right." So that is needed, obviously, to expose the corrupt and evil nature of the elite on this planet today because they work their evil so subtlety and in such an underhanded way that most people don't recognize it because they mask it. It is only in situations, like you describe, where they have to show their hand, where people are out protesting peacefully and the system has to show its evil hand. It has no way to control these people who have seen through the charade and are out there protesting and stating truths. The only response that the psychopathic system and the psychopathic elite can have to that is to beat us down and trying to destroy it. Make it go away. And in the process of doing that there is a chance that other people will see the evil for what it is. To unmask it.

Niall: During the Turkish protest last month it began peacefully, peacefully in the sense that there was not a riot. It was a mass protest on the main square in Istanbul. After a few days riot police with Made in USA gear were sent in and beat everyone over the head. Government thought, "Well okay that's dealt with." And then this one guy flouted the new law which was "You are not allowed to be in the square." He just went in and he just stood there. He just stood there alone for 8 hours.

Jason: Which is difficult.

Niall: A few more people came and they just stood there silent with him in the same way, not talking to him, just standing there. And a week later it was called the Taksim Square Book Club because people initially were there just to pass the time, but then they made a point of bringing books to the square and reading them. Any book but the ones I saw being read most often were books like 1984, George Orwell. That's making a point.

Jason: It is, it makes a point.

Niall: And what are they going to do?

Jason: But if you think about it that's uncomfortable. It is uncomfortable to just stand there all day. That is not a pleasurable experience.

Joe: No.

Jason: The problem that people have with demonstrations today is that they go to the demonstration and it makes them yell. They yell and they scream and they kind of turn it into a party like the Occupy Wall Street people. They were just having a party and they didn't understand that the fundamental concept behind a good demonstration is one in where you are not enjoying it. You are suffering for your goal and that is the core.

That is why Gandhi's movement succeeded and that is why, for a large part, King's movement succeeded as well because there was a large amount of suffering that people could see. And that it did as he said constantly, it is necessary to dramatize the situation. To show the suffering enlarged and even exaggerated for the people so they can see, in this one instant, a large magnified version of the suffering that we are experiencing every day in small ways over the entire course of our lives.

Joe: Yeah it's exposing it.

Jason: You have to expose it.

Joe: People want to the expose the evils. That's what all the conspiracy theorists have been doing for years, trying to expose the government and expose this and expose everything that's going on but it hasn't been that effective.
What seems to be far more effective and gets far more attention - even from the bought and paid-for mainstream media - is when people, like Jason was saying, consciously suffer for that goal in a very simple way. They are just saying, "No more, I don't agree and I'm going to put my body where my mouth is".

Jason: Gandhi was always fasting until something happened. "I'm not going to eat until it is done." He almost died a few times.

Joe: Anyway, we kind of ran over our time here. We had lots of comments. There was some intense debate going on in the chat room.

Niall: Who won the debate?

Joe: I don't know.

Pierre: What was it about?

Joe: It was a tie between them all. It was just about all and everything. I think we should save it and publish it somewhere. But yeah, so that's been our plan B show for this week. We have covered a bunch of different topics but as you can see, any one topic can take quite a long time to discuss and we didn't even really scratch the surface of most of it. But we hoped you enjoyed it and thanks to our listeners for listening in and for commenting and for your questions. We will be back next week with another show. It may be Hank Albarelli, it may not. We have to find out about that.

Jason: I think we should do this again to be honest.

Joe: Well we could do this again.

Jason: Thought it was a really fun show.

Joe: Maybe now and again, maybe not every week. Well maybe every week, we'll see.

Jason: I don't know. I kind of had fun tonight.

Joe: Yeah. Anyway we hope you all had fun too and we will see you.....or hear you next week.

Pierre: Goodbye.

Jason: Goodbye.

Niall: Over and out.