Sott Talk Radio logo
On this week's episode of 'Connecting the Dots' on SOTT Talk Radio, hosts Joe, Niall and Juliana discussed the G20 meeting in Australia, where the main item on the agenda was... Putin-bashing! If you're looking for true commentary on the G20 meeting because you couldn't find it anywhere on the lamestream media, this show is for you!

Also discussed: do Western leaders actually believe the lies they peddle? Or are they so invested in their 'dynamic narratives' that they will never ever, see the error of their ways?

Where did travelling, political freak-shows like the G-country meet-ups originate anyway? Believe it or not, the Bilderbergers and the 'green' environmental movement!

Noting how the West continues to target Russia's economy, and thus hurting Ukraine's economy in the process, your hosts considered what economic collapse in the US might look like. Will 'austerity' measures and backfiring sanctions cause the West to implode in on itself?

And stay tuned for this week's Extreme Weather Update: the 'Bering Bomb' polar vortex - did Russia send it to America as a gift?

Running Time: 02:13:00

Download: MP3

Here's the transcript of the show:

Niall: Hello everyone and welcome to another SOTT talk radio show. I'm your host Niall Bradley and your co-host is Joe Quinn.

Joe: Hi there!

Niall: And with us tonight, Juliana Barembuem

Juliana: Hello!

Niall: So I'm not sure how many of you can see our new video feed. We're going to wave to the camera.

Joe: I'm not sure there's anybody actually watching us right now.

Niall: Are we not on yet?

Joe: I don't know, we have a very bad internet connection tonight so we'll see how it goes.

Niall: We experimented last week with a live video cam so people could see us as we dissect world news events, so we decided to try it again this week. At the moment we are doing it via google hangouts. You are listening to BlogTalk Radio but you can also check us out on google hangouts. Where do people go to if they want to see that feed?

Joe: They go to a very long URL on google. If they want I can read it out here but it will take me half an hour.

Niall: It's not a unique one, it's an automatically generated one.

Joe: I'll just send it to the chat room and people can have a look there.

Niall: OK

Joe: Just remember that on the google hangout you turn your mike off. Don't try and speak, just be quiet! (Laughs) I'll mute everybody just in case. If you are listening to the show on BlogTalk Radio and also listening on google hangouts then you are going to get feedback because they are two separate streams of audio and video and we'll hear it here so it all gets very complicated. It's like this crazy feedback with audio and nobody knows what's going on.

Niall: The technology's all there. They could have a service that combines it all but we don't know of it yet so if anyone does, send us your ideas and tips!

Joe: The technology does exist, it's called 'get your own TV broadcast studio set up and also a satellite connection, a dedicated satellite'! Before we would even go that far we would want to get our own radio station and that would mean a big giant antenna with megawatts of power transmitting our signal around the world rather than just one on the web. And people could just pick it up on their radios, in their cars. We could just go global but we need a lot more donations than we have been receiving of late to finance that kind of project.

Niall: We need to break China. Not break China, We need to break into China.

Juliana: That would be so cool, could you imagine? They would go desperate like if they get a signal like in Sweden again. It's like "The Russians are coming! Oh no! SOTT is coming! We've got a radio signal. We've got to do this next Sunday.

Niall: Those commie SOTTie people. We are kind of commies. I've been called a bit of everything from extreme right fascist all the way to terrorist commie. It depends on what I say.

Joe: On the google hangouts I'm not sure if we are even visible right now. I think some people are saying we're not. I think that's to do with our internet connection. We have a pretty bad internet connection today so it may not be showing a video feed of us here yet we are actually live on google hangouts. We are just experimenting with this and we are not sure if it's actually a good idea.

Anyway, let's just get into our show this week and stop putzing around.

Niall: OK, this G20 thing is still on. It finishes today right? G20, group of 20 of the world's most powerful countries. The leaders of which meet for two days in Brisbane Australia and I just want to say, I hate them all. I've spent too much of today reading sound bites on this total non-event leaving me going, why is this news? What are they doing?

Joe: We actually are online now on google hangouts, people should be able to see us.

Juliana: Hello!

Joe: Hi everybody! I'm just having to mute people as they come on, I suppose people can't mute themselves automatically. If anyone wants to check us out on google hangouts just go to the link that I sent to the chat room on BlogTalk Radio. You can see it starts with, the long weird link and you will be able to see us in our little studio here. You will be able to see us and listen to us at the same time which is amazing. In glorious Technicolor.

Yes, the G20. I hate all of the G20 with the exception of maybe a few. Russia, Brazil, China and India, I would say maybe get a pass. The rest of them? Kick them to the kerb! It's pathetic!

Niall: You have to actually scramble around a bit to find out what was at least discussed. We are talking about a talking head, a meeting. Nothing is actually done of course by the leaders when they get together for just 48 hours. But you still have to look for what it was they at least discussed or some kind of agreements they came to. If you compare it with the other event that happened in China. APEC the Asia Pacific Economic Community meeting just 4 or 5 days previous. There was a lot of press coverage because there were a lot of different deals made during that summit and there were a lot of different talking points.

In this case it was just pure Putin-bashing. Why did he even bother to turn up?

Joe: It's kind of funny because you have all of these people gathering and the pomp and circumstance of them all being greeted and smiling and cheering each other as they arrive at the airport. Obviously with the exception of Putin, he got a frosty reception all around which is really childish and silly. These are supposedly "our leaders". Most people in the world look up to these people as parental figures or father and mother figures and they expect them to take care of them or take responsibility for them. What was actually happening was that the ordinary people on the street in Brisbane were all protesting about things that actually matter, there were various different types of protest to coincide with the G20. There was the first peoples of Australia for example, the aborigines who were protesting about the Australian prime minister. They were protesting in general about the abuse of the successive Australian governments stealing their land and marginalising them but they were also protesting about the Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott's recent comment. He was waxing, poetic and nostalgic about Australia in a speech just a few days ago and he said that when we arrived in Australia, this great country, it was a desert and it was nothing but bushes and swamps and it must have seemed so harsh and desolate to the people.

Niall: A land without people for people without land.

Joe: Pretty much, he was pulling his Zionist card on that one (i.e. Palestine). And he really annoyed the Aboriginals. I don't think you are allowed to call them Aboriginals any more. Definitely not Abos. The first peoples I think they are called. It doesn't really matter. The people who were there originally when the conflicts etc. came to Australia a couple of hundred years ago. He basically just ignored them. So they were protesting on the streets in Brisbane and there were people protesting about climate change. There's many different angles on climate change but the bottom line is people are aware of the fact that serious stuff is happening on the planet in terms of climate change. The climate is changing in a serious way and people were protesting.

Of course they were protesting about carbon emissions and all that kind of stuff but at least they are aware. Even if they have got the wrong end of the stick they are complaining about something that matters to them and is affecting their lives. They were protesting about genocide going on in Myanmar Burma with a government which is not long out of a dictatorship who were persecuting Muslims. Various different types of protests going on.

These ordinary people on the street in Brisbane were protesting things that actually most of them were valid. They were meaningful and those people were being responsible whereas their leaders, the supposedly responsible ones were having a back slapping good old time, laughing and chuckling and mainly used it as an opportunity to metaphorically kick the shit out of Putin. Extremely childish little slights and digs; marginalising and isolating of him. Putting him on the end of a group of people. Then the media piled on with the commentary so it was extremely childish. It was like a bunch of brats all ganging up on someone they did not like and saying "We're all cool aren't we? And he's evil, he's evil".

That's what we got basically, it was a complete reversal of what the order should be supposedly which is where the political leaders are the responsible ones and the ordinary people run around being like little brats and spoilt children. But it was completely the opposite and that's how bad it's got.

Niall: The fakery of the whole thing. They meet and they shake hands and they smile and they hug koalas, while at the same time real people are actually killed in conflicts generated between whatever two leaders are enemies or proxy enemies. It's just a sickening facade of normalcy, of "civilisation" when if you know what's really going on. Uugh. It sends shivers down your spine when you see how sycophantic the press coverage of it is.

The journalist knows full well that hugging the koala is a photo op. It's a press op. But he doesn't acknowledge it and move on, he actually wants the audience to think that that was the high point, the big deal. Everything else be damned.

You mentioned the climate change protests as well; this is how seriously they take it. It wasn't on the agenda at all and it was inserted last minute into a statement that they all supposedly agreed on.

"Climate change, where are we going to fit in climate change uuh..."

They weren't even going to give it lip service. You see there are two things at work here, because there's 'climate change' and there's climate change. There's the climate actually changing and no one has a clue what to do about it because they can't do anything about it and there's the 'climate change' that's all your fault and we're going to tax you for it.

Juliana: What were the official topics? What were they supposed to discuss.

Niall: I finally found them, finally, finally. Oh my god! Officially it was mainly going to be about economics so the G20 leaders pledged to grow their economies by 2.1% by 2018. 2.1% don't ask me where they got that figure from. Grow their economies, you've got to be kidding me. These people couldn't grow an economy if their life depended on it. Their economies are tanking, I mean, the real economies. 40% unemployment in the US, 50 million people on food stamps. What they mean is, "We're going to fiddle the statistics to make it look like we can achieve this goal and thereby satisfy the shareholders for Wall Street profits." Their bottom line.

Juliana: And they couldn't just send an email to say this? They had to meet?

Niall: But what's the point of it all? Putin should have seen that coming. Why did he bother to go? The guy left early, bless him. I would have just not even bothered turning up.

So there was a press release; "we're going to grow our economies by 2.1%". Whatever. The other big economic, financial-related topic was that they all agreed that tax evasion is really bad and they agreed to clamp down on tax evasion. That is something to watch out for because when they talk about tax evasion they are talking about screwing the little people. 'Tax evaders' among ordinary people who are doing what they have to do just to survive.

At the same time you can bet your butt that they mean they will facilitate tax evasion for the corporations. "We're going to get tough on tax evasion, we're going to get tough on terrorists". Well, not really, "We are going to fund the terrorists to terrorise you and we're going to get tough on your reaction to the terror. That's what we mean when we say we are going to fight terrorism."

Climate change, blah blah. Ebola, lip service. But the main thrust of it was "We're going to send a statement to the markets about how we are going to have a miraculous recovery. Don't ask us about the details. Us saying it will just inspire the market to pick up the tab."

So it's a farce, and it got me wondering, where did these G things originate? G things... G strings?! I don't think there were G strings involved but that's how seriously I take it! Originally, it began as a group of 10 nations in the early 70's. '71 or 2. It was semi-secret. Why was it semi-secret? It's totally unlike today where it's heavily broadcast and you're all supposed to know that. "Look at the world government, it's all functioning nicely together." "We're all one big team. Putin, come here and give us a hug. You see? We're all one! One world government. See? He's in on it too, you see?"

It began semi-secretly because it was actually a spin-off of one of the Bilderberg meetings in the early 70's. Bilderberg today are, of course, "Nothing to see here, we're just having a meeting." Of course they can't hide it in the internet age but back in those days it was secret.

So, in '72 or '73, the US economy was in serious trouble; it always has been, but then it was at a low point. Basically, it's a permanent condition of the US economy, because it relies on the dollar having world supremacy. They realised that their gold supplies, which back then had to be a fixed amount of gold to the USD. If anyone in the world traded in their dollars for the gold they would be able to take the physical gold from the US. By the early 70's the US only had a quarter of that physical gold to match the dollar. That precipitated a collapse of Bretton Woods, but the US went about it in a way that nobody would notice. They hoped. That's where 'the oil crisis' came from. It came from this group of 10 meetings; the US, UK, and Western European countries basically agreed to create the oil crisis of 1972-73.

That whole thing wasn't just a fate of the natural laws of economics, oops! It was Kissinger's idea to deliberately raise the price of oil by 400% and that's where it shifted from: a dollar backed by gold to a dollar backed by US control of oil petroleum supplies. And since then they have been gradually watered down to this farcical parade of horribles where no real decisions are made at the G20. It's just a political freak show.

Joe: A political freak show. That's exactly what is it and if it wasn't for Putin they would have been much more bored because they got an opportunity to watch Putin. For example the Canadian prime minister Steven Harper, he is the one who has recently inducted Canada into the false flag terrorism hall of fame in tha,t as most people know, there was a recent very obvious false flag terror attack in Canada, in Ottawa. But Harper lands down in Queensland and he's really pissed at Putin. He's been blooded so his blood is up and he's really pissed off at Putin in particular because Russia has effectively cut Canada out of Asian, in particular Chinese, oil markets by doing all these deals. By Russia doing all of these deals with the Chinese. The Chinese no longer need Canadian oil because it's a lot more expensive to extract and also the logistics of it, over the sea etc. was just not really a good idea. And Harper dropped the ball on that one and he's really pissed at Putin for stealing away his Chinese oil market. That was maybe the source of his comment about (lost audio)... "Get out of Ukraine!" I'm assuming that actually happened.

Niall: This is coming from a prime minister, a guy who was "over there".

Joe: Exactly! "Get out of Ukraine!" Hang on a minute, where are you from? From Canada right? Where is Canada? Up above America? And Ukraine is right on Russia's doorstep. So what the hell are you talking about? If that's what he actually said you would love to think that Putin would have given him an appropriate response.

For me an appropriate response would have been a head-butt or something.

Niall: I was hoping he had just kneed him in the balls and moved on down the line to take a seat.

Juliana: But he was nice.

Joe: Or he just put his hand in his face and said "out of my face Harper."

Niall: But he didn't, he said "I don't know what you are talking about because we're not in Ukraine." "You're asking me to do the impossible"...

Joe: "...because we're not there."

Juliana: Duh!

Joe: The British Prime Minister David Cameron was bullshitting about Putin; "Putin's evil, Putin's a threat to the world." Actually it was Obama that said in a speech...

Niall: He did another Hitler thing.

Joe: Cameron did another Hitler thing. He pulled out a Hitler reference with regards to Russia, comparing Russia to Hitler and the Nazis. Then Obama gave a speech to Queensland University students where he said that Russia was a threat to the entire world. He said over Ukraine. Well that's a bit of a stretch because Ukraine, the entire world, Russia? Really?

He said that in the sense of Russia obviously shot down MH17 and there were people from all over the world on that plane, therefore Russia is a threat to the entire world because Russia shot down this plane.

It's just amazing that these people can come out with this sort of bullshit. They think themselves entitled to just spew this bullshit. Even allowing for the whole "Psychopaths reality creation" kind of stuff; these people know that they are lying. Obama knows he is lying when he says that kind of thing because there is no evidence that Russia had anything to do with shooting down MH17. And the entire world knows that. Nobody has come out and said it. The only reason anybody thinks that Russia had anything to do with the shooting down of MH17 is because since the plane fell out of the sky, the media has waged a non-stop propaganda offensive; trying to convince people that Russia was involved without providing any evidence whatsoever. In fact in the face of evidence to the contrary; provided by Russia.

Because the propaganda onslaught is so intense and incessant you have to now and again remind yourself that there is no evidence whatsoever for Russia having had anything to do with the shooting down of MH17.

Juliana: Or the invasion of Ukraine, or all the lies that they have been spewing since.

Joe: Well, being inside Ukraine, there's wiggle room there but specifically in terms of this shooting down of the plane, there's no evidence whatsoever but the jury's in on it. The judge, jury and executioner is the Western government and the media and they've decided and that's it. It's more or less official historically that Russia shot down MH17 in some way or other and they parrot this. Unless these are extremely stupid individuals, these Western world leaders must know that there is no evidence for that and in fact if they were in any way half informed then they'll know that in all probability it wasn't Russia. Russia had nothing to do with it and in fact it there was some element of the Ukrainian government and military that did it. They must suspect that. Maybe they don't know for sure but if they were asked and they were to be honest for once in their lives they would probably say it probably wasn't Russia. But they get up on a world stage on a world forum like the G20 and tell everybody that Russia's a threat to the entire world because they shot down MH17.

That's just scurrilous, that's amazing. People don't understand the depth of that duplicity. They are essentially accusing Russia and by that implication they are accusing one person; Putin. The president of America, of the freedom loving world is accusing one other person, the president of another country of being responsible for the death of 298 people when he knows that there is no evidence for it. What do you call someone like that?

Juliana: And he is responsible for the death of many many more.

Joe: Of course, the hypocrisy goes without saying but what I'm saying is, it's one thing for one person to tell a lie about another person and pin a blame for a murder for example on another person. People have done that, it happens all the time but this is happening in context of someone like Obama, at the G20 having access to the entire global media and a large percentage of the global population that's far and beyond what the average scumbag in the street does where he tries to frame someone else for murder. That happens all the time in ordinary society. People try and blame other people, get them in trouble, even blame them for murder and get them sent to prison for life for something they didn't do but this is much worse than that. Obama by definition is much worse than the average scumbag in the street that no one would piss on if they were on fire because of the kind of things they do. Obama is much worse than that because he has done the same thing but in the context of spreading that lie to a large percentage of the global population and demonising another person; the leader of another country.

I fail to find the words to describe the disgust and the lack of a decent moral bone in his body which leads us to the obvious conclusion that he's a psychopath and he doesn't have any.

Niall: It's a conspiracy theory to say they have control of the world media but when it's all singing from the same hymn sheet; just look at the G20, the appearance that it gives of all of the leaders there speaking with one voice. Even though no one but the British Anglo American dudes; Harper, Abbott, Obama and Cameron. It's just their anti-Russian statements that were made. None of the others said anything anti-Russian and yet it can be that lie that is repeated so much that it gives the impression of "Here's the great meeting of all the world's leaders and they all speak of one with one voice and they all condemn Russia". And the media has just this pure licence to run with that.

The quote that it's attributed to; Goebels, "The bigger the lie, the easier it is" is so applicable in this day and age and it's so large that you're left speechless.

On the point of Obama knowing full well that he's lying, that MH17 was a means just to demonise Russia, from the side-lines you get a more detailed statement from one of the western cyborg commanders. In this case the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, I mean that's pretty senior, right? Martin Dempsey says to some lower level summit meeting that Russia is pushing the limits of international order i.e. our order. "But the need to deter Russian aggression, blah, blah, blah against our NATO allies." He said that "Russia is a problem because it has lit a fire of nationalism. Once you light that fire it's not controllable. What I'm most worried about is Europe. We're going to lose Europe if other countries.... "He didn't spell it out fully but at least what I'm projecting onto that is a kind of awareness on their part that Russia sets an example for other countries and that they'll lose the control they have over the minds of people. Especially over the leaders of other countries.

Along that vein right now we have mentioned on a previous show that Hungary's leader has been very naughty. He's not only verbally supported Putin, he gave the green light recently for the Hungarian section of the south stream pipeline which would pass gas supplies from Russia into Europe and bypass Ukraine.

I read an analysis and I agree with it, that I think these protests erupting in Hungary over a tax for use of the internet. I'll say that's been simplified. It's not as simple as a tax for using the internet but there were mass demonstrations on the streets of Budapest. This is probably colour revolution style, regime changing going on. Their Prime Minister Viktor Orban is definitely a target because even if it's just the leader of a small European country for someone to verbally express support of Russia and then back it up with economic facts on the ground; he's in trouble.

Joe: Whether by design or whether intentionally or as a result of the kind of person he is, he seems to be the kind of guy who's a bit kind of right wing shall we say. But that could be a media spin on the fact that he isn't in line or doesn't want to play ball with the western [government].

Niall: Well Putin is right-wing.

Joe: Yeah, they're all called right wing but he's kind of authoritarian. The point is that if you want to resist the interference of the Anglo American Empire builders you have to be authoritarian because they have ways and means of subverting your country and particularly the population in your country. At least now he seems to be up to the task and of course that'll be spun by the western media as him clamping down on protests or there being protests. So it's very important to try and separate out the genuine protests from the manufactured protests that are the result of western NGO's jerking peoples chains and throwing money at different groups that suddenly spring up to protest this or that in that particular country. When you look at the geopolitical context of where that countries government is going.

Putin took a beating at the G20 and he did leave early. He left early today; Sunday at whatever time it was in Australia saying that he needed to get more sleep. I can imagine him being bored to death...

Juliana: I don't blame him.

Joe: the incessant nit-picking and childish cat calling that was going on. That's a small price to pay for him because what he's getting to do is watch the western empire builders shoot themselves in the foot repeatedly, over and over again.

He said just a few days before the G20 in an interview with a German TV station that he doesn't understand why the west; the EU and the US are sanctioning Russia and trying to destroy the Russian economy because there's a lot of investment on the part of Russia in the Ukraine or conversely Ukraine has loaned from Russia the tune of something like 25 or 27 billion dollars. So by destroying the Russian economy by trying to destroy the Russian banking system they are going to by definition, screw over the Ukrainian economy as well. Their whole point in terms of the Maidan protests and getting rid of the Russian influence in the Ukraine was to renew Ukraine and bring it into the EU; the wealthy western world and make everybody happy and prosperous. But they are doing the opposite essentially. They are subverting their own supposed agenda through this insane irrational desire just to see Russia go down.

Ultimately it's not insane or irrational if you come at it from the point of view of unfettered greed and the desire to maintain America, the US and its client states in Western Europe as the leaders of the world, the controllers of the world, the dominant power in the world. They are seeing that slipping away and that's why they want to destroy Russia and by implication China because those two countries are moving towards becoming the new powers in the world and they need them to do it in such a way that certainly other countries in the world don't see the negative fallout that they have experienced as a result of the Anglo American Empire that has prevailed over the past hundred years.

They basically want to hold onto power and they are willing to destroy Russia. Even if it destroys Ukraine. They don't really care about Ukraine that's the point, they don't give one damn about Ukraine even though they say they do. That's just a pretext for attacking Russia.

So that's what happens. These people are insane and they have only one singular goal; to maintain their position as global leaders when their position as global leaders is founded on corruption and abuse and the theft of resources and the impoverishment of other countries. A few of those other countries are finally standing up and saying no and the US isn't able to understand or accept that and tries to simply push on and defeat them and stop them from essentially balancing the world a little bit more and asserting their rights and not living under the boot of the US any more.

They are fundamentally fighting against a natural order that is re-establishing itself and the only way they can do that is to engage in self-destructive and self-defeatist strategies. And they can't see it!

Juliana: But it's kind of getting so ridiculous that I have to applaud the guy because I just see this father or grandfather saying "children, children now what you're doing is really bad for you." Recently in another interview he said something like "the country that's violating international law is the US but because of their monopoly on the media" (and he said that so he is a conspiracy theorist) "because of their monopolising of the media this information is hidden and the sanctions which are taken at a national level instead of being discussed are completely ridiculous and in the end it's going to hurt you United States of America. So don't do it children". So he keeps going and he said "you are also going to damage the economy in the European Union and that's why you are so desperate to make new deals with gas and oil with the EU". Every two sentences he said "this is bad for you. You should stop". How ridiculous is that?

Niall: At some point the responsible parent needs to smack. No?

Juliana: It may get to that.

Niall: Especially children like this.

Joe: He doesn't need to smack them because they are smacking themselves. I think it was Napoleon that said "never stop an enemy who is repeatedly making mistakes".

Juliana: Yeah, why bother?

Joe: They keep on making mistakes and they don't seem to know what to do when they make a mistake. They ignore it or they pretend it isn't happening and they push on through. They are able to manoeuvre in the meantime when they see things going wrong. They see things going wrong in the sense of Russia and China asserting themselves and gaining power in the world and doing deals together and doing deals with other countries.

That's the first thing that was going wrong. They take action to try and subvert that but they don't realise that those two countries in particular will respond as they are entitled and they are able to do. So the US' attempt to stop the situation from going wrong as in the US losing power to Russia and China they make a mistake. They push too far and they get pushed back and they think "Oh shit, what are we going to do here" and they try to do something else and they just get themselves in deeper and ultimately it's the classic cutting off your nose to spite your face.

They have a singular irrational objective and an irrational objective means that you will do things that are irrational and fundamentally self-defeatist. Like the example I just gave and for example another the way they are trying to screw over Russia is by having the Saudis increase their oil production so that the price drops. The Saudis produce oil and they break even for oil. Their cost price is $30 a barrel so the Saudis can take a big hit on the price of oil but Russia would like to have at least $80 a barrel. It's already below $80 a barrel and they are increasing output and apparently the price is going to continue to reduce.

This is an attempt to screw over Russia in the form of reducing their oil revenues so they don't have money and that's their rise.

Juliana: And about that, Putin did say something to the media, they ask him "why have the oil prices gone down?" and he said "Well I suspect it's a political motivation."

Joe: The thing about it is, by reducing the price of oil, you're hitting a lot of other oil producers who are your friends and who, like Russia, depend on oil being above a certain threshold to make enough money from it. There are several other oil producing countries that are being screwed over by the US indirectly through Saudi Arabia; forcing Saudi Arabia to flood the market with oil; reduce the overall price; these other countries that produce oil don't get as much either; as well as Russia for their oil and their economies start to tank as well. These are countries that the US relies on for support for its agenda of stopping the march of Russia and China.

This is another example of self-defeatist policies. The only thing that they could do that would be otherwise would be to back off and to accept the reality that is. You are no longer top dog and you will continue to be no longer top dog and you are going to have to take your rightful place in a new world that is based on a more realistic share of the world's resources.

The US is in no way entitled and never has been entitled to be the dominant power in the world economically. It never should have been, it has 5% of the world's population and it's thousands of miles away from the biggest landmass on the planet which is Eurasia. It's completely imbalanced, it's completely wrong that the US had to ever have been the most powerful nation in the world. That has run its course and it's ending.

So what do you do when all these years you've been getting away with being the top dog when you're not entitled to it and you don't deserve it and you have nothing to back it up? What do you do? Well you would expect someone like that to back down and say "Ok, we had a good go at it, let's just accept the facts" but they can't do that because their pathological. They want supreme power for themselves all the time.

It's fundamentally irrational, it's fundamentally schizophrenic because the fact of the matter is the US does not deserve to be the world's superpower and cannot be the world's superpower without imposing itself on other people by waging wars and dominating and stealing resources. It's essentially like a mafia boss in your neighbourhood that's been going around and threatening other people; lives in a small enough house; doesn't even live in the biggest house on the block but has been going around and stealing other peoples (inaudible) from their houses or robbing them on the street. Eventually people have said "listen, you're not going to do that anymore because who are you to steal from us".

The thing that motivated them to become dominant in the first place will stop them from backing down. They don't see themselves and they don't accept the idea of themselves as not the pre-eminent power in the world. So what do you do? You're running into a brick wall. It's no longer possible for you to do that any longer. People are fighting back.

It's just occurred to me; there's a movie called "In Broad Daylight" which is a true story about a guy, what was his name again? I can't remember. (Laughs) It's on the tip of my tongue. Ken McElroy!

In the 80's in a small town in Missouri he was just running around abusing everybody, shooting people, stealing from them, stealing their cattle, stealing everything he could get his hands on. Eventually the townspeople stood up to him and shot him. He had shot somebody beforehand in his attempt to intimidate people. But he put himself in a position at the very end where he was even aware that people were out to get him. People were going to take action to stop him and he was like "I don't care, I'm still top dog around here". Even in the case where he's about to be shot dead he was swaggering around saying "I'm top dog" because the guy couldn't do otherwise and that's the position the US is in and the US is about to be shot dead.

Juliana: I highly recommend that book by the way. The movie is based on a book. If you want to read about psychopathy on a micro level and see how it applies is excellent. I mean coercion and lies and evilness from the very beginning and the guy cannot let go.

Niall: I'm feeling very pessimistic today about this because I hear what you mean and Putin has used this metaphor himself, he says "What they are doing is cutting off their nose to spite their face". I think though that it is actually working. The rigging of the oil price, the sanctions, currency speculation is causing a flee of Russian Ruble. It is taking a hit. There is only so much the Russians can do against that.

Joe: Well Russia can take the hit is what they can do. They can take a hit because they have their people behind them and the people know.

Niall: Ok

Joe: They've informed the population about what's going on and the Russian people by and large are willing to put up with a lot and in the past, in living memory, have put up with a lot socially and economically that they are well prepared to do it again if necessary. The US on the other hand is completely screwed in that sense. Just imagine Black Friday all across the entire nation; people being trampled to get to stores, mass riots and chaos and shootings with the whole country loaded up, toting guns and stuff.

The US is going to go down in a ball of flames, basically, in that situation.

Juliana: Added to that, Joe, is that Russia and China have both been taking precautions and they do say "we have enough reserves". They've been buying a whole lot of gold, they have been making these new deals so they are not in the water even though they may be taking a hit right now. While the US has nothing, has paper printed with no backing on anything, no means of production locally. Countries like Russia and China have the means to survive without (inaudible 48:23)

Niall: I was looking at gold stats and yes, Russia is far and away... A headline here; Russia's biggest gold buying spree. At least officially, Russia and China are still... Nobody knows just how much gold the US has. They have some official stats but there are a lot of grounds for suspicion by gold watchers in the US. They think that there's far less than what they're saying. Officially the US still has at least 50% more of the gold. How they are prepared economically is one thing, but I think that Joe touched on something important there. The social glue, the fabric that holds a country together: in the US, on this count, they're in negative equity to a serious degree.

People are patriots in the US but it's such a thin veneer of patriotism - you know, "USA! USA!" - and it's not really backed by anything substantial, not least any kind of collective memory of suffering.

Juliana: They are pissed off right now, they can love their country and be pissed off anyway. And with the police state going on, hunger, everything can turn around in one second in the US. Which wouldn't happen in countries who have suffered like Russia. People have skills still, there's basic things like normal skills. How many people in the US would survive?

Joe: The vast majority of people in the cities wouldn't. There've been protests all over the world. The amount of protests happening this year and in recent weeks, even in this past week is very high. We just mentioned there were protests in Hungary, there was protests in Italy and Poland, in Ireland. The thing with these kinds of protests happening these days, at least in the way the media reports them is you have a nationalistic or a "right wing" flavour to them.

In Italy for example a big part of it was protesting about immigration or immigrants. The same thing in Poland, those characterised as right wing Polish Neo-Nazi types etc. That may be true to some extent but there are a lot of people protesting about the state of the economy and how it affects them in terms of lack of jobs, austerity cuts on social welfare payments and general corruption amongst the politicians. The thing about it is that when you have this austerity business which is essentially the elite taking money out of the public purse and giving it to themselves and their friends and the corporations, when you have that you give rise to that kind of a right wing nationalistic element within society. The media will try and dismiss those, it's a very easy way for the media to dismiss those kind of protests when they are fundamentally provoked by a social and economic malaise within the country because of that theft of resources and theft of money from the country and from the public purse by the elites. It tends to turn it towards a nationalistic agenda. Like I said, it's easy to dismiss but even if it's nationalistic in nature, it's based on real grievances and I think we are going to be seeing a lot more of that. At some point the whole thing is just going to descend into chaos and you are going to have right-wing groups who rise to power. In a situation where you have a lot of social chaos, a lot of unemployment, a lot of poverty; they're the kind of people who rise up because they are the strong people. They have strong words and strong ideals and they can identify problems, like immigrants for example. They're a very easy scapegoat to point the finger at when there are no jobs and not enough money because when you see all these immigrants; they're a different colour than us and obviously they're taking money from the public purse in terms of social benefits and unemployment and they are also taking our jobs. That kind of thing just happens over and over again and has happened in the past and will happen again and we're seeing it happen increasingly right now.

There are ongoing protests in Ireland about the water charges. I've mentioned this before, but it's classic; there was this Irish politician who was arguing for the need for people to pay for water in Ireland, and he said: "it's not like it just falls from the sky". Well, in Ireland it falls from the sky every day, almost! The thing about the water charges in Ireland is that it was mandated; it's essentially a privatisation of the water company or water purification system in Ireland. People in Ireland have already been paying for their water through taxation. They have always been taxed for their water supply, automatically, but now they're adding on this extra tax where each individual will pay a specific charge based on what they use; based on the size of their family, the size of their house, etc, and that's on top of what they already pay.

The idea that anybody should be complaining about people having to pay twice for their water... And the fact is that this was mandated by the European Central Bank and by the IMF after the bankers stole all of the money from the Irish public purse. When they had their bail-out after they gambled it all away and took all the money to keep them afloat because everybody needs banks, or so they tell us.

This was mandated as part of an austerity programme, that the Irish water should be privatised and people should be forced to pay again for water. If that isn't an egregious, sticking hand in and screwing people over then I don't know what is and people have every right to be on the streets. A lot of people are simply saying they are not going to pay for it.

Politicians are ridiculous, obviously they don't care, but they are poking a bear. And this is a bear that is usually quite soft and cuddly and sleepy and hibernates most of the time i.e. the average person on the street. To get that person riled up takes a lot of provocation but the politicians and the elites seem to be determined to provoke people to the point where they will get violent. Maybe that's what they want because like John Lennon said "once you get to violent they know how to deal with you".

Niall: Yeah, the water tax charge issue in Ireland actually predates the austerity crisis, it even predates the boom times in Ireland. They had this on the shelf; it was being discussed in the late 90's. That's the strange thing about it, it's not that "Oh, suddenly we desperately need to raise money; here's one way to do it. A crisis has come up, great! Let's use the crisis to push through those legislations". It actually goes back 10 years before it.

Here you get into something I think is going on in the background and I've been churning it over in my head. It suggests a long term conspiracy but I don't know, you can see the immediate reasons for it, kind of. Back in the 70's the Green Movement was essentially created by a couple of important meetings that took place between the major oil companies, which were British and American. I mean the Club of Rome, the very ideas that now are commonly used by people, whether they are related to protests against big oil because the climate's changing, so we want to cut down on carbon emissions. All of these things originated from some discussions amongst people who went to 'philanthropic foundation' meetings back in the 70's.

What they first floated was the idea that there were 'limits to growth'; that the world had finite resources and therefore we had to better manage things and anything, a water tax charge, anything that could put pressure on average people's consumption of resources was good because you protect the environment.

That sounds very plausible right? I mean we have all been born into a world where these arguments are already well established. Nobody can really disagree with that. Here's the thing though, ask yourself who is saying these things? Who is pushing it? It comes from the minds of the people who pillage the planet; oil companies! The whole Green Movement originated and is pushed and promoted by the wealthiest people on this planet! Do you really think that they have the environment's interests at heart? For them it's the bottom line on control. By then you had an Anglo-American Empire which has coalesced over 5-6 years coming into the 70's and they wanted to maintain their position.

Well I see this thing, and then I see the way in which the price of oil today is rigged. One of the main ways they have done it is to smash countries that produce oil. This helps you control it better because you maintain a 'balance of power' - which is a British Imperial term. So you are not able to reach your army over there to Eurasia to physically manipulate the situation to your benefit, but you can produce the situations that will just cause enough destruction that you maintain 'most-favoured nation' status.

I really think this kind of thinking is just... They might use different terms today but it's still the same thing, this global elite doing what they do because they want to maintain balance of power with them at the top.

Joe: Talking about the economy, there's a clip I want to play here of a guy who kind of sums it up pretty much. It's just recent news, he sums up what is going on with the economy. He refers specifically to Japan but he also says the US and the EU are doing exactly the same thing. I'm just going to play this little clip here and I'm going to play him on the google hangout as well, hopefully the same thing and we'll see how it goes.
Commentator: Last week, a week ago; Friday October 31st. We had the biggie, we had Kuroda, the governor of the bank of Japan come out and surprise everybody in a move that was specifically designed to move the markets. The central banks are no longer even pretending that they are doing anything other than moving the markets. And what did he do? He announced a vast expansion of the central bank purchase programme. The Bank of Japan is now going to be buying more than 100% of all the new issuances of government bonds that are being issued by the Japanese government. And oh by the way, they are issuing a lot of them because their tax receipts are barely 50% of their expenditures at this point. This is just a mathematical nightmare and they went even further and they said "Oh yeah, we are actually going to be buying more stock indexes in the Japanese Nikkei". Specifically the Central Bank is saying "we're buying stocks, we got your back here".
What happened? The Yen tanked, the stock market went up. We've sifted through the data a little bit and guess what? The extremely wealthy in Japan just got wealthier. Everybody else in Japan who needs food or fuel or those things that the central bankers don't seem to think are that important because they exclude them from their inflation measures when necessary, they just all got a lot poorer. And here's the part of the story that I just wrote about in this big two parter that people need to understand, this deliberate act of policy is nothing more than taking money from pocket A and putting it in pocket B. Pocket A is everybody who is a saver, everybody who has got money stored up, everybody who is living on a fixed income, everybody who is retired. That is the bulk of Japan, they got their pockets picked and they put it in another pocket.

And what did we see just yesterday? Toyota just announced "Hey we just had these record earnings, this is great!" Toyota is a great company, they make great cars; I'm not faulting that but part of their record earnings were due to the fact that the Japanese Yen went down a lot. When the Yen goes down and you're selling cars overseas, when you bring that money back you get a lot more of it. It inflates your profits but Toyotas like "Whoa! Look at all these profits we made!" No, the billions of dollars extra that Toyota earned came from somewhere. It came from the people of Japan.

This process of wealth transfer is what our Central Banks are doing. The Bank of Japan has been obvious about it, our own Federal Reserve here in the US is doing it, the European Central Bank is doing it. They are saying this "We need to take the money from all the little people out there because we don't trust that they are going to do the right things with it. We would rather harvest that value and bring it over and give it to the people we do trust". Which happen to be the big banks, the large speculators, the very wealthy and the government.

So this decision has been made by people who, by the way it should be noted in none of these countries have these bank officials been elected, you have no recourse about anything they might do, nobody gets to talk about this policy or vote on it or decide if it's a good thing or not. Yours and my future is being decided by literally about 3 dozen people across the world who make these kinds of decisions. And that's the world that is going on.

So that is what we are talking about this week.

Joe: I don't think that worked very well for our google hangout people because of our bandwidth; YouTube videos playing, that kind of stuff. You got a little bit of it but basically he's saying that a few dozen people, i.e. the heads of government and of central banks; our major economies around the world are simply reducing the value of their currency which means that it filters down to a depressed economy and less value of money within the country. So the average person on the street has to pay more for goods and effectively doesn't have enough money or doesn't have as much money as they had before but banks setting bonds and big corporations doing business internationally, their profits go up by 200% or 500% or 1000% because of their currency exchange. It's effectively taking money from the average person in a very real way because how it translates is when you go to the store or go to buy anything anywhere or have to pay rent or have to pay a mortgage, you have to pay more for it. The flip side of that is when you have to pay more for certain things when the cost of living goes up that amount of money that you have to pay extra, that is reflected in the profits of corporations and the amount of money that the government actually takes in in terms of its investments.

Juliana: It's interesting that he said "they want to take money from the little people because they don't trust that they will do the right thing with it". I think he's giving them a little bit too much credit because it's just because they want the money to go to the people they trust, like you said, they don't care about the little people. What are the little people going to do with the little money they have already?

Joe: Well, it's a narrative that they tell themselves. How they justify that kind of thing to themselves is that ordinary people don't know how to manage these kinds of things themselves. It's essentially capital, the disposable wealth that people have. They just fritter it away on silly things that they don't really need when we should take some of that money away from people and stop them from misusing their money. They justify it to themselves in that way but yeah, their ultimate goal is to enrich themselves.

Juliana: If you apply the same logic to all kinds of control they use today, look at the tobacco laws, they are protecting us right? Look at the big pharma, don't they know on some level that their poisoning people? That they are making them dependent on drugs that are going to kill them? Or are they really having a narrative similar to "Oh, they don't know what to do, they are going to eat too much fat". Sometime I wonder to which extent they really have a narrative like that, this "little people don't know what to do" or are they really laughing behind the scene and saying "these stupid people".

Niall: If ever you wanted to give credence to the powers that be having a world population reduction programme or mind set or narrative or whatever, this would be it. They talk and talk about the growth of economy and how it's important but in this day and age you can see that the reason they still produce figures and say the economy grew about 5% last month is because they're measuring the fake economy. They're measuring the economy of money. The real industrial growth measures are plummeting but they choose to ignore it. What they mean is our economy grew, our wealth grew and to hell with the real world.

I think the Kissingers of this world have a bit more to their narrative at least. To what extent do they believe it?

Joe: They can make themselves believe anything they want. We've spoke about this before in terms of system 1 and system 2 in modern psychology. This is the bane of human existence where there is a hidden motivation amongst the average person, within any person, where they want something and have a drive for something. A very basic and very simplistic drive but they come up with all sorts of complex and convoluted narratives which are ultimately bullshit, to justify it.

When your inner drive is like a mixed bag it's not so bad. They'll do some good now and again and they'll do some bad and they'll justify it with their system 1 narrative. When your inner drive, as is the case with psychopaths, is pure greed, domination, control and destruction, that's when it's a problem because their narrative will justify all that to themselves.

This is the dividing line between a conscious conspiracy and the far more scary and pessimistic view of it which is it's a function of human nature including psychopathic nature as I just described. That leads the world to be the way it is today and has lead the world and lead civilisations repeatedly round in this cycle of destruction. Because of human nature. Because people don't understand their own motivations and they come up with all sorts of bullshit narratives.

In terms of your question Chu I would just say, look at a parent. Look at any parent and how they view their child. They want what's best for their child but they understand that the child has limitations and can't take care of itself and "I am responsible for the child and it's self-evident that I am responsible for the child. It's self-evident that I am in a position where I need to take responsibility and need to look after the child and need to take decisions for it and do things for it, in its own best interest". But very often in this world in particular parenting doesn't go very well and parents don't do the best by their children. The reason they don't do that despite their apparent good intentions, their benevolent, caring intentions for the child, they screw them up in some way. They abuse their children essentially if not overtly. Indirectly if not directly.

I think the same can apply to these leaders, this same attitude. They look at ordinary people and they see them as children. They see them as uninformed, they don't understand the way the world works. Of course there's a manipulation there in the sense that yeah, they don't understand the way the world works because you don't tell them and you keep things from them. But parents keep things from children. Don't tell children about sex, it might scare them, they might go and have sex or something and then what would happen? And why? It probably wouldn't damage the child, the child might have a good time. I'm not on about children here. You know what I'm saying.

Niall: He means teenagers!!!

Joe: Teenagers! Teenagers! The parents have hang ups about that kind of thing. They have personal hang ups and they project them outwards. I have an unrecognised hang up about puritinism or something like that that was programmed into me. That isn't even my own, I'm totally unaware of it in terms of that I have that kind of a programme but it gets projected outwards. I justify it to myself and to everybody around me by some kind of a narrative that everybody can accept and so can I.

I think that covers an awful lot of what goes on in the world. I don't know if there are people who are like the top level, dark lords with glowing red eyes and stuff who are like "Ha ha, we are eating humanity and we are going to abuse them all and steal from them and suck their life blood and we know that we're doing this and we know that it's wrong and we're never going to stop doing it because that's just who we are and I love being a dark lord with glowing red eyes!" I don't know if there are any of those people who sit around and admit that to themselves or "Are you a dark lord? Yeah? So am I, isn't it great being a dark lord". That kind of thing.

Because it's not necessary.

Juliana: My guess is that their narrative would be kind of like the parent but in a sense like what Lobaczewski said in Political Ponerology, "They are afraid that the normal people, the people with a conscience would ultimately take over." So when he was saying "We'll take the money from the little people because we don't trust that they will do the right thing with it". I think that's a little bit naive of him because their narrative would be kind of like the V for vendetta's chancellor would have to remind them why they need us. I don't even think that they have the good intentions that parents would. It's like a system 1 that is telling them, "We need to keep these people at bay because they would control the world and that would be bad". Maybe they're not saying "We're out to get them and we're going to kill them and stuff".

Joe: What it comes down to is "It's for their own good" all the time and that's what parents say as well.

Juliana: I don't know if they go as far as saying it's for people's own good.

Joe: They do! They always do. That's how they justify it to themselves and that's how they justified it to themselves. It sounds egregious but Kissinger went as far as to say that when the CIA was overthrowing Salvador Allende and ultimately installing Pinochet, that the topic is far too important to let the Chilean people decide because they would make the wrong decision. "They'll decide to go with Allende and what would happen?"

You can come up with a parade of horribles as to how it would all go wrong for them. It wouldn't go wrong for them. It would go well for them. But in his mind as he justifies it to himself, it will go wrong for them. What he doesn't understand is that his motivation is for self-interest. Then that's the question, does he admit, does he know that his motivation is self-interest? Does he just sit down and say "I'm just in it for myself, I don't give a shit about these people".

Niall: Well he did call US military men "dumb stupid animals".

Joe: Which they are. (Niall laughs) You can find evidence to justify every evil thing that a person has done. That person can find evidence to make an argument for it and you'll always have people who say "Yeah well, maybe he has a point" because there's some truth in it.

Niall: It's a great analogy because it works on a couple of ways. We had the net result today where it's a dysfunctional relationship. The parents have gone absolutely nuts and they say they are doing it for peoples best interests.

Joe: The thing that makes it always go wrong, the caveat is that people in control who are making these decisions are psychopaths. They're primary motivational drive is for greed, self-interest, domination and destruction but that is hidden from them. That's where it goes wrong, really, really wrong on the planet.

Someone else, a normal human being would probably do ok most of the time. There would still be a lot of self-interest and all that kind of stuff but there wouldn't be quite the level of abuse and war and death and destruction. Those people wouldn't be able to justify that to themselves because they have a moral substratum that mitigates against that. But psychopaths don't have that and that's why you're screwed.

Niall: Juliana made reference to Putin in his words and his actions; he expresses it as a pedagogical role as a parent teaching other people, whether it's teaching the US or teaching ordinary Russians or anyone else for that matter. He said something recently; there was a big summit before this G20 one, the Apex summit in Beijing. He was asked by a western reporter if Russia would provide North Korea with security guarantees if North Korea agreed to renounce nuclear weapons. The kind of dig he was getting at was that Russia would join the axis of evil by essentially being big brother to North Korea. His response was "Your question is too clever" i.e. I know what you are trying to do. "This is not the moment yet to even raise that kind of question, let alone answer it. Often the problem in the world is not the small countries who feel they are under siege or unwilling to change. Rather it is that bigger countries are all piling on like bullies in the school yard and they don't know when to stop."

It's just eminently sensible but again you get this idea that in the natural order of things in a normal situation, in a normal world, you would have people who had also been in the same dynamic. They would be in a parent child dynamic but they wouldn't abuse the hell out if the kids though.

Joe: You wouldn't have psychopathic parents; which we do. I can give you some examples; just on that point of narratives, there's a report from the UK that the coalition; that's the conservatives. David Cameron; Dave the geezer and the liberal democrats that are in government in the UK now; they shifted money through their welfare cuts and tax reductions so they have this convoluted "We're going to re shape the economy and we're going to cut taxes and we're going to shift money from welfare in order to cut taxes and ultimately everybody will be better off. It'll all be great".
So they came up with this plan and the result is that they shifted money from the poorest to the better off.

Niall: And thereby defeating poverty.

Joe: The groups hardest hit are single parent families, large families, children and middle aged parents who make up the poorest 5% of the country so they're the people who get screwed over. This is the kind of country we have, this is the kind of global economy we have where through these economic policies, the poorest people, not even the middle class people, the people who have something to spare but the poor people in the country are the ones who lose the most. That's a recipe for disaster. The poorest people are the closest to the edge, they are the ones who are going to be first out on the streets because they are on the edge and it doesn't take a lot to push them over. But these psychos in power are just happily going along and justifying it to themselves and saying "It'll never happen or if it does happen we'll send the police out. It's for their own good. If they rioted and tried to turn things over in the country or overthrow the government or whatever they're planning, it would be terrible for everybody. Right? Can you imagine social chaos and shops being looted and all sorts of nightmare scenarios? That's terrible, nobody will benefit from that. It's much better for the poor just to grind on through and accept what's happening because, ok it's not great but the alternative is much worse. You cannot have a mass uprising in a country in the western "democracy" because it would just be terrible for everybody and there has to be rule of law and everybody agrees with that, even the poor people who are licking the gutters to get some nutrition."

Niall: Literally. The actual economy, I'm not talking about the London fake economy; charities now make up something like 20 - 30% of the welfare state of the UK. Look at this headline today, a charity is building Lego houses to tackle the UK rent crisis. People are collecting donations of Lego to build structures for people who are losing their homes to be able to live in. That's for real, that's not like joke of the day, that's actually happening.

Joe: There's a horrible story here that's just come out today. Most people should know about the paedophiles in high places in the UK and elsewhere in the US for example and in many other countries I'm sure. Particularly in the UK, the Brits seem to have a particular penchant for abusing children and always have. Victorian values or something. It's been going on for a long time; Jimmy Saville, the entertainer, fated all over the UK for about 40 years, knighted by the queen, given access to hospitals, all sorts of things. He had this silly children's show. Then there's been enquiries into paedophile rings in government during the 1980's and this one comes from that and the headline is A Tory MP murdered a boy at an orgy, according to an abuse victim. So Scotland Yard which is the English police is investigating 3 possible murders linked to a Westminster (that's the British Government) paedophile ring that was allegedly operating in the 70's and 80's.

A Conservative MP, that's the same Conservative party that's in power in the UK now, murdered a young boy during a depraved sex party in the 1980's and the alleged victim of the Westminster paedophile scandal has claimed. A 12 year old boy who was being abused by a group of men was strangled by the politician at a luxury town house in front of other victims. On another occasion the victim claims a young boy who was around 10 years old was deliberately run down and killed by a car being driven by one of the abusers.

These aren't criminals, this isn't the dregs of human society in the UK. These are our vaunted leaders. This is from the 1970's and 80's and it is ongoing today and these are the people represented, at least by David Cameron, at the G20 that, according to western media, we're all meant to be fawning over and watching video clips of and reading stories about what a wonderful time they are all having and how much their hotels have been costing in Brisbane with tax payers money. While a certain section of them have been, for a long time, abusing and murdering your children in sex orgies and you're meant to be happy about all that. You're not meant to know about it.

This goes back an awful long time actually because back in 1800's there was a popular magazine in the UK, the Pall Mall Gazette. In July 1885 there was a serialised report by a journalist; William T Stead. It was called the maiden tribute of modern Babylon and it created a sensation in Victorian London because it gave a shocking depiction of rampant, child sex trade thriving in the nation's capital where it related stories of girls as young as 10 years old who had been inveiled in to houses of ill repute by scheming abductresses where they were pressured, manipulated or coerced into prostitution. These houses were basically frequented by politicians. He described them as greedy flesh merchants.

These were frequented largely by the elite and the political class of the day; and this was in 1885. The point being that this had been ongoing since 1885 and probably a long time before it. It's good that this kind of thing is coming to light but people need to understand that this the underbelly or just below the surface of our western civilisation. It's depraved and it's disgusting and it's overseen by the elite/political class. Just to think that people are giving their allegiance to these people and they look to them to protect them and think that they are somehow better than them. Truth and reality has been entirely turned on its head. Truth and lies have been inverted for probably for ever I suppose.

It's just one example of just how..

Niall: How those least capable of social responsibility, take most of it. With a view to preying on the herd as they see it. It's revolting.

Joe: People can say, "Oh, it's just a few, it's not so many people. You're getting carried away and hystericising people". Well you know what? Not that I'm exaggerating but it's far better for people to think that it's maybe worse than it's being reported and to stretch it a little bit in terms of trying to imagine how bad it could get. It's far better to imagine how bad it can get or how bad it actually is and always has been than to say "Oh, you're just exaggerating, it's not so bad. They'll be found and prosecuted for it." Because that just dismisses it and argues for your cosy fluffy pink bunny rabbit kind of life where nothing bad ever happens. But that's the sort of society you're living in and to do that is essentially to blind yourself to a harsh horrible reality. Which has you in its cross hairs as well in some way or other.

In terms of self-preservation and self-protection, it's far better to imagine or assume that it is much worse than you think it is and than you've ever been told than to do the opposite which is to brush it all under the rug and say "it's not so bad, it's all fine"; like most people do.

Juliana: There was a story kind of related to this; I haven't seen it in the English media very much but it made it in the Spanish news because it was about immigrants in the detention centres in the US. It was actually a Chicago school John Marshall that made a study there and they said that sexual abuse in immigrant children is systematic now. It's not isolated events and they pick on these children because they are already traumatised. I mean to make it to the US was already a traumatic event and there was a small protest in front of the Whitehouse to ask that Obama did something about it.

And that's going to be ignored and it's one of those things where again and again you see the most vulnerable people who are supposedly under the protection of the government being abused. And this one, like you were saying, most people think it's just a few. This is a systematic, can't hide it anymore type of event in the present. Not from the 80's not from people who suddenly get punished now because there's probably somebody who wants to punish them now. This is happening now! I mean how many countries in how many other situations is it happening?

Joe: Many people of a sensitive nature and even those who aren't too sensitive, don't like to watch wildlife programmes where the little baby gazelle is singled out from the herd by the lion or whatever other predator because it's not fair. Right? I mean that's the most vulnerable animal in the herd and they are being singled out, well that's a very good analogy for what Chu was just describing because we are dealing with human predators. And that's what they do, they single out the weakest in the herd. That's their proclivity because it's easiest and maybe even the weakness and the innocence of those individuals gives them some kind of a rush or something bizarre. Because they're deranged like that.

Niall: For sure!

Juliana: And these people are nobodies because they don't even have papers. If they're dead, what do they care? I mean they're really picking on the most vulnerable and for them inexistent animals? And getting a kick out of it?

Joe: Oh yeah! But they don't have that kind of a moral code that you would assume they have and that's what we've said they don't have that. Their prime directive is destruction, abuse...

Niall: And where they can they'll organise it on an industrial scale. We know from Ireland that the education system it seems, was built around how to maximise the suffering of children and young women for decades. It's all more or less come out.

Joe: Ordinary decent people end up conspiring on that because they have this attitude of "that could never happen. "They" would never do that, another person would never do that."
But that's why the concept of psychopaths and psychopathy is extremely important because people need to wake up to the fact that.

Juliana: They would.

Joe: Not everybody is born equal and there is an inter species predator that is very different from you and they would do that. Just imagine yourself as a gazelle, and you all getting round saying "We don't eat other animals, we just eat grass. There can't be another animal that eats us. Yeah, that would never happen. That's crazy! What do you mean like a big... With big sharp teeth that tears your limbs off? That's ridiculous, that's childish horror stories." Then everyone gets eaten.

Niall: And take a lesson from nature, (lost audio) 1.32.46 the most efficient prey possible for the gazelle. Same with a psychopath. This isn't something that you might be able to hold back.

Joe: The efficiency of the lion for example in terms of speed and claws and teeth and stuff is reflected in the efficiency of the psychopath amongst humans in terms of their ability to be charming, beguiling, affable and to basically pull you in. That's their skill, that's their ability. That's how they are able to have one over on you. The gazelles don't fare too well against predators.

Juliana: And in this case it's ever more insidious because they look the same as you, they speak the same as you, they talk the same, they pretend they're the same until you're lured into their web.

Joe: There is another story in the news that's been going on for a while; a guy called Julien Blanc who's an American. He's a dating coach where he tells men how to be successful with women but he has a particularly disgusting approach to it. They are called pickup artists.

Niall: I met one of those in real life.

Joe: Well this guy takes the cookie. He takes the biscuit. He charges men hundreds of dollars to pimp their game with tutorials promised to make girls beg to sleep with you after short circuiting their emotional and logical mind into a million reasons why they should. In other words, he teaches men how to trick, manipulate and emotionally abuse women into having sex with them.
There's videos of him on the web; you shouldn't watch them but you can read something about him. Don't give him any YouTube hits or anything like that.

Niall: Don't feed the lion.

Joe: He talks about being in Japan and just grabbing women. In Japan it's really easy, you don't have to speak the language or anything, you just wear like a Pikachu t-shirt and go up to Japanese women because they're so demure and grab their heads and shove their heads into your crotch and shout "Pikachu!" This is the kind of stuff that he's saying. It's more evolved but it's all extremely manipulative and abusive and encourages the use of actual physical violence or coercion against what he defines as the most vulnerable women. He's laughing about it and joking about it and apparently guys are lapping it up.

He's not allowed into Australia and he's not allowed into Brazil because of this attention that it's getting and there's a petition that I just signed earlier on to not allow him into the UK. Of course the UK will probably welcome him with open arms. I was actually having a discussion, if you can call it that, on an article in the UK Telegraph written about this guy where the question was put up, do we have the right to infringe his freedom of speech by preventing him from entering the country?

Niall: Does he have the right to breathe? That's my question.

Joe: Well that is the question. This guy was arguing with me about freedom of speech and somebody posted this quote. "I don't agree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". And people pull that out very often and it's a ridiculous concept. I challenged the person who wrote it to follow it to its logical conclusion. In fact take this (lost audio) 1.36.45 actually posting this quote in response to this guy. So what you're saying is is you personally, and I'm asking because you've said it so, you would defend this person to the death. Defend his right to do what he's doing because that's the topic of the article and that's what you're commenting on so you're saying you would go out publicly and stand up on a box, do whatever is necessary, go to court and spend as much time as necessary to defend this guy's right to effectively promote up to and including rape of women. And you would qualify that at the end by saying but I don't agree with him.

So here's the question, if after spending however many hours of days or weeks defending this guy's right, through the courts or whatever you can imagine might be necessary for you to have to do to defend to the death this guy's right to come into the country and have these seminars and tell people to engage in this kind of approach; this essentially hate speech or abuse and the victimisation of women. After spending all that time doing that and defending that publicly and then at the end saying "So he's allowed in and I'm partially responsible for it but I don't agree with what he's doing". What do you think your peers, the members of the public would think about your attitude towards it. Beyond balance, even if you have invested so much energy in defending his right to effectively emotionally and sexually abuse women. Do you think that your comment at the end that "but I don't agree with him" would balance out all of that effort made to allow him to come into the country and actually spread his message of hate?

That's the question! Answer that question. Would you be willing to do that? If not shut up and stop posting that quote if you're not willing to do it. Sure that quote applies in certain circumstances but not in circumstances where there are people who are disseminating or encouraging fundamentally destructive attitudes within society. Any responsible society including the citizenry or the government or whatever has a responsibility to protect the moral integrity on a fairly black and white moral basis which is that abusing people is wrong. You can extend it to murder or any kind of do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law, I mean there has to be a line where somebody says you're not allowed to do certain things. That's why we have a moral code.

Juliana: Did they reply?

Joe: No that person didn't reply. They didn't want to take me up on the challenge. I just wanted them to go ahead and do what they were saying they were going to do because you can't throw out a comment like that and say "I will defend your right to say whatever you want" because the point is, in a modern society with a guy like that and the nature of the culture in which we live which is a hyper sexualised culture which is very demeaning of women, to allow someone like that to add fuel to the fire is not a good thing for society. It's not a good thing for that to be available. There are certain things that are not good at a certain time in the evolution or devolution of a society. It's not good to throw fuel on the fire on a society that's on a downward spiral.

That's not good to encourage it down further into the depths. I'm not saying that at other times freedom of speech or whatever anybody wants to say shouldn't be allowed no matter what but in certain situations where people have been made vulnerable and have been corrupted, it's not good to add to it. And someone should draw a line, so there's no single overarching rule that should apply to society at any time throughout the ages. If you look at each specific situation and the nature of the culture and the state of the culture and the state of society at a particular time and you make decisions on that basis. Which direction are we heading here? Are we heading up or are we heading down? If we are headed down? Speed the descent.

Niall: This is where liberalism has destroyed everything.

Joe: This guy was talking to me was called Libertaruis.

Niall: Bingo, this is the essence of the Libertarian army in the US. Freedom of speech no matter what. Yeah. Ok. In a world where everyone is informed of psychopathy and knows methods of same and therefore has the means to defend themselves against someone's predations and can see it coming a mile off and no one is hurt as a consequence then yes, let him say his stupid thing because he will immediately realize the consequences of being completely excommunicated by everyone he knows. We don't live in that world.

Joe: Yeah, exactly.

Niall: So freedom of speech no matter what. Naaaaah. It's leading to this very situation where you've got mass suffering. Here's some freedom of speech on behalf of a US toy company which got pulled up in the news this week because their Evil Stick, wand toy for toddlers aged 2-3.
A mother bought this toy for her daughter. It looked like a plastic pink wand and has a star on the top and it's sort of shiny and glittery because it has a foil embedded in the head in the star shape part at the top. And the kid is just encouraged to wave the stick and it produces a music sound and they can call on magic and fairies. It's all very innocent until a curious 3 year old pulled back the foil on this magic wand to reveal underneath a photo of a girl slitting her wrists with a knife. Available from a dollar store in the US it also then changes to a cackling laugh and flashing strobe lights.

I mean, what in the hell were people thinking when they made that? But it's mass produced, it's available and it's marketed to 2 and 3 year olds.

Joe: That's a dereliction of responsibility of a parent who would allow their child to do that and that's where we get the idea of the analogy of a good government towards the population is like a parent to a child.

The whole freedom of speech thing isn't just about freedom of speech, it's about someone who is speaking and espousing something that very clearly has the potential or will result in people adopting a certain attitude and doing certain things. Thoughts lead to actions, speech in certain circumstances depending on the person can lead to the direct influence of other people and the changing of their behaviour.

So it's not just about "I get to say whatever I want and it doesn't hurt anybody". If what you say has the potential to hurt other people, you shouldn't be allowed to do it. That's the responsibility of a parent to a child. A child should not be allowed to say/do something that will hurt itself or other children. What parent would disagree with that? What if you take the idea of good laws governing the rights and wrongs in society being like a parent to a child? There has to be structures.

Juliana: Well in that sense I would start by censoring most politicians. What they say has the potential of hurting millions of people every time they open their mouth.

Joe: I don't mind people saying anything. Say whatever they want to say, they can rant on and espouse. They can go the full Aleister Crowley or whoever you want to think of. As long as, like you've just said, there's nobody vulnerable who is going to be influenced by it. Also society at large.
There is a lot of power today, in terms of people have a lot of power because people seem to be very impressionable. Maybe because they are like empty vessels. No more so than today people are like empty vessels. People just turn on the TV and just absorb things and get their opinions and their views from somewhere else and those opinions and view then form into thoughts and actions and it's not good.

If it's a negative message it's not good because it does directly affect the people in their actions and then if enough people adopt those attitudes and actions then it's going to lead to the destruction of society and if you don't want society to be destroyed then you should stop that.

I one the other hand think society should be destroyed and I think all these people should be allowed to say and do whatever they want.

Niall: Concluding this British ISIS fighters call for the assassination of key UK figures. Do we want to stop him from saying that?

Joe: Who said that?

Niall: A British jihadi. A jihadi baddie. He calls for the assassination of key UK figures i.e. British politicians.

Joe: Yeah, absolutely. Except that's just bullshit because he's been put up to say that to scare the British public into giving more alliance to the key Britishers. They are empowered by people saying that.

Niall: And in this twisted way it taps into the sentiment people have when they hear about the paedophile scandal. I mean, they want to kill someone. Maybe not literally but they do want blood, they do want heads to roll. Somebody's got to be the scapegoat for this at least.

They've got this ultimate boogey man who's tapping into the expression, the feeling that people have towards their government. It comes from the one guy who was...

Juliana: Paid to say it.

Niall: Who was basically paid to say it. On behalf of those same psychopaths in power. It's such a mind fuck.

Joe: Does anybody remember Al Qaeda and 9/11? Bring back Al Qaeda and 9/11 will you? Because that was easy and they actually tried. They were supposedly fighting. Al Qaeda because of 9/11 and everybody was "Yay 9/11! Let's get Al Qaeda!" But then they went and killed Osama 10 years after he died and let him swim with the fishes. Now we've got ISIS and ISIL and they just don't care anymore. They think the job's done, this is the western think tankers and generals and strategy makers. They don't care anymore. They certainly don't care enough to really try and cover it up because everybody is very confused about what's going on in Syria and Iraq and who ISIL is and who the free Syrian army is and shouldn't we be funding them and are we funding them? Generally speaking they're all terrorists, they're just a bunch of terrorists all killing each other and stuff but Turkey and the US plan to train 2,000 militants fighting the Syrian government.

This was just released recently that the US and Turkey have agreed to train 2,000 militants fighting against the Syrian president. They are going to train them in Turkey, 150km south of Ankara and both Turkish and American personnel are going to take the training programme which starts in December. Just in time for Muslim Christmas.

Niall: A Christmas special.

Joe: Those are terrorists!

Niall: They're mercenaries.

Joe: Exactly! Why don't any of them admit the fact that they're mercenaries? Not that they'll admit it but I hope that people are going to get to the point where they hopefully understand that the US government uses mercenaries like proxy armies, like generals and leaders of countries have done for thousands of years. It's too much hassle to send your own troops far, far away. Let's just send a few of ours over there with a bunch of money and weapons and get a bunch of guys who are interested in money and weapons to do what they want them to do.

Niall: Some of them have got there and they have spoken out but the problem is you're not going to hear about it. They do get it out to the whole Arabic media and they lay the whole thing out on the line. I joined and I thought it was this, US weapons training and money. I realised the whole thing was completely organised by western intelligence, here are some names, places, dates.

The problem is, it doesn't get out. People don't get to hear that. Of course not. They don't get to hear it because they're not supposed to hear it.

Joe: Because the media is massively controlled. I kind of railed against his suggestion in the little SOTT article I wrote recently on the G20 and Putin where David Cameron told the virtues of the great British media. He said "Our free and fearless press shines a light wherever it is needed without fear or favour".

Oh God! There are just so many examples of how that's totally wrong and the vast majority of people probably know that is totally wrong. But he just says it anyway. He comes out and peddles this bullshit about how "we're so righteous and butter wouldn't melt in our mouths and our press is free and fearless. The governments have no control over the courts and the courts always give the right judgement. We are just such a shining example of everything that's good and fun and super and lovely".

That's kind of the impression. That's the way his speech is going and it's so ridiculous, it flies in the face of reality because previously when people say stuff like that you would have to tease it out. They wouldn't be so ebullient about how wonderful they are. They would be more cagey and more controlled about hooting their own horn and in the years gone by there weren't so many examples of how what they were saying was wrong and examples of how they were lying.

Now with the increase of the amount of evidence that western leaders are massively corrupt and a bunch of inveterate liars, those same leaders seem to be increasing their rhetoric about how un corrupt they are.

Niall: It's the only thing they know to do to deal with it.

Joe: Yeah, it gets worse and worse. They talk themselves up the more the evidence piles up about their corruption. They talk in more and more and more flowery terms about how wonderful they are and the division becomes greater and greater and I hope...

Niall: We hope.

Joe: Well it does become greater and greater but hopefully it's visible to ordinary people.

Juliana: There was another one where Obama also scolded the Chinese government and said that he hopes that China will start respecting human rights and freedom of the press; just like the US is setting an example. Like, Really? Maybe they'll go too far.

Niall: I just wish that they would get on with it.

Joe: A little data point that you can take home and rely on The Syrian revolution. OK the US is putting proxy armies in Syria to try and overthrow Assad, the democratically elected president of Syria. One of those data points that you can take home and bank. Last year in 2013 a UN report listed armed groups from 29 different countries fighting against the Syrian army; a UN report. 29 different groups.

Now how anybody can construe the "Syrian Revolution" as a grass roots uprising against their brutal dictator of a president when there are armed groups, the people actually leading the revolution because they've got weapons are from 29 different countries. Is that representative of the Syrian people? I think not. Ergo these are mercenaries.

Niall: But Joe, they love democracy so much that they're prepared to go halfway around the world to install a democracy.
Wait no, they hate democracy.

Joe: To install a fundamentalist Islamic state. Just back on the west shooting us down for sanctions against Russia, just today one of France's biggest union federations called Workers Force; that's the translation; has urged the government to enforce the Mistral deal and to deliver the 2 war ships to Russia.

These are the two modern warships that France had entered into an agreement for, with Russia to build the hulls of them in France to give them to Russia. They paid for at least one of them upfront and the French reneged on the deal earlier this year. They put it on hold because "Putin's acting like a dictator and Ukraine and blah blah blah, this has to stop." There are sanctions to try and stop him from doing this.

But now the union that represents the workers on these ships has expressed shock and outrage that the Hollande government is continuing to postpone the delivery of Mistral Carriers.

Mainly due to pressure form the US and the EU in general.

The problem here is that there are 2500 French workers implicated in working on this deal and implicated in making sure that Russia pays for them. Russia isn't going to pay for them if France won't give them to them. Effectively these 2500 jobs at this ship yard are in danger because of Hollande's hubris and his lackeyness (If I can coin that phrase) to the dictates of the nut jobs in the US and the EU.

Juliana: And on top of that I think Russia's not forced to refund the entire deal if France keeps delaying or refuses to send them. They are going to take a big chunk off so France is losing money by refusing; loosing those jobs. It's just insane.

Joe: It's insanity all the way round.

Niall: It is amazing, the bind that all these leaders of different western countries are held in. We joke that it's like a cyborg mind, that it's actually one mind shared by all these different people but...

Joe: The Borg collective.

Niall: How else can you explain it? Saying the same things right on queue. The only other alternative is they all get the same memo from some guy in a super dark room somewhere but the logistics of that are impossible because they do it simultaneously and they are across different events and time zones.

Joe: There can be manipulation tweaks here and there by the NSA and the CIA and stuff. Spying on people and blackmailing people as Putin referred to in the EU and in different countries. By and large most of them realise what side their bread is buttered on. They know that ultimately they are part of the elite and they steal money from people and from other countries and they enrich themselves and they're the ascendant.

When it comes down to it, it really is us versus them. They understand that implicitly, that they are of a different class and that they can find no common ground with the ordinary people. With the suffering of the ordinary people or of the needs of ordinary people so they'll always side with their own kind.

There have been a couple of funny stories, you know how there was this whole thing about the UK leaving the EU? They say that there's a 50/50 chance that in the next few years the UK might leave the EU and the major Scottish nationalist party, the SNP (there's a new leader after Alex Salmond left Nicola Sturgeon; she's following in his footsteps which is good to see) said that if the UK leaves the EU then there would immediately be another referendum in Scotland. They say this but you can imagine the sentiment is "Jesus Christ, we are not being left here stranded on this island with that bunch of nut jobs down in England. At least our link with the EU gives us a sense of comfort and we are not alone but if you were to cut us off and leave us on this little island with that bunch of f**king freaks down in England we would do whatever we have to do. We would just get a big angle grinder out and cut the thing off and float off up to Norway or something.

Niall: I think the EU without London could actually become the independent EU it was supposed to be when it was thought out back in the 50's. Throughout the whole thing with the UK kind of being in the EU project, that's because of this balance of power attitude where we're outside it but we're in it; but we're in it only to keep tabs on them. So they should not become independent of the United States. So yeah, by all means, GO AWAY!!!

Joe: The Feds, you know the FBI and all the 40 other agencies of homeland security in the US have lost the plot because their infiltration of protests in groups of any stripe that in any way could be construed to be a threat to national security, like anybody from anonymous to somebody growing their own organic vegetables in their garden, are followed all the way down. They are all under suspicion. It's just a massive security surveillance state in the US to the point that there are so many government infiltrators infiltrating these groups that they end up spying on each other unknowingly. In certain cases they have actually tried to arrest each other.

They have been reporting on each other all the time and saying this guy in this group is really rabble rousing.

Niall: He's a radical this guy!

Joe: And that guy is saying the same things about the other guy or another guy in another group and it's just a massive web of intrigue and half of it is all Feds spying on each other. You don't hear about it but I think there was at least one case where two of them pulled guns on each other and then found out that they were working for separate agencies designed to infiltrate the group that they were pretending to be a part of.

Juliana: "Hey I got this guy and he works for an evil corporation and he's evil and what's the name of the corporation?......mmmmm FBI."

Joe: "Yeah he's working for the FBI, what is that?" Maybe we should turn to the weather a little bit. But there was a very good article, I think we have it on by a guy writing in Salon; Patrick L Smith. The title is "What really happened in Beijing? Putin, Obama, Zee and the back-story the media won't tell you." It's a really good run down of the sanctions and what's really going on between Russia and China and how the US is totally screwed. Like how we have been saying, it's shooting itself in the foot and it's going down.

At the end of the article he quotes a Chinese scholar turned diplomat who then turned to be a scholar again who was at a dinner in Beijing recently and he was speaking to another guy about Ukraine. This Chinese diplomat said that "from our perspective we see all this agitation as noise at the surface".

Then he cited the scene from Macbeth at Dunsinane Castle and quoted Macbeth; "Life's but a walking shadow. A poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Niall: Still waters running deep.

Joe: Obviously that's a very perspicacious view of the situation and a true view of the situation that the whole view of the Ukraine thing is just like he said, agitation and noise at the surface which is ultimately meaningless. There is obviously an agenda behind it and the agenda is for the Anglo American Empire to try and thwart the insurgence or coming to power of Eurasia; dominated by China and Russia.

That's what's really going on and all of the manoeuvres are pointed in that direction and there's all sorts of dirty deals, dirty tricks, duplicitous strategies etc. ongoing to try and achieve that ridiculous irrational aim.

Niall: Smith said some really interesting things there, he also concluded as we were saying, "The US cannot accept its passing; the passing of the American century. Logically enough, the task becomes essentially destructive of the world. An effort in the end to destroy history itself".

That's the essence of pathocracy, like a black hole. There's no hope for it being an honest death, being tempered down, adjusting into the new structure. It must consume itself.

Joe: It eats itself.

Niall: It eats itself.

Joe: It eats itself alive. There's been some stuff going on weather wise; Major flooding in Italy, people have been killed in Italy and in France through major deluges over the past week. It's continuing on and it's predicted to continue on through November and at this stage all of winter. They are predicting and extremely wet winter for many parts of Europe which means massive rainfall which means massive flooding in the streets and danger to life.

Of course there's always the possibility it could turn into snow. Instead of 16 inches of rain you could have 16 feet of snow.

Niall: The flooding in the south of France is... We're on the right side of France because over there it's just been a constant stream. They're going to have to start measuring rainfall in meters. Five people were killed today in one town.

Joe: In France, yeah.

Juliana: And there's been heavy, heavy, super heavy electrical storms in Spain as well and floods in other countries; not just in Europe. We had the same week in Latvia; dead people too. Venezuela. So it's kind of like a massive water pouring all over.

And the cold wave in the US, I thought that was kind of funny because there were articles saying how it first started in Siberia and the cold is covering Siberia so next thing they're going to say is that Russia invaded the US with snow.

Joe: Russia sent the polar vortex to...

Niall: That is what happened though.

Juliana: It is yeah!

Niall: At some level Russia invaded.

Juliana: It's kind of symbolic.

Niall: They called it the Bering Bomb.

Joe: The Putin Bomb.

Niall: I think that was unconscious.

Joe: You mean Putin didn't do it consciously?

Niall: No! The meaning of it is the Bering Bomb. That it came over there from those Ruskies.

Joe: It came over from the Canchatca Peninsula in the Bering Strait.

Juliana: So when you see the snow falling just think "The Russians are coming!"

Joe: It's comical in a certain sense that we're not far from the point where the US Empire builder nut jobs would blame Russia for weather anomalies. They would gain traction with some kind of weather engineering to try and...

Niall: They've laid the ground for it as well; feeding all these conspiracy theories online about all of these changes being due to secret warfare, chemical weapons/weather modification programmes. GEO engineering.

We constantly get emails, Oh my God, from people trying to convert SOTT to "Hello! All of this is being done by the secret government!" And we're constantly saying back to them, it's physically impossible for all of this anomalous weather to have been done by anyone. For sure they experiment on all kinds of things, but you are looking at a global system change, and it's happening on other planets on the solar system, so how do you explain that?

Joe: I don't know if anybody has ever seen the movie Cape Fear with Robert De Niro. He plays a good psycho. He's just a deranged psycho. It's a scary movie. I just had an image of the final scene in the movie where more or less it moves on to a boat and he's after this family and he's attempting to get the daughter and he ties up the family blah blah blah. But they're on a boat and they try to escape on the boat and try to get away from him because he's been stalking them. They get on to that boat and they are on a lake and there's a fight scene and all that kind of stuff but the end scene is where he's trapped, injured on the boat and he's hanging on to the mast and they're all on dry land. They're escaped and the boat is sinking and he's babbling. He's got to the point where he's babbling; he's speaking in tongues as he goes down. There's a scene where he goes down and his face goes down into the water and he's still babbling away.

I just thought that was a fitting image for what's actually going to happen to the war mongers on this planet. The American ship of state along with the others are going to be sinking into the waves and the elite will be blaming Putin all the way as they sink between the waves.

"It was Putin and China!!! Putin and China did it!!!" (Makes gurgling drowning noises)

Niall: (laughing) Oh that would be nice. I think it'll be more like silence because as soon as you have a critical systems failure, one of the first things to go will be the media. There will just be the sound of silence.

Joe: Reminds me of a song. Anyway, I think we'll leave it there for this week folks. I don't think we have any other pressing matters to discuss. Thanks to our listeners and to our chatters. I hope you enjoyed the show. And thanks also to our Google hang outers, there's been a few of them there. We'll maybe have a chat with them after we end the show but we're going to end the Blogtalk Radio show for this week so we will be back next week with another show on a similar topic maybe but anyway, bringing you all the news that's fit to print and then all the rest of it. Until then, have a good one!

Niall: Bye bye!

Juliana: Bye bye!