Sott Talk Radio logo
Welcome to the radio network of, your media source for independent, unbiased, alternative news and commentary on world events. Each Sunday on the SOTT Radio Network, editors Joe Quinn and Niall Bradley host the Behind the Headlines talkshow, analyzing global impact events that shape our world and future. Connecting the dots to reveal the bigger picture obscured by mainstream programming, Behind the Headlines is current affairs for people who think.

From the crisis in Ukraine to the ISIS in Iraq, from increasingly extreme weather to surviving in a world ruled by psychopaths, your hosts, their colleagues (and occasional guests) explore the deeper truths driving world events by exposing the manipulations behind what passes for 'news'.

Behind the Headlines airs live this Sunday 18 January 2014 from 2-4pm EST / 11am-1pm PST / 7-9pm UTC / 8-10pm CET.

Running Time: 01:54:00

Download: MP3

Here's the transcript of the show:

Joe: Hi and welcome to Behind the Headlines on SOTT Radio Network, what is going on? [Laughter] Today is Sunday January 25th 2015 and the world is going to end tomorrow. Anyway, I'm Joe Quinn.

Niall: Allah Akbar!

Joe: My co-hosts are Niall Bradley and Pierre Lescaudron.

Pierre: Hello.

Niall: Hi everyone.

Joe: This week a lot of stuff has happened, did you all notice?

Niall: What?

Joe: Blank.

Niall: Whistling.

Joe: The sound of wind, tumbleweed just blew through here. What's going on? Nobody noticed anything? Anyway, if you noticed something that happened this week or this year or last year or whenever you can call in if you like; you can call in directly on skype but using the little skype button near the player there on our Blog Talk Radio page or you can call in on your phone or you can use skype. The call in number is displayed; it's 718-508-9499.

Niall: So there is a party going on in Greece for no good reason whatsoever.

Joe: I don't know its good fun, no?

Pierre: I personally get my hopes raised as soon as there is a potentially good leader that might get elected and often it turns out the same. Either the good leader is not a good leader or he doesn't get elected or the election gets cancelled or there is a coup d'etat or there is a terrorist attack or he gets bribed.

Niall: Hold on, hold on!

Joe: So what you're saying is that you don't learn from your experiences?

Pierre: No! I'm in schizophrenic mode, my intellectual self knows that again and again history repeats for the worse and another part in me - let's call it the hopeful one - that can't help hoping for a better world and it never happens. By now I should have understood that, that no, that's not the way it works.

Niall: The closet communist in me is going VICTORYYYYYYY!!!! But then a little voice says hold on a minute. What was the statement that the Syriza party leader just said, "Greece is voting for hope, hope has won."

We all know from the Obama hope thing that it's not a safe bet to invest in what's in it. At the very least this will give the Eurocrats and the Troika something to think about.

Pierre: At the same time for me, what is raining on my parade and kind of killing my hope is that I saw these graphs showing the level of exposition of banks to Greek debt, particularly Deutsche banks and... (inaudible) and over the last weeks the exposition almost vanished so they dump all the Greek denominated debts to other players, public players or other individuals at the same time European authorities created a European solidarity fund with taxpayers money. So if there is a collapse in Greece banks are fine, they won't have to pay for it they are only brought down.

Niall: It's not about economics and finance. The Eurozone is a political instrument first of all; it isn't about a healthy economy.

Pierre: I agree, what I mean is, if the banks and the European Union have made this move, it seems that they are ready - because right after the creation of this fund is when Merkel made this statement where she said basically, that she was willing to consider dropping Greece from Europe and until then it had been in the EU for years. So what I mean is in those high fears that are reflected by those financial moves. They seem to have anticipated the move.

Niall: Based on the table you are suggesting?

Pierre: Yes, it kind of rains on the parade with all this, "people revolution" and this "major blow to the European institution" and "Europe will start to collapse into pieces while the elite are caught off guard and the people triumph" you see what I mean?

Niall: Can we just sketch out the basic situation. It looks like Syriza who is the far left party in Greece, is going to win an outright majority and therefore form a new government. It would probably give Greece its youngest Prime Minister in some 200 years; he is only 40 years old - Alexis Tsipras.

First of all his mandate is not, "I'm going to take Greece out of the Euro-zone or the EU" it's that "I'm going to re-negotiate their loan conditions." €317 billion of debt - only 10% of that stems from Greece's government spending, the other 90% is bad bankster deals; bad debt from Greek banks. You can see where they're coming from. This is why he got voted into power. It's the people saying, "It's not our debt".

He's not holding up any threats to leave the EU. The discretion is about the media. Even if he just negotiates a hard line and says either we massively shrink the size of the debt we have to pay and the terms we have to pay it back in or we leave the Euro. He's not actually making that threat; it's just been put out there as a suggestion.

Pierre: And you see the hypocrisy already where private banks are in jeopardy because they're on crazy investment strategies, they are bailed out with public money; tax payer's money. When a public institution - a country is in a financial situation, here the financial community, the political bodies say, "No, no bail out, no cancelling of the debt. You have to pay everything according to the terms that we have designed previously. No negotiation, it's the only way for you."

Actually it's not the country per-say, it's mainly the people - prioritization, reducing the pensions, major, massive unemployment, reducing wages, destruction of people's social commission.

Joe: Now they are talking about the Syriza party as a leftist, anti-austerity party winning 150 seats. They're 1 seat short of an outright majority meaning that if they had 151 they could form a government all by themselves. So that's very close.

Niall: Yeah it's very close, suspiciously close.

Joe: I think I would say that if one of the smaller parties was aligned all they would have to do is have one person from one other party deflects, then they would have 151 seats and then they could form a party. I think at that point you could probably wrangle something, pay somebody off or something to get one more seat so they would have an outright majority vote. Of course there's going to be a lot of small parties that are somewhat aligned that they could form a coalition with.

Niall: There is a party that is left of them; there is the Greek Communist Party.

Joe: I think this anti-austerity party is, at least in terms of the politics, pretty much going to form a government all by themselves. I don't have much faith in that kind of process at this point of anything really radical happening to Greece. The fact of the matter is that they don't have any money; the government coffers are empty, more or less. That's because it was all nicked by the banksters'.

How exactly this party would turn around and start giving mass injections of funds into the social welfare programs and all the different areas where there are problems and have been problems in Greece because of these bankers' bailouts.....

Niall: They've already done that. In a constituency they had an MP in or around Athens who increased social spending by a factor of 6 or something. Where they get the money from, I don't know.

Joe: I don't know where they get the money.

Pierre: When?

Niall: Over the last couple of years. I think after they got the first set of MP's into power.

Joe: I think they would have to radically re-structure their entire economy and renege on all of its agreements.

Niall: Well they would have to default.

Joe: They would have to go the way of Iceland. They would have to take some pretty radical steps there, throw a bunch of bankers in jail and go it alone type of thing and see how it pans out but I doubt that these people with the noises that they have been making up till now. Several of their high profile members have been saying that they are not going to drop out of the EU; that they are not going to take a radical step like that.

Pierre: The thing is we see how finance and politics join together in these modern times. Iceland was a reasonably small, isolated island in the middle of nowhere so it doesn't have much political or symbolic geopolitical power. Greece on the other side - I remember in Europe it was a big thing when Greece joined the EU. It was a non-negligible event; I remember the militarization of the event, in France it's close to the Middle East, close to the connection with Asia, Europe and Africa.

If Greece decides and manages to leave the European Union it would be so easy for the financial and political world to destroy the Greek nation and make an example of it. Finally what could have been a good example showing that, "you see, you can leave the EU and claim back your sovereignty" could become just the opposite, "see, we told you. Greece left Europe and now it's an utter disaster. It's 10 times worse than when it was a part of the EU". It's so easy to destroy a small country like that that - as Joe emphasized - is so weak financially already.

Niall: I think someone's got to take young Tsipras into a smoking room and roll down a projector and play him a video of the assassination of any number of great leaders over the recent decades. They weren't usually in government and of course Greece is under fascist dictatorship but it'll be assassination angles from views never seen before.

Joe: Or we could just explain to him how since the Second World War Greece has effectively been a playground of the CIA and largely controlled by Western powers. I'm sure he probably knows that already. The scope of any government already under the control of the Western banking elite to do anything no matter who comes in is very, very limited. I suppose at the end of the day they have their trump card which is to just in some way isolate individuals, they can either blackmail them in some way or they can ultimately kill them if they want.

We live in a mafia world today where you don't just decide to come along and if they've got any kind of influence or power, like if you were a big enough country. You don't come along and start threatening the mafia boss and not expect repercussions. That's the kind of world we live in.

Pierre: Some countries did it so some extent; like Venezuela, Israel, Iran and Russia. But the major difference is that these 3 countries are very rich in resources; oil in particular.

Joe: That's not the main difference, the main difference is that - as I said - any country that's already in the Western sphere of influence and by that I mean the European Union and America....

Niall: Those countries weren't in NATO for 40 years.

Joe: Those countries that you are talking about have isolated themselves and kept themselves isolated or are far enough away to avoid being pulled into that sphere of influence. Again you see that when they isolate themselves to protect themselves then they are forced into isolation by the powers that you are speaking of.

Niall: Even the idea of the scale of the challenge - assuming that a plan that this new party would have would be to break away and maybe join and make alliances with the East, i.e. Russia or the Eurasia union or whatever. Some plan that involves saying, "look, we're done with being under the thumb of this Western, financial troika".

Greece would first have to make serious allies with Turkey and they have been nicely, carefully split over 800 years. So they've got to make natural allies with their long standing enemy.

Joe: If they look east, they're looking at Turkey.

Niall: Putin has laid a little bait there. "Ok, so this terminal goes to right smack up in the border. You need to work it out". It's kind of an invitation that's laid down there for them to....

Pierre: And look at France and Germany, they were enemies during two world wars and wars before that and it didn't prevent them from being the leading control of the creation and development of the European Union.

Niall: ...and they are very close with the control of the CIA.

Pierre: Of course, I mean the history of countries is one factor but sometimes the countries go beyond this legacy.

Niall: Yeah but that seems to take time though.

Joe: The problem is; there are no true ideological leaders anywhere in this world; well maybe a few places but none of any significance anyway in this world today. Generally speaking they are all corrupt and in the game for their own benefit and all of them are playing both sides against the middle right? I mean all of the countries right now that are say, "in play" in this new cold war between the West and Russia - any of them that are looking to Russia or sidling up to Russia are at the same time, looking for a deal from the EU for example to offset that. They say, "Well, we might go with Russia but what have you got to offer us?"

Erdogan in Turkey has recently been putting pressure on [the EU] this is after him accepting the deal with Russia for the new South Stream Pipeline. Just a few days ago he turns around and demands that the EU admit Turkey to the EU and says stuff like, 'if they don't do it, it'll be evidence for Turkey that the European Union is really Islamophobic.' That it's just a little white man's elitist kabal.

Niall: And last week there was a little report announcing that the latest batteries of US Patriot missiles have arrived in Turkey; as planned 10 years ago.

Joe: There's just no way that you can have any sense of confidence that these people are going to do the right thing. In our terms, in context of the current geopolitical setup right now, there's no way you can look to any of them as people riding in on a white horse to save the day or do the right thing.

Maybe with the exception of Russia because Russia has the power to do that, and even then we can't really present what Russia is doing as something entirely benevolent. They're not necessarily the good guys; they're simply reacting to the current, pre-established state of play in the world. And Russia comes to that game very late when all of the pieces have already been placed on the board; most of them. Russia just re-formed itself over the last 15 years and the US has been setting the rules of the game for the past 60, 70, 80 years.

Russia is simply having to work within that and if Russia wants to be an independent country it has to take a stance against the West and its predatory nature, and the fact that it does that means that it does things that we support which is against the West which is exposing the hypocrisy and the lies and the skullduggery of Western nations. Russia is doing that out of its own self-interest and that's fair and that's reasonable. So when we say we support Russia a lot - we are supporting Russia simply because Russia just wants to play fair. That's how bad the state of this world is, that someone who comes along and says, "Can't we just play fair where we all just get a piece of the pie. That doesn't mean we're not going to exploit some people and be a bit corrupt here and there but let's just have a normal level of corruption". Someone who comes along and says that; - they in the current state of this world look like a savior. They look like, "Oh my God! Jesus has returned to save us all!" That's how bad it is.
When you look at the context and it's relative and you understand that's how bad the world is when you look to Russia as someone who could possibly save the world, or you have this idea that they're this knight in shining armor, that tells you that you live in a pretty F'd up world.

Pierre: And when you think about these countries that plan or would eventually like to join Russia eventually in the BRICS hall, it's a tricky move because today the dynamics are pretty clear. You have the current collapse of the empire that dominated the war for decades; the US, the British Empire, and you have the emergence of the Eurasian pull, China, India, Russia etc. However the first empire, the US Empire is not dead yet and these psychopathic meta-bodies have a strong tendency to try to bring the world down when it goes down.

So when you are a small country, when do you shift? When do you make the move? When do you start to align yourself fully and officially with the new force; the Russian call? That's why I think a lot of small countries realize first that you have to be aligned today because some players are too big so you have to become an ally, you have to choose your side and a lot of countries are hedging their bets; a kabal gang, because they know eventually Russia is going up. They know that the US is going down; they know shit will happen but right now we are inbetween.

Joe: I don't even know if the West is going down. The West is still in such a powerful position. The only way the West is going to go down is if everybody goes down together; some kind of a massive natural cataclysmic cataclysm, a cataclysmic cataclysm not an ordinary one.

Niall: When you say the West goes down, what you mean is the entire chess board is just wiped off.

Joe: Of course! Because the West is the world, they have it set up. They have a failsafe mechanism in there that if they go down, everybody by definition goes down with them. Not because they're necessarily going to pull them down but because that's the way they have it set up. That's the way they have the global banking system etc. etc. set up; it's curtains for everybody.

Niall: I've got a little theory. I think I'm making an observation, I'm not sure. I'm still working on it. So there have been a few reports about computer viruses turning up usually in private corporation's IT systems or also in some government agencies, in countries all over the world. Somebody suggested somewhere - I can't remember who made the suggestion - but they all have a lot of similarities to the Stucksmith virus which was what the Israeli/US intelligence people came up with as a way to destabilize, actually shut off or even reprogram Iran. Not just around civilian internet program but the actual energy grid infrastructure.

What it looks like is that they've got all these things going on out there where they have booby trapped the IT systems of whole governments, of corporations; not only their enemies but even their allies. I got the impression that whenever they do something that they don't like or that if someone leaves a little zap or shock, they will activate some of these programs. This is what the whole cyber warfare command was set up for after 9/11. This is what cyber warfare is. It's like a shock collar around all of your allies; not just your enemies.

Pierre: I think this term ally is very misleading, there is no ally, and there is a master and their slaves.

Joe: And the master is always afraid that the slaves will turn on him.

Pierre: And each slave is disposable. If the slave doesn't comply, they get a good beating and if they still don't comply they will be replace. It's funny that you mention these cyber-attacks because in Davos a few days ago one of the main topics of discussion was cyber-attacks and the example that was taken, It's another similarity with what we described a few seconds ago in that this Eugene Kaspersky, the head of Skylab Security Group, describes how a terrorist organization or even a government - because he says today, " that the line between government sponsored attacks and criminal activity was becoming increasingly blurred."; that's a euphemism - anyway Kaspersky describes how our generation's systems are in developed countries.

You know how it goes with those kinds of statements in those kinds of circles one is left to wonder if in the agent of the elite the next step is not some kind of a false flag operation, a cyber attack, scaring the crap out of people in order to justify some draconian measures and controlling the internet a bit more.

Niall: It seems to me the Sony job was one of those tests on our system. But to blame North Korea: "What? We didn't do that!" they even offered to help investigate the source of the attacks. There was another one where they blamed the Iranian cyber army; this goes back to 2009 and they were hacking into people's email accounts. And then it was quietly reported in Wired or some techy magazine that it was found out that actually the source of the cyber-attack came from England.

I've no doubt that they've been beta testing this "false flag" and then they call them cyber-warfare. You can imagine, they would be the perfect, perfect venue to move into false flag stuff because it's just impossible to say where it came from but you can very easily make an attack appear to have come from anywhere.

Pierre: The timing is all the more interesting because over the last days French politicians have been discussing the laws concerning the control of internet and particularly, the Jihadisphere and the website that develops conspiracy theories and talks about Zionism. So it's interesting timing.

Joe: Jihadisphere is a very interesting place. I don't know if you have even been there? It's like they're all getting bigger and they're feeling... (inaudible) and pages of the Quran and they just get bigger and bigger and they're training how to be Jihadis and then they release them you know? (inaudible) the Jihadisphere.

Niall: They give them Nissan SUVs and then they release them.

Joe: Train them how to drive them. I was just wondering in passing - I don't want to dwell on it very much but there were protests in Egypt marking the uprising of 2011; the major uprising against Mubarak for democracy basically.

Niall: Isn't he gone?

Joe: Well they're still not happy because they didn't get democracy; they got a military dictatorship shown to them largely with the help of the West of course. So people were protesting and 16 people were killed between yesterday and today in Egypt, in these protests marking the first protests for demanding democracy.

I'm just wondering if Charlie Hebdo wanted to do another cartoon mocking those 16 people who died.

Niall: Why not? They've got 6 million subscribers now, I'm sure they'd all like to see that.

Joe: It would be a good idea because that's what the Charlie Hebdo magazine was about - mocking dead people and making fun of other people's religion etc. So that's an opportunity; I just wanted to put that out there in case anybody from Charlie Hebdo was listening and could go ahead and do an insulting cartoon on those dead Egyptians protesting for democracy.

Pierre: By the way, Charlie Hebdo has been bought by the Rockefeller group in November 2014.

Joe: Oh yeah?

Pierre: It reminded me of Larry Silverstein who bought the... (inaudible) for the world trade center a few months before 9/11 and he changed the terms of the contract insurance to include a term specific to terrorist attacks. So I thought the timing was interesting.

Joe: That's interesting.

Niall: That's good business.

Joe: That's a coincidence theory you've got going there.

Niall: The Guardian is reporting today that Jewish leaders are calling for Europe wide legislation outlawing anti-semitism. The proposal would criminalize a host of other activities including banning the burka - that's confusing, aren't they all about that - forced marriage, polygamy, denial of the Holocaust and denial of genocide.

Joe: Polygamy?!

Niall: Yep, that's got to go.

Joe: Where, in France?

Niall: In Europe.

Pierre: Not Saudi Arabia.

Joe: Who is proposing this?

Niall: Jewish leaders, it's kind of vague; in EU law.

Joe: Proposing that in EU law all European countries outlaw polygamy?

Niall: Yes and there's a new crime... Go on.

Joe: Is that something that Jewish people don't like in particular?

Niall: I'm not sure. I think its part of their civilizing mission to civilize people. They also want to criminalize Xenophobia and create a new crime called: "Group libel defamation of ethnic, cultural or religious groups". Women's and gay rights will also be covered.

Joe: Do they also want to criminalize not liking nice things? If you look down the bottom there it says you should also criminalize people who don't like nice things.
[Audio clip from the Wizard of Oz, by Dorothy: "I don't think we're in Kansas anymore."]

Joe: No, we're not. I don't know where we are. It's very interesting and not very pleasant to watch.

Pierre: There is a new twist in this lobbying we have been witnessing over the last week and anti-Zionism - according to some commentators - should be condemned as well because according to some journalists, more and more anti-Zionism is only a façade; it's only an excuse to vent anti-Semitic ideas. Anti-Zionism being just a pretext actually, although Zionism is - as we know - a political ideology, it is not Jewishness, it is a different concept; a different thing.

Niall: I'm not allowed to pass comment but 4 teenagers were arrested and convicted in France this week for supporting terrorism. One of them for saying 3 words in a class debate about the Paris attacks. He said, "They were right". He didn't really elaborate what he meant by that but I think the teacher assumed he meant the gunmen were right. The teacher then said to him, "If you think that then get out of my class". The student was then temporarily expelled from the school for a week.

The next week the principal decided to report him to the police and press charges, after which he was arrested, thrown in jail for 24 hours - he's 14 by the way; this kid - and there's no word yet on whether he has been convicted but I believe at least 3 other teens have been convicted. Now they're not going to prison but it's a criminal offence which will stay with them for the rest of their lives because they either said something in class or posted something on their Facebook wall.

Joe: This kind of anti-Muslim attitude is a fundamentally racial or religious profiling and targeting of Muslims. It's pretty clear that it's happening in France but it's also happening in other countries in Europe; in Germany and in the UK. I'm sure it's happening in other countries, maybe not to the same extent but it's happening across Western Europe in particular. Muslims are suffering a backlash of abuse because of the Paris attacks.
It's ridiculous, if you were a responsible statesperson, statesman or woman or politician, you would look at that and you would think that something's gone wrong here, we've done something wrong. These were 3 guys who were clearly crazy; their minds weren't their own; somebody else owned their minds maybe; I don't know.

Niall: They made the defense in law.

Joe: Their minds weren't their own, it's almost like they weren't operating under their own volition. To them blame France's 6 million Muslims or to do anything that would result in attacks or a backlash against Muslims - not just in France but in other European countries - is ridiculous, it's crazy. They obviously handled the situation very, very badly. You would have to assume that they don't want this to happen right? I mean politicians and the media don't intend for the ordinary non-Muslim or Christian public to start hating Muslims because of the actions of 3 people who were clearly under some kind of external influence; the devil or something.

These people are obviously very disturbed. It's like blaming ordinary people in any community for the actions of one crazy person that everybody agrees is crazy. Their rhetoric after the Charlie Hebdo attacks or the statements by the media and politicians made it very clear that these people were extreme extremists. They were on the extreme fringe of society and blah, blah, blah, so it's totally unconscionable for them to have engaged in any kind of speech or whatever way they dealt with the situation at the time and afterwards that has the resulted in this. Because they are ultimately responsible for that, they are the ones whose government works very closely with the media; the media generally does what the government wants despite what people think. That's where ordinary people get their information from so there is a direct link there; to the government actions and what ordinary people in Western countries think about Muslims.

They did an awful lot wrong there, they did the opposite of what they should have done which was to make it very clear that in every way possible this had nothing to do with ordinary Muslims and that they were not to be blamed and they were not responsible. In the case that you do have some kind of a backlash there where non-Muslims in Western countries do go ahead and blame Muslims, those people should be prosecuted, those people should be made an example of in the interest of a peaceful society with people co-habiting and living together. The people who go out and attack Muslims, they are the ones who should be made an example of, they should be prosecuted very quickly and put into jail and it should be all across the media as an example toward all other Western non-Muslims that this is not to be tolerated; it's not to be tolerated.
[Audio clip: "You're darn tootin!"]

Joe: I agree. The thing is that what Niall just said is that the opposite is happening where the government is actually encouraging that kind of Islamophobia by making examples of Muslims when they should be doing the opposite.

Pierre: One line was crossed a few months ago in France before this unfortunate Charlie Hebdo event when intellectuals commented in the national media sphere, surprisingly starting to equate - because it was reading a contradiction with the ideas that have been spread for years - any Muslim individual with a potential Jihadist, with a potential radical Islamist. And in order to justify this very drastic change in line they developed the idea that the Quran is fundamentally a violent teaching, therefore any Muslim or any believer in the Quran is a potential Jihadist or a potential terrorist.

That was very surprising at the time, very surprising; a shift. But after Charlie Hebdo it made more sense as to why those commentators had allowed themselves to make those outrageous comments. Now in France there is a law condemning apology of terrorism and a French attorney made an interesting comment, he quote Laurent Fabius, the French Minister for Foreign Affairs. Laurent Fabius commended the actions of rebels in Libya, a terrorist group funded by France, and he said, "ils ont fait un bon travail" - "They made a good job".

So a French minister said that about a terrorist group - they made a good job. Is that not an apology for terrorism?

Niall: No because you forgot to apply the doublethink. You see they are not terrorists, they are the good guys. A spectacular wave of doublethink this week, given this environment and this climate of Islamophobia - it's not a fear of Muslims but a violent reaction against Muslims in general - you would think that when King Abdulla of Saudi Arabia kicked the bucket this week that it would be a fairly muted affair; you know like - who cares; but instead, the same Western leaders who are indirectly or directly... (inaudible) as Muslims went out of their way to kiss Saudi Arabia's butt.
Saudi Arabia isn't just another country; it is the source of all this stuff going way back. Not just the actual idea of terrorism but every association people have in their head with the extremist Muslim's life - swords, head chopping people, wearing the headscarves - you know "towel heads" - treating women like shit....

Pierre: Cutting limbs?

Niall: ....all this is Saudi Arabia! It comes from this place, the very place that is the only exception to the rule that comes to stoking hate against Muslims.

Pierre: It's the cradle of Islamism, the cradle of Wahhabism; beheadings are made in public in Saudi Arabia; cutting of the limbs.

Niall: Where was Charlie Hebdo when the blogger was given what a, 1000 lashes for insulting the, "leader"?

Joe: It's worse than that, yeah, it was amazing hypocrisy on display but we've gotten used to that at this point but apparently it doesn't bother too many people. I don't know if there are people out there who are bothered by this but flags were at half mast this week after King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia died; this old guy who was basically just a piece of furniture for the past 15 years.

He wasn't up to very much and the guy who has taken over for him was already acting Head of State. They flew flags in the UK at half mast over Buckingham Palace; the Queen's residence, and Downing Street and the Houses of Parliament. Basically the Queen, the Prime Minister and the Houses of Parliament all had their flags at half mast; she probably even had her knickers at half mast as well.

But the thing is, it's amazing, like you were saying, this foreign indifference to the corrupt, evil...

Niall: Regime.

Joe: Well it's a regime but its one person who, if he wasn't the head of Saudi Arabia, would have been shot at or targeted as a "rag head" or a "sand nigger" of whatever they call them, by US military forces. There's no sense to any of it and this is in a country that, as you said, beheads people all the time.

Niall: Amnesty International said they have executed over 2000 people publicly from 1985 till last year; chopping heads off. Or mass hangings in car parks while thousands of people gather round and watch it. Some of the offenses in this country are like, "disobeying the ruler" they have a male guardianship system - women can't travel, get a passport, continue their education or drive a car unless they have the approval of a male relative. Less than 10% of Saudis can vote.

Joe: And yet all the Head's of State flew off to Saudi Arabia.

Niall: They dropped everything! Obama cut short his visit to India.

Joe: Here is another example from 2013. There was a Saudi Arabian preacher who was kind of like a fundie but he was part of the Saudi elite class; he was a celebrity Saudi preacher. In 2013 he was convicted of raping and torturing and killing his 5 year old daughter but he was released from custody because he was able to pay blood money. He gave some money of which he had a large quantity to absolve himself of his sins; because he was a member of the Saudi elite. They do this flagrantly.

This happens in Western countries as well, politicians and the elite of western countries get away with stuff as well but at least they try to be a bit more covert about it. And certainly in a case like this where publicly everyone in Saudi Arabia knew that this guy had [committed the crime], it's just horrible. He was obviously a complete monster. He was more than your average psychopath, he was a complete monster. He admitted it - his 5 year old daughter had multiple injuries including a crushed skull, a broken back, broken ribs, a broken left arm and extensive bruising and burns. Social workers said she had also been repeatedly raped and burnt; his 5 year old daughter.

Apparently he admitted this and said that he did it because he doubted his 5 year old daughter's virginity - probabably after he had raped her. This is all in public! Then he basically beats her to death and this is all in public and he gets off in Saudi Arabia. And this is in the News and people in the West know this justice system in Saudi Arabia for the elite. He gets off with paying some cash; "here's some cash now let me go home and free". Yet like you said in other cases petty criminals have their hands chopped off for stealing from a local store or women are put in prison for driving.

These are the people, this is the regime that all of our avanted Western leaders go and kiss the feet of because the King dies. They drop everything and go over and fawn all over them.

Niall: The King's own daughters are under house arrest and have been since they were children themselves.

Pierre: He has 22 children from 4 different wives. What is interesting is that in Saudi Arabia and a few other Emirates in the Middle East, blood money is recognized by the law. Another interesting thing is that there are hierarchies like in the class system in India. So if you kill a Saudi, you will pay a massive amount of money, if you kill a Caucasian at the second level, you will pay much less. It's ironic but I think the third level is, a Camel. If you hit a camel while driving in the dunes in the desert you will pay an even lesser amount of money and if you kill a Pakistani or an Indian or someone from those kinds of nationalities you will pay even less. Actually that is very close to what we discovered - feudalism, although feudalism was very much demonized. But Saudi Arabia is a feudalistic, oligarchic, family ruled... (inaudible).

Niall: This is where if you have the stereotypical image of a backwards Muslim, this regime is where you direct all your ... (inaudible) at. You see people now have it that this is natural to all Muslims, all Arabians and all Muslims across the Middle East, North Africa and then all the way across the equator to Indonesia. It is particularly this regime and it is no coincidence that Western leaders fawn over them. I think in part because of an ideological recognition like, "God, if we could only do things like that in the West" that they would love it.

Joe: Well the other reason is obviously oil; black gold.

Niall: Oil and control.

Joe: Control and keeping them onside to control that oil and make sure it goes to the right people; control of the price of oil and also to make sure that they don't do any deals with their neighbors to the North-East; Eurasia; Russia etc.

Niall: If we can, let's just briefly go back to how this regime started. It began with the great betrayal; when the British intelligence - the famous Lawrence of Arabia scenario - betrayed the Arabs. They got them to fight with them in World War I, make sure Germany didn't get its paws in there and then they betrayed them by splitting up the Middle East as it is - the Sykes picot agreement the deal with the French. The original guy they promised power in now to be created Saudi Arabia was never a Saudi. His Saudi came from the name of the Family they gave it to instead. I think it was going to be the Hashemite Kings; he got Iraq instead. That's the origin of it but of course it's a common relationship based around oil.

Joe: With the promise of democracy and autonomy and self rule and all that kind of stuff. They let them fight for them then basically betrayed them and set up pliant puppet corrupt rulers that have been there ever since.

Niall: They have an input in the 60's; they called it the Globalist Islamic Mission. This is internal policy within Saudi Arabia which was done with the full understanding of the CIA and MI6. That Saudi Arabia was going to be their counter weight to what was then a spread of secular nationalist Arab countries lead by NASA and Egypt and they funded to the hilt, the Muslim brotherhood, Madrasa and Wahhabi teachings; this extremism. What you know as Islam today should be "Islam" which picks up the most extreme ideologies. And the Saudis were sitting on oil so they funded them to the tune of billions and they spread this mission of theirs these rational, normal relations between the people there over Iran.

Joe: It was largely secular obviously; it would have been the same secularism as you have in the West, largely where there is no authoritarian, Christian lead government to oppose the biblicaldoctrine on the people. Western powers set that up in the Middle East specifically because that way they could control the population much better by having these kind of laws; Sharia law.

First of all that's based on British law and secondly it is used and imposed by these puppet dictators in the Middle East to keep control of the population, to rule over them with a strong authoritarian hand so that you will have no outbreak. Particularly during and after the Second World War it was designed to stop secular pan-arabism from spreading across the Middle East and the Maghreb, we would have developed democracies in the Middle East that would obviously therefore look to their resources to be independent and to take care of their own people.

Basically you could have had a European Union or a Western European country in the Middle East; exactly the same thing but the West stopped that from happening because of oil resources and they want ed to make sure that the West had complete control over those oil resources and the wealth that it brought them, and control over much of the world as a result. And they did it by setting up these tin-pot dictators. It's a story that is as old as, maybe not as time but it's been going on for a long, long time now and it's the essence of Empire - controlling the world and maintaining a global empire. You have your client regimes around the world and they focus particularly on the Middle East because of oil resources over there.

Niall: The ideological Godfather, the term used by Ayman al-Zawahiri - that guy Mr. -

Joe: Mr. Magoo.

Niall: Right hand man of Osama Bin Laden - this guy said their chief, the man who got it all started, Al Qaeda, ISIS - was a guy named SayyidQutb who was in prison in Egypt in the 60's. He was imprisoned by NASA because NASA realized he was a dangerous nut-job. This guy is on record saying simply that "America made Islam"; just like that, not "Islam". The only reason that there was an Islamic revival at least in the form it has taken in the 20th and now 21st century is because it was made that way.

The idea that this is inherent to Muslims and that it all goes back to them being barbarians back in medieval Egypt is completely turned around by this sentimental lie. 20th century Western, UK and US especially - lie. In truth, if anything, our legacy from the middle ages is that they were the civilized ones. They brought civilization back to Europe after we were wiped out the last time round!

Joe: It's the clash of civilizations. This idea of the clash of civilizations and there's other examples of similar ideologies that are formed around real politics or that which the Western powers deem to be expedient to maintaining their empire and control over a certain part of the world. They say what we need to do in this part of the world is to have a dominant extremist ideology, authoritarian governments and dictators that we control. That will allow us to keep control over the resources and that part of the world.

Once they have figured out the practical ways of doing that, then they create an ideology around it to explain it as if it's some kind of force of nature like the clash of civilizations and that's where you get this concept from where it's presented as, "Well, you're always going to have this clash, see? It's happening right now!" But they created it in advance; created the facts on the ground in advance and then afterwards came out and said, "Yes, let's analyse this and why this happened" so they had nothing to do with it when in fact they made it happen effectively. Then they create this narrative is if it's some force of nature.

[Audio clip: "Were on a mission from God."]

Pierre: Well it wasn't that our God, they think they create the reality.

Niall: They do, that's the thing. They do to the extent that people believe it.

Pierre: Or maybe they control a few aspects of reality.

Joe: It's kind of funny that people don't make and the media tries to avoid this connection being made of - who was and has been the primary head chopper in the Middle East and Saudi Arabia for a long time. Then you have ISIS who is trumpeted in the West as the barbarity of this group because they go around cutting people's heads off. There is a direct connection there, where did this idea of head chopping come from? This brutal law where it becomes so common place for some people that people should get their head chopped off publicly?

Well it started in Saudi Arabia under the Saudi's Wahhabist, Salafist, extremist interpretation of Islam and extreme and brutal punishments for ordinary crimes. That's all just a way to control the population; to terrorise the population. If you do enough public head chopping for people robbing from stores or other kinds of crimes then eventually people are going to keep their heads down; [Laughter] keep their heads away from swords. It's a way to terrorise and control the population and it became normalized at least in Saudi Arabia and then they export these extremist groups and they same ideology.

So if you want to look at the source of groups like ISIS, look to Saudi Arabia and if you want to see what the origin of Saudi Arabia is, look to the Western governments just 60 or 70 years ago. They called out to twoJapanese guys who were supposedly beheaded recently by ISIS in Iraq; bring Japan in, get Japan all up in arms about their citizens having their heads chopped off by ISIS; it's terrible. Maybe Japan will make an aircraft carrier and send it to [the Middle East]. Japan has one aircraft carrier I think but it's a very small one. Maybe they'll send that to the Middle East like the French have after the Charlie Hebdo attacks.

Really, does nobody question these things? Charlie Hebdo attacks and France is going to send its only aircraft carrier to the Middle East as a response, really; over Three deranged individuals who should have been put in a psychiatric hospital but they happened to go on a killing spree in a cartoon office and you send your aircraft carrier to a region of the world to deal with that threat? What threat? They're dead. Supposedly your policemen killed them but even so, what is your aircraft carrier going to do? What, is it going to invade? None of it makes any sense whatsoever, there is obviously something else going on there but people don't question it apparently.

These Japanese guys are apparently on some green screen. It looks a bit like a green screen because in this one particularly, the two guys really look like they are photo-shopped onto the scene, the depth of field and the lines around their heads. It looks like they are not really where they appear to be; in the desert with this Jihadi John behind them.

Niall: Him again?

Joe: Yeah, but the other the other thing that I haven't seen much discussion of is how did this ISIS group get all of these Westerners or Asians? How did they find them? Because you would think that by now...

Niall: Are they kidnapping aid workers or something?

Joe: Yeah but you would think aid workers would have gotten wise at this point and there is some question over who these people - the Americans and the British; the guys who were on the camera getting their heads cut off by Jihadi John - were and what they were actually doing there in the past year or so. Maybe they were just ordinary people, I presume they were just who they appear to be.

Niall: I'm not so sure.

Joe: My question is, how did they get access to them? I was explaining in an audio recently for SOTT called Imperial Designs, the process that Western intelligence agencies go through when they are combatting this kind of terrorist group. Right from the very beginning they seek to infiltrate them to put their people in there i.e. members of the group who have now turned who are now working for Western intelligence. That would probably be a requirement because you can't take your average pasty white Brit from Liverpool and throw him into the middle of an ISIS training camp and do that.

Niall: Do a really good accent. Let your beard grow.

Joe: Let your beard grow and do a really good accent. Well again, in the UK they don't only have white Westerners to choose from right? If British intelligence for example really wanted to infiltrate ISIS they would have quiet a lot of Muslims; there's a lot of Pakistanis and Indians and people from the Middle East and other areas. Of course ISIS is a grouping of various different people from all over the place; Pakistan and Afghanistan, not just Iraq or Syria.

Niall: They could infiltrate from drugs things.

Joe: Yes, they could pretty easily infiltrate them but they could also turn people that they capture on the ground in Iraq. They could have taken someone and infiltrated them into the group with the goal being to take control of the group. One of the views that the British intelligence have used historically is that when they have their agents infiltrated into the group they seek and enter a position of relative power or influence in that group. They seek to direct the activities of the group in a way that makes it look bad.

One of the ways that they will probably do this and one thing that fits with this MO is to have a British agent for example in ISIS or any other Jihadi group in the Middle East then provide information as to where aid workers are or, "I can get you some aid workers because I know where they are" and this information is being passed to the agent to give it to the other guys in the group who don't know he's an agent and they go and they get a couple of Japanese aids workers or they go and get an American or British aid worker or whoever; someone who looks Western. Even to suggest the idea of chopping their heads off.

These are methods that have been used previously with the British intelligence when they had infiltrated inside groups. Just from a historical perspective it's almost certain that in the context, that Muslim groups, resistance or rebel - or whatever you want to call them - groups in the Middle East have been infiltrated and that there are agents of Western intelligence agencies within those groups. And given that it has been going on for quite some time now, they are probably in positions of influence within those groups. But like I was saying in the article the point is that whenever you get to that point you don't just try and find a way to dissolve a group or get decapitated - figuratively - like removing the leaderships or have your agent kill all the leadership and just dissolve it, your goal at that point isn't to destroy the group but to use the group that you are now in control of for your own objective. If your geopolitical objective demanded it you would find yourself in a position of,"let's not get rid of them just yet because we can do some things with these people, we can control the region".

That's pretty much largely what's happening because a lot of people, not just us, but there is a lot of other people, even official voices in the Western media who have questioned how it has been possible that Western bombing campaigns etc. on ISIS/ISL in Iraq haven't been able to wipe them out. Apparently at most there is about 30,000 of them and they are a very disparate kind of group and they don't have a real strong leadership and really with the influence that they have - and you're not just talking here about Western powers, the US, the UK and France etc. but also the Saudis being involved - the idea that they wouldn't have been able to get rid of what is essentially just an upstart, bothersome little gang of people is ridiculous.

Niall: It comes back to - really how difficult is it to find Osama Bin Laden in a cave for God's sake.

Pierre: What is interesting is that while the killing of those Charlie Hebdo journalists was mediatised again and again all around the planet... (Audio lost)

Tim: Hey everybody it's time here from the sound booth. It looks like we lost our hosts, their call dropped from skype so we'll just play something here until they find their way back. I'm searching through my sound files. Maybe something from John Lennon, he's always good. Hang on.

John Lennon: I think our society is run by insane people for insane objects and objectives and I think that's what I sussed when I was 16 and 12 ways down the line. I expressed it differently all through my life. It's the same thing of expressing order but now I can put it into that sentence that I think that we're being run by maniacs for maniacal means and ends. If anybody can put on paper what our government and the American government etc. The Russians and Chinese - what they are actually trying to do and what they think they are doing, I would be very pleased to know what they think they are doing. I think they are all insane. But I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it.

Scene from the movie Network: "I don't have to tell you things are bad, everybody knows things are bad; it's a depression. Everybody's out of work or scared of losing their job. A dollar buys a nickels worth, banks are going bust, shop keepers keep a gun under the counter, punk [cops!] are running wild in the street and there's no one anywhere who seems to know what to do with us and there's no end to it! We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat. We sit watching our TVs while some local newscaster tells us that today we had 15 homicides and 63 violent crimes, as if that's the way it's supposed to be?

We know things are bad, worse than bad, they're crazy. It's like everything everywhere is going crazy. So we don't go out anymore. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we're living in is getting smaller, and all we say is, 'Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials, and I won't say anything, just leave us alone! Well I'm not going to leave you alone. I want you to get mad!

I don't want you to protest. I don't want you to riot. I don't want you to write to your congressman because I wouldn't know what to tell you to write. I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crying in the streets. All I know is first you've got to get mad. You've got to say, "I'm a human being. God Dammit, my life has value." So, I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window, open it, and stick your head out, and yell, "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!"

Joe: Go ahead and do that everybody. Just take a few minutes there and we'll wait. Go ahead and stick your head out the window and yell that see if it makes any difference.

Niall: In your native language.

Joe: We were just trying to make sense of what is going on. It can get very complicated and you get all sorts of lies and manipulations, double-talk and double-speak and double-think going on by the media and politicians. The West is desperately trying to cling on to its status as world hegemon in the face of an encroaching Russia and China. The general Middle East area that has expanded a little bit is the place that is being fought over or the place that the West is very concerned about losing.

We're talking about theMaghreb, Northern Africa, the Middle East and down into Saudi Arabia and even down into Africa; Somalia and stuff. They want to make sure that the Chinese and the Russians simply do not make any inroads into that area and basically kick the West out because that would spell doom for Western hegemony. For about 60 or 70 years now in Yemen it seems the British set up a tin-pot dictator regime similar to the Saudi regime and they did that to make sure that they had control over the Red Sea and the Suez Canal as a trade route.
They wanted to control those countries to make sure the Russians [didn't get in there] this was at the time where there was the Cold War. But now the West has been saying and the US government has been saying that it's kind of like they have dusted off their Cold War playbook and it's the same problem again with Russia and now to some extent with China who are threatening to make inroads there. Yemen is still in the grip of a Western-backed tin-pot dictator and there are these Houthi rebels and Obama's been drone striking Yemen for several tears now, killing civilians and claiming Al-Qaeda is there when in fact it's just ordinary Yemeni people who want democracy and have wanted democracy in Yemen for many decades.

Recently they attacked the presidential palace and of course the UN condemned it and said that it shouldn't happen and blah, blah, blah and they are pitching it as Al-Qaeda but that's not really what's going on. Yemen is strategically important; it's just South of Saudi Arabia. If you look at a map you can see all this. The Gulf of Aden is very close to Somalia which has a lot of oil resources as well. The West is very interested in Somalia and has been for a long time because of its potential oil resources. Effectively East Africa is a very strategic resource laden part of the world. It's just about resource wars that are what it's always been about at least at a practical level it's been about resource wars. It's sad.

Niall: The choreography of it is disgusting. On one level it's about securing the Middle East for the West but another level to it is securing the West as it is. They don't people to be thinking and seeing this in any way because they would naturally be repulsed by it. So when you get a situation where two Japanese aid workers are next for the beheading routine in Syria, it enables the pro-Western prime minister in Japan to do the whole, "Oh, we are under threat from ISIS!"

No you're not. You're 10,000 miles away; there is no threat to Japan. But he can scare people in Japan into maintaining their,"don't think, don't criticize, and don't even dare think that our natural allies are China and possibly Russia. Don't even think about it". It's not even that they are afraid that people will think such things, that's too much for people, that they would recognize that far more pragmatic, fairer way of doing business coming from Russia and China at the moment. It's kind of an ideology; I guess it's a Western liberal ideology. So now it's Japan.
John Kerry has been all over the world this week. The guy was in London lecturing people about human rights and "how to deal with ISIS". Then he went to Saudi Arabia to kiss Saudi butt, then he went to India and now he's in Nigeria and just as he arrived in Nigeria lo and behold there was another massive bomb attack which of course was in no way directed at him. It was kind of a reminder to the Nigerian people and the Nigerian government: "You see that guy coming in, this is why you need him, see?" Ka-boom.

It wasn't actually ISIS trying to blow up Boko Haram or trying to take Kerry out or anything. It always happens. I remember when Clinton was Secretary of State, how many times was she about to land in the country and ka-boom, "Hi I'm here, it's all ok, I've got your backs!" You know? This disgusting witch would be the saviour and its all part of reminding as many people as possible. They want them all in this hive mind; this Western mind.

It's so revolting but it's how they work. On the one hand it just seems to come together, they don't plan every single detail it seems but the choreography of it - there is some kind of hive mind, this system that works behind it.

V for Vendetta: What we need right now is a clear message to the people of this country. This message must be read in every newspaper, heard on every radio, seen on every television. This message must resound throughout the entire Interlink. I want this country to realise that we stand on the edge of oblivion. I want every man, woman and child to understand how close we are to chaos. I want everyone to remember why they need us.
That speech from V for Vendetta is becoming more and more relevant every day, with the Chancellor saying we are on the edge of oblivion; on the edge of chaos. That's the whole message from the whole Muslim/Islamic terrorism business; it's an attempt to terrify Western populations.

Niall: And use it to justify [themselves] and then Westerners are invited to believe that it's all under control. "We're doing a lot of bad things but remember what we're up against. We've got to do precision bombings" and so on. There was a former US drone operator who had the courage to speak out and he says, "We didn't even really know who we were firing at".

You know the whole precision, "we know we got this, terrorist" thing? They had no clue; they were just firing at random crowds of people. He alone reckons he has killed some 1600 people! One US drone operator, I mean the horror of that is just incredible.

Speaking of choreographed threats - there was another one this week, lo and behold ISIS is now saying they are going to attack the EU via the Balkans. Of course it's framed immediately in the context of, "We from the Balkan countries have got to work together. We've got to come up with a new security strategy for Europe you know, "We've got to be harmonious".

What is not being said between the lines is - to Serbia, "Don't you dare even consider looking east; looking to Russia. You're with us now". In fact the Bosnian minister didn't say why he was not in.... Well he did, he said he was resigning because he was protesting against arms deliveries going into the Ukraine. The US formerly sanctioned delivery of weapons to the Kiev Junta. They are being routed through the Balkans; no surprise there because that's how a lot of things arrive into Europe - drugs, weapons - and this Bosnian minister is just one voice.

But his resignation and the kind of simultaneous ISIS threat via the Balkans - you see what's going on; it's this schism at play under the surface. I come back to what Joe was talking about, this mad geopolitical....

Joe: Talking about that drone operator who said that he didn't really know who he was killing, again that's par for the course with US military personnel over the past 100 years. There was one in the 60's when the CIA was carrying out covert bombing runs on so-called communists in Indonesia and there was one guy who was taken from the military and brought into the CIA to fly planes; bombing, just covert bombing runs supposedly against the spread of communism in Indonesia but it was really about the US maintaining control over that part of the world; like it always is.

There was this guy called Allen Lawrence Pope and he was actually captured; his plane crashed and he was captured but on the appeal of the American government he was released and sent back to America. He said, "I enjoyed killing communists. They said Indonesia was a failure but we knocked the shit out of them, we killed thousands of communists even though half of them probably didn't even know what communism meant".
[Audio clip: Run Forest run, Run Forest!]

Joe: Run Forest, run! This is an example of the same kind of thing, he was captured in 1962 [1958 - He was released in 1962] in Indonesia I think. This is 50 years later and you have the same kind of operative piloting a drone from a bunker or a base in the Arizona desert or something; firing missiles at people in the Middle East and he says, "I don't know who I was killing".

Niall: He was killing Muslims.

Joe: Killing Muslims who don't even know they're terrorists; "I'm killing Jihadis although most of them don't even know what Jihadis really means but I'm killing them."

Pierre: And meanwhile you have this massive budget, Hollywood production being released on the screens around the world titled American Sniper where you have this very simplistic and erroneous depiction of a sniping technique in war. On one side you have the saviour, the Caucasian-American - bright, smart, well-doing snipers and on the other side you have, not even Muslims; they are not even depicted as human beings anymore, they are just potential terrorists; they are threats, they are like animals, like pests that have to be eliminated.

You see the main job. You have a total reversal of values and what is cold-blooded murder of - most of the time - innocents becomes glorified. One of the most repulsive acts for a human being, when you murder another innocent human being is depicted as something great, something good and heroic. You have all these kids and all those people looking at that and it has an influence on our psyche and our soul. Like a plague.

Joe: The propaganda is just crazy. I can understand why a lot of people would be turned off because it's either so confusing that it doesn't make any sense any more so they just switch off or they realize that it's far too difficult to try and figure out what's actually going on so they just switch off. There was a public enquiry into Alexander Litvinenko's death which was in 2006. He was murdered in the UK and was a former FSB and Russian intelligence operative who was then turned into a porter and apparently started trying to expose the evils of the enemies in the media.

Litvinenko bears all the hallmarks of someone who was essentially turned or was a double agent who left the FSB and decided to work with British intelligence in order to extract secrets or information or intelligence about Russia for the British. He was killed in 2006, he died from polonium poisoning; he somehow ingested polonium which a rare and radioactive material which is thought to be from the process of creating nuclear weapons or just from nuclear power.

Niall: I think it's from nuclear weapons.

Joe: I don't know but I think it's from nuclear weapons. There was a publicenquiry into his death and all along the West had been touting the story that he was killed by Putin because he was threatening to say things about Putin or was condemning Putin all over the place. I wrote a few articles at the time on that and it's much more complicated than that and it would seem that when you see this kind of negative Western media offensive against Putin you can generallytell that it's false.

They make stuff up about Putin and Russia all the time as you see in the Ukraine for example; over and over again. They were supposedly releasing a tape that he recorder on his deathbed where he gave some information. I don't know if this is what it's going to hang on but I suppose if they are trying to figure out how he was killed they are going to conclude that is was the Russians obviously.

If you look for priors the only other known person that was killed by polonium poisoning was Yasser Arafat and he was killed by the Israelis. You have got a small number of countries [to look at]. First of all you have got a small number of countries that produce nuclear weapons; I think there is 10 of them in the world. Then you can narrow that down further to countries who would have an interest in killing this guy; your not left with very many.

Niall: Although it was not immediately clear what interest the Israelis had.

Joe: No, maybe not the Israelis themselves but the Mossad maybe or someone who would do it for particular strategic or propaganda purposes which seems to be the result of wanting to implicate Russia. Sometimes they like to leave little markers or signatures on their activities to let people chew on the idea that Yasser Arafat was killed by polonium and then Litvinenko was killed by it as well just two years later; everything in the media says it was Russia.

Apparently there is a tape that was made in November 2005 where Litvinenko says all these things about Putin and supposedly they are talking about Putin talking about having had a good relationship with one of the worlds most dangerous terrorists; specifically Semion Mogilevich who is a Ukrainian crime boss who was on the FBI's most wanted list and who Mr Litvinenko believed was selling weapons to Al-Qaeda. So if you are looking for this guy, Semion Mogilevich, he is Jewish.

Niall: He is like the Jewish boss of bosses.

Joe: He is the big kahuna boss. It is such a sordid story if you look into what is available of his background. He is based in the Ukraine and he was friends with everybody basically. They try and present the image of the Ukraine as being very much divided between pro and anti-Russian, pro-EU and pro-West and anti-Russian groups but all of them were in it together up until 2013 basically; they were all working with each other.

All the people you think are enemies with each other now in Ukraine, they were all friends; the ousted president Yanukovych and the previous orange revolution guys in 2004, Yushchenko and the oil princess Tymoshenko; they were all just working with anybody they could get their hands on. It's all between these politicians and the corporate big-wigs of various state industries. It's such a viper's nest amongst them all and none of them have any loyalties whatsoever.

So to try and turn around and draw a line and say these ones have always been pro-West and these ones have always been pro-Russia is just ridiculous. It's not that way even today.

Niall: They have all got dealings with MI6 going way back and of course dealings directly with Israel. I've written aboutit and I think Ukraine - amongst many others - is like a playground for Israeli gangsters. They have got a long dirty past going back to the foundation of both countries in fact. The original so-called Zionist gateway was Odessa Ukraine.

Ideologically and militarily the weapons that... (inaudible) got which later became the Mossad all came from the Ukraine. It's not so much that it's endemic to Ukraine, it's more complex than that but it has always been this kind of clearing house through which everything runs. It's a great place; everyone understands that you can get things done there.

Joe: There is this intimation that Litvinenko, speaking from the grave, has implicated Putin as being friend with this Mogilevich who was friends with everybody because he was very influential and everybody looked to him. But he was sending weapons to Al-Qaeda therefore Putin was indirectly sending weapons to Al-Qaeda; Putin's actually a Jihadi.

Niall: They're not going to get far with that.

Joe: Are you serious? I mean the way people are just sucking this stuff up, I wouldn't be surprised to be honest. It's just horrendous.

Niall: I was listening to Killary at some do this week. She was asked coyly by the presenter in front of an audience, "So are you thinking of running in 2016?" - "Oh, well! Gosh, if I was Putin, it would be so easy because it's not like "here we have a process".

Joe: Yeah right.

Niall: A process that gives you Bush 1 - A Clinton, Bush 2 - Basically a Clintonista and then your next choice is a Bush 3 or Clinton 2.

Joe: Yeah, "We have a process here!" She is so deluded and she is such a witch, seriously, she is a pure bred psychopath that woman. But then she is in the right position she is top of the heap in the US or at least covertly.
[Audio clip of Hilary Clinton's demonic laughter]

Joe: God! Nightmares! That cackling laugh, where's her broomstick?
[Audio clip played again]

Joe: No!!! Make it stop!

Niall: Speaking of the Ukraine, the borderlands, the wilderness between East and West, Brzezinski speaketh this week. Last week was Soros, this week Brzezinski and he says to the sum of the masses "Putin is playing with fire in Europe, financing an army; a local rebellion". That's rich.

Joe: What's wrong with that? That's exactly what you did! Get over yourself, geesh. He's only playing by your rules and is actually trying to be fair about it and so don't be so hypocritical. Please just stop the hypocrisy, just once.

Niall: You can see where they will get bogged down though if they are trying to play it fairly. So they have got this successful rebellion going and they've got them apparently very well marshalled; too well marshalled because Kiev is playing so dirty and obviously trying to make them look bad. The latest attack is bits of shelling in the city of Mariupol and the locals are fired in and obviously Kiev goes, "Look, look! Look at what your rebels just did!" And the rebels were like "We have noting within range". They gave the honest answer, "We couldn't have fired it because [we have nothing within range] and anyway why would we want to do that? We want the people to be on our side."

For once this is an attack that is being covered in the Western media but in terms of neutrality it is, "Mortars landed in Mariupol today. Many people killed." but there is no indication as to who is doing it of course.

Joe: In a lot of them it's subtly hinted at that is were the rebels.

Niall: It's the only reason you are getting to hear about it.

Joe: So they want to expand their territory and take as big a chunk of Eastern Europe as possible.

Niall: Which is, probably true.

Joe: Which is fair enough, so in terms of the people in Mariupol who are maybe undecided; they try and convince them by blowing them up with mortars. [Being sarcastic] That's a really good strategy but of course that's why they would do it because they are just crazed killers, just like those Jihadis. They don't have any proper strategy, they don't mind shooting themselves in the foot, and they don't mind engaging in obviously self defeating attacks because they're just crazy! That's the kind of people you are dealing with. That's the narrative people want to believe.

Niall: Listen to how this was reported in the British Telegraph: "The rocket attacks came the day after the rebels rejected a peace deal and announced they were going on a multi-pronged offensive against the government in Kiev to vastly increase their territory."

Now wait a minute, wait a minute. The peace deal was broken when Kiev forces attacked the previously agreed area that was held by the rebels. There has been video footage put up on YouTube and I think Harrison the SOTT editor has written about it on SOTT. It was a suicidal mission, there was no way they were going to actually secure or take any territory from the rebels and sure enough they easily defeated them. It was such a dirty trick; they sacrificed a couple of battalions in order to be able to say, "Look, the rebels have broken the ceasefire." They had no intention of actually gaining any military victory.

Pierre: And the ceasefire signed in Minsk was signed when the rebels...

Niall: This wasn't Minsk. It was an adjunct building on the main ceasefire.

Pierre: The main ceasefire in Minsk was signed when the rebel forces were achieving victory after victory and they went to sign a ceasefire. Meanwhile Ukrainian forces signed a ceasefire to get peace but because they were losing so during the ceasefire they could replete their forces, organize themselves, get massive support from the West of course and then wage war with increased forces.

Joe: This recent attack - probably by the Kiev in Mariupol to try and blame it on the rebels - happened just as Putin has recently said that he tried to broker an agreement with Poroshenko etc. for a ceasefire to try to move their troops back and away from civilian areas. And he said that they got no real response about that.

Niall: Well the response was the attack.

Joe: The response was the attack, exactly. So that's why the rebels then said, "Well to hell with it."

Niall: The Prime Minister Zakharchenko who is not officially recognised but has been voted Prime Minister was saying to local media which was therefore broadcast internationally, "Poroshenko, you won't need me here; I'll come closer if you like to Kiev. I can meet you in, say, this town. No problem with me". The implication was a funny way of saying I can come closer to you if you like.

That was all was meant by it but it was spun into, "They've announced that they are going to invade the rest of the Ukraine.

Pierre: The day after the Ukrainian army shelled Mariupol, the remains of the battery of mortars were stationed on the hills just above the town in order to blame the rebels even more easily.

Niall: We have a clue from the recent article by Soros, he gave a timeline. He said we have until April 2015 to gain the upper hand here. He didn't mean strategically, militarily on the ground, he was worried that by then, after a certain cut off, it will no longer be possible for us to - not for us to claim victory but by then it will no longer be self evident that Putin has won the information war; that his peace stance will have won the victory. They need to push that as soon as possible. Hence when Putin makes an extra effort to say, 'to everyone withdraw all artillery from the existing boundary between you.''

The EU will either freak out or they give the orders, "No, no, no, this will cement the existing status quo and the existing status quo is in our favour so do something suicidal, send in 3 battalions." and they were wiped out.

Pierre: They seem to be aware and desperate about this information war as illustrated by the recent controversy concerning the treatment reserved for RT in the mainstream media; with in this news where it was equated in the same sentence with terrorist organisations. RT - Russia TV's media is probably more objective than the ones who are criticising; RT was equated to organisations.

Niall: It's been round the system even in the West but actually it's consistent, it makes sense; think about it. Obama gets up before the UN late last year and lists the 3 major threats to US hegemony, basically. Number one was ISIS. The second threat was Russia. Of course ISIS, RT is Russia that is war it's consistent right, on a psychopathic point of view. But of course people are naturally going to hang on it; you can't say that a news organisation is equivalent to what ISIS is doing.

Pierre: It's an enemy, it is an enemy and it is a major threat.

Joe: Because if you loose the propaganda war you've lost the real war.

Niall: Just one more thing on Mariupol, just when we came on there was some local media footage of the immediate aftermath of the attacks. You should probably check it out; I think it's going to be on SOTT soon. There's a camera news crew and the reporter lady sticker her camera in front of some guy wearing khaki and he is armed with a machine gun; to get a comment out of him.

People are running around and they're trying to secure the area or whatever; getting the gist out of what just happened and the guy says in a clear English accent, "Get that camera away from me bitch!"

Joe: He didn't say, 'bitch', did he?

Niall: I think he did.

Pierre: The point is that he was speaking with a British accent.

Joe: That first one where he says that and he is covering his face wasn't very clear, it sounded a bit English but it sounded to me like it could have been someone who was a non-native English speaker who had learned English in England for example.

Niall: Why would he respond to him in English?

Joe: Because perhaps he doesn't know Ukrainian or Russian.

Niall: Or he's not from Ukraine.

Joe: Obviously he's not from Ukraine but the other thing is, in that report there's a video just below that of another guy speaking. He definitely has an English accent. He says something like, "Yeah, yeah, ok, that's fine, that's fine" and he's got a very clear English accent.
[Audio clip of Spock saying: "Most illogical"]

Joe: Most illogical actually. Hypocrisy and "do as I say, not as I do" is par for the course, these people just lie all the time; "Russia's invading Ukraine, we're not invading Ukraine". The truth is exactly the opposite really. Russia is obviously giving a lot of military support to Ukrainian rebels but it's totally entitled to do that.

As is the West, Polish soldiers are entitled to help the Kiev government. That's the rules of the game; you're allowed to do it. Let's just stop this whining and crying and pointing the finger. People should know the way these things operate and rebels in Eastern Ukraine are going to be supported by Russia and they should be. The Kiev military is going to be supported by its friends in the US and the EU and fair enough if they want to do that but let's just be honest about it.

The problem is that when it comes down to honesty, it could really take off and go too far. The average person in the street will get a very clear understanding of who's in the right and who's in the wrong here. If you use the values of the West and apply them to the situation, you know freedom and democracy? Well people in Eastern Ukraine are entitled to their freedom and democracy. These people are actually allowed to unilaterally declare independence in their country; it happened in Serbia and the UN sanctioned at and everybody was happy about it so the same thing applies in the Ukraine.

When Serbia declared independence, if it had been attacked by its neighbours the Kosovo would have been up in arms and all over it and would have been condemning it. It's just double standards and hypocrisy is the rule and people should just get used to that but also understand it so when you're listening to the news, pretty much turn everything on its head.

Niall: Here's another spectacular one from Poroshenko. This week is the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz by the Russian soldiers and this guy is there repeating what Yatz said recently which was insisting that Ukraine liberated Auschwitz. This is the same Ukraine and these guys are the direct ideological - in some cases literally - the grandkids of the Ukrainian SS that saw to it that as many Jews as possible from Ukraine were shipped to Auschwitz.

Joe: It's not as an egregious revision of history as it seems because that Russian battalion or regiment or whatever it was that arrived in Auschwitz were made up of nationals; the Russian Red Army from all over the Soviet Union, including Ukraine. So there were some Ukrainians, although they were Soviet Russians at the time, amongst the people that liberated Auschwitz.

And then turned around 70 years later and tried to separate it out say that these were Ukrainians. No they weren't then, they were all Soviet Russians, good or bad, and there were plenty of other nationals from within the Soviet Union who were in the Red Army. So he is insulting Soviet Russians and the people who saw themselves as soldiers and he is also insulting the other nationalities that were in the Red Army by limiting it to it being the Ukrainians who did it. It's just a pathological stupid comment to make.

Pierre: And it's highly opportunistic because Poroshenko whose government regime is Neo-Nazi or includes some Neo-Nazi individuals. For him to go to Auschwitz and celebrate the liberation of this office/head camp, concentration camp, extermination camp by Russian forces is total schizophrenia. It is the same for this Neo-Nazi leader Poroshenko to be demonstrating in the streets of Paris against Charlie Hebdo.

Joe: It's very interesting because it shines a light on or exposes how these people think and the values that they adhere to which are non at all. They don't adhere to anti-Nazism or freedom and democracy; these are all just catchphrases that they use. These people, and I'm taking about the political elite of this world, do not adhere to any ideology. They just talk about it because it serves and interest but when it comes down to it they are happy being Nazis, happy to be commies, happy to be capitalists, whatever. It doesn't matter, it could be Marxists, Lennonists, whatever! It does not matter to them.

Niall: Anarchal syndicate.

Joe: Anarchal syndicate. They can be whatever they want to be and when they say stuff like that or when they go along to these [events], when you have people who are on the one hand openly supporting Nazis and on the other hand going to a ceremony in Auschwitz it shows that they don't care about those people. Those ideologies mean nothing to them!

Pierre: It means nothing and in addition since the only objective is power, greed and control they will use and subvert and make things even worse. That is the ponerology connection.

Joe: Another interesting even which was a bit anomalous was a huge power failure in Pakistan again which caused a blackout leaving 80% of the country without electricity. 80% of the country! That's 140, 000, 000 people who had no power for 8 hours. It left 140, 000, 000 people without power.

This happened last year but it also happened in 2013. There was a blackout that left the entire country without power for 2 hours. In 2013 they said it was a breakdown in some of the equipment. They said there was a malfunction at a plant in the countries South West and it put pressure on all the other major power producing systems which all stopped working.

I'm wondering if this wasn't some other electromagnetic anomaly or something else going on because they said in this more recent one which happened just yesterday that it was an attack by Jihadis.

Niall: That makes me think that they might have jerry rigged the power systems of countries that they would like to get back in line.

Joe: I don't know, I think that it may be an example of the planet messing with...

Niall: The natural growth axis?

Joe: Yeah, she is extremely vulnerable I think. Particularly in certain counties who are more vulnerable than others but maybe not, maybe it could happen anywhere else and it just happened to happen in Pakistan the past few times and now once it's happened once or twice then they eventually start saying, "Oh, that was militants, Islamic militants did that."

So it's similar to the Clube quote about celestial intentions,"We do not need the celestial threat to disguise Cold War intentions; rather we need the Cold War to disguise celestial intentions!" That has changed now to Islamic or militantJihadi intentions being used to hide celestial or environmental upheaval.

Niall: It has been suggested before that Al-Qaeda were responsible for massive forest fires around Colorado. We have seen Al-Qaeda being trotted out as responsible for a massive explosion in the middle of a forest in the middle of nowhere in Scotland.

Joe: That would have been a meteorite for sure.

Pierre: What is ironic is there was a discussion where Kaspersky and others talk about activists ready to bring down the grid through hacking and at the same time you have celestial intentions that may be brining the same result so you're left wondering, "is it where the limit of the new create your own reality paradigm is or is it actually priming the population to provide heat with a human explanation?" Terrorism and World War III: in order to disguise events upon which the elites have absolutely no power? Or maybe both are going at different levels.

Indeed, planning to bring down the grid in order to create a false flag and to control the internet but at the same time at a cosmic level, a cosmic factor may lead to the same result.

Niall: It doesn't take much planning from anyone in power to get people themselves to provoke the suggestion that ,"somebody out there did this to us" because people are so naturally [egocentric] they think that the universe actually revolves around them. They are so naturally egocentric that this is why thing like man made global warming have taken root like it has because human beings are conditioned as such that we really do think that everything revolves around us.

Joe: Did you just say man-made global warming? Man, bear, pig. There is crazy snow coming to the US again. Last Friday snow storms brought record snowfall to parts of the Texas Panhandle which kind of confused a lot of people. This was last Friday and there was record snowfall and just a few days previously they were having 70 degree weather.

Niall: It's been a mild winter hasn't it?

Joe: What's going on?! Then New England has been threatened by a historic snow storm with possible significant snow conditions, this is again because that area of the East coast was deluged there late last year in some places up to...
[Audio clip: sound of the ocean]

Joe: Sounds like a big wave, a wave of snow. Some places got up to like 8 feet of snow. It's getting up there. The accumulation that people are seeing in places where you usually get a relatively small amount of snow is starting to increase and we may see at some point in the near future, in the next few years maybe, a much expected 100 feet of snow or something.

Niall: Well for the moment there's meters and meters and meters of snow, people are being toyed with because in November last year you had the record rate of snow cover extent in the entire Northern hemisphere since satellite records began in 1972. The large part of that is over Eurasia, especially Russia, but since then Russia has had like the mildest winter in decades. So it's coming and going and it's coming and going.

Pierre: Having a big spike like that can be just evidence that suggests more chaotic patterns but the issue about this record you mentioned, came after the winter 2010 because in November 2010 you already had the highest snow coverage for the Northern hemisphere this time. Almost every year we break records that come back further and further in to the past. So higher and higher and usually more and more unusual weather phenomena which suggests not only increased... (inaudible) level but also increased intensity; a trend.

Joe: I think we'll leave it there this week folks. I'll just leave you with a story that you should all remember which is that there has been a recent study showing that the better people know the bible, the worse they do in college. So you should think about that one and don't study the bible.

Pierre: Or don't go to college.

Joe: Or don't go to college! Pick one! Anyway, we'll leave it there for this week folks.
[Plays audio clip: "And after all tomorrow is another day!"]

Joe: And that is the last word from our sound man Tim.

Niall: Sound Tim.

Joe: Tim the sound man. So thanks to our listeners and to our chatters and we will be back next week with another show, probably on a similar topic. We might have a guest one of these weeks. Maybe next week actually but we'll let you know. Till then bye, bye!