Sott Talk Radio logo
Broadcasting from deep in the heart of the American Empire, join your host Elan Martin, and fellow editors, as they discuss everything from current events and the latest machinations and manipulations of the global elite to history, science, and religion, and how it all fits together.

Monsters: What are they exactly? What forms do they take? What do they do? Is there a common thread between the 'supernatural' cases of Chupucabras or Mothman and serial killers Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer? Why has ISIS been so often referred to as a monster? And what do what do they all represent? Join us as we explore the concept of monsters, their meaning and their possible relation to our world.

The Truth Perspective is brought to you by the SOTT Radio Network and, your one-stop source for independent, unbiased, alternative news and commentary on world events.

Live every Saturday from 2-4pm EST / 11am-1pm PST / 8-10pm CET.

Running Time: 02:09:00

Download: MP3

Here's the transcript of the show:

Shane: An asteroid a mile and a half wide is passing by at this very minute only 310,000 miles away - from the Earth's proximity, but do not worry earthlings NASA has told us everything is, ok. They say the potentially hazardous asteroids have less than a .01% chance of impacting Earth in the next hundred years. So please continue drinking your (Lost audio) and by accepting their Lord you shall be saved. Never mind that the subtle signs of our reality put out the wildfires raging in Brazil and across Indonesia; while phosphorous hits Israel, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan and in Texas, and other sovereign states within the US.

Turn away from the swarms of dozens of earthquakes hitting California, Alaska and Oregon. The six horned lamb spotted on the farm in China is perfectly normal; how about the flamingos that lost their way and got stranded in Siberia. Oh, and the strongest hurricane ever recorded in the Western hemisphere that just battered the Pacific coast of Mexico, while Afghanistan was hit by a massive 7.5 earthquake that reached across southern Asia; those are just things that happen. And while yes, all those things happen just in the past week, they're of no real concern to our listeners. Yes, our over Lords tell us that everything is ok, there's nothing to fear especially not from them. Forget what big ears they have as they listen in to you phone conversations with Grandma. Look away from what big eyes they have, it's only so they can see every move you make; and their big teeth, well yes, those are actually to crush descent and feed on your suffering, but never you mind that.

Today is October 31st 2015 and we at the Truth Perspective are celebrating Halloween by looking at the monsters who roam our streets who pervert our minds and molest our sleep. We'll be looking at the myths and legends and memes within the human reality as well as delving in to the unknown and the underworld of monsters.

I'm you host Shane LaChance and I'm joined by my co-host Elan Martin.

Elan: Hi everybody!

Shane: And we're joined in the studio today with fellow editors Karen Nicholson.

Karen: Hi.

Shane: And Meg McDonald.

Meg: Hello.

Elan: Well that was a very appropriate introduction to today's show Shane, and what I was thinking while you were describing all of these events, that we take them in isolation and don't generally connect the dots about is that we're being lied to, monstrously. And that while most NASA scientists and other people in positions of power, don't know the bigger scoop or the larger scheme of things, there are certainly some that do, and so maybe that is part of the monstrousness that we're faced with in our reality.

Shane: Yeah maybe that's something we can dig into a bit today is what a monster is and how it relates to the myths and legends; is there something of a social construct there that we can apply to everyday reality? And then are there also questions about the unknown things that we may not witness on a day to day level but are still there and are kind of frightening and a little bizarre; the bizarre aspects of our world. So do we have a working definition in which we're looking to explore this topic?

Meg: I guess we do: A monster generally speaking is any creature usually found in legends or myth, and even horror films, that it hideous and produces fear or physical harm by its appearance or actions. The word monster comes from the Latin word monstrum, it's an aberrant occurrence, it's usually biological and that there's something wrong with the natural order of things. Monsters could denote wrong or evil; they're generally morally objectionable; physically or psychologically hideous and or freaks of nature. The root of monstrum is monere which means 'to warn' but it also means 'to instruct' and so the monster can also be a sign of instruction. St. Augustine came up with a more benign interpretation and didn't see monsters as inherently evil but as a part of the natural world.

Shane: Well when I think of monsters, the first image that comes to mind is Hillary Clinton (Laughter) and John McCain (Lost audio) -

Elan: (Lost audio)... monsters extraordinaire.

Shane: Yeah, they're really scary.

Elan: We at usually connote their monstrous behaviour with psychopathy of course. But because of their sleek veneer which also speaks to psychopaths in positions of power; we don't often consider their actions as monstrous because they're so veiled behind the apparatus of what is now considered normal workings and policy. But I think it's apt, I think we can call them monsters.

Shane: Now, I'm going to try fielding some calls, I know some callers come on just to listen in and we just had a recent one so I'm going to take this one and see who they are. Hello caller, are you calling in to discuss the show- [No response] alright so, back on track.

Elan: Another consideration is; I mean you hear 'monsters' being used in reference to the acts serial killers like Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer. These were individuals in the 70's, 80's and 90's who were best known for kidnapping, rape, dismemberment, necrophilia and just unimaginable behaviour that takes the prize for monstrousness. You look at pictures of them and of course if you already know what they've done then you can superimposed a malevolent expression or stare but really these guys look pretty average; it does well to keep in mind that there is this psychological hideousness, as you were defining it a little earlier Meg, about these individuals who are capable of such things and so far we have psychopathy as the best explanation of what enables them to do the types of things that they did. I think holding them up as an example of modern day monsters, in addition to the Hillary Clinton's and (Lost audio) is pretty instructive.

Shane: I think the contrast between the mask that they put out there, that they project and this mask of sanity, which is very appealing often times. It can project this image of what we most want to see and it can be very charismatic or friendly or something we would want to bond too. Then when the mask comes off and you see their true colours and the things that they've done, it's that contrast that really penetrates you to the core. It releases this really horrific (Lost audio) and I think that contrast between the mask and what lies underneath is what adds to the terror of it all. And with the definition that Meg provided, there is something about monsters in the mythic sense where they're not completely alien and there is this human-type form that has these animalistic traits and that's really what you see with human predators, psychopaths and monsters. There is this semi-human form but what's underneath is this barbaric monstrosity.

Meg: Well you get things like people who remind you of werewolves because at certain times they seem like normal human beings but then all of a sudden you get to their underbelly and they've completely changed into their animalistic nature with predatory traits.

Shane: One thing that I liked in the definition was that they can provide a sign or instruction. And when we're caught up in the suffering that these horrific monsters unleash, I think it can be difficult to process those things and that's all part of the trauma. But there is something to be learned from those experiences; and just specifically the nature of psychopathy and pathology, how it relates to us and how we can become infected with their world-view, with their beliefs, with their distorted ideologies, that infection, we've talked a lot about in terms of ponerology. And you find that idea in a number of the stories about monsters; with zombies there's this infectious element where they pass on their zombieness. Or with Vampires, they suck someone else's blood and turn them into a vampire and they become like them. We do have this narcissistic wounding that is pretty much all throughout society. We have this psychological disease that goes so deeply into us, it doesn't just affect our mind, it damages our emotions; it goes as deep as our genes, it messes with our genes when we have all this traumatic-stress; it's screwing up our DNA! It goes down to that level. And it can change us but we can learn from that and we can apply those lessons to find some type of recovery, find what it means to be healthy.

So we have that contrast to work out within ourselves. One of the topics I wanted to explore a little bit in relation to that was Philip Zimbardo's, Stanford Prison Experiment. Our readers and listeners maybe familiar with that story, but I'll go into it just a little. I believe it was in the 70's that Philip Zimbardo started this - it was basically a psychological experiment with Stanford students where he had these applicants and he screened them and he had these tests they had to take to ensure they were psychologically healthy individuals. So there were maybe 20 participants and certain ones were selected to be the prisoners and others were elected to be the guards. And it wasn't necessarily some authoritarian measure of, "this person will be a good guard". He started the experiment by having the local police who went in to these students homes; they arrested them; got them out in their pyjamas and put them into police cars. And brought them to what was basically a make-shift prison on the Stanford campus. They created the rooms where the prisoners would stay and within just a few short days the roles that these students took on, quickly excelled to abuse.

Elan: Shane, some of them were assigned to be guards and others as the inmates' right?

Shane: Right, it was a pretty arbitrary decision in terms of who became what, but you could quickly see how certain guards and I don't know if it was all of them, some of them would just kind of go along with the abuse, some of them really liked, and got off on, creating this terror in their inmates; they would do things like sleep deprivation, exercise - making them do push-ups. The experiment only last 6 days but within those 6 days the deterioration and the people involved in the experiment got so consumed and one important point here too is that people were free to say, "I'm not doing this anymore. I want to leave" and there were one or two cases where this did happen but there seemed to be a force that they got caught up in this dynamic so much that that wasn't even a reality for them anymore. The outside reality didn't exist; that they were actually prisoners and the guards were actually guards. In the book The Lucifer Experiment, Zimbardo talks about this process and it's basically a process of infection. I don't think that we can say that Zimbardo was a pathological type or a psychopath or any particular guard or prisoner who's pathological, but the system that he created itself, where there was this dominant and almost unanswerable dominance, they didn't have to answer to anybody and Zimbardo got caught up in the experiment just as much as the others.

And it didn't stop until a woman who was a friend of Zimbardo came and visited and saw the extent of what was going on. She saw that this was severely messed up and asked him what was going on, and snapped him out of it. And he ended the experiment right away. It took an outside person to come and say that. It took somebody who had a conscience to be able to snap them out of it. The scary nature of just how infectious these ideas were of superiority and inferiority. The role that we can play, these are basically social roles and these things can occur within a home, they can occur within a classroom setting; we can take a lot of lessons from this; in looking at the pathological nature. Now imagine it was a psychopath that was actually leading the study, I think it could have been ten times worse.

Elan: It's a really interesting story and the points you made about it are important, I think. These role-players, who took the job of the prison guards in the experiment, assumed a role and were infected with this authoritarian empowerment that they were unaware of. Lacking any psychological insight or any instruction for what was coming. This was just: "Let's put these people in a certain situation and go with it and let's see how they respond, naturally." The other thing that's so interesting about it is the outside observer, who wasn't part of the dynamic, wasn't conducting the experiment - when you said that, I was thinking a little bit of Putin's speech at the UN and him having this healthy remove from the situation, such that he can assess it and call it for what it is. We need that outside perspective that can only be provided by someone with has some psychological knowledge and who can comment on it with some objectivity.

Shane: So we may have a caller. I'm just going go over real quick and see. Hello caller, are you there?

Jonathan: Yes, I am here and this is Jonathan.

Shane: Hey Jonathan, welcome to the show.

Meg: Hi Jonathan.

Jonathan: Well definitely an appropriate and timely topic, given the day, Halloween. I've been thinking a lot about these monsters within our society, the United States. We have a situation where if you look at comments by people about Syria: "Assad is a monster." "He's a monster. "He barrel-bombs, his own people." And it's repeated so many times that even people you've maybe read before and respected their opinion on something and that they're critical-thinkers, nope! They're not. They will internalise this larger meme that 'Assad is a monster. He gasses his own people'. And it's just repeated on and on and on. And then what's shocking for me, Noam Chomsky was an inspiration for me - I've been kind of out of the loop because I was involved in this whistle-blowing and then this other project where I'm just working these incredible hours. But then I find that Noam Chomsky is actually swallowing the larger meme and distorting the situation of what is happening within Syria. And this is Noam Chomsky. And that's pretty shocking.

That somebody who you've built your political person and psyche around, them being a hero, somebody that could see further, that empowered other people to question the propaganda, swallows and regurgitates some of the most vile assumptions about Syria and what's going on there. He also started doing that with respect to Libya. And I really didn't know this because like I said I've been out of the loop. Have any of you guys done any research on this?

Elan: Well, yeah actually, those are good observations Jonathan and something we were discussing before the show; Gaddafi, Assad, it's no coincidence that these people were considered demonised, or monstrasized, - if that's even a word. And the irony of course, is that it's a projection on the part of US media and political interests. ISIS, by many bloggers and analysts, has been called a kind of 'Frankenstein's monster'. It is this conglomeration of psychopathic mercenaries and Jihadists and religious extremists and political psychopaths who want nothing more than to assert their will over others, not to serve others. So yes, we've looked at it quite a bit. And the irony of course is those who are demonising these individuals, who are actually constructive forces for their nations, i.e., Assad, Gaddafi, are the monsters themselves. And so far they've done a very good job, among a lot of people, at putting this label and projected identity onto others.

Jonathan: Yeah and again I want to emphasize that I've been out of the loop in that I've been involved in these other projects but before that, in my lifetime, during my university years I read all of these left magazines, Progressive, The Nation, Counterpunch, these are papers; when the internet comes things changed a lot. Now, I've been trying to catch up in these last couple of weeks with what's been going on. So I started researching the articles that were written in the lead up to Libya; the role Democracy Now! Played, some things Chomsky had said, and others. And actually, I've been shocked! So I start digging further and then I found this information and it's really interesting; this guy named Jeremy Scahill. He led a vendetta to stop a woman, a catholic nun, from Syria, named Mother Agnes. She was presenting material that questioned the dominant propaganda that the Syrian government had used gas on their own people. And Jeremy Scahill put out a huge amount of energy to stop Mother Agnes from speaking at a Stop the War event in London. Now why would Jeremy Scahill do this?

Well I started researching further. Now, it turns out Jeremy Scahill, Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald have all come together to develop this internet magazine called The Intercept. So I'm like, "wow!" what about this Pierre Omidyar? Pierre Omidyar is friends of Obama, and Pierre Omidyar put money into NGO's in Kiev, pre-Midan, pre-coup, before the coup. So I started going through the archives of The Intercept; I wanted to see how they cover Syria, how they cover Ukraine. And Glenn Greenwald had a couple of articles that were questioning and pointing out some of the neo-fascist character of the junta, a couple but it's been very sporadic; then he also had a couple of articles that were pro-junta, right? Then there was one article by a woman called Masha Gessen. She is a propagandist for Voice of America, in Europe. She's a paid US propagandist. She lies about Putin and Russia. They featured her article on The Intercept - I was like, "wow" and then I looked at an article written by Glenn Greenwald about the BBC and Saudi Arabia. And the BBC playing down the fact that the Saudi's are buying arms and that they'll give them to Al-Qaeda-types. Well, in the body of this article - and you guys can look at it - Glenn Greenwald actually states that it's, 'arguable when or not funding rebel forces that are tied to Al-Qaeda is a good thing or not'. You get what I'm saying?

Shane: We carried one of Glenn Greenwald's Saudi story in England. So the BBC had put out basically this propaganda piece where they were masking the Saudi involvement with Al-Nusra and they were corrected. Some reader wrote in and told them, "When the Saudi's are funding this organisation, that's part of Al-Nusra." And Greenwald covered that, but at the end of the article he goes off on Russia. It's a complete distortion and this apparent lack of critical thinking that he does apply in certain situations; it's not applied across the board. So he accepts 'Assad gassed his own people'.

Jonathan: Here's what I found intriguing about it. What he actually does is set up a 'false equivalent' with respect to what's happening in Syria. What's happening in Syria is no secret; it's been going on for years. The dynamics are this: Russia has been invited in to Syria to help the legitimate government fend off paid mercenary/jackals that are sponsored by US, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and also coordinated with Turkey; this is in direct violation of international law. The way he sets it up is it's, 'either, or' and 'you could make good arguments that it's not a bad thing to help arm these rebels.' my god the mask is freaking off! This guy, he's so scared to come out and say exactly what is happening, that just on the face of it, to state the facts, "it's a contravention of international law" he's so scared to do it, and he's scared to be labelled 'on the side of Russia', that this mealy-mouthed guy confuses his readers and the situation is left unclear. I excoriated him on his site, in the comments section you will see my name.

My real name is: Steven Hunt. You will see my comments where I took him to task about that - I did not violate any of the comment rules - he basically banned me. He cut me off, I cannot comment on the internet website. I was also asking him, putting him on the spot; why Jeremy Scahill would help stop Mother Agnes from speaking and coming to present her evidence that contradicts the dominant propaganda-line that Syria used chemical weapons on their own people. So I just wanted to bring that to the forefront. I'm writing an article right now about this. I call what The Intercept is doing a form of Jackal Journalism. I call it Jackal Journalism. What this is - I'm guessing at this - The Intercept, Jeremy Scahill, are actually working in tandem with US intelligence. Jeremy Scahill did an article this last week about drones, supposedly using information that was linked to him. And now Jeremy Scahill is coming out and he's going, "Yeah, what Obama's doing is he's murdering!" This, in my opinion, to try to posture that he's 'taking on the government' on this issue, anybody with two brain cells could call using drones that kill and cause an inordinate amount of civilian causalities is terrorism on the face of it.

So Jeremy Scahill needs to come out and answer what prompted him to come out with so much energy to stop Mother Agnes from speaking. You know what, my mom's deceased but she was a staunch catholic. And I'll tell you what, she wouldn't have really cottoned somebody disrespecting Mother Agnes. That's humorous but what's going on at The Intercept is really disgusting in my opinion.

Elan: That's all very interesting. Just a couple of things; Jeremy Scahill pretty much made a (Lost audio) Blackwater - whatever they (Lost audio) - and for a very long time (Lost audio) area considering the amount of courage that's required to speak out about some very dangerous people. Glenn Greenwald, in divulging all of the information regarding Edward Snowdon basically (Lost audio) taking (Lost audio) so. But whether or not Jonathan as you say, whether they're towing the party line out of fear, as opposed to a psy-op or Co-intel-pro operation, I don't know. One other thought I have is that for all the insight they have in some areas, they might be incredibly blind in other areas, and this is where being as well-rounded and looking into their previous actions comes into use. I'd be interested in reading any of your analysis.

Jonathan: I'm going to do this article and I should have it completed this week. But it's not going to be long, it's going to be concise and to the point and I'm not going to engage in wild speculation because that would be at cross-purposes. What's confusing is this: Omidyar works for US intelligence and funnels money into Kiev, supporting groups that were basically part of the coup, right? Now the coverage by the Intercept as far as the Ukraine situation has been spotty, sparse and fairly abysmal; there have been a couple of articles that were somewhat cogent but they haven't been consistent in their focus and it's been a topic for almost two years now. And that's kind of questionable. But then there's the fact Greenwald becomes a celebrity. He's invited onto Bill Marr and other talk shows; Jeremy Scahill, he's a celebrity, telegenic and he poses as this superstar taking on the US government. Now, I believe this: if these papers that were supposedly leaked to Scahill this last week as per the drone program; I believe that these were let out wilfully on the part of US intelligence - it's a head-fake.

They can't hand them information that's going to compromise anything deep within their structure and that would harm their program; to me it's just a belated coming out and saying the obvious; that this is barbaric and underhanded and stupid and all of that, he's basically saying that - but at this point coming out with it. Going back to Greenwald, I don't give him a pass of being ill-informed of what's going on in Syria. And the fact that he poses as this moral individual but engages in a narration where it's six on one hand, half a dozen on the other, with respect to supporting the Al-Qaeda aligned groups trying to overthrow the government in Syria; I don't give him a pass on that. It's just being very smarmy and the fact that he feels he can say that without repercussions, I think it's shocking, but I feel it's a correct assessment; because the right-wind and the dominant corporate media, will not take him to task for having that position. And our minds collectively have been so addled and the people that consider themselves to be on the anti-war left, we're so confused and so unorganised that we will give him a pass on that in general, but I won't.

Because somebody has to call out what he said. And the fact that he censors me on his website - my name is Steven Hunt- I can't comment on anything there. He'll have other people in the comments section there who feature for months and months, that just attack him from a right-wing perspective. But if I question Greenwald from a left-wing perspective then, "I'm banned!" isn't that interesting.

Meg: Well you're probably too close to the truth and that's what scares them.

Jonathan: Yeah.

Elan: Well I just want to add that we've had a couple of guests here who make it their living - one of our guests discussed in-depth the situation in Gaza, and the deterioration in the living conditions - I don't want to name names. Then we had another who writes very deeply on Israel's greater ambitions in the middle east and its connections to ISIS; ISIS' whole role in destabilising Syria; then he comes out with articles that are basically anti-Putin and anti-Russia, that are so prejudicial and bias that you have to wonder - because if I had to bet a buck, I'd say these two individuals are very well intended and regarding their areas of expertise, pretty darn knowledgeable. And yet, they're saying the things as they are, regarding the intentions of Russia. I don't think that Greenwald should have a free-pass, I agree with you, I think he's a big and powerful voice regarding the issues he's discussing. At the same time I think it may be surprising to see where a lot of these individuals are really on and insightful and correct about what they've focused on for a long time, and then when they veer off into another area, they're not even wrong! They're out in left-field.

Jonathan: Here's what I would say. We are all players in a large information war, that has sunk and permutated to a point to where the level of sophistication in this age where myself with my iphone can develop content. This changes the parameters and the rules of the game have shifted and we don't really know, clearly, how they have shifted. But when anybody can engage due diligence and see pro's and con narratives about Putin and Russia, and you come out with something sketchy that isn't a very compelling argument, and it's evident that you didn't even engage in even minimal due diligence to form your argument, that's sketchy. Now there was a thing called Operation Mockingbird and I think you guys have discussed this before, right?

Karen: Yes.

Jonathan: So the operation that I see that's going on right now, I call it: Operation Popinjay. You guys know what a popinjay is?

Shane: Basically the repeaters?

Jonathan: Yeah it's a bird that comes out and repeats, repeats, just like making grandstands that they're moral and ethical and, "Oh, you don't even care about the people being slaughtered by Assad!" those are the popinjays. And the money links and the power links one can only speculate on. But I would say that very likely, when you see these gross inconsistencies on areas of special importance like Syria and Russia, Ukraine; and people can't even do due diligence about the minimal facts, the information that's beyond dispute; and if they develop these narratives that personalises like, "Putin's a dictator." or "Assad's a monster." for example you're being played. And if I ever engage an essay or article - I don't really like the leader, I believe he's a puppet for the United States, I might say that in so many words but I won't call him a 'monster' or a 'dictator' because it distracts from the scope and cogency of the actual information that I want to present to readers. I don't want to clumsily and underhandedly manipulate people who would read anything I had to say.

Shane: Jonathan, where will you be posting your article? So our listeners can find it.

Jonathan: You know what, I had this fantasy of posting it to Russia Insider; are you familiar with Russia Insider?

Shane: Sure, we like Russia Insider.

Jonathan: The only problem with that is two days ago I saw a puff-piece on Omidyar (Laughs).

Shane: Well they have a lot of different writers there as well so sometimes you do get slightly different perspectives. But I think overall -

Jonathan: Omidyar is setting up a defence fund for journalists. And you know if somebody's being sued for libel, Omidyar's defence fund will help you out of your bind. My only question is, if Omidyar comes after me, can I go to his defence fund for council (Laughs) you see what I'm saying?

Shane: Yeah. Well when you do get it ready, some of our chatters would be interested where they could read it so do let us know.

Jonathan: I would like to publish it, maybe in Counter Punch or maybe present it to Russia insider; I've never written anything for publication before. I'm a guy that lives in my truck, basically. But I'm intelligent and I have something to say. And if it's well written and entertaining and valuable, if they refuse publication in these two sites that I mentioned, that would be pretty sad. But there are plenty of power things going on in any organisation that has to generate money that we should be aware of. And we should be aware that Greenwald and Scahill are multi-millionaires. Anyway, thank you for letting me interject this information. And I would invite anybody to check out my particular comments in that particular article. Anyway, thanks a lot and y'all take care, bye-bye.

Shane: All right thanks for calling Jonathan.

Meg: Bye Jonathan.

Elan: Thank you.

Shane: Before we get back on the whole monsters topic, I do want to bring up one of the things Jonathan was mentioning about the Intercept; what I find kind of fascinating and telling, is when you look at a number or most of the really popular and alternative media type places like the Young Turks, even Ben Swann, a lot of the western alternative news media, you don't see anything about what's going on with Russia and Syria; it's missing. And it's so glaring that it's missing because it's such big news. And when runs pieces about Russia and Syria, and Russia Insider's articles, Sputnik and RT's articles, these are so popular on the web; people are really looking for information on these things and they're not getting it from these so-called 'alternative' news sources. When they do talk about it, it's in the context, like Jonathan said, "Assad's a dictator." and "Putin's a strong man." and then they go off into whatever other stories. But hopefully, since people are looking for these types of information, these sources are really shooting themselves in the foot because people are turning to places that they can get that information.

Elan: Well you have to wonder also if they're so on their train of through and so identified with their own biases' and they're almost not willing, for lack of taking on any new information. And that in effect, they've become infected in ways that they don't even realise, by western propaganda and what is considered 'normal' coverage of these events.

Meg: It's much easier to keep the audience you do have and grow that one, than to strike out in a truthful direction or a new direction and bring people to your site. So in some respects they may be playing both sides but their bread is really only buttered on one side.

Karen: Yeah and their silence says something too, if they're a devoted reader of The Intercept and they're not talking about Syria and Russia, then it must not be that important. That's another way to control information is to reduce your attention to it.

Meg: Yeah, and your risk.

Karen: Absolutely.

Shane: Yeah I think, like what you said Elan, there are these biases' and that can play a big part. Some of it might relate to: How deeply to I want to challenge myself and my ideas about the way the world works; there is this really deep belief in the US system. Even if people can see the corruption there's still this firm belief in the goodness of the west and that can be a pretty tough thing to tackle, and to really wake up and see the horrors, the atrocities and the lies, there's so many lies, once you pass that - we were talking about this last week, one you really break down those beliefs you can see a whole lot more. It's just a challenge and psychologically, I don't think everybody's is up for it.

Meg: Well you have to have something to replace it. And going to the polar opposite is a real stretch for a lot of people.

Elan: Yeah and the other part of it is that it is so huge. You have a lot of progressives and folks who are able to go only so far - but let's not beat a dead horse here, let's get back monsters.

Shane: OK, so what other monsters? Elan you brought up Frankenstein, ISIS...

Elan: Yeah well you have Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein one of the archetypical pop-cultural monsters. And we've been covering articles for for the past year now and I just can't tell you the number of times I've read some astute analysis that likens ISIS to Frankenstein's monster; and I think it's an apt analogy. Like we were saying a little while ago, projecting all the monstrous traits onto Gaddafi and Assad is what monsters do! They create the monsters, i.e. ISIS, and they create these identities for these individuals so they can justify their violence. So that's another component of monsters, as I've come to understand it.

Shane: Well it seems that the big politicians in the US and just in the West in general, they have this mask they need to wear and while there may be times where the masks come off; where they go to these sex parties and do all this debauchery; the unleashing of ISIS and giving power to neo-Nazis in Ukraine, that's like their essence; that's the politicians essence being manifested on the world stage. That's their expression - they can't express it at home, right now; they may be going in that direction. That's how I think the dynamic plays out on a more macro-social level.

Elan: Meg, you had a little bit about Jung's archetypes and how this whole idea fits in to the understanding.

Meg: Well, we have just a general definition of what an archetype is: it's a universal and recurring image, pattern or motive representing typical human experience. There are patterns in behaviour and patterns in thinking and behaviour and its part of our psyche and social systems. One specific to monsters which is interesting because it comes up in mythology is that: they stand in the way of the hero's progress and they're a plague on society. So the hero has a certain quest he needs to go on and there's always a monster that prevents him - he has to overcome it to continue his quest. So that's the monster archetype.

Shane: It's interesting because Campbell has written a lot on the hero archetype; you don't really hear too much about the monster archetype. Although it clearly exists and to me it seems to explore the ideas of 'otherness' and how pathologicals depict the 'other', when they themselves are really the other. Like we were talking about earlier, they'll project their atrocities on other people; we've seen how they do that with Assad and Gaddafi and Putin. But they also do that on a social level; they'll depict immigrants as the threat, as the enemy, as the monster. They'll do the same with trying to divide people racially - whatever way they can they want to divide humanity. It's the divide and conquer strategy so we don't see the actual monsters, we're fighting windmills here. And we're distracted by these images that they're putting out that make them look worse.

Elan: Well, when Meg was describing the monster archetype I was thinking about the Medusa, the Gorgon, and how Perseus defeats the Gorgon with knowledge. Her danger was that she could stare individuals into stone basically, and he had to fight her by looking away and using his shield as a mirror. So there seem to be three components - just a little formulation here - we have the monster, the gorgon, we have all the victims who lack the knowledge to defend themselves appropriately against the monster and turned to stone and then we have the hero who, armed with knowledge, is able to use the powers of the monster against the monster.

Meg: One of the purposes of the monster archetype is that it represents a barrier you're supposed to overcome; it makes you want to run and flee. But the lesson or the meaning is to overcome the fear. And at least in my experience if something is controlling me through fear it's because I don't know enough about it. And I think that a lot of what Jonathan was talking about and that we've talked about: people not wanting to know, I think that this stems from fear. If they knew more about what they feared, they may not fear it so much.

Karen: That's where shocks come into play; any time you are distracted or rocked out of your world by something startling or something horrific or seeing something that's scary, it sends a biological reaction through your body; it makes you hyper alert. These kinds of reactions that you have; we all know that we sweat, our pulses go up, our hearts race, these kinds of reactions solidify within us the new information, the new awareness; and when we come back down to 'Earth', we have a new perspective or a change in how we do something or how we look at something. So it can be a building tool.

Shane: That can be used both ways; it can be used for evil. It seems that's how pathological types operate, to provide these shocks, to shock people into submission, to debilitate them through stress, and to train people how they want them to behave and think.

Meg: But it also sharpens our reactions, we have a new default level for certain things. Back in primitive times when people were roaming around in the forest and there were big bad animals out there going to get you, you were on those kinds of alerts and you figured out how to stay alive. And it became instantaneous, as your default takes over, you don't have to think, you're just doing; the right thing at the right moment.

Shane: You're talking about a healthy response.

Meg: Yeah, something that you learn and incorporate, so that it's automatic. Like when you're driving a car and something happens, you automatically put on the brake, you don't think, "Oh, I need to put on the brake." you just do it, it just becomes intrinsic to you from there on.

Elan: well you know that reminds me of a story that carried a while back about individuals who were in pathological relationships - I forget the name of it, and of course we've covered as a lot of stories and articles that deal with that subject matter - it outlined (Lost audio problems) of someone who you're intimate with who winds up probably being a psychopath given the types of things that they do. And I think the response was so strong to this particular article because so many people were, at some point finding themselves wanting to make sense of and to learn from that trauma. I think this is what you were getting at Shane, there's probably a whole other group of people who have been defeated in a way and who have allowed the damage to take hold in such a way as to be soul killing, and don't seek out the knowledge and the information that would allow them to understand what was actually occurring to them when they were traumatised.

Shane: I think that's a key point right there because the question came to my mind: How do we develop these healthy responses versus getting caught up in the shock from pathologicals and being steered in the direction that they want us to go. So how do you do that? I think, like you said, it's with knowledge. It's using truth and that drive to really understand why it happened, and to explore it. That's one of the really sad things about trauma; it tries to kill curiosity and that exploration of knowledge and ideas. But I think when we can apply ourselves to become interested in these things; we can awaken that sense and use it for healing.

Elan: It's an opportunity for empowerment, certainly and if you've ever experienced being attacked verbally by someone who's pathological - I was watching The Shining, recently with a few friends of mine. And for those of you who don't remember the film, the wife of the Jack Nicholson character, is half-traumatised by her husband's virulent pathology and abuse. She's a bit of a deer in the headlights until she realises, bit by bit, just what she's dealing with. It's a horror story so he's possessed by spirits in a haunted hotel where they're working secluded in the winter months in a frozen over Denver, Colorado. But the actress, her acting in conveying the psychological terror of her husband, is so, I think, accurate. And she has to muster every bit of will to protect her son from her husband. If you haven't seen it in a long time folks or if you've never seen it, it's pretty creepy, a great (Lost audio) I think (Lost audio) some of what we're talking about.

Meg: There's a book by written by Gavin de Becker, it's The Gift of Fear. It is about a woman who escaped an attacker, he says: "She later described a fear so complete that it replaced every feeling in her body. Like an animal hiding inside her, it opened to its full size and stood up using the muscles in her legs." "I had nothing to do with it," she explained. "I was a passenger moving down that hallway."

'What she experienced was real fear, not like when we are startled, not like the fear we feel at a movie, or the fear of public speaking. This fear is the powerful ally that says, "Do what I tell you to do." Sometimes, it tells a person to play dead, or to stop breathing, or to run or scream or fight, but to Kelly it said, "Just be quiet and don't doubt me and I'll get you out of here." This is again from Gavin de Becker in The Gift of Fear, so that kind of describes what Shelley Duvall was experiencing in the move but at some point she went on automatic.

Elan: Well in that passage, it's an interesting passage; all of this woman's instincts seemed to kick in. How does one prepare their instincts? If such a thing is possible, I like to think that if I were in a situation such as she that my instincts would kick in, that whatever amassed knowledge I have in this area would serve me at that time. So I do think that there's probably a level of self-cognition or meta-cognition involved. Like, ok, I'm experiencing this tremendous amount of fear right now, I can feel it in my body even, however there's this other part of me that knows that unless I'm in control, that this other part of me is in control of this situation, and what I do and how I respond, I might not get out of this alive.

Shane: Alexander Lowen, he's known for his work in bioenergetics and knowing the body and these various exercises that people can do to release trapped emotions in the body, but he also had a book on (Lost audio) and in that he wrote about the distinction between 'terror' and 'horror'; it's more than a matter of semantics I think. So he looks at terror and says: "According to the dictionary definition terror denotes an intense fear which is somewhat prolonged and may refer to imagined or future dangers. Horror implies a sense of shock and dread, a danger to which it refers contains an element of evil and may threaten others rather than the self. Although there may be an element of fear in horror, the Latin root of the word means 'great fear', it's not dominant. What predominates is a feeling of repulsion coupled with its opposite attraction. Horror movies for example build on this dual aspect."

What strikes me with that is, terror, when we think of terror and terrorism - terror, terror - it's like that will initiate this automatic response, where we're terrorised, we're immobilised, it's almost something that you're not really thinking about, it's a state, almost dissociation perhaps. But when we're horrified, there's also this element where we're seeing reality but we're shocked by it; we're seeing something and we're being shocked at the same time. So I think that there might be an additional element of consciousness.

Elan: So we should aspire to be horrified and not terrified.

Shane: Yes.

Meg: It's putting together: thought, perception, impulse and action. We have intuition and instincts and then we have cognitive processes, and sometimes it's good for the cognitive processes to just step aside and let the instincts kick in.

Shane: If their instincts...

Meg: If you have them!

Shane: If you have them and they're not completely warped.

Meg: Yeah.

Elan: Just to answer my question from before and of course you reminded me by reading that bit by Alexander Lowen; you can practise bioenergetics by practising Éiriú Eolas ( The Growth of Knowledge, Meditation and Breathing Exercises. This will go some way in to clearing out emotional baggage and just helping you to think more clearly and be more responsive to your environment and to your thoughts and having clarity in ways one wouldn't expect to have. It works on pretty deep levels. So maybe there is something to wiping away the programmed, fear-based responses, or at least coming closer to what healthy instincts would be by practising something like Éiriú Eolas.

Shane: One of the other reasons I brought up that passage, in looking at terror and horror, is because it seems Americans in general have a fascination with terror, meanwhile not really acknowledging the horror of our reality. It sounds like a contradiction but when we look at this dynamic with people watching scary movies; what goes on in the psyche, what is released, what do people get out of things like that.

Elan: Is that a question?

Shane: Well a question and...

Meg: A catharsis of some kind, of negative emotions. Violent video games, as harmful as they are, may help a young teenager get aggression out, an expression of that; it can be cathartic I think.

Shane: ...there can be this catharsis, and perhaps that releases - it may be related in some way to the denial of the larger reality. In order to look away from what's happening in Palestine and what's happening in Ukraine, these horrific events, instead we look to - it's almost like a celebration of terror with these horror movies, it's a more fictional level where these emotions are processed. I guess what I'm saying is if people can look to the larger world and what's going on and process the actual horror, I think we'd be a lot better off to utilise those emotions for good and for seeing reality as it is.

Meg: Another thing that I was reading about when it comes to horror movies is that when you have these intense emotional experiences, it can be a bonding experience for human beings. So if you're going to see a scary movie with friends, you have more of a bonding experience when the emotional intensity; we're social and emotional creatures. So that might be another factor to why people enjoy those. You can be happy at a horror movie because it ends; you can enjoy the negative parts too; you can have multiple emotions during the movie but you're glad when it's over.

Shane: That's a really interesting thing too, because we see how psychopaths bong in relationships by creating these intense experiences, ranging from abuse to making up - just this consistent intensity that creates these bonds, these trauma bonds.

Meg: And specific to psychopaths, that's one of the things they do to induce suggestibility. You can call it hypnosis but it's more a trance that they inflict on humans, that is one of the key tools that they use; the high emotional, anxiety level they create, it makes you more suggestible. When you go to a horror movie, you're having all these emotions, you're experiencing good, positive emotions and then negative emotions, and it makes you more suggestible so who knows what you're learning in that horror movie.

Karen: Well you're pushing that arousal/threat responses when you go to a horror movie, you're in a safe place, there's nothing that's going to happen to you in the movie theatre but you're pseudo-experiencing these kinds of things. For a lot of people it's akin to taking a medication, the commodities in horror movies are the haunted house experience and they're on a different level of mood, their mood is elevated, your worries are gone, it's like taking a drug. It basically is the pre-frontal cortex takes a back-seat to the limbic system. It's one of those mechanisms where some people get to be horror movie junkies and they get a fix out of it.

Meg: It's heightened awareness, heightened arousal, heightened tension. And another thing Sandra Brown writes in her book Women Who Love Psychopaths is that one of the other things that makes people susceptible, specifically women, was a fascination. There was a high level of fascination amongst these women with their relationships with these psychopaths and that was part of the attraction/wooing phase. It just renders them suggestible. She calls it hypnosis and 'trancing' but it just renders them suggestible being in that heightened state.

Shane: That's kind of the image that psychopaths put out there; this really fascination and almost other-worldly hero; that they have these special traits and special knowledge. I think Sandra Brown even talks about that there's almost this supernatural element involved in these bonding phases, with this hypnotic ability that they place on their victims. So, when you were talking about the archetypes earlier, the monster archetype and the victim. There's this duality there that one needs to go with the other. So there's the victim. But we can also look at that archetypical role in terms of the hero, so there is this potential to really grow from that experience and to overcome the monsters.

Karen: Yeah, know thy enemy.

Elan: This speaks to the fascination that so many women had with Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy when they were in prison, even after knowing what horrific acts these individuals were guilty of; they wanted to marry them! It takes this whole 'trauma-bond' idea to another level. There's something almost preternatural. How else to explain it besides that the women who write to these guys are pathological themselves; their attraction to these people. So there are all these things at work here. It's just darn strange to read about, I've never understood it and I guess it can be best explained by the idea that these women are unstable themselves or had experiences where they were trauma-bonded at some point and needed to be fed upon by a new dark master.

Shane: I think there can be a whole spectrum because Sandra Brown does write about how many of the targets of psychopaths are very strong women, not necessarily a history of trauma although that does exist too. It may also speak to just the power that psychopaths have over people. Even Robert Hare talked of how he himself was easily duped by psychopaths in interviews and this guy; he's a premier expert on the topic. So I think there is that spectrum. There can be those early trauma-bonds that can be deeply ingrained in a person and when they grow up and find that again, that can play a part, but I don't think that necessarily has to be the case. It might be just a powerful psychopath who just likes to prey on people and see what great meal they can find.

Karen: The secret to that is to recognise that relationship in its infancy and get out of it, really, if you don't it is exceedingly difficult to - people have left the country and been pursued, the connection is intense and it locks in to place. It takes a supreme effort for a woman - let's just say it's a woman that's the victim - to extricate and to have it be done and finished. Because the vampire needs its energy source and he will come and get you, I mean come and get you; it's relentless.

Elan: I wonder if that's a good segue to real monsters, well we are talking real monsters but monsters that exist in our reality and are a little less common than psychopaths but no less really. We as editors have come across stories of high strangeness from time to time; the Chupacabra, the goat sucker in Puerto Rico, that people have a hard time getting any corroborating information about. They have been witnessed, animals and farmers, in 1995, several sheep were slaughtered and their blood sucked out of their bodies; people witnessing glimpses of other-worldly creatures that one Spanish comedian likened to a 'goat-sucker' and gave them the name Chupacabra. When you look back in history, and even if you dig deep into the stories that you hear now, these types of monsters don't appear to be as rare as we're led to believe. One of the most famous stories of the past fifty or a hundred years was the Mothman Prophecies, and Karen you were going to speak a little bit about that?

Karen: Mothman came into focus around 1966 in Point Pleasant, West Virginia. There were a number of high strangeness things going on in that area and Mothman was one of them. Young couples would be down Lovers Lane and they would literally have something land in front of their car, they'd look up and their retinas were burned; it was called Klieg Conjunctivitis. And what they saw was this hybrid man-bird with glowing red eyes that scared the bejesus out of them. They'd take off in the car; they'd be racing down the road about a hundred miles an hour and this thing would be flying right over it, keeping up with the car like it was no problem. John Keel who wrote The Mothman Prophecies had a bunch of stories compiled about women who would walk out of their porches and there would be this creature standing at their porch; numerous events.

Shane: What was Mothman? How would you describe Mothman?

Karen: Well the native Americans they thought it was something like a giant, terrible bird they called the Thunderbird, so there may have been something way back then; it would swoop down and could carry a man away, and Mothman was certainly big enough to do that. He could hover and shoot directly up in the air; these aeronautical feats that defy logic. It was thought he made his home in a munitions dump from World War II munitions, it used to be a bird sanctuary and they thought it had a whole bunch of underground tunnels and that it might have been a mutant bird. Then the Sandhill Crane came up in the literature as a type of bird that stands almost as tall as a man, had a seven-foot wing span and has reddish eye circles, so they were thinking it might be something close to that. I think there were a couple of years with numerous, numerous sightings of this creature and one of the last times they saw him was at the collapse of the Silver Bridge which was in Point Pleasant and some 46 people died but there were other people that just kind of disappeared.

He seemed to be on the edge of prophesying a disaster; when they would see him, shortly after there might be some disaster. But everybody who encountered it said it was a mysterious figure with glowing eyes, seven-feet tall, thought it was real but the question is whether this is just mass hysteria or was there actually this creature? Five men in a local cemetery were preparing a grave for burial, they looked up, saw something that looked like a brown human being that lifted off from nearby trees, flew over their heads, but did not appear to be a bird but was more like a human with wings. The descriptions are very, very, very similar. And also during this period of time that John Keel brought this out, around 1966/67/68, this was a big UFO area, in and around the countryside of Point Pleasant.

Shane: And the UFO sightings, they occurred before or after the Mothman?

Karen: I think during, but because he was researching Mothman and all the UFO incidences. I know reading his book, there would be certain locations where they would always come; always the same trajectory, always (Lost audio) these certain fields (Lost audio) this and tracking down the Mothman persona. But the UFOs also came with power outages, there were phone manipulations, vehicles would lose power, if you were trying to photograph the UFO your camera would go defunct, there were animal mutilations, and a lot of disappearances. It was just like nightmarish for people week after week, you'd see Mothman or a UFO and go into catatonia; there was one incident where this woman dropped her baby because she was just standing there paralysed, the babies sitting their crying and she's not paying her any kindness. Some of the sceptics dismiss Mothman as a hoax or an example of mass delusion but there's just so many of the exact same - how do explain a mass delusion unless this was being beamed at you or unless this was some kind of other experience.

Elan: That story has a lot in common with Spring heeled Jack, as he came to be known. This was a story that began in Victorian England as early as 1817. In one month in 1837 it was documented that three women were attacked by a very tall and powerful and caped individual who had iron clad fingers - as they described it - had glowing eyes and could exhale fire from his mouth. He got the name Spring heeled Jack because he was witnessed being able to leap 25 or 30 feet in to the air or horizontally. This went on for some time, the major of England was aware of it, it made the papers, and eventually literature and stories were made around it. This was, for lack of a better term, an otherworldly entity that's well documented.

The common factor between both stories, I would say, is that both of these entities in attacking or approaching or even just making themselves visible, were always inflicting terror; almost as if that was their reason for being there and doing the types of things that they did. Spring heeled Jack in particular would attack women and physically injure them; there was one story of him pulling a woman's clothing up and scratching her stomach. Where do these types of monsters fit into how we understand reality? It's difficult because you can only look at the historic evidence for these occurrences and peoples' experiences of them, like the lady who was so terrified she dropped her baby, as you mentioned Karen. It's almost as though psychopaths who get off on the psychological entrainment of their victims, that there's this other dimensional - because I think that's the only way to explain it, you can't go to the redwoods with your binoculars to look for a Mothman.

Shane: I'm going to interrupt you for a potential caller on the line, we'll see if they're still here, they've been waiting for a little bit.

Andrew: Hi this is Andrew calling from Africa thanks for having me on the show; it's been a very interesting show so far.

All: Hi Andrew. Welcome.

Andrew: Right, so I was just reading the paragraph of information here on the BlogTalkRadio page and noticed that you mentioned ISIS and I supposed you were referring to ISIS being an archetype; A type of monster that people perceive in their minds and that relates to how society can be manipulated. Like when we think of gargoyles and the plays they would put on in the middle ages, about people burning in hell and John [Johann] Tetzel and all that sort of thing, and the demons, it's almost like a fear factor that's now obviously enhanced in our advanced media based society on planet Earth. It's like a system to basically control people through fear.

Karen: Absolutely.

Shane: I think that's pretty spot on. We described it a little earlier in the show as a Frankenstein monster because it is this piece meal monstrosity that's been created - but it's really a proxy-army of the US and other countries in the west too, who use these guys as a means to try to accomplish their perverted and pathological goals for the world, for control. I think they'll use both the actual actions that they commit, the atrocities that they commit, within the countries that they're trying to manipulate. I think they use it as a threat, across the board, as a threat to other countries to say you got to stay in line with what we want to do.

Andrew: Right well that's obviously to people who have actually dug under the surface and are open-minded enough to cut through the cognitive dissonance that we all face and recognise that these types of programs are going on. People tend to find exactly what you've just said. I found some interesting information, I was actually just on the Yaron Brook show and I was saying to him that we all seem to be manipulated by intelligence agencies, which in the old days would have been called secret societies. People still refer to secret societies but what these things actually are, are intelligence networks; secretive intelligence networks. When you go and look at things like John Dee and Francis Bacon, you'll find that these people were very big into cryptography; they were very big into secret messaging and spying and secret information and being able to control politics. We ask ourselves a question, well, how did our modern society come into being? It was all through these secret networks by the looks of things, just digging around a little bit you start to get that smell; you start to get that trail and you start to think to yourself that well that actually all seems to line up.

But of course the very nature of secrecy is that it's very difficult to prove any of this, and then it's easy for the cognitive dissonance to kick in for anyone; Yaron said to me, "Well I've worked for the intelligence networks!" something along those lines, and I'm not putting the guy down he's got a really cool show. But he just says, "Well I just don't believe that." And it's like amazing to me how I hear it again and again, "Well I just don't believe that." but once again it comes back down to, but have you done the research? It's so easy for everyone to -

Elan: Did you suggest that he look into the history of L. Ron Hubbard, the creator of dianetics. Aside from having a history in the military, the guy was fiddling around with all sorts of dark arts, and had associations in other areas.

Andrew: What's fascinating about Scientology is that you're not allowed to go to a psychologist if you're a scientologist; they're hell bent on saying that psychology is evil. But the thing about Scientology is that it's absolutely based on the understanding of how human beings operate. Obviously a lot of us know that L. Ron Hubbard was very good friends with Aleister Crowley. Aleister Crowley apparently knew a lot about the human being and how our brains operate, that's what the alchemists knew, apparently, how the human soul or if you can call it our being, our being operates, and that was psychology before it became known as psychology. The manipulation and art of control of populations like Gustav LeBon in his The Crowd, such an elitist book that was written to say, well, "We can control the crowd and this is how we do It." and it's all psychology.

Even understanding ourselves and how we operate everyday is psychology. Psychology has gotten a bad rep because of the psychiatry things that were done to people which were terrible, especially when it was starting out but even to this day with the drugging and the torture and all those sorts of things; the modernising of the inquisition; through what we now call psychologists.

Psychology, the understanding of our own being, and crowds and groups, can be used for good as well. What I was saying to Yaron was: if we as various groups of people cannot create cultures of optimisation, meaning our own intelligence networks, we can never, theoretically, be able to counteract the intelligence networks which exist. Therefore elections will always be rigged and manipulated, presidents will always be controlled to a large extent, and it appears that secret operations as opposed to open operations are actually a necessary thing for meaningful change on a large scale.

Elan: Could you just repeat that for me Andrew? You said open networks are necessary...?

Andrew: Yes, what I was saying was that, if we've got a group of people who are interested in protecting particular group; you might be out there and you're a group of people, just like in the middle ages, there either seems to be a split or a operation to create another side of the same coin; between the Rosicrucian's, what came to be known as the Rosicrucian's, and the Catholic church. Where it's almost like there was a household fight amongst mystery schools or what you might call underground secretive intelligence networks. If you go and look at Martin Luther's seal for example it's the rose and cross which is Rosicrucian. Then you have the science and you have the pushing open the doors of religious freedom - whether that was a good thing or not - coming into being and then having Bacon's new Atlantis; that concept of people being able to travel across the sea to the new world and create the new Atlantis. That all coming out of what people believe they can track back to the Rosicrucian's.
This group of intellectuals that split because the Vatican was holding back all of that knowledge, that's the type of thing where you could say the Rosicrucian's had a vested interest in creating something new to further humanity in a certain direction, places where they believed humanity needed to get to.

So that's an interest, that's a group that has a specific interest. And now, us, as say perhaps people who look at things objectively or we look at things very critically and we think about where do we really want our families and communities to end up. Do we want to be able to have our own smart grids where we're controlling our own grid on our own community basis, or do we want to all be micro-chipped? (Laughs) - hypothetically I'm saying, if this did happen - micro-chipped and all forced to pay tax to a big state controlled entity that's giving us our smart-grid, but it's for their benefit and it's not very smart for us to go with that.

Do we want to form a group that's secretive enough that they don't know - they being any other opposing group which would otherwise counteract us if they knew what we were up to and then stay secret long enough - just like the Rosicrucian's had to be able to actually put our plan into action to counteract the various programs that are running against us.

That's what I meant by saying that you need to probably have secret operations as opposed to open operations; if any group wanted to counteract what's going on. The very nature of secrecy it's necessary -

Shane: Well I certainly agree with the point that humanity needs to form real and sincere groups to counteract what these more hidden elements of social control are doing. And I think along those lines, one of the points we talk a lot about on the show and on our news website, is this idea of psychopaths and pathological types, how they rise to positions of power, how they're naturally oriented in those directions, and how their psychological make-up is essentially conspiratorial, essentially secretive, hidden from the reality of normal people.

And when we look at history, and specifically in western development, a lot of these types of individuals have at least the characteristics, that when you look at what the various traits are, how they act, how they behave and what they think and what they do, that it's natural for them to form these secretive-type organisations, like the NSA or whatever, as a means of having controls over these populations -

Andrew: - but that's exactly what I'm referring to...

Shane: - and people who don't have that empathy, they don't have any qualms about doing things that normal people it wouldn't even enter their minds to do the things they do. A lack of knowledge of them is really what allows them to exist and do the things that they're doing.

Andrew: Exactly. If you take the NSA, that's a great example, because if you have your own private network of encryption - which encryption has become very sophisticated now, way beyond just simple cyphers and things, like in the Voynich Manuscript is a cypher. If we look at cryptography as a science, the ability to communicate privately and have full knowledge - just like when the Bank of England, at the time of the crash when the Rothschild's were starting up, they pre-empted the battle of Waterloo reports, where they were able to start selling, secretly buying up stocks, and to create their fortune. One of the major pushers of the Rothschild's fortune was apparently caused by that sleight of hand trick, where everybody thought they'd lost the war, they had this foreknowledge. And today in trading stocks - all of these things, that's the way that society is being manipulated. From the control of energy through to encryption and things like that, security mechanisms, all of those things, to the most minute level of track and trace, programs that people don't know are running perhaps.

For example through telephone networks, to be able to track and trace everyone and always keep tabs on what exactly is going on. Even BlogTalkRadio, for example, is a form of intelligence gathering. Now somebody can be listening in on this network and understanding that there are people such as ourselves speaking on this network, they can trace IP's potentially, etc., etc... and no, they haven't quite gotten to the point where they've organised themselves enough yet to be a threat, but the idea would be for us to organise - 'us' meaning whoever got together, it doesn't necessarily have to be us, but as an example, whoever got together - to actually counteract programs. Like the CIA operating in whichever country, which were actually against 'the people', or ensuring that a ruling elite maintain control over everyone, if you're able to counteract it enough to be free on a level where you can start, not even completely take over but just start to live free without coercion and manipulation and absolute utter destruction, then you're in a good space, then you've actually managed to pre-empt that control; you've managed to be secretive enough to get something organised and orchestrated. That's what Gaddafi tried to do with his gold Dinar, which was a very poor attempt at an introducing an alternative currency because it was too obvious and there was a coups d'état, there was an operation run to destroy his nation.

Shane: He was trying to create a human society right? That was the biggest threat to the pathological system.

Andrew: Right I think it was a very heartfelt approach but unfortunately not secretive enough, not crafty enough, not careful enough and not gradual enough, to be able to be under the radar bypassing the notice of - if for example he had started to secretly manufacture a whole lot of goods and services utilising solar energy, this is plan I'm just putting this out there to the world if anybody wants to do this, also certain types of Tesla technology which we can't mention because people might say that we're crazy, but you can go on to places like Rex research and sift through what might or might not be true, and it's quite fascinating, but this kind of thing, if you put it into industry as opposed to trying to go public or trying to get a patent - because patents are really just a control mechanism, once again - but if you were to start doing that, and enter into the economy and start gradually growing, through technology, secretly, as opposed to just trying to say, "We're going to bring in the gold Dinar and we're going to give Africa a gold currency." it's going to be too obvious, of course you're going to get attacked. The way that they attack is by saying, "Well there's a terrorist group in your nation so we need to liberate you." because we put a terrorist group in your nation, as you mentioned with ISIS earlier on. So there always has to be this excuse, the Reichstag building, 9/11, whatever it might be because that's the nature of manipulation of society through plausible deniability. This is the real crux of the matter, how secretive can we be in our operations and the right privacy and the right to secrecy to bring balance.

Shane: Well I think you're talking about two different systems; the pathological system is inherently secretive and hidden, I don't know that a system needs to be completely hidden -

Andrew: No not necessarily.

Shane: I think it's natural for us to develop our bonds with each other and I think we still need to be strategic but, I did want to suggest for you to check out Political Ponerology by Andrew Lobaczewski, he describes the pathological system in psychological terms and more specifically in relation to psychopaths, and the mechanisms of control that they use; it's kind of a more psychological view and understanding that I think reaches further than anything relating to the Rosicrucian's and any secret society, because it describes the fundamentals of control in the human world versus the lithological one we live under. All these organisations, they'll change throughout time, they may or may not be coordinated with each other, but the overarching thing that we're constantly dealing with is this pathology. It can relate right down to the home level, to the community, all across society, so we see these dynamics, and I think once we explore that and really get into it, then that provides a sort of protection.

Meg: It's knowing, your enemy inside and out, knowing the fallacies and the loopholes are, to be able to construct something that is positive and decent. You can't do this in a completely secret way because you only have a limited amount of options and you only have a limited people that are awake enough to appreciate and join up with that. It has to be something that reaches a critical mass and goes global.

Andrew: That's precisely it. I hear you on the critical mass, I do. But I think the crux or the core of what's being said is that you need to be secretive enough to launch your program. That works in the business world, that works in the financial world, it works in all sorts of different areas of society because, if you look at the way if Apple wants to launch a new product, they have to be super-secretive about exactly what they're doing before somebody in China or one of the major manufacturing nations gets wind of it, releases something similar to them before they go to market, and that's just on a basic level of business. They've got encryption; Google only uses open-source product for their computers for example, that can be - and I don't want to go too off-topic or belabour the point, the point being that secrecy even in business is necessary in order to have a launch of a program.

Now if we look at the community level, or we look at a group of families, or we look at people of a specific culture, so it might be - let's just say for arguments sake, it's might be a bad example - Mormons, or people who happen to live in the Hong Kong region of China that are passionate about maintaining their freedoms that they perceive as their freedoms as opposed to the rest of mainland China, it can be any example, but this particular group need to be secretive enough before they launch their program; perhaps for an alternative financial system, running alongside the existing one. To be able to have their own bank, where they can use a banking system that doesn't have debt mechanism built into it; where they can start utilising their own assets that are backed by real value as opposed to just Fiat currency, all of those types of things. You won't get very far if somebody realises that the brains behind it is these five people and if we just assassinate these five people then this movement is going to be taken out at the knees. So you have to be very secretive about how you go about that.

Do you see where I'm going with this? Because you can say to me we need to try get away from psychopathy but that's the kind of things that psychopaths do.

Shane: I think that's just one element. When you were talking I was reminded of Putin and basically what Putin is doing on the world's stage and how he's been able to accomplish that. He has been secretive in his strategy -

Andrew: Yes. Yes.

Shane: - and I'm sure he has a very close-knit network of people he can really trust because for him to be able to have done what he's done, it's brilliant and it's amazing when you consider the long arm reach of the NSA and they didn't see him coming, at all! Sorry?

Andrew: I think there is a lot of in-fighting amongst very elite families and groups, because it's a strange thing - and I'd love to dive into this but I don't know how much time we have left - but what -

Elan: If I may just say one thing Andrew. If you think about something like open-source coding or programming, you have this basis or platform for thousands of people around the world to contribute their knowledge and their efforts and their energy, in a way (Lost audio) accessible (Lost audio) those who want to maintain control of things (Lost audio) and then things go quiet (Lost audio) and Shane, that example of Putin is an excellent one in those regards.

Meg: He's working in the system; he's working with the system, with what he has. It's an already pathological system and he's working within it to expose it. And to me, that is the brilliance of it, he's using these people's wishful thinking against them.

Elan: My point is that we do need to be strategic; anyone does who wants to present a counter-force to the kind of things we're seeing. At the same time, one of humanity's gifts is bringing things out in to the light; doing it within the system that exists, being strategic, certainly. When a group gets too insulated, I think, even if they're well-intention, they also put themselves at a disadvantage, and it's not only the disadvantage of western powers being able to read their emails and listen into their phone calls and what have you, but they're not allowing themselves to benefit from those individuals who might hold another side of the story, who might see a dimension or a weakness in their plan that they may be able to strengthen with their input; just another way of thinking about what might be a good structure of a counter-force to what we're seeing.

Andrew: Unfortunately you broke up a little when you speaking about open-source but I think it's a very interesting conversation and I think this needs to be dived into more, I'd love to be able to try to keep in touch with, get your more of your perspectives on it and see if there are ways to - sort of like transform our own beings, our own lives, individually and see how we can connect with people around us that actually can understand. As you say it'll only be a few people initially and then you grow out of that. Just like Cecil John Rhodes had a vision - not that I'm saying it's the right vision - but he gradually built his network, and after his death he actually set up the round-table groups, gave the funding for that, they eventually went forward and furthered the goals of the British elite. I suppose that's the kind of thing that we all need to do, not on a ruthless scale, not without conscience, but trying to collaborate with people to say, can we enter into a more scientifically or humanely managed world through innovation, that's my take on it; by collaborating with those who have a similar vision.

Shane: If you'd like to learn more about what we do, you can check out, and that's our website where we track world events going on, ranging from politics to society and earth changes and so on. Definitely check us out there if you get a chance.

Andrew: I am aware. Quick question: Are you guys' familiar with the Perestroika deception?

Elan: Tell us what the Perestroika deception is Andrew.

Andrew: Well basically there was a defector from the Soviet Union by the name of Anatoly Golitzen, way back in the 80's I think, could have been before that. He was a KGB spy and he decided, "Look, I just don't like the USSR anymore, I've seen what it's like in the so-called western world and the paradigm that I'm stuck in, I'm just going to leave." because he had the knowledge and the means to do so. So he managed to - sort of like the stuff movies are made out of - sneak out and he eventually ended up living in Canada. But he also wrote another book called: New Lies for Old. And the whole concept that he brings forth is that politics is - and you might be interested to go and have a look at it and see what your thoughts are - controlled from a much higher level it's like that phrase, "All the world's a stage and we're just the players?" and it's interesting that we have these concepts like 'the theatre of war'.

When we look back at World War II and we can see that the banks funded both sides of the war and then they put up a banner called the 'Nazi's' and they put a banner called the 'Allies' and then it's, "Ok guys. Now, you're going to perform, and we've set the stage and you will now kill yourselves because we're going to gain a lot of control over that." And it's orchestrated by the writers of the script, in this case the banking families if we go look back at history. Regardless what particular religious thing got involved, what particular thought processes got involved along that script, it was controlled by powerful monetary interests, at its core. So when you go and look at New Lies For All and Perestroika Deception, he actually speaks about how a couple of decades from now, Russia is going to become a very impressive democracy, and at the time people thought he was quite nuts, and he made a lot of predictions which apparently have come true.

Because he knew about these inside goals that were to be attained, to be reached, the same thing goes for Johannes Nutz who designed the flag for the United Nations. If you go look at a prophet who started speaking about these things, he spoke about World War III, his name was prophet Van Rensburg and this came out of the South African - it's a hidden thing, a very unknown thing - but once again it's like Nostradamus who was friend with Johannes Nutz which is a very interesting thing, and Johannes Nutz was one of the British politicians who ruled South Africa. And you look at the rumours of Albert Pike writing to Manzini about World War III so you start getting these pictures, now this guy was also an insider. So he's saying, this is all planned; the whole thing about the Soviet Union becoming the saviour of the world and north America/United States failing into a soviet style, USSR-type government is just flipping the coin, so they flip the coin over and the process repeats, and they flip the coin and the process repeats.

Elan: I think we can agree with you that large scale wars are quite often scripted and that there are these larger interests at play that have control and conduct things in a very orchestrated way.

We only have a few minutes left to us for the show, so I did want to thank you for contributing today and sharing some of your thoughts on all of this. And like Shane was saying, you said you were familiar but we do invite you to read

Andrew: That's great. I feel it's unfortunate that shows like yours don't get more airtime; I wish you guys were on Sirius XM but of course that doesn't happen.

Karen: Tell your friends!

Andrew: If you guys could do a show on Perestroika Deception I would be very interested in it.

Elan: Are you familiar with our sister program Behind The Headlines on Sunday?

Andrew: I haven't been following it.

Elan: It's another excellent program conducted by editors. It's just a fantastic program, lots of insights, lots of geopolitical understandings that are conveyed through it, and I think you'd enjoy it a lot.

Andrew: I'd just like to end-off because it's almost time for the show to end so, I just wanted to say that if Putin and Obama are on the same team, which sounds totally crazy, but if we look at the history of how things have been controlled, how just about every United States president in modern times and even going back further than that, has been connected with some kind of secretive group; what's to make us think that the KGB, now known as the FSB and so on, that actually is at the core, is not connected to a bigger core perhaps running out of somewhere in the Vatican or Switzerland; where they say, OK, at this date we're going to be having a war in Ukraine -

Shane: That's where I think the importance of understanding the central topic of psychopathy and looking at its mechanisms, because how Putin is behaving is not at all congruent with how the US behaves. When you look at his actions, pretty much as soon as he came into power in Russia, and he really transformed the country to be (Lost audio) influence, I don't need examples or evidence for collusion to be there.

Andrew: But check it out on YouTube -

Elan: And there's been a lot of excellent analysis on about this issue.

Andrew: - the Perestroika Deception predicted what would happen.

Elan: I think we're going to leave it there Andrew.

Andrew: Thanks guys. I really appreciate the time.

Shane: Thanks, we appreciate your call.

Elan: Well very interesting call in the form of Andrew from South Africa. I hope he does tune into Behind the Headlines, and he really does look into, because I think some of the questions he was addressing are pretty well answered there. Getting back to the subject of monsters, this theme, was there anything else we wanted to discuss and uncover in that area?

Meg: We could say BOO!

All: Happy Halloween!

Shane: WE didn't really get into the paranormal monsters too much, but who knows what we'll explore in the future. I'd like to thank all our chatters, and our callers Andrew and Jonathan. And be sure to check out Behind the Headlines tomorrow and on Friday is the Health and Wellness show. Be sure check it out everybody and Happy Halloween. And thank you all for listening.

Elan: Take care, everybody.

All: Bye.