The team's 'All and Everything' series returns to SOTT Talk Radio this week, when we'll be casting an eye on the latest scandals, the trends that matter, and the kind of information Big Brother prefers you never hear!

Following on from last week's show on the murder of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, we're going to discuss a couple of aspects to the dreadful event that open up intriguing new possibilities. Was the event in Dallas in November 1963 originally meant to be a staged assassination? Did other interested parties then hijack the initial plan by actually killing JFK? We'll look at the evidence for this, including the possibility of Israeli involvement.

With no less than five comets currently flaring brightly within observation range of northern hemisphere observers, 2013 is living up to its moniker as 'Year of the Comets'. As ISON approaches perihelion on November 28th, we'll be asking: is there a connection between the wild spaceweather and the crazy storms taking place around the world of late?

Running Time: 01:58:00

Download: MP3

Here's the transcript:

Joe: Hi, and welcome to another SOTT Talk Radio. I'm Joe Quinn. With me in the studio this week as usual are Niall Bradley.

Niall: Hello.

Joe: Jason Martin.

Jason: Hello.

Joe: And Pierre Lescaudron.

Pierre: Bonjour.

Joe: This week, among other things, we're going to be talking about the vile disgusting creatures that have been controlling our planet, and controlling the lives of the people on the planet for quite a long time now, always known as psychopaths. Specifically we're going to touch on what we talked about last week a little bit, the assassination of JFK, because there are a few things that we didn't talk about last week that we thought would be useful to talk about just to flesh it out a little bit more and provide some of the stranger details about the assassination. And we'll also be talking about stuff going on above our heads, in the skies, in the atmosphere, in space, specifically comets, there's lots of them, solar flares, there's been lots of those too. And whatever else occurs to us.

Jason: What about the tornadoes?

Joe: And tornadoes because as you know, if you've read the description of the show this is an "all and everything" show. So it's basically whatever occurs to us or whatever we may or may not have prepared for in advance. We have prepared some things, but a lot of things are just going to come to us as we go along.

Jason: Yeah, it's also your show, so...

Joe: Exactly. It's your show, so if you feel inclined, call in, chat in, crank callers are welcome. They always spice things up a bit. But we'll get the ball rolling...

Niall:: We may as well start talking about the 50th anniversary of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, which has been on our minds all week. It's only just come and gone, on a Friday, as it was 50 years ago.

Joe: With the media muddying the waters, as usual. Being kind of "Oh, do you think there might have been a conspiracy? Maybe. Hmm. I'm not sure. Let's throw that one open to the public and see what they think." Hello!? The public have known for a long time and have been telling everybody via your stupid mainstream media polls that 80-90% of them all know that Oswald didn't kill him. Because why? Why do they know that? Because most of them have eyes. Some of them might only have one eye, but that's enough to know that Oswald did not kill Kennedy.

Niall:: Yeah, it's like that lady who was interviewed straight after, on the day. "Well, it's common sense. It's like his head flew back. It's common sense." That's all you need.

Joe: Absolutely. And, well what else do you need? No, that is all you need. All you need to know is that Oswald didn't do it. Take it from there. After that there's probably 800 books, I think. Is it 800 books have been written on the JFK assassination?

Pierre: Yeah.

Joe: And there's another - I think there's 12 scheduled for release before the end of this year or up to the 50th anniversary, there are 12 new books just in the last month or two. So there have been 800 books written about the assassination. And most of them have questioned the official story of the Warren Commission. But that doesn't matter. Eight hundred books isn't enough. Apparently you need 8 million books to get the mainstream media to actually take it seriously. What people can see with their own eyes.

Jason: The mainstream media actively does the opposite, intentionally. It's like gas lighting.

Joe: Just to jerk peoples' chains.

Jason: Yeah, it's basically gas lighting the people. Making them think that what they observe in reality isn't the truth. Well maybe there's a conspiracy. Maybe. I don't know.

Pierre: And among those 800 or so books there are two main categories. There are the books that blame the CIA and the military intelligence complex, like Jim Douglass' book we mentioned during the last show; David Talbot-Brothers, the Hidden History of the Kennedys; and Mark Lane-Last Word and My Indictment of the CIA in the Murder of JFK. And on the other side, you have the second category of books about JFK that blame Lyndon Johnson. For example Phillip Nelson-LBJ the Mastermind; James Tague-LBJ and the Kennedy Killing, etc., etc. And what we found recently is a couple of articles by a French journalist, Laurent Guyénot who tries to reconcile those two approaches, saying that those two choices of investigation coherently connected, do compliment each other, but not quite as two halves of the truth. Rather as two-thirds of the truth. The remaining third piece of the puzzle is the really unspeakable. So are we going to speak about the truly unspeakable?

Joe: It was the Jews.

Jason: JOE!

Joe: Well, that's the unspeakable. That's what he's talking about, the unspeakable of course, the Jews, the Jewish conspiracy, all this kind of stuff. No, well he doesn't specifically say it was the Mossad or the Israelis were involved. Well, there's scant evidence for it. But it doesn't mean they weren't involved.

Jason: I think everybody wants to bring Mossad into everything. I think that's part of their PR campaign in a certain sense. They do have their hands in a lot of pies, but I think that they actively want people to think they have their hands in every pie. Because that gives them street credit.

Niall:: In fairness to this author, he admits - he's doing an analysis of two more or less different schools, that the CIA was the mastermind and/or that Lyndon Johnson was the mastermind. And he says "Okay, now the third factor, what about an Israeli angle? Coming at it with the perspective of 50 years of hindsight, which tells us, no matter where you look, the Mossad is nearly always involved. So it's actually an anomaly not to have an Israeli role in this. That's where he's coming from. And I've got to agree with that, when you look at major events, major trends. If not the instigator, Mossad is certainly thereabouts.

Joe: The problem is that they're just one more player...

Niall:: Exactly.

Joe: ...that had strong motives to want to get rid of JFK. Sure, throw them all together, it's just the power structure. Look at the power structure on the planet at the time, or say, in the U.S. and other influences within the U.S., let's say Israel. And say "Yeah, who's going to - who are you going to look to for the assassination - the assassin of the President of that power structure and those influences in the country, given who the President was and what he was doing?" So yeah, throw in the Israelis as well. And it's not unspeakable. The Israelis, yeah, okay, there's some evidence that the Israelis did it so let's go ahead and say that the Israelis had motive and surely they had opportunity. So they may have been involved. The problem is, we're never going to know who pulled the trigger. We're never going to know, given the scale of the conspiracy and the number of people involved, the number of agencies involved, the number of people that had a reason to want him dead. There's probably hundreds and hundreds of people. If you include all of the people in the CIA and the FBI, all of LBJ's friends, all of the Texas oilmen and the industrialists had something to lose. Really, you're getting into hundreds of people there. All of them were involved at some level.

Pierre: To some extent.

Joe: And the guy who pulled the trigger, he was the least involved, essentially, in terms of, because he's just the trigger man. He was just the hired hit-man. He'll shoot anybody for a few dollars.

Pierre: Yeah.

Jason: Well I think at that level it's kind of like belonging to the Masons in a certain sense. You have people from all different jobs. And some of them might work for Mossad and some of them might work for the CIA, but I think they're all part of this kind of club of people that are kind of a little bit beyond nations or so I'd even say the Israelis were involved as much as I would say like somebody who possibly worked at Mossad...

Joe: Yeah, represented them or something.

Jason: ... or represented them in this kind of like inner circle, elite, psychopathic "We rule the world", sort of like...

Joe: Banality.

Jason: ...gentlemen's club, you know.

Niall:: Well, this article relied on - he wasn't the first to bring it up - he was relying on the book by Michael Collins Piper called Final Judgment.

And the bulk of his research, or at least in terms of let's say "hard evidence" in quotes, is connecting - it's connected to the guy that Jim Garrison tried to nail, Clay Shaw, who worked, or was on the board of the company that was basically a front for - well not a front, I mean it was actively an arms supplier for Israel.

Joe: It was also alleged to be a front for the CIA. There's no hard evidence of it. It was said that it was a front for the CIA.

Niall:: Okay.

Joe: You're talking about Permindex.

Niall:: Permindex, Permanent Industrial Exposition.

Joe: But at that level, yeah, arms trading between nations and stuff, Israelis were up front and centre on that, but so were the Americans, so were the Brits, so were the French.

Jason: French, yeah.

Niall:: It wasn't the so-called unspeakable, Israel's role or not that interested me about that article. It was his suggestion that there was a plan within a plan that day, which was really interesting because there's not much evidence for it, but it does make a lot of the pieces come together.

Joe: What was his theory about a plan within a plan?

Niall:: He said that the original idea was to set up a kind of false flag, staged assassination, possibly injuring JFK, but not actually killing him, in a way, in an effort to then roll out your patsy, in this case Oswald, who had been carefully sheep-dipped beforehand, and then you can trace him through the Soviet and Cuban embassies and of course his stay in Moscow, or in Russia for three years, to present the back-story of "Oh, the Kremlin is behind this attempted assassination of JFK, therefore JFK must..."

Pierre: Reactivate the cold war.

Niall:: Reactivate the cold war. And that at the last minute, or at some point, there's another team or two of hit-men who decided no, no, no, no. They go into this and they say "We're going to have someone there to actually kill him". And that this was a faction led or worked through especially, Lyndon Johnson.

Jason: It was the Marlborough Man.

Niall:: And it's an interesting idea.

Pierre: And there are analogies where this double-cross scenario is comparable to a drill exercise being re-targeted into a real attack like the 911.

Niall:: Well this is it. You see, when you look back, this is the pattern that repeats. So again, it would be sort of anomalous for an operation as sophisticated as the one that took out JFK, not to have some element of this. Let's look back a bit here. This is more recent history. "The FBI supplied fake bombs and devised the plot to this guy Emad Salem in advance of the World Trade Centre bombings in 1993. The idea was to stage him and catch him in the act, you know, an act of entrapment. And then "Oh shit, it actually blew up. What happened there? We don't know."

Joe: Give him a real bomb. Somebody gives him a real bomb.

Niall:: Somebody switched and gave him something real.

Jason: Well if you look at 911, it looks a lot like that.

Pierre: Exactly.

Niall:: Then we come to the Oklahoma bombing. Timothy McVey was given "fake bombs" to set him up because he was supposed to be - he was an informant and he was going to trap a whole bunch of militia types all in one fell swoop. It was an FBI operation from the start. Then you've got 9/11, your war games going on, simulating multiple commercial jets being hijacked simultaneously. Then you've got 7/7 in London, the Brits conducting an emergency exercise at the precise times and at the four precise locations in London where the bombs actually went off. And then you've got the Boston Marathon. Well, they said a drill actually wasn't happening. They never acknowledged it, but people who were there on the scene said that there were sharpshooters on the roof. There were people with - police were going around with sniffer dogs. People were being patted down, I guess. And that someone came over the PA before the race started in Boston and said "Oh, don't worry. It's just a drill"; coupled with the pre-announcement two hours before the actual bomb went off that the police would be conducting a controlled explosion slated for the exact location outside the public library where it went off.

Joe: Okay, well there's kind of two different things though. One thing is the drills that are used as a cover to carry out some kind of a real bombing. So a drill involves a lot of personnel on the ground and they think they're looking for a kind of staged event that - well there is no bomb goes off, it's just training obviously. And then in that confusion, certain elements of the CIA or FBI can go in there and drop a bomb or have someone go in and drop a bomb, have patsies be around and they're framed for it, right? But they're two different things in a sense because when you're talking about the way the FBI handles these terror plots, that's the FBI directly grooming, usually intellectually challenged, poor, usually coloured or black or immigrant Americans, let's say, grooming them to join Al-Qaeda and then giving them a bomb and then supposedly nabbing them when they push the button on the fake bomb and it's "Look, okay, you're going to prison for life because you thought that was a real bomb when you pushed the button, that you thought would detonate it or you made the cell phone call and this is how we get the terrorists out of society". When on various occasions, it seems that same procedure was followed, but someone gives them a real bomb and it did actually go off. So there's a few different variations of that.

But the drill thing seems to be a scenario that they put together where they cloak the whole thing in a drill and have a lot of people on the ground. So nobody knows who's a real cop, who's not, or who's the pretend bomber. But nobody's expecting a bomb to go off. But in the case of JFK and this theory and the assassination of JFK, it's not so much a drill going on, at least according to this guy's theory, it's not so much a drill, but that there was an active conspiracy to stage an assassination attempt.

Pierre: Yes.

Joe: I.e., where live rounds are fired at the President either hitting him or missing him, a near miss, whatever, and he's injured but not killed and therefore he's forced to back-track on his rapprochement with the Soviets because seriously, when you have your patsy Oswald set up in advance and he's killed, taken out of the picture, can't actually refute any of the allegations made against him, they say "Oswald was in Russia, talked to the Russians. He did it. There's no evidence but he's dead now so you just have to accept our word for it. And he's the one who tried to kill the President, but the President survived". And Kennedy's aware of this. The people are aware of this. Suddenly it's like "Okay, you know Jack, John, JFK, you cannot continue with this. Reasonably you can't expect to continue with this rapprochement and peace dealing with the Russians. They just tried to kill you."

Jason: It's ridiculous because they benefit from the peace dealings. It's always the way they set this up.

Joe: Yeah, but also the people, it was undercutting one of JFK's, perhaps his main weapon against the powers that be, the established powers that be at the time, was the will of the people. He had spent his years in the White House courting the population and getting them ensemble and getting them behind him in terms of this kind of like world peace and "Let's take down the elite" type thing and "power to the people" and "let's all live in a utopia". And everybody was like "Yeah, that sounds good to me". So he turns around to the established powers that be and says "Well listen, I know you mightn't like it, but there's kind of 80% or 90% of the population here who want this. It's not really me, it's the people. And you are all here to - what are you going to do? You going to go against the will of the people? There'd be a revolution. You've got to do what they want." Which is what he secretly wanted. So that was his weapon. To get the people on his side and specifically in terms of ending of the cold war and hands across the water with the Russians.

So people were behind him on that. He wanted to do it, but you introduce a commie pinko sympathizer who tries to kill him, who is essentially directed by the Russians, that's all off. You can't do that anymore. The people themselves will be against any kind of cuddling up to the Russians after that is revealed. So yeah, that seem like - that's what I can't understand. It touches on something that I can't understand is, if you assume okay, Oswald didn't do it, but Oswald was manipulated and sent to Russia and had all these contacts and had this history, he was sheep-dipped...

Jason: Why do we keep calling it sheep dipping?

Joe: I don't know.

Jason: We should call it wolf dipping. It's when they make somebody look like a bad guy when he really isn't.

Joe: I think it's just to colour them because they put sheep in the...

Jason: Yeah, but sheep dip is when you take a CIA spy and you make him look like an innocent person who joined the thing, but they were making him look evil.

Joe: Okay, so he was wolf dipped then.

Pierre: But they cleaned his a CIA path. He was a CIA and/or FBI agent and they made him look like a Russian asset or communist sympathizer.

Joe: Yeah. They gave him a history. And he's obviously changed - his profile history is there to be used in the plan to kill the President and blame it on Oswald. But what you see is, right? So they go to all this bother and he was in Russia for three years and he married someone then got - they give him a repatriation grant back into the U.S. "No problem, come on back". And so there's a lot of effort put into Oswald to give him this background, give him this profile to prepare him to be the commie sympathizer who killed the President, or shot, or tried to kill the President on the orders of the Russians. But as soon as that happens, as soon as the shooting is carried out, the first thing they say is "Say nothing about the Russians. This was not a Russian operation. The Russhies had nothing to do with this. Do not mention this." Like clamp down on the press, censor. They simply said "No word of this gets out". They told the Warren Commission, everybody "Do not mention the Russians at all". So what's the point? Why would they do that?

Pierre: That's a very good point. Laurent Guyénot addressed this point. He has an explanation about that. Is it valid or not? I don't know. Let's discuss it. So you have two factions. On one side you have the CIA military industrial complex with the plan to activate the cold war through an attempt to assassinate JFK. On the other side you have Johnson, Mossad, NFDI and their plan is to eliminate JFK, for Johnson to pursue his career and become President, for Hoover to keep on being the head of the FBI, for the Mossad to have a more pro-Israeli President. Everybody wins. So the assassination is conducted. The second plan really kills the President and then comes the question of the initial scenario, the patsy the communist connection.

And what this journalist proposed, he said that at this point Johnson being President, he doesn't want anyone to talk about conspiracy because if there is a hint of a conspiracy, since he has his fingers all over the case, it might be discovered. So from the beginning of his Presidency and for years he pulled the lone gunman envelope. He would even call the hospital where Oswald is having surgery and talked directly to the surgeon, asking for the last confessions. And all along he will push this envelope. And there is also some blackmail going on, but...

Joe: I think it's different. It's a good theory but I think the rationale is different. I think the problem is that they maybe underestimated, this is in a sense - okay, let me just backtrack a little bit just to recap what you said. So the CIA have a plan to stage an assassination or an attempted assassination against the President to force JFK to backtrack on the cold war rapprochement and get fully onboard with the "Let's wage a cold war". The CIA wanted that because their main agenda was overseas. Their main agenda was the White House and the President has to conduct and promote the right foreign policy which will allow us to do our thing around the world in the interests of the country and in the interests of corporations, open up other nations with the help of the U.S. military and covert ops as Prouty talks about. 'Allow us to do what we're tasked with doing essentially, which is going around the world overthrowing governments and opening up markets for American corporations.' The cold war was needed to do that because the cold war was the threat, the justification for the CIA, in all of the world against the commie threat, when in fact they were just pillaging and plundering.

So the CIA, that fits their agenda, having an attempt at assassination blamed on a commie agent but they don't necessarily want to get rid of the President. Johnson and his oilmen friends and maybe the Israelis, if they were involved, not enough for them, because simply making Kennedy wage the cold war doesn't affect his policies, the policies that he had begun to implement domestically, which were severely restrictive on Johnson and his long-term oil buddies and corporate bigwigs and stuff. He was clamping down on them. They were going to be screwed anyway, even if Kennedy was forced to do an about-turn on the cold war, they were still going to be screwed. So from their point of view, if Kennedy was going to be taken care of in any way he had to be gone. Bye-bye.

Jason: I'd just like to support that, to take it a little bit further, because if you think about it, these guys get together or whatever, they're planning this and it seems like this was supposed to be an internal situation. And it was supposed to activate the cold war. But with Kennedy actually dying, that's an act of war in a real sense. If they killed the President, we would not have had a cold war, we would have had a real war.

Joe: Exactly. And that's what...

Jason: And they would have had to and they would not have been able to back out of that. So they didn't want a real war, they wanted the cold war.

Niall:: That is exactly what Johnson said to Earl Warren. The Supreme Court Justice said "I don't want to be on the Warren Commission". He said "Look, for god's sake, in the interests of national security, we need to cover this up." I bet he told him certain information that made him go "Oh, I see". And that's how these otherwise intelligent people got onboard and helped him cover it up because otherwise it would have been a real war.

Jason: It would have been a real war.

Joe: Yes, exactly. So that's what I was saying, that they underestimated - the Johnson crowd who stepped in and subverted the CIA's attempted assassination and turned it into a real one by having someone on the grassy knoll kill Kennedy with a head shot, they maybe underestimated the extent of the outpouring of grief and anger from the population.

Jason: That's why...

Joe: And if they had gone ahead with the original plan, which was to blame Oswald as a commie, expose him as a commie agent, the people would have automatically - there would have been a groundswell of momentum there that would have possibly led to a real nuclear war.

Jason: That's precisely why I'm suspicious of the Mossad, because I think that they would have been more on the "Let's start a cold war" and less on the "Let's just kill him" type of thing. I think that that was a private - Johnson hired some guy to do it. He got wind of it and it was really kind of a very - because it has all the inelegance of the kind of animal that Lyndon Johnson was. It was very inelegant and very mentally low class. Just post somebody up behind a fence and take a shot at him, type of thing. And that kind of sounds very much like him and his Texas oil billionaire crew, whereas Mossad was probably on the side of the CIA of "Let's fake it" and it was all planned out and "Let's get him into Russia and bring him back". And that sounds all well-planned and well-oiled and here comes Johnson just like a bull in a china shop, messing everything up.

Joe: Although the argument might be from the point of view of the Mossad, they needed, in terms of what JFK was supposedly doing against them, i.e., prying into their nuclear weapons program, they would have needed him dead as well, not just the turnaround in the cold war, because just turning the cold war around would not have stopped him from maybe saying "Okay Israel, you still have to produce the goods on your nuclear program".

Pierre: He was not only prying into their secret nuclear program called Dimona, there are several interesting tidbits. In May 1963 an inquiry, an investigation was opened about the Americans that are in this country. It was the ancestor of the AIPAC. And it was condemned for money laundering racket, several illegal activities, and Robert Kennedy ordered the American Zionists concealed, to register as agents of foreign activity, foreign government, subject to numerous requirements. There are other factors as well.

Joe: So yeah, JFK being the person he was, would not have just sat around and allowed the Zionist lobby in the U.S. to do what it has done over the past 40 or 50 years, probably, so he was a threat in that sense.

Pierre: Yes. Yes. So you have the Dimona project, nuclear project, you have the dismantlement of the Zionist lobby organized in the U.S. and you have also the fact that Kennedy visited in '56, '58. reviewed camps in Palestine and he was very sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. And he defended the right of return of the 800,000 Palestinian refugees. On November 20, 1963, two days before his assassination, his delegation to the United Nations called for the implementation of Resolution 194, crafted for this purpose. This resolution aimed for the refugees, Palestinian refugees, to go back to their country, Palestine. That's the third factor. And the fourth factor is that Kennedy had cut down aid to Israel. And as soon as Johnson of course got the Presidency, he increased it from $40 million to $71 million and then to $130 million the following year. So there are several factors that show that - it's not the smoking gun but it shows that Kennedy was not a pro-Israeli President obviously.

Jason: But obviously somebody got paid $90 million to kill him basically from what your saying. Mossad basically won out to the tune of $90 million by getting Lyndon Johnson in there. So that is a good motive.

Niall:: That must be the only time in modern history that the U.S. administration has led the way for a UN resolution for Israel to honour the right of return for Palestinian refugees. Because of course, when it comes to every single vote before and since, it's always two against the rest of the world.

Joe: And there's another piece of evidence that I think is fairly strong that supports the idea that there were two groups that - one group firing, one team organizing the firing from the Texas school book depository and then another team that the first team did not know about, was going for the kill, is that when JFK was taken, after he was shot he was taken to a hospital in Dallas. And he was put into a very ornate kind of bronze casket and he was put onto the plane and flown to Washington. And when he was taken, I think it was Bethesda Hospital in Washington, naval hospital or something in Washington ...

Jason: Bethesda (correcting pronunciation).

Joe: Bethesda naval hospital - is that a Jewish word?

Jason: I have no idea.

Pierre: I think so.

Jason: I think Cedars Sinai is.

Joe: Yeah. And they...

Pierre: Like Bethlehem.

Joe: But anyway, when he arrived at the hospital in Washington, there's guys - doctors there who said that he arrived in a very plain casket and the way his body was wrapped was different from when he left Dallas. So in between flying from Dallas to Washington, someone took him out of the casket and put him in a different one and messed around with him. And at that point autopsy pictures were taken. And there are official autopsy pictures that were used to support the case. And the doctors in the hospital in Dallas who saw him immediately afterwards said the top right back of his head was missing. These pictures have since come out because they took pictures as well. But there were official autopsy pictures that were taken, presented as "This is the President's head" from behind. And the back of his head is intact, completely. And there's just a small bullet hole near the crown of his head, at the hairline. It's pretty obvious that someone - people are saying that those photos were obviously doctored but I think what's more likely is that it was someone else's head, like someone who was a rough, close enough match and they showed that as a picture to show that the bullet - that his head injury was from a bullet that entered an entry hole...

Niall:: From behind.

Joe: ... from behind his head. So somebody very quickly, within 24 hours after he was shot, was immediately crapping themselves to try and cover up the fact that he was shot from the front. Now who had access to him at that point? It was the White House. It was officials. I don't know who had access to him directly, but it was going to be some element within the U.S. government who had access to him to do that, to fake those pictures, to try and desperately make it look like he was shot by our guys from the back, type of thing. The original story that they wanted to promote, that it was Oswald from the Texas school book depository. They did not want - it was a desperate attempt to cover up the fact that there was somebody else involved, that this bullet came from the front. If they were the same team, why would they want to do that? It doesn't matter where he was...

Pierre: True.

Joe: Somebody wasn't on the same page in terms of - I mean, they could have easily had a conspiracy to attack Kennedy and kill him where he was shot from behind and the front, but they didn't get the other guy and whatever. It wasn't such a big thing to crap yourself over, type thing and to take such extreme measures. But somebody desperately tried to cover up the fact that there was another shooter. Why?

Jason: Because the other shooter was not expected.

Joe: Exactly. That's the point. And for me that's evidence of there being two groups that were not communicating with each other.

Jason: Right.

Pierre: And then actually it's sometimes overlooked, part of the story is Jack Ruby. Jack Rubinstein, who is the one who might make one of the clearest connections between Johnson and Mossad. Remember in Evidence of Revision and in other video footage details, if Adlai Stevenson was Vice President, there would never have been an assassination of our beloved President Kennedy. It's pretty clearly pointing the finger at the other Vice President, Johnson. And then to his defence lawyer, William Kunstler, he told and repeated on several occasions, "I did this in order that they wouldn't implicate Jews". And he reiterated that his motive was to protect American Jews from a pogrom that could occur because of anger over the assassination. So you have to wonder if Jack Rubinstein was a very close association as demonstrated by several evidence, with Israeli mafia. Was he aware of Johnson's involvement, as suggested by his first statement, and was he aware of the Mossad involvement as suggested by the second statement?

Jason: Well a theory that comes to mind is that it's entirely possible, maybe, that Mossad prodded Lyndon Johnson to do this so that they could have something on him and then when everything went south, they came in and said "Don't worry, we'll cover your butt" and then that way they were able to maintain - because that's kind of like their MO. Their MO is about getting dirt on people. They don't really seem so often to be out in front with the dirty work. It's more like they prod you to do something or get you into a situation where you do something and then they "help you out of it" getting some blackmail information against them. So maybe he got prodded to do it, he was angry, whatever and one of them said "Well why don't you just hire somebody to kill him?" He does it, screws it up, because they guy is a complete moron, and then the Mossad comes in and says "Don't worry, we'll intercept the plane. We'll fake it."

Joe: That was straight from the ether. We just pulled that one out of the ether there. I don't know why that popped up, but it's very relevant.

Pierre: Sounded hysteric.

Joe: Well actually on Jack Ruby, he said that he thought when he was in jail waiting to die from cancer that he hadn't contracted yet, but he contracted very quickly, he said that he thought that the assassination of Kennedy was part of a conspiracy to blame it on the Jews. Which is

Jason: The problem is...

Joe: ...a strange thing for him to say at that time, in that place. I'm sure there was no discussion of...

Jason: Because nobody was saying the "J" word.

Joe: He said it was an anti-Semitic conspiracy to blame it on the Jews. He just brought that one out of left field. No one was...

Niall:: Yeah. No one had made any such suggestion at that point.

Joe: No, no way. So it's very interesting, given that we suspect - just in case people don't know this - but that Jack Ruby was a kind of MK Ultra victim, if you want to call it that, and that he was essentially - like Sirhan-Sirhan, he was mind - it was a trigger. He was mind controlled, hypnotized, whatever, to kill Oswald. And it was the sound of a horn. And if you watch the documentary Evidence of Revision which is the best documentary on the assassination of JFK, you should get it today, if you haven't got it already.

Jason: From Amazon.

Joe: You notice that as Oswald is being led down through the police station just before Ruby kills him, a car horn beeps, honks, twice. And there's been people who have said that is a kind of a trigger. That's a simple trigger. It's not that it's a ubiquitous trigger but it's something that could be used as a trigger to activate someone in that hypnotic state; any noise or any signal word or some definite sound or word from someone can be installed as a trigger for these Manchurian Candidate-types. But it's very interesting because if you watch the original footage, just like "beep, beep" and then he goes and shoots Oswald as Oswald is going to get his first press conference less than 24 hours after Kennedy was assassinated. And Oswald had been interrogated for 36 of them - sorry, less than 48 hours and he had been interrogated for 36 of those 48 hours, they're taking him out and he was going to be confronted with the press for the first time in any real way, where he would give a speech. And he had already hinted at things saying "I'm just a patsy" and "I didn't do it. I don't know what they're talking about. I didn't shoot anybody". He was going to elaborate on all of that. And boom, he's taken out.

Niall:: That wasn't actually Oswald's first press appearance. He had a brief one.

Joe: No, that's what I mean. In terms of - he was going to have an hour to explain everything. In the brief one, he got to say 10 words.

Niall:: Well something bizarre happened in that brief one. At some point - no forgive me, no, Oswald was not present. It was a press conference in which the Dallas police chief [PC was actually Jesse Curry-Henry Wade was district attorney], Henry Wade was fielding questions. At some point a reporter asked him something and Henry Wade was struggling to find the answer. He was like "Oh, what's the name of that group?" And somebody spoke up from the back of the room. And it was Jack Ruby. He said "Oh no, it's the Fair Play for Cuba Committee". He's getting the back story right. And from other people who were present, they were saying Jack Ruby was there the whole time, alternately posing as a reporter or as, in some way, a police official.

Pierre: As a translator for Israeli press.

Niall:: Israeli press, exactly.

Joe: And Jack Ruby was an FBI informant as well. That's officially on the record.

Niall:: He goes way back. He worked for Nixon in 1947.

Joe: Yeah.

Jason: Wow.

Niall:: And it's all...

Jason: But again, that's still a Mossad kind of thing, of putting false information guys out there to be informants for them.

Niall:: Something we haven't mentioned yet that links the foreign sphere, say that's the CIA's main base of interest with the domestic one, is that the Kennedy brothers were going after "organized crime". Now that's always been understood in the U.S. to be...

Joe: Mafia.

Niall:: The Sicilians. It ain't.

Jason: It hasn't been.

Niall:: It was led at the time by Meyer Lansky, a thoroughbred Zionist who fled the U.S. later on because he was wanted.

Pierre: In '70.

Niall:: Where did he go? Israel.

Pierre: In 1970. And just to give you an idea, because that's quite fascinating, I find this struggle between those two spheres, those two plans. And this French journalist describes to some extent how blackmail and double blackmail and double-cross were going on between those two factions. And he says, or he describes how you have two groups shooting at Kennedy, one's voluntarily missing him, the other group voluntarily shooting him. So you too many bullets and too many detonations. So they have a problem with the cover. And he says:
"There were indeed inevitabilities in the CIA plot and Hoover knew about them. The CIA had been over-zealous in its staging of Oswald as a Cuban Soviet agent. They had to manufacture evidence that Oswald had stayed in Mexico City to visit the Soviet embassy and Cuban embassy."
Okay, I skip here.
"The CIA claimed to have photographs of Oswald entering the Soviet Embassy, and a recording of his telephone conversation with an employee at that embassy. It could have worked if Hoover and Johnson had gone along and not decided otherwise. But Hoover made sure that seven FBI agents who had interviewed Oswald on the 22nd and 23rd of November, listened to the CIA's recording and agreed that the voice "was NOT Lee Harvey Oswald". Hoover had it written down in a memo and signed it. In a recently declassified recorded telephone conversation with Johnson, Hoover said that the photo was also no match: 'that picture and the tape do not correspond to this man's voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet embassy down there.' He added, leaving his sentence unfinished: 'Now if we can identify this man who was at the Soviet embassy in Mexico City...' That was an implicit direct threat to the CIA, because an investigation on that matter would inevitably lead to the Agency."
Joe: That was 1961 he was allegedly?

Niall:: Oswald in Mexico City.

Joe: No, allegedly, this alleged story that he - when was this - is there a date on that? What you just read? 1961?

Pierre: No, it's about the last day of Oswald in '63, end of September, when he allegedly went to Mexico City, went to the embassies and was asking, was pushing for having a passport. Apparently he was there according to numerous witnesses in the party, as mentioned in Evidence of Revision, but apparently too, someone impersonated Oswald. Because the plot apparently, the idea, the plan for the CIA, if they're then being double-crossed, was to present Oswald, as we say, as a commie agent who made pressure in Mexico embassies, the Russian and Cuban embassies, he put pressure on the embassies' personnel to get the passport quickly in order to exit right after his dirty work, assassination, to Havana and then fly to Moscow. But the problem, it didn't work anymore, he was starting to talk, the official story didn't work...

Joe: The reason I'm...

Pierre: So he had to be shut down.

Joe: Yeah, the reason I asked about the timing is that it's probably at that late stage, May or June 1963, Johnson and his cronies along with Hoover and the FBI, if they were part of the group that wanted to kill Kennedy, they would have already had their plan laid out as I was say, and they did not want him to be presented as a...

Niall:: As a Russian agent.

Joe: As a Russian agent. They wanted the lone - they just wanted Kennedy out of the picture and just get the killer out of the picture and let it all go away.

Jason: I think that there's some evidence that this is again one of those sort of like devil's bargain situations when they pull out the Manchurian candidate, because that's deep conspiracy stuff, at a deep level.

Niall:: Yeah, I think Oswald was a Manchurian candidate.

Jason: Yeah, I think he was like deep levels.

Niall:: I don't think they ever relied on him to actually do what the movie told us to do, which is kill the President. They relied on him to just be there and more importantly, to act out a role beforehand that can be convincing.

Pierre: He was not supposed to shoot. I mean, he was not supposed to shoot accurately.

Jason: Who?

Pierre: It was a failed attempt.

Jason: Well he couldn't...

Joe: Oswald wasn't meant to be the shooter at all. He was the patsy. He just had to be in the building.

Pierre: In both cases he was not supposed to be a killer, for the FBI he was not and for the CIA he was not either.

Jason: The height, distance, objects in the way, he could never have hit, with that rifle, John F. Kennedy...

Niall:: In six seconds.

Jason: He couldn't have hit him if he had infinite time. No way.

Joe: Talking about the rifle, ...

Jason: The rifle changed.

Joe: In Evidence of Revision we see that - the witnesses saying that they pulled out a Mauser and somebody said "Oh look, we found a rifle here. What does it look like to you? It looks like a Mauser to me. Oh yeah look, it says 'Mauser' stamped on the barrel. There you go, Mauser". Then half an hour later "Found another one. It's an Italian rifle because..."

Pierre: Carcano Mannlicher.

Joe: ...the ammunition that was found on the windowsill did not match a Mauser, it matched an Italian rifle. "Oh, we have one of those too. Let me just go and get it". Pull out the Italian rifle. The problem with the Italian rifle is that it was rusty, had a misaligned scope, they tried to shoot straight with it, the FBI tried to shoot straight with it afterwards dozens of times and it would never shoot straight because it was totally screwed up. It was just an older battered rifle that would not fire. And it took them three days to find Oswald's prints on that rifle. One print. One smudgy print on that rifle. They found it three days later, i.e., after he was dead. They were trying, trying - "Can't find it, no, no, no. Is he dead yet? Okay, now he's dead. Yup, we have his print. Here it is."

Pierre: And the other reason for replacing the Mauser by this Carcano Mannlicher was that Oswald had officially bought the Mannlicher-Carcano - here I'm showing my colleagues - the cover picture of Life Magazine with Oswald. How convenient, Oswald posing with this Mannlicher-Carcano.

Joe: That guy was such a dupe.

Niall:: And holding a copy of a communist newspaper.

Pierre: Yeah, he couldn't even manage a Mauser if Oswald was supposed to be the killer.

Niall:: Karl Marx Manifesto.

Jason: Jesus Christ. It's like when they find - "And we found a Koran". [laughing]

Joe: Exactly.

Niall:: Do you know what...

Pierre: Talking about...

Joe: Found a passport after the 9/11...

Jason: And a letter saying "I worship Allah."

Joe: The World Trade Centre, yeah.

Pierre: You know, we are talking about mind programming Manchurian candidates. Robert Fitzgerald Kennedy who was of the same fabric as his brother, and who had the same ideas concerning Israel, was killed allegedly by Sirhan-Sirhan, a Palestinian individual.

Jason: Yeah. It's just so...

Niall:: Who said he killed him because - no, he didn't remember doing it, but in his notes supposedly it was because of RFK's support for Palestinians that he was - had a political vendetta against him.

Joe: For me, that one has Israel written all over it.

Jason: Yeah, that one does.

Joe: When they pulled that one out, who's going to benefit here really? Who's talking about the Palestinians in 1968? Yeah, definitely.

Jason: Yeah, that situation...

Joe: The Israelis were involved in that. And it kind of suggests that they were the movers and shakers behind it, for him to be programmed in that way. Unless, then when you talk about Israel and Mossad and stuff, you're talking about a lobby in the U.S., people who had been in the U.S. for quite a long time. It gets a bit kind of murky there in terms of...

Niall:: Who's who.

Joe: Well, is there a difference between AIPAC and the American Zionists and the Israeli Zionists in Israel, who have lived all their lives in Israel? I don't know.

Pierre: It's not even about religion anymore. You have a wide Caucasian American Christian Zionist that don't live in Israel. They're not even Jews. Just one point. In 1960 a lot of commentators were surprised at Johnson's choice to be Vice-President because he could have been the leader of the majority of the Senate, which was a more interesting position. Then a journalist asked him in 1960, two years, more than three years before the assassination, Clare Boothe Luce asked him why he accepted a post clearly less strategic than majority leader, to which he replied "One out of every four Presidents has died in office. I'm a gambling man darling and this is the only chance I've got". Two years before the assassination.

Niall:: Scum bag.

Jason: He was such a filthy scum bag.

Joe: He was, yeah. I'm not sure that he actually - that was his main motivation because he didn't need to be Vice-President to have power. He had a lot of power and a lot of control, as did his friends, over and above the office of the President as it was beforehand, previous to that. But...

Niall:: He had murder on his mind.

Pierre: He was about to be named.

Joe: Yeah, but he could have taken care of that without being - without forcing himself on, take it, or manipulating the situation where he was put onto the ticket with Kennedy in the first place type of thing. It seems to me that maybe that might even backtrack it to before Kennedy was elected President, when Johnson got on when they said "You need to be in with this guy because we may need to do something about him" type thing. Of course Johnson would have enjoyed the prestige of being President but really it's a ceremonial position.

But talking about the Manchurian candidate, that movie came out in 1962, the end of 1962. So it's bizarre that - because what they do is, they project the truth about what's happening in the world in certain cases...

Jason: They have to.

Joe: Onto the screen to fictionalize it so that afterwards when there's any evidence that this is actually happening in reality, people have a reference point and if you bring it up and say "What about Manchurian candidates? Maybe they're real", people go "Really? That's a movie. Movies aren't real."

Jason: Exactly. But they have to. I think that they really, really do have to - before, from some sort of cosmic universal level, that they have to tell you. They're just not obligated to tell you in a way that you'll truly believe. You can choose to believe it or not, but they have to tell you what they're going to do to you. I think from a cosmic level they have to do that.

Joe: Yeah, and it also serves their purpose to fictionalize it for people's minds so you can't talk about it because they'll say "It's a movie. It's not real. Don't be stupid."

Jason: That's their choice. Because the truth is the truth, no matter how it's presented. It doesn't matter if it's in a movie because if somebody does a movie about any number of things, like aspirin helps you with a headache, does this suddenly become untrue because it's in a movie? There's been plenty of movies where people take aspirin. Does that mean that aspirin doesn't have any medical value?

Joe: No, because it's accepted. But when it's something that they don't want accepted as truth, when they want to whitewash it in advance.

Jason: Yeah, but I'm just saying, how people should think about that is being in a movie does not make it more or less true simply by virtue of being on screen.

Joe: Yeah absolutely and in fact, like we're saying it can be actually a cover up for something that is really real.

Jason: I think they intentionally go ahead of any leaking information because they know that all information leaks. I think that they don't try to keep things top secret. They just try to muddy the waters so much so nobody will believe the truth when they heard it.

Joe: But you know what the weird thing is, when you see that coincidence, you go "Okay, what was going on here? How did they do that?" And you get to the point that - because if you look at the guy who wrote the book and then the guy who made the movie based on the book, there doesn't seem to be anything there unless you subscribe to the idea that the guy who made the movie the Manchurian Candidate was one himself.

Jason: Yeah.

Joe: And was programmed to make that movie.

Jason: It's like oh my god!

Pierre: Russian dolls. Just to give an idea of the pressure Johnson was submitted to just before the assassination, Life Magazine on the 22nd of November published, in a headline "The Bombshell Bobby Baker Scandal Grows and Grows in Washington." Bobby Baker was Johnson's personal secretary. He was deep up to the neck in misconducts, illegal activity. And then the chief assistant to the publishing project director of Life Magazine revealed the ad line for the Life Magazine that was schedule for the following week, 29th of November, and he says about this headline "It was going to blow Johnson right out of the water. He had him. He was done. Johnson would have been finished and off the 1964 ticket and would have probably been facing prison time." And instead of placing this piece of information, the assassination happened, Life Magazine got hold of the Zapruder film for a few tens of thousands of dollars, changed the order of the picture from the film to make it look like Kennedy's head moved from the back to the front, in order to give some credence to the lone shooter theory. What a change in a few days.

Jason: Well what we should expect from mainstream media, of course they changed it.

Niall:: The interesting thing there is the timing. There was a meeting going on that morning in which a guy, I think it was a prosecutor from Texas, was meeting with republican senators telling them everything about the stuff Johnson was up to. And they were going to use it. They were going to use it against him.

Jason: Of course.

Niall:: This democrat President, this democrat faction, they were going to use it to the hilt. And the guy who recalled the meeting, who I think was a senator, I don't remember his name, anyway, he said "We're in the middle of this meeting and the guy's telling me everything. I'm like 'Whoa!' He's got a receipt to back of everything, all the links from Johnson to his hit-men like Malcolm Wallace." They were going to nail him for murder while he was Vice President in 1961. And then he gets a call and he's called out of the room. The news is that JFK's just been shot dead.

Jason: Right.

Niall:: And he realized there and then, that makes Johnson President, which makes him immune. We can't do it. That's how fine from his - I mean, just in this thread alone, the timing was like, all these things come together. I think in a way that might have forced the timing...

Jason: That's why it was so rushed.

Niall:: ... of the event. Three weeks before Dallas, Texas, something happened in Chicago. This came out - can't remember who brought this out. I think it was in James Douglass' book. It's known now as the Chicago plot. It turns out that Kennedy visited - or I think it was called off, but he was due to visit and somebody blew the whistle, somebody calling himself Lee. That's the only name he gave. But it resulted in the arrest of a guy named Thomas Vallee. Like Oswald, Vallee was a former marine who was stationed at a U2 base in Japan and he was supposedly resentful towards JFK because of the Bay of Pigs disaster. And the plan was for him to be up on a building and to ambush JFK as he came up a freeway ramp in Chicago just three weeks before. And what I've been wondering is, if...

Joe: Dry run.

Niall:: No, no. I've thought about that. But what struck me is that the CIA had this, or somebody, one of the factions, clearly had several things on the go at once and whichever one would click the best, "okay, now we'll go with this one. Okay, let's get the back story set up". It turns out the reason why they blew the whistle on this one is because Hoover got wind of it and he was the one who actually revealed it to someone on JFK's staff and he ended up not going to Chicago. I'm looking at that thinking "Holy cow. That's because Hoover knows that they want to get him in Dallas."

Joe: And they want to kill him.

Niall:: They don't want...

Joe: An attempted assassination.

Niall:: Exactly.

Jason: They want him in Texas.

Pierre: And there was the one in Washington as well. The whistleblower was an ex-CIA agent who sent a letter to Hoover. Actually he thought he would protect the President and actually he maybe sealed the fate of the President by informing Hoover of the fake assassination, so he could conduct it. The real one.

Jason: Well Hoover was another slime ball.

Joe: Yeah, he was more than a slime ball.

Jason: I think he was pure unadulterated cross-dressing evil.

Pierre: He survived nine Presidents. A 40-year career at the FBI.

Niall:: This idea of a plot within a plot is, I think it's really starting to grow on me. When you think about - when you think 'What's that problem people have whenever you're talking about these things?' No matter how much evidence and facts you present to them, they kind of always reach a point where emotionally they can't go there because they're starting to think of the numbers of people involved who wittingly committed murder of one of their own. You see that with people when it comes to 9/11 and of course in this case too. But in this case, instead of having Nixon, allegedly George Bush, practically half of anyone who's anyone in the U.S., present in Dallas that day, instead of having them there as witting accomplices or in some way, or just there to witness the horrific spectacle, you've got them there because they think one thing is going down and something else happens.

Jason: Yeah, and I think that that brings the Mossad angle back in for Mossad wanting to have a lot on a lot of people maybe. Because they were involved in the conspiracy.

Niall:: Okay, but before we go to filling in who exactly did it, that helps people to understand how you can have a couple of key personnel, for example in the secret service, or the Dallas police calling off, agreeing to participate in, okay, right, a staged assassination. You can imagine it's easier to twist their mind around to 'Well we're doing this in the interests of national security'.

Jason: Right.

Niall:: But to get them onboard with willingly and knowingly murdering the President, that's a whole other ballgame. How are you going to get a lot of people in on that? But if it's this other plot, there are all kinds of types out there you can convince 'It's in our best interests'. And they'll go "Yeah, yeah, yeah".

Joe: Well the mechanics of it in terms of JFK didn't require an awful lot of people anyway (inaudible) murders.

Niall:: Well it required a few people.

Joe: It required people in positions of power who could delegate and make sure certain things happened and then the people who just - the guys who were pulled off the back of Kennedy's limo, they were just following orders. You're talking about people in kind of military or police-type organizations and they're trained to follow orders and they do what they're told. So all you need is the people at the top to pass down the order and to set the scene and then afterwards when the narrative comes out, who did it, it's like what are they going to say? Are they going to - they're not taught to question either. Taught to follow orders and not question. Those two things will carry a long way.

Pierre: You know, we were talking about Johnson accepting to be Vice-President and this journalist, Guyénot, Laurent Guyénot gives some data about why and how Johnson became Vice-President. And he says:
"Johnson's sympathy for the Jews, whatever its origin, does not constitute evidence of his collusion with Israeli elements in Kennedy's assassination.

Yet it is an established fact that Johnson had been the Zionists' choice of Democratic candidate in the primaries. And that was not new. His campaign for a Senate seat in 1948 was masterminded by Abraham Feinberg, the financial godfather of Israel's atomic bomb.

It is also on record, thanks to Arthur Schlesinger, that it was in fact Philip Graham, publisher of the Washington Post, and his most influential columnist Joseph Alsop, both friends and supporters of Johnson, who convinced Kennedy to take Johnson as his running mate, as soon as it became clear that Kennedy would beat Johnson at the Democratic Convention in Los Angeles."
Pierre: And then he goes on. He wonders "Why would the Zionists want Johnson as Vice-President, rather than Senate Majority Leader, a much more efficient position to block anti-Israel legislation?" And he gives a tentative answer. "It can only be because they saw the vice-presidency as a step to the presidency. And the sooner, the better, because the Zionists hated Kennedy as much as they loved Johnson.

Joe: Says it all about the Zionists when they love LBJ over Kennedy.

Niall:: There is a pretty credible Israeli source for this angle. The nuclear weapons whistleblower, Vanunu, is that how you pronounce the name? Mordechai Vanunu. He's spoken out a number of times on this actually. And he gives a lot of background to just how insistent JFK was about Israel's nuclear program. You see all that focus on Iran today. That's the kind of pressure he was applying on Israel. And that was, as we've already discussed, that was completely reversed after his death. And it's interesting that the only other reference I could find to this connection of, at least from a public figure, of JFK and Israel's nuclear weapons, was Muammar Gaddafi. As far as he was concerned, JFK was killed for this reason.

Joe: The problem is people trying to pin it down to one person or one group or one vested interest across the board who all could have collaborated. And even as we're saying there were conflicting, at least two different agendas, one to stage an attempted assassination and the other one to carry out a real assassination...

Jason: And there was one that was against that, which was trying to take down Johnson and get him out. And that's why Time Magazine was going to go with it because there were some powerful people that wanted him out and as soon as the President was killed they realized that the jig was up. As long as Kennedy was in office, they could be going after Johnson and this whole thing but the minute Kennedy was dead, they basically knew which way the wind was blowing and went to the other side. So obviously there were conflicting conspiracies. There was a conspiracy against him. We might consider it a good one but they probably didn't.

Niall:: So I think this has been a great example of how you can have proactive conspiracy, that is psychopaths cooperating? At the same time there's also the important element of just by their nature, their shared nature and their mutual interests coming together, both elements.

Joe: I'm just overcome by looking at the whole scenario and looking at how it probably went down and the individuals involved. I'm just overcome with a feeling of disgust towards these people, the way that they just coldly and calmly would plan this kind of a murder of a very decent human being who wanted to just promote and apply basic human decency to his job and to society and to the world and to make a better society. That's not any kind of a grand kind of plan he had, to change the entire world, but very simple ideals of just decency and humanity amongst nations and amongst ordinary people, which everybody aspires to. And we have these disgusting, vile creatures who just, the banality of their evil as Hannah Arendt described, is just so evident, you know. And you're just left with a feeling of "Oh my god, what - how did we get here and how do we get out of here?"

Niall:: What planet am I on?

Joe: Yeah, I think they're just animals, you know.

Jason: Well there's something untoward in my opinion, about regicide of any kind. I really do think that it's particularly uncivilized. And I think throughout history all of those instances really have usually been conspiracies. It's usually when the nobles whoever they are, whatever they call themselves, they're not called - those CEOs and billionaires but they're just nobles. Whenever they get around to killing a king, they always try to make it look like "Oh, he is bad". Or "He's a psychopath". Or "He's a womanizer". Or "He's anti-Christian". I saw on the SOTT pages there was this big thing "Wanted". And they were listing all these reasons why JFK was treasonous but they were all "But he wants to make peace with the Russians and he lied about a possible divorce." That was their big reasons for not liking him. I was like "Really? Seriously? You guys are calling this guy a Judas, saying he's treasonous, right? He's guilty of treason and the biggest thing you can come out with 'he may have lied about a divorce?' Hold on a second. Wait a minute. Really? Are you serious?" So I think that killing, what was his name, Hussein and Gaddafi, and all this different stuff, this pattern and all the way back to Julius Caesar. Regicide I think is just an uncivilized practice.

Joe: Yeah. But it's not regicide in the sense of the ordinary folk killing their king or their leader, but elements, kind of on the same level, let's say, or close to the king...

Jason: Right. I think it's all...

Joe: ...really know what they're doing.

Jason: Because whenever there's a tyrant, he's always kept in place. The nobles love tyrants. Look at Octavianus, or whatever his name was. He was probably one of the worst Roman tyrants ever, really. And he was just terrible, terrible. But the nobles just loved him and hated Caesar. And then throughout history, whenever you have a regicide, it's almost always I think the nobility doing it. So I think it should be looked upon as just like a very uncivilized practice.

Niall:: Yeah. I think...

Joe: Uncivilized is the word.

Niall:: I think envy is a part of it. I think it's pure hatred. JFK, at least relative to them, was whiter than white and there's this hatred. They just...

Jason: There's hatred because of his sympathy for - his sympathy and empathy for the common people.

Joe: Utter contempt for him for that.

Jason: Yeah, because he is betraying his class. Like a class betrayal.

Joe: Yeah.

Jason: How dare he empathize with the lower animals and prefer them to us?

Joe: How dare he dis us,because he did dis quite a lot of people, took people out of positions and stuff, and that's - to an extreme narcissist, that is just so galling, it's "My god!..."

Jason: Where's the cronyism here?

Joe: We're going to tear this guy's head off. How dare he...

Niall:: And they cloak it ...

Joe: Treat me in that way?

Niall:: They cloak it in these arguments of "Well we disagree with his policies" or patriologies.

Joe: Well they know what they have to say to justify it to the people.

Niall:: There they were, they could take out JFK like that. At the same time they had what, 600 alleged assassination attempts against Castro? How did they fail so spectacularly but succeed so easily?

Pierre: Because it was useful.

Niall:: It was obvious that they missed because he was useful because they need him for communism.

Joe: In terms of the cold war and the commie threat. Right on your doorstep. You don't have to get rid of that. That's a boon. Going to use that every opportunity.

Jason: I think Castro was totally 100% an asset of whatever these unspeakable conspiracy guys were talking about.

Niall:: Well Castro, his basically a press secretary or a time, was a woman called June Cobb, CIA. He wouldn't even have been heard of in the U.S. media. This is pre and during the Cuban revolution. Her job was to take his speeches, translate them and get them as widely published in the U.S. as possible. And not in order to give communism more - whatever brand - he wasn't calling for communism at that point. Not give him a fair hearing and his ideals, but to foster eventually an opposition that could be used.

Joe: He was the boogey man. He was inflated up into being a boogey man right off the shore of Florida.

Niall:: That's exactly what I was thinking. Osama bin Castro. The extent to which they went to this was, they would translate books, of not just Castro but other Latin American leaders, and actively put out there the "other" which they could later trash through other avenues.

Joe: Of course.

Niall:: Eventually it was under the guise of "Oh, we just want to translate your book. I think people in America should hear this".

Joe: If your plans are to dominate the world via war and imperialism and conquest, and you're faced with 99-point-whatever percent of the population or maybe a bit less, who are essentially peace-loving people, who just want to live their lives and don't really like war, what are you going to do? You're going to have to fight the war on both sides. You're going to have to create an enemy and then attack it.

Jason: Emmanuel Goldstein, 1984.

Joe: Exactly. And that's what they do. That's what they've done forever.

Niall:: The key man in - well not the key man, one of at least, the guy with - at least he was the head of CIA, not covert operations but more generally counterintelligence, James Jesus Angleton, for 20 years he was there behind the scenes. So one of the people he worked with the most was a guy who was - it's only later emerged that he was also CIA, Jay Lovestone, real name Jacob Liebstein. He was the leader - he actually founded and was the leader of the communist party in the U.S. and the AFLCIO, the massive trade union. They created the phoney left.

Joe: You know what it makes me think of? What's his name, Adam Gadahn, is it? The Israeli, the American - sorry, the American Jew who appeared for the past several years on Islamist websites espousing global jihad until he was - well even after he was exposed as an American Jew, he just kept doing it. How crass can you get? But that flies apparently, because people don't think. People don't actually - most people don't need their brains. You know that? Or they don't need most of their brains.

Jason: No they don't. It's scientifically proven that they can work with nine percent of their brain.

Joe: Their brains are meant to be used for thinking and analyzing and deducing things from the observable data. Figuring things out. But most people really in this world today, and I don't know what percentage it is, but it's a lot, all they need is the parts of their brains that are used for mechanical functions, like dressing themselves and feeding themselves. Because that's all they do. There's all this information about their world around them that they completely ignore and do not even contemplate for one second. And if you try and present it to them, they'll reject it and say "piss off. I'm going down to Starbuck's for a coffee". Really, you're not using your brain. Give it to someone else.

Jason: They're kind of like the inert mass of people in the true sense of it. There's an article on the SOTT page that talks about how poverty does that to people, that they kind of don't care and they live such a hand-to-mouth day-to-day life that really the only thing that is engaged is just the process of surviving, feeding themselves and going to work and doing all this stuff. And they have no real concept of the world beyond what it is they have to do today to get fed, sort of thing.

Joe: Yeah, maybe I shouldn't be - and I don't mean to be too judgmental in that sense.

Jason: A little bit. You're being a little judgmental.

Joe: I'm being a little judgmental, but maybe to backtrack on that and let me say that maybe that's simply what people - a lot of people, that's what their kind of mission in life is and we shouldn't expect any more of them.

Jason: No.

Joe: But it's a problem when they're being used.

Jason: Right.

Joe: And manipulated by powers that be. And the antidote to that manipulation would be the use of their faculties or maybe developing some faculties. Because the problem for the rest of us who are seeing what's going on and see the cliff edge approaching, and that we're being herded by all these people who just don't really care and aren't interested in doing much more than just living their normal life...

Jason: For me the more - the problem is, I don't know, let's say there's like the 70% of people who are basically like that in the world. They are kind of really impoverished. It's between the 70 and the 99% of people, the slightly educated, the people who have time to think who don't? I get more...

Joe: Who should. Yeah you get more pissed off.

Jason: ... angry at that, like the middle class person who is a republican and actually registered. That person...

Joe: They are using their brains, but...

Jason: They're using their brains to make the stupid choice.

Pierre: Sounds like an unsolvable problem. We discussed it previously and obviously the vast majority of human beings who are bound to follow. And it's not the bad thing.

Joe: It can be a bad thing in this world.

Pierre: It can be a bad thing if the leaders are bad leaders because they institute bad, negative values.

Joe: Which, correct me if I'm wrong, that has been the nature of leaders for oh, forever.

Pierre: I'm going there. I'm going there. The problem is that bad leaders can keep power for decades or centuries as history shows, because they can use all the weapons, all the tools. But for a good leader first to be in power, like Caesar or JFK, and more important to stay in power, not be assassinated, the only solution is a very strong and very good knowledge of pathology, of what is going in the world.

Jason: Right.

Pierre: So basically the key seems to stay - to be on the laps, on the hands of those followers. But the followers want to follow. Until the point where they might make the effort to learn, to understand, to be active, to be reactive, and to stand for their rights and to have a sound positive political role. Whatever leader might appear, he won't improve the situation off the planet.

Joe: That's all a bit utopian because that's not the observable facts on the planet and it's never been.

Pierre: I'm not saying it would happen. I'm saying that it seems like an unsolvable problem and...

Joe: In a sense...

Niall:: But not a problem to be solved.

Pierre: Yes. I agree.

Joe: In a sense by saying it's not such a bad thing that people are authoritarians, authoritarian followers, given the world that we live in and the history of it, and where we are today, it is a bad thing. There's something wrong because...

Jason: Here's the thing. From a high level we always say the world is very self-serving. We always sort of talk about the STS kind of thing and that's kind of the way the world is. And the world represents that through and through. The problem is is that everybody is really miserable and they're all suffering and like "Oh my god, why are we suffering?" And we keep saying "This is kind of why" - the specific problem that we're talking about, this whole not thinking about things, this whole about the implicit agreements that you make when you believe lies. And that's what causes it and then of course we're actually living in a world where the majority of people in it are ones that just kind of don't think about things. And then they complain about the suffering and then you kind of always have to be reminding them "Well you're suffering because you don't think."

Joe: But the suffering isn't bad enough apparently for a lot of them to really do anything about it.

Jason: Well one of the problems is, once you're in the shit, you're kind of, you can't get out.

Joe: So you kind of adapt as well, right?

Jason: Yeah.

Joe: People are - human beings are amazingly adaptable to pretty horrible conditions that they'll put up with.

Jason: Yeah, look at China. Look at the Chinese conditions that people are working 13 hours a day and sleeping basically on wooden beds and eating rice in a corner and having cold showers every day. I mean, work as slaves and not getting any pay, right? And communist Russia, you hear stories from there. And it's like, nobody revolted. Nobody goes against that. People just adapt to the situation. It becomes their daily life and they get focused on surviving, and they eat and shit and that's pretty much what they do.

Pierre: It's the boiling frog. It's the same in Europe and the same in the U.S.

Jason: Yeah, exactly.

Pierre: Day after day, the rights, the advantages of citizens are getting cancelled and the oppression is growing more and more.

Jason: And the one thing that people need to learn that it's easier to say no at the beginning than it is to say no at the end.

Pierre: It's not by complying that you will manage to keep your status and your advantages. It's just, whatever you do, even if you comply, even if you are the best slave, you will be exploited more and more and more because the choice of psychopathy is to always want more power, more suffering of others, and more wealth.

Jason: Yeah. So in fact actually being a good slave makes it a little bit worse on you because people constantly want to see how far they can push you until finally they do go too far. Because that's their nature. Their nature is to - they don't want you to be a good slave. They want you - they want to hurt you. They want to get as much enjoyment from you as possible. So complying with them, it's like, you watch these movies and the guy comes up behind him and puts a gun at his back and says "Get in the car". "No, shoot me here. I'm not going to make it easy for you. You're not going to" - or the guy who digs his own grave. It's like "No, you dig it." [laughing] And that's how people - when you get to that point...

Pierre: That's a good example.

Jason: have to really just kind of say "No".

Pierre: And it shows, from these reasons, we can see the positive side of suffering. Obviously the only way for people to wake up is to suffer enough. And hopefully they will wake up early enough that in the second part of the show they will see that if people want to wake up, they have to wake up quickly because cosmic pressure seems to be on the increase.

Joe: Well it ain't going to happen. I'm sorry to have to tell everybody, but it ain't going to happen.

Niall:: There is a quote from Ponerology I'd like to read out here. I think it touches on what we're talking about. So Andrew Lobaczewski's book Political Ponerology, he's describing the very situations.

Jason: You can get it on Amazon.

Niall:: You can get it on Amazon. He's describing the situation as it is. It's an excellent book. So here we go:
Pathocracy survives thanks to the feeling of being threatened by the society of normal people as well as by other countries wherein various forms of the system of normal man persist. For the rulers, staying on the top is therefore the classic problem of to be or not to be. Can such a system ever wave territorial and political expansion abroad and settle for its present possessions? What would happen if such a state of affairs insured internal peace, corresponding order and relative prosperity within the nation?
Niall:: Think there of the U.S. at this point in time, 1960. It's prosperous. The '50s boom years. Could the pathocracy, the ruling elite there have said "You know what? It's pretty good. We'll just settle for this." But Lobaczewski goes on:
The overwhelming majority of a country's population would then make skilful use of all these emerging possibilities, the jobs and so on, the new technologies, the key advantage of their superior qualifications in order to fight for an ever-increasing scope of activities.
Niall:: So to get more of the pie for themselves. Higher wages. That's what happened in the '50s. Real wages were rising in the U.S.
Thanks to their higher birth rate, their power will naturally increase. This majority will be joined by some sons from the privileged class who did not inherit pathological genes [i.e., the Kennedys]. The pathocracy's dominance will weaken imperceptibly but steadily, finally leading to a situation wherein the society of normal people reaches power. This is a nightmare vision to the psychopath.
Niall:: When Kennedy came into power, he has Robert MacNamara go to the Pentagon. He realizes very, very quickly that the whole cold war narrative is complete and utter horse hockey. And supposedly, part of the thing that they were telling senators and the lower elites at the time, was that part of the reason we need a weapons/missile race with the Soviet Union is because there's a missile gap, namely the Russians are ahead of us or fast approaching our arsenals. Turns out, in 1960 the U.S. already had 30,000 nukes totally dwarfing anything the USSR had and by definition was already the world's sole superpower. There was no natural cold war, so to speak. There was no bipolar world between these two superpowers. There was only one at that point. JFK would have realized that quickly. What I think is they never really wanted a war, the military industrial complex, with Russia, at least not in order to beat the Russians or 'wipe out communism'.

Joe: No, that was theatre.

Niall:: They needed at least the impression of a war in order to maintain, entrench and cement their own control domestically. And the rise to power of someone like JFK, in their minds would have proved their worst fears true, that "Oh, my god, we're being caught up at home". That's the threat of normal man taking back controls of the reins of power, precisely why they needed cold war terror, mutually assured destruction and so on and so on.

Joe: Yeah, the whole cold war was a complete sham. It's even evidenced by what Johnson said to the Warren Commission after the assassination of Kennedy, where he said "We can have no talk about Khrushchev or the Russians, that they were involved with this in any way because the lives of 40 million people, 40 million Americans, hang in the balance. It seems that they were genuinely concerned that there was a chance that this might get out of hand and we would have, horror of horrors, have an actual nuclear exchange. That's the last thing they want. "Hang on a minute. That's just meant to be a ruse. That's meant to control the people through fear. We cannot allow that to happen, ever." And the Russians were exactly the same. They understood that's what it was about. So it was a sham to keep people - to control people by fear and keep them afraid. And you notice that in 1990 when the Soviet Union fell, within a few years, or even at the same time they had been preparing it, came along Islamic terrorism. Exactly the same sham. Exactly the same method. Exactly the same purpose. And as we've seen, exactly the same result.

Jason: And the absolute ridiculousness of a bunch of - and they are a bunch of people who are living essentially in third world - less than third world conditions often, and they're supposed to be able to just attack us at will, just ...

Joe: The entire globe.

Jason: The entire globe.

Joe: Threaten our very lives, our way of life.

Jason: Even when they're in the movies, you see them driving in these rundown ex-USSR trucks, driving around the goats, but somehow the man's got ahold of a nuclear weapon in his goat shed.

Joe: Yeah.

Jason: It's ridiculous.

Niall:: Yeah, but something I was wondering is, if the U.S. didn't gift Israel it's nuclear program, fund the weapons...

Jason: Yeah.

Niall:: France. Isn't that curious? Now at the moment in the news we've got these talks going on between the U.S. mainly, and Iran over its nuclear energy program. They seem to have reached some agreement just today. France, funnily enough, is involved in it and it's being - initially they were playing the broker, but now they're the ones trying to sabotage it on Israel's behalf. And I'd just like to say I'm disgusted, totally disgusted with the French regime.

Joe: But you live in the vile state of France.

Niall:: What is going on here?

Jason: It's total K-Fave man. The theatre.

Pierre: That's interesting, the French case currently, because there's been a big change in policy towards Israel. So by the clean front you have a - there's a third country with the highest Jewish population, France. There are about 4.5 million Jewish in Israel, 4.5 million Jewish in U.S. and you have almost 500,000 in France. So that's number three in the world. So you have one percent Jews in France. At the same time, you have about 10% Muslims in France. And Muslims are the main target of Zionist policy. So you have a kind of Israel - there's this Palestine redux within the French country. And at the same time you have a very strong anti-Zionist populistic tradition. In 1969 and the institution of Charles de Gaulle for President, France was the leader of the non-aligned countries that hadn't swallowed the scam of the cold war and they were leading Egypt and India and China - not China at the time - and other non-aligned countries. It totally changed in 1979 after the May '68 events led by Cohn-Bendit, a flaming Zionist and pedophile who managed to get de Gaulle de-instituted, and the President who replaced the role was Pompidou, the ex-CEO of the Rothschild Bank and a pro-Zionist who pushed France to join NATO and to follow the imperialistic policy fully defined by Israel and the U.S.

Joe: There was a plot to assassinate Charles de Gaulle.

Pierre: Yes.

Joe: And it was Clay Shaw of JFK assassination fame who was the only person arrested for being involved in the assassination and his association with that company Permindex which is either a CIA and/or Mossad front.

Niall:: No way.

Joe: He was implicated in the plot that never came to fruition, to assassinate Charles de Gaulle.

Niall:: And Clay Shaw is a New Orleans guy, right?

Joe: Yeah.

Niall:: New Orleans. The Corsican mafia. I wonder where this French connection comes in. There are a few researchers that bring up the French connection in terms of the heroin trade that has been going on for - even before World War II, and how it ties into Israeli interests and the mob in general, which again, not so much an Italian affair as it is a Jewish organized affair.

Joe: It's a worldwide organization.

Niall:: It's a worldwide, yeah. Very interesting because there's something about - the French history with - is tied up in this in so many ways. The French connection of heroin fame, but the French connection is probably a term that could be applied more broadly for other things. This guy, the current French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, he's basically working on Netanyahu's behalf. He's Israel's spokesperson in these talks with Iran. There is...

Joe: The French foreign minister is Israel's spokesperson?

Niall:: Yeah. Well what exactly happened was that, Netanyahu got on the phone to Laurent Fabius urging him to delay the signing...

Joe: Because the Israelis are allowed, aren't part of these talks.

Niall:: So they need someone to get for them. Fabius took the unusual step of using the French Inter-Radio - I'm not sure what that is - to criticize the very draft agreement he had originally helped negotiate. The article I'm reading here is pretty interesting actually. Then it goes into the history of how Israel's first nuclear reactor was built thanks to French engineers and so on.

Pierre: Where I was going too with that, there is currently in the French society a big divide. On one side you have all those pseudo-intellectuals led by Bernard Lévy, you have all those Zionist politicians, and you have most of the Jews population on one side. On the other side you have those people who stick to the de Gaulle tradition, to the pro-Palestinian position and you have a huge Muslim population as well. And the divide keeps increasing and that's been illustrated by something we mentioned on SOTT Talk Net several times previously, this Alain Soral and Dieudonné case.

Niall:: Yeah. Apparently anti-Semitism is on the rise in France.

Joe: Again?

Niall:: Again. And this is this very, very funny - I find it hilarious - thing that's sweeping through France at the moment.

Pierre: So maybe you can talk about it to cap this first.

Jason: Yeah, you should explain it to us.

Pierre: First, we have Dieudonné M'bala M'bala, a very funny humourist, smart guy...

Jason: Comedian.

Pierre:, yeah comedian. Who is starting to take some political stances; anti-Zionist, anti-racist, anti-elite. That's a very big political stance from our point of view but sure it is _____ of the media and the politicians. And Alain Dieudonné, his partner somehow is a philosopher and writer, Alain Soral, who defends the same position basically. He's against the destruction of the nations by federal states, Europe, is against the Euro and wants France to get back the right to coin its own money. He's against Zionism, he's populist, etc. etc. And those two guys are being totally banished from mainstream medias.

At first the medias tried to ridiculise them by inviting them to talk shows that were set up and who had kind of nine opponents and Soral or Dieudonné alone. But they're funny and they're smart. And they know what they're talking about. So since they couldn't make them look stupid on TV, they totally banned them from TV. And since they are very popular they developed their own medias and they are very popular on YouTube. They are very popular on websites. Soral is the founder of Égalitarian Réconciliation, Equality and Reconciliation website, a popular political and philosophical website. And Dieudonné has his own Dieudosphere website. And then came the story of the Quenelle.

Niall:: La Quenelle.

Pierre: Yeah.

Niall:: Basically this is a kind of a gesture that - it sort of originally means "up yours", you know when you get one arm and you...

Jason: Slap your inner elbow.

Niall:: Yeah.

Jason: Yeah, up yours.

Pierre: Technically the quenelle is a culinary speciality from Lyon. It's a kind of sausage, okay? And sure, the role of the sausage is to be put up the beep of the elites. And now there are different kind of quenelles in these humourist depictions. It can be a short one. So when it's short quenelle, the humourists, the people who follow this comedian stance, they show the length of the quenelle, with the right palm going the length along the left arm. So if you put your right hand on your left wrist, it's a short quenelle about 20 centimetres. If you put your right hand on your left shoulder, it's a major quenelle, about 50 centimetres. If you put your left arm - or your right arm on your left shoulder, it is a long quenelle. So this long quenelle gesture, movement, your right hand on your left shoulder, started to become for some reason quite popular. You had some people, some rugby teams posing all wearing this sign soccer teams, people discuss about it, people climbing up mountains and posing doing the same.

And on the Dieudosphere, on the Internet, you start to have pictures of all kinds of people, of kids and you have militaries, you have representatives of the French state starting to basically do this rebellion move, posture.

Niall:: Yeah. And most funny is the photo of all those kids gathered around this complete Zionist, Manuel Valls - is he a government minister?

Pierre: Oh yeah, Minister of Interior. He's a flaming Zionist.

Niall:: And there are all these...

Pierre: And racist.

Niall:: ...people gathered around him and they're all beaming, smiling, and he is too and making this funny holiday photo and they're all making this gesture.

Joe: And he doesn't know what it is.

Niall:: He doesn't know what it is. But then the media reports it as an inverted Hitler salute.

Joe: Yeah.

Niall:: They're saying it's a Nazi, i.e., it's anti-Semitic.

Joe: Those people are such a pain in the backside.

Jason: But how is it even remotely that?

Joe: They make me sick.

Jason: Everything is everything is Nazi. Everything that they want to trash automatically becomes - it's Nazi. How?

Joe: Yeah.

Pierre: So this Dieudonné/Soral dynamics and in particular this quenelle movement, have taken some momentum within the French population, which is quite symptomatic of the current state of the French psyche.

Joe: Yeah. Well...

Pierre: And to an extent that Manuel Valls, the Minister of the Interior of France, during his main speech last summer, started to talk about - he heard a threat that France is facing now and might just terrorize the republic. And you think he's going to talk about, I don't know, bin Laden, or Syria or Libya or some kind of huge public-created threat. And all he talks about is Soral and Dieudonné. Mr. Maurice and (inaudible).

Joe: The threat is what? Anti-Semitism? Or just them.

Pierre: He describes them as a threat to the republic, a threat to freedom, a threat to equality.

Joe: Because they're making fun of politicians.

Pierre: Yeah, and that's actually quite telling about the psyche of psychopaths. In several books we've read that one of the things that psychopaths can tolerate the less is people making fun of them and showing the truth about their psychopathic nature in a funny way.

Joe: Well discussing all of these people and psychopaths in power and the despicable deeds that they do, and even just brushing the surface of their depravity throughout history, makes me feel like my mind's been in the gutter for most of this conversation. So as a remedy to that, perhaps we could catapult our minds up to the heavens for some inspiration perhaps, and maybe even a solution to the kind of things that are going on, on this planet. Is there something up there?

Pierre: Yes, let's look at the bright light of life, the bright side of life. Very bright now.

Niall:: Well in a few days' time Comet ISON reaches perihelion...

Pierre: Aphelion.

Niall:: Aphelion.

Pierre: Aphelion, yeah. The closest point to the sun.

Niall:: Okay. And you've probably heard, people have been getting excited about it all year. What the mainstream though are not talking about is the fact that there are 17 comets currently visible and flaring in our skies, Comet ISON being the biggest one, but...

Pierre: Indeed. Seventeen comets currently observable with small telescopes or binoculars or even with naked eyes as the case of Comet ISON, since it's been increasing in magnitude. Actually we can attempt to make a link between three seemingly unrelated phenomena: a) this very strong increase in cometary activity; b) the increase in solar activity, very unexpected and unusual increase in solar activity with eight X-class solar flares over the last 25 days; and c) some very violent weather phenomenon, in particular the Typhoon Hayain.

Joe: And the tornadoes.

Pierre: And the tornadoes, of the fourth stage.

Joe: In the Midwest.

Pierre: Yeah, in the Midwest. So what seems to happen, we are puzzled by seeing this increase in solar activity because as we said before, for years now the sun has been amazingly quiet and even NASA is now announcing the quietest solar cycle for 200 years. So the sun is very quiet despite a lot of cometary activities that is the main trigger for solar discharge and solar activity. So there is a paradox here. And we postulated that actually this quietness is due to a kind of grounding of the sun because of the approaching sun's companion, namely Nemesis. However, it appears that right now - so you have two factors that pull on opposite ways. You have the approaching Nemesis that tends to reduce the sun's activity, but you have the increased cometary activity brought by the sun's companion, eh? The cometary swarm brought by Nemesis that tends to increase the discharge in the activity. So it's about a balance. And recently apparently, the cometary factor has overcome the grounding factor induced by Nemesis.

Niall:: So that's kind of why the sun's woken up.

Pierre: Yes, because apparently there is a lot of bodies, asteroids and comets, in the solar system here. Let's keep in mind that comets are just asteroids that are in a glowing mode, that are subjected to high enough electrical stress to glow. So right now you have 17 comets visible in the solar system. So there's 17 comets actively discharging in the sun. But you also have a lot of asteroids who contribute to this discharge and that are not visible.

Niall:: Seventeen comets, is that normal?

Pierre: Yes but no.

Niall:: What background rate is there?

Pierre: You have a lot of comets because most are on a trajectory for Jupiter in orbit, i.e., an elliptical orbit that circles around Jupiter and the sun. It's a period of three to four years. And you have a lot of them. And they keep circling. And every four years they reach the perihelion and then the aphelion. And they turn and turn and turn. Something that is a bit different right now is that the two comets that exhibit the highest magnitude are namely Comet ISON and Comet Lovejoy. Not the Lovejoy that hit the sun - that went through the sun a few years ago. Lovejoy is named after the discoverer, astronomer Lovejoy. The second name of this comet is 2013 R1. So those two comets are not following Jupiterian orbits. They have very long periods. Lovejoy's period is about 10,000 years plus and ISON's period is unknown, it's eccentricity, its trajectory suggests that it's a one journey comet. It won't come back. It's not even periodic. What does it mean? It means those two comets follow very elongated trajectories. It means that they go through, they carry a very negative charge coming from outside the solar system. They go straight to the sun. So you have a very negative body that travels straight to the sun, a very positive body, so they trigger...

Niall:: Solar flares.

Pierre: Yeah, this is a kind of comet that is likely to trigger the most sun activity because of this electric potential between the comet and the sun in space. More and more positive while it gets closer to the sun. So we suspect that although cometary activity, those 17visible - activity, in particular those two non-Jupiterian comets ISON and Lovejoy, triggered this unusual solar activity illustrated by those eight X-flares listed between October 25th and November 19th. But just to give you an idea, because eight solar flares, eight X-class solar flares, what does it mean? For reference, over the last two years, the sun has experienced an average of 0.5 X-class solar flares a month. And you have eight just in 25 days, just now.

Joe: So, many times the normal over the past two years.

Pierre: Yes. A spike. Definitely a spike in solar activity.

Joe: So the idea is that there's 17 comets visible in our skies and leavinge aside the possibility that one of them might destroy the planet, what we can say is that because of the interaction with the sun, that they have most likely been provoking these discharges or solar flares from - in terms of solar radiation - and that some of it at least has been directed at the planet and this is causing effects in terms of bizarre weather.

Jason: We have a new super storm and like 60 tornadoes or something.

Joe: Yeah, exactly. That's what we mentioned.

Jason: I remember landing and we saw the video on SOTT where it goes and it just blows the house away. In a second the house is there, then gone.

Joe: So that's the kind of threat in a certain sense from these comets, leaving aside, as I said, the idea that they might actually destroy the planet. But we can always - we can dream, right?

Jason: Or hope.

Niall:: Pierre, is the comet swarm here? Have you calculated how much time we have left?

Pierre: (pause)

Joe: Yeah. (laughter)

Jason: Five minutes. Just in time for tea.

Joe: Yeah, get yourself...

Pierre: This information is confidential.

Niall:: No, I'm being facetious, but I mean 17 comets!! How often do they discover a new comet? This is what I want to know.

Pierre: We're getting there.

Niall:: Okay.

Pierre: Because apparently you have some inside information about what I'm supposed to reveal, eh? (humourously)

Niall:: Ah, okay.

Pierre: Just to insert just a point, the flares were not directly going to hit the earth.

Joe: All of them?

Pierre: Eight flares...

Joe: Or none of them?

Pierre: The eight flares didn't go. They were not straight between the sun's centre and the planet earth because the triggers were not along this line, obviously. But if it's off, can be off by 20, 30, 40 degrees. It doesn't mean that the earth is not affected by the flare. It means it's less affected by the flare as we're going to see later when you describe the earthly effects of those spikes in solar activity. And now about Niall's point concerning the increase in comets; so we have compiled today some very fresh data. Remember we published on the SOTT, on the Cassiopaea forum, this data compiled from the AMS, American Meteor Society showing a strong increase in fireballs, observed fireballs. But now we have made a very exciting activity, went to all the databases of the British Astronomical Association, BAA, and we've listed all the comets discovered between 1995 and 2013. And there are more than 3,000. So it was very exciting. And what did we discover? In 1995, for example, beginning of this listing, the database doesn't go back further, one comet was discovered, namely 1995 one Hale Bopp. Then in 1997 you have 48. By 2000 you have 186 new comets. By 2009 you have 265. So clearly, and the figures between...

Joe: You said 3,000. So by 2009 you had 265? You're saying that there were more than 2,000 discovered since 2009?

Pierre: No, no. The database ranging from 1995 to 2013, lists about 2,000 or 3,000 comets...

Joe: Discovered.

Pierre: ... discovered during this period of time.

Joe: Yes, but do you - okay, but you give very small numbers in the earlier years and I was wondering if...

Pierre: Yes, but then...

Joe: ... larger number ...

Pierre: It's big. Then you have from 2000, 186, in 2009 it picks 265, and then the figure for 2010 to 2013 are a bit lower because the figures seem to have been updated. The three or four last years are being updated. It keeps increasing. It will be finalized maybe I don't know, maybe in one year. But what we can see from that, is that according to a very legitimate and respected source, the British Astronomical Association, we have a strong increase in discovered comets over the 1995/2013 period.

Niall:: I see. It's gone from one new discovery in '95 to nearly 300 in recent years.

Pierre: Yearly.

Niall:: A year.

Joe: It's getting busy up there.

Niall:: It's getting busy and of course getting busy in terms of the results. We get fireballs all the time. Would it be fair to say that's from passing through an increased quantity of debris left behind by all of these comets coming into the solar system?

Pierre: Yeah, they're all part of the same swarm because keeping in mind, as I said previously, it's just an asteroid is facing electrical stress high enough to make it glow. And since the sun lately has been very quiet, the electrical activity, the electrical field within the solar system, is quite, is not intense and a lot of asteroids that would glow in normal solar conditions are not glowing. So you have this swarm of glowing and non-glowing asteroids of dust, small asteroids or big asteroids, hence all those comets that are observed and also all those fireballs.

Niall:: Yeah.

Pierre: That's observed more and more, day after day.

Joe: It's actually horrible when you think about it, that people are so contained and controlled and suppressed in their awareness and their consciousness. People are on this planet experiencing these extreme weather events, record-breaking winds and typhoons and hurricanes, bizarre outbreaks of tornadoes in places where they shouldn't be, and all the other kind of climactic and earth change type events that have been going on. And nobody is paying attention first of all to the fact that it's strange apparently. Certainly the authorities aren't hyping it very much as being anything anomalous or something that people should be concerned about. And anybody that is, i.e., the global warmists are saying that it's all our fault. And we're just talking here about the fact that it is most likely related directly to an increase in heavenly bodies swarming around our solar system and around our planet, interacting with the solar system and our planet and causing this. And people's faces are being kept shoved in the dirt and they're being convinced - there's a narrative, an official narrative that says this is all our fault. It's got nothing to do with what it really has to do with. And it's horrible.

Jason: What really galls me though is that people are still kind of still so inured in this idea of 'Oh, global terrorism, that's the real threat'. And more people are dying every day from storms basically now. It's gotten to the point where people are dying from serious storms and weather, starvation, all this different stuff. Since 2011, how many people have died from disease, want and storms? And even apparently some meteor strikes have taken a few people out as well.

Joe: Yeah.

Pierre: And lightning.

Jason: And lightning. And how many people have died from that and how many people have died from some sort of terrorist attack? It's ridiculous. It's the big threat.

Joe: Maybe it's not just that it's affecting climate and causing crazy weather all over the planet, which is taking lives and destroying peoples' towns and cities even, recently in the Philippines. But maybe the solar radiation caused by these heavenly bodies in our solar system, is also having an effect on the people, directly on humanity in some kind of non-physical way, i.e., solar radiation is a particular type of radiation and radiation of one type or another does affect human beings, can be used to affect human brainwaves, etc.

Jason: Well the whole word lunatic comes from an observation that the cosmic and solar system cycles do affect peoples' psychology.

Joe: Yeah, so what we're seeing, these effects in terms of climate and crazy weather, we are also seeing effects on human beings, specifically in relation to what you just said about how many people killed by terrorists since 9/11. The official figure is 300. That's inflated to include as many people as possible.

Jason: 3,000.

Joe: Huh?

Jason: Since 9/11.

Joe: No, 300 since 9/11.

Jason: Since 9/11.

Niall:: Killed by terrorism.

Joe: Since 911. Not during. Three hundred people. How many people were killed by policemen in the U.S.?

Jason: I think it's higher than that actually.

Joe: Five thousand. At least 300 killed by terrorists, 5,000 killed by policemen since 9/11, in the last 13 years. And now there's something going on there, right?

Jason: Who's the real terrorist?

Joe: And that's not a very high number as well. That's a stark increase over recent years. And again we posit the idea that you've got to look to the skies to come up with a solution, or the answer, or the possible answer to what's going on, on our planet in terms of the planet itself, the weather, the climate and the people. And nobody cares.

Pierre: A tentative time...

Joe: Our wonderful listeners.

Pierre: A tentative timeline to correlate solar activity and the development of this exceptional typhoon Hayain. So on October 29th you have an X-2.3 solar flare. Four days later, and keep in mind that solar winds take two-to-four days to travel from the sun to earth, so four days after the solar flare, X-class, Hayain originates as a tropical storm. By November 5, three days later, it's a category 5 typhoon. On November 7th it is still intensifying, probably strengthened by the X-3.3 flare that occurred two days before, on November 5th. On this very same day, November 7th, Hayain reached winds 315 kilometres an hour, 196 miles per hour. Where it does its landfall, it doesn't decrease in intensity when it reached land, which makes it the most powerful typhoon ever recorded in written history. Three 315 kilometres an hour when reaching the coast, and over seas, that's the fourth fastest wind every recorded. So that was an exceptional event.

Jason: Wow!

Joe: But there's nothing to see here folks.

Jason: Just be moving on.

Niall:: They recently announced that - well, recently announced - a big study was published ahead of another IPCC report, that the planet's oceans are warming. Now I initially went "Yeah, right!" But if you read the small print, the surface is cooling, underneath, it's warming. It's warming from below.

Joe: Well that's a serious problem for the global kind of conveyor belt of water and temperature and it's going to result in an ice age.

Niall:: Yeah.

Jason: Pretty much.

Joe: It's been flipped on its head. So yeah, ice age coming. Comets are coming.

Pierre: Pick your choice.

Joe: And psychos are going to get it in the neck.

Jason: Six ways from Sunday.

Pierre: Hang on. Ice age is coming, so it's going to be very cold. The comets are coming.

Joe: They're going to be very warm.

Pierre: They bring a lot of energy. So maybe it will be very lukewarm in between.

Joe: Yeah. That's the glass half full approach.

Jason: Well not. We've got a situation of one of those things hitting - setting off a couple of volcanos, sky's filled with ash and then...

Joe: And then you get...

Jason: What was cold was then suddenly going to be colder because now no sunlight's getting through. If anything it's just going to be like a double screw job.

Pierre: So you have to be perfectly located between a volcano and an iceberg and a fireball.

Joe: You've got to pick your site very carefully, yes. Anyway folks, we're running out of time here. So we're going to leave it there for this week. We hope you enjoyed the show. We will be back next week with another show, at the same time, on the same day of the week. We hope you can join us. So until then, have a good one.

Jason: Have a good night.

Niall:: Good bye.

Pierre: Bye-bye.