Crisis actors faking injury at the Boston Bombings? No schoolchildren murdered at Sandy Hook? Holographic planes flew into the World Trade Center? "Where's all the blood?!" Conspiracy theorists come in for a lot of ridicule, often unfairly, but the alarmingly high number of hits and airtime some recent choice conspiracy theories have received has even us backing away slowly and wondering just what is going on.

On this week's show, we talked about the idea of "government actors" and "fakery" at "terror attacks", including the recent killing of a British soldier in Woolwich, London, which some claim was staged and no one really died "because there was not enough blood", echoing the claims made about Jeff Bauman at the Boston Marathon finish line.

Are such ideas deliberately promoted to sow disinformation and discredit, by association, anyone attempting to analyse the hard data?

Running Time: 01:47:00

Download: MP3

Here's the transcript:

(Intro theme)

Niall: Hello to all our listeners and welcome to SOTT Talk Radio. With you this cool Sunday in late May is Joe Quinn,

Joe: Hi there.

Niall: Jason Martin,

Jason: Hello.

Niall: And myself Niall Bradley. We are also delighted to have with us this week a friend and colleague, and who is an editor at, welcome Anart.

Anart: Hello, Hello.

Niall: Okay I am sure our listeners are aware of another so called "Terror Attack" last week this time in London, England.

Jason: London, England.

Niall: We thought we'd begin (chuckles at Jason's statement) by, well, just discussing what happened I suppose, as a kind of a recap, and then try and put it in the context of other recent attacks, obviously the Boston bombings and before that the Sandy Hook school shooting, which wasn't technically a terrorist attack but as we've discussed it has the same net effect. If you'd seen our radio show advert when we put it up you'll know that what we really want to get into is this pattern that's developing where you've got people, particularly online, there that.. they're kind of framing these events as complete hoaxes from start to finish. Just at the outset, I'll just say, it just seems off the wall to us. I mean us, seasoned conspiracy theorists. (laughter) So before we get into it though, let's look at what happened in London last week. So a guy, two guys in fact, are filmed. The first I saw of it was the headline in the English paper, The Guardian, with the video of two guys, bloody hands..

Joe: Hang on a minute, what are we talking about this week in the show?

Niall: Conspiracy theories.

Joe: Just conspiracy theories or a particular aspect of conspiracy theories?

Jason: I don't, I don't know what happened in London though. I'm just...I'm curious.

Niall: Well, we'll get into that but basically the topic of the show is conspiracy theories, it's a very broad topic. And specifically we're going to be looking (clears throat), looking at and the way conspiracy theories have evolved of late, really since the Sandy Hook shootings and the idea of actors and hoaxes, because this is something that's fairly new. Particularly in the sense that in the way it's being dealt with, the emphasis is being given to the idea of actors and hoaxing and that, to some extent, the actual terror attack didn't happen at all. We saw it on 9/11 a little bit, with claims of fake planes and holograms and things like that, but until, as far as I can see, Sandy Hook, there was no major kind of push to pitch terrorist attacks or shootings or terrorist attacks of any flavor as hoaxes, they didn't really happen or they were in some way staged. It's a step further than just saying the government did it. It's now saying the government didn't do it, in a did it kind of way.

Anart: It certainly appears to be the latest variation of a counter intelligence program that's working very, very well.

Jason: Well, I mean, the interesting thing is why it works, I think. You know, I think the problem is the people are just, they're very sensitive and it really is hard for people to think that the government may have been complicit in some way, or directly responsible and planned, or some, you know, people, to, you know, go enter a room and shoot a bunch of kids. You know, in school in America, right? That's a painful idea to have to accept, so they're willing to accept almost anything other than that. Because, I mean, what do you do when you're in a world where people who are supposed to be responsible in your government, now there's this evidence that they're going into a room full of kids and shooting them up, what are you going to do? I mean, they're going to latch on to anything.

Anart: I think that's part of it. I think part of it...

Jason: That's why it's successful.

Anart: I think part of it is that they sense they're not being told the truth.

Jason: Yeah.

Anart: They can feel it, but they don't know exactly how they're not being told the truth, so they start to look. And then they are very, very effectively herded in a certain direction that ensures they'll never get to the truth.

Jason: Yeah, but out of, you know, fear and pain, and the fear of having to accept a world like that, it is difficult you know. It's easier to bury your head in the sand.

Joe: Yeah absolutely, that's definitely a factor, but of course (clears throat) I suppose that, the thing I am trying to say is that, up until now it was okay for hardened conspiracy theorists and alternative news websites etc. to just look at the details of previous terrorist attacks, or so called terrorist attacks and blame it on the government, to one extent or another, but...

Anart: It's kinda morphed.

Joe: Now it's morphed into, a kind of, like I said... "The government has gone to a new level of deception".

Niall: Yeah. They're doing it so much it didn't really happen at all.

Joe: Yeah. (Clears throat)

Niall: And in, well, just to give you a good recent example. So these guys were seen that they carried out this attack, apparently they knew of this British soldier. They ran him down in his car, not far from his barracks, in Woolwich, South London, and then proceeded to drag him in full view of, I think up to a 100 people, and decapitate him with a butcher knife. It was filmed by someone who was nearby. The culprits were then interviewed or, they gave some statements to this filmer, and...Next thing, it's headline news.

Not just headline news - well that's understandable, it was a horrific attack - but it's headline news and the British government calls an emergency, cobra, secret intel meeting where they get together the entire cabinet, and the head of MI5 and their chairman for intelligence committee staff. And it was kind of,"Okay well someone's been murdered brutally, but I am afraid it happens rather frequently in London and other places" so...

Jason: So what was their solution to the problem? How will they prevent...

Niall: One of the very first things being discussed apparently was clamping down on extremist websites.

Joe: Uh hmm.

Niall: Now...

Anart: And guess how they define extremist - anything they don't agree with..

Niall: Well yeah, down the, there's a fine print toward the end of, the article will tell you, well, by extremist websites we are of course referring to jihadist forums..

Joe: Where these guys would be hangin' out.

Anart: For now.

Jason: For now.

Niall: B, the first ten paragraphs, and no one really gets any further than that, they read this, "Oh, the internet's the problem". That's the take home message.

Joe: Yeah. Well if this particular attack had (clears throat)...Had all the hallmarks of a planned operation by... it seems by more than just these two guys, you know. Like in so many other so called "terror attacks", the guys involved had an intel background in the sense that they had been contacted by British Intelligence several years ago, and you know, who knows what happened after that. But, it's on official record that they had been on the radar of British Intelligence, and had been contacted. I think one of them might've actually been asked if he would work, for British intelligence.

Anart: We see this over and over and over again, that you mentioned just.

Joe: Yeah where the people involved, and you know, so, as Niall was just saying. There are many stabbings, and it wasn't just that they, they knocked him down, knocked the soldier down outside the barracks in their car and then get out and started stabbing him, allegedly. I still don't really believe this until I find some hard evidence - not that I might ever get that - but that I still don't believe necessarily that they decapitated him or even that they were trying to. All we know is that they were kind of stabbing him..

Jason: Well this is the kind of thing...

Niall: A woman who was on the scene and - they said confronted -, she didn't really, she just went up and asked them, "What are you doing?"

Joe: Hmm.

Niall: In her testimony, she said that, "No, I didn't do it"...that no one was decapitated, the head was still there..

Joe: Well of course, yeah. Yeah it was, I mean but the allegations that they were attempting to...but that's all kind of hearsay and you are not going to get any information by that..

Anart: What woman walks up to two men stabbing a third man and says, "Uh...What are you doing?"


Jason: This is either nuts...

Joe: This is a very strange aspect of it because it wasn't...

Anart: "Pardon me"... (Imitating the woman)

Joe: It wasn't like these two guys were kinda crazed slashers or shooters who were running around in this Woolwich Street, you know, slashing and shooting people. They were very calm, very relaxed, and once they have stabbed the guy, they pulled him out into the middle of the street and went around to people who were, who were standing around, had begun to kind of gather around, and asked them to take pictures and to film them. And one woman had a camera and so this guy gives an interview basically, immediately afterwards to this woman and explained why he did it...


Niall: Why...

Joe: And, and the thing..

Anart: That doesn't sound like a Psy-Op at all now, does it?

Joe: Well, the thing about it...yeah it's very strange, and they were there for 20 minutes, they just hung around for 20 minutes, afterwards. And just, the impression you get is that it was a very strange, was a very strange scenario. Wasn't a typical stabbing or shooting or whatever...

Jason: So why did they say, why did they say they did it?

Joe: Well hang on. I mean, I was just gonna make a point that, to the extent that...One person, or a number of people who were there, when they saw those two guys stabbing the soldier, they weren't sure, they thought they were trying to resuscitate him, you know ? So that, the scenario seems to have been that no one was actually sure. Because these guys had such a relaxed demeanor, no one was really a 100% sure what was going on. It wasn't the crazed knife attack you know. But the guy basically he said that this was...He was doing this in reprisal for the murder of Muslims by the British army, British soldiers around the world, and that happens in Muslim countries every day at the hands of British soldiers, so he thought he would give them a taste of their own medicine essentially.

Jason: Wow, that' so believable.

Anart: (laughs)

Joe: That what was it...That was the allegation.

Jason: The whole situation is so believable.

Joe: Well of course.

Jason: It's not like something right out of a movie.

Anart: That's the sarcasm tone in case you can't pick up..

Joe: Yeah, of course it...The interesting thing about him saying that kind of puts, by association...Kind of smears anyone...

Niall: Yeah, puts us right in the firing line.

Joe: ...Who says the same thing you know? So he's supposedly this crazed killer of a soldier but he compared with this rather well reasoned and rational political discourse on why he was doing it...Not that the murder...

Jason: Woah, woah...

Joe: ...Not that the murder is rational, but the motivation...

Jason: I'll never agree that "Do unto others what has been done unto you" is a rational, proper thing.

Niall: That's what he said...

Joe: No... (To Jason's remark)

Niall: He said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth."

Joe: Well you wouldn't agree that it's rational but many other people would, you know? For example, most of Americans and most British, well particularly Americans after 9/11, were employing the "Eye for an eye". It was "They attacked us, now we have to go and attack them". That was the whole...

Niall: Support base. "We don't know who "them" is, but let's just start with the whole world".

Anart: Well the bigger point is that we're being worked. Everyone who saw that video, everyone who recorded that video, everyone who's passed it around, is talking about it, is being worked right now psychologically. It's a ridiculous setup. It's clearly a psychological operation. You know, people don't behave that way.

Niall: Yeah, yeah.

Anart: That's the bigger point.

Joe: Yeah I mean, he had spent time... The guy's name - there were two of them - but the guy who supposedly did the killing was... I just have to look up his name here. Do you have his name there, Niall?

Niall: The victim?

Joe: No, the attacker.

Niall: The attacker's name... - He was a Kenyan expatriate - ...Michael Adebolajo.

Joe: Yeah that's him.

Niall: Umm.

Joe: Well he's Nigerian, his parents are Nigerian, he's been brought up , educated in the UK, and his parents are Christian. And six months ago, he was "radicalized", supposedly on a trip.

Jason: "Radicalized"...

Joe: Radicalized on a...

Anart: That's the six month radicalization!

Jason: (laughs)

Joe: On a trip...

Jason: They cast a spell on him...

Joe: He was radicalized on a trip to...on a trip to Kenya actually, where he was apparently tortured by local Kenyan officials who picked him up, probably on the orders of the British intelligence. Because Kenya is still a pretty much a British client state since it gained independence in the 50s, but up until now it was completely overrun and controlled by British, and is largely still to today. It's one of MI5's, or MI6's happy hunting grounds for Muslim extremists etc...So he was there with a group of other people. Supposedly, he was going to school, to learn some Muslim radicalization or something like that and he was picked up by Kenyans who tortured him and then, after that he came back he was...

Jason: Has anyone seen those like, The Rise University's, or like the Phoenix University ads that you get when you go... I mean they make it sound sort of like those ads floating around the internet I see, you know, a sort of a correspondence course in terrorism online. Get your online doctorate!

Anart: In under six months.

Jason: In under six months.

Joe: Yeah that's pretty much...

Niall: The Kenyans arrested him on the suspicion of being at the centre of an Al-Qaeda inspired plot in 2010.

Joe: What else. Yeah.

Niall: So that was actually three years ago. Then, there was a more recent, I think, trip, six months ago. So he actually goes back longer under the radar. It's three years old rather than six months. Now his family has said some interesting things.

Joe: Well, the radicalization, according to his friend, occurred six months ago when he became much more withdrawn, and changed his personality, and his behavior changed around then.

Niall: Yeah. Now his family adds some context here. They claimed he was held in detention, tortured, then deported back to Britain without charge. Now it's interesting, he was - if even found guilty in Kenyan court - he was gonna be executed. Something intervened. The next thing you know he's back on a plane to the UK.

Joe: And MI5 were harassing him.

Niall: Pestering was the word, his members of his family used."Was pestered by MI5 agents pressuring him to become an informant for them and infiltrate radical Islamic, extremist groups".

Joe: Yeah, so let me...I have a little clip here to play. This is an interview. It's kind of interesting coz it's from a few days ago. It was an interview of a friend of his, called Abu Nusaybah, and who is interviewed by I think the BBC, and immediately after the interview, he was arrested by British intelligence. They actually came into the studio. This is just a few days ago. It's only a couple of minutes but this is what his friend...there's a reporter, who gives a little introduction, and then his friend.

(The interview here at
(Intro video clip:
BBC Reporter's interview:
(0:00 mins) BBC Reporter: He came into the BBC, we conducted the interview, immediately after the interview I'm told, three people from Special Branch were in BBC premises, they arrested the man and..and you know, so very dramatic event aside.
Next - Video clip of Abu Nusaybah's Interview:
(7:06 mins) BBC Reporter (to Abu Nusaybah): Did he give any indication to you that he was capable of such horrific violence?
Abu Nusaybah: No, I mean when...When I saw that, the photos of him, initially I thought it was a joke. I thought, you know are you like serious? That it can't be him, you know, there's no way can be him because...he didn't make sense because his whole concept, you know, was, he just wanted to go and live in the Muslim land basically, you know, and just basically get away from all the problems and all the troubles basically, you know, coz at that time, he was basically being harassed by MI5, you know.
This is something that he specifically mentioned to me. He said that MI5 had come to him. I think he, on his return back he had been stopped, and subsequently after that basically, he was followed up by MI5, you know, he said that they came to his house, they were saying, knocking at his door, knocking at his door, he pretended that he wasn't there. But they were knocking so much he thought to himself that look you know, "Well, I need to kind of like, you know, come and show my face". So he came out, he spoke to the MI5 agent and they were saying that "Look, we just wanna have a chat with you, just wanna speak to you."
BBC Reporter: So when did he tell you this?
Abu Nusaybah: This is roughly about six months ago, roughly.
BBC Reporter: And what was his reaction to being approached by the security service MI5?
Abu Nusaybah: Yeah, the situation was like, you know, his wording was... "Akh them" you know. "Akh" means "Brother, you know, they're bugging me, you know..they're like, they just keep, you know, they won't leave me alone basically", you know.
BBC Reporter: Did he explain what they wanted?
Abu Nusaybah: He mentioned that initially; they wanted to ask him whether he knew certain individuals basically. That was the initial issue, but after him saying that he didn't know these individuals and so forth, what he said that they asked him whether he'll be interested in working for them.
End of Abu Nusaybah's interview clip,
Next video clip:
BBC Reporter's interviewer: Well there's a lot of allegations there, Richard, we'll come to them in a second, but on the MI5 point, lot of people watching that will be thinking, "That was MI5 doing their job.")

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: That's MI5 doing their job.

Anart: Isn't this the exact same story that the friends of the Boston bombers told, if you replace the MI5 with FBI?

Joe: Um hmm.

Anart: And it's the exact same narrative.

Niall: Interestingly, another friend said that when he came back to Britain, MI5 contacted him and showed significant interest in Michael, harassed him for a while including constant calls from people claimed to be from the FBI. So they were not far behind either.

Joe: Um hmm.

Niall: Umm.

Joe: Yeah.

Niall: I think, whatever way you slice it, this guy was manipulated from start to finish.

Joe: Like all the others. Like the long list of FBI terror plot "patsies", all who were...who were easily ...

Anart: So, anyone paying attention is gonna start to say, "Hey, wait a minute. The FBI's are always involved, MI5's always involved." And they start to go down that route and all of a sudden, they're distracted, by this bright, shiny idea that the whole thing was a hoax and there were paid actors involved.

Joe: Umm hmm..Not only are they distracted by that, but it makes it very difficult for anybody trying to follow the hard evidence and present, you know, present a case based on the hard evidence. It makes it very difficult to do that when you have these kind of rather spurious claims of the actual event, the actual attack, terror attack or whatever, being a hoax. It being staged, it not really having happened, at all in some cases I mean, one of the things about this, this guy, the attack in London the other day, was that people immediately jumped on the idea that there was no blood. And you find that and then on the past few occasions, people would say, "There's not enough blood, there's not enough blood!" but I mean even..

Anart: "I've decapitated lots of folks and that's not enough blood!"

Joe: Yeah.

Jason: (laughs)

Niall: Or even, even if there is blood, they'll already, before they even look at all of the available pictures from the event, they would have posted you know, twenty YouTube videos saying, "Busted! Not enough blood in this one. We got the government by the cojones".

Jason: These are the people whose anatomical education comes from like, horror films and Kill Bill and stuff, you know.

Joe: Yeah, so basically they jumped on this idea that there...

Anart: The Tarantino factor.

Jason: It's the Tarantino education in anatomy.

Joe: There wasn't enough blood, but there was those pictures of blood from where he was being...where he was dragged...

Niall: From a car...

Joe: down...

Niall: Yeah.

Anart: And the point being, instead of following the obvious pattern, and going where that takes you, it's societal engineering. We are being worked as a society. They get lost in this jungle of, "Not enough blood".

Joe: Yeah, and the other thing was, on his hands. There is a famous, by now, a video of this guy talking to the cameraperson and holding the knives in his hands, and both his hands have blood on them and they're quite red. And there's another video from more or less the same angle where his hands are more of a orange color, and people jumped on that, as saying, "Well look, there's two videos here, one with blood, one without, pretty much the same thing, this is obviously staged. This is a hoax. Somebody put that red blood on his hands". But the thing is, if you look, at the video where there is apparently no blood, his hands are quite orange. They are an unnatural color. They're certainly, certainly, there's something on his hands. His hands aren't the normal color of a black person's hand let's say. So, actually compare the two videos: the one with the red blood on his hands, there are red lines along the road, along the sidewalk.

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: Andin London, you know, these red line zones whatever it's for - it's not for no parking, it's for something else -, but they paint two red lines on the side of the road. So you've got in the red hands one, you've got the red lines on the road (clears throat) and the one with the orange, or allegedly no blood video, the red lines alongside the road are orange, similar color to his hands, which, and the obvious deduction then, the obvious conclusion that someone has applied some kind of a...

Niall: Poster.

Joe: editing filter...

Niall: Yeah, to contrast.

Joe: To tone down the red to an orange. I mean that's all it is, it's obviously the same. But that doesn't stop people from just running with it and, you know, they did very similar things with the Boston bombing, you know.

Jason: It's ridiculous, I mean, you can't trust a camera picture. Coz what if the person who took it was, you know, didn't do it right or ran it through something? You don't know I mean...

Anart: And why not spend all that energy paying attention to the fact that Boston got locked down and militarized police officers walked into every single house, without a warrant, made the family leave, searched the house. It's a complete police state and people are spending energy going, "Oh wow, cause and effect, who benefits?" to spend the energy saying "Fake actor hooks, it's just the oldest trick in the book."

Niall: Absolutely. Just before we go back to Boston bombings. The reason why this concerns us is because I have here mainstream article, Huffington Post - their UK edition - but nevertheless,

"Woolwich Attack - Bizarre Conspiracy theories claim entire incident was hoax"
(here at

So they can refer to these things, as if this is what all the 'wackos' out there are thinking about. They refer to that video Joe described where someone's deliberately applied color contrast to make it seem that there was no blood on the attacker's hand. And then they proceed to name particular sites, you know, I go to this one, then check it out to see what they are saying and they quote some of these commentators. Not just referring to this attack but referring to Sandy Hook, Boston bombings and this current one, all in the same context, namely that, they were hoaxed from start to finish.

Joe: Um hmm..

Niall: So this is why it concerns us. So this is why we want to talk about it today because it's...uhh...

Joe: You get discredited by association.

Niall: Exactly.

Joe: When they know you're al...

Anart: It runs the train of legitimate inquiry off the track.

Niall: Exactly.

Anart: It speeds it up to a point where...

Niall: They included a comment, the Huffington Post, which is dead on. But not for the reason that is assumed in the article. "Conspiracy theories in the aftermath of tragedies are becoming ever more common as fringe groups pick apart police video and media reports, often causing pain and suffering to genuine victims they accuse of being 'actors'." And if you think about that, that would be a completely legitimate response. People hear that the whole thing was fake and they are directly affected by it, maybe they knew someone or whatever.

Jason: Well Jesus,that right there is gonna hurt you know..

Joe: Absolutely.

Niall: It's so hurtful.

Joe: Yeah and, just in case people misunderstand what we are saying here, we're not saying that "there's only so far you can go because people won't understand it". We're talking here about claims of evidence of conspiracy that are pretty easily debunked.

Jason: Yeah, I mean...

Joe: I mean you are setting yourself to be laughed at if you don't do your homework in advance, and make sure that you are not saying something that you yourself could have explained away as basically normal. That it wasn't something strange, or bizarre, or evidence of conspiracy. If you want...if you're into evidence of conspiracy, you need to be serious about it and not just jump up at the first thing, or leap to conclusion,s and therefore set yourself up to be laughed at. Why would you wanna do that? And I mean, I don't understand why so many, - formerly fairly sober -, rational and sane conspiracy theorists, who have written and talked about other aspects of terror attacks and the War on Terror and 9/11, have all, I mean all, with the exception of, have all jumped on this actors and hoaxing bandwagon. I really... I'm struggling to get my head around why these people who, like I said, seem to have a fairly decent brain on them have just lost the plot.

Anart: It certainly appears that they have fallen for a classic counter intelligence program, and it's that simple. I mean I think that there's been enough work done since 9/11 on revealing some of the hands behind the curtain. At least, revealing the fact that we are not being told the truth. We are not being told the truth by the media, we are not being told the truth by our government, and people are really starting to delve into that and prove it and explain it in a rational way.

Joe: Um hmm.

Anart: And so what's the next step of the counter-intelligence folks? "Hey let's run that train off the track and speed it up as fast they can go. We use a lot of emotion, hook a lot of people, you know, they won't know what to believe. Let's do it."

Joe: Well on the hands thing, and the 'no blood on the hands' of the guy in London, there's two possible explanations as I see it. One is that the media applied that kind of contrast filter to make it look like there was no blood, or there was a difference in the color of the blood on his hands, in an effort to pander to the squeamish sensitivities of the British public. Or, someone out there in YouTube land decided to upload it to deliberately provoke the fakery and hoaxery people to do it around this one as well, you know.

Niall: I'm leaning towards the latter, because I mean, after Sandy Hook, the thing that struck me most was that, not so much that these ideas were out there and being discussed, but the sheer coverage they were receiving. When Anderson Cooper trashed the idea that Sandy Hook...

Joe: Was anything...

Niall: ..was anything other than what we were told it was, he refers to the idea that it was all a complete stage, that they were actors.

Niall: So as a result of that..

Joe: It's so easy to do..

Niall: As a result of that, media was, on YouTube and elsewhere on social media, promoting this idea. Their coverage exploded, I mean, they're getting like 10 million hits.

Joe: Yeah, yeah..

Niall: And there are reasonable voices trying to say, "You know, well, if you look at the historical context, blah, blah, blah", are just drowned out by this...this noise.

Jason: They just, they create their own competition and they control the debate.

Anart: Yeah, exactly.

Jason: By having both sides of the argument.

Joe: We've got a call here, I think I'm gonna go ahead and take it. Hi caller, what's your name?

Caller: Hello.

Joe: Hi, what's your name and where are you calling from?

Caller: Hello, I'm Gaby. I'm calling from Spain.

Joe: Hi Gaby.

Gaby: Can you listen to me?

Niall: Hi Gaby.

Gaby: Hi, hello. Well, I was listening to the hoax part and...there is, you know, 'no blood' argument and I want to share an inside view.

Joe: Okay.

Gaby: You see, well I am a medical doctor and I am trained as a heart surgeon. Not that I am a trauma doctor but I have experience, you know. I've assisted in thousands of surgeries, open heart surgery. I have done shifts in the ER where people arrive with complex fractures basically, almost complete amputation.

Joe: Um hmm.

Gaby: You'll be surprised to see like there's no blood! And...

Joe: Right.

Gaby: ...also I have experienced, you know to how infections, you know, sternum, the chest bones, I have a rough estimation of how much the bone marrow bleeds. You'd be surprised that it hardly bleeds, you just have to apply a thin layer of wax and that's it.

Joe: Okay.

Gaby: People will be surprised to realize that you can do like entire surgery and finish with your gloves clean, you know. You take <> basically, you know for me it sounds surreal that, you know, that kind of an argument of no blood. People think it's like a gory Hollywood movie, could be you know.

Joe: So, just in your experience, I mean, this kind of relates maybe directly to the amputee at the Boston marathon, Jeff Bauman, in your experience, in an operating room or if you've seen patients come in with that kind of a leg injury, where more or less the leg has been either fully or almost fully severed, is it...I mean should there be blood? If you have any experience it would be actually quite useful with your experience amputations in hospital. Of people's legs..

Gaby: Yeah I, I...

Joe: Because surely when they cut off a leg in a hospital, they have to have some way of making sure blood doesn't squirt anywhere, if that is what actually happens, right? I mean..

Gaby: It doesn't actually happen that way, I've assisted amputations almost at the level of the hip bone, and that's pretty major surgery. And it was not like, you know, blood squirting everywhere. Because you basically section the vessels and stop the bleeding as you go.

Joe: Yeah.

Gaby: Basically when you section an artery, it is done with heat, with coagulation, and you manipulate an artery it starts to coagulate immediately, so the bleeding will stop to the point that in surgery. You have to actually use blood thinners in order to stop that, you know.

Anart: Okay so, if that happens out in the wild, it's not in a hospital setting, is it very different? I mean do you think there is less blood because they are in hospital and there are techniques being used to slow the blood or do you think...

Gaby: No, actually, I remember seeing that picture of the Boston marathon bombing. And that for me, it was like reality as it is, you know, as it is in operating room basically...

Joe: Okay, so you're saying that, that the body has kind of automatic functions that...when that kind of trauma is experienced, that one of the first things that the body tries to do is to stem the blood flow because your body kind of knows that if you lose all your blood, you're gonna die.

Gaby: Yeah, of course and then you know, a person taking care of a complex fracture you know...The immediate reaction is just to stop the bleeding, and basically a person, when he arrives to the yard, you'll be surprised to see how clean they can arrive. So bloodshed everywhere, it's just like a myth come out of Hollywood, I don't know why.

Anart: Right.

Joe: Yeah, okay, so basically from your experience as a surgeon, you're kind of saying that when you saw that image of Jeff Bauman after the bomb that kind of blew his legs off - at about the knee level - and that the picture we saw on TV weren't that unusual in terms of...

Gaby: Well, I never questioned it you know. For me, it was like reality. And it reminds me of pictures, I've seen also from other countries, other bombings, Palestine, you know, nobody ever questions that..

Joe: Yeah, absolutely.

Gaby: I just called to share that.

Joe: Okay, well thanks very much Gaby for your input there.

Niall: Thank you, that was really good.

Gaby: Welcome, goodbye.

Joe: Alright, bye.

Gaby: Bye.

Joe: Well okay, so Gaby...

Niall: That's really interesting because...It was...The sheer certainty of some commentators about what they thought they were seeing with Jeff Bauman. They both - immediately after the bombs happened because someone was there and they took close pictures -, and then his being escorted away from there in a wheel chair, eventually into a tent I think.

Joe: Umm hmm.

Niall: You had people who were not medical experts, making very definitive statements.

Joe: Yeah.

Niall: ...about how what they saw could not have been real deal and...

Joe: Yeah and to me, I thought about it, it really didn't make any sense. I looked at all the pictures and I tried to make sense in my head as how this could be true. And the theory for - I am sure most people listening know - that there is that 'Jeff Bauman was already an amputee and he was placed at the site of the bombing, perhaps with a couple of friends, and the bomb went off right where he was' . And - assuming it would've done some damage to him, coz the bomb appears to have been a real bomb of some description -, but nevertheless, him and his couple of friends immediately went into action and started to apply this bloody prosthetic limb to his...stumps...
Well, you see him standing there before hand in one of the pictures, Jeff Bauman. So he would have had two troll prosthesis, and then the bomb went off and I suppose, quite helpfully blew those prosthesis away...

Niall: Oh yeah.

Joe: ...and then he had another one in a bag or somewhere, maybe - I don't know - nearby, and his friend picked that up and applied that. And immediately afterwards, because I looked at the pictures. There are pictures from behind where they were standing, looking at the finish line, from the first floor building just above. And the guy just pushed the button on his camera and was taking like two pictures every second; he took over 40 or 50 of them, just held the button down.

So, very first one of those pictures shows the smoke kind of clearing, and Jeff Bauman and a couple of other people around him, right in the center of this explosion. And you can tell that they are in the center of the explosion because there's a video from the other angle, from behind the finish line looking down the street. Probably most people have seen this video as well, that the bomb is going off on the right hand side. And, there's a guy who's running along, and as that bomb goes off, one of the marathon participants kind of reacts to it and kind of sways to the side. This guy is quite noticeable because he's got blonde hair, black and white running outfit and pink socks.
So he reacts to this in the video of the bomb going off, in the video looking down in the street from behind the finish line. And in the pictures that I just mentioned, looking at the finish line from just behind where the bomb went off. The first two pictures when the smoke is clearing and Jeff Bauman and these people are there, you can see this guy, who in the video is reacting to the bomb, you can see him with his pink socks and his blonde hair and his black and white top running in the exact position that he's seen in the video.

So those two pieces of evidence kind of put Jeff Bauman, and the other people, right in the position where that bomb went off. And it seems to have been a proper bomb, coz you can see the kind of the, the advertising signs and stuff that were on the railings kind of blowing out when the bomb went off. So it was a pretty concussive force, you know. But nevertheless, as we've said, these three people, Jeff Bauman and two others at least, somehow survived that blast. And they were kinda compos mentis enough to kind of go into their role of actors, by planting prosthesis etc, etc.

Jason: I mean just when you tell like that, it sounds ridiculous.

Joe: But that's the only way. I just follow up through In terms of trying to understand it.

Jason: There had to be a fake bomb too.

Joe: Well yeah, but then.

Anart: For that too work.

Joe: Yeah...

Anart: I think the point is, we know that the entire situation was managed. It was probably a false flag. We know we're being lied to, we know the coverage of it was being managed. And that could be investigated and followed and we could see who benefits, and we can see the continued to societal engineering. But instead of us doing that, as an alternative news community, we get completely sidetracked and worked and managed. And really herded, And this idea..

Joe: And tarred.

Anart: And tarred, absolutely, and this idea that any person off the street is going to look at you like you've lost your marbles. You say, "Oh! They were actors. Not of that actually happened."

Joe: Yep. Well one of the interesting things - and this is the kind of thing that we'd like to talk about if people weren't talking so much about actors and stuff like that -. And leaving at that because I mean if you claim there's actors, and it was all faked and staged and stuff, well then there's not really any need to go into any other details. From our perspective, the more plausible details that point to it being essentially a government operation and FBI terror plot, that went real. And we've mentioned..

Anart: Again.

Joe: ...we've mentioned before in a previous show about the warnings from the police department to Boston Globe that a bomb was going to go off in one minute. And this was two hours before the bomb actually did go off. So security officials somehow knew that a bomb was going to go off two hours before it did go off. But the other thing about the two brothers that were framed for this bombing, what people forget is that there is nothing actually...there's no real, good, hard evidence to connect them to it. They were just two of many people at the marathon that day, watching the marathon, who had backpacks on. People seem to have decided that because they had backpacks on and the bombs were allegedly in a backpack then they must have been the ones that did it. But...

Anart: In a marathon, thousands of people have backpacks on.

Joe: Absolutely yeah.

Anart: They have their clothes, they have their tennis shoes...

Joe: They put them on the ground. You know, everybody's putting backpacks on the ground but the idea seems to be that these two guys were the only two that put the backpacks on the ground, you know. When actually, reports afterwards said that in the aftermath, the security officials and ambulance workers were walking around, picking up hundreds of backpacks that people had left on the ground. So the main evidence supposedly against them, is the killing...the shooting of the policemen outside...

Anart: 711 or one of those...

Joe: No it was actually outside...

Anart: University?

Joe: Yeah, outside MIT. And it was that evening. And it's claimed that the two brothers shot him. But there is no evidence that they shot him because they have CCTV but it doesn''s not possible to..

Jason: Conveniently doesn't show them.

Joe: Yeah well, it's not possible to identify them, conveniently, doesn't show who it was. They claim that they just walked up to him and shot him because they wanted to get his car and his gun. But they didn't take his gun.

Jason: They shot him to get his gun?

Niall: But they didn't take it.

Anart: Coz they didn't have their own gun.

Joe: They had their own gun - maybe they wanted another one -, but certainly they didn't take his gun. He still had his gun on him when he was found. So when you look at it, all they have is that someone walked up behind this policeman and shot him in the back of the head, but they pinned it on the two brothers. And it's important for them to pin it on the two brothers because that then pitches them as these crazy people who shoot cops who are likely to have done the bombing.

Niall: Yeah, It just...

Joe: And the only other piece of evidence corroborating that is the alleged confession made by the older brother when he later hijacked...

Anart: Before he was murdered.

Joe: Yes, when he hijacked the car.

Jason: It's just nonsense.

Joe: He hijacked a car. And the guy who claims that his car was hijacked, I mean, was held hostage for 30 minutes by the two brothers, is still unnamed, and apparently will never be named. He claims that he was carjacked by those brothers and that during this thirty minutes or so, they asked him, "Did you hear about the Boston bombing?" And he said, "Yeah". And the older brother said, "I did that." And he said, "And I just killed a policeman in Cambridge." So this is the evidence.

Anart: And we don't know who it is.

Joe: Well, we don't know who he is. Unnamed, and he won't be named.

Jason: This is an awesome world.

Joe: People have to understand this is the whole evidence that links them to the killing of the policeman. So it's purely speculative. There's no real hard evidence for that, and that the killing of the policeman is the only kind of, circumstantial or plausible evidence that they were involved in the bombing. So there really is no evidence these two brothers were involved in bombing, you know.

Jason: We live in a world where terrorists go to bombing with their passport and leave it like neatly on a pile or, where like they go kill a cop and hijack a car and then admit their entire plot. I mean it's something out of a movie, you know, when the bad guy starts monologuing and he's like, "Let me tell you all the evil things I've done..."

Joe: "Before I kill you."

Niall: Well, do you know who J.D. Tippit is? JFK?

Joe: Yes.

Niall: He was a police officer.

Joe: JD Tippit was the police officer in Dallas who was shot, allegedly, by Lee Harvey Oswald. I mean in exactly the same way we are just talking about and the two brothers having shot this cop. It was pinned on Oswald that he shot this J.D.Tippit and that was the only thing that made him a plausible assassin of JFK, because there were loads on people in that building that Oswald was seen coming out and, at the time, none of them seemed to have thought that he was the one. They didn't see him running down the stairs sweating, with gun powder on his fingers or something, and you know, looking a bit worried, he was walking just normally. But the fact that he was done for... or the fact that they claimed that he had killed the police officer was the really the main...I mean, Jim Garrison actually said that if Oswald was innocent of the Tippit murder, the foundation of the government's case against him collapsed.

Anart: (Laughs)

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: And that is true. And the thing about it is that the Warren Commission completely ignored conflicting eye witness testimony, that there were two people that shot J.D. Tippit, the policeman. Two people, one of them got out of the car, went over, shot him and then got back in the car with another guy and they drove away. But supposedly Oswald just walked up to him and just...So it's an interesting parallel there between the two that both of them are the patsies, or framed as patsies, because they shot a policeman for no reason.

Niall: Yes it serves to demonize them, there and then and then it justifies the subsequent manhunt. And already, they were guilty. And it get's the police on their side, totally coz, "Oh they shot a police officer, he's a dead man!"

Joe: "They shot one of ours." Yeah.

Anart: It's interesting they used the exact same technique though I mean. I think that would called the "calling card?"

Jason: Yeah, yeah it's their signature you know, I mean. It's either that they're just really unoriginal.

Joe: Yeah.

Anart: Or both.

Joe: And a few other things that are strange around the Boston bombings. There's a guy called Todashev. He was another Chechen, he was friend living in Orlando, a friend supposedly of the older Tsarnaev brother...and, this was just last week I think. The FBI had been harassing him and apparently according to friends he was saying that he felt like he was being set up, but the FBI had come around to his house and interviewed him a few times. And on the third and supposedly final interview, for some unknown reason, he lunged, or, is alleged to have lunged at the FBI agent with a knife. So the FBI agent shot him. But it was lucky for the FBI agent because before he did that, he had confessed to the murder of three people and implicated the elder Tsarnaev brother of the Boston marathon bombings in those murders as well. But then he shot him so he couldn't testify in court.

Jason: "You all saw it, He had a gun"

Joe: And then they had these two FBI agents who were out on training.

Niall: Oh yeah.

Joe: The two FBI agents who were involved...

Anart: Fell out of a helicopter?

Joe: Yeah (laughter)...who were involved in the Boston marathon, kinda shootout and chase...

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: And they were on a training course and accidentally got shoved out of a...


Niall: From a helicopter.

Joe: Oh there's another thing actually, another little quite interesting coincidence..

Anart: If this were a movie you would walk out. Like it's so not..(laughs)

Joe: This police Officer Collier, who I just talked about. He was found by another police officer, transit police officer called Donahue who is actually his friend. And he was first on the scene to find the policeman, having been shot, allegedly, by the brothers. And later that evening he was in Watertown at the bigger, the final shootout with the older with the brothers and the older brother...

Anart: The final shootout when the younger brother had no gun.

Joe: Yeah, exactly. And they were throwing pressure cookers at police apparently.

Anart: They were hungry..

Joe: Well he was there at that shootout and he got shot. He was the only police officer who got shot by friendly fire.

Jason: Wow.

Joe: And unfortunately, the problem with him is that he can't say anything about that night because, although he survived...

Anart: He got shot in the throat, no?

Joe: Well, apparently he can remember almost nothing about the events of that night. That's the explanation...I mean, the official story is that he has no recollection of anything that happened after he found his friend, who was allegedly shot by those two brothers, and then got shot by one of his own, later on that evening in the shootout.

Anart: And how many people are talking about this? How much energy is being spent pointing this out instead of pointing out that it's all a hoax?

Joe: Eh it' know these are the little details when you put them all together; they make you go, "Really?" I mean that's stretching it a lot, you know, and if you put it in a historical - and we are not talking about a long term historical context, I'm talking about a ten-year or twelve-year historical context just back to 9/11- . You look at it in all of that context and the FBI and the way they have basically nurtured this whole terror plot and terror scare business and you really...any rational sane person would say "Yeah, it's pretty suspicious." But the rational, sane people will flee in horror at the claims of actors and staged and you know, blue screens and...

Niall: Yeah

Joe: ...Etc. So you just nullify your argument, you may as well give up, you may as well not bother trying to put together some hard evidence and really trying to convince people with a reasonable argument if you are going to either include the hoaxing thing and actors thing, or if you are going to... Well, if you're caught up in a association of it, you're screwed as well. Even if you don't agree with it you're caught and you're screwed, you know.

Anart: Just to clarify again, it's not that it wasn't managed. It's not that it wasn't a setup. It's not that the media coverage was not completely controlled.

Joe: Absolutely.

Anart: And that there may have been media plants explaining things...

Joe: Of course. I am sure they had media plants in, you know..

Anart: ...that's not the point.

Joe: Like that guy who said... We'll play the clip from him on 9/11. That Harley Davidson guy, Mark Walsh, who said... actually I'm just gonna play it here for fun.

(Video recording: here at
Reporter: Going down. We wanna bring in Mark Walsh who's a freelancer for Fox. You lived a few blocks away and witnessed.
Mark Walsh: Dude, I was..I was, I live on the 43rd floor of a building which is five blocks from the Trade Center itself. I witnessed the entire thing from beginning to end. People talk about how it looked like a movie. I know when I came walking down here earlier this morning, I saw both towers on fire and people on every street corner...It was like a movie.
Reporter: But you watched the planes hit the towers.
Mark Walsh: I was watching with my roommates. It was approximately 7 minutes after the first plane had hit. I saw this plane come out of nowhere and just *REEM*, right into the side of the twin tower exploding through the other side and then I witnessed both towers collapse, one first and then the second, mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense.
(End of recording)

Anart: (laughing)

Joe: You gotta love that.

Anart: Really?

Niall: I wonder.

Joe: He was remote viewing, the NIST report that came out five years later...

Jason: Wow.

Joe: ...that said exactly that (laughs).

Anart: "According to page 276, according to structure failure because the fire was so hot."

Niall: I wondered.

Joe: He's an example of a media plant by the way, that's the kind of thing you'll get. If you want to use the one word actors - but we don't -, media plant is better, people on the scene.

Jason: Those are not actors, it's very important to understand that these are guys...

Joe: Well they're doing their job.

Jason: ...are working. These guys have a job. They're not, this is not a job to pretend, I mean it's their job to actively plant this information to control the argument, and control the discussion by setting the parameters, by giving out a certain amount of information and ideas to make sure the people have something to grasp onto right away.

Anart: That's not the correct thing to grasp onto. And it works really, really, really well.

Jason: Well yeah.

Anart: Witness what's happening right now.

Jason: Everywhere.

Niall: Yeah. There is room, I think, for least considering it entertaining and investigating the idea of...well, actors..

Jason: Well, of course there is...

Niall: Because, because you have...There are people, and I mean a lot of people, are pointing out that, when they carry out drills, they do have hired people to pretend they're injured or pretend they're resting.

Anart: Of course.

Niall: Or what have you.

Jason: True, true, true.

Niall: That is all true.

Anart: But...

Niall: The problem is that this idea has been conflated with what we're talking about, which is, people on the ground managing the information and/or back at the studio managing the information. And then you've got other people. And a lot of people will pick up, and they'll apply their own reasonable critical thinking to it, and they'll say, "Well, ok I can't accept that there was just all actors. Maybe there was one or two actors in there, but it was a real bomb." But they still don't think it through. If you think it through, the only way you could have an actor actually agreed to put himself in the line of fire, I think, is if the entire cast in the immediate area is in on it. You need to set up all the stage props, that can't have been a real...

Jason: Not only that, but... Who're you gonna get to go into a situation where a real-ish bomb is gonna go off. I mean even if you got them there, with the idea that they were supposed to do it and they were totally...The problem is it's a management nightmare. You're going to pay actors, who are notorious kind of flaky to begin with.

Anart: Unless they're mind controlled or something.

Jason: Oh yeah okay so...I mean but, you're gonna have to deploy this mind control apparatus too? I mean it's too expensive. It's so much easier for like two or three FBI agents in their back room at the water cooler saying: "You know what? Why don't we just fake a terrorist attack? You build the bomb, you know. And I'll call in this thing." And it takes three guys to set it up, they drop the bomb, they blow something up and it's so much cheaper and more effective than deploying like "mind controlled subjects" who they had to brain wash 'em and set aside a facility for their brain-washing and they gotta pay all these people and it's all this money, and it's just so really expensive. It's like the whole holographic plane.

Anart: Right and once again, just like 9/11 you know, it's these people focusing on the minutiae of the situation, rather than focusing on the bigger picture which is the whole point. The whole point is, as a society, we've been engineered through trauma and fear and we've lost everything that previously defined society before the year 2001. And that's the big picture. And people won't go there because they are being distracted by these extravagant stories, you know.

Niall: And, these simple realizations have the power to bring people together. They're I mean, the 9/11 truth movement. Think of what it could have been, against what it is. And this is the reason why the minutiae are endlessly debated.

Anart: And propagated.

Niall: Off into cul-de-sacs. Because if people were realizing these things en mass, it would be game over for perpetrators.

Anart: Hmm.

Jason: Right.

Niall: So we'll spin it and spin it, this direction and this direction, and in the process destroy the 9/11 truth movement. I don't know how many times I hear whenever something is exposed, you know, "Oh it's been busted wide open. This is great because more and more people are wakin' up and yeah!!" It's a rallying call you know.

Anart: (Laughs)

Niall: But objectively, really, they're being lied to.

Joe: Just, yeah, the lies and manipulation are just getting deeper you know. Well I think, I don't know if it's people I mean I am pretty sure that it's a...Like Anart was describing earlier on that, it's simply a COINTEL PRO Operation.

Anart: It has to be.

Joe: To seed this idea, to 'ridiculize' conspiracy theorists and to stop anybody who is...

Anart: Look at the effect. I mean...

Jason: It's ridiculation.

Anart: Ridiculation, yeah (laughs). Just look at the effects, that's all you have to look at. The effects are: the people are not paying attention to the fact that there is no word of habeas corpus. Your phone calls are recorded, your emails are recorded. You can't get out of a plane with a bottle of water. You have to go through a naked scanner. You have no privacy. Your medical records are now property of the federal government. Wake up guys. It's not about whether the towers pancaked or not, it's not about whether the Boston guy has legs or not. Stop being distracted, stop being herded. You are being worked.

Jason: Yeah, I mean in the end...

Anart: It's high time.

Jason: Yeah like, we had that show...people were all like "It's how it happened, how it happened is so important!". All we really care is that it did happen and someone did it. And so you can't know who did it unless you know how it happens... It's like no, you can, first of all, because it's the person who's sitting there benefitting over and over again...

Anart: Exactly.

Jason: ...repeatedly.

Niall: It is interesting to try and find out how it happened. It's the emotional weight that, that comes with every little thing.

Joe: Yeah, well how it happened is for your day in court, when you've got that far. How far are we from a day in court over 9/11? It's kinda never, right? So the how, no matter how compelling your evidence is, how it happened... Is important but in terms of convincing people that there's something wrong, as Anart just said, it's much more destructive than useful to basically point out how their lives have been changed as a result of this event.

Jason: In all truth it's bad analogy because If we were to follow the...The American or even the Western jurisprudence kind of methodology, then yeah, they would be obsessive about, you know, no body, no crime, had to know how it was done. And that's not necessarily the best thing because the court, often... You know, people can get off because a glove didn't fit. "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit..."

Anart: Yeah but, I don't...

Jason: ...type of saying. And that's not the way it should work. It's not that you have to know every single detail of how something happened before you can say that a crime has really been committed.

Anart: But when you switch your perspective from the crime being 9/11 itself, to the crime being the dismantling of a republic, then, you can gather all your evidence..

Joe: I would say the point that you get your day in court you have the motive you've established, you have the...

Jason: Motive and means.

Joe: Motive and means, well motive and opportunity let's say, and then the means, you know, so once you've got them down on the motive and opportunity, the purpose, then you would introduce your "This is how it was done". So it essentially should be the last piece of evidence that's put in place. Once you've got a case closed on all the other ones you know and...

Jason: Well, I mean I...

Joe: But, as you said, it's never gonna get to court so let's face those facts and let's just do what Anart has been saying, which is to inform people...

Jason: Well it is gonna go to court in a certain sense, not specifically...

Joe: Well, but not the way we want it to.

Jason: I mean, look at the history of always goes to court, just not the way you want it to (laughs) you know, I mean always. All empires fall, I mean, look at what happened to the Russians. People didn't do anything about the corruption until it ate itself up and collapsed. And that's what is gonna happen to the American empire probably, it's gonna eat itself up and collapse or, some sort of cosmic thing will happen or, some natural disasters will happen. I mean go look a giant two mile wide tornado. I mean that's not a conspiracy, you know.

Anart: That's true, well... But in the meantime...

Jason: Katrina, things like that you know.

Anart: In the meantime, wouldn't it be great if people could actually see a lie for what it is and learn to see the truth for what it is.

Jason: Absolutely, that's the point in the end I suppose.

Anart: And, that's not what's happening.

Jason: No, it's not. Because of the agent provocateurs who are out there just making mischief. They're just creating bullshit theories, you know; sitting there with their Photoshop.

Anart: And a lot of people who are really sincere about trying to figure out the truth give up.

Joe: Yeah.

Anart: They're like "Oh my god, there's so much noise. How do...what way...what way do I turn?"

Joe: And walk away.

Anart: "What's true and what isn't true? How can I even tell? I give up, I give up" and walk away..

Joe: Not only that but you get attacked for trying to point out flaws, trying to be rational about it and keep it real, and actually caring about that wider audience - some of whom may still be plucked from the fire -, and trying to keep your arguments fairly rational and using hard evidence. Because of the understanding that that's the only way you're going to reach those people, if you're going to reach them at all. But you're really just destroying your argument if you if you use bogus evidence that they can't accept, because it's so outlandish and can be proven to be false.

Jason: Well on to what Niall is saying, you know. If someone comes up in theory: "Hey, what if this was all made up, actors, you know. Should we investigate?" you know, obviously any theory, you have to investigate it, because you have to be scientific about it. You can't just discredit something and say, "Oh it's just ridiculous." There's no such thing as a ridiculous theory. There's theories that can be proven, theories that can't be; simple facts. But at the same time I would say there's a certain thing about it. If someone comes to you and says you know, "I was raped", you don't say well, "No you weren't" you know, I mean you assume that a crime has been committed until you see some evidence that it hasn't been. And you know that's important, I mean when there's victims involved, people who are suffering, it's just really not kosher for you to say that, "No, nothing happened". You don't start from that. You start from, "Ok a crime has been alleged here. Let's look at the evidence and not jump to the conclusion that it was all actors and stuff. " Because it's mean!

Anart: It's provocative, it's divisive and I think that's by design, and the people who follow that thinking are helping the "bad guys"; If you wanna put "bad guys" in quotes...

Niall: Yeah.

Jason: Yeah, I mean..

Anart: Whether they mean to or not.

Niall: That's what it comes down to, I mean, the very first thing British government drags on is extremist radical websites and that plays right into the...

Jason: Like we didn't see that coming.

Niall: It just plays right into their hands.

Jason: I mean and this coming from a country...The only country in the world I think where blade is actually a verb.

Anart: (laughs) .and they don't mean roller blade..

Jason: No, blade, they'll say they 'blade' people you know, I mean really, the country is famous for the knife violence.

Niall: And in a way that they make no bones about it that...they're at war for people's minds, that this is a propaganda war...I'm gonna read something from an article in the British Independent. Obviously they are spinning this in the context of, "Oh, Islamic jihadist extremist websites." but just, I'm not even going to mention that. I'll just read from the introduction.

(Reads a newspaper article, here at
"The major battle in the war against extremism is being fought over the internet by elite teams stationed behind keyboards and engaged in winning the hearts and minds of people. The Government, police and other agencies are involved in a propaganda war to counter extremism. Experts are now bombarding extremist websites to create "counter-narrative" messages from survivors of terrorism."

Jason: Well yeah, that's what they're doing, counter-narratives.

Niall: "Former radicals also infiltrate forums to spread doubt and challenge the extremist rhetoric."
Now, that's not the Islamic extremist, there. They're talking about the very people who are most...let's say who are consciously trying to deceive people with all this nonsense about complete fakery. In other words, that they're holding up their own agent provocateurs and what they're saying is, "Look at those extremists."

Joe: They're fighting both sides of the battle, yeah, they're fighting each other essentially, they're managing the entire discourse and conversation from both ends. And that's the way to do it most effectively, I mean they're no newbies at this. They've been doing it for a long, long time.

Jason: Well I mean like Trinquier who wrote that book "Modern Warfare", years and years ago, I mean this is 40s, 50s you know and he wrote this book. He basically says out and outright that the whole idea is just to kinda get there first with the propaganda and to make terrorist look like you know, assholes basically. And that that's how you do it. Everything to faking terrorism, pretending to be terrorists, to doing bad things, you know, you create this sort of 'counter-narrative' as they call it. But they're actually probably creating the extremist narrative actually, the super-hardcore, hard know, 'let's-kill-everybody'-jihad-stuff, that's them, making so that anybody looks retarded.

Anart: I'd go so far as to saying creating all of it.

Jason: Yeah, I do actually think...

Anart: They are in the business of control, and the best way to control society is to keep them terrorized.

Jason: I mean the idea of an Al Qaeda website, recruitment website, that's just really kind of farcical. It really is bit of a farce to me, I mean it's just doesn't really add up.

Niall: A full-print, color magazine which you can subscribe to.

Jason: "Subscribe to Al Qaeda weekly."


Jason: "Jihad monthly"

Niall: Inspire or something..

Joe: Inspire. It's a pdf, it's not a print.

Jason: Yeah, the terrorists are now ezine...

Niall: I don't subscribe to those...

Jason: ...they are in the zine world. I mean it's just so adolescent, you know.

Niall: Yeah we know that they've been doing it a long time. There's a document. I mean this is in itself held up as the "canard" of conspiracy theories. "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion". Ok so, probably this was a forgery, but not in the way people think because they were falsely attributed to Jews or Zionists, but the actual content, if you have read it, is so diabolically accurate.

Anart: It's a roadmap.

Niall: Exactly. As so much of it has come to pass, you know. It's a hundred years or more since it was first published. There's bit I'm gonna read out, Protocol 12. What I've done is I've updated some of the terminology. Today we no longer have just the printing press, we're online of course, so I've inserted a few words, but I haven't changed the actual structure of it. So, Protocol 12: Control of the Media -

(here at,31411.15.html)
"We shall deal with online chatter in the following way: what is the part played by the internet today? It serves to excite and inflame those passions which are needed for our purpose or else it serves selfish ends of parties. It is often vapid, unjust, mendacious, and the majority of the public have not the slightest idea what ends the media really serves. We shall saddle and bridle it with a tight curb: we shall do the same also with all productions of the alternative media, for where would be the sense of getting rid of the attacks of the mainstream media if we remain targets for bloggers and websites?

Among those making attacks upon us will also be sock puppets established by us, but they will attack exclusively points that we have predetermined to alter. Not a single announcement will reach the public without our public control. Even now this is already being attained by us inasmuch as all news items are received by a few news agencies, in whose offices they are focused from all parts of the world. These agencies will then be already entirely ours and will give publicity only to what we dictate to them.

Print and online journalism are two of the most important educative forces, and therefore our government will become proprietor of the majority of outlets. This will neutralize the injurious influence of the privately-owned press and will put us in possession of a tremendous influence upon the public mind... If we give permits for ten websites, we shall ourselves found thirty, and so on in the same proportion. This, however, must in no wise be suspected by the public. For which reason all websites set up by us will be of the most opposite, in appearance, tendencies and opinions, thereby creating confidence in us and bringing over to us quite unsuspicious opponents, who will thus fall into our trap and be rendered harmless.

In the front rank will stand publications of an official character. They will always stand guard over our interests, and therefore their influence will be comparatively insignificant.

In the second rank will be the semi-official organs, whose part it will be to attack the tepid and indifferent.

In the third rank we shall set up our own, to all appearance, opposition, which, in at least one of its forms, will present what looks like the very antipodes to us. Our real opponents at heart will accept this simulated opposition as their own and will show us their cards."
That describes pretty much what COINTEL PRO, counter-intelligence program...

Joe: the media...

Niall: And to those who say that, "Well, the internet has given us the gift of bypassing this", I'd say, I don't know about that. It's given technological tools that could bypass it, but which I think which have just increased in proportion, as was written in the...

Joe: Blessing and the curse type of thing.

Jason: Yeah, I mean it doesn't change anything. It's the printing press on a larger scale.

Niall: Yeah.

Anart: The floodgates are still open for noise.

Jason: Yeah.

Anart: And the noise just gets pumped in faster and faster and stronger and stronger. So the signal gets lost.

Joe: Yeah, there's a story, just out yesterday, "A poll..", this is from the UK Guardian, that,
(here at
A "Poll reveals rising fear of clashes in the wake of Woolwich killing" It says a, "YouGov poll shows rise in proportion of people who believe British Muslims pose a threat to democracy.
Nearly two-thirds of people believe there will be a 'clash of civilizations' between British Muslims and white Britons in the wake of the murder of a British soldier in Woolwich, a new poll shows."

Anart: See how effective it was.

Joe: Cause and effect type thing you know...and...

Anart: Cui bono?

Joe: Yeah.

Anart: Cui bono. Who benefits?

Joe: Absolutely, it's the people who want to...Well there's various agendas being serviced. One of them is obviously to continue to provide justification for imperial wars of aggressions in Muslim lands.

Anart: And societal control.

Joe: Yeah. Because they have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here, and "Oh look, they're here now. We gotta fight them even harder over there" and also...

Anart: "They hate you for your freedoms. I'm taking your freedoms away, so they won't hate you anymore."

Joe: And also to divide, divide at home.

Niall: "I'm taking your freedoms away and I am going to store them and look after them for you."

Anart: "Don't you worry about them, they're safe for now"

Niall: "I'll put them in a bank."

Jason: Well, it's kinda funny that people have freedoms. Their freedom became like..freedom became a thing you have. You have like 'x' number of freedoms, Instead of having "you either have freedom or you don't", you know, I mean this is just a ridiculous concept.

Anart: It's insanity.

Niall: Who benefits from the Woolwich attack? Well let's see, a British establishment that was effectively was on its knees not that long ago. At least, there was a serious threat when there was a succession of reports coming out about high level paedophilia, institutionalized paedophilia, in the British government up till today. The same British government that is completely broke, same country that is like many other western countries collapsing economically and these spurious terror attacks that they come up with are designed to...

Joe: Designed to just distract people from the state of their country and also from like you said, previous shows, from a cosmic threat that is increasingly present in our skies, and people are, you know... The more and more of that, the more the people look up to the skies and are reporting on meteorites etc. flying across the sky and environmental change or Earth changes, climate change etc, I mean in the end they'll have to carry out some kind of a..

Niall: "Look down here, you know."

Joe: "Your neighbor might be the next killer or he may be the next knife wielding maniac in the street", you know. Keep your head down and pray for God's blessing. Don't look up."

Niall: It is raining fireballs, people.

Joe: Yep. We've got a call here. So I'll go ahead and take it. Hi caller, what's your name and where are you calling from?

Caller: Hi, this is Rich, calling from Great Britain.

Joe: Hi Rich.

Anart: Hi Rich.

Niall: Welcome Rich.

Rich: Ah yes, hello. I couldn't tell whether I could be heard or not, that's all.

Joe: You're good.

Jason: You're coming through.

Joe: How is life in Blithe/Blight-an?

Rich: (Laughs) In Great Britain yeah. It's a nice sunny day today. But it's been very interesting, the past few days. Just seeing the reaction to this event.

Joe: Yeah.

Rich: The media reaction.

Joe: Tell us.

Rich: Well there's all sorts of sides. I'd say the majority of the people are to be very anti-all the racism that's generated, but the...

Joe: Yeah.

Rich: It's interesting you talk about how the media are framing it. I can see there's a very deliberate attempt to present the views of the extreme sides. So on one hand, you have the English Defence League, - that were a minority group that were hardly known by anybody -suddenly spring into prominence with very right wing, very fascist sort of views that they have. Then, on the other side, you have spokesman for what used to be the Islam4UK, a now banned Muslim group who's linked to 'radicalizing' as they frame it, become a suspect in this attack and Anjem, he's been on both BBC Newsnight and also Channel 4 and refusing to condone the attack. So it comes across that, you know, this guy is a very small minority guy, and yet he's getting tremendous air coverage, and the views he's espousing are very...Well they just fall into the hands of those who want to actually, you know, be racist and encourage a kind of racism and hatred of the Muslims. It's really...

Joe: Yes they're actively encouraging that kind of division within society between... as this article says, between British Muslims and white Britains. They're actively encouraging division between those two groups, - If they are two distinct groups -, by allowing these right wing minority nut jobs in the Muslim community and in the Britain community, the white Britain community, to giving them air time.

Rich: Yes, essentially yes. It is. These are individuals that should never ever be given, any sort of prominence or exposure because they are, you know, they do create divisions and they have their views which are just not healthy at all for society.

Anart: And that's the whole point. It's by design. You don't have a guy stab someone and then stand and talk to the crowd for twenty minutes without this kind of follow up.

Niall: Yeah. When Huntington wrote that 'Clash of Civilizations' thesis, some 20 odd years ago, I mean he presented it as if this was going to be a natural development that he was foreseeing but, he actually gives away that, you know, we can promote this. That this is where it's going anyway, "Hey, let's just build on it." And this is what they're trying to finally create the reality, of this so called 'Clash of civilizations'.

Anart: They have to. They have to promote it. Normal people do not want a clash of civilizations.

Joe: Of course not.

Anart: Normal human beings don't want war.

Joe: They want to live their normal lives but they...the leaders and the psychopaths in power need a 'clash of civilizations' threat so that they can sally forth and invade as many countries and commit as many atrocities as they want, on the basis of that justification that we are protecting our civilization from their civilization. When the real clash that needs to be recognized is the clash between normal human beings and psychopaths.

Jason: You know I mean, in a certain sense even the Muslim Vs. the West thing is totally setup because...

Anart: Totally.

Jason: ...then in a certain sense you sorta think like 'It's their way of life and ours' type of thing. And it's really both of the way they are living is actually total crap. I mean you know, I'm not gonna defend the Muslim way of life or the western way of life, saying like it's the best or even good. I mean really we should be looking at "Wait a minute, you know, the world is kind of sucking right now, on both sides" you know. It's not a lesser of two evils, they both really kind of suck, and we should find a different way.

Joe: Um hmm.

Rich: Yeah and I think there's another interesting aspect on the victim of this, who was a soldier, who was wearing a "Help For Heroes" T-shirt. Now, if you're not aware of "Help For Heroes", it's a charity that supports the troops. And they're actually quite prominent and quite popular and they have all sorts of products in supermarkets like Ham and Butter, that are "Help the heroes". And the fact that this guy was wearing a "Help for Heroes" T-shirt has sort of created a very, sort of patriotic uprising for supporting this, and as it kind of becomes...I just see it as a risk that it then prevents those that are critical of British foreign policy, from actually having a reasonable discussion about it. Because you are tarnished as somebody who is not 'helping the heroes'.

Joe: Yeah, it closes down debate, which is what they want.

Niall: Yeah, you're cast out as "hero hater".

Joe: You are a self- hating Briton.

Jason: (laughs)

Joe: You're a Briton who's hating Britain.

Niall: You become a foreigner in your own country.

Anart: It's a psychological operation on the British public.

Joe: Absolutely.

Rich: Yeah and, I was gonna say Anjem Choudary, he was making those views on Newsnight. I watched a couple of them and he was basically saying that this is British foreign policy, but then because he would not...

Joe: Condemn...

Rich: Abhor, condemn the actual killing, it then became you know a way of discrediting the whole of his argument against British foreign policy and their actions abroad. And his closing down arguments were incredibly effective and, you know, creates a lot fear I've seen.

Joe: Um hmm.

Niall: Yeah, psychological trap.

Joe: Alright Rich, thanks for your comments unless you've got something else to tell us.

Rich: Thank you.

Joe: Alright.

Rich: I was just...I have...well specific things of what was left out this, the rant he gave.

Joe: Yeah.

Rich: The video, when you're talking about the message that is given to those that are controlled by the media, I thought it was quite interesting that the actual short rant that he gave - and it was videoed and became the news clip on all major news networks. It was longer and it said at the end, "You think David Cameron will get stuck in the street when we start busting our guns? You think your politicians are gonna die? No, it's not going to be the average, like you and your children, so get rid of them. Tell them to bring our troops back, so you can all live in peace" which... what he did was actually disgusting, you know, but I just found it...

Joe: Absolutely and..,

Rich: ...interesting, how media sort of takes sound bites and edits what they want, what message they want to provide.

Joe: They edited that out but at the same time, I think it was part of the Psy-Op that this killing was and this guy was...I would say this guy was most probably mind programmed in some way, or in some way manipulated to do what he did, but the problem is that he - like we mentioned before - makes these fairly reasonable comments about that this, that what he did - not that it's in any way ever justifiable -, that his motive was the killing of Muslims in other countries and essentially British foreign policy, that this is blowback, and that's something that puts the responsibility to some extent on the British government. But the problem is that's the kind of thing that, you know, people who are trying to tell a bit of truth, and spread about truth around the world and on the internet and stuff have been saying and now...

Anart: Now it's directly associated with a knife-wielding madman.

Joe: Exactly, you know.

Anart: It's the oldest trick in the book. I mean, thousands of years of this over and over and over again.

Niall: That's what..

Jason: Well, here's the thing like, when it comes to that, violence is never an acceptable response. Even you can understand like you can step back and say, "Ok I understand why you came in there and did that, but doesn't make it okay. Like it's not okay to go and stab some soldier in the street."

Anart: No I don't think anyone's saying it's okay.

Joe: But that's the thing we're not saying that...

Jason: Exactly.

Joe: We're saying that we understand, in his terms, his motive, it makes sense.

Jason: Well, you can have the argument that of well, "this is what you're doing to other people" you know, kind of thing. It's really not necessarily a good tactic to take, in my opinion, because it does have that undercurrent of justifiability. And violence is never justified.

Niall: Think of the words they put into Osama Bin Laden's mouth which was that, "We did this because we want the US and Israel out of Palestine."

Joe: Um hmm. Absolutely.

Niall: A worthy cause for millions who do care is tarnished.

Anart: Right. And I do get your point of violence never being justified, and I completely agree but I think the idea is that, he brought up the point that, you know, Muslims, "Muslim terrorists", didn't just grow organically out of nothing.

Jason: Right that...

Anart: He brought up the point that 'it's cause and effect, you guys', and that's the simple point. So he brings it up...

Jason: Actually surprisingly, it is not. Because we are saying that they are basically like, they put these things on. Probably like even the Muslim population, there aren't any real terrorists. They have to make it up. And that's because, as a general rule, people just don't like going around stabbing anybody, you know.

Niall: Um hmm. Did you know notice anything strange about the weather in the UK recently, Rich?

Rich: Well apart from today being sunny but, the rareness of it being sunny is hot topic of conversation. Everybody is talking about the fact that it's actually warm today.

Niall: Right.

Rich: Because we've not had any sort of warmth, we've had just this horrible damp, freezing for the last... (laughs) well it's been so long, six months or so, feels like this winter is never ending. It's unbelievable. And everyone's aware of it.

Niall: So, and what strikes me is that they would not like people to be noticing their environment changing, "so let's give them something to talk about."

Joe: Yeah.

Niall: Next thing you know...

Rich: Yeah I suppose.

Niall: ...terrorist attack, government meeting, 'terrorism'.

Jason: Yep. Gotta get them terrists.

Joe: Alright Rich, thanks for your call.

Rich: No, thank you ever so much, yeah, keep it up. Cheers.

Joe: Okay, take care.

Rich: Yeah goodnight, cheers.

Joe: So, yeah I mean, the point on the terrorism aspect of it, the British government and everybody else and who's been given official airtime, or airtime to present the official stories calling that act, the other day, the stabbing the other day in London, terrorism. It's a terror attack officially, but the thing about it is that this guy killed a British soldier outside an army barracks. And he killed a soldier of a country that is at war. But, the acts of the army, of the British army, when they kill civilians, it's not terrorism, when he kills a soldier, it is terrorism. And people would say...

Jason: The whole situation is a gigantic setup because I'm not on either side to be quite honest. I'm on the side that's like, the government really kinda suck at what they do, with the economy, with the laws, with maintaining the roads. They're kinda are really bad at everything and they're going around and hurting all these different people, and so it's like, it's their own people against the government and this "Muslim problem", the critical "Muslim problem" is being carted in and it's all about like "yeah, they kill us and we kill them" and stuff like that, when it's like that that's really not the point you know. I mean if we took care of the psychopathic people in power, then the soldiers wouldn't over there doing it anyway.
So thinking about it in terms of "Oh those soldiers, they are doing this bad stuff", it's like yeah, because the guy up there signed a piece of paper, he told a bunch of really aggressive mind - programmed 19 year olds who volunteered to for the army, right or wrong whatever, to go do that, what did you expect them to do? You gave them guns and you said, "Hey, you have to shoot people. It's you or them." "It's you or them", that's what they say to you in the boot camp, "You or them, You or them!" they ingrain that into you. You send some 19 year old kid who's been "radicalized" in boot camp over there, yeah he's gonna do that kind of stuff.

That's, you know, the "Our soldiers against them" or their terrorists or whatever, it's such a complete distraction from the fact is, it is really the brick layer vs. the government. And that's all that is carted in to keep the regular, everyday, middle class, lower class people from ever saying, "Hey, wait a minute, you know, our social security sucks, the weather is changing, you can't protect us, whenever anything happens you don't take care of us. You don't do any of the stuff that you are supposed to do. You don't do any of the stuff you promised that you were gonna do. You don't do anything that we pay you taxes for. So why do we have you around?"

And to keep people from asking that question, they cart in this Muslim problem, "Muslims are terrorists." Our soldiers are over there that we're still arguing about whether or not soldiers, who are going to a country are killing people. That's what they do. You shouldn't send soldiers into countries, unless you expect people to be killed. That's what they do. I mean, there's no such thing as a peaceful soldier you know, you put a soldier into a town and not expect him to blow everybody down.

Joe: Most of the British American public believes the soldiers are over there being peaceful.

Anart: They're "peacekeepers".

Jason: There's no such thing as a peaceful army.

Joe: But most people believe that there is. They're fighting a good fight.

Jason: Well, there's no such thing. They kill people. Yeah sometimes it may be necessary, I don't know, that's an argument for another day, right? But if you send an army into a country and then start complaining that they're killing people, it's like well then maybe then you shouldn't have sent them there in the first place.

Joe: Umm hmm, well that's the kind of point that some people are trying to make.

Jason: Exactly.

Joe: Making that point and then saying to the British public, "Well, don't get so indignant when the chickens come home to roost", sort of thing, when you get a return attack."

Jason: Well, the chickens aren't coming home to roost because the government's doing both the sides.

Anart: Exactly, Bingo.

Jason: The chickens are not coming home to roost, the thing is, it's all a distraction.

Joe: Of course, but that's one step ahead. I mean you have to start at rock-bottom...You have to start at rock bottom with people and try and get them to go to level 1 which is, "Listen, you can't be indignant about this because of what's going on in other countries."

Jason: So that's wrong, cause you can be indignant about it.

Joe: Well you can be indignant about it.

Jason: I'm sorry, I'm sorry. If some soldier X...We're sitting out right here in France, right? And they send us soldiers over to like oppress people all the time because that's the way the plan sometimes likes to work. Okay, cool. If they go over and do that, I think that's deplorable, I don't think that it's cool. But then if somebody comes from that country and bombs me or kills me, I'm still not gonna be like, "Oh well, I understand why you are doing this." It's like no, violence is not understandable...

Joe: Well it's not about understanding. It's about putting the blame. The idea is to kinda get the people in the UK for example to point the finger at the real culprit.

Jason: You're never gonna get people with that because you wouldn't go to somebody and say, "Yeah, but you're culpable." They would resist you even more.

Joe: No, we're not saying they're culpable.

Anart: Some animals are more equal than other animals..

Joe: I'm saying that getting to point the finger at the government for sending their troops over to a foreign country and bombing civilians, killing civilians, and then having some of those civilians, or the survivors, family members, come to your country and do the same to you. It's kind of like, if someone...

Jason: But then you accept it as something that is okay.

Joe: No, no, no. It''s trying to understand getting to level 1 of understanding that this is going to happen, to get to understand that this is going to happen if you allow your government to continue. If you support your government in sending troops over to foreign countries to kill civilians, this is the result. It's like saying to someone, "If you slap that guy in the face, he's going to slap you back, and you can't wave and scream and say that this is unfair when I slapped him in the face, and he slapped me back." I can't...I can't...

Jason: The situation is really not the same.

Anart: One problem is that you're expecting, you have this idea that people are actually capable of thinking and of putting you know...And of understanding that all humanity is "equal" and that's just not the case.

Jason: They don't look at it that way at all and you're gonna make them...

Joe: But they've been programmed that way.

Jason: You never succeed by making people feel that way. You never I mean, coz this is not about punishing. It's about bringing people back together. It's about establishing, you know, real, lasting communities. It's about people looking around and saying, "Hey, we're all human beings, we're all in the same shit and we need to stop the psychopath situation going on." I mean 'cause if you go ahead and say, "Look, the reason this is happening is your fault", they just, they won't be able to do it and they'll, they'll go deeper into the "no, no, it's not, blahblahablahblahlahlah"

Anart: They've been psychologically manipulated for so long.

Jason: You can't get them on rational...

Joe: But people at that level of dissociation or of, at that level of mind programming already lost, There's no way to reach them at all. If you can't reach them with very simple cause and effect argument. Well then, I don't think that you'll be able to reach them with that 'pscychopaths-in-power' argument.

Jason: Yeah you are.

Anart: I kind of tend to side with Joe on that one.

Jason: Well I think, I think the people will understand eventually. I mean of course it's probably gonna take a few more classes. I mean look at it in terms of like, you know, another ten to fifteen thousand years of history and by then we'll probably get it.

Joe: We'll be dead.

Jason: We'll be dead. Eventually, I mean, yeah, eventually the human race will either kill itself off or learn to deal with this.

Anart: I don't know. We haven't learnt that much in the last ten to fifteen thousand years.

Jason: So we have a little bit...yeah, there's a little bit more you know.

Anart: I don't think so. I'd say we've gone in the opposite direction.

Jason: I don't know, there's one, two, there's three people here that kinda generally get it. I mean I think we're making progress.


Anart: You left me out by the way since there's four of us here.


Jason: No, I wasn't counting myself. I left Anart out because yes...

Anart: For obvious reasons...

Niall: There's something that struck me about the Boston bombings is, when I stepped back and thought about it, this is something that happens on a daily basis in countries that are subject to invading armies, particularly the US army, but also British and European forces. And it's...I'm afraid to say, it's a daily reality for them. And improvised explosive devices sometime go off. People are killed, maimed horribly. They pretty much have to just get on with things because it's gonna happen in the next marketplace, the next day, on the other side of town. Now, Boston bombings was a first, in that it happened in the US. And that maybe part of the reason why it's being analyzed to death, to the point of "No, it didn't really happen". There was a kind of a schizophrenic break from reality here where "it's all a hoax, I didn't really see what I just saw." It's worrying but I don't know, is it gonna take more incidents to bring it home to Americans? What's going on is that what's being applied at Boston bombings is exactly what's being applied elsewhere.

Joe: Well that's a way down the conspiracy hole as well for the average person, you know what I mean, because you have to get them ready to accept a lot of things before they would go there, you know. You have to get them to accept that they are not fighting a War on Terror to keep us safe, actually it's a war of imperial aggression.

Niall: It should not be way down the conspiracy hole for people who have been anti-war and talking about what the US military is doing overseas for the last ten years and more. And yet they are..

Anart: Very small percentage of the population that, I mean it really is.

Niall: Yeah, but even that's, even that small percentage, let's say the "very elect", to the use the biblical quote, are making the Boston bombings... "Well it can't just have been a bomb that went off and killed people. There had to be something more to it because it was here, it was done in the US", you know?

Joe: Well, there may have to be a few more similar kind of attacks before people just accept that as a new reality, as a lot of people around the world have already accepted it as a new reality, you know. What I find interesting is, is the whole idea that the government has for a long time been stage-managing the kind of blowback. I mean people talk of blowback, that these kind of terror attacks are blowback from American and the British foreign policy. But, the foreign policy makers have known for a long time that there may well be some blowback from the country that they have been invading and bombing etc.

So, what they do is contain it, in advance, by carrying out those blowback operations themselves. That's a perfect way to do it you know. Umm 'cause you kinda kill two birds with one stone. The only way you can control the response of the people at home, in the sense of stopping them from ever understanding the real nature of the foreign policy, by kind of terrorizing them and creating the reality out of this foreign threat as being really real and this is why we're invading other countries because there are these attacks.
At the same time, you pre-demonize any of these potential attackers, like anybody who'd come from a foreign country in the Middle East or whatever to the UK, and try and carry out a bombing. You do the bombings yourself and have this lockdown, and anybody who ever might have thought of doing something against the British government or whatever in response to their actions abroad, is kind of... they've been kind of suppressed or controlled right from the beginning because they're thinking, "Holy shit", you know I mean, "I'm not gonna get away with it, it's already happening, all the people are doing it".

But they don't realize it's basically the British gov...Well, a lot of them maybe do think that's it's the British government doing it. These kind of, people do have some capacity to think down the line a little bit, and set things up in advance, you know, which kind of is at odds with our idea of psychopaths having no understanding and no ability to envision the future and plan for that future, just to live from day to day, you know?

Jason: The problem is that evidence about psychopaths comes from...

Joe: Psychopaths?

Jason: No. Sometimes. But it usually comes from the scientific research done in like prisons and psychiatric wards. We're talking about 'failed' psychopaths. Those who couldn't hack it in society.

Anart: And it's not that they can't plan and can't see the outcomes that they think will be advantageous to them - which sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't -, it's that they can't really extrapolate that in a way that isn't what they want to see.

Joe: That's kind of non-linear or, yeah...

Jason: Or so we think.

Anart: Yeah. Or they always say that they are smart enough that they're gonnna figure it, you know, it's gonna go their way.

Jason: Or so we think, you know.

Anart: From what we can tell.

Jason: From what we can tell, but again, all of that information comes from prison populations and psychiatric wards. Those people are evaluated by doctors and those are the failures. Those are the ones that couldn't hack into the society, so who knows what kind of, you know, what's possible? I think that the core of the psychopath is more the inability to empathize with other human beings. It's so much more important.

Anart: And I do think that it is obvious that they do have special psychological knowledge of how normal human beings operate, what they react to and how they're easily herded, and how to hijack rational thought with emotion.

Jason: I think that their inability to have strong emotion, influenced by others, gives them a lot of time to sit there and think about why other people are doing that. And then in the end it's their core lack of empathy and conscience, that's so important, as opposed to things like, "Oh they might not have some sort of temporal reasoning" or something like that. I don't even know if that's true, but you obviously recognize that there's a large, a significant group of people who are conscienceless. They have absolutely no empathy and no ability to sympathize with anyone whatsoever, and can do the most horrible things, and obviously, can plan them. And that requires the ability to think in the future. So I think that they do.

Joe: Yeah, I mean the evidence suggests that they do, you know, and are quite Machiavellian about it or quite strategic. They set traps for people basically, they have some pretty good idea the way people are going to react to certain things and they set up an answer in advance, you know, to the questions that they know will be posed.

Jason: Well I think in a certain sense that they may have lucked out. That there is such a large part of the population kinda naturally doesn't have that natural inclination towards the truth. They can recognize the truth, I think everybody really can recognize the truth if they have a vested interest in it. But they don't really actively seek it out. I mean think about that group of people who think that you know, a talking snake in a secret garden had found a magic apple and gave it to a naked woman with fig leaves over her naughty bits, you know I mean, and they really believe that. You know I mean, even it was allegorical, some people have this natural ability to just believe something that's completely made up. And so the psychopath, it's like a kid in the candy store with modern day man, because he's just so vulnerable to believing what's not true. Which is why it's such an important thing for you to constantly just repeat the truth to the people, because if you don't, they forget it, coz somebody else comes to them and repeats a lie, you know?

Joe: So, getting back to the title of our show today which is, "It's All a Hoax: The madness of conspiracy theorists", are conspiracy theorists mad?

Anart: No.

Joe: Hot-potato. Political hot-potato.

Anart: Hot potato. Can they be driven mad? Yes.

Joe: Are they being driven mad?

Anart: Are they being herded? Yes.

Joe: I think some of those have been in it for so long that they really are getting tired and want the easy answer, you know? They wanna believe that the government is just going to make this big mistake and they're gonna just expose themselves, you know? What they don't realize is that maybe there is some scope for that, but I think more likely is the fact that as they continue to carry out these operations and watch responses from people and analyze them, as their kind of 'intel' gathering capabilities increase or have increased over the years, they just got better at it.

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: It's not that they are going to expose themselves all of a sudden coz they are..

Jason: I think people believe in this actors thing for a lot of different reasons. One was, of course, to escape the pain of the realization of what's really going on. But a lot of it's ego, you know. People feel superior when they spot deception. I mean there's the person who delights in deceiving somebody, but then there's the other one who delights in saying, "Haha, I'm smarter enough to figure it out, ha you couldn't get me!"

Joe: Hmm.

Jason: And I think that a lot of people, they like this thing because it's so simple for them to understand that they just say, "Oh yeah I've seen it, okay cool now I have got it figured out and I can move on." Not only that, but then there's no real danger any more.

Niall: Yeah.

Jason: There's no masked men actually going into schools and shooting up kids. There's no people really setting bombs that chop up people's legs, and so then it's less dangerous, right. They can say like, "Well, the government's a problem, but now it's no longer a problem where they are killing us for their own ends, they are pretending to. Okay so, we don't have to deal with it right now."

Anart: What's frustrating to me is that these are the minds that should be helping other people figure stuff out. These are the minds that notice that something is wrong, and they want to figure it out, and they're just being so obviously vectored. It's so obvious. They're not paying attention to what really matters. They're not really paying attention to what's really happening. It's just so frustrating. That it's not necessary and they're just being so easily led by emotion and fantastical theories and...

Joe: I wonder if there's some aspect of, some kind of... Some forces at work in the world that are causing some kind of a psychological deterioration?

Niall: On a mass scale?

Anart: Certainly seems so.

Joe: I mean is there any other evidence that that's going on? I mean the things are getting worse right? In terms of the amount of BS and nonsense and the craftiness of the, kind of, distractions that people are being offered. I mean it has been pretty bad over the past ten years. The kind of stuff that people entertain themselves with, or are able to be entertained by, is pretty low-brow you know. Let's kinda push the button for the dopamine hit, over and over and over again..

Jason: Hit me, hit me.

Joe: Yeah, "hit me baby one more time"

Jason: (laughs).

Joe: Well, I suppose that's a bit of a... That question is a bit too philosophical, I think. I don't think we'll be able to...

Anart: I think there's loads of evidence to say, yeah, people are getting dumber and more easily distracted. Look at reality TV.
Joe: Yeah, you know.

Jason: Well no, here's the thing you know, if you read like early Stoicism, you know, it's thousands of years old. This philosophy basically said this kind of stuff that the people are led by their emotions and it leads them into terrible, bad situations, you know. So it's obviously been a problem that's been going on for a long time. People just have to learn to step back a bit.

Joe: There will be peaks and troughs, as far as human civilization...

Jason: Yeah, you know the hysteresis, there were the wor...

Joe: The hysterisization.

Jason: The hysterical cycle or what did Lobaczewski call it? You know I mean, people become hysterical and then they...basically shoot themselves in the foot...

Joe: Collectively.

Jason: allowing psychopaths to take control with all their promises of security and then, of course, they attain none. And then something bad happens, because random bad shit happens on earth, you know? I mean, tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, tens of thousands of people dead type of thing.

Joe: Is it random though?

Jason: Is it random? We don't know.

Joe: Or tied to the stupidity of the human race on mass?

Jason: No...I'd like to think that it is sometimes, and sometimes I don't. I mean, I'd rather people wake up.

Joe: That's another philosophical question that we can't answer.

Anart: (laughs) It's a philosophical night.

Joe: We're throwin' out philosophical questions and providing no answers.

Jason: answers at all.

Joe: We know all the answers but we just don't have time to explore them tonight. I think, unless any of our esteemed guests here and hosts have anything else to say on the topic, we'll call it a night. I think we've dealt with the topic as it was presented fairly well. If anybody has any more questions or more comments on it, we have a forum at , and you can find the forum link there. And, so, thanks to all our listeners and to our two callers and we'd be back next week.

Niall: Same time, next Sunday.

Joe: Same time, same place.

Niall: Same place.

Joe: ...on the internet

Niall: Cyberspace

Jason: On the interwebs.

Joe: On the internet. Okay so, we will call it a night.

Anart: Have a good night everyone.

Jason: Goodnight.

Niall: Thank you.

(Outro theme)