Al-Shabab terrorists, aka CIA/Mossad/MI6/DGSE dupes, terrorise people in Nairobi Kenya on behalf of their corporate sponsors
Running Time: 01:59:00
Download: MP3
Here's the transcript:
Niall: Hello to all of our listeners, you're listening to SOTT talk radio. This is your host Niall Bradley, with Co-host Joe Quinn. Say hello Joe.
Joe: Hi there.
Niall: Also with us tonight: Jason Martin.
Jason: Hey, what's going on?
Niall: And Pierre Lescaudron.
Pierre: Hello.
Niall: The usual suspects! So, today we're going to do another 'All and Everything' show, recapping on some recent events, and not-so-recent stuff.
Jason: I'm maybe the only one but these are my favourite shows, to be honest.
Niall: Yeah?
Jason: Because I like a lot of topics. You can review.
Niall: I like it, yeah. Exactly, you get to look backwards, forwards, into the future.
Joe: Sideways.
Niall: Sideways. I'd like to look at something immediate actually, happening right now. The latest update on this hostage crisis situation in Nairobi, Kenya is that a huge bomb went off in the middle of either the second of third attempt to rescue hostages. Apparently Kenyan commandos have stormed the Westgate mall in downtown Nairobi, Kenya. To date, 60 people have been killed, the siege has gone on for the last day and a half, and...
Jason: I have a question.
Niall: Yeah, go ahead.
Jason: Okay, so there's been this whole terrorist thing going down for the last 12 years. And apparently all of the governments of the world have been on board with this whole war against terrorism, right? And each one of them has been training these secret, awesome, totally cool commando squads, right? Go in there, super trained, and everything like that. Why is this going on with 60 people dead? What, did they not expect bombs? I thought what that was what you were supposed to expect from terrorists, right?
They went in, and "Ooh they have bombs! Scared us there." I mean, how are they being foiled by terrorists that they have supposedly been training to fight? Why can't they just go in there and...?
Niall: Well in the real world you cannot actually protect everything at any one time. We're talking about elite units, this is a public shopping mall. The way they apparently arrived on the scene, these terrorists rolled out of two vehicles, split into two teams, walked up the steps of the main entrance, started lobbing grenades left right and centre and opened fire at anything that moved, so unless you've got a crack team in position beforehand, which will become an interesting angle in the next few weeks because there's some intel that was overlooked. But before we get ahead of ourselves, that's what we've been told has happened.
Joe: Yeah, the interesting thing is that they claim that the terrorists, the people who attacked the mall in Kenya, that they were looking for non-Muslims. They were going around asking people to name the wife of the prophet, i.e. Mohammed, and if you couldn't name Mohammed's wife...
Niall: You were shot dead?
Joe: No, you were allowed to go. I don't know if they were shot dead but they were looking for anybody who could answer that question correctly and then they would let them go. So, they haven't officially said how many people are dead but it seems that they are...
Jason: Doesn't it sound, like, contrived?
Joe: It does sound a bit contrived. Well, ultimately it is contrived but it's kind of interesting, it's definitely targeted against non-Muslims. And Kenya has a big ex-pat community, and I think they've already said that they've released the name of someone working for the Canadian Embassy, for the Canadian High Commission as it's called in Kenya, a woman was killed. So there's going to be a number of westerners most likely.
Jason: Right.
Joe: Most of the victims. And also 'high society' type people.
Niall: Yeah, I have a list here. They're saying that Canadians, Americans, three French, three British... At least two French, South African, Chinese, Canadian, yeah, it's multinational, ex-pat.
Joe: Yeah you can turn around and call this blowback if you want, but that's a rather simplistic explanation, you know?
Jason: Nah, I don't buy it.
Joe: Generally speaking, these kinds of operations and with that kind of a death toll aren't blowback because most of the so-called terrorists, Muslim terrorists, in this region and elsewhere around the world are all more or less controlled by Western intel agencies. So if it's blowback, its contrived blowback or it's simply more of the whole Muslim terrorism threat being demonstrated to the West. There are various different ideas as to why this could be happening. Obviously it puts pressure on the Kenyan Government in terms of you've got to get on board with this terrorism businesses. You've got to allow more access, let's say, to western intel agencies.
The President is Kenyatta, and he may not be playing the game the way it was meant to be played. He seems to be a decent enough kind of guy. He's talked a lot about improving the lot of ordinary Kenyans especially in terms of giving people more land, giving people more access to land and stuff.
Jason: Oh yeah, I've heard that before.
Joe: And that directly conflicts with western interests which is having access to land, specifically what is usually underneath the land in terms of oil. There's a lot of oil exploration in Kenya and has been for a long time and they just recently found, allegedly, sixty-some billion worth of rare earth minerals that the Chinese have kind of cornered the market on because they have most of them. They also found those, allegedly, in Afghanistan just a few years ago by chance, right?
Niall: Oh, oh!
Jason: What luck!
Joe: "After eight years of occupation, guess what we've found? I swear it has nothing to do with the occupation but there's something like three trillion worth of rare Earth minerals in this place and we're just like whoa, we lucked out! We could have occupied anywhere, and we chose here!"
Jason: "Yeah, it's almost like we planned it!"...
Niall: I'd like to point out that, as things stand, China has cornered the global market on rare Earth minerals. Most of them come from China or China-owned holdings.
Joe: Yeah. There's also an example here. This is just from August this year; "British oil company jumps into war-torn Somalia..." This is going to Somalia now because, allegedly, the official story is that the Muslim terrorists in the shopping mall in Kenya are called Al Shabaab, and they're from Somalia, they're Somali terrorists.
Jason: I think you mean to say Al Kabob.
Joe: Al Kabob?! you may as well call them Al Kabob for all it really means. But the Americans and the British, unsurprisingly, are all over Eastern Africa. Well, they're all over all of Africa and have been for a long time, but there was the, what is it called, the Rush for Africa, Grab for Africa?
Niall: Scramble for Africa.
Joe: Scramble. Rush, grab, and scramble for Africa. They made a move about twenty years ago or so, immediately after the fall of the Soviet Union, when they all just went "Okay, there's lots of stuff up for grabs here with the change in scenery, or the change in the geopolitical climate, let's..."
Niall: Well Somalia was a communist regime, country, until 1991 when it collapsed - then you had the 'black hawk down' episode and civil war.
Joe: But this is just a story from "British oil company jumps into war-torn Somalia" and the opening paragraph is:
"Is it too soon for the war-torn country of Somalia which only recently instated a president and parliament after two decades of division and bloodshed to enter into major deals with foreign oil companies? One newly incorporated British company doesn't think so."And the name of the company is Soma Oil & Gas Exploration Ltd, and it's a British company founded in the United Kingdom just this year and its chairman is Michael Howard who is the former leader of the conservative party in the UK.
Jason: Wow, what a coincidence!
Joe: So that's just one small example of the kind of things you're dealing with. The American and Western European companies are heavily invested in this entire area of Africa and have been for a long time. So when you see something like this happening, you need to put it in that context. These guys came from Somalia, supposedly, Al Shabaab, and they're allegedly trying to install a strict Muslim kind of government, right?
Jason: Oh, haven't heard that before!
Joe: And this is the official reason why the US, for example, the CIA has an installation in Somalia's airport. The CIA has an installation there that they built a few years ago, kind of pretty big, where they run their operations, which is essentially...
Jason: They 'rendite' people.
Joe: Yeah. Actually Jeremy Scahill, who wrote this book Dirty Wars, he's written about it as well, that they have underground prisons there which are kind of like Gitmo in Africa. So they've got their dirty fingers all over it, and they're basically running all sorts of different groups, funding different groups, controlling governments, and that goes for pretty much all of the African countries to one extent or another. Countries like Kenya, that are more officially democratic and stuff, they play it a little more gently, but in places like Somalia, where it's still to some extent up for grabs, they're funding all sorts of different groups here and there.
Jason: Well they can work with impunity there, you know.
Joe: Yeah. So the point is this Al Shabaab group who attacked the Kenyan Embassy is more than likely controlled to some extent by the CIA or the Mossad who are all over the place as well. And that's not a conspiracy theory because the fact of the matter is these African nations are completely subservient to western interests all the way. Even in Kenya that government is owned because it's been around for longer and is more officially democratic, it's got a lot of ex-pat communities that go on safari in Kenya and stuff, the Israelis ran all sorts of businesses there and still do, but the major part of it is natural resources, oil and gas. And it's western companies that own those projects and provide an awful lot of income to the government and therefore are in a position to control the government.
Niall: Well the Israelis actually have their own installation in Kenya proper. Something happened in August that, in the end, they just put down to accident. On the 7th of August, the international airport in Nairobi I think or Mombasa in Kenya was completely torched, burned to the ground. And they're looking at it now, it does look suspicious. Immediately FBI and Mossad "assisted" the Kenyans in their investigation. Now this date, the 7th of August, was the anniversary of the US embassy bombings in Nairobi and Tanzania in 1998 that officially put Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda on the map and on the radar as enemies of the west.
Joe: So we just track it back to that, that's where it started kind of thing you know. Well not really started. It started in 1993 with the first World Trade Centre bombing, really started then, and that was two years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the end of the Cold War, i.e. the end of the Commie boogieman threat. Within two years they were bombing the World Trade Centre tower in New York, and creating, establishing properly this new boogieman threat, which was Islamic terrorism, which would simply allow them to continue what they had been doing for the entire cold war, which was using the commie threat to basically expand their empire. It was a resource grab, a global resource grab.
Pierre: Beyond the control of resources there is probably one major factor to explain this neo-colonialism, because actually, colonialism in Africa and third world countries never ended, it just has a new appearance and a new way of being implemented. Two geopolitical factors that come to mind are first, the very convenient events and convenient dynamics, this Muslim threat, for Israel because in this latest event, and previous events, first you have Muslims that are framed and second, the victims are mostly Westerners. So it's a very good way to further the "clash of civilisations."
Joe: Well absolutely. When you consider who's on first here, the Israelis are on first because the Israelis established their "shitty little country" - according to a French politician - there in the middle of Muslim countries in the Middle East, in 1948, and even before then. But let's say that was the date, 1948, was the date when Israel staked its claim to there being a Muslim terror threat against freedom loving peoples, i.e. nominally pasty-white Westerners even though most Israelis aren't , but they're a little piece of the West in the Middle East. That's how they like to think of themselves.
Niall: An oasis in the desert?
Joe: An oasis in the desert, an oasis of pasty-white Westerners who aren't really pasty-white, in the Middle East surrounded by a nasty, evil terrorist Arab horde. And they established that in 1948, and they needed that to justify their existence increasingly since 1948. So if anybody at the time when the Soviet Union collapsed and the CIA were "Holy crap, what are we going to do here? We've no more Commies! Who's the replacement for the Commies? Any suggestions?" The Israelis would have been first through the door. "We have one, Muslim terror threat. How does that sound?"
Jason: "We've been using it to wild success!"
Joe: "We could use your help in promoting that threat because it would certainly justify our existence as our essentially police-state, militaristic kind of ideology."
Niall: But they had a problem. The problem is that Muslim terrorists, geographically, would have been confined to Muslim countries, i.e. the Middle East, North Africa, maybe further east. But they needed the Muslim threat to be at home. So there's an interesting connection here with this incident in Kenya, with the London 7/7 bombings.
A year ago, the widow of one of the alleged bombers on the 7th of July, 2005 in London, was arrested by the Kenyans running a network of safe houses in Mombasa, Kenya through which they were distributing weapons, money, to so-called terrorist operatives in Kenya. This was a woman who, she's British, allegedly converted to Islam, and she was living in a luxury villa in Kenya.
Jason: Sounds very Muslim?!...
Niall: Exactly. She had a false identity which was South African and this was a foiled terror plot that the country was saved from. Then, just a month after that, July last year 2012, supposedly with the help of the Mossad, another foiled terror plot in Kenya saw two Iranians arrested and tried. I'm not sure what the outcome was, but anyway, the hype was that they were part of a plot to launch a bomb attack or some kind of terrorist attack on Kenyan soil. And the following week the Kenyan government dropped a previously arranged deal with the Iranian government to ship oil to Kenya.
So you've obviously got Israel, we see again their interests.
Joe: Well the Americans as well don't want any spread of any ideas. They don't want to give Iran any opportunity to simply have normal relations with other countries in the world. But the other connection to Kenya is with that soldier who was killed in Woolwich in May, this year. He was stabbed, supposedly, in this really obviously staged killing where these guys kind of film themselves and talk to the camera afterwards. The guy who was arrested for it, Michael Adebolajo, had been arrested in Kenya in 2010 and he claimed that he had been arrested by Kenyan authorities and handed over to British Intelligence where he was mistreated. So there's a three year relationship essentially, going back with this guy, which began in Kenya, it's just all over the place. The whole network of phony terror training camps and Muslim terrorist organisations etc., they are all in areas where the CIA and other intel agencies, British and Israeli, have been for a long time well established.
Niall: This attack is the largest terrorist attack in Kenya since the 1998 US Embassy bombing. Now there's a book written by an American author Ralph Schoenman. He's been researching the embassy bombings and I'm just going to quote something here, not directly from him, it's from another author Finian Cunningham:
"A key indicator of a false flag operation in the 1998 attacks was the involvement of a certain Ali A Mohamed, also known as Ali "the American". He is labelled as the "point man" that masterminded and coordinated the assaults. Two years after the blasts, Mohamed was arrested by American authorities in the US and pleaded guilty to conspiracy to murder.Joe: Was 'turned' by his handlers... All the best Muslim terrorists come from California. Everybody knows that!
It then transpired that the alleged Al Qaeda bomber had an impeccable US military service record, having trained at Fort Bragg, North Carolina and later working as an instructor in explosives at the John F Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School until 1989.
The American government narrative then claimed that Mohamed, who was married to an American citizen and who had lived in California, was all the while working as a double agent for Al Qaeda and that "he turned" by the time of the embassy attacks in 1998."
Niall: Part of the narrative, I'd forgotten this but, what did they call him? They had some catchy name for him, the Silicon Valley something terrorist?...
Joe: Jihadi?
Niall: Yeah, Jihadi. This guy, his story disappeared. This is before 9/11 now, this happened in 2000. He admitted to it. It went to court, and then I think he basically kind of went under a witness protection program, changed his identity and disappeared.
Joe: Yep. On that original Nairobi, Kenya bombing in 1998, the New York Times reported the claims of eye-witnesses in Nairobi who said that the truck used in that bombing had American diplomatic license plates. And another one said that the man, who leapt from the truck and threw a hand grenade just before the bomb blast, was wearing a blue uniform identical to that worn by embassy guards.
The Washington Post claimed that, based on a leak from the CIA in which the agency claimed to have foiled two recent attempts to bomb American embassies in the Middle East, the article quotes Robert Oakley, who is a former state department coordinator for counter terrorism, on the US efforts to infiltrate terrorist groups targeting American facilities:
"She recalled an episode in the mid-1980s when the US Intelligence had recruited a terrorist and had assigned him to bomb an American embassy in Europe. The putative bomber, Oakley said, was allowed to detonate a bomb inside the embassy compound in such a way that little damage was done and far removed from US personnel so that his relationship with US intelligence was not exposed."So that's just an example of the kind of things they do, which is they have an agent within terrorist organisations, or several agents, and they allow them to go through the process of proving their credentials as terrorists.
Jason: Wolf-dipping.
Joe: Yes, by saying 'Allah Akbar' enough times and carrying out a few bombings, and then you're bona-fide, and then this is your guy inside and you can use him to climb up through the ranks, or him and whoever else, to take control of the organisation and lead the bunch of Jihadists to do whatever bombing or attack you want, anywhere in the area. They have these kinds of groups all over the world.
The Brits did exactly the same thing all over the place, in Northern Ireland for example. So this is how it's done really. That's how terrorist bombings are carried out on a basic level. Control is taken of any kind of an organisation that espouses any kind of Muslim ideology. It can be quite benign, but they'll get in there, radicalise it, take control of it, and then use it to just manufacture the Muslim terrorism and carry out terror attacks. These are terror attacks.
A terrorist attack is when you attack a civilian population. But the people who have made a dark art of attacking civilian populations throughout history are state entities, they're governments. I mean that's official history, when you look at it, that's who is ultimately responsible for attacking civilians over and over again.
And even if you don't believe that, people don't seem to make the connection between terrorism. Okay, everybody says terrorism is attacking civilians to spread fear or whatever, to achieve some goal, but when Obama or the American Government or the CIA launch drone strikes on civilians in Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, and other African countries and kill civilians because they want to further their agenda of making sure that country is compliant to Western interests, that's exactly the same thing. I don't even have to explain that to anyone, that's exactly the same thing, they're doing the same thing, they're killing civilians. Everybody knows they are not killing militants who are in the way.
And their agenda is to put pressure on governments. Ultimately that's what terrorism is. Terrorism is attacks by Western governments on the people of other nations to put pressure on governments or groups within that country to allow American and Western corporation's access to that country to do whatever they want.
Pierre: And beyond foreign nations, it's a way of breaking people's will and making them accept the unacceptable. Going back to what we were talking about previously how the fabricated Muslim threat replaced the Communist threat, is the motivation beyond control of resources and geopolitical interests of Israel, which might be related to finance because the Muslim religion, the Quran specifically, forbids any interest and any usury on loans. I remember I couldn't develop this point much during the last show, but as we have seen international finance is a big player in this conspiracy and those elite circles and for a population that doesn't follow their rules is probably perceived as a hindrance to their plans.
Joe: There's been a bombing, and murder and mayhem extravaganza over the past few days. We had this one, the most recent one, in Kenya. I think yesterday as well, kind of dropped off the radar because it happens so often, but there was a bombing at, I think a wedding, in Iraq.
Jason: It was a funeral.
Joe: Oh a funeral, sorry. A funeral in Iraq, and I think 90 people?
Jason: There was another bombing, I think, in a church.
Joe: The bombing in Pakistan, in a church. But the one in Iraq is just totally... there's bombs going off and killing people all over the place.
Niall: Four thousand people have been killed in the last three months.
Joe: Yeah. It's as bad as it was under some of the worst years and months of the American occupation.
Jason: It's certainly worse than under Saddam Hussein.
Joe: Well, hello! There were no bombings under Saddam at all. There were not thousands of people being killed every year under Saddam. There was a very stable society under Saddam Hussein, for at least until they imposed sanctions that killed half a million children, the Americans imposed sanctions on Iraq in the 1990s that killed half a million children, but even then it was a far better place to live than it is today because it's just basically being split asunder by repeated bombings and attacks, by, as I've described before in articles and stuff, CIA funded death squads. They've gone to great lengths to manufacture this idea of civil war in Iraq that never existed beforehand. I mean people got to question that. Under Saddam, for decades, there was no civil war and Iraq was a very progressive, secular, modern Middle Eastern country.
Jason: They didn't have McDonalds.
Joe: No. But it was the most developed country in the Middle East. Women had as many rights as men, essentially. That was all destroyed. What you have now after ten years of American occupation is a country where thousands of people are being killed every year and there's bombs going off all the time, so much that people just don't pay attention to them anymore because they're happening on a weekly or sometimes daily basis. People don't draw a conclusion. You're not allowed to blame the Americans.
Immediately after ten years of occupation by the Americans, before which there was no problem what so ever and Iraqis lived in a fairly peaceful and affluent society, ten years of American occupation and it's been destroyed by daily bombings that are killing people in massive numbers. But you're not allowed to blame that on the Americans? I mean, its cause-and-effect.
Jason: It is their fault, yeah.
Joe: And interestingly now, at this point where it's got so bad, they're bringing up an idea that was floated in 2003 by Leslie H. Gelb. At the time he was the president or the CEO or the major - 'biggest asshole'? I don't know what they call them! - on the Council on Foreign Relations; the asshole-in-chief of the CFR, and he proposed, along with a bunch of other American politicians, to split Iraq into three kind of semi-autonomous regions: Sunni, Shia, and Kurd.
Jason: Because that worked so good the first time they did it.
Joe: Yeah, well the thing about it is, is that there was no essential reason to do that. For decades beforehand, Sunni, Shia and Kurds have been walking... okay maybe not the Kurds so much, but generally speaking, Sunni and Shia definitely had been living peaceably, intermarrying in Iraq for decades. Then suddenly, before the occupation even got going, this is 2003, just a month or two after the invasion, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Americans are saying "Maybe we should split it up into three, you know it's probably going to get bad here" and lo and behold.
Jason: That's because they made it that way.
Joe: Well exactly, they created the civil war, they destroyed the society, they create death squads that go around killing people indiscriminately, or between Sunni and Shia. And now, it was in the news just the other day, they're floating this idea again of breaking it up into three separate Istans, Iraqistans, Sunnistan, Shiastan, Kurdistan.
Niall: And part of the narrative is that they're claiming that the current troubles in Iraq, since April or so this year, was they kind of insinuated it was the fault of the current Iraqi government, predominantly a Shia government, because it's been attacking Sunni protest camps in the north of the country. That, by the way, is a euphemism for the Al Qaeda nut-jobs they have running over the border from Iraq into...
Joe: And from Syria.
Niall: ... who are largely Sunni.
Joe: From Syria, you mean?
Niall: Into Syria. They're now going to Syria, migrating.
Joe: Into Iraq?
Niall: No, well they're migrating the other way. And the implication is that the Iraqi government is assisting the Syrians in dealing with this problem. Of course it is. It's still going to affect them too. But this thing, "Sunni protest camps"...
Joe: But they're like as the Prime Minister has said about this civil war, he said something like, used a euphemism like "there's a wind behind it, and there's influence." He didn't say more than that but he suggested that somebody with the power to actually finance and train and promote this kind of an ethnic strife in the country was behind it.
And I mean, seriously, 2003 with no reason what so ever, immediately after the Americans invade, the Americans and the Council on Foreign relations are saying "Maybe we should split Iraq up into three separate countries." They had no reason to do that what so ever because they had only just arrived. And previously there was no problem, no reason to do that. So they proposed that in 2003, then they go through this process and create the reality required to justify that. And nobody's going to blame them? Nobody's going to point the finger? I mean it's like the guy with ketchup on his face ate your hotdog!
You know what I'm saying? It's not rocket science, but it's like "no, we can't say that because it's too freaking' obvious!"
Pierre: And it's convenient on at least two levels. First, it helps in dividing the Muslim world by overplaying this manufactured division between Sunni, Shia and Kurds, and it also helps blaming the rivalries between those different Muslim factions to explain the Western caused chaos and mayhem that has been overwhelming Iraq for years.
Jason: I wonder if the whole thing is manufactured more for us than for them. I mean, I wonder if there really are any real Sunni and Shia people saying like "Yeah I'm going to kill you!" They're all probably going "Damn it dude, how do we stop the Americans from..."
Because they're probably faking, like it's got to the point where it looks like they're faking everything. There are no real Sunni or Shias at any of these "Protest camps." They're all just hired mercenaries, they dance around, they put on some desert gear, shoot off some AK47s in the air, they get some film of them spitting on some flag or something like that. It's just for us.
Pierre: You can manufacture and increase social unrest like during the Vietnam War when the CIA conducted its massive exodus of Northern Vietnamese. Like one million, ten million?
Joe: One million.
Pierre: One million Northern Vietnamese to South Vietnam that was extremely poor because of the Indochina war with France. It creates tension when you have a lot of people and very limited resources. So, to some extent in Iraq, I'm sure they're trying to exacerbate the tensions between different Muslim movements, but it was not there the first time.
Jason: Well I have something in mind on that topic, if I could say it, because I read Colonel Trinquier's book on warfare. The French major who was in Algeria, but before that he was in Indochina actually, which is where he learned all of his stuff, and his basic job was to create those kind of radicalized terrorist type of groups. He wrote about it and his whole thesis was basically that you have to turn populations against any kind of radical movement by faking terrorism, essentially by torturing people. It's basically what they do now. He was kind of like pre-Kitson in his "Let's go in and dress up as terrorists and shoot people" method.
And he said that probably the biggest hurdle that they had was that in those countries, the people just didn't respond to the factionalizations as well as they had hoped. They needed to go the step forward to creating these. They actually had to actively be bombing, and doing things in the name of the terrorists because they wouldn't do it themselves.
And he does give a couple of stories of him sitting down with these local Indochina chieftain kind of characters in charge of these different factions and that they would look at him and tell him exactly what they were doing and that they didn't believe them, and that they were only "If it serves my purposes I'll do such-and-such a thing, but you know, I don't hate them anymore than this, that, or the other thing."
So their whole thing is they have to create the terrorism is basically what I'm saying. That they don't actually really radicalize any of these groups except for maybe a couple of fringe elements.
Pierre: Because I think that terrorism, and murder in general, is not something humans do, in general. It's something psychopaths do and enjoy. So they have to instrumentalize people to do it, they have to force them, or they have to fake it, because people don't do that.
Jason: Like those people who were in Libya, they had brought all of these different people, I read some sort of report, there were all these different people from way different disparate kind of countries, ethnicities and languages, that suddenly became this "Libyan Liberation Rebels", right? And a couple of people pointed out that some of them don't even speak the same language so they obviously weren't from Libya. They were saying they were from a couple of different countries.
Niall: Yeah, they were coming from Qatar, Egypt.
Jason: They recruit and groom and find these psychopathic individuals, put them into these sorts of teams of terrorists, and they move them around. So the people who were in Libya doing this stuff are probably the ones in Northern Iraq going over into Syria doing it. It's the same people. They probably just moved them around.
And because, of course, they're brown skinned and the average Westerner can't really tell the difference, they're speaking a different language. We don't know, is it Arabic, is it Berber, is it whatever, we have no idea. And they get away with it because of that.
Pierre: And those mercenaries have absolutely no political vision, no religious agenda and no geopolitical goals. They're just psychopathic individuals who get the opportunity to fulfil their destructive goals.
Niall: I have a story that illustrates this as well, in a totally different part of the world. So, in the early 2000's, there was a young Irish guy named Michael Dwyer working as a security guard for Shell oil on a soon-to-be-built gas pipeline in the west of the country. They hired ex-mercenaries who had handled weapons and stuff, especially from the Balkans. And Dwyer got mixed in with a bunch of Croats and Serbs, I don't remember their names, but some of them had some dodgy connections to intel agencies, to factions fighting back in Kosovo and other places. Next thing he winds up dead in a hotel in Bolivia.
Allegedly the place was stormed because the Bolivians had gotten intel that there was an assassination attempt coming up against the current Bolivian president, Evo Morales, and they tracked it to these three guys, one of whom was the Irish guy, Michael Dwyer. They found an apartment or hotel room, not sure which, loaded with weapons. They'd been getting training out there. This young Irish guy, not more than 24, had gone out with some of these people.
I guess he didn't really know what he was getting into, but it just showed me so clearly how you can have people roped into things that they don't necessarily have some dedicated ideology about. They just like guns and shooting people in his case. And they have some vague right-wing... he vaguely espoused some views that you would lump together under 'right-wing', but there's no directional, there's no well thought-out philosophy at all.
Jason: So he kind of got "Arlington Roaded" a little bit there. Sort of, a team of people who get you all set up and positioned for you to take a fall and make it look like there was something else.
Joe: Talking about how they create it, just to give you an idea into the mindset of that this isn't just our theory, it's a theory of the psychopathic elite. Because back in 2004 in the New York Times magazine, Ron Suskind wrote an article, and he quoted an aid, an unnamed aid to George W. Bush at the time, it was later attributed to Karl Rove. And Rove supposedly said, according to Suskind recorded in the New York Times magazine in 2004, said that "Guys like me are in what we call the reality based community," which Rove defined as "People who believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." Then he said, "That's not the way the world really works anymore. We are an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality, and while you're studying that reality judiciously, as you will, we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too. And that's how things will sort out. We're histories actors, and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
Jason: That sounds like their philosophy.
Joe: Now talk about megalomania there. They're basically playing god. They're creating a reality for the entire population of the planet. And while we sit around trying to figure it out, they'll have moved on and changed the plot a little more.
Pierre: Yeah it's quite a true depiction because all this terrorist threat, finally it's a few patsies or a few psychopathic individuals whose strings are pulled, who kill for killing. And after the geopolitical twist, clash of civilisations is orchestrated upon those isolated psychopathic acts that have no cause and no intrinsic meaning. So in this sense, they do create a reality that some people will believe.
Jason: On a certain level what he's saying is kind of true. The problem is they don't realise that we all exist inside a kind of galactic or cosmic reality that kind of exists independently of what we do. They create a political reality, absolutely. I mean, they create city states, or states, or whatever you want to call them, the nations, all this stuff, yeah, they do, he's not lying about that. But you know what, there's a comet somewhere, 10,000 years away from us, or maybe even sooner.
Pierre: Or less.
Jason: That is just plodding along. He doesn't have anything to do with it. And one of these days it's going to plough into the earth. It's going to wipe everybody out, and then...
Pierre: Well it might be worse than that, and he might have to do something with it, but not consciously, not in the way you might think.
Jason: I mean that they don't create. I'm saying that they don't create in the sense of they don't have control on change and reality.
Pierre: And what they create might be opposite to what they expect.
Joe: Well exactly.
Pierre: Its power and wealth and comfort and exploiting people and they may end up in an ice age.
Jason: But what he's talking about is that they have absolute control of reality. That he can change it at will, and he's controlling your reality. But I'm just saying that there's an external reality to these people that they cannot control. They cannot control a hurricane, they cannot control a cometary strike, they cannot control massive, horrible weather that just ruins the entire food source, and then we're screwed. They don't have real control over those things.
Pierre: Well they probably think that they control some weather aspects, and they probably can control or modify some local weather phenomena, which reinforces the illusion that they have total control on the human level and Earthly level too.
Niall: They can't control nature. Much as a lot of people would like to believe.
Joe: Well they don't even consider that. As psychopaths they...
Niall: What they control is the appearances of reality. They can change the set.
Pierre: And the narrative.
Joe: ...need to put a lot of energy and time and effort into it, to make it real for people. But ultimately, because it's fake, the fundamental basis to it is that it's fake, it's not sustainable forever. I also think that they don't really understand human psychology very well, normal human psychology. They have psychopaths, of which there are many in positions of power, and who are developing plans for how the reality will evolve.
An example of that I was just reading about today reminded me that during the hunger strikes in Northern Ireland in the early 1980s, Maggie Thatcher came to power.
Niall: Ding-dong!...
Joe: Ding-dong, the witch is dead! That reminds me of, there was a group... She did die, didn't she?
Niall: Oh she's dead, six foot under.
Joe: Sometimes I think it's just a dream. I wake up at night sweating, "She's dead isn't she?" No, I'm digressing here. But when she was in ill-health there were various politicians that were floating the idea of giving her a state funeral, and it was going to be state-funded obviously, and it would cost quite a lot of money. So a group of people set up a website and the premise of it was that they would only agree to a state funeral if they got to bury her alive, like, now! Before she dies. So there's a lot of hatred towards Margaret Thatcher.
Jason: Oh there should be, she was decidedly evil.
Joe: But anyway, during the hunger strikes in Northern Ireland where the members of the Republican Movement, the most famous of which was Bobby Sands, went on a hunger strike. When that campaign had just begun, Thatcher was elected prime minister, and so she took control of policy. They were demanding basically, as political prisoners, they thought they were political prisoners, they were demanding special rights and they had been given special rights, like they didn't have to wear prison clothes and they had special privileges about free time, receiving visitors etc. They weren't treated as ordinary prisoners.
Those rights were then taken away so they started a hunger strike to protest that. Thatcher came in at the very beginning of that protest so she had an option to either give them back their rights or follow through, and she thought she would show them who the boss is here. But the policy was, at that time and had been for a long time, to alienate these members of the Republican Movement at the IRA, who were essentially the hunger strikers. The British policy was to alienate them from their support amongst the nationalist, catholic community in Northern Ireland.
So that was the policy. But she didn't realise that by pushing through with refusing their demands and allowing ten of them, ultimately, to starve themselves to death in protest that the natural result of that, and I think there were some people who tried to tell her at the time but she ignored it and she was going to show them who's boss, was that she essentially achieved the opposite of what the official policy was, which was to deny support to these people from the local community because the local community were outraged that their demands were not met and that she allowed them all to die, as it was seen, instead of just simply recognising them as political prisoners. She wasn't going to do that.
So it just serves an example to me of the kind of inability of these people, in positions of power, to understand normal human psychology. That would have always been the result that would have gone against their official policy of what they were trying to do to win the war against the IRA. They should have immediately given them back these special privileges and defused the whole thing because ultimately it was a political protest. It was a political campaign on the part of the IRA to increase the profile of their campaign. Not long before he actually died, the first hunger striker, Bobby Sands, got elected. There were regional elections because Northern Ireland was part of the United Kingdom, to the British Parliament and he, in prison, on hunger strike, got elected as a Member of Parliament.
Jason: Wow.
Pierre: Yeah, Thatcher made of the hunger strikers martyrs and heroes.
Jason: Yeah, well there's another basic facet of human psychology which they don't really grok, and it's summed up by an old folk tale called the boy who cried wolf. In which it basically says that people are, in a certain sense, gullible, or more like they're trusting and they want to trust and that's what part of being a social animal is. You trust people, and when someone says something to you, you take them at their word and that's how normal people behave.
But there is a threshold beyond which you've cried wolf one too many times, and nobody's going to come. And that's the same thing that's going on with this whole terrorist, chemical weapons thing. You saw these people, just regular housewife type of people, putting up these videos on YouTube, basically calling the whole Syria thing bullshit; we're tired of hearing this. It's kind of like the boy who cried wolf all over again, "they used chemical weapons" has become the crying of wolf and they don't understand that people's credulity will wear thin with this one.
Pierre: Yeah and it's all the more problematic for the psychopath in power, that one of their main features is a lack of creativity. So, by definition they have to go back to those same areas again and again. Not factoring in that human populations, ultimately, will start to grok that the same trick is being played again and again.
Joe: And you can imagine, almost, the response among these psychos in power who were trying to lobby for an attack on Syria when they got a feeling for the amount of resistance among the general population, and even among the US military, there was towards this kind of attack. I imagine them sitting there and just looking kind of bewildered at what was going on. And maybe one of them said, "It's not working", and the suggestion maybe was, "Say it louder!"
Jason: Ha-ha, that's what they did.
Joe: "Say it again. In a different way, but say it again!"
Niall: "Get John Kerry up there and get him to say it like he believes it!"
Pierre: There's another factor they are aware of, and that human beings may not be aware of as much, it's that the control depends on the number of times you repeat the lie. But it also depends on the level of hysterization of the population, and I suspect that's the reason why they're increasing the hysterization factor with all these "terror attacks" in order to make people more willing to accept the unacceptable and to not cross this BS threshold.
Joe: Yeah, look what it comes down to. It's trying to get people to accept your criminality and your inhumanity and the attacks you want to wage on other human beings around the world, getting normal human beings at home to accept the indiscriminate murder of other people around the world. And how do you achieve that, because it's completely anti-human and unnatural for a normal human being? Well, you attack the people at home, first. You beat them with a big stick so that you beat them into a state of submission where they will go "okay", to allow you to go and beat other people.
Does anybody thing there isn't a connection, or there is a connection between the whole Syria business and the rejection of that unjustified and ridiculous attack, Iraq WMDs part 2, a connection between that and the Navy yard shooting? That's an example of what we're talking about. Maybe they interpreted that as some kind of an awakening, or a little too much understanding or awareness among the average person on the street in the US, about the bullshit that the elite are trying to pass off on them and they said, "well, what are we going to do?" "We'll beat 'em!" Have somebody go do a shooting in Washington D.C., there you go, the nation's capital.
Jason: It has the hallmarks of a hastily thrown together...
Joe: Yeah!
Jason: It doesn't seem to have any reason. It's just like "Do we have anybody that can shoot somebody?"
Joe: "Do something!"
Jason: "Send them out, now!"
Pierre: Well I can see a reason for targeting a Navy base. The objective of terrorism, state terrorism, is to terrorise people, to hysterize people. That's not killing per se. Killing is the objective of the psychopath who executes the orders. For the one who pulls the sting, the objective is not killing. It's only a means to reach an emotional state within the population. And that's why you have several accounts of regimes that were killing through their militias, but always leaving survivors behind, because the survivors would be the prime witness who would spread the terror among the population.
Joe: Through repeated interviews on Fox TV.
Pierre: Yeah. And now we're targeting a military base, because to the human psyche, a military base is a highly secure space. And it means, okay, the terrorists managed to go into the base and shoot and kill in the base so it means any of us, any of you citizens, are a potential target.
Jason: So I was digging through the SOTT page today and buried in there was probably what I consider to be the most interesting article I have read in quite a long time and I hope you'll see how it's connected. It is basically from the science section of the SOTT site and it's a study about phobias. There was a quote in there and she said that "it's well known that considerable research has shown that social forms of learning can contribute to the acquisition of fears."
And the study is basically about using a therapy model for fixing phobias and fears in people by having them near other people who don't have the phobia. Like if you have a fear of spiders, people who are with you who don't have a fear of spiders, who are interacting with it, or a fear of snakes or something, they interact with the snake. And from you watching that there's no danger, seeing that there's no danger, it actually reduces your phobia until it eventually goes away, and so this is the result of the research.
And I said, well this is exactly, in a certain sense, what they do with this. They are socially educating people to be afraid. Whenever you see these things and they show "oh yeah the terrorists and everybody" and you watch television shows and there's all this terrorist language now after 9/11, there's all these things about homeland security, the terrorists, and all this different stuff. They're just socializing fear.
But the interesting thing about the article is not so much that, it's that actually they're using the same process to unsocialize fear.
Pierre: Reverse.
Jason: So that when people actually stand up and resist this fear mongering, they stand up and say "Yeah but I don't believe you" and all this sort of stuff, that you show to people around you that there's nothing to be afraid of.
Joe: Yeah, so it works the opposite way.
Jason: It does work the opposite way, as long as you can...
Joe: On the first theory of getting over your fears, I have a fear that maybe I could use this for. I'm afraid that I might, in a state of pique, take a flight to Washington and beat John Kerry around the head with a large trout. Could someone else absolve me or take away this fear by having me watch someone else do that?
Jason: No!
Joe: I mean, that's the theory, right? If I see someone else do that, then I won't be afraid of doing that anymore.
Jason: Well you know it's kind of like kicking a computer because John Kerry is such a robot. Have you seen him? The person who's controlling him doesn't have complete control over his eye because it keeps drifting up, right? I mean just watching him I couldn't keep a straight face. He was talking about the death and the murder and the children and all this different stuff, but he looks like a cartoon character. And he's wearing so much makeup, I guess to cover up, I don't know. Because you can tell that he's wearing a lot of makeup, but it's not really hiding that lazy eye, and he kind of squints with it. He's a cartoon character, he's not real.
Joe: Well on our forum there was a discussion about the way these supreme mouth-pieces for war and death like Hillary Clinton, and Kerry was mentioned. There were pictures of them, before-and-after type thing, and they do seem like they're melting. They're like the wicked witch of the west, "I'm melting!" They can't keep a straight face anymore because they're so suffused with evil.
Jason: Hillary Clinton has turned into the witch from Hansel and Gretel, almost like witch Hazel-esque, sadistic kind of person, like "hehehehehe", laughing with glee. "Dead people, they amuse me, I like to watch people being raped and murdered!"
Joe: I know, she's had to learn the cackle though. She's going to break into a cackle one of these days.
Jason: But right away she went from being svelte to swelled, like a grape or something huge, and then everyone's like "What happened? Does she have some kind of glandular problem?"
Niall: It's like the scene from the movie Lord of the Rings when the king of Rohan's spell is being cast out by Gandalf, and he totally transforms before your eyes. I mean, it's kind of like that!
Joe: Wormtongue has been working on him!
Pierre: This is speculation but I suppose that when you choose the 'Dark side of the force', you are within a kind of pyramidal hierarchy which is basically energetic. And it means you're going to be drained. Evil will take its toll year after year the more you serve, the more you're into it, the more you will get depleted of your life energy.
Jason: There was a book I read when I was a teenager, it was a Star Wars book where Luke Skywalker goes to this crazy planet, and apparently there are these bugs that consume the force or something. There's this scene in this book that is so eerie. I was reading this at like three o'clock in the morning. I stayed up all night reading this book and got chills! And so every time somebody mentions the whole hierarchy of these self-serving individuals, I always think back to this scene where he's sneaking into this palace and he comes to the stairway. The stairway is covered with bugs.
And as he's climbing up the stairs the bugs are getting bigger. And he gets to, like, half-way up the stairs and sees a door at the top. He notices that what is happening is each bug is climbing up to the next level, some of them make it, and some of them don't because the larger bugs at the next level grab them and eat them. And this goes on up to the top where there's this one gigantic bug that's three feet tall. It's huge. And it's sitting there and each one that climbs up it grabs it and eats it. And then suddenly he sees the main bad guy character open the door, look at the big bug, grab it, and eats it.
And every time I think about these people, it's like that. It has to be a stressful situation for them. They enter that life because they want the power and they have this illusion about how powerful they're going to be, but they never realise that at a certain point, someone from above them is going to reach down and try to eat them unless they can eat that person. So it's a stressful, dangerous situation.
Joe: And there's always someone bigger and worse.
Jason: There's always someone bigger, someone else at the top of the food chain ready to eat you. And one day that person will be too lackadaisical and you'll eat them, but it's like a lottery. Not everybody who makes it to the top of those stairs survives, and they know that. I think that stresses them out.
Pierre: I don't know if it's only a lottery, but because of the very structure of this hierarchy, pyramidal, it means there's only one single apex. It means that all the other actors are being food. They feed on the lower level, but are food for the higher level.
Jason: And they enjoy feeding on the lower level. Which is why they get involved in it in the first place, because they dissociate from the truth of the situation. That is anything that they can do to someone else means it can be done to them.
Pierre: Exactly.
Jason: And eventually it does which is why I always say that it's not easy to be one of these people. They're not immortal. They're not all-powerful. There is somebody above them who just may not like them or may not like what they're doing or think that they're getting a little bit too powerful and just smack them down.
Niall: Just to go back to the naval yard shooting. Well, a 'bug got squashed' at the shooting in DC. In the initial report they were talking about three gunmen, which became two, and then...
Joe: Then we came to 'Lee Harvey Oswald'.
Niall: Yeah, ad nauseum. And the guy they singled out was a former Navy reservist now working for a private contractor - Aaron Alexis. Now, something interesting happened a month before: On the 7th of August, Aaron Alexis went to the police in Rhode Island and warned them, or made a complaint, that he was hearing voices in his head caused by some sort of microwave machine and that it was going non-stop, day and night.
Your first impression could be "okaayy"... The police took it seriously enough to bring it up with the Navy, and they pretty much said "Okay yeah, well, we'll get back to you." But a formal complaint was lodged, and it does fit the bill of what we know about mind control, that it was experimented on, succeeded, and tried out over and over again. Well, this looks like another classic case.
Joe: The beaming of voices into people's heads by microwave technology is real; officially real. Officially, it goes back to the end of the Second World War where, I think it was in the UK, they had a microwave station set up. The ministry of defence had a microwave station and they realised that people working there, or living close by, were hearing audible clicks in their head. And they began sort of an investigation and they realised that it was the microwaves that were generating this noise.
They've had another 70 years since then to pursue that kind of technology and it was pursued under MKULTRA and all sorts of things. The official public theory about it is that if you can direct a microwave at someone's ear, or their head, I don't know how specific it can get, but theoretically it can get specific enough to affect the inner ear.
Because, when you hear speech you're essentially hearing sound waves that are affecting your inner ear. Your brain is interpreting the frequency of the wave and translating it into language.
Niall: There are tiny hair cells in the inner ear and each one vibrates depending on the frequency that is coming in and that sends electrical signals...
Joe: ...to your brain, and your ear drum as well, which expands and contracts. And the theory with microwaves is, and this probably isn't the only explanation, that through thermal expansion and contraction, it can be used on a certain frequency to essentially create the same conditions of a sound wave being received by your ear. And therefore they can essentially mimic a human voice, any type of human voice.
Pierre: And I would not be surprised if they go even further than that, because the brain, basically, is a wave machine. You see it with electroencephalograms for example. It's basically electric signals between neurons.
Joe: So it may not even be microwaves in the ear but being beamed directly into the brain.
Pierre: It's speculative but I would not be surprised that by now they are able to, either via machines, emitters or via psychic projectors, able to influence or even seed emotions and ideas in some human targets. That's something that has been extensively documented for psychic projection over the past decades. Human beings have the power, not only super-psychics; a group of individuals, correctly tuned and correctly trained, have the ability to influence other people's psyche.
Joe: Yeah. But even taking it back to known technology, say microwave technology, where they, at least theoretically, know that microwaves affect people's auditory systems. They can project voices and sounds and people perceive it as being in their own heads. You take someone who's maybe had a history of psychological or mental instability, on drugs or whatever, and over a period of months, you subject such a person to voices in their head, whole narratives, stories, everything. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to realise that such a person could be induced to do something based on this trusted voice that has become his friend in his head that gives him a narrative on what he should do like getting a gun and going out and shooting the place up kind of thing.
Jason: It's the kind of thing that's got to drive you crazy, a little bit, keeping you up all night with voices in your head.
Joe: Yeah. And if you don't do this these voices will never stop. Use your imagination a little bit.
Niall: I wonder though. I doubt that they could rely on someone that they're messing with to pull off something they need done. Hence, it sounds like the other two people, and possibly more, were doing the actual...
Joe: Well that seems to be the MO of these guys where they get someone as a fall guy to be on site.
Niall: ...Just to be there.
Joe: To shoot a few rounds off and he's the cover, essentially, for two much more conscious and aware people.
Niall: That way it can be said, "But he was seen there. Here he is on CCTV." Oh right, yeah, he was there, I guess this gunman story is true.
Joe: Seeing is believing, like Karl Rove said. If you see it happen then it must be real and this is what the reality is. But people don't even go there and consider that this may be a ruse, they may be lying to you. It all comes back to this idea of there are people who would do that. That's the one block that stops people seeing behind the curtain or accepting an alternative theory to what's going on in the world today is that "they wouldn't do that". I mean they would and they have.
Jason: They've admitted to it is the problem.
Joe: Its part of the historical record that they have done this, they have admitted to it. These are the kind of people we're dealing with so why dismiss that? Ultimately then you take it back a bit further and it's each individual person's own sense of security that stops them from believing that.
Logically they would have to accept the evidence that they would do that but emotionally they do not want to. So it comes right down to a personal problem for the individual involved when they will not believe a "conspiracy theory", for example. It's personal for them because it attacks their personal sense of security and their comfortable life and the world they live in.
And a lot of people need that security. They need to feel that there's a power above them be it a god, or a president, or a group of elected leaders, who are all working in their interests and are benevolent in their approach towards the people. So it doesn't matter what the evidence is, if I don't want to believe it, if I can't emotionally believe it, well then forget about it, don't even try to talk to me about it.
Pierre: Yeah, because the choice is not made on a conscious, intellectual level. You can have as much evidence as you want. Here, at play, is a very deep need in human beings for safety. It's on a limbic level. It's on the reptilian brain level. Although it's unconscious, it's far more powerful than any rhetoric or evidence.
Joe: And it's impossible to get someone to believe something when his or her sense of security depends on him not believing it.
Pierre: Especially if he's not aware that his own sense of safety is ruling him and he has a stake in this decision.
Jason: But the real rub is that because you don't believe it, your safety is being threatened. So it's the real threat to your safety. The believing the lie is the true threat to your safety, not the truth that they do that kind of stuff because that's not the worst thing. The worst thing is that you believe.
Joe: You're believing a lie and you're imperilling yourself because the truth is, that you cannot accept, is that these people do not have your best interests at heart. They're working against you. They're working to use you up and wear you out and maybe kill you ultimately, or enslave you in some way, or certainly decrease your lifestyle and your comfort level to nothing and essentially lord it over you. That's what their intention is.
Jason: But not everybody in the world's intention is that so if you stop following those people you'd be safer. But you don't.
Joe: And that's just a projection out of personal things as well. People can relate I'm sure through experiences in their own lives where they have not wanted to believe, for some emotional reason, a truth that was staring them in the face that everybody else could see but they did not want to see it because of some emotional consideration and they ended up suffering as a result. What we're talking about is that same dynamic happening on a global scale where you, as part of a society, are going to suffer along with all of your fellow society members. Because of this refusal or inability to simply face the truth of the situation and by not facing the truth, you're believing a lie and you're walking down the primrose path to some unsavoury end. And you can stop it, but it takes effort, and that's why most people don't want to do it as well.
Niall: How does the saying go? Those who would trade security for liberty deserve neither.
Jason: No, those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither.
Joe: And they'll get neither.
Niall: How many times since 9/11 have we seen that projection of - "here's the state, we're here to look after you"? - where you've got SWAT teams storming people's homes, businesses, schools, on the slightest whim, scaring the hell out of everyone. Maybe not actually firing in the end, but it's the whole mania of, "Oh my god, SWAT's here, go go go!"
Joe: Aggressive cops shooting people, tasing people, killing people. I mean its pandemic at this stage in the US and that is a result of 9/11 and people trading their liberty for security.
Jason: Here's the thing. As a reasonable person I would say okay. If I believed in the whole terrorist problem, let's say I do, and I saw that happening. If, in every situation, they stormed, secured the area, took care of the problem, then it would almost be acceptable.
The fact is that whenever there's a "real", we say fake, but "real" terrorist attack, these guys can't secure squat! Thirteen people at a basketball game, I mean whenever there's an actual terrorist attack, the SWAT team is nowhere to be found, not securing the area, not taking care of anything.
Niall: This is what I was getting to. You see, this shooting started three blocks away. Washington, D.C. Capitol Police's finest crack shot team responded. They were on the scene, guns drawn. And they got an order from on high to stand down. The one scenario where you actually might need a SWAT team there; they got the order to stand down.
And it's going around. It made national news in the US so I'm sure a lot of people have heard of it. And they're not happy. The police themselves, whoever gave this order down, they've filed a formal complaint requesting an enquiry. As far as they're concerned, something is extremely fishy. That they were about to storm in, they could hear the shooting going on, then somebody said "no problem here guys, go home". They were ordered to disengage and turn back.
Jason: And that brings us back to that whole situation with this mall in Kenya. What I was trying to get at is that the worst kind of situation, if you're a SWAT guy or something like that, is to have to break in to a well-defended, small position where there's only one entrance. You've got to go through it to get to the hostages. There're bombs, there's one door, there're terrorists in between you, that's a terrible situation because somebody's going to get killed.
But when you're talking about a giant mall with hundreds of entrances, or at least 50 entrances, everywhere they can get in through the roof, through windows, from all these different areas. They can shoot in tear gas, they can do all this different stuff. You have a group of terrorists who have already started killing people so already people are dying. This is a tactical dream in a certain sense because they can't control the entire area. You'd have to have a huge group of terrorists covering all the entrances. They can get in, they can shoot that place up with tear gas and they can take care of the problem. If they can't break into a mall then they're completely useless.
And so that's what I was trying to say that this is a very fishy situation. It sounds to me like the "crack team" is the one on the inside, not the one on the outside.
Joe: In places like Kenya, if our theory is correct, which it probably is, these Al Shabaab terrorists that are still in this mall in Kenya, they have the better training because they've been trained and funded by the CIA compared to the Kenyan regulars.
But yeah, on the Navy yard shooting, a government official told CNN that when the first radio call came in about a shooting at the Navy yard, highly trained tactical US capital police officers headed to the base but were told by a watch commander to stand down.
Niall: Well they were pissed so they're going to want some answers. And how long can they keep doing this kind of thing and fobbing off the answers? One of these days it's just going to be non-stop.
Pierre: It reminds me of the JFK assassination. You have two instances of police captains; actually before the JFK assassination most of the Dallas police had been removed.
Joe: Sent on holiday.
Pierre: Sent on holidays. But you still had some officers along the path of the president's car. And there was a case of the police officer who ran after a suspect beyond the grassy knoll and on the rail tracks who was told to stop. And there was this other guy who found a suspect running to a convertible car, it was Lee Harvey Oswald actually, and told to drop the case as well.
Joe: "Don't get that guy just yet. We're going to get him later on. It's in my script here to be arrested at 3pm"...
Jason: And wasn't there something about the gun that was found and the police officer who found the gun, but then said that the gun that he found was not the same gun?
Pierre: Yeah, it was a change in the brand.
Joe: But there was also the secret service guy, who there's a video of, the secret service guy who should have been riding on the back of Kennedy's car, he was told by a superior behind him, you see it in the video, telling him to get off. Because the guy can't get a proper shot if he's standing there, for god's sakes.
Pierre: And the problem for this operation is that there are a lot of good cops. There are people who become cops because they are conscientious and they think and what they're being told that it's a way of protecting the population.
Joe: This Navy yard shooter, Aaron Alexis, had etchings on his shotgun. The etchings were "Better off this way" and "My elf weapon". The voices in his head told him to write those.
Pierre: Extremely low frequency?
Joe: My ELF. Well, maybe!
Niall: It was initialized. It was capitals, E.L.F., abbreviation.
Joe: My Elf weapon, elf. He was told that he was an elf and he had to shoot people in a Navy yard by the voices in his head projected from Langley.
Jason: I would have bought it if he had written my +2 sword or something. That would have been an RPG (role playing game) reference.
Pierre: You know it makes you wonder when you see how extensive and successful those mind control experiments were nearly 70 years ago. You're wondering how many people who get diagnosed with schizophrenia and who get internalised in psychotic wards, how many of them are not schizophrenic at all and are just telling the truth? They do hear voices in their heads and it's not because they're crazy, it's because voices are being projected in their heads.
Jason: Well I wonder if maybe they just kind of actually blanket areas and some people are just more respondent to it and they just go totally insane. And they just wait until they need somebody and just pull from a large population of people who've been crazified.
Niall: There is some evidence for that because you get clusters of shootings, the one in Chicago that followed on the heels of this.
Jason: Same number of people shot, or thirteen people shot, or something like this including a little kid I think?
Niall: You got to wonder if something is just beamed out there and a few of them snap.
Pierre: It's maybe because there's a brainwashing centre nearby or the beaming is more efficient there. It might also be because of the local population, what they eat, what they drink and they're more receptive to some kind of waves.
Joe: Yeah. So speaking about this power that is above and beyond these delusional reality-creating elite, a few years ago we reported on the strange noises in the sky that are being heard around the world and they're pretty interesting to listen to. There are all sorts of theories on where they're coming from and they have re-emerged after a little hiatus. Well there was one in Slovakia, which is one of my favourites. We'll let you listen to it. Then we'll get Pierre to tell us what it's all about.
[Plays sound clip of strange noise]
Niall: Check it out on YouTube if you haven't heard it already. It will grab your attention. It's almost like that's the idea.
Jason: Any time I hear about that stuff though, man, I think it's all biblical! I mean, because all over the world the ground is opening up, swallowing people, cars, houses, everything all over the world.
Pierre: We say those events might be biblical, but maybe the bible...
Jason: Was describing the events.
Pierre: ...for example, were describing the same events we are witnessing now.
Jason: Exactly. These are like divine trumpets going on, fire from the sky.
Niall: As days go by it's getting easier to understand why they wrote as they did.
Jason: Yeah, all this time we thought they were crazy and it turns out it's like "wait a minute, actually"...
Joe: They were weird noises. As my wife actually described them, it sounded like a wookie in some level of pain maybe.
Niall: A wookie with a very large loudspeaker.
Joe: A wookie with a large loudspeaker and with a bad case of hemorrhoids or something.
Jason: Oh god, Jesus! Thank you very much.
Joe: Well that's what it sounds like!
Pierre: How does a wookie sound?
Jason: Have you never watched Star Wars?!
Joe: A lot of people said it sounded like it was coming from the ground, and then others saying from the air etc.
Niall: I think part of the reason why it's non-directional might be similar to why, when this technology is "beaming voices into their head", the sound is already in your head, you don't have an idea that it's coming from here or from there. I think there might be something to the nature of whatever is creating these noises.
Jason: Pierre, any ideas?
Pierre: Depending on the specificities of the wave, you can also have some kind of reverberation, some resonance, and basically it can be a whole broad space that is resonating, and basically the sound comes from everywhere and nowhere. This being said, I don't know the exact nature of the sounds, but what has been documented for years now is the most exotic precursors of earthquakes, and it has also been mentioned during asteroid or meteorite observation, there is some electrophonic sound.
Niall: What does that mean?
Pierre: Electrophonic sound is basically a sound that comes from electric waves. You can hear electric lines buzzing sometimes when it's really wet. If you're under a high voltage electric line, you hear this humming. Sound is simply a wave within a specific frequency range between 20Hz and 20KHz depending on your audio acuity. It is a very narrow range.
Niall: For the human ear, yeah.
Pierre: Yeah. It's a very narrow range. A specificity of waves, of undulating phenomena, is resonance factor and harmonic factors. It means that, even if you have a signal at a frequency f, you will have the same signal attenuated at frequency f/2, f/4, 2f, 4f, etc. So for those harmonic phenomena you have some audible manifestation of a vibratory cause within another frequency range.
Jason: There's a musical instrument, I think it's called a Theremin maybe, something like that. There's a musical instrument that works off this, and basically there are no strings, there's actually almost no instrument and you move your hand in the air above it and make music. It's really quite pretty actually. It works, I think, off a similar thing where it's basically like waves that you are, because your hand impedes or interferes with them, it creates harmonic sound basically.
Pierre: Yeah, I think I saw it, and depending on the distance between your hand and the emitter/receptor, you modulate the frequency of the generated sound.
Jason: It's really quite beautiful music that it makes, actually.
Niall: Something's clearly resonating on a planetary level.
Joe: What's resonating Pierre? Come on Pierre, we want the skinny!
Pierre: Frankly I don't know, but just to give an example of resonance, a well-known one for example, you have the Schumann resonance. To give example of a big resonator on an Earthly scale, the Schumann resonator, which is about 7.8Hz, is a resonance between the Earth and the ionosphere, the resonance within the whole atmosphere which might be driven by lightning strikes. And those discharges create and maintain a resonance because the intrinsic resonance frequency of this big space, our Earth atmosphere, is 7.8Hz. So I don't have the definite answer I'm sorry, but many things can resonate, basically.
Joe: Given what's going on at the moment in terms of Earth changes, let me give you a list over the past few days, maybe it's got something to do with this. Over the past few days we've had these article titles:
Meteor lights up South East Queensland night skiesJason: Ha ha ha.
Woman says she saw meteor-like fireball streaking across the Nova Scotia sky
Did a meteor cross over western Massachusetts?
Fireball blazes over south-western US, seen across Southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada
Enormous meteor exploded above Wales - Panicked residents reported sound like bomb going off
Meteor strikes Tatooine, home of Star Wars
Joe: It did, yeah.
Jason: But you know thunder in a certain sense is kind of a sound that comes from some sort of electrical phenomenon as well. Thunder doesn't come from nowhere, there's lightning and then there's thunder, it's kind of a cause and effect situation.
Pierre: Yeah, there are two kinds of sounds in lightning. There is the precursor sound, and there is the boom, the explosion, when the lightning reaches its target, which is usually on the Earth's surface. But to go back to Joe's comment, it may be related but not exclusively related to asteroid activity. According to some researchers the genetic mutations that were noticed around Tunguska after 1908, for example, the anomalous tree ring growth in the year directly following 1908 was not due to classical radiation, like ionising rays or radioactive material, but to electrophonics. Because apparently, waves can be mutagenic, i.e. induce mutations. So there might be a correlation here.
Joe: So is there no correlation in terms of the electrical phenomena that may be associated with comet fragments or meteorites passing over the Earth and in some way interacting electrically with Earth's surface at certain points and thereby generating some kind of audible noises?
Pierre: Well it's possible. Here again I don't have the definite answer but the problem is that most of those phenomena, when you dig, are electrical. Or to be more objective, exhibit an electrical dimension. Earthquakes exhibit electrical activity, asteroids definitely exhibit electrical activity. It can be electrical activity between the celestial body and the atmosphere, between the celestial body and the Earth's surface. It can go under the surface. So it's all electric there, and all that is vibrating and can trigger some resonance and harmony, and electrophonics. So at this point I don't think we have the definite answer to how exactly those sounds are generated, but all the data strongly suggests that it is related to these Earthly and celestial events. How exactly I don't know.
Niall: It's only because they're happening at a time when all this other stuff is going on. I mean, even if we can't come up with a decent explanation for it, let's just consider that you've got the planet literally opening up (sinkholes), you've got an incredible number of fireballs being seen exploding and then you've got these bizarre sounds.
Joe: Given all that, that all those things are kind of portents of doom essentially, that may involve a large number of people on the planet being wiped out, which has happened in the past more times than science likes to admit, do we think it's a coincidence that there's a story from just a day or two ago that British scientists claim that they have found small bugs from outer space in the Earth's atmosphere?
Jason: Oh I was about to say that. I was going to say, because it's just like the icing on the cake with this situation about the upper atmosphere, they say that they have some kind of conclusive reason for saying that they're not coming from the ground up because of how small they are and where they're located.
Joe: And it doesn't have any pollen or anything Earth-based on them that they would expect on particles.
Jason: They're basically alien bugs.
Joe: So we have the planet gearing up to wipe out humanity and at the same time there's a bunch of alien bugs waiting in the atmosphere to just come down and take over, repopulate, start it all again.
Niall: So when they said there'd be an alien invasion, all those UFO enthusiasts...
Joe: There you go, micro-based. But they're waiting until you're gone.
Pierre: Well if you discuss the biotic thesis, the thesis speculating that life comes from outer space...
Joe: Panspermia.
Pierre: Yeah it's a similar theory. It has been prepared and furthered by the mainstream media over the last decades very progressively. First they admitted there had been traces of water on Mars and then sure, there's been water on Mars, and there might have been life on Mars. And then protozoa and microorganisms are found in meteoric rocks. And then now we have some evidence...
Jason: Complex life forms.
Pierre: ...of small insects, which are a complex life form, coming from outer space. So they progressively prepare the population, which is ironic, because maybe those families that orchestrate this progressive information release at the same time are aware that there are very complex life forms out there, much more complex than insects.
Jason: And if a bug can evolve and live in outer space then obviously something else can. If you take evolution on the planet to be true, then evolution in space becomes possible. We're not talking about a single cellular life form here. We're talking about something substantially more complex.
Pierre: Yeah. There's a very ethnocentric paradigm dominating the way scientists speculate about outer space life forms. And one of the basic hypotheses is that life can only occur in a way similar to the way life on Earth is theorized to have developed, i.e. coming from unicellular living entities to multi-cellular, without a nucleus or with a nucleus, which is only a theory, they're not sure it works this way.
Jason: There is absolutely no proof that it happened to be honest.
Pierre: No, and actually there is some evidence that tends to suggest that evolution is like having a hurricane over a scrapheap and building from the parts a Boeing 747, statistically speaking.
Jason: What was more interesting is that they had the Cambrian explosion which was suddenly there's nothing going on and then suddenly there's just life everywhere. And they can't find anything in between it and who knows, maybe that life was kind of brought here.
Pierre: Yeah you have some more major thresholds.
Niall: Yeah, but it does seem to be the case that it's not just a life-destroying force.
Jason: Life-giving.
Niall: It's life-giving, life-destroying, it's all intertwined. A few weeks back we discussed this lobbying effort going on in the US at the moment to enhance security to protect the electric grid because of the threat from either a solar flare or from Iranian nukes being detonated high in the atmosphere that could cause an EMP pulse to blast, basically knock out, all communications, and all power, in fact.
Well just this week it's been announced that the US, Canada and Mexico are going to hold a major drill this November to "simulate a knockout blow from an EMP pulse" so they've moved it onto the next level where it's into 'preparedness'. It's growing and becoming public.
Pierre: Well November is at the end of this year, it will be the time when Comet ISON is...
Niall: November 28th.
Pierre: 28th yeah, exactly. The distance between Comet ISON and planet Earth is half an astronomic unit so half the distance between the Sun and Earth that will separate the comet from planet Earth.
Niall: Why are people getting excited about this particular comet? I mean there are so many being reported.
Pierre: I suppose it's manufactured for several purposes. First, it reinforces the false paradigm, the 'deep impact' paradigm, this Hollywood production, according to which outer-space threats are limited to one single, massive, highly visible object. Well the truth is that it's pretty much the opposite. The most probable threat comes from asteroid swarms that are not visible or that might not be visible. It's not one single massive body. It might be a swarm of bodies of limited size.
But look at the Chelyabinsk event, Comet ISON is supposed to be 5KM in diameter but nobody knows actually they're estimates, one body of a few hundred meters in diameter is enough to generate havoc.
So this Comet ISON seems to me to be a diversion, a diversion from the real threat. And in addition, all this hysterization, this hype around Comet ISON will push people to feel a baby, i.e. asteroid threat, with about water, i.e. Comet Elenin or Comet ISON, because there is a precedent. Comet Elenin in 2011, you had all those crazy conspiracy website that derailed the train of truth and that started from a seed of truth and hysterized and over-inflated it so much that it lost all credibility. People with some interest for a very legitimate threat, i.e. asteroids, lost interest because they saw that yeah, there was all this hype around Elenin and nothing happened. Now there's all this hype around Comet ISON and nothing will happen, nothing visible.
I say nothing visible because at the end of this year, we will cross the trail of Comet ISON. The data strongly suggests that there is a correlation between plague events and interaction with cometary bodies.
Niall: There were three asteroids last week that passed by closer than what Comet ISON is going to come, and they only discovered them the day before. Part of it is, well, it's an asteroid so it's different. But now hang on a minute, ISON is a comet so that's worse but if it's an asteroid it's okay. And then at the same time there are two other stories this week in which they've redefined two objects previously thought to be asteroids, they're now calling them comets. They are muddying the waters here because, as we've been discussing, the difference between comets and asteroids, they're not two separate categories really.
Pierre: No, physically, I think, it's exactly the same. It's a chunk of rock.
Joe: Well, officially a comet is dirt and ice.
Pierre: It's a dirty snowball.
Joe: And an asteroid or meteorite is rock.
Pierre: Is rock, so...
Joe: But in reality...
Pierre: That's according to mainstream science, their categorization between celestial bodies, and meteors and meteorites, being bodies that enter the atmosphere, so it's location. But the main difference, according to mainstream science and media between comets and asteroids is their physical composition, content. The data shows that this is not the case. We already mentioned in previous shows the example of Comet Lovejoy, allegedly a dirty snowball a few hundred meters in diameter, that's not huge, that went right through the Sun's corona that is about six million Kelvin in temperature for fifteen minutes.
Joe: Maybe it was deep-frozen.
Pierre: Very deep, indeed. And it emerged from the other side of the Sun's atmosphere, it was still shining. So the speculation of the electric universe scientists is that the main difference between comets and asteroids is not their content, their nature, but their electrical activity. When there is strong electric stress on the body it starts glowing, because of the plasma shield surrounding it, it glows like a neon light actually, and it's called a comet, it's shiny. If electric stress, because of several factors, is limited, is less important, then it's not glowing, it's an asteroid, so it's a dark body.
So I call them celestial bodies, and depending on the attractivity, call them comets, asteroids, if you want. But most of the celestial bodies are in an asteroid state, non-glowing, so most of the threat is invisible. So this hype around Comet Elenin and Comet ISON is a way to distract attention from the real threat, invisible asteroids, by focusing the sole threat on the glowing asteroids, i.e. comets.
Jason: But this is like their M.O. They always focus you on the one thing that it really doesn't help to worry about. When you talk about all these situations going on, they're like "Oh, what if they set off a nuclear bomb?" If they set off a nuclear bomb in your home town, you are so beyond any help or security, it's over. An extinction level event like from this deep impact movie, or a giant five mile or five kilometer long asteroid or comet hitting the Earth, you are so beyond screwed. Everything is screwed, don't even worry about it because that's one of those things where there's just nothing you can do about it.
It's the little ones that are important. It's the ones that you don't even see burn up in the atmosphere and drop some sort of plague bacteria or a virus or something. Those are the ones you need to worry about. Those that bring alien matter, basically, into the atmosphere that could cause mutations. That could cause any number of diseases. That is the real threat.
Pierre: Well you see there's total disinformation, as you emphasized. A: they focus on comets, while asteroids are the real threat, and B: they focus on impact as a measure of devastating consequence, while the most destructive consequences are not only impact that are less probable than other destructive effects like overhead explosions, accumulation of cometary dust and airborne viruses. And a fourth factor, before I forget, electrophonics, which is mutagenic. So you have four factors that are totally...
Jason: Independent of size.
Pierre: Yeah, and they're not promoted, not even mentioned by mainstream science.
Niall: I realise that in history there are records of fairly large bodies exploding and destroying, at least in the local area, a lot of people. But I would actually go one step further than that, and say that, far from being the largest body that's a threat, it's the long-term accumulation of dust, the finest particles that have caused all of our stress to date. If you think about all of the environmental changes, every year the weather gets more extreme, that's caused by accumulation of dust in the atmosphere.
Pierre: That's one of the causes.
Niall: It's almost like the opposite. It's the finest things that, if anything, we should be worried about.
Joe: Well the finest things provide evidence of something being wrong and us entering, perhaps, some kind of a confluence, or a stream of these objects as they fly by and load the atmosphere with dust, i.e. this is increasing the chances that one of these will not fly by and we will not just get the dust so all of this precursor activity that is the result of the dust loading is a wakeup call for people. But people ignore it and call it global warming.
Pierre: And what you say is true, it's not mutually exclusive actually. It comes together. We're talking about asteroids swarms, i.e. a cloud of rocky material of various sizes from major bodies that are probably several kilometers in diameter, to very thin dust. And we enter a part of space in the swarm where there is concentration of this dust and not of massive asteroid bodies, i.e. the Chelyabinsk event. So we're experiencing it right now, and we've been experiencing this increase since at least 2005. It's on the increase, so it means that we've not reached the higher concentration.
Joe: Yeah. As the increase started in 2005, a couple of years later we had the beginning of majorly cold winters and people aren't paying attention to that.
Jason: Yeah, whenever it gets hot they come right back to this whole "oh, global warming, yeah that's right!" And then it ends up freezing for like 90% of the time.
Joe: Yeah, and a lot of informed people, including official meteorological societies, are warning that this winter, they're finally getting a clue based on the fact that the past four or five winters have been extremely cold across the northern hemisphere, they're saying that this winter is going to be extremely cold. They're finally, yeah, waking up.
They're kind of thinking, "Well we don't really know what this winter's going to be like, but maybe we should just base this on the past four or five?" Yeah you think? "Let's do that". So people need to get their mukluks out.
Niall: I think so. On a closing note, I couldn't believe it when I first saw this, here's the headline: "Church of the meteorite set up in Chelyabinsk, Russia. Founder claims that the surviving meteorite" - I think it went under the ice in a nearby lake - "contains a set of moral and legal norms". So far he's gathered fifty-some members.
Joe: He's a latter-day Moses. That gives you an idea of how Moses actually got the Ten Commandments, it was actually some guy like this. Because Moses supposedly got a list of moral codes on lumps of rock from the sky, right?
Niall: Yeah, there was a thunderbolt involved.
Joe: This guy is getting moral codes from a rock that fell from the sky into a lake.
Pierre: Well when you go to Mecca, the pilgrimage that every Muslim is supposed to do, among the holy objects, the holiest is a black stone, a meteorite. And when you start to realise the magnitude of the disaster that can be induced by such celestial events, you realise that the survivors have only one thing in mind: meteorites that caused the change of their world.
Niall: Yeah. I was reading about it. That just blows your mind when you consider that millions of Muslims...
Jason: I was going to ask one question though; does that include what those moral norms are? Because if it's like women have to shut up and let the men rule, I'm going to think that it's even more suspicious...
Joe: It's starting again. It's history repeating itself.
Niall: What does he say?
Jason: Don't eat pork?
Niall: He says "I think it won't hurt Chelyabinsk to become a truly holy city..." - which is what Mecca became with the Kaba and the Black Stone - "home to a great temple that will be the object of pilgrimage for millions of people from across the world..." That still happens, the Hajj pilgrimage every year. People will trample each other to death just to touch this stone.
Joe: But they needn't bother because there'll be plenty of stones touching them in the near future.
Jason: Exactly.
Niall: Well they got it all backwards.
Joe: They'll get their own.
Pierre: If they knew what those bodies could carry, I think they would not touch them.
Niall: Anyway, he also says that the war in Syria is a result of this but he's got it the other way round, you know? The Dynastic cycle with the Mandate of Heaven concept tells us that bad stuff happens and that is a precursor.
Pierre: Well yes, but there is also a point where you reach a high enough level of celestial activity where the negative feedback loop starts and basically there are so many celestial events visible that population starts to freak out and revolt. There's more civil war, more repression, even more celestial activity, human conflicts, affairs, and celestial activity increase each other.
Niall: Fun times ahead.
Joe: Yeah, fun times ahead. So get your mukluks out and wear a hard hat because there's an ice age and rocks coming this winter and the only way to survive them is with mukluks, a hard hat, and lots of pork.
Niall: And bone broth.
Jason: And get our book, Comets and the Horns of Moses.
Joe: And get Comets and the Horns of Moses.
Pierre: And candles to read it because electricity might not be available by this time.
Joe: We jest.
Jason: Paper copy, just in case.
Joe: We jest, but only a little bit.
Joe: Okay we're going to leave it there for this week folks. Thanks to our listeners and our chatterers who have been chatting away furiously in the chat room about all sorts of extremely interesting things. We hope you enjoyed the show. We'll be back next week, until then, sayonara.
Jason: Bye-bye.
Pierre: Thank you for listening, bye-bye.
Reader Comments
to our Newsletter