Sott Talk Radio logo editors Joe Quinn and Niall Bradley analyze global impact events that shape our world and future, and connect the dots to reveal the bigger picture obscured by mainstream programming.

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

The Scottish Independence Referendum result - beautiful democracy at work, or rigged? How on earth did Scots turn down the chance of an era to gain independence from London? The SOTT crew investigates...

Running Time: 01:54:00

Download: MP3

Here's the transcript:

Niall: Hi folks. You're listening to SOTT Talk Radio. Sorry about that delay. We had a little technical glitch with our mikes but we're all good now in the studio. Welcome to another show on SOTT Talk Radio. I'm Niall Bradley and with me this evening, our regular host, Joe Quinn.

Joe: Hi there.

Niall: And joining us again is Harrison Koehli.

Harrison: Hi.

Niall: So, today is the equinox. From now on it's dark winters for us up here in the northern hemisphere. We've had a pretty interesting week keeping an eye on what happened in Scotland, among other things. So I think we should start from there. It's pretty blatant to me that Scotland was robbed, pure and simple; well I wouldn't say it's pure and simple, but the main sentiment that we are basing our assertion, that the outcome of the referendum was rigged, is simply that the overwhelming number of people, visible in the campaign itself, were in favour of independence. When we look at some of the actual details of who is supposed to have said yes and no - the City of Dundee for example, although it is one of just four districts in the whole of Scotland that actually - officially - have a majority vote, it is still a slim result for Dundee where, if you ask anyone from there would they have voted no, you'd probably get a small minority. It traditionally would always have said yes to something like this.

But it extends beyond even just those places that did decide yes to independence. Scots have always been fiercely independent. Given this opportunity - and not just based on national pride, it's based on a very well put together yes campaign that argues successfully in our opinion, that this wasn't about nationalism per se. This was about breaking with the status quo because of how narrow it has become in the UK. When you have the entire political establishment and every single media outlet on the entire island, except for one in Scotland, all singing the same tune, you have not got a situation where people can be heard, at least not in the mainstream. And the reason for a high turnout could only ever, in this situation, it's the most basic form of protest, the ultimate way of saying no, we've had enough.
We're being asked to believe that people turned out in record numbers in order to stay with the status quo? It just doesn't fly.

Joe: It flies in the face of reality and general public opinion as well. Obviously there's no way to get a definitive understanding or idea of what people think on any given issue, but you can get a general idea from social media and common sense. (laughter). Social media, but also comments. Anybody who comments on the articles on mainstream newspapers, for example from rightwing gutter rags: the Daily Mail in the UK; to supposed leftie papers: The Guardian, Independent, and Scottish newspapers as well. Over the course of several months, you generally get an impression of the number of people who feel more or less one way or the other.

And here what I'm talking about specifically is in the political arena, in terms of their attitude towards politicians and their attitude toward the kind of stuff that's going on in the political world. Leaving Russia out of it for a moment, but domestically in the UK, I think the majority, 60 or 70 percent of the people pretty much think that politicians are a bunch of crooks; that they're all warmongering elites who are in it just to line their own pockets. A majority of people think that way, I think, or certainly express those kind of opinions. Even on rightwing, god save the queen newspaper websites like the Daily Mail for example, I've noticed over the past six or seven months that even those readers are very much anti-establishment. And this is even with a conservative government in power with David Cameron. They're all very critical, generally speaking, of politicians, that they're all crooks, etc.

So that's in the UK. Now if you translate it up to Scotland where the majority of Scottish people traditionally don't like the English, have good reason not to like the English, and are fiercely nationalistic and see themselves as Scottish, like Scotland, see Scotland as an independent country; like you're saying, it does not make sense whatsoever, that given the opportunity to vote for independence and given the strong arguments that were made for an independent Scotland, because despite what the media was trying to portray, the no campaign did not win out in their arguments against independence. If you listen to the arguments, the average person, would more than likely have decided that "Well, there might be a few negatives, but the positives of independence outweigh those."

So you can bet that the vast majority of people in Scotland were listening to those debates and did inform themselves of the basics.

Niall: Oh, we know they were! There was one instance where the mainstream gave a fairish platform to both sides. There was one series of three televised debates between the Scottish national party leader, Alex Salmond, and I think Alistair Darling; he's actually a Labour shadow minister. The Scots know the British Tory government sent him up to represent the great reasons why you should stay with London. Salmond trounced him and people all agreed on that. Again, if you're looking at a kind of a poll or a snapshot of what most Scots thought, they agreed that he won the debate 3-nil. That was the one instance.

Joe: It absolutely flies in the face of common sense and logic. And in this case, social media and common sense do actually...

Niall: Do apply.

Joe: And in fact they applied in the case where that reference is taken from, from the US state department. They're talking about their evidence for Russian military presence in eastern Ukraine. Of course you have to make sure first of all that your social media is reporting accurate facts. In that case, social media is good. And secondly, that your common sense is functioning properly, because some people's common sense doesn't function properly and...

Niall: The state department is high up there.

Joe: Some people don't have it at all.

Harrison: Well, and in this case using social media, social media should be able to give somewhat of an idea of social trends to things going on. So it makes sense that we'd be able to get an idea of what's going on in Scotland and with Scottish people. Comparing that to the US state department using social media to provide evidence of military invasion and things like that and the actual evidence they provided, which were some grainy pictures and random tweets that anyone could make up and forge, flies in the face of common sense to use social media that way.

Niall: Exactly. But actual analyses were done of the kind of traffic, not just number of likes and number of campaign pages you chose to affiliate with, but the interaction, who was saying what. They did all kinds of breakdowns with different groups coming out with reports all through the summer and hands-down, the chatter online...

Joe: Absolutely.

Niall: Scotland was at least three-to-one.

Joe: Exactly.

Harrison: Or two-to-one.

Joe: Maybe people don't understand, don't know, but if you've ever been to Scotland, if you know anything about Scotland, people in Scotland, like I said, are strongly, fiercely nationalistic. They see themselves separately. Over the past several months, in fact it's been a few years, but it's been building up over the past several months, they've had this intense media information campaign in Scotland in terms of the votes in the yes and the no camp. And the yes camp have put forward all of the arguments why Scotland would be better off on its own. And they presented pretty convincing arguments that that would be the case.

Now if you combine that, that they've convinced the average person who first of all is predisposed to the idea of independence, at least in the back of their minds type of thing because they see themselves as Scottish, because they see it as a separate country, someone like that then getting the added argument that "We could actually be better off on our own", to think then that majority of those people, 54 percent as they claim, would have turned around and said "No, we want to remain a part of the UK", it's just absolutely ridiculous.

Niall: Well I only learned this after the referendum. Some of the scare tactics that were coming from London were just unbelievable. The first one that comes to mind is this food scare. They said that Scottish secession from the UK would immediately cause widespread, sudden inflation, particularly with relation to food and retail prices. But actually that is not that much news to me. I remember when countries were thinking about joining the Euro. That was already the common fear. And likewise when it came to rejecting anything Brussels said, they would typically say, "Well if you don't join: inflation".

There were other threats specifically from banks. Deutsche Bank came out and joined the food scares specifically saying that Scotland could expect widespread inflation. I'm not sure why because the yes campaign were officially going to be keeping the same currency. But of course they weren't using logic here with people. There were so many dirty tricks. Of course people know Harry Potter. The author of Harry Potter - I think she's English but she lives in Scotland - she gave £1 million to the no campaign for Scotland to remain in the UK. And then there was some kind of abuse being given to her online supposedly by people on the yes side. Well somebody there did an investigation and found that these accounts that were being used the hurl abuse at her were actually fictitious accounts and an SNP (Scottish National Party) member later said they were in all likelihood part of a dirty tricks campaign. And she cited a report going back a year by a now-dead Scottish nationalist leader called Margo MacDonald who warned in June of 2013, and indirectly the Scottish people, in an article that was published in the Sunday Herald, the only Scottish daily printed publication that was in favour of independence, saying that the British security services, i.e., MI5, MI6, GCHQ (NSA) would probably be all over this referendum. She knew this because historically it is a fact that the SNP was long since infiltrated by MI5. Further she added, "The actual yes campaign is in all probability infiltrated".

Of course it is. It's not news to us. But still when your linked to a lot of these people after the fact, the referendum is over and the shock and the horror. This is part of the information that would help people to understand how this impossible thing happened. Scotland (inaudible) to what they would hope and want.

Joe: Yeah, it would actually be remarkably easy to steal the vote essentially because obviously you have all these polling stations all around in towns and villages in Scotland and people go in with their ballot card that they've got previously. The ballot card just tells them where they should go. They don't have to take that. They can just appear with no ID whatsoever; just walk into their polling location and give their name and address and are given a ballot paper. Then they go and put it in a box. All of those ballot boxes from each polling station are taken to a central count venue. In the case of I think it was Glasgow, or in the big cities, it was a massive hanger which is cordoned off. According to the Russian observers, who were there, they said it was 100 metres by 300 metres. So you're talking there about a hanger-sized area. Supposedly there are 32 counting venues in Scotland. For big cities like Glasgow or Edinburgh - there are other areas; Scotland's broken up into 32 local councils or areas. So each just had their counting station.

(audio problems increase)

Basically the ballot boxes come from all the different polling stations and they're collected into these counting venues. In the counting venues there's more than one person counting. So somebody has to receive all the boxes; and somewhere like Glasgow where there's a half million people, there's potentially upwards of (inaudible) votes coming in, in boxes, into the receiving area, and then they're collected. So it's a perfect point to switch the ballot boxes with pre-prepared ballot boxes, into the right box. Of course they get someone else because, supposedly, the count (inaudible) stations, they have to verify that the number of papers are matched with the tally in the polling station and the amount of papers that were given out.

But again, it's hard to say "Yeah, that checks out." So you really only need (inaudible) 32 venues, but there's major metropolitan areas which counted for more than 50%. So more than 50% of the votes were being counted in only a handful of venues. So you only need a handful in positions there, to turn the other way or turn a blind eye or sign off on something. And how hard is it for a group of people to basically get copies of the ballot papers, (inaudible) and just substitute them. (inaudible) counting station flipping through the ballot papers, they're not reading the ballot papers directly. There's a whole operation going on outside of their (inaudible).

Niall: Invariably something was between them leaving the individual polling stations and reaching control, counting (inaudible) of course. At 10:00 pm when the poll closed, when the (inaudible) anything can happen in that time period.

Joe: Absolutely. I haven't got any facts, but my question is: was there one organization that was tasked with transporting from all of the stations? Was there one courier or delivery operation? Because I kind of imagine it was just thrown in the back of someone's car.

Harrison: One of the Russian observers said was that it was a giant hanger area (inaudible) and the (inaudible) were cordoned off on the side of the hanger, so they couldn't observe what was going on in the middle of it, while the counting was done. And people coming in, boxes were (inaudible) and they weren't signed off. They had no way of checking who the people were that were bringing the votes in. There was no verification process.

Niall: There were boxes left unattended.

Harrison: Yeah.

Niall: There were a whole list of observation. They couldn't say "Oh that's an irregularity". But (inaudible) compared with past referendums and elections, as we've seen. In other words there were standard basic things missing. The boxes were not sealed. There was no specific slip with the box saying "Hi, this is stamped because it came from X polling station. Oh good, it's been received. We cross it off." They weren't able to observe this specific process in action. Every vote has to be accounted for at every step of the way.

Joe: It was wide open for manipulation basically.

Niall: Wide open. And they produced these absurd (inaudible) only a turnout of 75%. You would have had a hundred in that place. They of course would show up in the official results, were the ones who said yes most fervently. And again, the Dundee result (laughs) it was just not credible. They're saying that barely one in two people in Dundee - it just doesn't make any sense. Now the British press is having a field day with the fact that the only international observers to speak out, to say anything (inaudible). Nobody said "Oh it went well." Well we heard from (inaudible). Oh, it's the Russian, you see. They were going over because of the way we've criticized Russian elections in the past." It's not so easy to dismiss. They are credited observers. They've been there in many countries before and they're saying to you some very basic things were not applied here.

Harrison: Yeah, it didn't meet the international standards.

Niall: "We should be able to walk around, look at every stage. This box is coming in. It's going here. She's counting. I can see a yes left, right no." They couldn't see it. They had to take it on faith.

Harrison: It's funny, I was talking to another SOTT editor today telling me about American elections which are notoriously rigged, or have been, and it's so common knowledge that they've got little terms for each of the different type of fraud that is committed. And coincidentally, some of pretty much all of these techniques being used, like the carousel and merry-go-round voting, where there were at least 10 reported incidents of people coming to the polling stations and being told that they'd already voted, they'd already cast their vote. They say it's only been 10, but the fact that there are any at all is suspicious. And there's what the Mexicans call the 'vote tacos'. This is when you stuff the ballot box with just wads of who they want in. And there's been a bunch of videos going around the Tube.

Joe: Hold on for a sec. I'm going to try and (cut off). OK, sorry about that. We just decided to reconnect because we were being told that we were very choppy. I hope it's a bit better now. Let us know if it is. Carry on. Maybe recap. (laughter)

Niall: Harrison was...

Joe: Yeah, Harrison, you were talking about notoriously rigged elections and votes in Mexico.

Harrison: Yeah, and so notorious that they have their own special funny names. I mentioned the carousel and merry-go-round, multiple votes from single people.

Niall: Which we saw in this one.

Harrison: Yes we did. At least 10 official reports have been acknowledged. And then you've got the 'vote tacos'; stuffing a wad of votes into the box for whatever vote they are trying to raise the number of. And there's a bunch of videos going around on YouTube - allegedly, they all look legit to me- of the voting process and videos taken of people counting the votes. And there's one of this one woman who gets up next to one of the polling booths and she turns away from it and puts her hand over her eyes like she doesn't want to look, a really weird looking gesture to make. But as she's doing this, covering her face, another woman comes in from behind and just grabs a wad of ballots and starts sticking them in. They won't all fit so she takes a few off and stuffs them in, goes back to the table, grabs another wad. She does this three or four times, which looked pretty suspicious.

Niall: This is footage from this Scottish referendum on Thursday.

Harrison: Yeah, this is from the first one.

Joe: No.

Harrison: That was a fake?

Joe: I don't think that was the Scottish referendum.

Harrison: No?

Joe: No, I think that was somewhere else. I'm pretty sure.

Harrison: OK.

Joe: In case people miss what we were saying earlier on, we were basically saying that it's extremely easy to rig this vote. And we're just saying that people have to vote in polling stations and they're collected from polling stations to counting areas, or counting venues. So all the votes from hundreds of different polling stations are coming into these big venues, particularly in the big cities, where you have up to half a million votes coming into one area. And it was described by the Russian observers as one area that was like a hanger basically, 100 metres by 300 metres, and the observers, supposedly there to make sure everything checked out, they weren't able to get anywhere near the counting tables and they weren't able to see where the vote boxes were coming from.

So you have all these votes in individual different boxes coming in at the back door of one of these hangers and then someone in there is supposedly collating them and bringing them in. The situation's so ripe for manipulation and fraud, it's ridiculous. It's unbelievable when you look into the details of it. So that establishes opportunity, let's say. Motive? Well yeah, there's a massive motive to do that. And given that, as we have just said, it's quite easy to do. All you need is a few people in the right place to sign off, to turn the other way and then you just hand these votes - we're talking here switching, basically have pre-made boxes full of pre-made wads of ballot papers with an X in the no box and just substitute those.

Niall: People's names aren't on the ballots.

Joe: No, there's nothing. It's a piece of paper with two boxes, yes and no, and an X in one. That's it. No other identifier. So it's so easy to fake and duplicate.

Niall: Names are only verified with yes or a no at the polling centre. Once it leaves there it's not checked again at the counting centre.

Joe: The only voter verification is at the counting venue that number of votes received from each polling station matches the number of ballot papers that were handed out at the polling station. But like I said, those counting officers who are in charge of each of the counting venues and like I said, the majority, over 50% of the votes in the whole of Scotland would have come in to one of the bigger counting venues in the bigger cities, like Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee.

Niall: Aberdeen.

Joe: Aberdeen. So with those four, let's say, you're getting up there to maybe 50% or more of the population of all the votes coming in. So in that case you only have four people in those four venues as the counting officers who will turn a blind eye and sign off on, because you can imagine it would be difficult for them to keep a tally of all the polling stations and to know how many ballot papers were handed out at the individual polling stations and then make sure that they substituted...

Niall: The correct number.

Joe: But maybe that wasn't even necessary because the whole idea of counting and checking them off is probably bunk because they have hundreds of voting boxes coming in with papers in them, into one area that amounts to hundreds of thousands of votes. Probably, basically taken out and collated right there. Who's going to count every single one? Practically speaking, I don't think they have the time to do it. If they had the time to do it, they'd need a massive amount of people. And even that makes it ripe for manipulation and fraud. So it's basically wide open to manipulation. Opportunity was definitely there. Motive, absolutely motive.

You're talking about the British elite here. You're talking about a bunch of elitist, toffee-nosed, British racists; fundamental racism in every single way. The majority of them are psychopaths as well; these are the most despicable people. They have not changed from the kind of people they were back a few hundred years ago, in America for example, the slave owners. Their attitude, the white slave owners' and elsewhere towards black people? These are the same people basically. They're people today of the same ilk or the same genetics essentially.

Niall: Come from the same stock.

Joe: Same stock. Their attitude towards slaves, the people today in Whitehall and the British establishment have exactly the same attitude towards the ordinary people and even more so towards Scottish people, others; they have a modicum of respect for the average middle class English person. When it comes down to it, not really, but when you consider Scots or Irish or anybody else, they're pure racist. And the idea that they would ever countenance the idea that the Scottish people, who to them are a bunch of bog-trotting moonshine drinkers, poteen drinkers, drunks basically, that they would allow them to express their vote or their democratic will to take away 33% of their beloved United Kingdom?

Niall: Including oil.

Joe: And all of its resources and its oil? Are you joking me? What planet are you living on!? Jesus Christ!! Really?!?

Niall: When Margo MacDonald warned...

Joe: What planet do people live on!?!? Anybody who thinks - the problem is that nobody lives in the real world; nobody knows how things operate. They're not even interested. The information is available for them all to read and avail themselves of and to inform themselves, but they reject it, they ignore it; they live in fantasyland and their heads are up their backsides basically. They have no idea of how it actually operates. If they simply faced objective reality availing themselves of publicly available information, they would never in a million years, if they had any common sense, allow themselves or be able to believe that this vote could have been legitimate. That the Scottish people would have been allowed to secede or would have been allowed to vote. Also with that information about the real world and how it operates, people would be fully aware that the Scottish people were absolutely going to vote yes for independence. So they would have known that. And they would have also at the same time know, that there was no way that they were going to be allowed to do it.

Niall: Yeah. If people reflect just for a moment, they will. Why? Because they don't turn out for regular elections. What is it? Forty percent turn out in Scotland when there are actual UK general elections?

Joe: Because they don't care, because they don't get representation.

Niall: They don't care. And we're being asked to believe they decided now to turn out - they say it was 84%. I reckon they're downplaying that as part of the vote rigging because some of the earlier reports in certain councils had 97% turnout rates. Anyway, we're being asked to believe they turned out en mass for, officially or unofficially, the record highest turnout for voting of any kind in Scotland, because they wanted to stay under the thumb of the city of London and the UK crown.

Joe: Yeah, exactly! Scottish people, fiercely independent, all got so excited about going to the polls to reaffirm their complete and utter heart, body, mind and soul commitment, to a bunch of racist, toffee-nosed English assholes in Westminster! Are you shitting me?!? Really?!? Who believes that?!?

Niall: Careful Joe. You're stuttering there.

Joe: No I'm not.

Niall: Joe doesn't hate all English by the way. Just the...

Joe: I'm talking about...

Niall: ...toffee-nosed.

Joe: ...the toffee-nosed, Whitehall bureaucrats.

Niall: By the way you can't trust polls; we know that. But, nevertheless in polls that were run in England before the referendum, the majority of English people were perfectly fine with it. They said "go for it!" And it wasn't an anti-Scots thing, it was "Go for it! You need to do it!" And I think partly they were hoping for some kind of change happening in England as well.

Joe: Well absolutely. The vast majority of people even in the UK were totally for this. Either they were for it or they didn't really care. It wasn't going to change their lives one bit, really, as far as they're concerned. Scotland's always going to be there; okay, there's a cynical bunch of them who said "No, we don't want Scotland to leave because we want their natural resources." Maybe a few of them thought that, but it was only a tiny minority who would have been in a mindset the same as the British imperialists in Westminster, their motivation for doing it was control of the people, control of all of the resources for "us".

A few idiotic diehard citizen imperialists in the UK would have been of that opinion, i.e., Scotland "it's ours, basically. We own it. Part of the United Kingdom. Not to be removed from the United Kingdom so Scotland has to stay with us." But the majority of people would have empathized with the Scottish people's desire and right for independence if they wanted it.

So all you had here was the politicians in England and the despicable prostitute media who backed up their every word and made this ridiculous fear-mongering campaign to try and convince everybody.

Niall: Beforehand they had one of these anonymous security officials - we know who that was - saying that in the event of a yes vote, there would be a complete breakdown of social order; there would be chaos in the streets of Scotland.

Joe: Yeah! Absolutely, yeah!

Niall: I'm sure there was because there was a no vote. There were riots in Glasgow. The unionist-fascists, typically Glasgow Rangers fans, are out exuberant saying "Our country! Britain has been saved".

Joe: Don't even talk to me about those people.

Niall: The argument you just put forward is criticized as sectarian. And now we're seeing sectarianism actually manifest as a result of what would have been the non-sectarian option, namely secession for Scotland.

Joe: It's sectarian for Scotland to want to be independent.

Niall: Yes, because it's nationalist. Defacto it's nationalist, therefore it's sectarian. George Galloway's argument...

Joe: There's no nation state you mean? There's no nation states anywhere?

Niall: Well by default they're saying the nation state, and the only one that can exist is the United Kingdom.

Joe: But it's not a nation state. That doesn't make any sense.

Niall: Exactly. It makes no sense whatsoever. Some of the arguments of George Galloway, somehow his mind has turned to mush or he's just losing it. One of his arguments was that in terms of sectarianism, if Scotland votes yes and leave the UK, it will empower unionists and create more division within Scotland. I just couldn't get my head around that. It's the opposite. It would take away their cause. He was citing a specific incident where English troops, members of the UK armed forces were going up to Scotland and parading in uniform, with fascist (inaudible) as reason for this being the sectarianism resulting from Scotland trying to secede. But if it had been the yes vote, they would never have...

Joe: It's an example of the sectarianism within Scottish society, promoted by the British, by the English. And the ordinary Scottish people, the vast of them being non-sectarian and non-fascist essentially, wanting to get rid of that element, because the only way that that "Rule Britannia" crowd in Scotland, the loyalist flag wavers, the Union Jack wavers, can exist is because of the link with the UK; because they're authoritarian followers; because they want to revel in the glory of the British Empire. If Scotland was cut off, they would have to leave or accept the reality of the new Scotland, which was Scotland for the Scottish people and Scottish values.

Niall: To give you an idea, just the nationalists staying out of all arguments here, the entire referendum was set up in such a way that many Scots did not have the right to vote. If you were Scottish born, technically you're a UK citizen, a UK born of Scottish extraction living abroad, you couldn't vote in this. If you were born in any other country and you just happened to live in Scotland, you had a right to vote. I think it's because of this; it was very democratically set up. And because of this they trashed it. This is why you see images of people from all over the world waving Scots flags because they happen to live there. They're either immigrants or descendents of immigrants who are fully supportive of this because it's inherently democratic. For the first time the UK vote was given to 16 and 17-year-olds. The vast majority of whom said yes.

Speaking of motive, I think this extends beyond the British elite's interests. I want to quote a SOTT reader who I think actually hit the nail on the head. She posted on an article recently, user name Lilies. "If they had let Scotland gain independence it would have started a chain reaction of other countries or peoples wanting to be free, it would have been bad for creeping bankers everywhere and so of course they couldn't allow it to happen." And we've seen hints of this all week. The Spanish government specifically citing what's going on in Scotland for their reason to say "No way" in Catalonia as they vote. And Catalonians have ignored them and said "We're going to hold one anyway."

Joe: Yeah. This is the chickens coming home to roost through their mismanagement and their theft and their austerity measures and they're basic trampling of ordinary people. There are at least some people responding to this in a kind of organic and non-linear way where you have this upswell of a general sentiment of "screw the system" and "we're not taking it anymore", and anybody who is given the opportunity to vote for independence or who are already independently minded in the sense of their having a history, they're a region of a country, the first thing they're going to think of is let's get away from that fascistic state control that's screwing us over. This is what happens.
And like you say, you're right, it's a global thing because we live under a one world government essentially, where bankers more or less rule the world. And they want to keep everybody in place under their control and any idea of independence, the very idea of independence, in a practical sense, i.e., countries breaking away leads into a kind of freedom of thought or anti-establishment - and by establishment I mean one world government type thing - there's a rejection of that inherent in the idea of independence. And that's the last thing they want to see. The Spanish government has said that Catalonia, which historically five or six hundred years ago was an independent state, they said that if they have a referendum it'll be illegal because a vote on Catalonia's independence has to be given to the entire country. But of course that's kind of ridiculous because - it's a bit of a problem...

Niall: They've kind of used that argument in Scotland too. Shouldn't the English have a say.

Joe: Yeah, exactly. There's that one news anchor on the BBC or something. She made the reference "it's like a divorce and I don't have a say in what happens".

Niall: Well do you know where she got it from? She got it from David Cameron.

Joe: David Cameron, yeah.

Niall: And then George Galloway used it too.

Joe: What a bunch of idiots.

Niall: "Just like a divorce". And he's pleading to Andrew Neil, who's a famous journalist in Scotland who's interviewing him about this. The day before the referendum he says "It's like a divorce. I've known what it's like to go through a divorce."

Joe: Yeah, exactly.

Niall: That's his emotional argument.

Joe: Maybe a little bit too identified there? Emotionally identified with the situation? Why are you bringing yourself and your own marital relations into this vote on Scottish independence? You're the type of person who I want to get away from; you're one of those clingy, greedy...

Niall: There's something dodgy there. Galloway's now married to someone who's young enough to be his granddaughter. Anyway, there's another big...

Joe: Anyway...

Niall: Sorry.

Joe: I was just going to say about the question of Spain, there is some validity to the idea that, well, shouldn't the Spanish people have a say in whether or not part of their country breaks away; well yes, theoretically, but if we have to decide whose rights are most important here, then it's the rights of the people who want to leave. Whereas if you threw it open to the Spanish population, the majority of them would probably say "Well, we like Catalonia. It should be part of Spain. We don't like to see our country broken up. I'm identified with Spain as being the whole country."

Niall: I don't know.

Joe: Maybe, maybe not.

Niall: If they were tuned in enough to recognize what it's really about; it's not about recreating your country that was five and six hundred years old. You can't really base your reasons just on that alone because otherwise everyone would have that reason. "Well three hundred years ago I was part of this." So no, I think it would be recognition of what's really at root here. It's a protest against the entire western oligarchical system that is just running this planet into the ground.

Joe: I think what it comes down to is that if ordinary people who are left alone to make up their own minds, if at all reasonable, if they're fairly reasonable and decent about it -but of course they never are in any kind of vote like this, they are bombarded night and day for months by ridiculous, hysterical lies and fear-mongering and scare-mongering. And it obviously has an effect. It makes a mockery of the idea of democracy when you have massive influencing of the vote by the government and the mainstream media, which are one in the same thing. How can you call that a free and fair election?

Niall: Aye, but in spite of it, it was probably a landslide yes.

Joe: Anyway, yeah.

Niall: That's what's amazing. Harrison, do you want to get a word in edgewise?

Harrison: Yeah, I just wanted to point out the referenda that were held at Donetsk and Luhansk in Ukraine and look what happens when a region decides to secede. It happened really fast. There wasn't a chance for a big media campaign, a political campaign to go against it.

Niall: Exactly.

Harrison: So you had this tremendous turnout in favour of independence and look what happened there. You had how many months of this so called "anti-terrorist operation", thousands of people killed. And then you go just a bit further back to the referendum in Crimea. The only reason they were able to get away with that was that they had Russia backing them. They had that support of a giant nation. And look at what the west has said about that referendum. "It's illegal."

Joe: It's illegal.

Harrison: It's like the Spanish were saying.

Joe: And you know why they're saying it's illegal. I was reading a report on the Scottish referendum where it referenced Crimea's vote and they said the media was lauding the way the Scottish referendum happened. It's been ongoing for two years and planned two years ago and it's been a slow build-up and all this kind of stuff, and that's the way to do it and everybody gets a chance to think about it and all this kind of stuff.

Niall: British democracy. So civilized.

Joe: Yeah. And they said compared to the "referendum", and they put the referendum in quotes, and they put "scare quotes" around it in Crimea, which happened in a mere matter of weeks. But there's an example of the truth being turned on its head. That's the way to hold a referendum. When you have a group of people in a country and it's obvious either by general understanding of the public sentiment or polls or whatever, that that group majority of the people want independence. Then you have them vote very quickly, everybody gets to cast their vote and boom! There's the result. And it's a foregone conclusion. Everybody knew it was going to happen. Done! There you go! Bye-bye! But that's illegal. What you're meant to do is have two years of...

Niall: Preceded by ten years of delays and negotiations.

Joe: Yeah. And two years' preparation so that MI5 has all the time it wants and the media has all the time it wants to get their stories straight, to plan their propaganda coup to turn it around and be the anti-democrat. And actually in this case, engage in vote fraud.

Harrison: And the BBC on the 15th, so three days before the referendum, in one of their reports just outlined the basics of what would be the referendum. They said that there was no provision in law for a national recount of the votes, if there was questions about validity of the vote. And that's just a blatant lie. If you actually look at the Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013 it gives the conditions for a recount and they're right there. The Scottish have six weeks to petition for judicial review for a recount. Now whether that's going to happen or not remains to be seen; I doubt it's going to get anywhere, but there is a provision in there for a recount. And there are already what? 70,000 in the petition for...

Niall: Within 12 hours the petition was raised to 70,000 signatures. Scots? I don't know what percentage, but I'd say about half of them at least do not believe the results. Of course they wouldn't. They know their own town. They know there were so few No voters.

Joe: The problem with a recount is if they used primarily fake ballots, the recount would just be more of the same. In a sense the actual count was legitimate.

Niall: Yeah, the count was not their fault. By the way, the problem with those videos going around saying "Oh look what she's doing. She's switching from yes and no", I'm not so sure because there could be plausible reasons. There are a few videos where there are snippets of footage taken from the counting centres. They're not evidence but they do hint of something weird going on, but they're not evidence of...

Joe: They're evidence of what we've been saying. It's severe mismanagement.

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: Severe disorganization.

Niall: At least.

Joe: At the counting venues. That video of the stack of ballot papers on a "no" table with "yes" on top, they've already been sorted in some way or another because they all have rubber bands around them.

Niall: They've been emptied out of a box and stacked in equal parcels.

Joe: In more or less equal stacks with rubber bands around them. So they've been separated out in some way. We have to take their word for it I suppose, but we shouldn't take their word for it because there's obviously serious mismanagement going on there. Really, if that was a bunch of "yes" ballot papers at least some of them, well let's say all of them were "yes" ballot papers, putting them on the "no" table? Really? Does that mean that a bunch of "no" ones are sitting on the "yes" table? And how many times was that replicated around the counting venue? Really? Is that the way to make sure that you have a proper count? The point is that it's not evidence of fraud, it's evidence of, like I said, severe mismanagement, disorganization and deliberately so, which allows for actual deliberate vote fraud.

Niall: Here's some evidence of dirty tricks, as far as I'm concerned: there was no exit poll with this referendum. Okay, that happens sometimes. It never happens in UK. Here's an article written on the day, published on the day by James Ball from the London Guardian. Let me read this out to you.

Anyone in the UK who has sat up watching the TV on election night knows there's a pattern to how things go. The polls close at 10:00 pm. Moments later the anchor behind the desk gives the results of the exit poll, except at the polls closing of the Scottish referendum this won't happen as the BBC, nor any other media outlet, has bothered to pay to get one done. (Comment: How convenient.) Exit polls are the best form of voting-related data we can ever get our hands on. They are collected by large numbers of researchers standing outside polling stations and asking tens of thousands of people how they voted. Campaigns are very familiar with arguing against exit polls they don't like. The exit polls for the 2010 UK general election were very accurate with respect to the final results but disagreed with the pre-election polls. They couldn't allow this to happen. The YouGov polls and the Mori polls in the run up to the actual vote were all saying it was going to be a "yes" by pretty much the rigged results at 54%. They made sure there would be no exit poll because the exit poll would have reflected the true result.

Joe: That was one step too far for them in terms of manipulating the situation. They figured it was too much hassle to have exit pollsters, if that's what they're called, standing outside all of the polling stations, asking people to get that exit poll figure.

Niall: It's SOP; standard.

Joe: Yeah I know, but it would have been too much effort for them to have to have all those people give false data back. So they figured "That's too much. We can't do that. So we'll just not have any exit poll at all." Because an exit poll would have shown probably 70+% in favour of independence. And then when that exit poll number is - how do you then set up with 46% "yes" instead of 70+%? There's serious problems there. It brings up serious questions and it's a very strong argument for a recount or an investigation and the elites didn't want to do that.

Harrison: That's not like the American elections where they're always allegedly so close. If the exit poll is off by one or two percent they can still say "Well it's just off by one or two percent".

Joe: Yeah, exactly.

Harrison: And a different guy gets in. In this case it would just be so obvious...

Joe: It was nowhere near the actual tally.

Niall: Scotland's third city, Dundee, that has a slim official result for "yes", something dodgy happened there. The fire alarm went off three times. The whole place was evacuated, oh except for the security personnel.

Harrison: The police were there to look after things.

Joe: That was Plan B. They had Plan B all around those counting venues where they were switching the ballots with their pre-prepared ballots all saying "no". That was the MI5 operatives that were sent out that if something goes wrong and someone spots you or you look like you're going to be rumbled, smash the fire alarm.

Niall: One of the BBC's Scotland editors, two weeks before the referendum, quit and he said: "Not since the 2003 Iraq invasion have I seen the BBC news working at propaganda strength like this. So glad I'm out of here."

Joe: Yeah, it's ridiculous. The whole thing is just ridiculous. People need to really sit with the idea of the fact that: there is no democracy. Every single vote, probably in the last 40, 50, 60 years, maybe forever, but certainly in that period of time, every single vote in the western world...

Niall: That mattered.

Joe: ...that mattered, has been - you may as well not have voted. It's an illusion of democracy. You go along and you cast your vote and you think "Yes, I have a say in the things that matter to me". No you don't. It's decided beforehand. You are essentially insignificant. You're irrelevant to the entire process of what happens in your country, the decisions that are made that affect your lives. You have no say whatsoever. And the laws that are being passed by the government that you haven't elected are extremely prejudiced towards you and your family and your future. So there you go! Have a nice life. It's a nice world we live in, isn't it?

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: I was telling people earlier on I couldn't look at the map. That's why I'm quite strident in my commentary tonight. For some reason, I've had enough of this world. I've got a map on the wall beside my desk. It's a big map. And for some reason when I just looked at it, I use it for reference and stuff now and again, but I looked at it earlier on today and it turned my stomach just looking at the entire world. Is that strange? Look at a map of the world and to me it represented everything that's going on. And I feel that it's a cesspool. I would have just set it on fire if I had a flamethrower. Or shot at it if I had a gun. Whatever. Carry on.

Niall: (laughing) Well let's skip across that map of the world. Give us Ukraine, Harrison.

Harrison: Well Ukraine. Since the first meeting in Minsk a couple of weeks ago there have been several other meetings in Minsk between Novorossiya and Ukrainians and Russians. Just recently on the 18th there were 16 businessmen from US, Russia, Germany and Ukraine and they all met with the chairman of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab. And they came to another agreement. Now this one's more business-related but it had other provisions in it. And interestingly there were a lot of commentators out there saying, with every new agreement in Minsk, Putin and Russia are selling out Novorossiya.

We've talked about it before here that it doesn't really make much sense if you look at it that way. It doesn't take into account so much of what's going on. But interestingly, in this new agreement there were three provisions in there and they actually listed the need for self-determination of the peoples of Luhansk and Donetsk, to fully follow international law in the agreement of the ceasefire and carrying out all of these other provisions. That's interesting because there are certain Ukrainian laws which don't follow international law, so those will eventually come into conflict; that was pretty interesting. And also to propose for the military non-alignment of Ukraine.

So we've got all these oligarchs, rich people, coming together and trying to get everyone to agree on military non-alignment. I'm sure there are people in the west, in the States, that do not want that to happen, obviously. They and Poroshenko all want to be members of NATO. And I'm sure a lot of westerners want to bring them into the fold. But if things proceed as they're going right now, that doesn't look like it's going to happen.

Now while there are reports that the US and NATO have been supplying arms to Kiev, officially the US won't allow it. They won't say yes; they won't agree to send more, officially. And that's an interesting step to take, but why not? Why not say yes? Why not just admit to it because they do it all over the place. So there's things going on behind the scenes and it's pretty complex, but this new agreement will be interesting. And it was followed by another one which laid out the terms for the ceasefire. And that goes into a lot more detail than the agreement two weeks ago that was very vague, wasn't worded very well. This one actually goes into the specifics of the ceasefire, to the millimetre calibre of the weapons that need to be stopped being used.

So that's going on. There's still bombing going on, shelling around Donetsk. There was a ...

Niall: A massive bomb, wasn't there?

Harrison: Yeah.

Joe: It was a weapons depot.

Harrison: Yeah, it was a weapons depot that was fired upon. There's videos of this huge plume of smoke, these explosions. And the ceasefire's still being broken by Kiev. I listened to an interview with one of the Novorossiyan leaders and he was saying they'd counted something like in the hundreds of violations in the past two or three weeks.

Niall: Since the initial ceasefire. So nothing's actually changed on the ground.

Harrison: Nothing's actually changed.

Niall: But you get - go on.

Harrison: But it's almost like the two sides - at least the Novorossiyans, the ones in power - really want this ceasefire to go through. So do the Russians. And there's in-fighting going on in the leadership of Novorossiya. Some people have been arrested apparently. There's stuff going on there, but it's like they're willing to put up with a certain level of Kiev breaking the ceasefire. It can reach a certain point and they'll be okay with it as long as these other developments keep going ahead, like these Minsk agreements.
But it remains to be seen whether Kiev will end up actually following through with any of these. It's hard to say where this is going to go. I don't know.

Niall: What strikes me is that Russia is very serious about de-escalating this. There was a massive protest in Moscow today, an anti-war protest; people of all stripes saying, "Okay I love Russia and I'd love to do something to help these people but no war". It does seem that Putin has made some kind of finality to their strategy with regards to Novorossiya. And they've fallen into line. They've accepted it.

Harrison: Yeah.

Niall: That: "We'll get some degree of autonomy and we'll stay with that". It's a strong position to take, because how can anyone who is sane in the west argue against that? It's more than what they could have asked for.

Joe: Well yeah, talking about Ukraine, there's two things I wanted to mention. One was that the Ukrainian defence minister said that Russia used tactical nuclear weapons against the Ukrainian army during the conflict. There's a pretty heavy mechanized mortar launcher, it's like a tank with a big mortar tube on the back that uses hydraulics and can fire 150 kilo mortar and stuff, but it can also be equipped with small tactical nucular-nuclear warheads.

Niall: Nuclear.

Harrison: Nucular. (chuckles)

Joe: I wish they would just change it to nucular. So this Ukrainian defence minister claims that they use nukes but he also mentioned that they would be ridiculed for saying that. And he says "Well, it's not strange. It happens all the time." He was serious but he seemed to be expecting the fact that he'd be ridiculed. And ridiculed he was, in fact by the interior minister of the Ukraine as well. So his own political compadres are making fun of him as well.

But there's something wrong with Ukrainians. I don't want to offend any listeners, but there's something wrong certainly with the Ukrainian elite class. They remind me of the Polish, for some reason, the Polish elite there. They can't seem to get their foot out of their mouths or out of their heads or wherever their foot seems to be embedded.

Niall: Or their head from out of their backside.

Joe: Out of their backside. They're just a bit feckless. They come across as being feckless and superficial. It's not strange in Ukraine given that Ukraine is so discombobulated at the regular level and it isn't really a country in the proper sense of the word, and has been treated that way, or has been the way for the past 20 years since the Soviet Union. So maybe they haven't done their political homework, as Victoria Nuland said. In that case they shouldn't be allowed to speak at all. They shouldn't be allowed to say this stuff, because they're just shooting themselves in that foot while it's stuck in their mouth.

Niall: Well when this guy gloated that the US was going to "send us weapons", the US state department said "Shut up! What are you doing?!"

Joe: Well that's what you get when you get puppets into power you know.

Harrison: And then a week or two later either the same guy or a different guy said "Oh, we've started receiving shipment". And again, all the countries that he'd listed as sending weapons said "Uh, no, we're not sending those. What's this guy saying?"

Joe: Yeah.

Harrison: But the defence minister, the guy that made the nuclear comment afterwards, he kind of tried to cover his ass by saying "Oh, I was mistranslated".

Joe: Yeah right.

Harrison: He tried to get out of it.

Joe: The other thing about Ukraine is MH17, and a report from August that was just recently translated into English. The Association of Russian Engineers, produced a report on what really happened to MH17 based on the hard data and the obvious data and the obvious evidence from the wreckage, i.e. it was shot down. It's got bullet holes in the cockpit, all over the cockpit. It's all on our website You can look it up and the report you can download; it's not very long. It's very easy to read and it's very rational and it's the obvious conclusion. At this point it's the only conclusion within arguments, in the absence of any coherent argument presented by the other side; the Ukrainians and their western masters and the CIA for example because they haven't provided any argument whatsoever. They have made no believable credible claims apart from their original claim that "Oh it was Putin. Putin did it."

Niall: It's human sense as opposed to psychopathic sense.

Joe: Yeah. It's just looking straight at the evidence and saying "this is what the evidence shows". And of course the deafening silence from the other side speaks volumes essentially, because this is what happened and the implications are that Russia was not involved. The eastern Ukrainian rebels were not involved therefore who had a motive to do it? Well, the motive is obvious as well because of what they did immediately afterwards. They demonized Putin. Who wants to demonize Putin? Ukraine and the US state department.

So those two people from whom we are hearing nothing about MH17 and that are desperately trying to ignore it, they are the people who are implicated in this. They shot down MH17. So my question here is when all the bleeding heart European citizens and American citizens all join the chorus of "Putin's a murderer. Russia's war crime. This is a horrible war crime." All of the western politicians and all of the people cheerleading this and "Evil Putin!, Hitler Putin! Hitler! Those poor 298 people!"

Okay, fair enough. So you were quite worked up about it and justifiably so; 298 innocent people killed deliberately. But now the question is the hard evidence points to your own government's weapons. It points to them being responsible and to your beloved Ukraine, soon to be member of the glorious EU; one of your newest pets. It is responsible. Ukraine and the US state department and western governments are responsible for the deaths of 298 people, most of them being European citizens. What happened to that outrage? Was it only for a while? You don't care anymore? Does it not matter that they died anymore? Oh, it doesn't matter that they died because you're responsible, because it's your government that's responsible, your wonderful, British, democratic, freedom for Scotland, you decide government. That's the one that has a hand in this. The Dutch government; the American government. They're all the ones who were responsible for killing those 298 people and for that reason their deaths don't matter anymore? I'm not going to say them. If you don't have a proper conscience and you don't actually care about the death of people, then you can shut the f^%@k up, okay?

Niall: Right on. Well some of them are doing something. Headline from today: "Families of Germans killed in MH17 rush to sue Ukraine."

Joe: Yeah, but they're only suing Ukraine for money. They want somebody to pay for the grief and the heartache of their killed family members. They don't really care who did it. They'll take the money and not care to look or to speak or to talk about the hard evidence that Ukraine and its western backers killed those people on that plane. They shot that plane down. You know, this isn't a conspiracy theory. This is what happened. It's clear as day; it's clear as the nose on your face, whatever you want to say. That's what happened. It has nothing to do with Russia. I'm sorry but you're going to have to let this one go in terms of demonizing Russia. Russia had nothing to do with this. The eastern Ukrainian rebels had nothing to do with this. This is the deliberate murder of 298 people, most of them European citizens, by European and American governments.

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: So do something about it! Talk to someone! Complain! Write on social media; use your common sense, whatever. Do something about it! You were full of piss and vinegar against Russia a couple of months ago just after it happened, but where did it go now? You don't care anymore? Oh so it's long enough that this mass murder has passed a couple of months and you don't care anymore? No, you don't care because you were wrong; because it was your government that's responsible; your corrupt, evil bunch of psychopaths that killed you essentially, your own fellow citizens, murdered them in an airplane, to try and convince you to hate Russia. Get a goddamn grip! Jesus Christ!

Niall: This is the chickens coming home to roost en masse, for everyone in the west. People are turning into this mindless horde. The chickens coming home to roost for ordinary people is the loss of conscience. They will subconsciously choose to forget all about that from what? Two months ago?

Joe: Doesn't matter anymore. No big deal, right? Talking about stupid people, have you got something else?

Niall: Kind of related: Russia and China just signed another massive trade energy deal for a second pipeline route. I think Russia's just saying, "You know what? Forget it. It's going to go east and elsewhere in the world." There's a great new publication, I think it's only online. Look out for it. It's called The BRICS Post, where they're keeping people updated with developments between BRICS countries. The Chinese President has just come back from India where they signed umpteen major deals.

Joe: So the Russian Prime Minister said that this whole one-year sanction against European produce, as well as everything else basically, yeah, it's one year. The problem is that as that year goes by, we are actually having to buy produce and establish...

Harrison: Relationships.

Joe: business relationships with other people, in Asia and South America, that are fulfilling Russia's demand for the vegetables that we want.

Niall: Yeah, it's not stopped in any measure.

Joe: Well it's for one year, but at the end of that year, we're going to have fulfilled most of our needs that we aren't getting from European suppliers with these other suppliers. So I'm sorry to have to tell you but when the year is up, it's not going to change. You're not going to start selling your apples and your artichokes and your tomatoes to us again.

Niall: You've lost.

Joe: You've lost basically. And in line with that, just two days ago, an example of the complete and utter fecklessness of these people in power, who are waging this ridiculous campaign. What's it really based on? Some imperialist kind of "we rule the world" mindset. "We have to put Russia down", imposing sanctions; Russia responds; what happens on the street in France? Farmers come and dump their artichokes and a bunch of other vegetables outside a tax office, and then set fire to the tax office, i.e., saying "Listen, we're not paying taxes if you're not going to manage this country correctly in a way that allows us as farmers to sell our produce, because we have lots of produce left over now because of what you did to Russia, because you provoked Russia and forced them to take a response against you, we can't sell our produce. We have all this surplus; we're not getting any money for it and we're certainly not paying taxes, so we're going to burn the tax office." And what do the people in France do? And this is going to happen. It's certainly being felt in other European countries. The French media are a bit more militant in that way, but it's brewing in other countries. And what are the politicians going to do in that situation, if there's no major disturbances?

Niall: "Well we didn't know."

Joe: You didn't know when everybody in social media with a bit of common sense knew exactly what was going to happen? I mean really. There are no words to describe the idiocy; the cretinous... (laughter). Carry on!

Niall: But the end is nigh when people start burning the tax offices. That's actually the third major kind of demo I'm aware of. There's others. The last one in Spain, farmers dumped food and vegetables in front of a major supermarket chain, I think?, saying "Well this is produce that would have been sold to Russia, so here! Take it!" The French incident. That's taking it to a new level. Burn the tax office.

Harrison: The Polish.

Niall: Polish embassy.

Harrison: Apples.

Niall: Apples. And another one in Amsterdam last week, two weeks ago. They couldn't sell their tomatoes or something so they said "Okay, fine." They organized a protest in a major square, I think in the city of Amsterdam, and had a food fight. They just threw their food all over the place. I thought it was hilarious.

Harrison: Well the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, in recent interviews it seems like he's just kind of given up on the west too. In questions and answers from him, he just basically says "Well, what can we do? We've tried everything." Without saying it, he's saying: "These people are idiots. We can't deal with them. So we're just going to foster our new relationships with the east and develop there because we can't deal with these crazies in the west."

Joe: It's absolutely pathetic. The whole thing is just so pitiful and pathetic and feckless. It's shocking. Even the Poles. Russia announced that they weren't going to buy Polish apples. The proud Polish citizens all got on social media and were taking pictures of themselves biting apples and eating apples and saying: "We'll take up the slack. We'll eat more apples." And the Polish minister - was it the Polish minister? - saying, "Everybody has to eat apples five times a day". And then they were all "Yeah, we'll eat apples. Yay! Screw Russia. Anything to screw Russia!" And then about a week later the Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs sends a request on behalf of the Polish farmers for America to buy their apples. "Will you buy our apples? We're stuffed. We can't eat anymore apples. America, you like apples? Will you buy them from us? Evil Putin, he did it. Oh I feel sick. I've eaten too many apples."

Niall: They also petitioned the European Union to compensate and were told "No, we're not going to pay for it."

Joe: No, it doesn't work like that. We get to screw you over and then you get to deal with the consequences. Our ideology, the policies that we put in place because of our ridiculous psychopathic ideology, you carry the can for that. We just get to implement it. The other thing, today, breaking news. This will just buoy everybody. This is going to make y'all just see the whole world as a delight. Climate change summit: "Thousand join global protests. 2,000 locations throughout the world today saw street protests demanding urgent action on climate change. The people's climate change march. Campaigning for curbs on carbon emissions ahead of the UN climate summit in New York next week. Huge demonstrations have been taking place in the streets of Europe. In Manhattan, tens of thousands of idiots - I mean people - are at a march that is usually joined by UN Chief Ban Ki-moon" - who is that guy anyway? So yeah, they want carbon emissions - people are just angry about the weather. What's going on with the weather here? It's raining one minute, 120 degrees the next. There's droughts, there's floods, there's landslides. People are annoyed and they realize the answer lies in changing weather by stopping people from breathing - no not stopping people from breathing - stopping...

Niall: Stopping people from eating meat because cows fart and all these other...

Joe: ..evil companies from producing too much emissions, but also ordinary people using gas and too much gasoline. Obviously most of them are walking with their bicycles and stuff and they're going to change the world by changing big business and getting them to go green. Because you know what? This is obviously carbon emissions in the atmosphere, basically global warming. It's too hot, right? People are annoyed that it's too hot. All this stuff is happening because of global warming and at 2,000 locations people around the world are marching, probably several million people are all up in arms about how warm it is and stuff. Meanwhile, the Antarctic today has the most sea ice it ever had in the history of ever.

Niall: In the history of sea ice.

Joe: In the history of sea ice. (laughter) A freeze is coming. There's been snow in Canada. There's been snow in Wyoming. There's been snow in South Dakota. Earliest snow ever, again.

Niall: Ever.

Joe: See, it's all global warming; I know that's simplistic. But the point is it's not as simple as global warming and carbon emissions because when these people protest against carbon emissions, they're protesting about global warming.

Niall: Right. But it's fuelled by the fact that something is changing. It's just that when they see changing, it's filtered through all this BS about manmade global warming.

Harrison: Climate change because they are seeing climate change. But climate change means global warming.

Joe: Exactly.

Harrison: And the global warmists will say any change in the weather will be global warming. So if something cools it's like "Oh well it cools because of global warming. Don't you know that?"

Joe: Yeah. And they'll be all encased in ice. There'll be little blocks of ice, millions of them you know. And in their last breath...

Niall: Waving a placard.

Joe: their last breath they'll be saying (whispers) "global warming"; as they freeze. At the very least just change the slogan. Really? If you're going to protest about it, look outside your window and come up with a more descriptive name. Okay, climate change, but it's worse than that. It's complete climate chaos and mayhem and it's got nothing to do with CO2 emissions from humans.

Niall: Locally some things are happening that are just phenomenal. The Balkans had record flooding in May. By record I mean they have no previous records of seeing water levels that high. It's just repeated itself. In Croatia and Macedonia having it again in the same year. Here in France there was a sudden flash flood not that far from where we're at. There was no rain here at all and this place was completely washed out. Four people were killed near Bézier in the south. And that's just unheard of. Meanwhile monsoon season - as they're calling it - continues in Arizona. The whole of the US southwest has been pummelled with heavy rain.

Joe: And the problem being...

Niall: And record wildfires.

Joe: And record drought.

Niall: And record drought.

Joe: The problem being when you have drought, the land dries, cracks, and you get a downpour, a monsoon, and it just runs off. It runs off the ground because the ground is dry. It doesn't seep in and it creates flash floods and washes people away and floods the streets and cars. That's precisely what's happening.

Niall: The thing is, these greenies marching would hear you and say "Yeah, we agree. That's why we need to do something about it." That's the illusion; that you can do anything about it.

Joe: Exactly. You can do something about it by stopping such an idiot and so ignorant of what's actually going on in the world and believing in fairytales about the people that rule over you. That's what's causing climate change; that's what's causing the entire planet to go haywire. It's because of the extreme chaos and disorder in people's minds. They are so far removed from objective reality, from what's actually happening. Their beliefs about the world in which they live, how it operates and who controls it, is such a massive fantasy, so divorced from reality that all of that discombobulated, chaotic, completely not even wrong understanding of the world around you is causing chaos in the biosphere, in the environment, primarily in the weather, but also in earthquakes, volcanoes, sinkholes, etc.

Harrison: Ebola.

Joe: Ebola, yeah.

Harrison: Bloomberg just published something in the past couple of days. Apparently the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have prepared an estimate report for the progression of Ebola. Now it hasn't been released yet, so we'll see if the report actually gets published with these figures. But Bloomberg is reporting from people involved in the report that they are project upwards of 550,000 cases of Ebola by the end of January. Now currently there are just under 6,000 reported cases and it's got about a 50% mortality rate. And these projections are at least tenfold higher than previous projections. So it's staggering.

Joe: So they're talking about 250,000 dead, by January, from Ebola?

Harrison: Yeah.

Joe: What's the US doing? The US is sending 3,000 heavily armed troops to West Africa to try and halt the spread of the deadly Ebola virus. The US, in league with the US military, Raytheon, the Pentagon, Northrup Grumman and the Centre for Disease Control, have figured out how to make bullets that shoot Ebola viruses. (chuckles) And they have sent 3,000 heavily armed US marines with these special guns that will target the Ebola virus. Well what other reason would you send 3,000 soldiers to combat - they're sending soldiers to try and halt the spread of the deadly Ebola virus.

Niall: Oh, I think we know what they're doing. Headline today: Sierra Leone begins three day shutdown to contain Ebola outbreak. They're just basically going to quarantine these countries.

Joe: So what? The US soldiers are going in to put Sierra Leone into a concentration camp?

Niall: I can't even imagine they're going to confront the issue directly. It's got to be for some other reason. It's just a cover of it. But this half million figure, are they hyping it up too much or do they not have a clue? Because this could go non-linear.

Harrison: Who knows? All I can tell is that all the previous estimates from different organizations have been maybe as high as 50,000. Some go up to maybe 150,000. The report itself says that the people who are releasing the stats are doing it anonymously because the report hasn't been published yet and it could be changed before the report. So I'd like to see what the actual report says, if it ends up being lower, the same or higher because who knows what they're really thinking.

Niall: In what way specifically have they said the US troops are going to contain Ebola?

Joe: They haven't said. They're just going to halt the spread of the deadly Ebola virus.

Niall: The launch of the war on Ebola.

Joe: Yeah, pretty much. It's a war on terrorist Ebola, Ebola terrorism. They don't actually say. They just say that they're sending them there and what they will do, obviously, soldiers are well equipped to deal with a viral pandemic.

Harrison: I think I read that they're...

Niall: They're immune I think because they have faith in Jesus.

Joe: Yeah. Absolutely.

Harrison: But one thing that the Americans seem to be forgetting is in 1918 the Spanish flu came to the US from troops fighting in Europe in WWI. So they're sending 3,000 troops into this Ebola infested area and region and they're going to catch it.

Niall: Remember the law of intentions producing their opposites. When you have pathocracy as you do across the entire western world, if not the entire planet, everything they do will produce the opposite of what they desire.

Joe: Absolutely. And it's getting to the point that it's almost like it's deliberate, like someone is deliberately taking actions, some of the elites are deliberately implementing policies or taking decisions to make things worse because otherwise they are completely insane. They've lost all sense of reason and logic, even in their own interests. The sanctions in Russia is an example. Generally speaking, they want to contain the population of the country. They want them to be quiet and obedient yet they force these sanctions on Russia and obviously Russia's going to respond. It's going to have a negative effect on European citizens who are then going to have a problem with it and get out in the street and demonstrate. So they get exactly what they want. Then it's only two or three steps that is imminently foreseeable. So either they have just lost all sense of reasoning and ability to think one or two steps ahead, or they're doing it deliberately for some unknown reason because they want chaos. They want riots in the streets. They want everything...

Niall: I think the first option is scarier.

Joe: Yeah.

Niall: Because a disaster is even worse. What's happening in Iraq? The French are apparently involved in air strikes. Just like that. No declaration of war. Didn't Obama say "There'll be no ground troops" although they're having this phoney debate again, just to get people ready for it probably. In the meantime, they just sent 600 Australian troops, of the imperial forces of the south, into Iraq. So that's basically the same thing. The US has sent more ground troops to Iraq.

Joe: Do you realize how far we've come? People need to take stock of just how far we've come from even 30, 40, 50 years ago. Like you just said, France has effectively gone to war and the US is already there...

Niall: And issued a press release after the fact.

Joe: After the fact with no official notification to politicians and the people of the country. Thirty or 40 years ago there was a slow build-up to a war. There was all sorts of sabre rattling, etc. The population were brought onboard. There may even have been actual incursions or threatening manoeuvres by the enemy of the day that would have precipitated the war. It was a long process. Today, think about just how far we've come. Today all that's necessary - probably actually nothing is necessary, they just go and do it. People don't even realize that. The only thing that they did was to get some guy to stage a beheading video and to spread it around the western media. That's all you need these days.

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: It takes a few hours with a camera, in the desert and a hostage. Boom! There's your cause or your rationale for war. You don't even ask the people. You just assume that they're all a bit terrified by it and also (bad audio). In the old days you used to actually declare war, used to go on the radio and announce it to people that "we are now at war" and "blah, blah, blah, blah, blah". Now it's just "off you go. Start bombing raids."

Niall: Ten years ago France was against the invasion of Iraq.

Joe: I know.

Niall: Ten years ago.

Joe: It's been infiltrated by a bunch of psycho-Zionazi nut jobs.

Niall: Hollande's popularity is at a new record low.

Joe: I know. That's another thing.

Niall: He beat his own record which was the record.

Joe: Thirteen percent or less.

Niall: It's less.

Joe: It's 13% or less and you have this President of France, with a 13% approval rating , giving the orders supposedly, to bomb another country. They've obviously just thrown caution to the wind. They don't care anymore. They're absolutely disinterested. They have dropped the pretence of caring about what people think. It is a complete and utter dictatorship in everything but name.

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: It is a dictatorship in western Europe and idiot Ukrainians, you want to join?

Niall: The same day France announced retrospectively "Oh, by the way we've been conducting air strikes in northern Iraq". This is the first, as far as I know: "Belgian police arrested several people planning a terrorist attack on European Commission headquarters in Brussels."

Joe: Hang on a second. Do we have a caller on the line?

Kent: Yeah, this is Kent over in West Virginia.

Joe: Hello?

Kent: Hi, this is Kent in West Virginia.

Joe: Hey Kent. Welcome to the show.

Niall: Hi.

Kent: Yeah, hi. You were talking earlier about the outbreak of Ebola. And I've been reading a guy here in the States who's theorizing that the countries that are being targeted, Sierra Leone, Liberia, and maybe it's getting into Nigeria and everything, he's saying that various places around the world are having these uprisings, colour revolutions or 'springs' and all this stuff that are theorized to be done to subvert the government when they're not cooperating with you know who. And he's theorizing that these countries in Africa are getting very cozy with the Chinese who are actually probably doing some beneficial good in the country instead of just looting them. And he's theorizing that they're being targeted with this Ebola. I don't know whether you have any thoughts or have heard anything about that? I don't know where China is. I know that there's a conflict over there. They're making some headway into treating the people better than what the west has done.

Joe: Yeah, absolutely.

Kent: I don't know whether that's just a theory.

Joe: I think it's a very plausible theory because there's no reason to believe that the US government is concerned at all about Ebola or the spread of Ebola or the plight of Africans who are suffering from Ebola. If it's there in Africa, in Sierra Leone and elsewhere, you can bet your ass they're doing it for strategic "our interests" reasons that have nothing to do with Ebola. And yes, China has been for quite a long time making inroads into Africa and establishing business deals in Africa. And they want troops on the ground. When they say they're sending 3,000 soldiers, you can bet that several hundred of them are all intelligence operatives and people with that remit in the country.

Kent: Oh yeah. And you can imagine those boots on the ground clomping around, just carrying disease here, there and everywhere. They're not known for being polite anywhere they go. And then of course there's that one village where they killed all the doctors because maybe they knew what was going on. Maybe the rumour was on the ground in those countries that when the help comes, kill the help or something.

Joe: Yeah, exactly. Nothing to lose.

Kent: Alright, well I just thought I'd add that in. Alright, thanks.

Joe: Yeah Kent. Thanks for your call.

Niall: Thanks Kent. Bye. Well the one drawback, if that's a way to get boots on the ground, aren't there easier ways to do it? Remember Kony 2012. Remember the Nigerian Boko Haram kidnapped girls. It was a real event but they made a media campaign out of it to justify US presence.

Joe: Yeah. That's more difficult than simply Obama saying "We need to take the frontline in this fight against Ebola so I'm sending 3,000 troops.

Harrison: They're just taking advantage of the opportunity.

Joe: It's pretty easy.

Niall: At the very least, taking advantage of...

Joe: The least...

Niall: That's how they see it. That's just - it's no surprise. Disaster capitalism. Any crisis, real or imagined, presents an opportunity to profit.

Joe: Yeah.

Niall: They really do see Ebola, which a normal human being looks at with horror, they see it as an opportunity. They are so sick! I want to come back to ISIS - well actually ISIS is now a thing of the past. If they are launching air strikes, ISIS is done. It could be done; if they choose to, they can just wipe them off the map in both Syria and Iraq. So with ISIS gone, who are they going to have - wait a minute, we can't remove ISIS. Cue; right on time! Four hours ago the New Your Times announced that: a new terrorist group is on the horizon called Khorasan. I don't know how they spell that. Neither does anyone else. But an anonymous US law enforcement official warns that "It's being led by a shadowy figure who was once among Osama bin Laden's inner circle."

Joe: (evil laugh) Whah-ah-ah-ah-ah.

Niall: "And he posed a more direct threat to Europe and American than ISIS ever was. American officials said this group called Khorasan had emerged in the past year from a cell in Syria that may be the most intent of all of them of hitting the United States or installations overseas."

Joe: Whah-ah-ah.

Niall: "They said it's led by Muhsin al-Fadhli, a senior al Qaeda operative who was so close to bin Laden, so close, that he was among a small group of people who knew about the September 11 attacks before they were even launched." Get this right? He's supposed to have been a senior operative in 2001. They say his present age is 33.

Joe: He was a precocious child.

Niall: What was he? Twelve?

Harrison: A child genius terrorist.

Joe: A child genius terrorist, yeah. Where do they get them from? You'd have to make it up if it wasn't real.

Niall: Just make it up.

Joe: It's made up.

Niall: But it's very real to people on the ground.

Joe: Absolutely, yeah.

Niall: It's just absolute chaos. So 60,000 people have crossed over into Turkey in the last day. I reckon they're fleeing the bombing because they're doing a Kosovo here where they blamed Serbia for a million people fleeing Kosovo, and actually that happened once NATO bombing started. Same thing. Turkey's involved now, fighting in Syria. It's just a complete and utter...

Joe: Bog-mire. As they say.

Harrison: Well, along with all the crazy war stuff going on, we've got Ebola, we've got Iraq, Syria, Ukraine. We've got the weather. It seems when things go weird, everything goes weird. It's been happening a lot lately. And just in the past week or so there have been even more strange animal behaviours and attacks. This has been going on for a while now, but just in the past week I was reading through the headlines and just a few kind of stuck out for me. A three-year-old boy in Brooklyn on August 21st: a rat attack.

Joe: A rat attack.

Harrison: Yeah, he was sleeping and rats attacked him and just started biting his face.

Joe: That's not something you hear about every day. Rats generally don't attack human beings, including children.

Harrison: An Austrian hunter attacked by his own hunting dog. He got attacked by it and he had to shoot it. So he killed his dog. That one's strange. Bear attacks: there have already been four deaths in North America from bears. Usually there's around two each year.

Joe: It's Putin.

Harrison: It's Putin, yeah. And there has been an increase in bear attacks in Russia as well. And in Alaska a 9-foot bear tried to get into a man's home. He shot it; there's pictures of it. There's been giant cat attacks all over the place; elephant attacks, deaths from elephants in Sri Lanka. There's been several death in this whole year actually. A riled up cougar was shot on the streets in Calgary, Alberta.

Niall: A riled up what?

Harrison: Cougar. It's a cat.

Niall: Cougar, oh yeah.

Harrison: Not the other kind of cougars. (laughing) And there is also a musk ox attack. This ox was just going crazy around these hunters and they shot warning shots at it and it just kept charging at them. And this again, is extremely strange behaviour.

Joe: These animals have been watching what's been going on on the planet and are just sooo pissed off at the idiocy of the average human being that they're just...

Niall: Maybe they're rising up...

Joe: They can't take it anymore.

Niall: ...they're rising up to take over, like Animal Farm.

Joe: If only.

Niall: It's a world revolution of the animals. Well no seriously, the whole biosphere is going nuts. This is part and parcel.

Joe: Absolutely, yeah. It is. It's hard every day to face into it and to keep your humour in the face of it.

Niall: I think you're doing pretty well Joe.

Joe: This is an emergency operating room. It's because you're kind of faced with the choice of just finding the energy to continue to look at it and try and spell out how it's all basically a lie; the vast majority of stuff that you read, all of the major stories are all lies. I get the impression of them trying to wear people down, depending on who the person is. There are people trying to bring some truth to the situation. They're being worn down by their repeated projecting or catapulting, as George W. Bush said, the propaganda, over and over and over again. If in doubt, produce another ISIS beheading video. And once you've said that a few times, once you've pointed out the falseness of the situation and the manipulation involved and then you're forced to do it again and again and again, for people doing that it gets kind of tiring, you know. And you start to wonder whether there's any point. And then for the ordinary person in the street, they're kind of being subjected to Pavlovian dog treatment where they're just being shocked more by these things over and over again by wars and rumours of wars and bad things happening on the planet. They want the people to just throw up and say "well" - and they've probably done this a long time ago - to say...

Niall: What can I do about it?

Joe: ..."it's all so messed up. I can't do anything about it, so just ignore it." And that makes it a then difficult for us to try and reach those people because they've kind of been switched off by this ramping up of just the chaos and the madness and the lies and the propaganda and the just extreme - I don't know what the word is for it; it's disgusting what they do. When you look at all the different areas of what the people in power are doing and the choices that they're making, I can't think of any other word other than it's just disgusting. It disgusts me that so-called human beings would engage in this kind of activity, where ultimately they're destroying the planet in one way or another and they're increasingly attacking and killing ordinary civilians to be used against the survivors, like elsewhere in the west, in the USA and elsewhere around the world, to be used to better program them, to better deceive them, in the case of MH17, you know?

That's such a despicable thing to do. Simply for the purpose of progressing or furthering their geopolitical strategy, which is basically just more money and control and power for them. They want to demonize and bring down Russia in the eyes of western populations. And to do that they murder 298 innocent people on a plane and blame Russia and provide no evidence. And then the evidence that is available, that points directly to them, they ignore it and bring out an ISIS video and say "Oh look! Scary man cut a head of another westerner. Aren't you scared?"

And then they steal the Scottish election and tell everybody that, "Yes, you all did the right thing by voting to stay within the corrupt, evil, psychopathic United Kingdom". And the vast majority of people would say "Screw you". What do you say to that kind of a situation? You just walk away from it; there's nothing to be done.

Niall: No, except to...

Joe: Kill them all and let god sort them out?

Niall: Yeah, but you don't need to do any of the killing.

Joe: Oh I'm not.

Harrison: That's really what it comes down to is the psychopathy. I think all the geostrategic things going on is just a cover for what's essentially a bunch of sadists.

Joe: Yeah.

Harrison: One of the things I forgot to mention on the subject of Ukraine is they've been having these prisoner exchanges going on the past couple of weeks in accordance with the ceasefire. And you can find interviews with the people who've been released, giving their testimony of what happened to them. And just one guy who says he was only in captivity for a few weeks and they asked him, "Were you tortured?" He says "Yeah, of course." And they said "What did they do to you?" Well they branded him; they burnt him on his chest. They burnt the word "separatist" and they branded a swastika on his buttocks and lower back. And he actually showed the scars.

And then they interviewed a woman, who I think was from the same group. And she looks middle-aged, maybe in her 50s. She was arrested for doing humanitarian work; she was bringing food to cities like Slovyansk. And they arrested her, called her a terrorist. Both of them said they put these people in pits, chained them in pits. And there was a mine field close by and what they do to the prisoners they didn't like, still chained, they'd tell the people to run through the mine field. If they didn't want to they'd shoot the ground to make them run. And of course they run through the minefield and you can guess what happens. This woman who had a witness with her, someone who was in captivity with her, said the guards had offered a man who was with her to rape her in order to secure his release. And he didn't - thank god - but they were saying that rape was pretty common. So there are women, civilians, militiamen, all in captivity and that's what these people are doing. They've been torturing these people. The branding with the word "separatist" is apparently pretty common.

Joe: Does anybody think that it's a coincidence that those are the people unleashed by the US state department and their European cronies? It's no coincidence.

Niall: No.

Joe: It's like they spawned them. It's like their children. Those people who do those kind of things that Harrison just described, the nature of those people is exactly the same nature as your vaunted, elected leaders.

Niall: Remember them passing around photos of Abu Ghraib among themselves. Or enjoying them.

Joe: Sick, sick, sick individuals. That's how bad it is. And they rule the world. They sit in judgment over us all supposedly. And people accept it. Well they don't even accept it. They don't even know about it. They don't even bother to inform themselves because it's too scary. So yeah, like a Hitler, given what we know about Hitler and what people think about Hitler, a Hitler is now in power over you and your choice is to ignore it, and what? Hope it'll get better? That's more or less what people in the west are doing.

Niall: It doesn't affect them.

Joe: It will affect them! That's the point. If any of them bothered to even sit up and take notice - the point is I'm not talking about conspiracy theories and deep research and all this kind of stuff. I'm just talking about the stuff that people can see, stuff that is available because now more than ever before, the true nature of these people is apparent; public speeches in what they say compared to what they do and all of their actions. And all people have to do is just consider their own conscience or their own sense of what's right and wrong, and they'll realize these people are very much wrong; they're very much evil people. There's an awful lot of people who can come to that conclusion who I think know that in the back of their minds. But there's an almost immediate response of that awareness to ignore it. And that's what I'm saying. More or less like they're aware that Hitler has come to power and they're going to just say, "Well what can you do? We'll just hope it'll be alright." In the knowledge of what kind of a person Hitler is.

Well, how can anybody complain when they get what is obviously going to happen in such a situation? You can't complain.

Niall: Yup. Such is the state of the world this September 21st, 2014.

Joe: Well there might be some good news next week, you know. Ebola might spread all around the world.

Niall: And consume all the scum.

Joe: Yeah, and if that does happen, we'll talk about it next week. But for this week...

Niall: Because we'll still be here.

Joe: Yeah, exactly, because I'm on a keto diet. I don't eat any carbs, any sugar, and everybody knows I'm doing my cold adaptation because everyone knows Ebola likes sugar and warmth. So get in a cold shower, don't eat too many carbs; we'll be here for the big show.

Niall: Coming soon.

Joe: Alright folks, we'll leave it there for this week. Thanks to our listeners and our callers and our chatters and as we said, we will be back next week with another show and Harrison will be here as well next week.

Niall: Yay.

Joe: We'll talk about all sorts of interesting things.

Niall: Rock on!

Joe: Til then, have a good one.

Niall: See you next week.

Harrison: Bye.