Having recently published a report into the (literally) incredible Scottish independence referendum result, your hosts this week discussed some of their findings, and provided further analysis illustrating just how unlikely it is for Scots to have turned down the opportunity to separate from the British government and the City of London's casino capitalism.

Running Time: 01:56:00

Download: MP3

Here's the transcript:

Niall: Hi, and welcome to SOTT Talk Radio. I'm your cohost Niall Bradley and with me is my regular, Joe Quinn.

Joe: Hi, there.

Niall: And joining us this week is SOTT Editor Harrison Koehli.

Harrison: Hi, everybody.

Niall: Today is Sunday, September 28th and we are going to be connecting the dots on another mental week on planet Earth. I think we should begin with what happened in Scotland and our recently published report on it. There were countless reports from people who participated, or electors sending in their vote, or somehow involved in the process of the referendum who spoke up and said 'I saw this, I saw that; it didn't seem right to me.' We are pretty sure that there is enough indication from what they said that something highly irregular was taking place in Scotland.

Joe: What was highly irregular was the fact that as we said, and as a lot of people have said, that the Scottish people who are traditionally nationalistic and independence-minded, would have rejected, as a majority the opportunity to become an independent nation, and that in itself is enough, as far as I am concerned to put a massive question mark over the entire electoral process. Because it is absolutely ridiculous to even suggest that in that kind of referendum a majority of Scots would not have voted for independence.

I think I drew the analogy in the report that we published which was for anybody who knows the situation in Northern Ireland that the diehard 'God Save the Queen' Unionists, when given the chance to vote for staying with the United Kingdom or joining a united Ireland, they would join a united Ireland. That's utterly unthinkable as well. And it's ridiculous and wouldn't happen and the same situation applies in Scotland. So there you go. Put that in your pipe and smoke it; it's ridiculous. Apart from all of the obvious examples that we outlined of serious miss-organization and lax security procedures that were part of the Scottish referendum; the actual details.

You had two conflicting things here, two ridiculous notions as part of the Scottish referendum. One of them was, as you said, that the Scots would have rejected the opportunity to have their own country, and the other one was, in the run-up to the election, this ridiculous notion that the British government was willing to have an open, free and fair referendum and let Scotland go if the will of the people expressed itself in such a way. That is also a ridiculous notion for anybody who knows anything about the state of Denmark; the state of London. Something stinks.

Niall: If we can gauge from a distance, the reaction of people who would naturally be sceptical in Scotland, they accept the result, but they say that it was achieved by lying to the people by saying if you vote no this, this and this will happen or not happen. So there is a reaction and it has manifested in big protests at the Holyrood Parliament in Edinburgh, but they are not protests specifically saying this was rigged.

Joe: A lot of them are. We don't know how many exactly but there are a lot of people on Facebook, on comments, on mainstream media newspapers, particularly in Scotland, all saying this is ridiculous and that something is wrong with this. And people who have personal experience of ballot papers not being the same, some of them being blank, not having identifying marks in the back. Theoretically those ballots could have been rejected. Then there are the irregularities in the form of the seals on the ballot boxes having serial numbers on them and those not being recorded so that when the ballot boxes arrived at the counting center they could be checked to make sure the seals were the same as the seals that left the polling station.

And then there was security around the actual transport of the ballot boxes themselves where basically anybody or his mother could have apparently come along and collected those ballot boxes and taken them to the counting center; the perfect opportunity to tamper with the boxes en route from the polling stations to the counting centers. And then there is obviously the postal votes and this is something that really stands out with that; the record number of postal votes in this election recorded the most postal votes ever in an election in the UK.

Niall: Not quite for Scotland. The record number is held by the last general election for UK wide elections in 2010. But this is the highest for Scotland.

Joe: The background on the postal votes voting is that basically anybody can send in a postal vote, even if you live a five minute walk from a polling station in Scotland you can still send in your vote by post or mail. And the other aspect of postal voting, and this was exposed several times in the past four or five years by different people, and one of them was a report by the Council of Europe. They did a report on the British elections and said that they are wide open to fraud. Then there was a judge from England who oversees electoral fraud cases and allegations and he said that he found 14 different ways specifically via postal votes that you could manipulate the results of elections; that is was wide open and they had done nothing to change it.

He said the main problem was that Tony Blair's government in 2000, the Labour Government, had changed the laws so that anybody could send in a postal vote. The idea behind postal votes is that if you can't get to a polling station at that time. If you are somewhere outside of Scotland; but at this point they changed the law in 2000 so anybody could vote; and since then, the idea being at this point it is very easy to add fake people on the official civil registry so you can create hundreds of thousands; if you want; fake names. They will get postal votes and send them in, and those people essentially don't exist. So there are so many ways. When we were writing this report, all of the evidence to help us back up our initial premise, which was based on common sense and social media which is much favoured by the State Department...

Niall: And also experience of knowing Scots. I've lived in Scotland; Joe knows a lot of Scots.

Joe: Yeah, absolutely. I don't know if there is much more to say about that. It was stolen and when they go to those lengths and extremes to rig a vote and if people to try to rectify that fraud by having another referendum or recount, they are not going to let that happen either. Because the problem is Scotland is part of the United Kingdom and completely infiltrated by the English, let's say. By English politicians or politicians who are United Kingdom/British/English-minded.

There is a Scottish Parliament that runs a lot of the day to day things within local and regional governments within Scotland but all big important issues like taxes, military and defense are taken from Westminster so the Scottish Nationalist Party is the biggest party but only by one seat. The next biggest party is the Scottish Labour party but that's pretty much exactly the same as the Labour Party aka Tony Blair the warmonger. And there is a Scottish Conservative Party that has quite a number of seats and that is a Scottish Conservative Party, but it is completely the English Conservative Party. The same goes for the Liberal Democrats. It's been part of the British raj for 300 years and you don't root out the agents of empire overnight or even in a long time.

Niall: Just one last point regarding postal ballots, postal voting was massively increased by Blair's Labour Government in the early 2000's.

Joe: Theoretically the entire electorate can send in their postal votes.

Niall: It was so lax. This is something that I've found since publishing our article; there are 50 criminal enquiries across the UK for postal vote fraud before the results were called in at the last elections in 2010. This is an article at the time "Voter fraud could eliminate the outcome of the general election as evidence emerges of rigging. Police have launched 50 separate enquiries in 50 different constituencies and there is widespread fear of electoral roles being packed" so that's fake names applying for the ballots to be sent to them.

They had absurdities where a flat in London that has these two people received 18 separate postal ballots "Thanks to the introduction of mass postal voting on demand, the stench of malpractice now hangs over the whole process. Whether it be through serial abuses of the electoral role or widespread fraud in the casting of postal votes."

Joe: The scenario here is that it's very easy for MI5, an intelligence agency, which has access to all of the British Government's records and for the overseers, the protectors of the realm, this was a national security threat to them; the threat of Scotland breaking away and it's very easy for them to add a large number of people onto the register in Scotland and get postal votes and ballots for all those people and then send them in.
Of course that means that there would be more votes counted than there were people officially, right? But that's why this theory isn't mutually exclusive to the idea of tampering with ballot boxes because in that scenario you would have to remove an equivalent amount of actual votes cast in Scotland.

Niall: More or less; you wouldn't have to tally precisely.

Joe: No; roughly. So it's pretty easily done. And of course, this isn't anything new. Americans haven't had a democracy, an actual vote, a fair and free election in I don't know how long. Probably never, almost, or maybe 100 years; I don't know but it's been a long time. But most notably in the year 2000 with Bush, and I don't know if many Americans are aware of that; I'm sure some our listeners are that are Americans are; but the 2000 elections were stolen.

Not even conspiracy theory stolen. It was clearly stolen. It was in all of the mainstream newspapers that Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush's mistress amongst other things; she removed thousands of African Americans and people who had been in jail who were legitimately entitled to vote, from the register so they weren't allowed to vote when they went to vote. Their names weren't down so they weren't getting in. As a result of that, Bush won.

Not that Al Gore would have been any better; this is the horrible thing about it. It's not a case that they wouldn't have been screwed over by our wonderful, benevolent leader who would have just saved us all and freed the entire US from the grip of the psycho's in power; you would have had a blowhard like Al Gore. Who knows what he would have done!

Niall: He would have saved the polar bears.

Joe: He would have saved the polar bears and let America go to the dogs.

Niall: It's the oil; stupid. There's more that Scotland can give the London Government than just oil but it's basically the oil; always has been. I saw a documentary recently; they claimed it was banned but it must have been aired in Scotland at some point; anyway, it was shown in 2009 in Scot's Gaelic on BBC Alba. You can find it on YouTube. It details efforts of the British Government to sabotage the SNP since its creation.

They did specific things, like the Metropolitan Police in London would recruit people to entrap young nationalists into bomb plots. It never happened but there was a plot and a high-profile trial and it tarnished anyone saying anything in anyway dissenting. They went far beyond that, though. Here's a clip I would like to play. The first ½ minute or so is a guy named Professor McCrone who was a Chief Economist in Whitehall in London at the Scottish Office. He describes in the first ½ minute the overall economic situation in the UK at the time and then once the music begins you will hear a narrator reading portions of the conclusion of his report that was subsequently buried for 30 years.

McCrone: "It was a very bad time as far as the rest of the economy was concerned. The ship building industry was in pretty dire straits at that time. Much of it was disappearing and steel and heavy engineering, these traditional industries in Scotland were also in decline so it was a depressing time from the point of view of the economy and of course the whole of the United Kingdom was suffering from tremendously high inflation and unemployment."

Narrator: "It is hard to see any conclusion other than to allow Scotland to have that part of the continental shelf which would have been hers if she had been independent all along. It must be concluded therefore, that large revenues and balance of payments gains would indeed accrue to a Scottish Government in the event of independence. The country would tend to be in chronic surplus to a quite embarrassing degree and its currency would become the hardest in Europe.

The Scottish plan would be seen as a good hedge against inflation and devaluation and the Scottish banks could expect to find themselves inundated with a speculated inflow of foreign funds. North Sea oil could have far reaching consequences for Scottish membership of the EEC because of the tremendously increased political power it would confer as the major producer of oil in Western Europe. Scotland would be in a key position and other countries would be extremely foolish if they did not seek to do all they could to accommodate Scottish interests.

This paper has shown that the advent of North Sea oil has completely overturned the traditional economic arguments used against Scottish nationalism. For the first time since the active union was passed it can now be credibly argued that Scotland's economic advantage lies in its repeal."

Niall: And then a year after that report in 1975, they went further by doing a detailed analysis on it, that the average income in Scotland would have increase 30% per head if the country became independent. Scotland's economic problems "would have disappeared and Scotland would have become the Kuwait of the Western World." Then Labour Chancellor Denis Healey admitted in a recent interview "We underplayed the value of oil to the Scottish people because of the threat of nationalism. Westminster politicians today are still concerned about Scotland taking the oil. They are worried stiff about it."

It gets worse because that oil wealth was specifically used, at least I think it was from what they were saying in this documentary, was to finance the explosion in infrastructural projects in the southeast of England. They specifically named the M25 Motorway around London and the Channel Tunnel. Look at the state of the UK economy in the early 70's and how it became the city of London casino in the 1980's. The collateral that they used to turn it into that casino was Scottish oil.

Joe: Just before we go on ahead, if anyone wants to call in with any questions and comments, feel free. We have a call on the line right now so I'm going to go ahead and take it.

Nicki: Hello. So what's the topic that y'all are discussing?

Joe: What's your name and where are you calling from?

Nicki: Nicki calling from Texas.

Joe: Hey Nicki. Basically we are discussing various different topics. We are calling it Connecting the Dots and we have just been talking about the Scottish referendum that happened a couple of weeks ago. We are going to be talking about Iraq, ISIS and the crazy weather going on; a general overview of the craziness that's been happening on the planet in the last week or so. Do you have a question?

Nicki: I was looking online and I just saw the Scotland Police Department's weaponry and do they really need machine guns and everything? Wow!

Joe: Do you not see that in Texas?

Nicki: Not really. I see guns but I don't see machineguns. I've never seen that! And I don't think all police should have that. I see guns as a last resort. You have tasers, batons and pepper spray. I think you should try that before you go and shoot somebody and take a life. Just because somebody might be resisting arrest, running away or not doing what you tell them to do doesn't mean that they deserve to die.

Joe: Absolutely not, but that's been happening a lot in the US. I don't know if you've noticed but a lot of people are being shot by police at an alarming rate in the US for not a lot. There was one guy who was recently shot because the cop stopped him, he got out of his and car and the cop told him to 'show me your licence' and he turned back into his car quite quickly to get his licence and the cop must have thought he was going for a gun and for no reason just shot him; and he was getting his licence.

Nicki: I'm really into deaf culture and deaf news and I like signing and stuff like that and I was watching this video of this girl who was on the news who was deaf. She was a black woman who was deaf and her house was being broken into so she called 911 through her videophone and they said 'go out the front door' so she did. She was waving to get the police's attention and the police officer thought she was going to attack him so he said 'stop'. But obviously she can't hear so he pulls out a taser and tasers her to the ground and held her for three days without an interpreter; and obviously she didn't speak.

Niall: God.

Joe: That's horrible.

Nicki: I know.

Niall: It's so inhuman.

Joe: The police have got this attitude of taser or shoot first and ask questions later. It's like they are terrified of everybody and anybody who makes a wrong move or doesn't do what they say, they'll just taser or shoot you and then figure out what happened afterwards.

Nicki: I also think it's a lack of accountability. The police are not held to the same standards as other citizens. Police can basically hide evidence that won't work in their favour and use evidence that does work in their favour against you in the court of law when it's not the whole story but it works to their convenience and no one says anything because Judges cover Police; Police cover Prosecutors; Prosecutors cover Judges. So they all cover each other in the judicial system and law enforcement. There are too many people covering for police so there are no consequences so you think it's fine to do that. Then they get more militant, get on that power trip and think they are above the law. And that's the wrong way of thinking.

Harrison: Not only that, when you have a system that doesn't have proper consequences for behaviour like this, it acts like a magnet for people who want to get into that system and do these sorts of things because there are no consequences. So that's when you get all these psychopaths who want to become police officers, and they become police officers because they know they will be able to get away with it. So you get the bully mentality that thinks being a cop is the greatest job because they can threaten people, they can do things with their badge and uniform that they would not be able to get away with if they didn't have that badge and uniform.

They can say "Open your mouth one more time and I'm going to shoot you." If a citizen says that you can charge them; that's a threat to kill a person. And you can see videos of this online. The cops wearing the video recorders themselves recording their own behaviour and it's just amazing how much of this goes on and how many people have been killed in the past 15 years; since 911. I don't know what the numbers are but it's around 5000 people have been killed by the police in the US. How many have been killed by terrorists?

Joe: A lot less. It's crazy Nikki, you're right, the whole system is corrupt from the top-down and I'm not sure how to fix that.

Nicki: There was this one man who was at home minding his own business sitting with his wife who had a brain injury and she couldn't remember things, and his ex-wife called the police on him and his ex-mother in-law and said there was some suspicion of him hitting his wife and the police come over to handle a supposed domestic violence dispute and they say "We were called because we have suspicion of you hitting your wife" and they said "Do you mind if we come in your house and talk to her?" and he said "No, you are not coming in my house; you can talk to her from right there or you can get a warrant" and they go back outside and don't come back with a warrant, but he says "move your dog or I'm going to shoot it." He had a dog there, and the guy said "No, I am not going to move my dog" and they said "Move your dog or I'm going to shoot it" so he put his dog in the other room and they handcuffed him and set him outside to talk to his wife. It took two hours and he was sitting in the hot sun. He had a heart condition and it turns out he didn't do anything wrong.

That's not the messed up part. They go back and say "You're free to go, sir" and he says "No, take me to jail because if I get out of these handcuffs I'm going to beat your ass." The cop said "I wouldn't recommend doing that, sir" and the guy says "You know what, I'm just going to sue y'all" and with a smirk on his face, the cop replied "good luck with that, many have tried" and the guy said back "you are nothing but a bully." Thinking that you are going to get away with something like that, going into somebody's house without a warrant and making a guy with a heart condition sit outside for two hours is a total abuse of power.

Joe: That happens far too often and it's happening more and more not just in the US but across the world. We just keep trying to expose it and inform people about it, and that's the most we can do because there is no point in trying to get all up in their faces because you are going to get tased or something. Nikki, thanks for your call. We are going to move onto other topics but we hope you tune in next week.
Nikki: Thank you.

Niall: Take care.

Joe: That was a bit of a detour.

Niall: But it's current news.

Joe: Absolutely, and her question was about police in Scotland with machine guns. You see that quite a lot, and you've seen it in particular since 911. In the US it's a bit different because you still see the ordinary cops and the same in the UK as well, but these are the SWAT teams in the US that come loaded up with all sorts of weaponry. But in the UK, France and other European countries, you'll see police walking down the street with machine guns.

They have the normal blue bobby outfit to keep the peace and protect and serve but they have a big black machine gun. And that's the whole terrorism thing because there are terrorists hiding around the corner and they use that to some extent in the Scottish elections as well. MI5, all through the run-up to the election were trying to demonize the 'Yes' camp as a bunch of threatening militants that were going around beating up old ladies and forcing them to vote yes. This is the British media doing all this, and they created this group called the Scottish Republican Army.

Niall: They pulled it back out of the old files. It actually goes way back.

Joe: Right, but they pulled this out just to throw it into the mix that there's a Scottish Republican Army in however minor a way, to associate the idea of Scottish independence with the IRA and "terrorism." And even though there is no hard evidence, it's obvious they did it with author J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter books. She gave one million pounds to the 'No' campaign because she's a true Brit.

Niall: I think she's English but she's based in Scotland now.

Joe: Brottish? (Laughter)

Niall: She's north British.

Joe: She likes to think of herself as Scottish but she's actually British, and she gave a million pounds to the 'No' campaign and they had a bunch of Twitter accounts who were abusing her with all these nasty, nasty things being said to her on her twitter account and when they looked into to try to find out who owned those accounts, they vanished; evaporated back into the ether where they came. Or back into GHCQ or MI5's headquarters. That's an example of the dirty underhanded tactics apart from actually rigging the election that they do. There is a lot of public opinion massaging.

Niall: To quote a particular slide published by the Guardian last year, allegedly from Ed Snowden's leaks "The GCHQ sees its role as to deny, disrupt, deceive and destroy online chatrooms, twitter and whatever. To send in fake messages and derail any conversation." If they see it going a certain way and most people are convinced on any given topic they'll derail it by taking it far too into the extreme and make a caricature out of it. Which is happening by the way with the public reaction in Scotland to this referendum. They have got people saying everything was rigged; the whole thing, busted wide open.

Joe: Busted wide open.

Niall: Here is clear evidence when it's not really, it's a video of some guy. We should actually talk about it because this came out just after we published our report. What's his name?

Joe: Sovereign John?

Niall: Sovereign John.

Joe: John son of David.

Niall: People are getting excited about this video, he's a guy in his truck. He's done it before.

Joe: It's one of these sovereign citizen type of things where he films police when they ask him for his licence.

Niall: He say's "no, I can't give you my surname" hence why he's John son of David.

Joe: I don't have a surname.

Niall: Because legally if I don't give you my surname you can't do anything to me.

Joe: He's not entitled to give you his surname. He doesn't have to have a surname, officially by law. There is also a line in all these archaic laws which say you are allowed to travel on the highway. They use all these old terms like "I am simply traveling in my form of transport on the public highway" or "I'm traveling in my carriage along the public highway" so it goes back to the 1700's where there is no requirement to have a tax disc on your car as long as it's not for commercial purposes. If you're simply driving your horse and cart down the road, not for commercial purposes, but going to see your dear old aunt.

Niall: Therefore you are a sovereign citizen existing outside of the State.

Joe: Yeah you don't have to show anything like that he uses these old laws to get around it.

Niall: He got contacted by a mystery caller asking him to be at a certain place at a certain time in Edinburgh to look for a particular trash can on a street, next to which he would find a plastic bag. So then we cut back to his video and he produces from this plastic bag at a pick-up somewhere, a whole series of 'Yes' votes discarded ballot papers.

Joe: And they were real ballot papers.

Niall: They looked like the real thing. Let's assume they were legitimate, well then we have a problem right there. They should have all been accounted for. Right now, every single ballot should be under lock and key somewhere. According to the official procedures there should be no loose ballots floating around anywhere. The flip side is what could be happening there is any random person i.e. an agent...

Joe: It fits our theory that ballots were removed to cover for the extra fake postal ballots that were sent in. So real ballots had to be removed. If you ever think about joining the Intelligence Services - don't. Because if you are unlucky enough to be involved in black ops, you have to get into such convoluted, double, triple reverse psychology permutations of how you should do it that it would just fry your brains. One idea behind it, is that they stole the ballots. MI5 took the ballot boxes away to account for the extra postal ballots and obviously they are not stupid. Those are all going to be destroyed.

But someone said hang on a minute, let's keep some of them, throw them out there and give it to some guy who'll publicize it. Put them in a plastic bag, give him a call to come pick them up and he'll see that they are real ballots and then that will spread this theory that somebody in the polling stations or counting venues were taking individual ballots to focus on the idea that the fraud was committed by polling clerks at polling stations or counters; they are called enumerators (laughter), you're not allowed to call them counters, they're enumerators. So it's at the counting centers; it must have been a team so there must have been a lot of them, right?

They were all involved and it was one vote for the count, one for me sticking it (the ballot) in my pocket or down my bra. And this wouldn't have been observed, so it's to push it in that direction for which there is no evidence, because when these intelligence agencies plan one of these operations that's criminal, they are thinking of the aftermath and what people will say because there is going to be some people, or a lot of people in certain cases who will smell a rat, and they want a person down a certain track which is the wrong track.

Niall: And this doesn't mean that they plan everything to the nth degree in advance, it just means that they adapt to the situation in the aftermath as it happens. It's a constant operation as in "look how the reaction is going now; we can load this up to nuclear capacity and derail it here, so go do that." It's not that it's a 100% pre-planned conspiracy; it's a constant state of conspiracy by State agents against the people.

Joe: Absolutely. So that's the Scottish referendum. We don't know what's going to happen, but just on a side note, Catalonia; that's in Northeastern Spain, is officially an autonomous region. Spain has 13 autonomous regions. They all have devolved parliaments but effectively they are all part of Spain. It's had an independence movement going on for a long time. Several hundred years ago Catalonia was a separate country, but it's been part of Spain for a long time. They have an independence movement that has been pushing over the last few years and the steam has been generated for independence.

They are quite wealthy and would do well; a vast majority of Catalonian's in that region, which includes Barcelona, want independence and the Spanish Government has said no, you are not allowed to because it's against the Spanish Constitution for you to break away, and any vote on that would have to be taken by all of the people of Spain. You can't just have a vote in Catalonia and say we are independent. But their local government has basically said we don't care, we write our own laws and we can write a law that says we can and what are going to do about that?
They've kind of done that and announced a referendum for November 9 although officially it's non-binding, but it's going to be the most official referendum to date in Catalonia. To get an idea of if there is a majority vote for independence; they are not saying, as Scotland was saying, that we would immediately put a plan into action to break away and start nationalizing the local industries like they talked about in Scotland, but it's nonbinding officially, but who knows, once they have that vote they would effectively be in a position to just walk away.

Niall: What's the name of Spain's MI5?

Joe: They used to have more, but they have one central intelligence operation. They gave it a new name recently that I can't remember. But the way they are setting it up in that situation is that they're saying it's unconstitutional and the Spanish government is saying it will not happen. I mean, this is little more than a month away and there have been massive protests and demonstrations for it. In one case there was over a million people on the streets in Barcelona. So the Spanish government is saying it won't happen because it's unconstitutional and the Catalonia government is saying yes it will. With the Spanish police there, it's shaping up to be a civil war because the only way they would be able to stop it would be to go around and actually stop people from voting.

Niall: They will just try to manage and ignore anything that comes out of it.

Joe: They can't ignore it. If they went ahead and declared independence; that's the trump card that these regions and communities have in these different places around Europe and around the world. They can simply say we will just go ahead and do it regardless of what you say. We have a parliament, we have elected officials, we have the people behind us and all of our industries are all pro-independence, so what are you going to do to stop us? The only way you can stop us is by force.

Niall: And just to be clear, this isn't nationalism for nationalism's sake. The steam behind this is exactly the same reason why all of our listeners and everyone out there is fed up. It's because of severe austerity measures from the government since this bankster-caused crisis.

Joe: The psychos have been screwing over the people and making them suffer and the people are saying screw you back. It's kind of hopeful in the sense that it gives you some heart that people are taking some action and there are people in positions of political power who are willing to do it. It remains to be seen what will come out of it, but even if the Scottish referendum was rigged, the fact that it actually happened, and as we suspect, 70%+ people actually voted for independence is heartening that people are at least having that reaction and voting against these psychos in power and what they've been doing to them by taking direct action; even if it's thwarted.

Niall: Yeah, I don't know how you feel about it Joe, but for me, doing our report, we are just putting it on the record. As far as we are concerned it was rigged. The success of an independence movement doesn't depend on the people in Scotland getting that here and now, because the momentum has completely galvanized people. Just getting out and becoming at least a little bit more politically aware, they understand the situation and the greater context all around them. That has all kind of non-linear effects.

I mean, they are proudly calling themselves the 45%, I think tongue-in-cheek because they know they are higher than that but they are already protesting en mass in Edinburgh and they will continue to. Alex Salmond the day after, and of course he was "magnanimous" in resigning as SNP leader and de facto accepting the result; he has since said we don't need a referendum to declare independence. That's the Catalonian option.

Joe: Absolutely; and it's the same in the Basque Countries. The Scottish referendum; even though it was thwarted and rigged; has given encouragement not only to the Catalonian's but also in the Basque Country which is on the Northeastern side of Spain. I don't know if people know about it, but Basque separatist movements have been going on for 40 years. It was an armed movement for a long time. They have since embraced the political process, but obviously that's not working out so much, and now with this Scottish referendum, they have been encouraged to come out today and say they have a law which allows them to have a referendum and to follow the path towards declaring independence.

So they are all very much encouraged by what has happened in Scotland and that it actually took place. So it's good in the sense that it will stir things up even if it involves major clashes between the police and the forces of the State versus the ordinary people who want to become independent. Even if that happens and bad things happen, it's better than nothing happening. Because nothing happening these days means we are just on a slippery slope to oblivion.

Niall: It means a slow death for us and an immediate death for millions of people in the Middle East; that's what it means.

Joe: Yeah.

Harrison: Speaking of which...

Niall: Speaking of which, how are they reacting to all this uprising across the Western world? Harrison; tell us.

Joe: That wasn't what you were going to talk about. (Laughter)

Harrison: Yeah, rephrase your question.

Joe: You just go ahead with speaking of which.

Harrison: Speaking of which; the Middle East. To start out, before revealing the big secret which everyone knows the answer to, here's a little quiz; let's see if any of our listeners can guess who said this quote in December 2007 "The President, that is, the President of the United States does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" and who said that? President Obama. And what has just happened?

Joe: He said that before he was President.

Harrison: Yes, before he was President in December 2007.

Joe: He said President's don't have the authority to do what I am going to do.

Harrison: Exactly. So this guy was elected with "Yes we can"; change and all that; close Guantanamo Bay; no more wars; or at least that was the impression people got, that here's a President that won't be another George Bush. And what did we just have? We have the US dropping bombs on yet another Middle Eastern country. This is Obama's seventh country in the Middle East that he's bombed or continue to bomb?

Niall: I think it's seven including the Bush era; seven in thirteen years without a declaration of war.

Harrison: And we can count Iraq and Afghanistan in there because when did those really end? But this latest airstrike, just like all the previous ones; no legal authorization from Congress. Obama has said that he has the authority to unilaterally make this decision. He's got the power.

Joe: He's the decider.

Niall: More importantly; no UN authorization.

Harrison: So how are they justifying this? There has so far been no official legal justification to this that has been put out. They have made reference to a couple of things like "the authorization of use of military force" and that was from 2001 which was basically the US' official declaration of war on Al-Qaeda which can be used against anybody.

In that sense it is a legitimate thing to use but again, this was Bush law from 13-14 years ago and then the 2002 War Resolution against Iraq. Now, Syria is not Iraq and ISIS is technically not Al-Qaeda. These laws have nothing to do with ISIS. If you are going to use a legal justification, why don't you just write up a new law to justify it? It's totally ridiculous. Congress hasn't approved this nor the American people.

Joe: American people don't matter, Harrison. Didn't you get that memo?

Harrison: Yeah, exactly.

Joe: The American people are completely and utterly irrelevant to what they do.

Harrison: So you have these fake elections where you elect your representatives and this puppet President who then go and do whatever the hell they want and invade and kill people in other countries and yeah the American people don't mean squat in all of this, but just think about it, you've got millions of people just sitting by while this small group of people in Washington get together and say "okay, we are going to kill a bunch more people." It's absolutely ridiculous.

Joe: It is. It's a ridiculous image that it presents but that's exactly how it is in real life.

Niall: It's getting more and more extreme.

Harrison: So there have been several bomb air strikes in Syria so far and already on the first air-strike we get reports coming out from the human rights organizations in Syria about civilian casualties in these air-strikes. I've read reports in one air-strike that five to eight civilians died from one bomb being dropped. The Pentagon has denied these reports saying there is no evidence of civilian deaths, but just to show the absolute mendacity and sniveling nature of these people, they have redefined the definitions of militants and civilians.

This is culled from several cases over the past few years. They define a combatant as any military-age male in a strike zone unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent. So unless there is proof after he's dead that he was not a militant, he is considered a militant!

Joe: That will be important because after he's dead, the person's family will really be concerned with whether or not the US government thought he was a militant or a civilian. Because that's really important after your son has been killed by a US bomb to know what they designated him as.

Niall: I have a feeling that comes down to money.

Joe: How old is John McCain?

Niall: 60-70's? I don't know. He should be dead.

Joe: What's military age?

Harrison: 18-50?

Joe: Can we stretch it for John McCain because he spends a lot of time in Syria. Get him in there, into a combat zone and boom. But then the question is what to call him afterwards. Was he a combatant or not? I would put him down as a combatant.

Niall: He's certainly militant.

Harrison: In that quote from Obama, where he was talking about an actual or imminent threat to the nation, there is actually a new definition for imminent as well. This is the quote "an "imminent threat" of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on US persons will take place in the immediate future."

Joe: Yeah, that's from a few years ago, right?

Harrison: Yeah.

Joe: Yeah, that was ridiculous. I would definitely like to know what an imminent threat to America means. An imminent threat to America does not mean that there is an imminent threat to America, but we reserve the right to take action on that imminent threat and stop it from manifesting, even though there is no evidence that it's going to manifest. The thing is, it could manifest in a parallel universe, in which case we would have to take action in this universe to make sure it doesn't attack America in the other universe.

Niall: They are going to rename the 'War on Terror' the 'War on Imminence.'

Joe: The war on imminent terror threats that may or may not; in fact don't exist. About this ISIS thing; ISIS/ISIL/IS; is it or isn't it IS, ISIL or whatever? Basically they are the ideological descendants of the Mujahedeen from the late 1970's and 1980's in Afghanistan that were trained by the US to fight the Russians. Now that's an important point; to fight the Russians. The US has been 'fighting the Russians' since then. They have been fighting them before that but there is an unbroken line, especially in terms of these Mujahedeen and Islamic Terrorists i.e. Proxy death squad fighters in the pay of Western governments.

You had the Mujahedeen in the 70's and 80's fighting the Russians, then they were retooled and updated. They were given rejuvenation serums or something. Younger versions were produced for Iraq like Al-Qaeda.

Harrison: You forget about the Taliban.

Joe: Well the Taliban, but specifically the ones in the pay of the US. It's officially known they were in the pay of the US to fight the Russians, but they were also in their pay to essentially be a proxy army; to be used for whatever they needed them for in the Middle East. To keep the Middle East mixed up and chaotic. They were trained throughout the 10 year occupation of Iraq. That was a perfect opportunity in a long time to get the right numbers and people, train them and arm them, and this latest incarnation after Al-Qaeda disappeared and IS appeared.

Notice that IS really hit the headlines and came out of their caves, bunkers, rat holes and spider holes; when they came out and started sweeping across Iraq; they supposedly came out of Syria but they came out of various different places between Iraq, Syria and Jordan. They were being trained in Jordan, they came from Saudi Arabia and Libya, but they came and swept down through Iraq in this massive blitzkrieg.
They took over large parts of Iraq right after the situation in Ukraine. Ukraine flared up and ISIS appears. So the point of all this is, that the ultimate goal of ISIS is to keep Russia out of the Middle East. Russia is in the Middle East exerting its interests via Iran, Syria and Lebanon and the US wants to stop that from happening.

If you look at a map for this kind of thing to get an idea of the context of where Russia is and where the Middle East is, and Russian access to the Middle East which is a very crucial area in terms of resources, oil, etc. The US wants Russia to stay away, especially now that it's asserting its power. What's the word the US uses? Projecting its power into the Middle East and around the world.

So the US is fighting against that and ISIS plays a very strong part in that because they want to get rid of Syria and Iran next door. There's a threat there for Russia to establish business, trade and military links with Iran, Iraq and Syria in a line. So ISIS come in and it's now being used to justify the bombing of Syria and I'm pretty sure we are going to see that this bombing campaign, which is a full declaration of war. I think the Brits officially declared war the other day. In some form or another they said they are at war now.

Niall: They went to the charade of having a House of Commons vote where MP's voted overwhelmingly in favor. The same House of Commons that last August just about voted against this very same action. Remember the chemical weapons, trumped up nonsense that Russia undercut?

Joe: Russia has been making moves in the background for the past few years like you just mentioned with Syria. They stopped them from bombing Syria last year.

Niall: And in other years before that.

Joe: So Russia, Iran, Syria, and even depending on who's in power in Iraq want Middle East borders to stay the way they are. The plan for Iraq is to carve it up into three smaller States that can be more easily controlled and putting someone in power that is compliant in Iraq and getting rid of Assad in Syria is a move to potentially regime-change in Iran and putting in a Western compliant puppet regime in Iran.

And once you've done that, Russia has been pushed right back almost to its own former borders. But certainly it's far from the Middle East and has no more control. And a big threat these Western American Empire builders is that Russia, along with China and the BRICS, will assert itself in that area of Eurasia. It's essentially about stopping, obstructing or preventing Eurasian integration. And when I say Eurasia here, I'm talking about the Middle East.

Niall: They shouldn't even be called the Middle East. They should be called southwest Asia.

Joe: So that's what ISIS is for. It's in there to stir things up and keep things chaotic. Nouri al-Maliki, who is now the deputy Prime Minister; he used to the Prime Minister of Iraq until a couple of months ago and Obama and the US government publicly said go, you're out of here, and he stepped down. They put in this guy who is a former BBC lift technician.

Niall: No way.

Joe: Yeah, for 20-30 years he was an Iraqi exile and brought in. And because al-Maliki, the guy who stepped down, was told to go by the democratic USA, telling the Prime Minister of other governments to leave; he was Shia and the Iranians are Shia Muslims and he was essentially aligned with Iran and playing the game Iran's way and the US didn't like that because they saw an Iran/Iraq alliance that would support Syria and because of Iran's alliance with Syria and Lebanon; that gets you down into Israel, almost, and all three of them aligned with Russia. That's a serious threat for US control and dominance in the Middle East.

Harrison: And the Israeli's.

Joe: The Israeli's are definitely involved but I think the Israeli's, who like to hedge their bets a lot, are not too concerned about who the next superpower is along as the next superpower allows them to remain the dominant country in the Middle East. As long as it's not shaken up that way they'll drop the Americans in a heartbeat if someone comes along who is the new kid on the block. The Israeli's don't mind as long as they can control them as well, the same way the Mossad control the US government.

But the interesting thing here is that there is this group; and you wrote about it a few years ago as well; the Peoples Muhajideen of Iran, MEK. They were essentially a terrorist organization because in 1953, MI6, the British Intelligence, and the CIA overthrew the democratically elected government of Mosaddegh in Iran and installed a puppet government under the Shah of Iran and then they set up a brutal military police force called SAVAK that was trained by the CIA to enforce the regime that they had just installed. An anti-democratic coup organized by the CIA and MI6 and put in a Pinochet, essentially, for the next 25 years.

In the late 70's there was a revolution that overthrew that Western backed organization and part of that revolutionary movement was this People's Mujahedeen of Iran, MEK in Persian. They were secularists and socialists. But afterwards with the Ayatollah, who established a more hard line; and it was seen after the revolution you had to put some control in place and the Ayatollah came in and it became more of an Islamic State; they didn't get on so well so they left.

They went to Paris and set themselves up there, but several thousand of them set up a headquarters in Iraq in a place that is today called Camp Ashraf which is right on the Iranian border in Iraq. They were given safe haven in Iraq because at that time, the US had been supporting Saddam Hussein against Iran, so Iraq was a safe haven for them out of Iran.

Since then, they have essentially been the Iranian government in exile. And maybe even pre-revolution, when they were set up to overthrow the US puppet dictator, they may have even been a creation or infiltrated by the West at that time too to overthrow their (US) puppet and install a new puppet. They want to overthrow the Iranian regime and they were a terrorist organization when they were fighting against the US' puppet regime in Iran, but in later years they were designated a terrorist organization and more recently in the last 10 years, that terrorist organization was removed from this organization.

Niall: So first they were rebels, like the Syrian rebels, and overnight they became a terrorist group. Now they are back in the position of being the most favored rebels. In fact they are semi-officially designated as the Iranian government-in-exile headquartered in Paris, France where they have been positioned in this huge palatial mansion since the late 1990's. This MEK is the "source" of so much of the BS that's been said about Iran. The whole thing about Iran getting nuclear weapons doesn't actually come directly from Israel. Israel sites the MEK and go 'these are our sources' and of course the MEK are die hard. They want to overthrow.

Joe: And like I said, this MEK were in camp called Ashraf during the US occupation and they were treated very well by the American occupying forces in Iraq, but once the US troops were kicked out or told to leave by al-Maliki's government who was aligned with Iran, moved them off this camp on the Iranian border and brought them back over to Baghdad to a place called Camp Liberty and now they are complaining about being persecuted by the Iraqi government, because at least until al-Maliki was moved down, was aligned Iran and Iran was saying we don't like these people because they are basically CIA operatives. They are Western Orange/Yellow/Persian revolution gang. That's what they are being groomed for and we don't want them on our border.

Niall: They have long since been active and terrorist attacks in Iran have been carried out by them.

Joe: And the Iranians don't want them in this massive compound that has big gates on it. It's like a gated compound for 4000 people. And the US has been grooming them and also keeping them on ice to use for a regime change in Iran. After, let's say a bombing campaign, the US would try to occupy Iran the same way they occupied Iraq and they want to have a ready-made contingent of Iranian freedom fighters and set them up in government. So they were moved back from the border and now they are complaining.

Their leader is a woman called Maryam Rajavi and she has faded in the West and Paris. She lives in France with all the Iranian exiles/ex-pats in France but she actually started her political career back in 1965 when she was part of the revolution which was growing and ended up being the revolution in 1979. But at some point in the 1970's, her sister was killed by the SAVAK, which was the secret police in Iran that had been trained by the CIA under the US puppet government of the Shah, so she was effectively killed by a terrorist police force that was trained by the CIA and now she has apparently forgotten that. She is now fully supporting freedom and democracy from Paris for all 80 million people in Iran and the reason I am saying all of this is because back in June this year, they had a massive MEK rally in Paris.

Niall: They hold them annually.

Joe: Yeah, but this one was 80,000 people in a big venue with flags and I think they had the European national anthem.

Niall: I saw one once. They were rallying in front of the UN headquarters in Brussels.

Joe: They get so much support it's amazing, and this is for the overthrow, or coup in Iran. And these are people who were supposedly, up until six years ago, on the Western and US list of terrorists.

Niall: They still are.

Joe: No, not anymore. They were removed.

Niall: Very recently, though.

Joe: In the past couple of years they were deliberately removed so they could be used to overthrow Iran. And again, like we keep saying, the US wants to get rid of Iran and Syria to thwart Russian interests in Eurasia i.e. Eurasian integration. All of these countries which are all part of the same landmass and Russia being the most powerful one. The US is terrified.

Anyway, you should have seen the people at this rally held. They had all this fanfare, classical music, ticker tape, flags, 80,000 people waving, Rudy Giuliani was there, Newt Gingrich was there, and John Bolton was there.

Niall: Former CIA chiefs turn up and talk at these things.

Joe: The great and the good from the US and NATO countries were all there to support these people. And French politicians stood up and blatantly said it was about freedom and you're going to be free, it will happen, and we are going to install a free democratic government. It's just ridiculous, and all these people waving flags have no idea what they are doing or what they are supporting. Listen to this little excerpt because it has a little bit of an intro of the music, you get an idea of all the fanfare at this event and then a few American speakers.

(Music playing)
"Speaker #1: This evening of reading two, three important messages from the United States Senate. I first want to begin with the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin. He writes "The United States should persist in pressing the government of Iraq to live up to its obligations under the December 2011 agreement with the United Nations to ensure the safety and security of Camp Liberty."

Speaker #2: Some may ask why the United States is interested in Camp Liberty and the thousands of people who live there. It is simple; it is freedom. We are interested in human rights and the very first human right that we all have is to live in freedom no matter where we live in the world.

Speaker #3: America's values are your values and don't give up because we will not give up. Call us terrorists, call us freedom fighters. We will not be daunted by words. We are ready to fight for freedom."
Niall: Sieg heil!

Joe: President elect Rajavi is Maryam Rajavi's useful idiot, or useless idiot, but this is the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee and they are talking about freedom and it's about protecting these 3000 people in Camp Liberty who are essentially Iranian dissidents that have been completely owned by Western governments and intelligence agencies almost since their formation and their only goal and usefulness to them (the West) is to rally the masses for a regime change in Iran and to potentially put them in power, if and when the US decides it's going to invade and occupy Iran.

This is coming from people who are concerned about Camp Liberty, a little camp outside Baghdad of 3000 Iranian exiles and demanding that the Iraqi government protect them; this is from representatives of a government who invaded Iraq, occupied it for 10 years and killed 1.5 million Iraqis? And we are all meant to believe we are interested in their fate just because they are so humanitarian? Really?!

It's absolutely ridiculous and sickening. I can't listen to a US politician of any stripe talk without potentially losing my lunch. Based on what we know and what they've done, and apparently what they should know they've done; hypocrisy isn't the word for it. There needs to be a new term for some super deep, concentrated variety of hypocrisy that is so hypocritical it disappears up its own backside because it talks in such convoluted, lying, manipulative ways that it eventually comes full circle on itself and explodes; which is what should happen.

Niall: Every time these people open their mouths.

Joe: Exactly. It's interesting in the sense that it's about what ISIS is and what it's for, and look at the results of it. ISIS comes immediately after the Ukrainian crisis, it shakes up Iraq, gets rid of the pro-Iranian Prime Minister in Iraq, scares the crap out of Western populations with beheading's on TV and on the basis of that justifies this new bombing war against Syria. Because they are not in a war against Iraq, they are in a war with ISIS/ISIL and they are going to have to bomb Syria. And they (US) have been wanting to get rid of Assad for ages. And why do they want to get rid of him? To neutralize Iran. Why do they want to neutralize Iran? To neutralize Russia.

Niall: Yes, but more generally it's almost like whether they have very accurate stats on it or whether they instinctively react to it; it's any moves or any movements if its more than one simple decision made by any two states within the whole of Eurasia and is a general trend towards the integration between people who live there, then the West is like oh god, we have to stir things up. That's what's going on every time and that's how you ended up with this convoluted situation. Where we are bombing in Syria to get rid of ISIS, not Assad, but they want to get rid of Assad. But we are not sure when we want to get rid of him because that depends on all these other things so we are trying to calculate it as best we can.

Now Joe has given a very good, rational explanation for what's going on in the Middle East. If you were to follow the official line as best you can, this is what it would sound like. This is a letter written to the Daily Mail earlier this month by a member of the public named Aubrey Bailey. She says "Are you confused with what's going on in the Middle East? Let me explain. We support the Iraqi government in the fight against ISIS. We don't like ISIS, but ISIS is supported by Saudi Arabia who we do like. We don't like President Assad (bad man). We support the fight against him but not ISIS, which is also fighting against him. We don't like Iran but Iran supports the Iraqi government against ISIS, so some of our friends support our enemies, and some of our enemies are our friends, and some of our enemies are fighting against our other enemies whom we want to lose, but we don't want our enemies who are fighting our enemies to win. If the people we want to defeat are defeated, they might be replaced by people we like even less. And all of this was started by us invading a country to drive out terrorists who weren't actually there until we went in to drive them out.

Do you get it now?"

Joe: Yeah, that's so clear. It's as clear as mud, but that's why you should ignore the official declarations of what is actually happening.

Niall: Because it won't make sense.

Joe: Because it can't be simplified if you look at it from a broader geopolitical perspective and understand what their broader intentions are. Because their intentions are kept quiet and they make up all sorts of convoluted narratives and explanations as to what actually is going on, and it generally revolves around freedom and democracy. On the one hand, you have what you just described, if you try to understand it, that's what you would come up with. On the other hand you have what the US government says, which is we are just trying to get the bad guys and the truth of the matter behind all that is that the US and its NATO allies are the bad guys. They are trying to prevent true freedom and democracy and the will of the people from being expressed in this particular region of Eurasia.

One example to back up what I was saying about them being afraid of Russia; Russia, this year, reactivated a 2012 agreement with the Iraqi government to sell $4.2 billion worth of weapons to Iraq. That's Russian arm sales to Iraq. There is also Iran striking oil deals with China while China is striking gas deals with Russia, and Russia has oil cooperation deals with Iran. You have a triangle going on over there. You also have Iraq's decision under Maliki, who was forced to step down recently, to be part of an Iran/Iraq/Syria pipeline; Iranian oil through Syria and Iraq. They (US) wants to thwart that.

Niall: That's their worst nightmare in terms of trade.

Joe: And Russia has no problem with this and is happy for all of that to happen because it screws over the US; a shot in the eye for the US and diminishes their control, influence and power, and everything that you're seeing in terms of ISIS is a reaction to that threat that they see looming on the horizon. So just dispense with all the rhetoric, bullshit and fear mongering about ISIS and realize they are just a proxy force and army; the type that has been used many, many times throughout the past 100 years and longer all around the world, but primarily by the US and the British. They are a proxy force with a twist. Usually you use your proxy armies to attack countries that you don't want to attack yourself.

Niall: They have a specific strategic goal.

Joe: They are a proxy army that's let off the leash a little bit that you can then use as an enemy. It's kind of like tagging your actual enemy with a terrorist marker and then everyone says "oh, terrorist!" but you put the terrorist marker there. You set up an ISIS dummy in Syria or wherever you want with a knife and balaclava and make it say that it's going to cut off the heads of Westerners and then you get to attack it.

Niall: That's for making sure they can tie in what's going on 10,000 miles that-a-way with the imminent threat right here at home. That's the only reason for that theater; that's for home consumption.

Joe: Yeah.

Niall: Did any of you listen to the UN speeches?

Harrison: I read some summaries.

Niall: Yeah I cheated, I was afraid to, but I did listen to Lavrov's. The guy is just a relative fount of sensibility. He discussed these natural forces of integration. I think that would be over the heads of a lot of people but he said exactly the same thing we are saying here. He didn't say it in so many words but that there is chaos and there's what's going to happen. Anyway, one way or another absent the world being blown up in the eventuality of some all-out conflict, which is very unlikely. Did you see the report about the homegrown beheading? I think it was today or yesterday.

Joe: Where?

Niall: Hang on a second, I'll find it.

Joe: In Americuh?

Niall: In Americuh. From Oklahoma "A recently fired man beheads co-worker at Oklahoma Food Plant. A man fired from an Oklahoma Food Processing Plant has decapitated one of his coworkers and attacked another one before being neutralized. FBI say the subject recently converted to Islam" he's a big 6'4 foot black guy. "Soon after he was fired, the 30 year old employee Alton Nolen walked into the front office of the Vaughan Food Processing Plant in Moore, Oklahoma and attacked and killed an employee with a knife, severing her head." Oh my god, that is gross. Now, is that a consequence or related...

Joe: It's a bit coincidental, to say the least. But that's the way these people operate. They know how to push peoples' buttons and they do it. People should immunize themselves against that kind of button pushing, as horrible as it is. But the fairly obvious agenda is behind it; all you have to do is stop believing in the freedom and democracy narrative, or version of the world, and start believing in the reality which is the lying, manipulative, no depths to which they won't stoop psychopathic narrative, and then it all makes sense.

Niall: Maybe this will give you hope, Joe. 400,000 people were protesting across the US last week.

Joe: Protesting what? Oh yes, we talked about this last week.

Niall: They are out en masse.

Joe: Yeah, they are protesting against carbon footprints. Some of them are protesting against fracking which is a good thing, but a lot of them are saying we can change the world by reducing our carbon footprint. Let's greenify industry and all start driving green cars that run on grass.

Niall: And as part of the UN series of scheduled security meetings; guess who came up to give a speech? He's the recently appointed UN messenger for peace.

Joe: Yeah!

Niall: This is straight out of Team America.

Joe: It was part of their plan.

Niall: Leonardo DiCaprio. Film Actors Guild.

Joe: Absolutely! The Film Actors Guild are going to save the world. They must have taken that from Team America. If nobody's watched it, you should watch the puppet movie 'Team America: World Police'. It's made by the guys that do South Park but it's actually very funny.

Niall: A lot of it has come to pass.

Joe: Especially with Leonardo DiCaprio standing up at the UN with a let's save the world together type of thing by reducing your carbon footprint, etc.

Niall: Could it get any more Hollywood?

Joe: No. They have a Hollywood actor. They did it first with Ronald Reagan but at least he became a politician, but Leonardo DiCaprio acts for a living. He's an actor and everything he does is fake or false. So in that sense, having him up there talking about climate change and global warming at the UN and with all the UN delegates listening intently to him, is perfect because that's a completely fake fantasy notion. Global Warming is pure fantasy, so having someone who portrays fiction and fantasy and make believe for a living give that speech is...

Niall: His first words were "I'm an actor."

Joe: So don't believe anything I say.

Niall: "I pretend and I'm involved in fictitious stories. I'm no expert in this." He says all this.

Joe: So why are you there?

Niall: He says 'I'm here as a concerned citizen.'

Joe: Just your average concerned citizen.

Niall: Among the things he said was "How can anyone deny that unusual climate events are happening every week." And of course the gist of the message is we must do something and he specifically said we need to slap major taxes on oil, coal and gas use, etc. He obviously hasn't thought that through because right there you are going to starve and kill two billion people.

Joe: It doesn't matter. You'll save the polar bears and the animals. It doesn't matter about the people. Save the polar bears and screw the people, and the response would be (audio clip of applause). That's the kind of response you get from a lot of people whenever someone says 'save the animals.'

Niall: But his first point there, "How can anyone deny the strange events happening" and he specifically sites massive methane out-gassing, volcanoes erupting...

Joe: (audio clip of applause) what else did he site?

Niall: Drought and extreme flooding events. All true.

Joe: But how are we going to fix it?

Niall: I guess we are going to put a cork in the volcanic vents under the ocean.

Joe: (Applause) Yes, yes!

Niall: They like that one.

Joe: You got that one right. They like that idea. By the way, that's the UN. We have a direct link to them and they are listening to our conversation, so every time Niall says something that is UN approved, they applaud. I don't know why; we have no control over it. How else? Drought? What are we going to do about the drought?

Niall: We are going to collect the rainwater from all the deluges inundating cities everywhere and we are going to transport it. Wait that would mean increased consumption.

Joe: (UN applause) Alright, sounds good.

Niall: Alright, we are going to transport it directly to places. Yes, thank you.

Joe: They liked that? Methane out-gassing from the sea floor?

Niall: There was the one recently, about a year ago, they are going to capture an incoming asteroid and deflect its orbit so that it loops around the moon and as it's doing that loop de loop around the moon, it will spray asteroid dust over the planet, that blocks out the suns' rays and global warming goes down.
(UN Applause)

Joe: I think they...

Niall: Oh yeah! I think they like it. That's struck a chord!

Joe: Yeah, you're hitting all the marks here Neill, you're on a roll. You can burn off the methane out-gassing and set half of the Atlantic on fire, burn it off and use the heat to help people suffering from cold in India.
(UN Applause)

Niall: Aye; I think they like that too.

Joe: These are all good, good solutions. Why weren't we invited to the UN to stand up and say these things? At least they are getting some idea of them now since they are on our live satellite link, but are there any other things that are bothering people who care a lot about polar bears? Any other major events? We mentioned droughts, floods, methane out-gassing and volcanic eruptions. Can we do anything about earthquakes, first of all are they tied to global warming?

Niall: They never try to explain this. They won't try to connect in what way increased CO2 production caused by humans causes earthquakes and more methane eruptions.

Joe: So what you are saying is that we should ignore that? (UN Applause)

Niall: Yes, nothing to see here! But the thing is, DiCaprio, in his UN speech, sites those very things which are impossible to link with.

Joe: Not if you've got a good imagination.

Niall: There is a lot of mental gymnastics involved here.

Joe: Droughts?

Niall: Humans produce too much CO2. That causes the atmosphere to heat up except that the atmosphere is cooling! Oh, I know what happened, that heat went into the oceans, except the upper layers of the atmosphere are colder as well. Ah, but the layers down below are much warmer. That's where it went down there and it's causing all the methane to come up. They have got it completely backwards.

Joe: Okay, but how does the warming of the planet cause earthquakes? I'm sure there is a link there. Is it the drought because what I have seen is that drought is obviously associated with warming; when it's warm you have droughts, even thought you might have flash floods 10 miles away. But ignore that for a minute, or forever.

So warming causes drought and I have seen in drought areas there are cracks in the ground and I may be wrong, but I think there is a correlation between those cracks and the cracks that happen sometimes when you have an earthquake. (UN applause) Bingo! There's your answer, it's global warming. You've seen it! Because you've seen the cracks from the drought and that they are similar to earthquake cracks and maybe those cracks allow things to fall down there that cause earthquakes.

Niall: Fall down there to cause earthquakes? (Laughter)

Harrison: That's where Saddam's weapons of mass destruction are.

Joe: That's where they are possibly hiding! That's a good point, Harrison. (UN applause) The UN seems to agree with you. I wish they would stop clapping, it's a bit over the top.

Niall: It's because we are famous actors. Harrison, you saw something in the paper recently that highlights the absurdity of trying to hold two completely opposing illogical explanations at the same time.

Harrison: So this was in the English language newspaper for France, The Connexion. So on page four we have the headline "Nice as hot as Cairo if climate changes continue." I'll read a little bit of it. "By the end of this century, temperatures in parts of France could be more like North Africa with average thermometer readings up to 5.3 degrees Celsius in summer and perhaps considerably more in the southeast. That would make July temperatures in Nice warmer than Cairo and Paris' warmer than Nice is today. A report from the Ecology Ministry by Matteo Francs and other scientists led by climatologist Jean Jouzel also said that winters would be warmer by up to 3.6% but they would have more rain."

Niall: 3.6% of what? (Laughter)

Harrison: Matteo Francs Climate Research Chief Sergey Paltsev said "With a worst-case scenario, the summer of 2003, which saw a severe heatwave that killed nearly 20,000 elderly people in France and 70,000 people across Europe, could become the norm after 2070." And of course, blah, blah, blah, the solution is to reduce greenhouse gas. And on page five in the news "Power supply warning for future winters." Now of course, the article itself is talking about power plants being shut down in France and not being able to have enough energy to provide for all the electric heaters and homes in the winters in France.

But if you just look at the headlines it makes a striking dichotomy. The world isn't getting warmer anymore. That stopped years ago; more than a decade ago, and we have been having worse winters. So there is some truth in here for the power supply warning for the future. Even if there is going to be a problem with the amount of energy because of these plants closing down, the world and winters are getting cooler. Just September 19th we saw temperatures in New York reach the freezing mark for the first time in 60 years. You get statistics like that all the time. We've got record and early snowfalls.

Joe: Yeah, record early-snowfalls in Wyoming and South Dakota. Basically what they are saying is that despite the evidence out there as it's happening such as early snow, record snow and record cold over the past four or five winters. All the evidence is pointing to increasingly extremely cold winters across the Northern Hemisphere yet they are shutting down power generating plants that will provide for people to keep warm in the winter and reminding you to just deal with that shock, they are saying Nice will be warmer than Cairo one of these days for like a week during the summer, if you're still alive after you froze during the winter. We have a call on the line. We are going to go ahead and take it. Hi, do we have a call on the line?

Caller: Hi, this is Kent from West Virginia.

Joe: Hi, Kent.

Kent: First of all, you were talking about fracking. I'm the heart of a fracking territory here in West Virginia near Pennsylvania, and of course we're hearing that it takes 1,000,000 gallons of water to frack the well. People are worried about the water supply but never fear; with all that gas, they can use it to power desalinization plants. I know that's what they are thinking. So they can destroy all the water and then they can use all the gas to desalinate the ocean.

Joe: They can destroy all the water and then fix it again after the oligarchs and psychos in power in the oil and gas companies have made their billions, then they'll portion some of that to clean up the water that they turned into deadly, toxic, flammable water.

Kent: You got it.

Joe: Oh sorry, we ran out of money.

Kent: You should be on the Board of Directors. (Laughter)

Niall: Applause; applause!

Kent: You were talking about cracks in the earth and there is supposed to be some mountain up in the Canaries or an island off Spain or Portugal, and there is supposed to be a crack in it that if it ever were to slip, it would slide right into the ocean.

Niall: Yeah.

Kent: You've heard about that?

Joe: Yes; be still my beating heart. (Laughter)

Niall: It might create a tsunami.

Joe: I'm waiting for it.

Kent: That would be it for Dublin and every place else. Global warming might set off that crack and now I just heard that there's somebody come out who knows about the Japanese tsunami in Fukushima that claims there is a 20x20x2 kilometer thick section of the Japanese trench underneath the ocean slipped down and that's why it created a tsunami which is bigger than what ever could have been anticipated. So now that will be translated into fear about that mountain top down in the Canaries, and of course global warming, and talking about the crack in the earth, so there you go; that's a whole new area of fear we can all be experts in.

Joe: Absolutely.

Kent: We can get a PhD in that.

Joe: Exactly; yeah! Disaster capitalism.

Kent: Anyways, I just thought I would add that and appreciate your show.

Joe & Niall: Thanks Kent. Take it easy.

Niall: The thing about some of these cases; and I know the one that was done in the Canaries; that's based on geological studies that theorize it has happened before. The more definite case where a trench off the coast of Norway is very likely the culprit for a massive tidal wave that they couldn't explain beforehand, that inundated Norway at some point. We're talking about geological timescales so this isn't something recent, but semi-massive events like that have happened in the past. Also, these things happen in clusters. They come together with other types of events, and we know in fact that they are reported at the same time as massive social upheaval at different periods of history.

So on the one hand, don't panic and lighten up when it comes to any one individual event maybe happening, but that and worse happens all the time. Look what happened in Japan yesterday. There are 250 people right now stuck on top of what they thought was a mountaintop. It's been dormant since, I don't know when. It just exploded out of the blue. In the latest report, 30 people have been buried under ash on Mount Ontake in central Japan. They were caught off guard.

Joe: Absolutely. It was like a thief in the night, as the Bible says.

Niall: That's the second major eruption this month. The Iceland one, too.

Joe: Yeah.

Niall: Speaking of cracks in the ground.

Joe: Yeah, in Crimea.

Niall: A Crimean sinkhole.

Joe: There's a big sinkhole opened up near Sevastopol in Crimea and it was eight meters wide by six meters deep, so about 25-30 feet wide by about 20 feet deep and a car fell into it which killed about six people.

Niall: It was a lot deeper than 6.

Joe: The car was crushed, it fell in and the six occupants were killed, which I think is the first time that a car has fallen into a sinkhole and a person has been killed. A lot of cars have fallen in, even people have fallen in to sinkholes, but this is the first time a car full of people have and all of them died falling into a sinkhole, which is bizarre.

Niall: It wasn't on some country road; it was on a highway. Check it out on YouTube. It was almost a perfect puncture hole straight down.

Joe: I think we'll end tonight on some good news and it's that NATO's Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen is leaving! He's leaving soon and we no longer have to suffer his interminable spewing of para-moralistic horseshit to the world, justifying war crimes and murder of innocent people in Libya, and he's trying to do it in Syria as well. But in a parting shot or missive to the Independent, he said that Putin's Russia has been his biggest regret during his five terms as NATO Secretary General. He had nothing good to say about Russia.

He claimed that Russia has been showing "utter disregard for international law and a brutal determination to redraw borders by force. The pattern is clear; from Moldova to Georgia and now in Ukraine, Russia uses a mix of economic, political propaganda and military pressure to produce instability and manufacture hot conflicts which it can freeze at will." Well if they are, Foghy, they've learned it from you and your ilk. So you have no one to blame but yourself so Fogh off!

He said the world is different from when he became Secretary General just five years ago, and yeah, it's much worse because of people like him. But interestingly, he said that "NATO must work even closer with like-minded partners around the world to uphold the rules-based global order on which we have built peace and prosperity." Apparently we all live in a rules-based global order.

Niall: Yeah, psycho rules.

Joe: I'm not sure about the peace and prosperity except for a few elite. But he gave this parting editorial in the independent newspaper and I read some of it but I didn't read it all because it was more of the usual bullshit. I was just heartened to see an official statement that he was actually leaving because I was getting worried that he wasn't. Would he try and stay on for another five years? Thankfully he's gone. I'm just concerned who is going to represent the evil alliance after him. I think they are already chosen but I don't know who it is, but we will keep watching out for that and keep the earplugs handy.

Niall: So, we'll leave it there for this week.

Joe: I think so.

Harrison: I've got one thing to say.

Joe: Okay, Harrison, take us out.

Harrison: This is just a slight correction to something we were talking about last week about Ebola and the CDC report. The advanced news was from Bloomberg that the CDC report had projected 500,000 cases of Ebola by the end of January. The CDC has since released a report and it is 1.4 million cases. Almost three times as much.

Niall: They've upped it.

Harrison: Yeah, they have.

Joe: So 1.4 million cases of Ebola by January?

Harrison: By January.

Niall: And the death rate is 50%.

Harrison: That's another thing we said last week; a death rate of 50%. It's actually not 50%. 50% of the people infected with Ebola have died so far but that doesn't translate into what the actual death rate is. The death rate is 84%, because that only counts the number of people who currently have Ebola and the number of people who have died, but of the number who currently have Ebola, 84% will die. They are saying it's 50%, but if you actually look at the statistics, the actual survival rate of people who have recovered from Ebola is only 16%.

Joe: So 1.5 million people with Ebola by the end of January and an 84% mortality rate is 1.26 million people, who should be dead from Ebola by early next year.

Niall: Don't panic, though! The good news is American troops have started landing.

Joe: That's right, as we mentioned last week they have arrived in Sierra Leone and various countries in Africa.

Harrison: They're going to kick that Ebola back to the Stone Age.

Joe: Exactly. Apparently they are going to destroy it with freedom and democracy.

Niall: Oh my God! So much for ending on a positive note.

Joe: It is positive because they are wearing protective gear to make sure they don't get it. The protective gear is basically the American flag that they wrap themselves in and then they're immune from Ebola. So all Americans back home should take note that if you want to protect yourself from Ebola, you need to wrap yourself in the American flag; and eat some of it as well!

Niall: There's a mantra they have to recite, isn't there? 'There's no god like Jehovah, there's no god like Jehovah.'

Joe: Exactly! No, that's obviously not the way to protect yourself from Ebola, which is wrapping yourself with the American flag. The best way to protect yourself from Ebola, and any virus, is to make sure you don't feed it, and the way you don't feed it is by keeping a low carb diet. And you can also protect your own cells by viruses, by eating animal fat. Because when you have good, natural animal fat that you can digest and your body can assimilate, it essentially enhances or creates a protective fat sheath around your cells and it adds extra protection from the invasion of viruses into your cells.

So a high fat, animal fat, butter, low carb diet, and cold adaptation. Have cold showers and boost your immune system. Those two things are the best way to prepare for Ebola if you don't want to contract it. We won't get into how you die from Ebola, but there you go, look it up if you really want to know. People need to know these things!

Niall: Absolutely.

Joe: It's not a pretty world. We make light of it, but it's not a nice place to be. You can't get too focused on it, otherwise you'll just throw the towel in, and you can't lose hope - real hope. Not Obama hope. Hope that things will eventually right themselves in this world and that justice will be served, if not by a human agency then some other agency. Some natural force. And smoking of course is a surprisingly a good way to protect against viral infections.

I know some of the people listening to this may be horrified. Some of you may have already fainted at that statement, but there is historical evidence to show that, for example, during the plague, tobacco was used for protection. During the Black Death people who smoked did not contract the virus as much as other people did, or even at all. So smoking, animal fat, lots of bacon, keep your carbs low, and the odd cold shower is good for you. That's the hopeful message at the end of tonight's show. Do all those wonderfully fun things, and you have much better sense.

So, as we said, we are going to leave it there for this week, folks. Thanks to our callers, chatters and listeners, and thanks to my co-hosts Niall Bradley and Harrison Koehli. We will be back next week with another show. Until then, have a good one, stay safe, keep your eyes open and be good. Bye!

Niall: Bye!

Harrison: Take care.