All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 10, 1998 - Art Bell
02:27:57
Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Joel Skousen - Strategic Relocation
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
To talk with Art Bell in the Kingdom of Nile, from east of the Rockies, dial 1.
West of the Rockies, including Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, 1-800-618-8255.
First-time callers may reach Art at area code 702-727-1222.
First-time callers may reach out at area code 702-727-1222.
And you may call out on the wildcard line at area code 702-727-1295.
To reach out from outside the U.S., first dial your access number to the USA, then 800-893-0903.
This is Coast to Coast AM, from the Kingdom of Nye, with Art Bell.
It is, and in a moment, Joel Skousen, who is a high security designer and consultant, and wrote a book called Strategic Relocation.
North American Guide to Safe Places.
Safe places?
Safe from what?
And where?
Well, we'll find out.
We all know, I think, there's a lot coming.
Now, on to something else, and that something else is Joel Skousen, who wrote Strategic Relocation, North American Guide to Safe Places.
Joel, welcome to the show.
Thank you very much, Art.
You have spent your adult life as a high security designer slash consultant.
All of my professional career after I got out of the military service, I spent time as an F-4 pilot in the Vietnam era.
Oh, you did?
Were you actually in Vietnam?
No, I was actually in one of the staging squadrons in Hawaii just as the war was winding down in the early 70s.
I see.
The war was very politicized at that point, and it wasn't considered desirable duty to be getting shot at.
You couldn't arm your weapons until a missile was actually on the way towards you.
I'll just start getting angry if I... That's a real sore point with me.
A very sore point.
Anyway, listen.
The reason you're here tonight is because you wrote this book, and, A Strategic Relocation, North American Guide to Safe Places.
I think before we decide where the safe places are, we should ask you, why do we need safe places?
In other words, safe from what?
Well, at least half of my book covers a detailed analysis of all of What I call local and also national-international strategic threats.
Strategic threats differ from local or tactical threats in the sense that they have the potential of affecting an entire nation or even the world at one time.
So, unlike the Northridge earthquake where they could pull in supplies from the rest of the United States, you don't have that option.
It is a strategic threat.
Oh, in other words, a strategic threat.
Would be beyond the scope of even FEMA or large aid organizations like the Red Cross or anybody else for that matter for at least a period of time to even help.
Precisely.
Meaning, hey folks, guess what?
You're on your own.
Is that about right?
And one of the things that interacts with that is when you don't have organized help, organized people moving machinery, You run into a major problem with population density.
That becomes the major factor affecting strategic safe places, the population density.
Because when anarchy reigns, or when even a small core of malicious people begin to run rampant, then things break down very, very rapidly.
Even good people start to panic, and then there's no place to go.
I'm afraid it's true, and of course we have examples of that that we could roll through.
Civilization, I tell my audience all the time, they don't realize how thin a thread what we call civilization or civilized behavior hangs by.
Very small, thin thread indeed.
Easily broken.
And I guess, let us begin with, as you know, I've interviewed Gary North.
And Gary North has some damn frightening things to say about what he believes is going to occur with regard to Y2K.
Now, Gary says it's unavoidable.
Now, if we... I guess if we lay out ahead of time how serious it potentially is going to be, then somebody might wake up and it might be not quite as serious But frankly, Gary North says, look, it's too late.
It's going to happen.
Y2K is going to happen.
The power grids are going to go down for a period of time, and a lot more.
Banks, all this sort of thing.
Do you agree with that assessment?
Well, Gary and I are good friends, and I moderate a couple of his forums on the Internet, but we do disagree in part with that analysis.
And here's my reasoning.
Gary's absolutely right about the fact that Y2K is going to happen.
Most of the computers are not going to be ready in a complete sense.
What he fails to analyze, however, though, is how much of that, in fact, will cause a major breakdown.
Just because they aren't going to be compliant doesn't necessarily mean that it has to.
Well, here's the reason I bought what he had to say about the power grids.
Because we've seen, for example, Western regional failures, covering virtually about a third of the Western U.S.
up into Canada, down into Mexico, that came, they tell us, from one little power plant in Idaho that failed.
One.
One little power plant.
When Y2K Day comes, even if Gary North is half right, even if he's 25% correct, it seems to me the grid doesn't stand a chance.
Well, there's another side to that story, though, Art.
Okay.
Let's hear it.
And that is that the reason that shutdown occurred in the western United States was because it was all Interconnected under automatic maintenance software.
That's right.
And all they have to do, frankly, and there are plans in the works, to disconnect the automatic features of the grid, so that Canada is no longer automatically connected to the U.S.
grid, so that the U.S.
is not connected.
They can separate it into at least four or five major areas, so that if the ones that are the highest risk, for example, in the Northeast, those that are Maybe you can answer this for me, because the psychology of the grid has always befuddled me.
only have regional outages rather than taking down in an automatic sense all the other power
plants.
Maybe you can answer this for me because this is the second, the psychology of the grid
has always befuddled me. I thought that the whole idea of the grid was that if one area
goes down, it's not a problem because the other is in effect back feed power and take
care of that area that is down.
That was the idea of the grid.
Exactly.
But it was the idea of the grid that killed it.
Is that about right?
Well, that's right.
It's very much akin to the mentality of generating companies.
There is no automatic provision that any generating manufacturer makes for an automatic transfer switch that can pull itself out of the automatic mode and go manual.
Now, think about that, Art.
I'm trying.
In other words, every single automatic generator transfer switch is designed so that it never comes back off that mode until the power comes back on.
So I ask a generator manufacturer, well, what happens if the power stays off for two months and there's not enough fuel to run the generator?
Yes.
He'd never consider that.
Here's a generator manufacturer, major one in the United States, never even considered that the power might be off for two months.
Well, that is also what Gary North said, that if it continues, if it stays off for a certain period of time, the deliveries of fuel to the plants will stop, and then the whole situation will compound itself, and we could be off for a very long time.
That's what he believes.
Well, theoretically that's possible, but in fact, one of the things that I did when Gary and I discussed this is I went and started calling some of the people and finding out, well, what are the workarounds that you can do?
And here's what I found.
This was rather disturbing.
First of all, most of the utility companies and the railroads had not really been working or putting any time or money into workarounds.
They were spending all of their money and trying to get Y2K compliant, because that's the politically correct thing to do.
So, there hasn't been a lot, but when you press them, for example, let's take the situation of utilities with automated substation control systems.
They're all, most of them are computerized now.
And I said, well, why don't you put back in manual switches?
And he responded, well, they don't make them anymore.
They don't make them anymore?
No, obviously, you know, everybody's going to computerized switches, so for backup they go to multiple computerized switches.
Rather than having any manual capability.
Aye, aye, aye.
And so it looks as if, if you look at that evidence right on his face, you say, oh, there's no chance then, Gary North is right, it's going to go down.
And I said, but wait a minute.
Let's suppose that you don't have anything but those automatic switches in there, and they go down, and people are freezing this, and you've got to get them back on.
What can you do?
And he thought for a minute, and he says, well, we can open up the switch box and actuate them manually.
I said, well, explain to me how you do that.
And he says, well, Every computer I switch has a manual solenoid relay in there.
Right.
And every technician in the world knows how to put a screwdriver to that thing and actuate it manually, and may void the warranty.
But if somebody wants us to do it, and someone dissolves us of liability, we can get that power back on.
Well, if a community's out of power, to hell with the warranty.
You see, that's the key, what I'm saying, Art, is that There are workarounds, but most of these Y2K problems have to do with safety software, with maintenance software, with regulatory software.
And it's all tied in with liability and government regulation.
And all the bureaucrats in the power industry and the railroads are paralyzed by the regulatory fever that compounds everything.
And when push comes to shove, I think, because I think the The establishment in government has decided that they don't want Y2K to destabilize their power base.
They're pouring out all the stops, showing signs of pulling out all the stops to get this thing fixed.
Well, you know, when I had Gary North on, a lot of people went, boy, what a bunch of scary BS.
But now suddenly, boy, there's been programs on it.
C-SPAN has done a big program on it.
Suddenly everybody's on Y2K.
And frankly, a lot of people are agreeing with Gary North.
Now, you're partially disagreeing with him.
In what areas do you agree with him?
What do you think is going to happen on that horrid little day?
Well, in the first place, I think that the power companies are going to separate the grid, so that I don't think the grid will go down in one fell swoop.
I think there will be power outages and power in short supply.
And a lot of that depends on what government does with the NRC, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
If they tell them to loosen up the rules a little bit and allow those plants to operate, because they can't operate without the regulatory software being operational.
Then there's not going to be any major power failures.
Is the regulatory software going to be fixed in time?
No, it is not.
Gary's right about all of that.
He is, huh?
The stuff is not going to be fixed.
The railroads are a mess.
But there are workarounds in almost every one of those situations when you really go in and see what's available.
The problem with implementing the workarounds, you have a bureaucratic mentality, you have a litiguous atmosphere.
The government's already putting legislation in view that's going to kind of absolve people of some of that potential litigation so that they can get things done.
And for that reason, I think that the old hammer and chisel technology, the American workman's going to get in there and get these things fixed.
What I do agree with is that for two weeks, I think two weeks is the real vulnerability time.
Because if power goes out for even a week, you're going to see social unrest in the major metro areas.
There's no question.
Two weeks?
Oh my.
There was a movie which I talked to Gary about.
What was the name of that movie?
You probably know it.
Yeah, The Trigger Effect.
The Trigger Effect, thank you.
And it didn't take two weeks for The Trigger Effect to begin to happen.
And I, in fact, live in a large metropolitan area.
I would think After about two or three days, what you saw in the trigger effect would begin to become reality.
What do you think?
Very possible.
And I'm very concerned about the major metro areas, especially the bad boy areas, where you have a lot of crummy people just waiting for a time to take advantage of something like this.
But what I'm saying is, if it gets itself solved within two weeks, it's not going to end up in a meltdown of society scenario.
That's what I disagree with.
You disagree with a complete meltdown, but you do believe there will be a period.
I do.
Of disruption.
Yes.
Social unrest.
Yes.
And so that leads you then to write a book about where it's safe and where it's not.
And especially how to develop contingency plans so that you can get out of town temporarily without in fact Disconnecting yourself from your entire financial lifeline.
All right.
We'll pick up on that right after the bottom of the hour.
This is Coast to Coast AM.
And now, back to the best of Art Bell.
All right.
So, you and Gary North disagree about the severity of what will occur, because you think there will be some work around.
But you also think there'll be a period of time when things are going to get rough.
Where are they going to get rough?
I don't perceive that in any of the rural areas that they're going to get rough, except for places that are totally without power.
I am afraid that the rural areas, that there are some areas that buy power completely off the grid that don't have any manufacturing capabilities locally themselves.
And they're going to be cut off, I'm afraid, in order to feed the big cities.
So they could have a hardship, not in terms of social unrest, but just in terms of a hardship without electricity, and are going to need some alternative generating power, which is going to get in short supply, I think, as the news about Y2K gets further out.
But in terms of social unrest, the major big bad cities, the L.A.
Basin, I think, is definitely going to have a very high probability of erupting, as well as some major east coast cities, Florida, Miami area.
I would say San Francisco is a possibility as well.
Let's back off from that for a second.
Let me ask you a question I've never asked.
And I think this is really important.
And it is the psychological aspect of this.
Whether or not anything actually happens, and I have become convinced at least something is going to happen, but let us assume that nothing occurs for a moment and the power is on.
Isn't it kind of getting people worked up into an anticipation of this event that could, in itself, promote problems?
We see a little bit of that on the internet on this relocation forum that I moderate.
For example, we have a lot of internet interrupters or lurkers that continue to post taunting messages and threatening messages.
Minority people out there waiting for something to happen so that they can launch and do whatever imaginary things they want to do.
Bad, bad behavior.
Yes.
Rather disturbing, but I think that's a fairly small percentage, and they are concentrated in the large metro areas, I'm afraid.
You know, there's another interesting side effect to this.
There is a fairly Not a small sector of the conservative movement that is almost hoping that this is the thing that brings down big bad government.
And I'm not a fan of big government.
I have a long history of fighting against this tyranny and new order that they're proposing to come about.
But I think it's very naive to think that this Y2K is going to be allowed to bring down Spiritual and bad government.
And I think that they're showing signs very strongly that, in fact, that they really, I think, theoretically, have wanted to use the year 2000 as a success story for big government, as something to point the finger at the gloom and doomers, at the Christian prophecy people, at the New Age prophecy people, and say, you see, these people are the enemies.
These are destabilizing society.
And I think they really want to pull out all the stops in the media propaganda ploy to point the finger at people who have been negative about society.
So in order to do this, I think they have to make sure that Y2K doesn't become a major problem.
And if it is a minor problem for a short period of time, I think government wants to come out the hero.
And I think they're setting themselves up to do this as much as they can.
Well, I did notice that even President Clinton finally made reference to Y2K, and he kind of hedged.
You know, he kind of hedged.
In effect, conceding there may be a problem ahead.
So, your scenarios are interesting, and I don't disagree with you.
There are certain groups of people out there that literally hope this kind of thing will occur.
I think shining the light of day on it will lessen it myself.
In other words, the more we tell people about what could occur, the more pressure builds to do something about it to ensure it doesn't.
And if government were taking the stand of denial, which they're not at this point, and they take a very proactive role in this, if they were taking the denial stand, then one might suspect that they really wanted something to occur.
You look at, for example, one of the major side effects of Y2K will most certainly be a destabilization of the stock market.
In fact, the government is intervening in massive amounts to get this 300 point downturn turned around, including, you know, backhanded payments to certain big corporations which turned in a billion dollars into the stock market two days ago in order to... Oh, I know they do that.
You can almost see the intervention occurring.
If you watch the ticker during the day, you can see, you can If you're smart, you can actually sense the moment of intervention.
And because of that intervention, though, that does tell you what... You see, so much a part of what is important in strategic analysis is not so much watching the natural flows of human behavior in the free market anymore, it's watching for intervention.
It's watching for those that conspire to intervene and to change what would naturally happen.
And I think it becomes very, very important that once I learned as much from reading the New York Times and the Washington Post as I do from reading the Washington Times, because you learn from what the control press is saying.
You learn what their motives are, what they're trying to promote, what they're trying to push.
Right now, the establishment is really trying to push stability and an even keel.
And at some point, it's very interesting historically, that before war, and there will be war in the future, that's one of the major strategic threats coming on the heels of Y2K, the establishment always pulls the depression first.
And so, when we see them supporting the stock market in massive amounts now, we'll see them at some future time, I predict, at the year or so after Y2K, that they'll pull the plug on the market.
Really?
But I think the Y2K will, in effect, destabilize the market it will take every bit of power they've
got to keep these markets up
this combined with the asian crisis has got some very negative
fundamentals pulling down on the market and it doesn't take very much
for a ballooned up market uh... to lose public confidence that's why it's very important to watch what kind of power
they've got to continue to be in the public. Well a balloon which is
particularly blown up past its usual capacity
has a very thin skin and it doesn't take much to break it Exactly.
That's another way of saying what you said.
Yeah.
So, you began to study, I guess, based on, by the way, and you said war, do you actually anticipate a war?
And if so, where do you think the next war might be?
It's very interesting.
The next war is coming from the sector that the entire establishment media is in total denial.
You know, they'll talk about China and the threat.
They'll talk about North Korea.
They'll talk about Iraq.
They'll talk about Bosnia.
They'll never talk about Russia.
Russia is benign.
It's our ally.
There's nothing that Russia can do that is dangerous.
In fact, the media is full of negative propaganda about how weak the military is, about how decimated the morale is.
But that is true.
I mean, that to some degree is accurate.
Absolutely.
There is some.
Look, they haven't paid some of their soldiers in three months.
But you want to remember there's a reason for that.
It's not that they don't have the money.
They are carefully manipulating the Sun Tzu doctrine of feigning weakness.
In order to feign weakness, you have to put out a fair amount of propaganda.
And it's got to be true and verifiable that there's weakness.
Why is this not being reported?
In other words, as you point out, the mainstream press never mentions Russia anymore.
The strength that they really have is in their new weaponry that they're developing, pouring
billions into, the new underground manufacturing and nuclear capabilities which they're building,
the chemical, biological, and other weapons.
Why is this not being reported?
In other words, as you point out, the mainstream press never mentions Russia anymore.
As you point out, they depict them as benign.
You're saying BS.
They're not paying their people.
They're developing weapons of mass destruction?
They are.
I mean, look at this complete underground nuclear complex.
Factories and live-in factories in conditions the size of the entire Washington, D.C.
metroplex.
Underground on the Auro Mountains.
Reported by the New York Times about a year and a half ago.
And our Yes Men intelligence community made excuses that this was totally defensive.
I mean, it's just laughable the degree to which the administration will go to protect it.
But you see, that tells you something.
When you look at how much they're protecting it, look in contrast, for example, one little violation from Saddam Hussein for not letting a few inspectors in.
And we raise the entire specter of war, don't we?
Correct.
Russia has never let our inspectors in.
Has been in total violation of numerous treaties for years.
Do we complain?
Do we threaten war?
Do we even say there's a problem?
You see, what I'm saying is the cover-up always tells you something.
What you're saying, if I can cut through, and I think I can, I think what you're saying is that we are actually in league with the Russians in hiding the fact that A nuclear exchange, and I presume that's what you're talking about, between Russia and the U.S.
is, according to you, not only possible, but perhaps probable?
Not only that, Art, it's being invited.
The Clinton administration is inviting an attack.
How so?
Well, last December they changed the American nuclear doctrine.
It was announced by James Bell, NSC advisor, that President Clinton has signed an order on December 7th, interestingly enough.
Changing American nuclear response doctrine that no longer would we launch on warning, that we would, in fact, absorb a first strike in the interest of peace.
What?
That's right.
You didn't hear that.
No, I didn't hear that.
Where did you?
It was on NPR radio for almost three days, including... No, hell no, I haven't heard that.
What do you mean, we would absorb a strike in the interest of peace?
This is what they said.
This was to further our disarmament, we're unilaterally deciding to change our nuclear response doctrine, that we would no longer launch on warning.
Can a person get a copy of that?
Yes, in fact, it was also published in the Washington Times at that time.
Washington Times.
But it's a bit worse than that part.
That's bad enough.
For example, I mean, anyone who knows anything about nuclear doctrine knows there is no deterrence.
James Bell talked about this is to increase deterrence in the world.
Well, there's no deterrence without launch on warning.
Correct.
As your listeners might not understand, it takes at least 20 minutes for missiles, once they're launched in the Soviet Union, to arrive here in the United States.
Well, that, of course, doesn't even count the Russian nuclear submarine.
No, no, that's right.
But land-based missiles were their mega-punches.
Their mega-punches in the land-based missiles.
So it's very important that those get launched, and you can tell 20 minutes advance our satellites can tell when those are launching.
A launch on warning doctrine does a tremendous amount of deterrence.
Of course.
Because, if we launch, because we can detect which of their missile silos launched, so we can re-target our missiles to hit their silos that did not launch.
And their missiles are already heading for silos which will now be empty because we've launched on warning.
So you see, most of their strike is then missed I'm familiar with that.
What is the executive order number?
their silos. So it's a tremendous deterrent. But President Clinton also did two other things
in this executive order. He took our missiles off alert.
I'm familiar with that. What is the executive order number?
I don't have that, you know, right hand. But what I'm saying is that he took our missiles
off alert. And this is very important because, you see, if our satellites determined that
they had made a launch and run up to the President and said, hey, we've got to reverse that launch
on Warding Doctrine, we've got a launch right now.
You can't do it because it takes more than 20 minutes to warm up the missiles so that they can launch.
And so you're saying this executive order would require at least one detonation?
I mean, Mike, God, Joel, if they came to the President and said, first of all, I don't believe the Russians would launch one nuclear I don't believe that for a second.
If you're going to do it, you really do it.
You try and take out the other side's offensive retaliatory capability.
You try and cut off the head and all the rest of that sort of thing.
You don't launch one weapon.
That's right.
So it's going to be a massive, massive launch.
And even more so with this doctrine, because once Clinton has said, we're going to absorb a first strike, he's saying, We invite you to throw everything at the first launch.
Now, let me tell you why I think Clinton's doing this.
Why?
This is very important that very few people see through.
Russia only has certain, they have a lot of nuclear warheads.
Yes.
But they only have a finite number of them.
He is trying to induce the maximum number of launch of their warheads.
Why?
To take out U.S.
military targets.
Why?
The reason is, Clinton is part of a conspiracy that wants a new world order.
In order to get that done, you've got to remove the U.S.
military from the foreign policy scene in the world.
No one will ever give credit to the necessity of a U.N.
army as long as a U.S.
army exists.
Well, that's true.
In other words, you have to induce the Russians to get rid of this.
That's to the benefit of those who want a new world order, and Russia also sees it as their benefit.
But Joel, I've got to argue a little bit with you here.
I don't like a lot of things Clinton has done.
And, of course, he's in a great deal of, no doubt, what you consider to be cover trouble with Lewinsky.
But you're talking about a U.S.
President setting up a situation where he wants war.
He wants the U.S.
to be hit with nuclear weapons.
And I find that really hard to believe, even in the case of Clinton.
Remember, it's not just Clinton.
Clinton is a yes-man to a much more powerful group that's calling the shot.
Remember World War II?
Roosevelt purposely wanted that strike on Pearl Harbor, and did many things to induce that strike.
So it is said.
The purpose of war, of course, is to slowly destroy national sovereignty.
There's many, many tactics, of course, using the environmental movement to destroy property rights, to undermine national sovereignty with You know, the Bosnian, the Iraq wars, etc., but nothing is really going to undo national sovereignty except a horrendous nuclear war that will make people cry out to destroy all nuclear weapons or all possibilities of war, and that will be through the offerings that the New World Order has set up in the wake of that.
You know, earlier in the program, you complained about right-wing elements that almost want the Y2K program, or a date, to be the disaster that Many describe it to be they want it, you say.
But when you say the kinds of things you've said in the last half hour, you realize it makes you sound like you're in the right wing that you talked about.
Is that an unfair characterization?
Not at all.
I'm a conservative of liberty.
I'm against tyranny.
And that's why I'm sounding the warning about what this conspiracy is trying to pull on us.
All right.
Hold it right there.
We'll be right back to you.
My guest is Joel Skalzin.
I'm Art Bell and this is Coast to Coast AM.
From the Kingdom of Nye, this is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
From east of the Rockies, call Art at 1-800-825-5033.
West of the Rockies, including Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, at 1-800-618-8255.
First-time callers may reach Art at area code 702-727-1222.
Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico at 1-800-618-8255.
First-time callers may reach Art at area code 702-727-1222.
And you may fax Art at area code 702-727-8499.
Please limit your faxes to one or two pages.
This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
Now again, here's Art.
Once again, here I am, and again, I want to alert everybody who might be joining at this hour.
In the first hour of the program, we had Peter Davenport on.
He played audio tape from an airman who removed the film from a gun camera on an F-15, which had film of the object over Phoenix.
Two miles in size.
This one's hot, folks.
There's a transcript of it on my website right now, or you can hear the first hour repeated if your station does that at 3 a.m.
Pacific Time.
You don't want to miss that.
We're going to have Peter play the whole 40 minutes of that conversation in the next couple of days.
My guest is Joel Skousen, and he is a high security designer slash consultant.
He's here talking about a book he wrote called Strategic Relocation, North American Guide to Safe Places.
Now, we really got into it here in the last part of the last hour, and we're going to pick up on that again in a moment, regarding Russia, because he has said a couple of absolutely mind-blowing things.
So we're going to cover that.
But I've just got a bit more on Y2K.
My guest is Joel Skousen.
Welcome back, Joel.
I want to read you something very quickly.
The following comes from the Associated Press, the business writer for the AP.
Insurance companies are asking industry regulators for permission to exclude claims from businesses on losses resulting from the year 2000 problem.
Thus far, A company that represents the insurance industry to regulators has received permission, get this, from 46 states for insurance companies to deny all such claims.
Insurance companies are arguing businesses will have had plenty of warning, plenty of time to fix the Y2000 technology glitch.
which could cause computers to misread 2000 and blah blah blah,
power companies going off, transportation going down, all the rest of it.
Why would insurance companies, if they think workarounds are going to be done,
why would they be really going at getting any claims excluded if they didn't think a lot was going to happen?
This has to do with the differentiation between what I call life-threatening Y2K problems
and regular business problems which results in a slowdown of the economy, a costly slowdown.
Insurance companies are worried about all of the small little business problems that aren't going
to be fixed, that aren't life-threatening, that aren't going to stop society from operating,
that are really going to tax the economy.
They'll slow down problems, going to put jobs on the line.
That's what's going to be the long-term problem, and I'm not saying there's ever going to be a fast fix from that.
I think that those business problems are going to drag on for a couple of years after the turn of the century.
But they're not life-threatening.
They're not going to cause the meltdown of society that critical areas are, such as power, railroads, airlines, communications.
If those go down for any significant amount of time, society really can't operate.
On too fragile a lifeline, as you said at the beginning of the show.
I did.
Associated Press says one more thing.
A test simulating trading on Wall Street around the start of the millennium is now showing some firms with the best resources to overcome year 2000 computer problems couldn't handle the transactions smoothly.
About 1% of the trades in the recent test, and they're still actually not up to the day in question, by 28 of the richest securities firms We're stymied by your 2000 changes.
Now, you don't hear about this one.
I heard nationwide they announced, oh, Wall Street has done a test and it's all okay.
And the correspondent turned to the anchor and said, but did they, what date did they test?
And they were testing then two weeks prior to the critical moment and saying no problem.
Now all of a sudden, there's a problem.
Okay.
This I buy.
also did not test random interaction with other security firms. They tested a predictable
reaction. So it's far from clear that the stock market is compliant. In fact, I'm sure
Gary is right that it is not going to be compliant. So there will, I'm sure, be some shutdown
of the markets.
Okay. This I buy. The social problems that will follow I buy. But, and you know what,
I even probably buy what you've been saying about Russia.
But what you have said in essence is that President Clinton is a puppet whose strings are being yanked by the One World Order crowd, which wants a war between Russia and the U.S.
You're saying President Clinton has signed a document saying that the U.S.
would absorb a first strike in the interest of peace.
I find that not believable.
I mean, a president would sign something that would say we would absorb... The whole idea of a nuclear deterrent is that if we detect you launching, we're going to launch and everybody's going to die.
Mutual assured destruction, I believe it was called.
And you're saying that's all out the window.
The president has signed a document saying we would absorb a first strike.
That's right.
It occurred on December 10th, when it was publicly announced.
The document was signed a few days before and announced on national public radio.
It's in their transcripts.
Has Russia made a similar agreement?
Not at all.
One of the most interesting things that occurs, there are a lot of conservatives who believe that Russia, in fact, is in league with the United States Build this new world order.
But I'm of the belief that, in fact, we've got competing world control conspiracies going on here.
And that, in fact, the West, although it attempts to manipulate and induce the Soviet Union to do many things, does not, in fact, absolutely control it.
One of the evidences of this is that many of the intelligence intercepts that have been made public from the prior years, the Cold War years, show that Russian leadership expressing consternation How can these Western leaders be so stupid as to be giving in to these disarmament demands that we've given them?
We, in fact, can't believe that they're really this suicidal.
What's interesting is, you see, if they were in league, if this were a done deal under the table, there wouldn't be this kind of an intelligence intercept coming out.
What, in fact, is happening, this is very interesting, is that the Russians, in fact, don't believe we are disarming as badly as we are disarming.
In fact, they probably have a great deal of our dismantled missile field still targeted because they don't believe that we're really that suicidal.
I don't believe that.
I can't believe it either.
But it isn't suicide.
In fact, the Western conspiracy for a new world order intends to win a nuclear war.
Not by nuclear exchange, because they intend to induce Russia to throw everything and actually destroy our nuclear capability.
The third triad, by the way, art of that announcement was that there were new protocols established such that submarines no longer had any backup capacity to launch short of an actual direct presidential order.
I am aware of that.
I knew that changed, certainly.
At one time, U.S.
commanders could act autonomously under certain conditions.
That has been removed.
Now, that's very important.
Because you see, what that has built is a complete line of defense against any U.S.
retaliation against Russia.
None whatsoever can happen.
Because Russians will of course hit our extremely low frequency transmitters, which are their only communication once satellites are down, our only communication with submarines will be hit.
That's correct.
And that means the submarines will be totally cut off.
They'll be sitting ducks waiting for the Russian hunter subs to get at them and to destroy them.
They will not be able to launch.
Absolutely.
Now, how does the New World Order crowd believe they're going to win one of these wars?
I believe they intend to do it conventionally.
I think they know, in fact, that in Russia, feigning weakness conventionally, in fact, have to prepare for a nuclear attack and not prepare conventionally, so they don't give any warning signals.
And that they are vulnerable, especially if they play the China card.
Just as the New World Order crowd played the Russia card against Hitler, remember Hitler had the non-aggression pact, Russia backed out of it, the U.S.
built Russia up in order to defeat Hitler.
Look what exactly is happening to China right now.
The U.S.
is building China militarily through these weapons transfers and technological transfers.
Once a war occurs, those transfers will be, and by the way, China has a non-aggression pact with Russia right now.
Russia is depending on China not attacking their rear door and wouldn't attack, in fact, if they thought China would betray them.
And China is, with the typical Chinese snide grin, assuring the Russians that they're not going to attack.
All the while, I think they already have a pre-planned agreement with the Western powers that they will, in fact, attack Russia's rear.
After a nuclear strike.
And that will put Russia on an extreme defensive.
It will use up all of the remaining nuclear missiles they have in attacking China.
And then Russia's vulnerable because they're totally conventional then.
And they're too weak to do that.
To withstand a conventional war for longer than a couple of years.
And that's how I think the New World Order intends to establish a complete U.N.
world army with great power.
Because the U.S.
will be totally annihilated in terms of a military machine.
Not the population centers, but basically the military machine.
And that the world will then focus its attention on the only hope of the world, and that's to build a U.N.
army.
Well, tell me how this could happen, Joel, because if you hit the U.S., even at strategic military target locations and not civilian centers, you would detonate so much megatonnage that Large portions of this country would be completely poisoned and unlivable for millennia.
No, that really isn't true.
That's one of the myths that's been promulgated by the anti-nuclear crowd.
How is that a myth?
It's a myth because, in reality, when you look at the survival rates around the Hiroshima and other types of... I mean, they were significant.
A lot of people survived just outside the blast area.
Correct, yes.
And the ground wasn't poisoned for millennia.
It simply didn't happen.
I expect that there are only about 10 to a dozen cities that would be annihilated because they are so integrally attached to military targets there's no way to avoid them.
But that only probably 20% of the American population would die in an all-out nuclear military attack on them.
You're talking about now, in totality, in other words, the blast Plus the radiation deaths?
Plus the heavy fallout, the immediate fallout within two weeks to a month in the aftermath, would only kill about 20% of Americans.
20%?
I think there would be another 20% that would die of long-term range causes in the next 10 or 15 years.
So now we're up to a 40% casualty rate?
Right.
But you see, that still leaves a lot of millions.
The point is, not so much that How much of that is left?
The point is that Russia intends to use that as blackmail for the rest of the world, so that the rest of the world, in fact, is not nuked.
It is not a worldwide nuclear war.
I think that only the U.S.
and perhaps China is going to have significant nuclear attack.
The rest of the world will be free to engage in a conventional war, because Russia does not have enough nuclear weapons to attack the entire world.
And that's why it's especially important to see this, All right.
tactic of the New World Order crowd to induce Russia to throw as many of their nuclear weapons
at the U.S. so as to spare the rest of the world so that a conventional war can be engaged
in with relative success.
Alright.
Again, your scenario depends on the President of the United States understanding what his
actions mean, understanding that he is actually part of a conspiracy to have a world war,
to bring in the New World Order.
It depends on that, right?
That's actually fairly well known within the higher-ups of those who conspire.
Let me give you one example.
Helmut Kohl, about a year ago, was having a press conference in Europe.
Yes.
And the European Union was in real trouble.
A lot of unrest.
This was right before the Socialists got back into power in France and Germany was under threat, you know, of his coalition losing the election.
And he got rather upset at one of the reporters' questions.
He says, you know, you don't understand.
He says, the only alternative to European Union is war.
And the reporters were immediately taken back.
The only alternative to the European Union is war?
That's right.
He says, you don't understand.
In other words, he was saying, if you don't accept this union, if this doesn't go down peacefully, you're going to get war.
Now, the reporters couldn't understand it.
They immediately began to badger him with questions.
Well, why war?
I mean, there's no sentiment of war between French or German or England or France.
And Russia isn't part of the European Union, so what's the sentiment?
He immediately clammed up.
He wouldn't answer any more questions.
But you see, what it told me, someone who understood this Overall arching dialectic strategy that the New World Order has.
Cole knows.
He's part of the system.
He knows that war's coming down the pike if this stuff doesn't go down, you know, with voluntary loss of sovereignty.
And it isn't going down with voluntary loss of sovereignty.
No, it's not going to.
And it's not going down quickly enough for them.
And you see, the conspiracy isn't absolute.
They have effective control, but not absolute control.
And they have to bring in a lot of people Who have their own ideas about how to get this One World Government.
A lot of them have the idea to use the environmental movement.
Others, you know, use... Right.
Joel Dole, you said that you're a friend of Gary North's.
Yes.
You don't share, in totality, Gary North's views on Y2K.
I'm curious.
Does Gary North share your view with respect to the One World Government and what's going on in Russia?
Well, he used to more than he does now.
Gary has a particular theology, Christian Reconstruction, which basically is looking for a way for any conspiracy of the New World Order to be taken down, and he believes that Y2K is going to do this so that the Kingdom of God can be re-established on Earth, and peace and prosperity can be re-established before the Second Coming.
That's kind of an oversimplification.
Well, okay, but why wouldn't he embrace your scenario?
Uh, if that is the way he feels, as an equally good way to do it.
Because my scenario doesn't assume that even a nuclear war is going to bring down big government.
In fact, it's going to be that which ushers in the most tyrannical form of worldwide big government that we've ever seen.
See, I don't believe, in fact, that neither Y2K nor this war that they're planning is going to bring them down than the fact that it is going to enhance their power.
And I don't see Us ever turning this situation around.
I think this is a fighting of withdrawal action, of trying to really survive what's coming, rather than a, you know, we're going to win this ultimately.
I think we've won the last of the wars we're ever going to win.
I might not disagree with that one.
In fact, World War II was not a win.
The New World Order was completely in charge of the ending of that war.
They manipulated Patton, they manipulated the end, the Russians coming in, All right.
Well, I'm sure that you're going to get a lot of reaction to what you've said, but we're not done.
Because for the sake of our conversation coming up, we'll assume a serious disruption with Y2K.
Well, I'm sure that you're going to get a lot of reaction to what you've said, but we're
not done.
Because for the sake of our conversation coming up, we'll assume a serious disruption with
Y2K.
We'll even assume the New World Order attempting to implement its succession into power through
a nuclear war.
And then we'll talk about where places are safe should that occur.
In other words, everybody wants to know where they ought to go, and I assume you have that information.
Yes, I do.
Okay, that's what we're going to talk about when we get back.
Very interesting.
I'm Art Bell.
Well this is Coast to Coast AM.
Alright, um, Joel, I want to read this to you and see what you make of it, alright?
Okay.
Alright, um, again, this comes from the Electronic Telegraph Monday, 8 December, uh, 97.
Clinton's shift on nuclear warfare.
President Clinton has jettisoned America's Cold War strategy of preparing to win a protracted nuclear war.
In orders to military chiefs at the Pentagon last month, remember now, this is 97, Mr. Clinton said the U.S.
should instead have a nuclear policy based on deterrence, promising devastating retaliation in the event or threat of attack.
The Presidential Decision Directive still allows the first use of nuclear weapons to defend American forces or those of its allies.
It also allows nuclear strikes against military and civilian leadership it targets in Russia, which is still regarded as a threat despite the end of the Cold War.
Mr. Clinton's alteration of a policy established by President Reagan 16 years ago, however, adds to the list of possible targets, and allows missiles
to be aimed at China.
Officials confirmed a report in the Washington Post which quoted Robert Bell, the Director of Defense Policy
at the National Security Council, as saying, "...it would be a mistake to think that nuclear weapons no
longer matter to this administration."
That would seem to be somewhat...
In other words, if Mr. Clinton in 97 was saying this, why did he just now change all of that?
What that piece is is a little bit of disinformation.
Those are responses to the criticism, which it does not mention.
part of the purge but the administration's giving after the uh...
major outcry for military commanders when he first announced he was
i recall that he was dropping the policy of uh...
launch on morning and the mere fact that they've not mentioned dropping of launch on morning
indicates this is a very selective uh...
you intended to uh... pacify whoever the oklahoma dot ok are you saying we no
longer or rather i guess uh... we all put it this way that we have
ruled out the first use of nuclear
Or are you simply saying, we have ruled out a response once we have been hit?
I want to be very clear on what you're saying.
Clinton, in his rebuttal to the things, had said that, no, we can still agree to the first launch of nuclear weapons, but we are not going to launch if we detect a launch.
And that was not put out in the report that you just read.
That was clearly discussed in the December 10th reports and December 9th reports from National Public Radio.
That seems insane.
It's not insane.
These people are too intelligent to do something insane.
They have a reason for doing what they're doing.
And the reason is, I tell you, they're inviting a nuclear attack, and the bigger the better.
There's no other reason, Art, for not launching on warning.
That is the only deterrence.
I mean, that was what was so laughable about this Robert Bell's pronouncement.
He did it in the name of deterrence.
But you can sit down face-to-face with him and he can't tell you how you can deter if you don't launch on warning.
There is no deterrence without launching.
Well, I absolutely agree with you.
Of course, if you can't launch On notification that there's been a massive launch against you, I just, I mean, that's insanity.
Insanity.
Or it's criminal.
Or it's even worse, yeah, criminal.
Or it's, um... That's what we're dealing with, Art.
We're dealing with criminals who have decided to take down our sovereignty.
No, let me go further.
It's traitorous.
Yes, it is.
It's treasonous.
Not treason.
Another good word.
But it's fact, Art.
That's what's in place.
You know what else is interesting?
You know, the U.S.
negotiated a speed limit on anti-ballistic missiles.
And it's very interesting the way that this was done, because it was supported by such notables as Newt Gingrich.
What it does is it allows people who are what I call phony conservatives running the Republican Party to actually give us an anti-ballistic missile some days, a system that in fact will not catch missiles.
because you can't catch high altitude ballistic missiles unless you exceed 4,000 to 5,000
feet per second. With a speed limit on 3,000, they can give the American people an ABM someday,
a system that in fact won't catch missiles.
Well, that's why it's a crazier world than I can believe it is, if all of that is true.
But that's why I say it's so important to think strategically, not about what the appearances
are, but you have to look at what the actual actions are and ask yourself the questions,
why do we exceed to these types of demands so willingly?
All right.
Rather than become bogged down in a discussion over this, because it's such a mind-blower for me, let's just say the scenarios are accurate.
Where, I mean, your book addresses Well, there are two major factors related to one Y2K and the other to the major nuclear threat of war, which I consider the two major threats.
Terrorism is another issue which we can discuss, That's the reason why we're not getting terrorism right now.
It is not as strategic.
That's right.
Yes.
Okay, fine.
So the two majors are Y2K and this war you believe is coming.
Both of these threats have as their major component excessively high population densities.
In other words, if there is a meltdown of the social order, which there could be at Y2K and most certainly will be in a nuclear war.
That's for sure.
That means that if you are caught in a maelstrom of humanity, you can't survive very well.
You must be outside that when that occurs.
Now, it's predictable in Y2K.
You can leave town beforehand.
You can go visit Aunt Nellie in the country, you see, and get out of L.A.
County.
But in a nuclear war, you don't have the same kind of notice, because this is going to be a surprise attack.
I have some ideas of when that might occur, when the window begins to open.
But nevertheless... Well, by all means, tell us.
Well, it's my opinion from the testimony of certain defectors that have testified that Russia is developing some very high-tech weaponry to try to compete with the U.S.
high-tech weaponry, and that they don't want to launch this nuclear strike until that weaponry is developed.
They also want to delay the strike until we've completed our disarmament of our 50 Peacekeeper missiles, our big blockbuster missiles, which occurs in 2000.
Later part of 2003 and 2004.
So I think the window for that strike opens after 2004.
And I don't think Russia can last economically and milk the West for any more money much later than probably 2006, 2007 or 2008.
So that's where I think the highest vulnerability window is for the nuclear strike.
One of the things that people can look as a watch sign, if I'm correct historically, that the establishment always pulls a depression before war to induce pacifism, isolationism, and lack of military spending.
We'll see that depression come probably in 2002 or 2003, maybe even a little bit earlier if Y2K really destabilizes the stock market.
You're right.
What I would like you to do, if you wouldn't mind now, is Talking to some of the public.
I want to see what they think about what you've said.
Obviously, you're telling people, temporarily at the very least, be prepared to get out of the population centers to the country somewhere, right?
Right, but not necessarily in a pull-out-all-stakes-and-drop-your-job.
I'm talking about building contingency planning.
Yeah, I understand.
Something for a relatively short period of time.
And what it comes down to is, Safe places would be obviously not near strategic locations, not near silos, that sort of thing, right?
That's right.
And especially, there's a great deal of targets now in the new list of the Russians that have to do with space monitoring, space warning systems.
And those can hit relatively unknown places like Maui Space Warning Station or Holloman Air Force Base down in southern New Mexico, which doesn't have any other strategic targets other than the German Air Force now.
All right.
Let's see what the audience thinks about all of this.
All right?
Okay.
Here we go.
First time caller line.
You're on the air with Joel Skousen and Art Bell.
Hi.
Hi, Art.
Hi.
Where are you?
I'm sorry?
Where are you?
Idaho.
Idaho.
All right.
I want to say I love your show.
Thank you.
I'm a police officer.
I listen to it every night.
Yes, sir.
I'm a hobby ufologist.
I don't read about the stuff that your guests have talked about a whole lot, but I've been listening and it's truly frightening.
I hope for all of us that it isn't true.
So do I. It's an eye-opener.
Idaho, I would take it for the most part.
Well, I mean, what do I know?
Would Idaho be a fairly safe place to be, Joel?
It is.
It's in one of the, it's in the highest security region that I rate, which is the Intermountain West.
That is, the states that generally compose southern Idaho, western Wyoming, western Colorado, Utah, northern Arizona, most of Nevada and parts of Well, that's good to know.
I live pretty close to a military facility, but they're back and forth whether or not they're even going to keep it open.
Right.
Yeah, it's my opener.
I've been preparing for Y2K, but this is a new one.
Well, interestingly, Y2K is really kind of a hidden blessing, I think, because there's a lot of people who cannot see the very hidden deception involved in this Russian cover-up.
And so Y2K is causing a lot of people to get prepared, and even though a lot of that preparation may not be as necessary as people think, it's all going to come down and be necessary later on, in my opinion.
Wow.
We were given a taste of just how scary things can be when there's a food shortage for a couple of weeks.
We were having some pretty major disasters in 97 here, mudslides and stuff.
Yes.
And there was a local highway that was closed for two weeks.
And fistfights over loaves of bread were occurring in a small town up here.
Really?
Yeah, and that was a major eye-opener for me and several of my colleagues.
So we're planning.
Even after two or three weeks, if you don't even have enough food to get you through a month or so, you know, you can hit problems.
Even good people can start to act irrationally, can't they?
It's the truth.
You said you're a police officer?
Yes, sir.
You saw fistfights over loaves of bread?
I didn't actually see it.
That came second-hand from a guy I know and pretty much trust.
Okay, I appreciate your call, sir.
You bet.
Thank you.
There's the first unsolicited call.
Not much I, whether I agree or disagree with you with respect to the New World Order part of all this and President Clinton being part of it, And I'm just, I'm not, I don't want to, I guess, the American patriot left with inside of me doesn't want to believe that any American president, any American president, would intentionally, in the name of some greater new world order, let ultimately 40% of the American people die.
I think that's crazy and I hope to hell it's wrong.
Look what they did at Pearl Harbor.
Look what they did at the end of World War II.
How many millions did they let die over a new world order?
Look what they did in China over a new world order.
Look what they will do to Taiwan.
You know, you've got to look at the evidence, Art.
Somewhere inside my heart, I guess, there's just a place that doesn't want to allow me to believe this.
Maybe that's really naive.
And that's the thing that's going to drive America completely through the deception and make America so susceptible to this kind of deception of silence.
That's why I'm listening to you.
Selective information is very, very insidious, because we've never, ever lost.
It's inconceivable to Americans that we could suffer anything so devastating as a nuclear war.
It sure is.
And unfortunately, it's there, though, and the potential is growing, and if you look at the evidence and the data, you'll see it's spreading, and eventually, I mean, what Americans fail to realize is there's real evil out in the world.
Well, that I believe, too.
Wildcard Line, you're on the air with Joel Skousen.
Hi.
Hi, Art.
This is Tim.
I'm in Santa Maria at JSMA Country.
Yes, Tim.
Hey, I was listening and I was really concerned.
I live right out here next to Vandenberg Air Force Base, and they got missiles all along the coast here, and I guess that's not a real very safe place to be, is it?
No, it isn't.
Vandenberg has, of course, a lot of the space monitoring and warning equipment there, which is very important to the Russians to take out in a first strike.
So, you think Western Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Southern Idaho is a good place to be?
It is, because there are no major first strike targets there.
There are only secondary or tertiary targets.
The fallout will be low in those areas.
And fallout, frankly, by the way, is fairly easy to defend against.
It really takes some concrete overhead.
One can shelter against that.
You should plan on that.
Okay, great.
Thanks for the time.
Alright, thank you for the call.
Do you know I actually have a Geiger counter, and I'm glad I've got it.
Would a Geiger counter be something that would be good to have?
It is.
It needs to make sure that it reads up into the range of 300 plus rems per hour, though.
A lot of the counters read in very, very small rems.
If you're getting 300 rems an hour, You're a dead person real quick.
That's right.
You know, death occurs from, um, slowly from three to five hundred, and very rapidly from five hundred to a thousand, over a thousand.
It's just a matter of... Yeah, but use that per hour.
I mean, if you're sitting in three hundred rims for, say, six hours, or twelve hours, or twenty-four one day... You'll be dead.
You'll be dead.
Yeah.
Period.
All right.
Uh, west of the Rockies, you're on the air with Joel Skousen.
Hi.
Hello?
Going, going, gone.
East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Joel Skousen.
Hello?
Okay, we've got somebody with the radio.
Going, going, gone.
Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Joel Skousen.
Hi.
Hey, Art.
Pleasure to talk to you.
Frank from Marietta.
This whole Y2K thing really intrigues me, and what I'd like to ask the guest is what's going to happen to our military and our intelligence community during that, uh, the first two weeks.
Uh, alright.
The military, our military, has a lot of old computer gear which is not going to be compliant.
So a lot of their stuff is going to have to go back to manual.
Manual traffic control, manual interchange of intelligence data, and a lot of our linkages between aircraft and computer systems in the military are not going to work.
The weapons systems, like in the tactical fighters, how is that going to be affected?
Are they going to be operational?
A great deal of the actual tactical computer data interchange systems will be operational.
The problem is the major date-oriented software that controls from AWACS airplanes and from the ground stations may put some glitches in it.
It isn't that the total system is going to go down, but it only takes one or two major overhead systems to cause it to be inaccurate.
It's very date-sensitive in terms of the what's called real-time data transfer.
All right. East of the Iraqis, you're on the air with Joel Skousen. Hi.
Hi. Good morning. I have no trouble believing all that he said about the new world order.
What I want to know is that if the Russians have to delay till after the election,
presidential, in 2000, and perhaps even after the presidential election in 2004,
even if a conservative patriot Republican gets elected, does the new world order have their
control behind the scenes forces in, will they have their controlling forces to prevent such
a president? Yeah, good, very good question, actually.
I suppose there is a big pendulum shift.
And there's another virtual Ronald Reagan elected.
Then what?
Well, Ronald Reagan, in fact, I was in Washington during Ronald Reagan's term, and he was a very manipulated president.
Ronald Reagan's one of those people who probably thought he was in charge, but in fact wasn't in charge.
And I don't think you'll ever see a true conservative of liberty elected president of the United States again.
Newt Gingrich, for example, is the quintessential plant within the Republican Party.
Oh, I agree completely with that.
All right, hold on.
Well, folks, I think you've got the lay of the land by now.
Joel Skousen is my guest.
And this next hour, we're just going to lay straight into the lines.
And you can lay into Joel or support him as you will.
It's a kind of a liver It's a dire situation.
We'll be right back.
I'm going to play a little bit of the song.
you To talk with Art Bell in the Kingdom of Nye, from east of the Rockies, dial 1-800-825-5033.
West of the Rockies, including Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, 1-800-618-8255.
West of the Rockies, including Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico.
1-800-618-8255.
First time callers may reach Art at area code 702-727-1222.
And you may call Art on the wildcard line at area code 702-727-1295.
To reach Art from outside the U.S., first dial your access number to the USA, then 800-893-0903.
This is Coast to Coast AM from the Kingdom of Nye with Art Bell.
All right.
I've got a fax here.
I sent a fax, not an email, from Stan Dale down in Australia.
So important he faxed me.
God, I love that line.
Anyway, we are going to do a commercial break, but I want to ask you several direct questions
that simply require a yes or no, Joel.
Stan writes from Australia.
Art, is your guest a relative of Cleon Skousen?
Yes, he's my uncle.
Who wrote The Naked Capitalist, was a senior FBI agent, and a Mormon?
That's correct?
He's my uncle, yes.
Are those facts about him correct?
They are.
He goes on, if so, then this guy, your guest, you, Joel, according to Stan, would have the best publicly available data on global conspiracies and the current battle for supremacy between them.
I met Skousen's son down here in Perth 21 years ago and have promoted his father's research on the emerging New World Order for decades, signed Stan Down in the land of Oz.
So that is very, very interesting.
We sort of peel this all back layer by layer.
It's helpful to know all of this about you, Joel, who your dad... Is your dad still alive?
This was my uncle.
Your uncle, I'm sorry.
My father died many years ago.
Is your uncle still alive?
He is.
He is.
He's in his 80s and still alive.
All right.
You know, I have never denied, I look around the world and I look at the way nations are tied together economically and I know in my heart that the day will come when there will be, when economic ties will become political ties and where there will be a one world something.
I have always believed that.
It's absolutely a natural course of events.
But what I have a hard time with, Joel, is that you believe that an American president, this one, President Clinton, would issue some executive order saying there would be no retaliation if we were hit with a first strike nuclear strike, no retaliation on launch, on detection of launch, which would virtually invite the death ultimately of 40 40% of the American population in order to implement this New World Order.
The New World Order should come naturally.
It doesn't need a war, would be my view.
Well, I would disagree, Art, that it would come naturally.
What comes naturally, actually, is division into separable and smaller groups of common interests.
No, the other way.
No, it does not go the other way.
Look, you've got small towns.
They used to trade with each other.
Then cities traded with each other.
Then states traded.
Then nations traded.
But you overlook the fact that politics don't follow economics.
Yes, they do.
No, no.
If you look at every political jurisdiction, they want economic trade, but they want increasing control at the local level.
And they resist.
It takes powerful forces to force people to render individual local sovereignties to larger group sovereignties.
When you remove those powerful forces, people factionalize almost immediately into smaller and smaller groups.
I'm a political science major in my original training, and that's an undisputable fact of history.
It's never been repudiated.
It takes massive forces to make people Look at what's going on in China right now.
The economy is opening up.
With that opening economy is coming political change in China.
Not fast, not right away, but it is changing.
Not because of any natural will of the people.
It's coming because of political needs, actual military needs, the government and manipulation of the powers of politics to give the appearance of openness, but there's no openness.
You think it's a trick?
As you think Russia and what was the Soviet Union, aside perhaps from the Baltics, is just simply feigning weakness Waiting for the right moment to strike.
Even Eric Honecker in his memoir said that he was told to step down.
There was no unilateral feeling of giving up power.
This was not something that naturally occurred.
He had orders from Moscow to allow the Leipzig riots to occur and not to crack down.
He had orders from Moscow to step down.
Okay, thank you.
I'm with Ceaușescu.
Okay, I'm pressing you.
Because this is no trivial matter you're talking about here.
Now, here's somebody who sent me the following facts.
Executive order search of whitehouse.gov for documents relating to nuclear executive order search of whitehouse.gov for anything relating to nuclear launch on warning policies.
And there only have been six such things.
Document one, Executive Order on Weapons of Mass Destruction, number 6248.
Number 2, Executive Order on Federal Information Technology, 21016.
Number 3, Executive Order on Mass Destruction Weapons for Liberation, 13429.
4, Executive Order on NAFTA, 11326.
4. Executive Order on NAFTA, 113265.
Executive Order on China MFN, that's 4238.
And 6. Nuclear Cooperation Executive Order, 15325.
Is it any of those?
No, it's not an executive order, Art.
Executive orders have only to do with agencies outside the military.
The military never gets their orders through executive orders.
Okay, then what... Well, this is national nuclear policy.
That's right, but it doesn't take an executive order.
That only deals with civilian agencies.
Military orders are in the military chain of command and never go through the executive order procedure.
Only when it's dealing with a disarmament mission.
So in what specific way did President Clinton order what you said he ordered?
How did he do that?
He gave military orders down the military chain of command.
How is that documented?
Well, it's documented only in military circles, but they made public announcements.
Robert Bell made the announcements.
And there was a whole news conference about it that was widely reported in the Washington scene, but did not get very much coverage outside Washington.
Sure not where I am, and I watch very carefully.
What can I refer to?
The Washington Post, do you know the date of the article?
Can you give me anything that my audience can refer to?
Well, I heard it with my own ears.
I heard the reports.
I heard James Bell speaking on the radio.
I heard the announcements on December 10th.
Now that was National Public Radio.
We'll have transcripts of what they reported on that day.
I know that the Washington Times, during that same week, did minor reporting on it.
And there have been several subsequent articles that have referred to the change in military doctrine.
But December 8th through the 10th is when those announcements were to talk of the town in Washington.
Okay.
Alright.
Wild Card Line, you are on the air.
Uh, hello?
Hi!
Joel Skousen is here.
I'm Mark Bell.
You're on the air.
Hi, uh, I wanted to make a comment, uh, about Mr. Skousen's scenario.
Yes.
Um, I have some information that may back it up.
Years ago, three or four years ago, I made the acquaintance of a gentleman who had been an intelligence officer in the CIA.
And, uh, he was on his deathbed.
He was maybe 80 years old.
And he told me that, uh, World War III was going to start on Bill Clinton's second term.
He told me it was going to start over a dispute in the eastern Mediterranean on the island of Cyprus, divided between Greece and Turkey.
Yes.
And I've been watching developments in that area, and since Bill Clinton came, was re-elected, that area of the world has heated up dramatically.
The Russians are sending a sophisticated missile system to the Greek Cypriots, who occupy the southern half of the island.
And their hope, by fomenting this war between Greece and Turkey, is to block NATO expansion.
Because they're a little bit ticked off that NATO is gobbling up the extra countries on its eastern borders.
And they're hoping, by fomenting this upheaval, that Turkey will exercise its veto power and undo NATO expansion.
And the whole question arises as to what's going to happen.
Will the United States come to Turkey's aid as Russia establishes Yes, the U.S.
has issued strong warnings to Russia not to implement that system and has made certain veiled threats that NATO will in fact have to get involved.
attention in the news but it's scheduled to appear sometime in October and November of this year.
Joe? Yes, the U.S. has issued strong warnings to Russia not to implement that system and has
you know made certain veiled threats that NATO will in fact have to get involved. The thing I
want to point out though is that just like the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was not the
the real cause of World War I, and neither will this be the real cause.
Whichever is the trigger force that appears, in fact, I don't even think in the way that they plan on a surgical surprise attack that there will be a trigger in this next war.
That it'll be without warning, in fact.
But most of these small crises are meant to further the Getting the American people used to dealing with, in terms of United Nations troop problem resolution with our American troops.
I'm not sure whether or not he is correct on this, but this CIA agent obviously knew that there was something that was being covered up in his intelligent work that he was not allowed to talk about.
In fact, I have other agents myself that I have talked to who Tell me that they are, in fact, under real strict obligation there never to say anything negative about Russia in any intelligence thing.
Well, on that part I can believe because it just plain does not, it's not even in the press, it's not even considered in the mass media, even in debates anymore.
It's not even mentioned as a threat.
But they're the biggest violators and everyone knows it.
Everyone in the intelligence community knows that the Russians are the biggest chemical weapons violators, the biggest nuclear weapons violators.
They never let our inspectors in.
And not a word.
That tells you they're covering for something.
God, I don't want to believe it.
News to the Rockies.
You're on the air with Joel Skelton.
Hi.
Hi.
My name's Chad.
I'm calling from Iowa City.
Yes, sir.
I have a couple comments, if you don't mind.
I don't mind.
I'm a Russian scholar.
I've been studying Russian language and history for...
Oh, past eight years, I guess.
Right.
And, um, I've lived there for about two years.
Okay.
And I have, for Joel, that's his name, right?
Joel, yes.
Um, if this is, I want to make this clear to myself, is this, the New World Order, this is, this is their next step, correct?
In order to, like, make, uh, you know, one world society, I guess you could say, or one world government.
Yes, I'm saying that they cannot get rid of people's innate Well, the only problem I have with that is, what's the gain when you irradiate half the world with nuclear weapons?
That's the only... That's the part, well, call me too rational I guess.
the problems of international warfare.
Well, the only problem I have with that is what's the gain when you irradiate half the
world with nuclear weapons?
That's the only...
That's the part...
Well, call me too rational I guess.
I guess we're dealing with insane people but what's...
Well, we're dealing with...
What can you achieve?
Huh?
We're dealing first of all with a people who have very little regard for large masses of
humanity and have shown that kind of disregard even in World War II.
Look at the philosophy of mass bombing that occurred there.
Oh, I agree with you on that point.
But look at the Russian.
You've lived in Russia.
I know a lot about the Russian culture, and I've studied Russian for many years myself, but the Russians have a culture of ruthlessness about humanity.
That is very worrisome.
That even Europe, that's why I think Europe will fight.
They will not even accede to the Russian blackmail over the nuclear destruction of America because the Russians have a ruthlessness that all Europe fears.
They do not want to be under the thumb of Russia.
Yeah, well that, but are they, so you're simply saying they're a pawn, correct?
That Russia is a pawn in this?
No, I'm not saying that at all.
They're one of the instigators?
I'm saying they have their own desire to establish a new world order with them as the power force.
And the Chinese have their own separate plan.
They think that they're manipulating the suicidal West, but the West, in fact, I think has the upper hand and knows what they're doing more than that.
I really think when you look at the evidence, and you have studied the Soviet Union, you will realize one of the most compelling pieces of evidence that the demise of communism in the Soviet Union was a fraud was the Gorbachev coup, whereby they took all of those so-called heads of state, where the heads of the KGB and the defense and the top generals, all of a sudden ran away from who?
They in fact had all the power that they're supposed to have.
In fact, they were put into power two years prior from relatively Yeah, that's a good point.
Well, even the Russian people know that he's not in charge, so... That's right.
One other comment.
who in fact put them into place those of the people of russia that still hold the
real reigns of power and i'm saying those people are underground and they have
an agenda and help from the pond just like
printable or well even though even the russian people know that he's not
in charge so that's right one of the court or comment there was a program on the
learning channel just last night about uh...
it was discussing how close we've come to nuclear war in the past
forty years and talked about the doomsday device uh... soviets have in
the russians are still implemented
and how it is automatic
It bypasses any human.
It's basically an automated system that, if detecting incoming missiles, it will launch everything at the United States.
And according to the program, in 1995, we came very close by we were testing a missile Off the coast of Norway, and... Actually, it was a Norwegian launch.
Oh, it was a Norwegian missile.
Okay.
Yeah.
So... No, that's quite true.
They came within just literally minutes or seconds of launching.
Yeah, they said Yeltsin had the briefcase in his hand, opened and ready to fire.
Yeah.
The Russians are very paranoid.
They're very xenophobic.
The shoot-down of the KLL airline, You know, with Representative McDonnell aboard, and that showed how paranoid these boys are out there.
And part of that is because the West is acting in ways which is not normal, and they cannot believe that anybody is truthful, because they know they're cheating to beat the ban.
They can't believe that anybody else is being straightforward, and they can't believe that they'd really be so stupid to disarm.
The Russians are really kind of a mixed-up ball of ruthlessness and bewilderment.
And it's not a good situation.
Well, look at their history over the thousand years.
I mean, how can you blame them in a way?
But I hope it doesn't happen.
Boy, that makes all of us.
All right, Culler.
Thank you very much.
So, again, the word is get away from military bases, get away from major population centers, and do so for Some shorter period of time.
I mean, it's not like you're going to grab your family camping equipment and go up into the mountains or something.
But you're saying just get out of targeted areas.
Well, you know, it's actually a little more serious than that.
You have to get out of targeted areas, but everybody in this country, frankly, has to prepare for fallout someday.
That's why another book that I've had on the marketing before my strategic relocation, one of the things I do in my high security design business is I design vault rooms for people, not only for bomb shelters, normal security, but also for fallout protection.
All right.
Hold it right there, Joel.
Joel Skousen is my guest.
You can hear what we're discussing.
Your take on it?
That's what the phone lines are for.
I'm Art Bell, and this is Coast to Coast AM.
God, you know, I didn't want to believe it.
I didn't want to believe it, but I just got a call from Keith Rowland, as you know, my webmaster.
Very efficient.
And he did as I was asking and went digging.
And you know what?
He's found what Joel was talking about.
I'm sorry to say.
Here's Keith Rowland.
Keith, we're going to post what you're about to read in full on the website, right?
Keith?
Are you there?
I'm here.
Okay, good.
We are going to post it in full?
I have a link to this particular page on our links page right now.
Okay.
And I can read a section of it for you if you like.
Would you please?
You're reading from what now?
This is a page on a website called armscontrol.org, and this was sent to me by Jeff, who emailed it to me rather quickly.
I want to thank him.
And I looked it up.
I'm going to read you the introductory paragraph and then the section on the launch on warning.
All right.
Okay?
Yes.
The Clinton administration quietly made a significant change in U.S.
strategic nuclear doctrine in November by formally abandoning guidelines issued by the Reagan administration in 1981 that the United States must be prepared to fight and win a protracted nuclear war.
The new Presidential Decision Directive, a PDD, details of which were first reported in the Washington Post on December the 7th.
...operates from the premise that the primary role of nuclear weapons in the post-Cold War era is deterrence.
In a December 23rd interview, Robert Bell, Senior Director for Defense Policy and Arms Control of the National Security Council, provided additional information about the PDD, clarified some misperceptions.
Let me go down here to this section.
Alright, please do.
Now here's the relevant part.
Right.
Bell said that, and this is not Art Bell, this is Robert Bell, ...said that the press had incorrectly indicated that the PDD still allows the United States to launch nuclear weapons upon receiving warning of an attack.
Bill emphasized that there is no change in this PDD with respect to U.S.
policy on launch on warning and that the policy is that we do not not rely on it.
I don't know if this was typed in correctly.
In fact, Bill said in this PDD that we direct our military forces to continue to posture themselves in such a way as to not rely on launch on warning.
To be able to absorb a nuclear strike and still have enough force surviving to constitute credible deterrence.
Bill pointed out that while the United States has always had the technical capability to implement a policy of launch on warning, it has chosen not to do so.
Our policy is to confirm that we are under attack with actual detonations before retaliating.
God, that's insane.
That's scary, isn't it?
That, Joel, is exactly what you were referring to, correct?
Yes, it is.
Alright.
Keith, again, thank you so much.
The link is on the website.
If I find some other references to it, I'll post them along with it.
Alright, thank you.
Okay, goodnight.
Take care.
That way, people can go get hard copies.
But you'll notice, Art, that there was an effort by the press to undermine that and to actually make it appear... Well, I read you, John.
That's right.
I read you that.
I had that part.
What I didn't have was the second part regarding Bell's comments that Keith has now found.
He was countermanding the press's erroneous reports that this, in fact, did not dismantle launch on Morning, which it did.
God.
Oh, look.
Ostensibly, we're supposed to talk about safe areas, and I guess we'll get to that.
A lot of people want to know about your book, and you sure earned the right to talk about your book.
Your current book is Strategic Relocation, North American Guide to Safe Places.
Where can people get that?
How do they get it?
The fastest way to get it is through my publisher with their 800 number.
800 number it's 1-800-292-2831. That's Swift Publishing and you can also get it
through Amazon.com and therefore I guess through your bookstore art.
Correct, on the website.
Although it does take probably a couple of weeks to do that.
So your publisher's number is 1-800-292-2831.
How much is your book?
The book is $45.
of dollars. I also have one other book called How to Implement a High Security Shelter in
the Home, How to Retrofit a High Security Vault Room into a Home. It's also available
through the publisher for $30. It has full architectural plans on how to do that.
And now, back to the best of Art Bell.
Bye.
Safe places.
Safe places.
Just give me a little bit on that.
If what you're suggesting occurs, what are safe, where are safe places?
Well, basically, you have to, first of all, avoid the major target areas.
And there are only 12 cities, 10 or 12 cities, that really are serious major target areas.
Can you name them?
You know, I can name most of them.
One is San Diego.
One is Seattle, Washington.
That whole area is just full of military targets.
Another is Norfolk, Virginia.
Washington, D.C.
Kings Bay, Jacksonville, Florida area.
Major cluster around Colorado Springs, which has two or three bases, including Cheyenne Mountain.
There's Offutt Air Force Base, all the secondary command and control in Nebraska.
Right now, you're talking to every single one of the cities you just mentioned.
Every single one of them.
There's Great Falls, Montana, Malmstrom Airport, Malmstrom Air Force Base, Cheyenne, Wyoming,
Warren Air Force Base.
Those are the major cities which...
Right now you're talking to every single one of the cities you just mentioned.
Every single one of them.
So what do you say to those people?
Those people, frankly, need to be out of there if they're listening to me.
By when?
I wouldn't be living there by after 2004.
All right.
I wouldn't be living in any of those cities if I could help it.
All right.
You said where you wouldn't live.
Where would you live?
Well, the highest security area is that intermountain area that I talked about.
It's got the least nuclear targets and the least population density.
That would not include such high-density areas as Salt Lake City itself, or perhaps Boise, though Boise is not a major meltdown possibility.
It's got a very stable population for now.
I would not, of course, pick Phoenix.
That's not considered in that area.
But outside of that area, there are other areas in the United States which also qualify generally.
And in the Far East, your Appalachian change around the Great Smoky Mountains Here's something I've always wondered about.
population centers uh...
uh... the midwest is generally safe except for some of the nuclear target
population density dot by the major cities dropped to under a hundred per
square mile of those qualified generally a very
but i you'd want that to really really look at some of the target areas picture that just a
way there's a lot more is what about
our russian missiles
uh... sufficiently accurate that they would hit what they're aiming at.
Yes, because in the Nixon administration, we transferred that very accurate technology to them.
And that technology transfer has just taken place this year to China as well.
For the special ball bearing technology, which allowed them to get down within a 100 foot air probable circle.
All right, listen, I'm going to ask a selfish question.
In most prophecy, I'm doomed where I live.
I live about 65 miles west of Las Vegas in the desert.
Serious desert.
What, with Area 51?
Well, yeah.
Mercury test site.
Uh-huh.
So forth and so on.
Not good?
Probably not good, although they're moving a lot of their secret stuff out of Area 51 now.
Well, I'm not so sure about that.
Well, at least that's the purported thing.
I think it was Popular Mechanics ran a story like that, but Scripps Howard News Service just ran a news story indicating there's more people than ever now employed at Area 51.
And by the way, Popular Mechanics is a real propaganda organ for the establishment.
They've done more debunking of false debunking than any other magazine that I've ever seen, including UFO stories.
It may or may not be.
I just know for a fact that Scripps Howard ...released a story today, which I knew they were going to because Matt Drudge said so, and sure as hell they did.
Drudge is more right than he is wrong.
They just released a story indicating 1,850 people are on permanent payroll up there, and that, if anything, it is expanding and still the single most secret place in the U.S.
And the much-touted Utah site in the Popular Mechanics article has not, in fact, been manned and staffed as they predicted.
That's a fact.
That's a fact.
All right.
West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Joel Skousen.
Hi.
Oh, I didn't press the button.
No, I did.
Now you're on the air.
Hello.
Thanks, sir.
Sorry about that.
I'm a truck driver calling you from Roswell, New Mexico.
Roswell?
I just couldn't pass up the chance.
All right.
Go right ahead.
A couple things.
Something to kind of follow up on what Joel was saying with people's tendency to try to stay away from something Like larger government or bigger cities.
The city that I'm from, which soon won't be on the face of the planet, I guess it's called Colorado Springs, has been trying to annex certain portions of their outlying areas and it is amazing the tenacity of the people out there who have resisted every attempt for that city to annex them at nearly all costs.
But I do have something about the power grid.
The Navy has boasted many times about the fact that their nuclear submarines have the capability of powering a small city.
And in fact, that may actually play into the hands of the scenario.
If, like the Nimitz or the Enterprise, go into, let's say, San Francisco and Washington, Seattle, Washington area, and commence to trying to power up the city at the same time they get the 20 minute warning, that ship can't depart fast enough for them to get away from the blast.
So if Russia launches and they're powering up the city because of the Y2K problem, most of our major military That's technically true in terms of their ability to power, but it's not physically actually true.
They don't have the interconnection physical capabilities of going either the voltage or the amperage that it would require to power up a city.
It's only a theoretical power capability.
Estimation on the power of the nuclear power plant itself.
It's not a physical possibility.
I follow exactly what you're saying.
Actually, you're exactly right.
A long hard line, you're on the air with Joel Skousen.
Hi.
Hi, how you doing?
Well, I was better an hour ago.
Well, let me try to make you feel better again.
Let's have a different interpretation of the actual effect of this Uh, P.D.D.
that we were discussing earlier.
Yes, yes.
Fine.
All this really means is if missiles are coming over the pole, if we launch on warning, the missiles are still coming and they're going to blow up wherever they were going to blow up.
That is correct.
They're empty.
All that he's done, and I'm no fan of President Clinton by a long shot, but all he's really done is make things safer because those submarines That won't be destroyed are a very credible and effective second strike capability.
No, but you... Okay, but wait a minute now.
If we actually allow a first strike to hit us... I understand that.
We can't stop it.
But if we were to allow a first strike to hit before we retaliated, there's every possibility that the communications centers that are able to talk to our submarines Would be destroyed and you and and in fact our submarines no longer are autonomous.
They don't have the authority to launch.
Short of a direct communication from the president.
Or from whoever is next on down the chain of command.
That's correct, but if they have no way constitutionally on down the chain, as you point out, but if they have no way to communicate with those subs, there'll be no attack.
You know, I'm not so sure that communications would be cut off.
I mean, there's an awful lot of communication sites out there, and eventually, it doesn't matter if it takes a day or two or, you know, eventually word will get through, and there will be retaliation, and it will be devastating, the retaliation.
And the other thing that I'd like to address, I mean, this is all opinion back and forth, maybe he's right, maybe he's not, but another thing I'd like to address, as far as this selling out to the New World Order.
I'm not a globalist at all.
I'm a nationalist.
I think globalism is idiocy.
But I think that people like the Mossad and Israel and the German, very effective German intelligence services, the Brits, I think all these people who have a whole lot to lose were this to be true, would be letting a sin on it.
They'd be leaking stuff, people would be talking, and word would be getting out what was going on.
Unless they've all already been taken over, and it's already the entire world against us, I don't think you could pull an operation like that off.
Well, you know, I... I've got to back up, because the point of contention here is that we have now relinquished launch on warning.
If that's true, there's no way in hell That makes it safer.
That invites a nuclear attack.
That invites... Well, only if you don't think that there's going to be an eventual devastating second strike.
All it really does is prevent us from starting a nuclear war on mistake because we thought that we were being launched against it.
Which has happened before.
I was watching a television program just the other day where apparently we were within three minutes of launching a retaliatory strike.
When, in fact, we were not under attack.
Both sides have had that problem.
So all we're really doing is saying, yeah, okay, you strike us first.
And it may take four or five days.
It may take a week and a half.
But eventually, we're going to strike you back.
And we're going to hurt you bad.
I'll tell you, I... The deterrent is still there.
I don't buy that.
That's very naive.
Yeah, even I think that's naive.
You just don't understand the military if you think that we can absorb a massive first strike and retaliate.
You know there are only three ELP submarine communication net.
They're 90 kilometer long antennas and it doesn't take much to take those antennas out.
And the satellites are all going to be down.
All of the satellite communication systems are going to be hit.
You don't think the Russians are going to let any of that stuff standing, including the satellites.
The EMP strikes in the atmosphere will take out all of the electronics in this country.
All right.
I want to pass a message to Keith Rowland, my webmaster.
This is so damn important.
A lot of people are going to want this information to read on other talk shows, and so they should.
Keith, would you please, in addition to having it on the links page, bring a link up to it on the latest news and site edition so everybody can find it easily over the next 24 to 48 hours?
They're going to really want this document, so let's prominently put it Under the latest news and site additions, in addition to having it on a links page.
Thank you, Keith.
Now, East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Joel Skelton.
Hi.
Good morning, Art.
This is Kyle from Fort Worth.
I have a question for Joel.
Go right ahead.
Okay, on these nuclear missiles, don't they rely on global positioning for targeting?
And if so, would they function after Y2K?
They actually are fully ballistic.
Only the submarines rely on global positioning for targeting.
None of the fixed-base missiles require that.
Okay, so if the Russians do have a first strike and we don't launch and we rely on our submarines to retaliate, we're toast anyway.
That's right.
And by the way, the Russian system is not, the Russian military computers are apparently not Y2K sensitive since they have a four-digit date group.
Aha, figures.
No, theirs work and ours won't, and our submarines won't be able to acquire their target because our missiles won't be Y2K compliant.
Precisely.
So either way, scorched earth, we're done.
And our military knows that.
That's why there was a lot of protest from higher military officers and lower ranking officers over this presidential directive to the military.
In fact, Robert Bell made reference to the radical elements of the military that had protested this, or had failed to see the wisdom in this change.
So whenever you know they're making complaints about the certain elements and the radical elements of the military, you know they're attempting to enforce some type of political correctness on the military to keep the silence.
There have been several high-ranking military reservations within the missile field, by the way, over this presidential directive.
Yeah, I don't... That's a good question.
What can be done?
Listen, Keith has already done it, folks.
So, you know, I started out this evening thinking you were a right-wing alarmist.
Kind of crazy, Joel, and I'm ending the evening sadly agreeing because the proof is in front of my eyes now.
Look, folks, you go to my website right now.
You go to my website, without fail, just click on Clinton Issues New Guidelines on U.S.
Nuclear Weapons Doctrine, and print it out, and read the appropriate remarks by Bell, and pass it around and be sure everybody knows about it.
So, Joel, you finally scared the hell out of me here.
Well, I wish a lot of people could get scared, because frankly, I'm really worried, Art, We're falling asleep, and it doesn't help to have a Republican minister or Congress controlled by a person who really is a plant.
He's a plant.
And when I was in Washington, when Gingrich was there, and it's really interesting to have interact with him and see the unprincipled nature in which he maneuvered.
Well, I'm no Gingrich fan.
Frankly, I'm not a fan of the whole process of politics at all right now.
I left the Republican Party.
And I became a libertarian.
I just couldn't handle it anymore because I could no longer see the difference between the way they govern, not the way they run for office, but the way they govern.
No difference.
And, of course, that points to what you have suggested with regard to a one-world government.
It really does.
All right.
I'd like you to stay around one more hour, if you would.
Because it's that hot of an issue.
Can you do it?
I think I can, Art.
All right.
To get your book, it's 1-800-292-2831, right?
That's correct.
Do you find that people resist listening to you when you talk about things like this?
Initially, but I think the evidence I have is compelling, and my ability to explain why the demise of the Soviet Union was a fraud is also compelling.
And once people really do see evidence, it becomes fairly obvious that, yeah, we've been sold a bill of goods.
So I'm not just speaking from opinion.
I mean, I don't try to name names of who are the conspirators, because obviously that's a very top secret, but I can trace their action through tracing the history of cover-ups, through tracing these types of All right, Joel, hold on.
To get a copy of this program, folks, right now, you can call 1-800-917-4278.
That's 1-800-917-4278.
800-917-4278.
That's 1-800-917-4278.
Some markets, we'll be right back.
Sometimes with no peace of mind, and I'm ready for the time.
I've got to tell you, I've been right from my brain.
I've been right from my brain.
No doubt.
From the Kingdom of Nye, this is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
From east of the Rockies, Collard at 1-800-825-5033.
1-800-825-5033. West of the Rockies, including Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico,
at 1-800-618-8255. First-time callers may reach out at Area Code 702-727-1222.
And you may fax Art at area code 702-727-8499.
Please limit your faxes to one or two pages.
This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
Now again, here's Art.
Yeah, and here's Art with a fax.
Art, in view of the information, if it's true, Which wouldn't surprise me.
I'm not sure if I want to be in a safe place.
As a mother of seven, we've been getting ready for Y2K and other events that might be happening in the near future.
This is the only one that I might consider just going out with a bang.
Even if we would be in a safe place, tell me, what would we have to hope for?
I'm fearful of the life my children might have.
My youngest is four, the oldest 18.
Do you think you could get a copy of what Clinton said and put it on your site?
She's a mother of seven, and the answer to that is it's already on the site right now.
Go get it.
Well, Joel, welcome back.
You heard the facts I read from this lady.
What do you say to somebody like that, who basically is saying, look, here's a scenario in which I don't think I'd want to live.
I don't think I'd want my children to live.
This is one where I might walk out and embrace it.
Well, you know, I have confronted that many times before.
Most of the clients that I deal with in design high security houses, either one of the other spouses has that attitude.
And my response is very simple.
You don't have a choice to go out and die.
Unless you're in one of those 10 major cities, it's going to get annihilated.
You're going to live and you're going to get sick.
Terribly sick if you don't prepare.
So your choice is not to die.
Boy, there's your choice is to prepare or get sick, terribly sick.
And when you look at the choices and you see what radiation does to your children, you'll prepare because it's relatively cheap.
It's not something you say that I'll wake up and there's nothing.
The point is, there is no choice.
It's like people after World War II waking up.
I'd rather not wake up.
Sure, but you're going to wake up.
What are you going to do?
You're going to have to get up and go to work.
You're going to have to go up and do something.
That's what life is all about.
We have sworn off launch-on-warning.
The Russians, on the other hand, maintain a policy of launch-on-warning, don't they?
Absolutely.
But they also have, first and foremost, a first-strike policy.
They believe and live by first-strike.
We are going to strike first, is their ongoing policy, has always been their policy, and every defector says they still are aiming for first-strike.
All right.
West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Joel Skalzin.
Hi.
Hi, Art.
This is DJ in Salt Lake.
Hello, DJ.
Hi.
Well, a lot of this stuff isn't really news to me.
I've listened to the teachings of W. Cleon Skalzin for years.
Your big thing was that you couldn't believe that they would allow that many people to be killed?
Yeah.
My big thing was that an American president would be cooperative in an effort To allow as many as 40% of his own nation to die to usher in this new world stinking order.
Right.
I would encourage you to read the UN Charter on Sustainable Development, which states that the goal for population on the Earth by the year 2050 is 1.5 billion.
And within the United States, that by the year 2010, that we would be back to the standards of 1940, which would be about half Of our present population.
Well, that certainly would mean that the bulk percentage of the people would die in China.
Well, they'd have to die somewhere, and in large numbers.
Okay, I appreciate your call.
Thank you.
Any comments on that, Joe?
Well, it's really true.
You know, part of that evil and You know, without going on a religious soapbox, I'm afraid that Satan has something to do with this major conspiracy, too.
There's something more to this than just human beings.
This is too big for a lot of human beings, the strategy that they've developed, and how many years they've maintained this.
Through many generations of leaders, they still maintain this onward march towards a no-sovereignty world with great tyranny, and that's what they're headed for, and they really do intend to eliminate a lot of people.
All right.
East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Joel Skousen.
Hi.
Good morning, Art.
Good morning.
This is Bishop 74 again.
It's been a while.
Yes, sir.
And I had a question for you, guest.
I was wondering if you would like... He spoke of the New World Order people.
Yes.
I was wondering if he'd go a little more into detail about which organizations might be behind it.
All right, do you want to do that, Joel?
Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations... The important thing to realize is I spend quite a few pages in my book of strategic relocation analyzing how they manage a conspiracy without letting very many people in on the fact that there's a conspiracy.
Yeah, how do they?
And they do that by predictability.
In other words, they can't Predictably, say, we need certain, these types of liberals, these types of leftists, you know, we don't even have to tell them.
We can hire them as journalists, we can hire them as think tank people, we can put them in and they will give us predictable results which will move the American populace in a certain direction.
And we never have to tell them that they are really fellow travelers with us.
Now, there's another group, too.
There are people, for example, Like George Bush, who joins Skull and Bones, and William F. Buckley, who joins Skull and Bones, who decide, well, I'm going to be on the conservative side, and I'm going to be on the moderate Republican side.
But they've bought into a conspiracy, but they don't believe it's necessarily evil.
They've bought into the fact that we're going to control the world for good.
And they don't understand, I think, some of these people that there's a very evil group at the top that, in fact, keeps their cards very, very close.
There's another group that's very important to their organization, and that's called the black groups in government.
In the CIA and the FBI, there are certain agents that have joined the underground, so to speak, or the dirty tricks gangs, if you will.
And there are many good CIA agents that don't even know that there's an existence of a black group within the CIA, or within the FBI, or within the INS, or the Border Patrol.
But there's certain unprincipled individuals that get the nod eventually, and they're led into the organization.
And I've had some personal experience in meeting some of those.
In fact, it came out in the press in the good old boys roundup that they had.
Call us toll free at 1-800-618-8255.
Not out in the press.
Nobody was asking the questions, what were all these cross-federal agents doing having a big party?
Well, they actually happened to run across the black organization of all the federal agencies.
Yeah, I remember that party.
It was, as a matter of fact, it was video of the party.
Yeah.
I saw it.
But you see, what the media didn't realize they'd run across was part of the conspiracy.
These are the people who knock off people for the Clinton administration, that knocked off Foster, that took care of JFK, and other people, including Martin Luther King, for the martyr syndrome.
And, you know, the evidence Of these kinds of conspiracy cover-ups is what is the real tracking that people must do about understanding it, not so much looking at the Council on Foreign Relations or Trilateral Commission.
They continue to switch organizations and bring in non-conspirators to muddy the water so that you can't really track it through the public organizations, though in fact they do, you know, the leaders of those organizations certainly do and are aware of Okay, first time caller on the line, you're on the air with Joel Skousen.
Hello.
Hello.
Yes, my name is DJ from Minnesota.
Yes, DJ.
And, is this Art Bell?
Yes, it is.
Okay.
I'm calling to say that in response to that DJ that called from before, there is a Rio de Janeiro summit of 1992 that was so dangerous that George Bush refused to sign it.
It was one of the first things that... I remember that, yes.
That Clinton did sign.
Okay.
It was brought to the Senate's attention when they went to ratify it.
I can't tell you the exact year, but it hasn't been too long ago.
And Michael Kaufman had drawn up a plan for the biodiversity, showing what would take place in this country.
Therefore, they put it on hold.
They have not signed it, as yet.
That I know of.
But it was meant to bring world population down to 2.1 billion by the year 2001.
Now that goes along with what your party there is saying.
All right.
Thank you very much.
You're getting a lot of support there, Joel.
Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Joel Skousen.
Hi.
Hey, Art.
How's it going?
It's Stacy from Vancouver.
Yes, sir.
And I just wanted to ask you a question.
As a Canadian, we have a different sense of patriotism up here.
And I was just wondering if you felt that some of the more rabid patriotism that some countries have is what's led to this kind of behavior.
And if it has, are you happy You may have participated in that.
Well, when you say that you have a different sense of patriotism in Canada, define what you mean.
Hmm.
Um... I love my country to death.
And I would die for my country, and I would fight for my country.
But... I'm not ready to impose my country's beliefs on another, to the point where I'm ready to kill someone just because... You know, like in a Star Trek episode, their face is black on the wrong side.
You know, I'm ready to share the world with other people, and I think more people should view themselves as earthlings.
World citizens.
Yes, without the New World Order, I think the whole thing would be avoided if we could all just share the sense that our blood is red, basically.
I know it sounds altruistic or whatever.
In other words, Rodney Kings, why can't we all just get along?
Joel, how do you respond to that?
Well, really that's shared by most people, and that's why there is a desire people not to impose. Most people just want to be left
alone, but you see, what we have to understand, and what our friend from Canada has to
understand, Canada, your own government there is imposing an international agenda not only upon
your own people, but also willing to participate, to impose that international agenda on the
rest of the world. Canada is at the forefront of being yes-men to the New World Order.
Well, I won't be saying yes-man when you all come up to take our water in a few years,
But that's another story.
There isn't any maliciousness of America towards Canada or Canada towards America, but there is a maliciousness of certain government leaders, and that's what I'm talking about, to take away your national sovereignty and my national sovereignty so that we have nothing to say about whose water is what.
It will be controlled by international organizations and courts.
I'm listening to this all night long, and I've heard it before, and I guess in the end, I guess my mind just cannot comprehend what the guys at the top are really trying to gain.
You know?
It seems to like it's a dead end.
You have an irradiated world with mutant kids with three heads, and in the end, nobody really gets anything good out of it.
That's not true.
That's not true.
That's a real misnomer.
Nuclear warfare, in fact, doesn't kill everybody.
It mutates everybody.
Look at what happened in Hiroshima.
As bad as it was, Outside that blast room, almost everybody survived.
And even within the blast foam, people within basements still survived.
Those were virtually firecrackers compared to the mega-tonnage we have now, with multiple re-entry warheads.
So we can move the criteria out another 10 miles, but what I'm still saying, it's amazing.
You can take all of the nuclear weapons on this Earth and throw them at Mount St.
Helens, You will not do as much damage to that mountain as that one volcano did.
All right, east of the Rockies, you're on the air with Joel Skousen.
Hi.
Hello?
Yeah.
Yes, speak.
Um, I would like to ask your guest... Yes?
about uh what does he think about extraterrestrials uh heading this this um nuclear holocaust?
all right well actually there's a good question there I'm going to bend it around a little bit.
There are a lot of people, we talk about that kind of thing a lot of times here.
President Reagan, on quite a number of occasions, made a comment about what if the world had to gather all of its forces together to battle a common enemy from elsewhere.
From space, in other words.
And I wonder if you, Joel, have considered, and did consider when he made those comments, that as another avenue to the same world order that you're imagining will occur following a nuclear holocaust.
I'm not understanding the question.
That he would use an alien enemy as the excuse to... Yeah, sure.
Something that would force the world You know, were that true, they certainly have had ample excuse.
You know, it's very interesting.
One thing I've never understood about the UFO controversy is why the government continues to stonewall so badly and be in denial about the voluminous reports that they have from credible military pilots about UFO sightings.
If they really wanted to make an excuse of this, Certainly, I think, could have done so now.
Even that huge Phoenix sighting was tremendous.
But the amount of denial and cover-up from the government's point of view, to me, I don't understand, even from a conspiratorial point of view, what there is to be gained from doing that.
Well, I do.
I do.
I suppose there was an announcement.
After all, we have had several jimmied wars.
Look at how the war in Vietnam began.
We faked that.
We faked an attack to begin the war in Vietnam.
That was a war to destroy America's spirit for ever making war on behalf of other people.
Well, it certainly did that, to some degree.
Or, as you point out, and I've argued about this for years, you think we were We got ourselves into the Second World War, and I suppose we may have.
But if there were one common terrible enemy that we had to fight, it would be a route to the same end destination that you're describing with the nuclear holocaust, wouldn't it?
Well, certainly there have been enough UFOs visiting.
Alright, it would have happened by now in other words.
I mean, they certainly had powers of maneuverability and weaponry and electronic jamming that we
can't even compare with.
I think that the hostility would have shown up much earlier.
All right.
It would have happened by now, in other words.
All right.
I'm Art Bell.
This is Coast to Coast AF.
From the Kingdom of Nye, this is Coast to Coast AF.
This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell on the CBC Radio Network.
Bye everyone.
All right, back to Joel Skousen.
Joel, you're back on the air again.
Thank you, Art.
And here come the people again.
On our first-time caller line, you're on the air with Joel Skousen and Art Bell.
Hi.
Hi, Art.
This is Joan, first-time caller also.
Yes, ma'am.
Well, I'm in Seattle, and I'm ready to pack my bags right now.
But I missed the first part, and I'm wondering, are we going to have any warning, or should we just start packing?
Now, I'm real nervous.
Is this like we have several hours?
In other words, will you see a buildup to this, or will it just happen?
Right.
Yeah, good question, Joel.
I really think that for the first time in history, we're going to have a complete surprise attack with no buildup.
The Russians don't have a significant conventional warfare capability now anyway.
No, they don't.
And they would only raise a lot of warning flags.
They would have to have some kind of excuse if they were to do that.
I think their main trump card is a complete annihilation of U.S.
military power in one day, one strike, and then broadcast to the world, we want Europe.
That's what they want.
and we'll have peace. Let us run Europe without a fight and we'll have peace.
And I don't think you have to worry about packing your bags now.
You've got a few years. I really don't think the window for that strike opens
before the latter part of 2003 or 2004.
So it's not a situation where you have to panic in any way.
What about Russia's social, political situation between now and then?
And then.
I mean, I see it as extremely, extremely tenuous.
It is.
I agree, Art.
That's the squeeze play that the Russians are facing.
In other words, they only have a certain few years before their people will begin to really riot.
No question.
And they just can't keep this going on forever.
The possibility of civil war is distinct.
So there is a squeeze play that the Russian leadership is in.
How far can we milk the West for aid We can continue to build up our high-tech equipment to get ready for this war, and then how long can we stave off our people and their discontent, and the military and other things that they're facing?
So it's a definite balance that they're playing.
But it's amazing how much support they're getting from the West towards keeping their economic problems at bay.
There are accurate reports of huge supplies of cash, $100 bills being shipped to Moscow every single week out of Kennedy Airport.
And that explains all of the flush hundred dollar bills going into the ex-communist mafia people roving around Europe.
All right.
Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Joel Lennart.
Hello.
Oh, hello.
Wayne Coney from Honolulu.
Hi, Wayne.
Yeah.
There was a British member of Parliament who was a lord who wrote, I think his name was Lord Geoffrey Archer.
He wrote a book, Eleventh Commandment.
And then on the Charlie Rose Show, he said that the Russian Mafia and the KGB are one and the same.
And then I was thinking that if there's upheaval in the U.S.
and then the shadow government replaces our representative republic that we have now, that they would replace it with something very similar, a CIA and a Mafia.
Yeah?
Joe?
That's very true.
They won't do it as overtly, I think, as the Russians have done.
They tend to do things a little more sneakily in the West.
The West is a little bit more gullible towards deception.
But you know, there already is this process being established whereby the legitimate services of government, federal government services, are being corrupted by these black organizations, these underground, ruthless-type cops that are Working within CIA, FBI and Border Patrol and other things who are on the take and do a lot of dirty tricks.
That's what's disturbing because more and more as in any, whether it was the Nazis or in the Soviet Union, you find your police forces pushing out your good principled people and you get more the type that we see on television.
All right.
East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Joel Skousen and Art Bell.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Yes, sir.
This is John in Wichita, Kansas.
Hi, John.
Joel, I'd like to ask you if Wichita, Kansas is one of the cities on the first strike list since McConnell and all the aircraft is here.
Well, McConnell still has some refueling assets, which makes it a secondary target.
Those will only be hit probably if they don't get all the bombers.
Because the bombers have to be refueled, and that's why they want refueling assets.
I see.
Well, I was just concerned about the area.
Yeah.
Actually, your biggest target area, of course, is near Kansas City, Whiteman Air Force Base.
I wouldn't be downwind of McConnell if I were you, but if you're in the rural countryside and have some hills in between, I think you're okay.
All right, sir.
Thank you.
All right.
Just a matter of curiosity.
Again, here I am, 65 miles west of Las Vegas.
There is, as you know, Area 51.
That's over a mountain range from me.
There's Las Vegas and Nellis Air Force Base over a mountain range from me.
Would that save me?
Yes.
In fact, your mountain ranges will keep you from any blast effects whatsoever.
You'll only have to worry about some fallout.
Not necessarily a trivial worry.
No, no.
Not a trivial, but fairly easy to prepare against.
That's what people need to understand.
You mustn't have a fatal attitude.
I don't design, for example, bomb shelters for people.
If people are in a blast area, I tell them to move.
Yeah.
You know, that's just stupid to design for heavy blast effects.
Yeah, if you believe there's going to be a war, and you're in a target area, blast area, obviously, if you believe it's going to happen, you damn well better move or you're going to die.
Whereas you see fallout you can prepare against.
Now there's certain areas that are relatively, have a high probability of being fallout free.
That's probably from the Portland, Oregon area down towards Eureka, California.
There are no targets to the west of that other than the Orient.
So that's almost a guaranteed fallout free area and kind of a big half moon shape that covers part of Northern California and Oregon.
They can use relatively clean, relatively is a strange word for this I know, relatively clean or very dirty bombs.
Yes.
What would they do?
Well, it's true that an air blast only puts out a fraction of the amount of radiation that a ground blast does.
Sure.
But unfortunately, most of these targets that are going to get hit, where the cities are, they're going to have to use ground blast weapons.
They've got to dig down into bunkers to get nuclear and chemical weapons.
They're going to be dirty weapons in Seattle because of the deep bunkers for the nuclear weapons at the Trident Missile Base at Bangor.
And the same thing for the bunkers in the San Diego area and Colorado Springs.
So if you use a large megatonnage round burst weapon, you're going to throw up dirt and debris that is going to be Made radioactive.
Very, very radioactive for a very long time.
Well, actually, it loses its radioactivity within a couple of weeks.
A couple of weeks?
Yeah.
Yeah, and so it is the half-life of particles that are made radioactive.
It's the long-term strontium-90 and other types of heavy particles that are much, much fewer.
I mean, those are very, very minuscule in terms of quantity in comparison to your radioactive dust that loses its reactivity.
Those do present some long-term health All right.
West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Joel Skelson.
Hi.
Hi, this is Greg up in Bend, Oregon.
Yes, sir.
A comment I wanted to make, I guess we're okay up here in this area.
Pretty good area, yes.
Okay.
But you're in Oregon that's competing with California for Socialist State of the Union.
Yeah, right.
I've been on a number of low-priority military bases, and I don't know if you're aware of this comment from you.
There are large numbers of UN vehicles on all of these bases all over this country.
They have the UN emblem on that, on the vehicles.
Just make a comment on that.
I am aware, and I have made a concerted attempt to check out as many of those reports as I can, and I frankly find that about half of them do not have any more, that they were temporarily there, and there are some other assignments.
I know there has been a concerted rumor mill that there is an attempt in a social unrest situation for the UN to come in and take over.
So once again, in answer to that, I have not found that most of those sightings are in fact credible.
the U.S. Even the Russians who are going to throw nuclear weapons here don't intend to
occupy. They simply want to remove us from the scenario as a credible force and to use
that blackmail on the rest. So once again, in answer to that, I have not found that most
of those sightings are in fact credible. Some of them are, but most of them can be explained
for training exercises and for use of enemy vehicles in their maneuvers that they use.
All right.
First time caller line, good morning, you're on the air with Joel Skousen and Art Bell.
Hello there.
Hi.
Going once.
Let me turn off my radio.
Yes, do that please.
Okay.
I'm here in Minneapolis and I wondered what that is like in terms of a safe area and also I have a basement, but it's got a chimney going into it, and I'm wondering about that and what types of precautions I could take in the house that I do have now.
Alright, well that's a pretty good question.
First of all, the general situation in Minneapolis.
Actually, the northern plains states of Minneapolis and Wisconsin have some of the nicest retreat areas that I've found.
Minneapolis itself has a potential social unrest problem because of the high population density.
I don't know exactly if you're near the edge of the suburbs or right downtown, which would be a problem.
But if you can survive the social unrest problems that will occur, the basement will serve you well.
For people, for example, who have a basement and they have very light fallout, as would be expected in the Minneapolis area, there would be no heavy military targets nearby.
That would directly threaten it.
You can get down low in the corner of a basement and cut your fallout by about 60 or 70%, which is significant.
And you need to be prepared to be there for about two weeks.
Right.
Actually, less in a place without heavy fallout.
Probably a week is what one could expect.
Okay, um, East of the Rockies, you're on the airw- You're a dial tone.
West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Joel Skelson and Art Bell.
Hi.
Good evening, Art and Joel.
What a show.
This is Kathy and Boise.
I have three comments.
I'll listen off the air, please.
First, I'll assume his religious philosophy because it dovetails with Bible prophecy.
Second, I'd like to know his opinion of the recent embassy bombings, and I see two scenarios.
One is, wag the dog because I'm paranoid.
No.
And secondly, as Richard Hoagland would say, I'm sending a message to our leaders.
Third, maybe Joel can confirm that since you were so surprised two hours ago, that you aren't the Antichrist.
Thank you, and have a good night.
Bye-bye.
Well, I'm going to forget about the Antichrist thing.
I stopped denying all that kind of stuff.
It doesn't work.
But with respect to her first two questions, she assumed your religious conviction.
I assume you're a Mormon.
I am, yes.
I do believe in With regard to the attacks on our embassies in Africa, any comments?
Yes, I do.
millenials, meaning that, or post-tribulation, meaning that I don't think the Second Coming
is coming until after, you know, the world goes through a great deal of tribulation,
which I think this nuclear problem is one of those.
With regard to the attacks on our embassies in Africa, any comments?
Yes, I do. This is a very interesting subject, and the big question is not so much why they're
attacking there, because that's fairly predictable.
The problem is, these people can attack here anytime they want, and the question is, why aren't they?
Yeah.
Good question.
We are wide open.
You talk about... I know.
They were talking in the news about how easy it is to get weapons into Kenya and Tanzania.
Well, gee, it's twice as easy to get them in the United States.
Yeah, I know that.
So, answer the question.
Why not here?
The question is, or the problem, I think, is that the U.S.
And this goes again with my philosophy about what the overall purpose of these government controllers is.
They have a target here that they want to paint black, and that's the conservative right-wing fundamentalist Christians.
They're reserving terrorism here for the kind they manufacture in the name of the right-wing, and that's why they're telling the other leftist terrorists outside the U.S.
to stay off.
Remember, those leftist terrorists are still controlled by Soviet bloc and other Governments that are feeding them all their supplies, so they are beholding to them.
There's only one reason why they're not coming here, and that's because someone who's controlling them is saying, this is off-limits.
And the rest of the world is not off-limits.
They're able to carry out their terrorism against Israel, against our embassies in Africa.
But I'm convinced that all of the infiltration that government agents are doing with provocative agents, attempting to get right-wing individuals to do terrorist acts here, Fascinating.
Alright, a lot of people are going to be bugging me about how to get your book, so let's give them that number one more time.
Your publisher's number is 1-800-292-2831.
The title of your book is...
Strategic Relocation, North American Guide to Safe Places.
And my second book is How to Implement a High-Security Shelter in the Home.
Same publisher?
Same publisher.
In fact, both books are available for a discount at, I think, $65 for both of them.
Okay.
I am going to really do an awful lot of thinking about what you have said and what you have revealed and what we have found out to be true tonight.
No doubt, Joel, we'll have you back again.
You sure scared the hell out of me.
Well, it'd be a pleasure, Art.
I think that we really need to undo this misnomer about the demise of communism.
It's not demised at all.
In fact, it's very interesting to watch what happened in South Africa and how that suddenly disappeared as a communist threat, but it's very much part of that whole scenario of the Soviets tying up natural resources in preparation for a future war.
All right, Joel.
Thank you.
What can I do but say thank you very much, particularly for hanging in here, coming on short notice and staying so long.
Joel, thank you.
My pleasure, Art.
Good night.
Good night.
Okay.
Well, it happens all the time.
I do shows that scare the hell out of me.
And I don't scare that easily because I do a lot of scary shows.
If you would like a copy of the program tonight, another prudent move, you can get it by calling 1-800-917-4278.
That's 1-800-917-4278.
I want to thank you all for being here this night.
We'll be back tomorrow night, same time, same station, and all of that.
For now, from the high desert,
▲
Export Selection