Joel Skousen warns of Y2K disruptions and a 2004–2006 Russian nuclear first strike targeting U.S. military bases (e.g., Cheyenne Mountain, Vandenberg) to justify a UN world army, citing Clinton’s 1995 "launch-on-warning" policy shift and $100M Canadian funding for Moscow. He advises relocating to rural zones like the Intermountain West or Appalachia, where fallout risks are lower, while dismissing globalist claims of population collapse as a tool for tyranny. Skousen ties this to UN’s 2050 1.5B population goal and Soviet-aligned resource control, arguing controlled chaos will accelerate global governance rather than dismantle it. [Automatically generated summary]
It is, and in a moment, Joel Scalson, who is a high security designer and consultant, and wrote a book called Strategic Relocation, North American Guide to Safe Places.
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.
And so unlike the Northridge earthquake where they could pull in supplies from the rest of the United States, you don't have that option in a strategic threat.
All right, 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.
And one of the things that interacts with that is that 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.
It's 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.
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 damned 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 Nort 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.
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, that the computer, 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 result in a major breakdown or a social meltdown of society.
Yeah, 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.
Now, 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 of chance.
And that is that the reason that shutdown occurred in the western United States was because it was all interconnected under automatic maintenance software.
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 into at least four or five major areas so that if the ones that are at the highest risk, for example, in the Northeast, those that are highly dependent on nuclear power plants, if they go down, that they will 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 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, backfeed power and take care of that area that is down.
It's very much akin to the mentality of generating companies.
There is no automatic provision that any generating manufacturer makes for an automated transfer switch that can pull itself out of the automatic mode and go manual.
In other words, every single automatic generator transfer switch is designed so that it never comes back off the automatic, off that mode until the power comes back off.
And 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?
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.
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 could 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're spending all of their money and trying to get Y2K compliant because that's the politically correct thing to do.
But 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.
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.
Obviously, you know, everybody's going to computerized switches, so for backup, they go to multiple computerized switches rather than having any manual capability.
And so it looks as if if you look at that evidence right on its face, you say, oh, well, 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.
And 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.
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 establishment in government has decided that they don't want Y2K to destabilize their power base.
They're pouring out all the stops.
No, showing signs of pulling out all the stops to get this thing fixed.
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 in power and 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 operate without the regulatory software being operational, then there's not going to be any major power failures.
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 litigious atmosphere, and 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, is 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 or even a week, you're going to see social unrest in the major metro areas.
And it didn't take two weeks for the trigger effect to begin to happen.
And I, in fact, believe 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.
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.
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.
I don't perceive that in any of the rural areas 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 LA 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.
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?
Rather disturbing, but I think that 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 movements that is almost hoping that this is the thing that brings down big, bad government.
You know, and I'm not a fan of big government.
I have a long history of fighting against this tyranny and new world 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 conspiratorial 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 a 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.
And if government were taking the stand of denial, which they are not at this point, 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.
When 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 backhanded payments to certain big corporations, which turned in a billion dollars into the stock market two days ago in order to...
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 look to see what 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.
And 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 a 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.
But you want to remember there's a reason for that.
It's not that they don't have the money.
It's 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.
But it's not the weakness that counts that they're showing.
The weakness, you know, 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.
I mean, look at this complete underground nuclear complex at factories and live-in factories and conditions the size of the entire Washington, D.C. Metroplex, underground in the Euro 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 that.
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.
Well, last December they changed the American nuclear doctrine.
It was announced by James Bell, an NSC advisor, that President Clinton has signed an order on December 7th, interestingly enough, changing American nuclear response doctrine.
And no longer would we launch on warning that we would, in fact, absorb a first strike in the interest of peace.
As 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.
Because if we launch, because we can detect which of their missile silos launched, so we can retarget 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, and ours hits the missiles that are in their silos.
So it's a tremendous deterrent.
But President Clinton also did two other things in this executive order.
I don't have that 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 warning doctrine.
We've got to 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 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.
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 the Bosnian and the Iraq wars, etc.
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 War has set up.
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 talk about.
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 Scalson, 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 Scalson.
Welcome back, Joe.
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 or 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, Art, 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 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 the critical areas are, such as power, railroads, airlines, communications.
If those go down for any significant amount of time, society really can't operate.
It's on too fragile of a lifeline, as you said at the beginning of the show.
A test simulating trading on Wall Street around the start of the millennium is now showing some firms with the best resources to overcome your 2,000 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 were stymied by your 2,000 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 moments and saying no problem.
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...
And you're saying that's all out the window.
The president has signed a document saying we would absorb a first strike.
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 to 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 and the Cold War years show the 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, and 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.
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.
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 do 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 that 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 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 UN 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 UN 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 megatonage that large portions of this country would be completely poisoned and unlivable for millennia.
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.
And 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 as the tactic of the New World Autocrat to induce Russia to throw as many of the 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.
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.
He says, if you don't accept, 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 that.
They immediately began to badger him with 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 is 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.
Gary has a particular theology, Christian Reconstruction, which basically is looking for a way for any conspiracy in New Role or to be taken down.
And he believes that Y2K is going to do this so that the kingdom of God can be reestablished on earth and peace and prosperity can be reestablished before the second coming.
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.
You see, I don't believe, in fact, that neither Y2K nor this war that they're planning is going to bring them down, and in 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.
Joel, I want to read this to you and see what you make of it, all right?
Okay.
All right.
Again, this comes from the Electronic Telegraph, Monday, 8 December, 97.
Clinton 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 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, quote, it would be a mistake to think that nuclear weapons no longer matter to this administration, end quote.
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.
These were part of the verbiage that the administration was giving after the major outcry from military commanders when he first announced that he was dropping the policy of launch on warning.
And the mere fact that they do not mention the dropping of launch on warning indicates this is a very selective view intended to pacify whoever the intended audience is.
Clinton, in his rebuttal to the things, had said that, no, we can still agree to first launch of nuclear weapons, but we are not going to launch if we detect the 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.
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 noticeables 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 someday, 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.
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 accede to these types of demands so willingly?
Both of these threats have as their major, as a 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 there most certainly will be in a nuclear war, 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, 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 they have a 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, 7, or 8.
So that's where I think the highest vulnerability window is for the nuclear strike.
And I think 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 1, maybe even a little bit earlier of Y2K really destabilizes the stock market.
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 and Holloman Air Force Base down in southern New Mexico, which doesn't have any other strategic targets other than the German Air Force now.
It's in one of the, it's 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 eastern Oregon and Washington.
unidentified
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 just an eye-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.
unidentified
Well, 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.
That 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 within side 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.
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.
Vandenberg has, of course, a lot of the space monitoring and boarding equipment there, which is very important to the Russians to take out in a first strike.
unidentified
So do you think, like, western Colorado, Washington, Oregon, southern Idaho is a good place to be?
Okay, we've got somebody with a radio going, going, gone.
Wildcard line, you're on the air with Joel Scowsen.
Hi.
unidentified
Hey, our pleasure to talk to you.
It's Frank from Marietta.
This whole YTK 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 first few weeks.
East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Joel Skelson.
unidentified
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 presidential election?
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 Scalzin'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, Stand 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.
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 is 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 million, 40%, excuse me, of the American population in order to implement this new world order.
It's coming because of political needs, actual military needs of the government and manipulation of the powers of politics to give the appearance of openness, but there is no openness.
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.
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.
ExecutiveOrder 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 two, executive order on federal information technology, 21016.
Number three, Executive Order on Mass Destruction Weapons Proliferation.
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.
Years ago, three or four years ago, I made the acquaintance of a gentleman who had been an intelligence officer in the CIA.
And he was on his deathbed.
He was maybe 80 years old.
And he told me that 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.
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 this beachhead in the eastern Mediterranean?
That's an issue that's ongoing that doesn't get much attention in the news, but it's scheduled to occur sometime in October and November of this year.
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.
The thing I want to point out, though, is that just like the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was not the real cause of World War I, 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 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 things.
Yes, I'm saying that They cannot get rid of people's innate desire to maintain national sovereignties without a war so horrendous that it will force people to accept a world government as the so-called solution to the problems of international warfare.
unidentified
Well, the only problem I have with that is what's to gain when you irradiate half the world with nuclear weapons.
That's the only part, well, call me too rational, I guess.
I guess we're dealing with insane people, but what's what 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.
I know a lot about the Russian culture and I've studied Russian for many years myself.
But the Russians have a culture, a ruthlessness about humanity that is very worrisome.
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.
unidentified
Yeah, but well that, but are they, so you're simply saying they're a pawn, correct?
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.
But I really think when you look at the evidence, and you have studied the Soviet Union, 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 unknown positions in middle-level bureaucracies.
You look at the shootdown of the KLL airline with Representative McDonnell aboard, and that showed how paranoid these boys are out there.
They really don't, 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 band.
They can't believe that anybody else is being straightforward, and they can't believe that they'd really be so stupid to disarm.
So the Russians are really kind of a mixed-up ball of ruthlessness and bewilderment, and it's not a good situation.
unidentified
Well, look at their history over the thousand years.
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 market, even 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 shoulders.
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.
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.
Bell emphasized that there is no change in this PDD with respect to U.S. policy and launch on warning, and that the policy is that we do not not rely on it.
I'm sure this was typed incorrectly.
In fact, Bell said in his 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.
Bell 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.
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, and it's also available through the publisher for $30.
And it has full architectural plans on how to do those.
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 is a real haven Away from the population centers.
The Midwest is generally safe, except for some of those nuclear targets, but the population densities outside the major cities drop to under 100 per square mile, and so those do qualify as generally safe areas.
But one does have to really clearly look at some of the target areas to make sure that you stay away from some of the...
Well, 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.
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 Scalson.
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, is 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 Mimits 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 equipment for the Navy at least would be taken out rather quickly.
Let's have a different interpretation of the actual effect of this PDD that we were discussing earlier.
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.
All that he has done, and I'm no fan of President Clinton, I mean, 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 in a lot of ways.
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 communication centers that are able to talk to our submarines would be destroyed.
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.
unidentified
Or from whoever is next on down the chain of command.
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.
unidentified
Well, 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 eventually word will get through and there will be retaliation, and it will be devastating that 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 us in 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'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...
unidentified
All it really does is prevent us from starting a nuclear war on mistake because we thought that we were being launched against, 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.
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 editions in addition to having it on a links page.
Thank you, Keith.
Now, East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Joel Skelson.
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 in 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 in 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.
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, that we're falling asleep, and it doesn't help to have a Republican minister or Congress controlled by a person who really...
He's a plant.
And when I was in Washington, when Gingrich was there, and it's really interesting to have interacted with him and see the unprincipled nature in which he maneuvered.
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 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 not hot of an issue.
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 it's a very top secret, but I can trace their actions through tracing the history of cover-ups, through tracing these types of negotiating positions.
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 that is 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 in voice as 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 wake up, 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.
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.
unidentified
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.
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.
The important thing to realize is I spent 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.
In other words, they can 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 decided, well, I'm going to be on the conservative side and I'm going to be on the moderate Republican side.
But they bought into a conspiracy, but they don't believe it's necessarily evil.
They 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 CI 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 are certain unprincipled individuals that get the nod eventually, and they're let into that organization.
And I've had some personal experience in meeting some of those.
And in fact, it came out in the press in the good old boys roundup that they had.
But you see, what the media didn't realize they 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 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 conspiracy.
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...
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.
Well, when you say that you have a different sense of patriotism in Canada, define what you mean.
unidentified
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 the 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.
Well, really, that's shared by most people, and that's why there is a desire for 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.
unidentified
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.
But it isn't, you know, 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.
unidentified
I guess I'm just, 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, like nobody really gets anything but good.
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.
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, they 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.
Or as you point out, and I've argued about this for years, you think we were 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 nuclear holocaust, wouldn't it?
Well, certainly there have been enough UFOs visiting in mass that if they had real hostile intent, it would have been, I mean, they certainly have 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.
So there is a squeeze play that the Russian leadership is in, is how far can we milk the West for aid that 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 Canada Airport.
And that explains all of the flush $100 bills going into the ex-communist mafia people roving around Europe.
There was a British member of Parliament who was a lord, who wrote, I think his name was Lord Jeffrey Archer.
He wrote a book, 11th Commandment, and then on the Charlie Rose show, he said that the Russian mafia and the KGB are one in 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.
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, the 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 more and more.
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.
Now, there's a certain areas that are relatively, have a high probability of being fallout-free, and that's probably from the Portland, Oregon area down towards Eureka, California.
There are no targets to the west of that other than in the Orient.
So that's almost a guaranteed fallout-free area in kind of a big half-moon shape that covers part of northern California and Oregon.
So if you use a large megatonnage round burst weapon, you're going to throw up dirt and debris that is going to be very, very radioactive for a very long time.
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.
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.
It is my consensus that, in fact, that isn't any of their intent.
They do not intend to occupy 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, how should I say, enemy vehicles in their maneuvers that they use.
Actually, the northern plain states of Minneapolis and Wisconsin have some of the nicest retreat areas that I found.
Minneapolis itself has a potential social unrest problem because of the high population density.
And I don't know exactly if you're near the edge of the suburbs or right down town, 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 avoid and cut your fallout by about 60 or 70 percent, which is significant.
I do believe in Bible prophecy and consider myself somewhat of a post-millennialist, meaning that, or post-tribulation, meaning that I don't think the second coming is coming until after the world goes through a great deal of tribulation, of which I think this nuclear problem is one of those.
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 and 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 means that they want to make sure that Americans focus on right-wing terrorism and not leftist terrorism.
I think that we really need to undo this misnomer about the demise of communism.
It's not demise at all.
In fact, it's very interesting to watch what happened in South Africa and, you know, 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.