Alan Watt’s Show from June 4th, 2009
First off I would like to point out that Alan Watt has nothing to do with this blog. What’s below is just a transcript from his radio show “Cutting Through The Matrix” on the Republic Broadcasting Network. I encourage you all to please visit the links mentioned at the beginning of the transcript to download his free daily podcasts and to please PLEASE donate to Alan Watt.
For ways to donate to Alan please visit his website mentioned at the beginning of the transcripts. This man truly is like the modern day Library of Alexanderia.
Hi folks. I am Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix on the 4th of June 2009. I always suggest to newcomers to look in to cuttingthroughthematrix.com web site but I should also mention the other sites you can go in to and download directly because I’m sure we’re going to have more problems with some of the servers in the future as I’ve had in the recent past. So, go in to cuttingthroughthematrix.com web site and you can download hundreds of talks I’ve given in the past where I try to give you the big picture of the big machinations of the agenda. There’s only one agenda for the whole world. It’s complex to an extent. It’s like a spider web with lots of connected organizations and foundations and so on. It’s called the parallel government, by the way, in their own terms. So, you can find those downloads on that site. You can also so in to cuttingthrough.jenkness.com, cuttingthroughthematrix.com, .net, .org, .ca, .us, at alanwattsentientsentinel.eu. The last one, alanwattsentientsentinel.eu has all of the audios, as they all do, but it also has the transcripts of these talks that you can read if you wish, after printing up, and they’re written in the various languages of Europe.
I rely on you, the people, who hear my talks and I know for a fact that a lot of my work goes all across the planet. It’s reworded and reused in books and articles, etc, etc, etc. So it’s up to you to keep me going by buying what I have for sale on my site. There’s not much. I’d do a lot more if I wasn’t doing the talks. You can also donate to me by using PayPal or Western Union or sending personal checks from Canada or the US; they’re accepted in Canada. How to do it, you can also find on any of these sites.
We are on a roll, as I say, into a MASSIVE new world order, planned an awful long time ago and you truly have to do the studies on this new world order to put it together. It’s HUGE. It’s complex. Really, it started a long, long time ago with small groups of men who got together, formed a sort of cartel to take over the money supply of the world, initially. They also thought themselves as being a little superior than the average person. They wanted a planned society and since they had held on to wealth for generations and hadn’t squandered it through having the wrong kinds of sons or daughters – that’s what they say in their own writings – then they decided that THEY WERE qualified to be the ‘guardian class’ of the planet.
From them and their dark beginnings, a long time ago, came out different branches of them. All specialized areas. Some into creating journalism and big newspapers. After all, the media gives you your reality. Since everything comes from the capstone of money right down in this ENTIRE world system – economics, like Karl Marx said – it was easy for these small cabals to control ALL of society, ALL politics, politicians, and everything else that happens in a country. You’ll get this in the basic, very basic economic lessons at any college or university. They’ll tell you that everything in a country, every law in a country, social, criminal, civil and otherwise, ALL stem from the economic system. whoever controls the moneyed system, controls the entire nation and its culture and everything else. Quite simple. We’re going to go in to more of this when I come back after this break.
Hi folks. I am Alan Watt and we’re Cutting Through The Matrix, discussing the CABAL that started a long, long time ago. Following, really, the works of Plato and others to do with a planned society, an organized, PLANNED society, a PLANNED future. These characters who financed industry, the wars in countries… They profited from all the wars and backed all the wars, actually, and perhaps even instigated them… because wars were a necessary part of bringing the world together. As Carroll Quigley said, Professor Carroll Quigley, wars not only are very lucrative to those who back them financially, they have international agreements. There’s no losers for the banks. They must pay up, whichever country loses or wins, they both pay regardless. He said it also changes the CULTURES of BOTH combatants, since government takes over in a socialism sort of sense, a socialistic sense, ALL ministries that were belonging to the public people, including agriculture, etc, they EXPAND their governmental departments with AUTHORITY over the public. Eventually, they amalgamate. Through every major war, you have amalgamations or empire building until you have world empire. This, again, was discussed an awful, awful long time ago, long before the big players came along; the front men, in fact. Like the Darwin family who were put out there by the Royal Society, which was – look at its history – set up as a Freemasonic society, chartered by the Crown. Look at its early players and who were put in charge of what and where, etc. Everybody who was anybody was a member of the Royal Society. They have a branch in every British Commonwealth nation, by the way. They planned to bring across a world society.
It goes as far back in history, at least admitted to, in the writings of John Dee in the 1500s. Then Bacon, 1500s and the 1600s, Sir Francis Bacon. They talked about the creating of a country in the west, a New Atlantis, that would basically dominate the world for a time. We know that the United States was the country that eventually was to be born in the Atlantic which would have a form of government for the people to believe in, but would secretly be run by experts and scientists, even. That’s what we have to day. Very old agenda.
The beginnings of the British Empire and the man who coined the term, The British – or Brytish – Empire, was John Dee himself. He was a Rosicrucian, the precursor to Freemasonry that came out, really, of the Cathar Era and the Albigensian Era of what became France eventually. They talked about using this embryonic cluster of countries, the British Empire, that would expand and expand across the globe as a nucleus to form a world empire. They even brought in the term, ‘free trade’ in the 1600s and ‘most favored nation trading status’ in his writings. You can check it out for yourself.
They also said, too, that they didn’t need to base themselves, necessarily, always in London. They could move and use other big countries to do the work for them. I’ve said for years, the US was set up to do exactly what it has done. That is to finish off the job of standardizing the world into a world empire. As it finishes off the job, it must then submerge in to a third-world status to merge with what it’s created across the planet. It will all be under the same global government. Same laws, regulations, etc.
We find many of the other specialized branches that were set up to deal with world government, such as the Fabian Society, backed by multi-billionaires of their own time – like the Astor family and many others – were simply a branch of The Royal Institute for International Affairs. You’ll find the members of one are the members of both. Under the Fabian system… and you can read lots about the Fabian system from many of its authors, George Bernard Shaw, HG Wells and others, many since. The British Prime Ministers of late have all been Fabian Socialist members dedicated to world government. Karl Marx himself wrote about the trading REGIONS of the world that would be set up, in the 1800s. He said it would start off with a unified Europe followed by a unified Americas, including the Caribbean countries, and a unified Far Eastern/Pacific region.
We’re never, ever told the truth about things. It’s hard to start to explain to a novice, even; it’s even harder to explain to someone that’s been to university, for instance, in journalism, who think that they know it all. But if they can get one part of it right and see something for themselves because of their own life experiences and living through that part of it, there’s always hope for them.
Canada went through the Free Trade Negotiations in the 80s and 90s. That was the precursor of NAFTA and more important that NAFTA itself because it set up the preambles, the terminology, etc and how that terminology would be used AND interpreted from then on, in every further treaty that was made for amalgamation. It was EXACTLY what the European Union had done itself. You go into the writings of Eisenhower and others of the time, and Hoover, and you’ll see that they talked about the need to force Europe to amalgamate DURING World War II. They talked about this. Afterwards, they said they would use the Lend-Lease Program to enforce it. Deals were made with Churchill and others. Churchill was all for it, of course, because that was also his dream. He belonged to the same clubs and associations.
I’ve gone over many of the writings of these people before in the past, from their OWN WORKS. Here’s a journalist here, who I think is young and so he’s got hope. It’s from the Telegraph.co.uk.
Some conspiracy theories are true – and the worst of them all is the European Union
By James Delingpole
May 28th, 2009
(Alan: He starts off this article talking about a friend he met, an author, who’s just come out with a book pooh-poohing and decrying this madness, every single conspiracy theory ever invented. So he’s having, I guess, dinner with this journalist. He goes along with it all too and he knocks down the Kennedy stuff and everything else. He agrees with it all, this particular journalist. And he says here, the author of the book, to destroy all conspiracy theories, he’s called Aaronovitch. He says…)
Implicit in Aaronovitch’s wonderfully dismissive quip is the assumption that no sane or reasonable person could possibly imagine that the EU was a conspiracy to deprive nation states of their primacy and their people of their power. But that’s exactly what the EU is – and this isn’t conspiracy theory, this is conspiracy fact. (A: So this journalist has got hope. There’s hope for this guy.)
Had the very charming and clever and generally delightful – but not in this case – Aaronovitch properly digested the best, most comprehensive account ever written on the EU – The Great Deception by Christopher Booker and Richard North – he would have understood this quite clearly.
Here is how I summarised their arguments in How To Be Right. (Skip as you please because the extract’s quite long and very depressing, all the more so for being so true: (A: It’s true. The truth is depressing.) it’s the only bit in the book I couldn’t manage to make funny because there’s nothing funny about the EU). Here goes:
“Whatever you know about the European Union, it’s worse than you think. One reason for our surprising ignorance on so important an issue is that we find it so ineffably boring that no one, apart from those involved in the furtherance of the project, can be bothered to read the small print. Mainly, though, it’s because secrecy, disinformation and mendacity have been built into the project from the very start.
“The key thing to understand about the EU is that was it always meant to be an all-embracing political union never just an economic one. But what its inventors – notably, the former cognac salesman Jean Monnet – realised early on was that no rational electorate would allow its country’s sovereignty to be abandoned for the sake of some pie-in-the-sky pan-European ideal. The whole process of ever-deeper integration, they realised, would have to be conducted by stealth. (Or as project insiders knowingly call it “engrenage”- which means “gearing” ie ratcheting up little by little). (A: Fabian style.)
“For many years Britain resisted this process. But in the bout of self-doubt which followed the Suez Crisis, the government of a declining, post-Imperial Britain looked towards the Continent, saw what it imagined to be the world’s new economic powerhouse, and panicked itself into deciding that it must join this mighty trading group at no matter what cost. (A: Actually it was done before that and I hope this journalist goes into his books because he’ll find out that they discussed it and agreed to it DURING World War II when they were setting up The New Deal. The New Deal, basically, was the lend-lease deal. It was loans by the US with ties attached. One of the ties was they must amalgamate Europe. So he hasn’t quite caught up on that yet. And they set up the first bureaucratic departments, secretly, in every country, in the EU in 1948. That’s when they went in to action… before Suez.)
“In order to do so it had to lie to its people. (A: It “HAD TO LIE TO ITS PEOPLE”.) As early as Harold Macmillan, Britain’s political leaders were perfectly well aware that this was far more than just a trading bloc, that it was intended to be a supranational organisation (A: Back with more after this break.)
This is Alan Watt and we’re Cutting Through The Matrix. Just discussing how the EU became the EU and correcting some of the mistakes a journalist has made, although he’s on the right track. He still presumes that it was successive Prime Ministers after World War II that just found it easier to go along, step by step, into what they saw as an economic powerhouse. So he says,
“In order to do so it had to lie to its people. As early as Harold Macmillan, Britain’s political leaders were perfectly well aware that this was far more than just a trading bloc, that it was intended to be a supranational organisation which would relieve national governments of much of their powers. But to admit as much, they knew, would never wash with a people as proudly independent as the British. So, over the years, European integration has always been sold by successive British governments to their electorates as an economic issue, never as a political one.
“Rarely in the field of political duplicity has a British prime minister lied to his country more blatantly than when Edward Heath told television viewers in January 1973: ‘There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.’ (A: Again, if this journalist was to go into his works and find out more about Mr. Heath, he would find he belonged to some rather interesting organizations to do with complete globalism. He’s also a spokesman for Sun Myung Moon, believe it or not. He was also set up, along with 2 other very well know people, to start off and kick off and get the organizations set up for the trading with China. He’s still on the board of it yet. They never retire, these guys. Never. These guys are working for a different agenda. Why would he support Sun Myung Moon? Well, what does Sun Myung Moon have in common with the agenda, Plato, the Fabianist, etc, the eugenicists, The Optimum Population Trust of today? They all believe in EUGENICS. Of course, Sun Myung Moon greatest thing is, his teams match up partners and do mass weddings with them. They match up their DNA, their family histories, etc because it’s the offspring they want. It’s nothing more or less than a eugenics society and organization.)
“Since 1970 when Heath elbowed Britain into the Common Market with no democratic mandate (the subject had barely been mentioned in his general election campaign) (A: His pal, by the way, that China block, I think it’s General Hague.), all the things he promised would not happen have happened. The key political decisions governing almost every aspect of our lives – from how much we’re paid to how we police our borders to what is and isn’t safe for us to eat to the way we take our measurements to how we dispose of our rubbish (A: That’s garbage.)– now stem from faceless bureaucrats in Brussels, and not from our democratically elected representatives in Westminster.
The reason I’m talking about this article is because, OPENLY, openly since 2005, on Canadian news, the Council on Foreign Relations, which is the Royal Institute of International Affairs – it’s just two names for the same thing – came out on Canadian television with the first OPEN integration treaty signed with Mexico, Canada and the US. They said there, with the President and 2 Prime Ministers, that this was the FIRST. By 2010, the LAST one would be signed for TOTAL INTEGRATION of the Americas.
They already, after the year 2005, started to allow top level bureaucrats in Ottawa, Canada to apply for jobs inside Washington DC in equivalent positions and vice versa. They’ve already amalgamated much of our taxation, believe it or not, for imports, exports. They’re sharing the FBI; the CIA shares all of its files now with CSIS in Canada. In the paper recently, we now have the cops on both sides doing patrols deeper and deeper into each other’s borders. We’re integrating completely. Exactly as the European Union. Exactly as Karl Marx said it would happen… in that order. That’s why I’m mentioning it. We are not to be told the TRUTH about the free trade negotiations, the precursor of NAFTA until the year 2050.
Who said that? Shelly Ann Clark said that. She was a top government bureaucrat who dealt with those negotiations back in the Free Trade Negotiations. She did all the books up. She piped them all up. There were two sets of books. She came out openly afterwards, on television, on one show in Montreal, before she was shut down, and said that what’s been put on display for the public to see in libraries contains only about HALF of what was actually there. The rest is an underground bunker outside of Ottawa, not to be opened for 50 years. That’s why I’m talking about this. Everything is done by stealth and lies. You never tell the truth to the children. The children wouldn’t understand what’s in their best interests. What happens to be in your best interests is decided by those who decided that they’re fittest to judge what your best interests are.
Terminology is of key importance in everything. In these treaties, as I say, go through the preambles in all of them. That gives you what these characters will use, the words and meanings for in their subsequent treaties. You’ll think you’re reading one thing, it means another thing all together. We’ll go through the economic union ABC dictionary in a moment to show you how they do it because NAFTA is the same. Back with more after these messages.
Hi folks. I am Alan Watt and we’re Cutting Through The Matrix, trying to show you what reality truly is as opposed to the fiction that’s presented to the general population, augmented by LOTS of fiction under the guise of entertainment… which is just predictive programming. Remember, these sites that I mention and these links that I put up will be on MY site at the end of the show. You should check in to them. This particular one is the euabc.com. That’s the economic union ABC, their dictionary that someone’s compiled.
Number of laws
Number of laws and other acts
There are now more than 30,000 legal acts in the EU. There are also 10,000 Court verdicts and 40,000 international standards, all of which must be respected by citizens and companies in the EU. (A: That’s a very important part because remember in Fabianism, the idea was they can regulate all commerce, and all wealthy people too, eventually, as they infiltrate and take over all governments by governmental regulations. That was part of it. HG Wells went through all of that in detail in his writings for the Fabian Society that you can read for yourself.)
It is very difficult to define the exact number of valid legal acts in the European Union. (A: Isn’t that amazing in this great democracy?) Here we assemble numbers from several different sources. (A: This is what we have to do for NAFTA, as well.)
Some acts are legally binding, such as regulations, directives, decisions and international agreements. Some are not, such as white books, green books and communications. Recommendations sometimes can have legal effects. Resolutions of the European Council and the European Parliament can be used to understand and give new interpretations to legally binding acts.
Verdicts of the EU Court can change European law and the interpretation of the treaties. (A: So they can keep reinterpreting what they want, as they wish, by reinterpreting words, phrases and so on.)
Standards from European standard organisations (A: These are private, right) such as CEN, Cenelec and ETSI can bind (A: Under treaties) member states, companies and citizens in the same way as regulations. Standards from United Nations specialised bodies such as Codex Alimentarius for food become part of EU law when the EU enters these agreements. (A: It’s the same here with Canada, the States and so on. We’ve already swallowed that one from the United Nations. So we have this public/private organization, you see, making law for the public. Now, the UN, remember, is a PRIVATE organization. Look in to it. It’s a corporation. It’s not a nation-state either. By the way, it‘s not democratic because the public were never given anything to vote for. Never have been.) They become binding supranationally rather than internationally.
A technical standard referred to in a directive or regulation can be legally binding in the same way as the mother legal act. A standard from Codex Alimentarius permitting hormones in beef must also be respected by countries that have voted against that standard, unless the EU chooses to pay a fine to the World Trade Organisation (A: United Nations again) as they did in this case. (A: The UN is the umbrella for this private global system, the World Trade Organization – and the World Bank for that matter, and the Bank for Economic Development, etc., that every country signed on to under treaty at the end or World War II with the United Nations. We’re paying millions every year through it. Politicians get retired into these jobs for the rest of their lives, to deal with this supranational organization, United Nations.)
A decision by a Commission official in the name of and on behalf of the Commission is just as binding on member states as treaty articles. (A: Quite something. By one official, right?) There is no hierarchy of laws in the EU. The number of more or less binding acts is over 80,000 if these different types of acts are counted together. (A: They’re doing the same thing with the NAFTA right now. This is what they discuss at the Summit of the Americas when they give it out to the round tables to put it in to wording effect.)
See the table below and see under Democracy, Accountability, Transparency and Subsidiarity for how decisions are made in the EU.
EXAMPLES OF LAW WE CAN’T CHANGE AS VOTERS
A directive binds member states to implement its content, leaving it to them to decide how. (A: That’s all you can do, is HOW do you implement it?) For example the EU chemical directive, REACH, comes partly into force on 1 July 2009, after the European elections.
Thus a member state is unable to ban a particular chemical on its own, not even if it believes it causes cancer. Only the non-elected Commission (A: The NON-ELECTED commission.) can propose a change in the relevant EU legislation. Not a National Parliament … not the European Parliament …Not the voters. (A: It’s a dictatorship, you see.)
Environmentalists want to forbid 267 chemicals. The Commission will only investigate 7 of them. The 260 unwanted chemicals cannot be banned by voters in any member state by means of any election. (A: This is the new democracy. You’d better understand it… because there’s no democracy AT ALL.)
Even if these additives may cause allergies, cancer, diminished fertility (A: Which is the agenda), hormonal effects.
Another example: Bisphenol A is forbidden in Canada. (A: They’re still using it.) Voters in Europe are unable to forbid it.
And even worse: The Commission legislates on its own to permit genetically modified maize to be used, even though the great majority of member states do not want it.
(A: What was it they say, you know, back in the days of Bacon, etc followed on by all the other characters I’ve mentioned that have taken over? The standard, down through generations, they say, ‘a benevolent dictatorship shall rule.’ A benevolent dictatorship…who know best, you see. They know best what’s for the people.)
These are directly binding on all member states throughout the EU, without the need for being applied through national Governments or Parliaments. They are directly applicable and come legally into force from the date mentioned in them. It is illegal for a member state to change EU regulations when putting them into national laws.
These are binding on those to whom they are addressed, but not on all EU members or citizens.
Recommendations are formally non-binding legal acts. A recommendation from the Commission on the music industry has been used to change the market for copyright for authors and composers. The European Parliament was almost unanimous in opposing this Recommendation and asked the Commission to withdraw it. Again, it is the non-elected who decide. . . Not the elected.
See, the members of the European Parliament have no powers. Well paid to give the appearance to the people that there’s some kind of voice. A man from the ex-soviet bloc, who’s written quite a few books, looked at this very, very carefully and he said that the average member of the European Parliament have about 40 SECONDS per YEAR time to speak in Parliament. Even if they speak, they have no power to change anything. It’s all in the hands of this top, secretive executive. THAT is what they’re bringing in for the Americas. I’ll put this link up on my site. There’s also a video to do with this, I believe, from Wise Up Journal. I’ll put that up as well.
Quite the world we’re living in, isn’t it? It’s totally different from that which is presented to by the general media every day with its trivia and its predictive programming of things to come that we understand by osmosis, not by reasoning, and we get it through repetition until the actual thing happens in your life and you think it’s all quite natural. Repetition. Exactly as Lord Bertrand Russell said they would use, by using massive marketing industries who understood the science of the mind, Bernays etc.
Now, control freaks, as I say, going way back in time… They’ve written lots of books of on HOW this system would be because they all belonged to the same organization with its many specialized branches. Wells, of all people, in his Modern Utopia, went through the fact that in the future, when they ruled the world… and the world would be a migratory place. Where the workers would have to travel, with permits only, from country to country FOR work and then they’d move on. They’d have no private property. They’d have to check in everywhere and be monitored everywhere they traveled. Those who were unable to work would not travel. Or, if they were not needed for work, they would not travel.
That’s what we’re seeing happening right now. It’s been happening in the EU for years now with the European papers being FULL of ads and jobs for the crème de la crème jobs in different fields, who can travel when big corporations need them, to other countries. The rest are left behind. That is why you’re seeing all this nonsense about terrorism set up. It’s not to keep you all from moving, it’s to allow only the ones who are chosen to move. The ‘new nomads’ as Jacques Attali called it, another guy at the United Nations, in HIS book, Millennium: Winners and Losers in the Coming New World Order. Planned and written about well over 100 years ago… in at least one book, and long before that.
“Fat people causing climate change, says Sir Jonathan Porritt.” Now, what was it Wells also said? He says in their ‘new utopia’ they’d sterilize all the unfit. You wouldn’t have to just kill them all off, that’d be too untidy… might get some backlash. Just sterilize them. There’d be no flabby people, he said. No skinny people and weaklings or people with hereditary diseases. They would be eliminated. Adolf Hitler picked up on that and ran with it. So did the Soviet Union. Here we are, in this beautiful world SOVIET, FABIAN SOCIALISM, with Sir Jonathan Porritt from Britain, Optimum Population Trust, etc, etc, a private organization, but he’s now assigned to government. Who voted HIM to get assigned to government in Britain? This is from The Telegraph.
Fat people causing climate change, says Sir Jonathan Porritt
Fat people are harming the planet by contributing to climate change, according to Sir Jonathan Porritt, the Government’s chief green adviser.
By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
3 Jun 2009
(A: Ugly looking character too. UTTER control freak. He might have the Swine flu, he’s got that appearance of a particular creature.)
Jonathan Porritt: He pointed out overweight people eat more protein-rich food such as beef or lamb, which is responsible for producing greenhouse gases. (A: Now, remember, again, Wells and others and all the take-overs from Wells since then to the present – they’re all funded by the private foundations, the eugenicists, and the bankers because they own the foundations – said they would eliminate meat eating. There’d be no meat eaters in the future. That was also in the book The Third Wave by Alvin Toffler who was championed by Newt Gingrich and every Congressman in the US was given a copy of that book, saying that ‘the world we are bringing in will be VEGETARIAN and it MUST BE SO’. So there’s a BIG agenda here. This is not just ONE man. This is one of MANY… of an army.)
Echoing the famous slogan “fat is a feminist issue”, Sir Jonathan, Chair of the Sustainable Development Commission (A: Who came up with that? Mr. Rockefeller and his foundation.), said “fat is a climate change issue”.
He pointed out overweight people eat more protein-rich food such as beef or lamb, which is responsible for producing greenhouse gases because of the toxic methane livestock emits. He also said obese people are more likely to use cars rather than walk or cycle, therefore producing more carbon emissions. (A: I’d like to get a carbon balloon filled with some helium and put Mr. Porritt in it and see how high he can travel before it pops. Perhaps he’s skinny enough, he’ll float down, he won’t sink like a stone down to earth and show us how it’s done.)
These are control freaks that are put up today that, in my opinion, are FAR MORE DANGEROUS. They certainly have the same qualities to do dastardly things as any Adolf Hitler or a Stalin. Until we recognize it, we’re in big trouble. Big, big trouble. As they target one group after another… remember what they said, ‘when they came for the communists, I wasn’t a communist and they left me alone; then they came for the Jew, I wasn’t a Jew, they left me alone; when they came for the socialist, I wasn’t a socialist, they left me alone; when they came for the Gypsies, etc. etc.; when they came for me, THERE WAS NO ONE THERE TO PROTECT ME.’ That’s how they pick you all off. One at a time. Male. Female. Age groups, etc. THIS IS ALL-OUT WARFARE. These characters should be kicked off all government boards across the planet. We’ve had enough dictators in this world and in the history of this world.
Yesterday I read an article from Britain. It went through the fact that it’s really the world’s largest police state. I remember George Orwell writing in his book, 1984, about the youth brigade. Here are these children on a train. You’ve got to see the black and white version with Richard Burton and John Hurt in it, very well done. These children are dressed up in their little scout type uniform singing, ‘we are the children, the children of the future’ and HOW it’s going to be. In other words, they were spouting off their indoctrination in the train. And the adults are scared of them. The Mail Online,
Little Brother is watching you:
Children of ten are taught how to spot a terrorist in police DVDs
By Daily Mail Reporter
4th June 2009
Hundreds of children as young as ten are being urged to spot potential terrorists and shop them to police. (A: Do you know how much imagination they have at that age? Anybody that appears to them older, crippled, ugly, whatever, is a nasty character. REPORT THEM. Why do I know this? Because read your history books. It’s been done before.)
Up to 2,000 are to attend a safety (A: A safety event) event where a film will tell pupils that extremist views can develop at school.
But critics condemned the initiative as a nightmare extension of the Big Brother state.
Concerns were also raised that children could become subject to police monitoring if their fellow pupils misinterpreted innocent remarks or play. (A: It’s to create a form of political correctness too, you see, to indoctrinate them even further.)
The Lancashire Police film is being shown in Blackburn as part of its long-running Streetwise event which includes demonstrations on fire safety, water hazards and first aid.
A spokesman said the reference to terrorism could encompass any extremist, including animal rights activists, and not just Islamist fundamentalism.
He said: ‘It’s something we need to be aware of across the country.
‘We’re not trying to scare anybody, we’re just raising awareness.’ (A: They’re not trying to scare anybody? We’ve had nothing but MASSIVE world wide propaganda about terrorists EVERYWHERE since 9/11. And that wasn’t by accident. It all happened at the same time. The SAME KIND of propaganda, ORGANIZED propaganda, ORGANIZED treaties, international treaties, already SIGNED to go into action on the same thing with the same topics. That was no coincidence. This is part of an agenda.)
But Estella Schmid, a founder of the Campaign against Criminalising Communities, warned: ‘This is a nightmare scenario. (A: No kidding. In George Orwell’s 1984, one of the children, his next-door neighbor’s children, just casually says, ‘you’re a though criminal.’ This 5 or 6-year-old said, ‘you’re a thought criminal.’ You see him getting all tense and fearful. THAT’S what they’re bringing in to our lives… and we let them. WE let them. Back with more after these messages.)
Hi folks. I am Alan Watt back Cutting Through the Matrix and I’ve spouted on for almost an hour; it flies through. So I’ll go to the callers now and try to get one or two in. Is Diana from California there on the line? Are you there Diana?
Diana: Yes. Hello. Can you hear me?
Alan: Yes I can.
Diana: Hi. You were just mentioning 1984, that movie and I saw it and you’re right. It’s excellent. It really shows you a lot. I just wanted to let people know you can see it on Google video for free, so you don’t have to pay money for it. It’s in about 8 different sections but you can see the whole thing. I just have a quick question and then I’ll take the answer off the air. I’ve been wondering about time. You and Jackie spoke about it just very, very briefly on one of your shows a long time ago and I got to thinking about all the movies that are out there where the state jumps back in time and changes things, or the series out there, etc. I got to thinking, is that just an allegory of how the elite change history by changing the documents or do they actually have technology….
Alan: No. They don’t have technology, it’s quite simple. In fact, Winston Churchill, who was not in on every part of the big agenda… He was for a unified Europe. In a book, his personal secretary admitted that. It’s called, The Fringes of Power, by his personal secretary. Churchill wanted a United Europe to come out of World War II. But he wasn’t in on everything. When he found out that the Lord Milner Society, The Royal Institute of International Affairs, HAD been writing… and he said this and I’ve read it on the air, from Churchill’s own quote. He said, “It’s incredible to think that a small group of very rich people have run the history and written the books,” the textbooks for schools, the books for universities, giving a false history Britain for the last 150 years, he says, “that is a power that no people should have.” So they constantly go back and they rewrite history and rewrite history and give a completely fictitious history. They always HIDE THEMSELVES when they’ve taken the front in anything, they’ll put themselves in the background or OUT OF THE BOOK ALL TOGETHER so that you don’t even suspect they exist. That’s what Orwell had with his ‘memory hole’. Everything suddenly goes down the ‘memory hole’ and they give you a new history.
Diana: So there’s no technology that we need to be afraid of for that?
Alan: No. No. There’s a lot of technology to be afraid of, believe you me, but it’s mostly pulse, laser weaponry, etc.
Diana: Okay. I also wanted to mention that 20 years ago… I was very unconscious until about 2 years ago. But about 20 years ago, I happened to be in Germany and I met a girl and we were watching A Clockwork Orange. She sat with me and would pause the movie and say, okay, here’s where the state is stepping in as the parent, replacing the parent, etc, etc.. She went through piece by piece explaining all these little bits and pieces that you do. But it didn’t really get tied together and it just jumbled in by brain and it sat there for a very, very long time until a couple of weeks ago I remembered it. So I just wanted to put out there to people, when you’re talking, you’re also planting seeds. Whether they’re conscious or unconscious or they want to hear it or not, the seed might sprout. It did for me.
Alan: That’s right. Sometimes it’s scattered in your mind and it takes a particular event. You have memory to draw from and then you can catch different parts that are scattered and put them together for the first time. You’re right.
Diana: Okay. I hear the music.
Alan: That’s a good movie. It might also be up on Google. That’s Clockwork Orange with Roddy McDowell. He did another one too, about a salesman. He shows you the real world and how money really works. Well worth seeing both of them.
That’s the end of the show. We’ve rushed through it again. We’ve never enough time. So from Hamish and myself in Ontario, Canada, it’s good night and may your God or your Gods GO with you.
Topics of show covered in following links:
Transcribed by Diana