April 18, 2008 (#103)
"CUTTING THROUGH THE MATRIX"
LIVE ON RBN
Poem Copyright Alan Watt April 18, 2008:
"THE NATION-STATE IS NOW TRANSCENDENT,
YOU ARE NOW GLOBAL SLAVES AND INTERDEPENDENT,
THE RISE OF DOMINION, THE DEATH OF THE NATION,
WELCOME TO THE
© Alan Watt April 18, 2008
Analysis of Gordon Brown Speech at Kennedy Center
Poem & Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt - April 18, 2008 (Exempting Music, Literary Quotes and Callers' Comments)
Hi folks. I'm Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through the Matrix on April 18th, 2008. For all the newcomers who come in, look into cuttingthroughthematrix.com and you'll find lots of talks from previous shows that try to piece all of this big jigsaw puzzle together for you and save you a lot of homework and a lot of grief in the process too. Look into alanwattsentientsentinel.eu for transcripts from the various tongues and languages of Europe.
Remember too that this show is brought to you by yourself. You can either buy books, DVDs, CDs or donate to me to keep me going because once it dries up or I think the people are losing interest or they're diverted by the mainstream, I'll just pack up and disappear because things are moving at one hell of a speed in this day and age, and the public as always are so domesticated that they're unaware of what is actually happening. They hear repetitions of little phrases spoken by people in powerful positions and these little repetitive phrases become fact to them. They don't think beyond the phase or what it means, and of course remember that the trick of the good shepherd is to convince the sheep that the interest of both of them lay in the same direction. That's the con game.
We hear wonderful fuzzy things all the time about interdependence and I'll be speaking about that later, this wonderful world of interdependence and an end to poverty, the end to all the ills of the world, and spell out what it really, really does mean. It's hard for most of us to imagine that there's another agenda behind what is given to the public as the only agenda, and the only agenda that's given to you is that you're being taken care of by the good shepherds who come out of special wombs and who have an altruistic gene and their gene makes them take care of you. Of course your training is to make you nice and humble and acceptable of having these masters, these overlords over you so that you'll obey them knowing that it's all in your best interest. That's how simple the con game is.
And with all the different visits to the United States of well-known public figures, you have the Pope, you have Mr. Brown from Britain and various other people coming back and forth all spouting the same stuff really. Some of it's just diversionary, but look into the speeches given by Mr. Brown, the Prime Minister of Britain, because he is coming out full force with the whole global interdependence agenda on every speech that he makes. As I say, it sounds wonderful and fuzzy and rather humane to the people who truly believe the 6 o'clock news version of reality. The Disney version, it sounds quite reasonable, but don't forget that behind this global interdependence and the end to poverty and strife and friction and terrorism, and all the rest of it, is also an agenda to do with sustainable development and a manageable global society—manageable by those who are presently the managers of this society. It's a world where you won't be able to do anything wrong and remember they keep changing the meanings of wrong and right, and up and down, and left and right in the normal—we adopt very quickly—and you'll all be guilty of something. I'm going to go into this after the following break. Back in a few minutes.
Hi. I'm Alan Watt. We're Cutting Through the Matrix, this amazing conditioned fiction that we call reality, the fiction with the big agenda behind the public comments that we hear, the big agenda to do with total control of the entire planet. Very old agenda, but before I go on to Mr. Brown's talks, his speeches in the United States, I'd like to jump to the food issue.
Now the food is an old method of controlling populations. Food and water, very simple, and under the United Nations eventually it's supposed to be given the right to all incoming food and outgoing food for the entire planet. It will distribute the food according to quotas and populations and the whole idea behind it supposedly is that you'll be forced to keep down the population of your own country because your quota will not go up, but I can guarantee you the quote will actually drop with new normals and new figures and new goals et cetera to reach. That's what it's all about because there's just too many of us nowadays, too many useless eaters that don't fit in to this Brave New World scenario that's coming up and being shaped all around you. You've grown up in it in fact.
People tend to look towards some big final catastrophe. That's human nature. They're always looking for the big bang, something that destroys it all and we go back to some kind of Stone Age civilization and state from scratch, a new Adam and Eve type of theory, but that's not now it happens. It happens incrementally by long-term planning and for the people who are always looking for the next big bizarre Planet X or whatever, I say, haven't you noticed that every week of your life there's a global system being implemented and your rights are being taken and stripped away one by one. They don't really, really get it. They don't really get it that you're already going through a major phase of it right now with this whole anti-terrorism nonsense. The food is very important.
Remember, too, that the world they're bringing into view is to be a vegetarian-only world. There'll be no meat-eating whatsoever and they only vegetables you'll be allowed to eat are the genetically modified ones, which were worked on intensively for many years by top scientists, and remember that drugs, the oldest most potent drugs on the planet come from plants. It's easy to modify plants to make them produce whatever you wish if you understand the biology of the plants and chemistry. Very simple, so beware of the future that's being brought in, all you who are greenies and love all the soya stuff and substitute meats and all the rest of it and your vegetables, because you are what you eat and you're also upgraded to the next design by what you eat and you have no say in what goes into that food whatsoever.
Here's another attack. Now I've mentioned last week, too, that the Canadian government had ordered a massive cull of the pig (hog) industry from the governments at a time supposedly of global food shortages and all the rest of it, and I found out that the U.S. had just implemented this same cull two weeks prior to that. I said at the time you'll find this will be going on across the whole western world, and sure enough, it is. You've got to create crisis in an age of crisis creation.
Here's another part towards the same agenda. This is from News Channel 8 on April 11th, 2008 from Washington.
"Accidents at Disease Lab Acknowledged. The only U.S. facility allowed to research the highly contagious foot-and-mouth disease experienced several accidents with the feared virus, the Bush administration acknowledged Friday. A 1978 release of the virus into cattle holding pens on Plum Island, N.Y., triggered new safety procedures. While that incident was previously known, the Homeland Security Department told a House committee there were other accidents inside the government's laboratory."
Alan: Now Plum Island is also a warfare department, bacterial and viral warfare department, which works with the Canadian establishments. Canada has led the field in this particular area for warfare purposes since World War II and they still breed these giant bomber mosquitoes and send them down from Ontario, Canada, to Plum Island every year; the intention being that one day these mosquitoes will be loaded up with lots of viruses or bacterium and let loose on some enemy. Plum Island is also the place where Lyme Disease broke out because they claimed that somehow it started there—for the U.S. version, that is, because we have a Canadian version too—and it was carried by deer, they claim, across to the mainland. Getting back to the story.
"The accidents are significant because the administration is likely to move foot-and-mouth research from the remote island to one of five sites on the U.S. mainland near livestock herds."
Alan: Now that makes sense, doesn't it?
"This has raised concerns about the risks of a catastrophic outbreak of the disease, which does not sicken humans but can devastate the livestock industry."
Alan: Now we've already had the Mad Cow outbreak and we've seen the same one cow stagger across a farm yard over and over and that's been our only proof given to us that it even existed; and of course you can emulate that in any animal by injecting it in the spine with various kind of drugs. A massive cull of the herd of the whole entire industry of animal farming, a culling was carried out across the whole length and breath of Britain. They had pyramids of dead carcasses on television of cattle and pigs and all the rest of it, mountains of them. They almost wiped out the entire industry because they want you to go into their modified food only, their vegetables. That's very important. Then of course we have the big scare to do with chickens and the various flus and influenza they can carry and they've done cullings already with this terror towards the H5N1 virus supposedly. In British Columbia they wiped out a whole industry a few years ago when they showed some signs of having this common, common aliment that these birds have always had. Here's the next step towards the cattle. They're moving a deadly disease supposedly from an isolated place off the mainland on to the mainland to five sites on the U.S. mainland near livestock herds. Don't you see how they set this all up in advance?
"Skeptical Democratic leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee demanded to see internal documents from the administration that they believe highlight the risks and consequences of moving the research. The live virus has been confined to Plum Island for more than a half-century…"
Alan: Here's their excuse.
"…to keep it far from livestock."
Alan: No, it's confined there because that's the Warfare Department that's attached to the Pentagon that specializes in viral and bacterial warfare.
"The 1978 accidental release "resulted in the FMD virus in some of the cattle in holding pens outside the laboratory facility," Jay Cohen, a senior Homeland Security official, wrote in response to the committee. "Detailed precautions were taken immediately to prevent the spread of the disease from Plum Island, and new precautionary procedures were introduced." Cohen, undersecretary for science and technology, said there also have been "in-laboratory incidents" - contamination of foot-and-mouth virus within the facility but not outside it - at Plum Island since 1954. That was the year the Agriculture Department acquired the land and started the Plum Island Animal Disease Center."
Alan: They love these coded names that sound so innocent to the general public.
"One government report, produced last year and already provided to lawmakers by the Homeland Security Department, combined commercial satellite images and federal farm data to show the proximity to livestock herds of locations that have been considered for the new lab. "Would an accidental laboratory release at these locations have the potential to affect nearby livestock?" asked the nine-page document. It did not directly answer the question."
Alan: Now listen to this.
"A simulated …"
Alan: Now see, they've been having practices on this.
"A simulated outbreak of the disease in 2002 - part of an earlier U.S. government exercise called "Crimson Sky" - ended with fictional…"
Alan: Now listen carefully to this part. You think you know what's really going on and it comes out in little pieces within stories like this.
"…ended with fictional riots in the streets after the simulation's National Guardsmen were ordered to kill tens of millions of farm animals, so many that troops ran out of bullets. In the exercise, the government said it would have been forced to dig a ditch in Kansas 25 miles long to bury carcasses. In the simulation, protests broke out in some cities amid food shortages."
Alan: You see how this is all tying together? They've been having these exercises in computer simulations and so on for a long time.
"It was a mess," said Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., who portrayed the president in that 2002 exercise. Now, like other lawmakers from the states under consideration, Roberts supports moving the government's new lab to his state. Manhattan, Kansas…"
Alan: To his state in Manhattan, Kansas.
"…is one of five mainland locations under consideration. "It will mean jobs" and spur research and development, he says."
Alan: Oh what a joke. It's like bringing the lepers into the population.
"Other possible locations for the new National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility…"
Alan: Agro and Bio-Defense Facility.
"…are Athens, Ga.; Butner, N.C.; San Antonio; and Flora, Miss. The new site could be selected later this year, and the lab would open by 2014. The number of livestock in the counties and surrounding areas of the finalists range from 542,507 in Kansas to 132,900 in Georgia, according to the Homeland Security Department's internal study."
Alan: Quite something how they're setting up the future for more crisis and disaster. Back with more after these messages. Hi folks. I'm Alan Watt cutting through this wonderful matrix that we live in, the matrix the people think is all very real because they are taught to see something from the way it's presented to them and not from the other side of anything. They can't think outside the box; and right enough, why should you if you've been brainwashed from an early age that everything is very, very real and people really care—these invisible people above you, all these agencies and bureaucracies and so on. Why should you be suspicious of anything? It isn't until you open history books and you learn that the same cons are being pulled down through history. People are always subjugated to keep them safe. They're put into slavery in fact to keep them safe from the predators that are always around them, or within them, or out there, or wherever, and then they're made to work for masters and after a generation they think it's always been that way because all history goes down the memory hole, that wonderful Orwellian hole. Once it's gone, you don't know anything, you have nothing to compare it to, and lessons have to be learned all over again and that takes a lot of time and suffering.
This is from the lecture that Mr. Gordon Brown Prime Minister of England gave on the 18th of April 2008 from the Kennedy Memorial Lecture site in the U.S. I don't want to read it all because he starts off with the usual intro. Remember, these are written for them by professional speechwriters. These guys are primarily actors that we see and he goes on to puff up the relationship between the U.S. and Britain and he brings out John F. Kennedy and walking on the moon and all the usual stuff that we've been so successful at, supposedly, and how the Cold War was reduced to rubble, the Berlin Wall and all that kind of stuff. Then he goes on again to praise President Kennedy and says this:
"And although he was president for less than three years I believe that much of the progress of this half century has been testament to the scope of John Kennedy's dream…"
Alan: Now that's how they put an agenda onto someone else's words, someone who's generally dead quite a long time ago. This is how they do it in history, as though this was John Kennedy's idea.
"…the worth of the ideals he lived for, the breadth of hope he inspired in us, and most of all - amid all the wit, style, elegance and statesmanship that adorned the Kennedy Presidency - his summons to service…"
Alan: Now that summons to service did not begin with Kennedy. It came out of Britain. It came out from the institutions set up by Cecil Rhodes that blossomed into the Royal Institute for International Affairs. That was their whole idea was creating a world society and a world government where everyone who would be born would be born into service towards that government. Here they are, pushing it all onto Kennedy because they must con the average person who doesn't know their history, especially in the United States today, since this is aimed at U.S. citizens, this particular speech.
"…one that never fails to inspire people to see farther and reach higher, a call which still reverberates around the world and always will. And his influence for good is so powerful that as Pericles said in ancient times even when he has left this world his influence 'abides everywhere woven into the stuff of other men's lives."
Alan: This is a pretty pathetic speechwriter. However, let's continue with it. He goes on to say:
"And although it is perhaps risky for a British Prime Minister to come to speak in Boston shortly before Patriots Day, I am pleased that over the past half century…"
Alan: Here's the phrase that's used. It's been used since the beginning of the Cold War.
"…the special relationship between America and Britain which John Kennedy prized remains strong and enduring…"
Alan: Now Margaret Thatcher used that same term over and over, "the special relationship." What they're referring to is on different levels. On the one level it was the creation of the CIA and MI6 tied at the hip. That was part of it and the other part was the fact that Britain is run through front organizations primarily at the top, the Royal Institute for International Affairs and its counterpart in the U.S., its brother, the Council on Foreign Relations. That's what that means, "the special relationship between America and Britain."
Then he goes on to say:
"Today Americans must learn to think inter-continentally' he said. 'Acting alone by ourselves [America] cannot establish justice throughout the world."
Alan: You see, they're just torn apart. They can't sleep thinking about the injustice across the planet.
"We cannot ensure America's domestic tranquillity; provide for its common defence; or promote its general welfare; or secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. But joined with other free nations we can do all this and more."
Alan: Here's where he goes onto it again, again pushing it on to JFK.
"So if the 1776 Declaration of Independence stated a self evident truth - that we are all created equal - JFK's Declaration of Interdependence…"
Alan: JFK's Declaration of Interdependence. Where does that word come from again? Interdependence.
"…in 1962 added another self-evident truth: that we are all of us - all of us throughout the world - in this together."
Alan: That's the great war slogan in all war time, "We’re all in it together" It’s a traditional slogan type scriptwriting. Interdependence: Now JFK did not coin that term either. It was coined by the Royal Institute for International Affairs at the end of the 1800's to the beginning of the 1900's when it migrated from the Rhodes Foundation into the RIIA. That's where it came from and I'll be back with more of this after this break.
Hi folks. This is Alan Watt Cutting Through the Matrix, reading this talk that was given out to the press really written by scriptwriters who all belong to the same club, the Royal Institute of International Affairs with its counterpart the Council on Foreign Relations—the same organizations that drafted up the integration of Europe and the integration of the Americas and they also did it for the Far East, too, with their members in Australia and New Zealand. As they're doing all this and getting us all integrated you see in our sections, our regions, they're already moving towards the global system and the changes that must take place once the whole global network is up. You see we always think there's going to be an end to something, 'once we're amalgamated, that's just the end of it, we’ll have a breathing space,' but, no, these guys are on a business schedule here and they know how to implement it.
I'll continue with this and I've already mentioned this part which is very interesting.
"Nothing in President Kennedy's enduring legacy has greater importance now - at the beginning of the 21st century - than his words on your Independence Day in 1962 when he proposed a new and global declaration of interdependence."
Alan: Interdependence. Now that means you're totally dependent on a system, that's really what it's getting down to, and Kennedy did not dream this up.
He goes on to say:
"Yet no-one in 1962 could have foreseen the sheer scale of the new global challenges that our growing interdependence brings:"
Alan: Again, repetition of the word, interdependence brings.
"…their scale, their diversity and the speed with which they have emerged:"
Alan: He goes on to list them all.
"…the globalisation of the economy…"
Alan: Now they wrote about the globalization of the economy in the late 1800's when Rhodes and his companions were sent out to take over the economy of the planet and the resources of the planet.
He goes on to say:
"…the threat of climate change…"
Alan: Well that's true. In 1962 the Club of Rome hadn't gone all the way and come up with the idea of global warming as an enemy, which they published in their own book called "The First Global Revolution". They hit on the idea of blaming the public, the general population as causing global warming. Something they didn't – actually isn't it amazing too. The same scientists admit that the planet hasn't warmed for the last 10 years, which has just thrown all their theories out the window.
He goes on to say:
"…the long struggle against international terrorism…"
Alan: At that time the CIA, MI6 and others had funded all the groups in the Middle East to fight the Soviets, so they knew even then, while it was all going on, they'd have to take down those same groups once there was no more Soviet threat.
"…the need to protect millions from violence and conflict and to face up to the international consequences of poverty and inequality."
Alan: This elite of inbreds at the top who've squelched off the public for thousands of years are talking about the fact they're going to end this poverty and inequality in society and we know what that really means because they have a different agenda and different meanings for these particular words.
"…Challenges that all point in one direction - to the urgent necessity for global cooperation. For none of them - from economy to environment - can be solved without us finding new ways of working more closely together. To recognize this is important. But simply to acknowledge that there are no 'Britain-only' or 'Europe-only' or 'America-only' solutions to the global threats and challenges we face - or to say we are all internationalists now - will change nothing in itself. Instead, we must go much further:"
Alan: I told you they're working on the next part and they haven't even done the final signing of the integration of the Americas.
"…acknowledging that our common self-interest as nation states can be realised only by practical cooperation; that 'responsible sovereignty' means the acceptance of clear obligations as well as the assertion of rights."
Alan: He's talking about the United Nations taking over, as it was set up to do in the first place.
Then he says:
"…And my argument today is simple: global problems require global solutions…"
Alan: We have to hand it to the United Nations.
"…the greatest of global challenges demands of us the boldest of global reforms…"
Alan: Bold reforms. Now "bold" is a term used again as I say by knights. It means doing the unthinkable; what the average person would think of as unthinkable. "The boldest of global reforms" – reforming a whole structure of system, of everything.
"…the most urgent of tests demand the broadest of global cooperation; and to address the worst evils of terrorism, poverty, environmental decay, disease and instability, we urgently need to step out of the mindset of competing interests and instead find common interests - summoning up the best instincts and efforts of humanity in a cooperative endeavour to build new international rules and institutions for the new global era.
Alan: Then he goes on to sketch out what these solutions happen to be. Now remember, this is a speech given out and really the agenda is all well underway. This is just to familiarize some of the interested public, to familiarize you with the predictive programming of what's going on.
"The first - and perhaps because of the credit crunch the most immediate - challenge is economic globalisation itself."
Alan: That means all currencies are going to get devalued as they create a global crisis because they must bring out an international currency.
"…And does not the recent sharp and still unresolved credit crunch which has affected the whole world now demonstrate that with global flows of capital already replacing the old national flows and global sourcing of goods and services replacing the old local sourcing, national systems of supervision and economic management are simply inadequate…"
"…national systems of supervision and economic management are simply inadequate
to cope with the huge cross-continental flows of capital in this interdependent
Alan: There's that repetition as Bertrand Russell said. You've got to keep repeating it. They're telling us that the reason it's all happening and all these crises are happening and the money is going down the tubes is because they didn't see what was coming. It’s just too haphazard the way it's run and we've got to merge all together and give all the power to a new institution to deal with everything globally—and I wonder what that would be.
"But is not the issue even bigger than that? That we are seeing in the scale, scope and speed of globalisation the biggest restructuring of economic life since the industrial revolution. Already Asia is manufacturing more than Europe and soon America; China alone is producing half the world's clothes and half the world's electronics."
Alan: What was it Marx said? He said one day a factory will be producing all the shoes for everyone on the planet. Another factory would make all the furniture for everyone on the planet; but that's all coincidence. It's also coincidence that Marx talked about a United Europe, a United America and a Pacific Rim Region under a world government in the 1800's. It's all coincidence.
Then he says here:
"And the reality is that we are all affected now by what happens in Asia or Latin America or Africa. And if we do not work across countries and continents to create a globalisation that is inclusive for all, then not only will the poorest of the world who lose out react to being excluded, but people in our own countries will feel - as many do today - victims not beneficiaries of the process of change - losers and not winners - and protectionist sentiment will gain ground.
"I am optimistic about the benefits of interdependence…"
Alan: How many times has he said that so far?
"… and certain that globalisation need not be a zero sum game that says if China or India benefits America or Europe loses. Why? Because over the next 25 years we will see the world economy doubling in size, creating a billion new professional or skilled jobs worldwide…"
Alan: Probably all in security forces.
"… offering opportunity for any who have the creativity, ingenuity, skills and talent to benefit - a time of huge opportunity even if it is also a time of change and risk."
Alan: Then he prattles on again using John Kennedy et cetera, et cetera, et cetera and there's more about all the different methods they'll have to bring together to meet the challenges, including climate change of course. They just know that the climate is going to change. Here they are, dosing us with Raid. It's like Raid that you use on ants and roaches, from the skies everyday and they've been doing it for 10 years and they won't even talk about that; in the full knowledge unfortunately, which is quite true, that the majority of the public don't even notice what's happening in their environment. Remember what Singer said and others to do with behavior modification. If you want to change people you change that which is in their environment. Put a radio in their room or a television in their room and their behavior changes because they'll sit and watch it. They won't do other things. Very, very simple, but also they can change what's happening above your head and if it's not on television it can't be important; therefore you won't even perceive it. It's out of your mind. You've just deleted it. You delete what you see.
When a sentient animal or creature deletes that kind of thing, it means it has no survival capabilities; so it shows you these characters already know the vast majority of the public cannot perceive for themselves at all and that's why they can go so rapidly with this agenda. We're being sprayed like bugs.
He goes on to say here in the same speech, he says:
"A third force of globalisation is the sobering reality that has already struck home in both Britain and America: that we are exposed - unpredictably but directly to the risk of violence and instability originating in failed and rogue states…"
Alan: Now a rogue state is any country that won't go along with the United Nations. That's how they define a rogue state.
"…Once we feared rival nations becoming too strong; now the worst threats come from states that are too weak. And we know that the richest citizen in the richest country can be directly affected by what happens to the poorest citizen in the poorest country. So today no country can say that failed or failing states are someone else's problem. They are a problem for us all. Instability in one country affects stability in all countries…"
Alan: What he's telling you here is a build up to what's already here really and that's a world army of rapid deployment forces to go into any nation where there is turmoil and that includes America, Britain and every other country. Quite the talk, but written as I say by speechwriters for this particular time in history and the people at the top in bureaucratic classes and universities will pick up on the words that are now politically correct, "interdependence," parrot, parrot, parrot until it becomes the buzzword and in a short time we'll think that national independence is somehow quaint and obsolete. Very simple psychology.
Now I'll go to the phones and we've got Mark in Pennsylvania. Are you there, Mark? Hello Mark?
Mark: Hi Alan. Good evening.
Alan: How are you?
Mark: I'm fantastic – not so bad. I always wanted to say that to you. What is the difference between predictive programming and scare mongering? How do you tell the difference?
Alan: It's very allied together. Predictive programming generally comes out through fiction, not always, but through fiction and it will show you future scenarios. Not necessarily in the distant future but future scenarios where you'll see scenarios occurring in such way in fictional form that you become used to the idea subconsciously, so that when it happens in real life you act the way that the characters in the movie reacted to it and come to the same conclusions and resolution. It's to get you ready for a particular type of resolution, whether it's surrender to this or acceptance to that, but one way or another you're being told how to behave when this happens. That the real difference between it.
Fear mongering can be used along with it to get us all so unstable in our minds to think that the sky is falling and everything is falling apart so that they can stampede us. Once you're stampeded in motion and they get the herd moving in a frightened way, you can introduce so many new measures and governmental laws and regulations; the public will accept them in blind panic situations where they would never accept them if they were rational and stayed and quite content. When you're panicked and afraid – again, this is why the economy is being rattled the way it is. It's like coins in tin cup just rattling and everyone is terrified and afraid. It's to get you ready to give up more rights than you understand. It's a whole new way of living they want to bring you into and you'll be dependent on a system and you'll be given credits by a system eventually instead of earning money; and those credits as Bertrand Russell said will be used like rations. You can't save them up. They'll go into your bank account every week. If you're a good citizen you can pay your rent, buy your food. If they punish you for being anti-social, they'll be withdrawn from your bank and you'll have no money at all. That will be your punishment. Money itself will eventually be used as a weapon of social coercion along an agenda.
Mark: I think maybe I didn't the question the right way. For example, Alex Jones – a lot of people don't know this, was the one who scared us about the Y2K situation that was coming up. Now I'm in sort of IT and I knew that that was a ridiculous scare tactic, but what about the new people who aren't aware of this sort of thing? Is there advice that we can give them to say, okay, this person or this sort of thing is being said, it's probably not predictive programming but a scare mongering.
Alan: Scare mongering in all media takes off like a rocket and the Y2K was presented to the public – here's a clue. The major media never said it's going to happen. They floated the idea out there of possible calamities. All theoretical possibles and then they did interviews with the man and the women in the street and what they said was "do you believe in Y2K?" That was your clue. Do you believe in Y2K? They didn't say what are you going to do when Y2K occurs but actually asked the question "do you believe in Y2K?" That's almost a legal definition of belief, as opposed to fact, and when they presented it that way to the public I knew it was a complete con game. It's also a test to see if the public would panic you see.
Mark: So it's kind of like a trial balloon in a sense?
Mark: For example, with the crashing of the dollar, is that another trial balloon or is that going to happen do you think?
Alan: There's no doubt. You see, when they amalgamated Britain – before they amalgamated Britain, Britain had a completely different monetary system than the rest of Europe and you had the British pound and in the '70's they decimalized everything. They completely altered the system from 240 pennies to a British pound. Instead of 20 (old) shillings to the pound (consisting of 240 pennies), they reduced it to 100 new pennies to the pound. You had 12 pennies to the shilling, then they changed it to 5 new pence or new pennies to the shilling and everyone was totally confused, and at the same time they hit you overnight with a value added tax. No one but no one could figure out for months how much they'd been suckered because really what they'd done is devalued the British currency by at least double, at least double. Therefore, whenever they bring in a new currency for the Americas or whatever, or the world, they always devalue the currency by about half. That's what they're going to do, so they're getting us used to this idea that it will be devalued by at least half in the new type of economic system. Hang on and we'll talk about this after this break.
Hi folks. This is Alan Watt back Cutting Through the Matrix and just to finish up with Mark. Always before they amalgamate countries to join them with other countries, they will always devalue your currency by at least half and that's standard technique down through history.
Mark: Very interesting. In fact, I'm looking right now that the dollar – I have a website that I go to, the dollar is now index at 72.1 and about 2-1/2 years ago it was indexed close to 95. something or other, so I guess we're getting pretty close to that.
Mark: I'll let other callers call in. I really appreciate it and have a great night.
Alan: Thanks for calling.
Mark: Thank you.
Alan: Now is PJ from the UK still on the line?
PJ: Good evening, Alan. Thank you very much for your program. Just to follow-up quickly. Just to prove the point you're making about Brown and the posturing, Mugabe is thrashing over Rhodesia and the UK, U.S., EU and South Africa are doing absolutely nothing about it. What's your take on that please?
Alan: Well I'm not surprised. I mean this whole idea – the set up of the whole African National Congress was set up to bring in what the natives would think were going to be their own country. It was funded from the Western powers. When Rhodesia was under the white rule they were shocked and so was South Africa when their turn came when Britain and America simply looked the other way, and yet these were countries that were part of the British Commonwealth that fought in all their wars for them and funded them and paid their taxes to them and supplied men to them, but they were left to this African National Congress. It was a scripted plan and of course the people who lived there had no idea of the long-term agenda and now the Africans are finding out there's another agenda at work again and it's not their government after all. They want a United African continent out of this and it's not going to be what they think is a native-run type system whatsoever. It's going to be completely in debt to all the same institutions and banks, oil and mineral industries as every other country is. That's what it's all about.
PJ: Okay. Just briefly, I noticed I've lived amongst white South Africans, British and Dutch in Britain here, they have to nowhere to say, even those who have exited the country. You'd think they'd be kicking up and going to the BBC and saying let's go back and get Mugabe. It's as if they're being paid off. Do you think there's a conspiracy of silence there, even those who have been pushed out of the country?
Alan: It's very possible and also they probably can't get a word in edgewise; because as I say when the farce was happening with Rhodesia in the early '80's, whole people were being hunted down, hundreds of families being hunted down by the ANC and trying to get out of the country. Their bank accounts were frozen. They were trying to get to Britain, Canada and elsewhere and the British government didn't lift a finger to help them. As I say, there's bigger powers at play here and remember for the elite at the top they don't care what color you are ultimately. You're all expendable once your part in the agenda is over and done with.
PJ: It looks like it. Well thank you very much for that. Thank you.
Alan: Thanks for calling. Yes, we certainly have seen all these machinations down through the ages and remember always when you read these speeches by the big boys at top they have their own agenda. At the start of the show I said the trick of the shepherd is to convince the flock, the sheep, that the farmer and the sheep both have their interests laying in the same direction. That's the simple con game of perception distortion. They have a different agenda. They have a depopulation agenda. They have an agenda to do with creating new types of humans – post-humanism agenda. Look into that and see the big professors and big foundations backing it. This is not to help end world poverty, unless they eradicate the poor. Always remember that.
From Hamish and myself in Ontario, Canada, it's good night and may your god or your gods go with you.
(Transcribed by Linda)