April 23, 2013 (#1315)

Alan Watt "Cutting Through The Matrix" LIVE on RBN:


Poem Copyright Alan Watt April 23, 2013:

Reluctant Praise for Public-Hater Bernays:

"It is a True Shame Most People get Caught Up
By Sleek Propaganda Turning Them into Product,
Pick Questions from Current Topics to Find
Opinions are Standardized in the Average Mind,
All Input of Info Comes from Authorized Source,
Bypassing Logic or Reason, Setting Off-Course
Any Thought of Investigating the Topics Deeper,
Not for the Average Cell-Phone-Internet-Sleeper,
Standardization makes Passive Debt-Laden Chattel,
Happy with Chatting, in Uniform Choir Cackle,
There's Safety in Numbers, Safety in Sameness,
Given Up Rights for Security, Given Up Saneness"
© Alan Watt April 23, 2013


Poem & Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt - April 23, 2013 (Exempting Music, Literary Quotes, and Callers' Comments)


Hi folks.  I am Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix on the 23rd of April, 2013.  For newcomers, I always suggest you make good use of the website cuttingthroughthematrix.com, lots of audios to download for free – where I go through the big system that was designed a long time ago, the system you’re living in presently, and how your grandparents, your parents and yourselves all went through it, as they upgrade the system to meet its own demands and its goals in fact. You have to go into the private foundations set up by the richest people on the planet over a hundred years ago and how they planned the future. They brought on academia, quite easy to do that because after all, they get massive grants given by these big foundations to all universities across the world every year, so they can set the curriculum and so on to turn out the next group of world managers basically, the ones that will change social norms, social controls, etc., over the societies that they are working over. So everybody is on board with this at the top, and the bigger your paycheck the more so it seems to be. So help yourself to the website.


Remember too, you are the audience that bring me to you. You can help me keep going by buying the books and discs at cuttingthroughthematrix.com. And in the books too, remember I go through the conology, the art of conology, which is now called mind control of course and psychology and behaviorism and neuroscience.  Conology is a very, very old science. It’s been used for thousands of years, by people who caught on to how gullible folk are, and people who are really decent are the most gullible people of all, because they don’t look to be ripped off, etc., or used, manipulated, by the psychopathic types that have always existed. So help yourself to that. Remember too, [Order and donation options listed above.]  And straight donations are seriously welcome, as we go through what’s called austerity, or inflation, which they now call quantitative easing because it sounds better than inflation.


Everything is neurolinguistics as well, because language is awfully, awfully important in controlling the populations. I mean, people spend years studying at special universities just on how to manipulate the public, on a state higher in fact, on a level higher than just marketers and they are good enough.  Marketers, the old Bernays type systems.  But the ones above it are awfully good and it’s very, very important to understand, we work much like computers do. A computer has its language, and the programmer will know its language, and of course he knows its logic and how it’s programmed. So you can quite easily determine what it wants the conclusions to come to. Much like the special computers they make for global warming always give them the answers that they want. Quite simple. So we’re much the same, as I say, as their computers. The only thing is, today there is a massive, massive business in controlling the populations through marketing, and ideas, memes, themes and so on. And unfortunately the public go for all of it.


The last thing you want to do is to admit to yourself that you’ve been used. The last thing you want to do is to believe that your governments are actually using all these techniques on you, all the time.  And you don’t want to imagine either that you’ve been brainwashed through your schooling, that actually helps set you, just like a computer, so that your logic will not be used down the road; you’ll believe what you’re told by experts. And of course, logic and reason are not taught in the general schools across the planet today; they are still taught in the higher ones of course because those guys must go into the big jobs where they’re still using it upon you.


But as I say, the foundations set up themselves to be a parallel government that would really run the system, while the public were taught they had something called democracy. Of course management is a big, big part of this, population management, social management of all kinds, in order to serve the ones at the top, for the greater good. Back with more after this break.


Hi folks, I’m back Cutting Through The Matrix, talking about the big system of course, because what else is there to talk about after all. We get all our mainstream media through the big authorized boys at the top.  They know how far to go in any story.  They know what stories not to mention at all.  We truly are controlled. And as we go into this anti-terrorism thing deeper and deeper and deeper, that’s showing us the way of the future, that, really, you’ll get a lot of trivia, from now on, and you’ll get just authorized handouts from government departments. That’s already happening in fact because most newspapers today don’t have many reporters on them at all. They simply are so glad to get handouts from corporations, that are really putting ads in the paper, and handouts from the military even, and from different departments of government, and that’s where it was meant to go a long time ago.


Because as I say, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, that set up the foundation systems across the world, and still runs many of them, they also run the media; all their top members belong to the media.  All the big international corporations, and all kinds of corporations belong to the organization.  And you’ll find if you’ll just go through it, you’ll find the same listings of the top corporations that belong to IBM, that also belong to the Royal Institute of International Affairs/Council on Foreign Relations. 


So they wanted a world, as I’ve said many times in fact, they wanted a world where there were three main trading blocs. Of course Europe was to be the first one.  That was a mandate actually that was made by even Eisenhower towards the end of World War II, and Truman of course was the first guy to put it forth, but Eisenhower took it up too.  They wanted Europe to be completely united. Of course that falls in with Karl Marx’s agenda a long time before that when he mentioned the same thing, the first trading bloc would be a United Europe, second, a United Americas, and also the third one would be a far-Eastern/Pacific-Rim conglomerate including China. So they are well on their way, and that was written over a hundred years ago, by the groups that formed the Royal Institute of International Affairs. 


We really are well-managed today, well managed. When you look into the countless and continuous outpouring from neuroscience magazines, for instance, behaviorist magazines, psychology magazines, to do with mass mind control, it’s just overwhelming, you can’t keep up with the stuff. And they’re churning out so many different people every year to work within government departments, and all related government departments, and private corporations that work with governments all the time, all to manage all of us. They come up with all the new normals that we hear of, that we’re told to adapt to, whether you like it or not, or even if it offends you you’re supposed to adapt to them as well.  Because they decide on the agendas. And folk do, they adapt rather quickly.


Now before I get lost in all this stuff too, I want to mention that Katerina Jeleva – remember, I’ve mentioned her before – in Utah, where her son was taken by the children’s societies there, under a fake charge that was disproven in court.  It actually went to court, eventually, the real court, not all the pretrial courts, and she eventually won her case, but of course they’re still appealing it too, the other side that is. But also she’s talking about the things that are happening to other people’s children in Utah, especially, but it’s happening across the country. There’s lots of alternative newspapers in Britain that are stacked with the state kidnapping of the children today, it’s a big business. But it ties in with Bertrand Russell and the things that he advocated too a long time ago, and he worked with the world organizations that existed back in the mid-20th century. It says here in the Activist Post…


ALERT: Victim of Family Court, Katerina Jeleva, Seeks to Uncover Utah Gov't Child Kidnapping

activistpost.com / April 19, 2013


Brandon Turbeville has been documenting the harrowing case of Katerina Jeleva who was separated from her son through the Utah family court system.


Through the tenacity of Katerina and the support of Brandon and activists everywhere, she has survived her lengthy custody battle and is waiting to be reunited with her son any day now.  (Alan:  She’s supposed to get her son given back.)


Her battle is far from over, however. As she awaits the final outcome of her own case, she is asking others who have been victimized to come forward. Specifically, if you have your own case, or have any knowledge of cases involving sexual allegations prosecuted by or that otherwise involved attorney Jere Reneer of Reneer & Associates, Provo, Utah - Katerina would like to hear from you.  (A:  She’d like to hear if anyone who’s known of this organization that’s done prosecuting.)


This is a full-scale investigation. (A:  ...on the behalf of many others in that area …)  Please contact Katerina at katia_830@hotmail.com, so that she can assist other mothers and fathers who have been put through a similar ordeal to her own.   (A:  I’ll put her email up and this article up tonight to let you get in touch with her if you hear anything about it.)


Because it’s true enough, it’s time that so many folk, rather than being scared all the time, got together and put in class-action lawsuits and things like that, to stop it. Because it’s a massive business. If you look up the grants that are given by the feds to every state in the US for child abuse, or child kidnapping basically – that’s really what it is; it’s very little abuse, it’s more kidnapping.  And really, any accusation too, any one at all, and they come and take your children. And you can spend years going through pre-court trials, and of course the lawyers love this, all the people involved in social departments love this stuff, because they’re just raking money in like you wouldn’t believe. And millions and millions and millions of dollars are given every year to every single state in the US. Look it up, it’s a staggering amount. So it’s very, very lucrative. And some of these child so-called… the ones who rescue the children, are making a business out of it, incredible business, very lucrative indeed. So as I say, I’ll put this one up tonight for those who want to get in touch with Katerina and perhaps they can go on from there and see what else we can dig up that’s been happening to other people. 


Also this article too, is quite interesting, because it’s interesting that when the Soviet Union was on the go Pravda was the big communist tool basically, the propaganda mouthpiece – like all media is mouthpieces; it doesn’t matter what country you live in, there’s always special mouthpieces.  It used to be totally Soviet but now it’s going into other areas too. And don’t write any site off even if you don’t agree with it. It’s good to look at other opinions and how they view things too, because there’s a lot of truth in it as well. But it says…


Why Western democracy is mind control and invisible government

english.pravda.ru / 02.04.2013 / Nicolas Bonnal


(A:  Then it gives you a quote from Benjamin Disraeli and it says…)

The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.   Disraeli  (A:  That’s from one of his books he wrote.)


The more Western democracy wants to establish democracy in the world, the more it works undemocratically, whether in Tripoli, Brussels or in Washington. Yet it is very hard nowadays to resist its impeccable and humanitarian propaganda. This is why we must seize the origins of this dark strength.


Let's go back to the twenties of last century: we are facing the fascinating confrontation of western propaganda, bolshevist propaganda, fascist, Ku Klux Klan or Nazi propaganda; and everywhere capitalism trying to sell its products and stuff.


In 1928, Edward Bernays (A:  ...that I’ve mentioned so many times.), a parent of (A:  He was actually a nephew of...) Sigmund Freud, publishes a famous book about modern propaganda and advertising, which synthesises the advancements of modern mind control, after a terrible World War and a decennial of technical improvement and modern art of conditioning the masses through radio, movies and press. (A: Now, Bernays was involved, by the way, in setting up the organization that put out the propaganda to get America into World War I. What was even more staggering, was he admitted it afterwards that most of what they put out were lies simply to get the American mindset on board with it. And they actually published that in all the major mainstream media at the time.)


Basically Bernays states that days of democracy are over, if they have happened once.   (A:  So you had one little shot at it.) Everything is linked to science, manipulation, mind control and invisible wire-pullers when it comes to politics. (A:  ...and that’s what Bernays said. He said the front men are really unimportant, unless they’re good actors, believable actors, because all you get is a PR image projected to you of the guy they put in front. It’s all nonsense made up by PR specialists. But the guys behind it, that’s what Bernays called them, really hold the power, the invisible wire-pullers.  These are the guys who do the marketing and so on.) This is also what had predicted Moses Ostrogorski, a Russian researcher and shrewd observer of American political parties at the end of the nineteenth century. This expression of wire-puller has been popularized later, in front of incomprehensive masses (A:  ...in other words, the unthinking masses...), by famous movie (and book) the Godfather. (A:  ...which misled folk into thinking that the biggest Mafia in the US was actually from Italy. But it wasn’t. But anyway, I just added that on.) The masses of consumers, voters or travellers never do what they want; they just do what they are told to do. Read this sentence for instance:


There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes.  (A:  Again, you go into the guys who really deal with this, closest to the front men, presidents and prime ministers, and the closest ones are their advisors; they get special education at special, closed-door universities you might say.)


Reading again this book has amazed me since it is a work written in a rather cynical, provocative and controversial tone. Bernays could not write such stuff nowadays, for we are maybe in more totalitarian times, which mean more sophisticated, satisfied and blinded times. He could be labelled conspiracy theorist!


Those who are behind the scenes have been dubbed here the manipulators of symbols, the deciders, the technocrats sometimes. Bernays writes in his clerical style: As civilization has become more complex, and as the need for invisible government has been increasingly demonstrated, the technical means have been invented and developed by which opinion may be regimented.  (A:  That was back in the 20s, 1920s.  And he worked his whole life; he died at 103, I believe. He worked with many, many US presidents, even to get them into different subsequent wars.)


The citizen of tomorrow needs to be standardized as most as possible. This system was established first in America (A:  And it’s true enough, the standardization of American culture was a big thing with Bernays, and also getting the feminists on the go too, under the guise of marketing special things to them. No kidding.), then in Western Europe then, with the fall of the wall, everywhere else. The last resistant countries, some Moslem nations, have been recently destroyed, pulverized indeed. This is because we must conform:  (A:  And I’ve said many times before, we’ve got to standardize countries under the one system, a central private bank owing money to the International Monetary Fund.)


From some ethical teacher, be it a minister, a favourite essayist, or merely prevailing opinion, we accept a standardized code of social conduct to which we conform most of the time.  (A:  Back with more on this after this break.)


Hi folks, we’re back Cutting Through The Matrix, talking about this article where Pravda touches on Bernays who helped to shape the modern society, especially the consumer society, and using unconscious ideas, this big energy, this subconscious energy that’s always floating inside people, they can’t verbalize really, for themselves what’s wrong with them or what they want, so the guys at the top tell you, this is what you want… it’s a brand-new big car or something. And of course the idea is this is going to make you happy. And it doesn’t, really; it just brings you more debt generally. But the fact is, they can use this technique to sell you anything at all on the guise of making you happy. Look at all items, even toothbrushes, you’ll see some woman having an orgasmic smile and just cheering for a new toothbrush. I mean, rubbish, it’s all rubbish of course, but that’s what works on you. You think it’s childish but you don’t realize it’s actually affecting you; you’re associating ultra-happiness with that toothbrush, very simple.


Also too, as I said, Bernays said this...


From some ethical teacher, be it a minister, a favourite essayist, or merely prevailing opinion, we accept a standardized code of social conduct to which we conform most of the time. 


(A:  He also said this…)

The extraordinary, growing, and sane standardization of stores, offices, streets, hotels, clothes, and newspapers throughout the United States...  (A:  ...because that was part of it too, to standardize everything.)


This is basically what utters with some imprudence and arrogance Bernays in his book: a good reader of Babbitt, the masterwork of Upton Sinclair denouncing the standardized bourgeois citizen of America, Bernays sees in America the laboratory of the future to create the mixed-up, robotic and standardized citizen of the one world republic! (A:  And actually, even with that you can tie in the incredible spreads from, say, the Daily Mail newspaper on Boston. At the end, it was like something… it was like clips out of a movie, professionally done and all the rest of it, with the big heroes at the end in their brand-new black Humvees, as the folk celebrated martial law. Really.  He also said this too…) 


There is consequently a vast and continuous effort going on to capture our minds in the interest of some policy or commodity or idea.  (A:  And actually, it’s gone further than that now, because we’re so easily upgraded with our standardization, with new normals and new politically correct things, what to not be offended with anymore, even though it offended you yesterday, and so on and so on.)


All this stuff basically serves one purpose like in the Bible, when the psalmist and Job are comparing themselves to the bird captured by the fowler: (A:  ...which is...) the ensnarement of the mind.


Politicians are mere products like soap and pasta. Even war is a product (A:  ...and it really, really is, folks.) you can sell with some propaganda salsa. To create a war against Syria is not more complicated than to create a war against Germany a century ago! Writes Bernays:


The manipulators of patriotic opinion made use of the mental clichés and the emotional habits of the public to produce mass reactions against the alleged atrocities, the terror and the tyranny of the enemy.  (A:  I’ll read that again....) 


The manipulators of patriotic opinion made use of the mental clichés. . . (A:  Remember what Lenin said too? He says, we shall win by the use of slogans, because they embed in your head and then you parrot them off automatically. And those, too, who help manipulate their own causes use these terms too, anti-this, anti-that, or you’re a whatever, you see; they give you a name and that’s it, everyone is conditioned to react to it the proper way by the conditioners.)


And Bernays does not believe that universal literacy can create a freer man; on the contrary the well-informed citizen is the more manipulated: (A:  Remember too what Jacques Ellul said, the philosopher?  He said that the more education you get, the more easily it is to condition you, simply, with propaganda from then on, after you leave. Also, articles I’ve read here too, and studies at universities, and post university, show that those who go into the middle classes and go to the little drinky-poo clubs where they stand and chat and eye each other’s wives and so on, they generally are much more. They all read the same books… What are you reading? I’m reading so-and-so, and they’re all reading so-and-so because it’s in the Book-of-the-Month club type of thing. They’re very standardized, and very much upgraded, very quickly.)    


But instead of a mind, universal literacy has given him rubber stamps, rubber stamps inked with advertising slogans, with editorials, with published scientific data, with the trivialities of the tabloids and the platitudes of history, but quite innocent of original thought.


We should now promote a non-reader citizen! Yet he would be a victim of manipulators of images and symbols carried on his cellular phone, that omnipresent companion and transmitter of alienation.  (A:  John Pilger, remember, I read the article recently on the air, and he talked about the same kind of thing, the digital tyranny he called it.)


In politics too Bernays sees no reasons to be more romantic:


Ever since then we have agreed, for the sake of simplicity and practicality, that party machines should narrow down the field of choice to two candidates, or at most three or four.


The modern world is such divided between hidden elite of manipulators and a big mass of manipulated (and happy to be so) people (A:  A lot of folk love this socialism indoctrination; they don’t have to think about anything... Here’s the new normal, adapt to it. And as long as they say that they’re all accepted with their peer group.), a herd victim of the global mind control:


But clearly it is the intelligent minorities which need to make use of propaganda continuously and systematically. In the active proselytizing minorities in whom selfish interests and public interests coincide lie the progress and development of America.  (A:  America’s going down the tube with special interests, and they’re getting heavily funded by the government. Back with more after this break.)


Hi folks, we’re back.  This is Cutting Through The Matrix, reading an article that mentions Bernays, who was well ahead… It wasn’t from his Uncle Freud either. He was well ahead, by much, much older characters who studied humanity rather secretly, and in special secret organizations actually. But anyway it says here…


But clearly it is the intelligent minorities which need to make use of propaganda continuously and systematically. In the active proselytizing minorities in whom selfish interests and public interests coincide lie the progress and development of America.  (A:  So as I said today, special interest groups are actually foisted on the public, to alter all that was to bring in the new, standardized system today, of political correctness. Never mind the money they get flown into them too, it’s a great business.)


We do know how cruel and irresponsible these 'active proselytizing elites' can be nowadays. In order to be realistic and not only pessimistic, Bernays adds that humanity is a gregarious species (A:  That’s awfully important. Most folk are very gregarious, they love to be in crowds now, the modern man especially.) and that modern science, this great liberator of our superstitions, has thus described our brain (this was prior to psychoanalysis founded by his uncle [Freud]):


This assumed that the human mind was merely an individual machine, a system of nerves and nerve centres, reacting with mechanical regularity to stimuli, like a helpless, will-less automaton. It was the special pleader's function to provide the stimulus which would cause the desired reaction in the individual purchaser.  (A:  And of course now it’s called neuroscience and behaviorism, and they really are light years ahead of all this stuff too, by using a lot of that old stuff as well.)


Thanks to God, to save us from modern science and propaganda, we have the psalms:


Our soul is escaped as a bird out of the snare of the fowlers: the snare is broken, and we are escaped.  (A:  Well, that would be awfully nice, wouldn’t it? But it’s quite a job these days.)


And also this article here, it says here…


The Orwellian Paradigm

Killing you, for your own safety

original.antiwar.com / Faisal Moghul / April 13, 2013


Almost thirty years ago, cultural critic Neil Postman argued in Amusing Ourselves to Death that television’s gradual replacement of the printing press has created a dumbed-down culture driven by mindless entertainment. In this context, Postman claimed that Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World correctly foresaw our dystopian future, as opposed to George Orwell’s 1984.


Contrary to Postman’s critique, however, the principles of Newspeak and doublethink dominate modern political discourse. Their widespread use is a testament to Orwell’s profound insight into how language can be manipulated to restrict human thought.  (A:  And actually it is, Pavlov knew it too. He knew that if you create something and build up a massive hatred towards a particular thing, an object or a symbol, you could instill for generations the hate on an entire people, a whole nation if need be; that’s been done.)




Formulating the Language of Perpetual War  (A:  Now, I read the article from the military magazine over and over for quite a few years, where they actually went through this coming ‘perpetual war’, which we’re now in; it’s perpetual war.) – From AUMF to “Associates of Associates.”


The semantic deception began shortly after September 11, 2001. “Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda,” Bush said in his State of the Union address, “but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.”


The defining feature of this rhetoric is that it declares war on a particular method of violence used by disaffected states or groups. In fact, the phrase “war on terror” functions as what semiotics calls a floating signifier (A:  ...that’s the term they use for this kind of phrase, in neuroscience, a floating signifier…), a term devoid of any real meaning and thus open to any interpretation.  (A:  In other words, they can spread it onto the next target, and the next target.)


Terrorism has no shape, mass, or boundary; it is an abstraction, a tactic of asymmetrical warfare used to achieve political goals. Imagine if Franklin D. Roosevelt had declared “war on surprise attacks” in the wake Pearl Harbor, or if Lyndon Johnson had vowed to defeat guerilla warfare in Vietnam. This linguistic construct, therefore, ensures an open-ended conflict with no conceivable end.  (A:  And that’s exactly why it was called that, because it’s going to be war on this, war on that. And during, it’s all going, in physical hard wars, you’ve got new normals getting introduced, at home, that you better parrot off like a parrot, and believe it, and say it, just like 1984, or you’ll be slammed in prison for saying something that’s now not acceptable.)


Unperturbed by this paradox, British Prime Minister Tony Blair dutifully reiterated that, “the fact is we are at war with terrorism.” But the bombing sorties over Afghanistan had barely begun when the label morphed into “The Long War,” and then the “decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century and the calling of our generation.” And now, the targeted killings program has been “extended to militant groups” (A:  See how they change it, but it’s all under the same guise.) with no connection to September 11, 2001 – that is, “associates of associates.” Removing the requirement for any linkage to al-Qaeda gives the government unfettered discretion to assassinate anyone without due process of law. 


(A:  Now remember, for those who have already forgotten it, that Bush Junior, who of course was a little front puppet for the neocons, who had their own agenda and they wanted a war across the Middle East – it suited another country actually, very well. But anyway, George Bush said that, when he was asked at the inquest, why did they attack Iraq? Was it because of involvement in Al Qaeda or the 9/11 towers? He says, no, they had nothing to do with that, I just wanted to go in there and remove him, he’s a bad man, we’re better off having him removed. That was the excuse to go and kill off the leader of a country. And they’ve done it everywhere else since, Libya and elsewhere. But the polls that they showed, done from Canada on the Americans, showed that within a matter of six months, even though that was known that they had nothing to do with the 9/11 bombing, after six months of intense propaganda by the States, they remade it the reality for Americans, in polls, because they said that, oh they’re invading Iraq because Saddam Hussein was behind it. That’s how much the propaganda through mainstream had been manipulating the minds of the people.)  


This phraseology makes it impossible to distinguish the dialectical concepts of war and peace. It makes peace synonymous with a state of warfare. Peace is defined in terms of a generational commitment to war and, in turn, war is framed as a necessity to keep the peace. In other words, War is Peace.  (A:  ...like Orwell said.)


This is the lexicon of perpetual war, the vocabulary of a conflict that is never meant to end. “You can’t end the war,” as one official admits to the Washington Post, “if you keep adding people to the enemy who are not actually part of the original enemy.”


Aggression is Self-Defense –Waging Full Scale War to Prevent War.


Operation Iraqi Freedom represented phase two in a linguistic framework meant to fuse two diametrically opposite concepts in the public mind: preemption and prevention.


The purpose of preemptive war is to thwart or neutralize an imminent attack – one that is “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation” – without absorbing the first blow. (A:  In other words, you think this is maybe going to happen, so we’ll kill them first. It ‘may’ happen…) Conversely, preventive war is pure aggression – it is not tied to any notion of imminence and is primarily directed at securing some strategic advantage. Thus, the dimension of time is the primary difference between the former and the latter.


The Bush Doctrine blurred the lines between preventive and preemptive wars. It represented a seismic shift in national security strategy from one dominated by the Cold War doctrines of deterrence and containment, to one that now enshrined preventive war as a permanent feature of US policy. (A:  ...which they copied from Israel by the way; that’s where that came from. You strike them first because one day they might attack us.) During his 2002 commencement speech at West Point, Bush stated:


“If we wait for threats to fully materialize we will have waited too long…Yet the war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans and confront the worst threats before they emerge…”


Furthermore, the 2006 US National Security Strategy Paper states that “If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self-defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack”. In true Newspeak fashion (A:  ...newspeak from Orwell, of course; you should really read George Orwell and look at his dictionary too.) such a conception of “preemptive action” inverts the traditional model of self-defense under customary international law by rendering imminence completely irrelevant. In doing so, it strips self-defense of any practical meaning. It conflates preventive war with preemptive war; it packages aggression as self-defense.


But as Cheney’s one-percent doctrine later revealed, the threat need not even be likely, let alone imminent, for self-defense (read aggression) to apply. According to this logic, even a one percent chance of an event occurring is sufficient to treat it as a certainty. (A:  Can you believe that?  But that’s true, folks.)  “It’s not about our analysis,” Cheney reportedly said, “…It’s about our response.” (A:  So the analysis is irrelevant, it’s about the response to what might be…) Put simply, the likelihood of an event occurring is not a necessary prerequisite to wage war. This embeds the supreme international crime of aggressive war in the fabric of national security policy. Aggression is self-defense, Winston.




The Obama Administration gave the War on Terror a facelift by rebranding it “Overseas Contingency Operations.” But the sanitizing nomenclature has done little to halt the institutionalization of the apparatus of tyranny– from Kill Lists to Disposition Matrices to Drone Playbooks to indefinite detentions to persecuting whistleblowers to pervasive domestic surveillance. These developments are strikingly at odds with the post-9/11 metanarrative that frames this conflict as a clash between the forces of freedom and despotism. As Bush phrased it:


“Americans are asking, why do they hate us? (A:  Now, where did they borrow that one? Because actually they borrowed that term from another country. Guess which one it was? Do you remember? They hate us…) “Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this Chamber, a democratically elected government. (A:  ...for those who want to believe that.)  Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms – our freedom of religion (A:  I don’t know if you know how Christianity is getting whacked in the States with all the new laws that are coming out.), our freedom of speech (A:  That’s all getting neutralized because of political correctness.), our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.”


From this point onward, spreading ‘freedom and democracy’ abroad became the rallying point for a nation enraptured by its new messianic role. But it soon became apparent that freedom at home cannot coexist with hyper-militarism abroad.  (A:  That’s always standard in warfare, you lose all your freedoms at home as they’re having wars abroad. It all works together.)


Accusation Is Guilt – Killing You for Your Own Safety.


What could be more destructive to the cherished freedoms that make America a “shining city on a hill” than giving a “high level official” the power to kill Americans on US soil without any due process, accountability or transparency? What could be more Orwellian than asserting such dictatorial authority, which has always been the hallmark of totalitarian states, in the name of protecting the public’s safety? The cost of war is not measured solely in terms of blood and treasure. War also corrodes human morality to a point where even the most inhumane acts become perfectly acceptable. (A:  And just look at all your TV stuff that you watch as well, in all these war movies the Pentagon pays for.)   In fact, summary executions without due process and the right to a fair trial served as one of the justifications for removing Saddam Hussein’s regime.


Not only does the recent Department of Justice White Paper resoundingly affirm this power grab, it also destroys the foundation of Anglo-American jurisprudence by nullifying the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty.’ It eviscerates the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits any deprivation of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” It obliterates the protections afforded by the Sixth Amendment, including the “right to a speedy and public trial,” by asserting that government allegations alone, based on secret evidence, are sufficient to establish guilt. Accusation is guilt, Winston. As Glenn Greenwald cogently observes:


“But of course, when this memo refers to “a Senior Operational Leader of al-Qaida”, what it actually means is this: someone whom the President – in total secrecy and with no due process – has accused of being that. Indeed, the memo itself makes this clear, as it baldly states that presidential assassinations are justified when “an informed, high-level official of the US government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the US.


This is the crucial point: the memo isn’t justifying the due-process-free execution of senior al-Qaida leaders who pose an imminent threat to the US. It is justifying the due-process-free execution of people secretly accused by the president and his underlings, with no due process, of being that.”


Rarely do apologists for the normalization of extra-judicial murder realize that this represents a permanent erosion of core liberties, an ever-lasting debasement of the Bill of Rights. “We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it,” Orwell said. “Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.” Secret assassinations are here to stay.


The Great Shift Inward — From Enemy Combatants to Homegrown Terrorists.

(A:  ...awfully important article.)


Under international law, captured enemy soldiers are considered Prisoners of War (POWs), and thus shielded by the Geneva Conventions and the jus cogens prohibition against torture. Furthermore, terrorism was traditionally treated as a federal criminal offense before 9/11. Accordingly, those accused of terrorism could still invoke the protections of the Bill of Rights, including the right to counsel, right to a jury trial, right to confront one’s accusers, right against self-incrimination and conviction based on guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt.


As the 2002 Padilla Case demonstrated, however, the enemy combatant doctrine creates a category of detainees that are neither POWs nor terrorists. As such, they are beyond the reach of both the Bill of Rights and Geneva Conventions. This undefined label essentially circumvents the safeguards of the legal system and allows the state to treat the accused like a medieval King would a serf. It sets the groundwork for a parallel gulag system in the United States operating on the model of indefinite detention without charge or trial, no access to a lawyer, and confessions obtained through torture.


And then came Attorney General Holder’s recent premonition about a new threat: the “homegrown terrorist.” Speaking to ABC news, Holder’s statement signals a decisive shift in the script governing the ongoing campaign:


“It’s a very serious threat. I think what it says is that the scope, our scope, has to be broadened. We can’t think that it’s just a bunch of people in caves in some part of the world. We have to be concerned about the homeland to the same extent that we are worried about the threat coming from overseas”.  (A:  And I said that years ago, the distinctions between the war over there and the war at home would be completely blurred and all one eventually.)


The implications of this statement are staggering, for it turns the United States into the new “battlefield.” Systems of tyranny perfected abroad are always turned inward. It only took a decade for the same tactics of warfare that were previously restricted to foreign countries to now being applied domestically.


Responding to Senator Rand Paul’s question whether the President can authorize drone strikes on US citizens on domestic soil, Holder revealingly states that “It is possible…to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.” Even though the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 generally prohibits military involvement in domestic law enforcement . . . (A:  Well, what did you see at Boston, folks? Back with more after this.)


Hi folks, we’re back Cutting Through The Matrix and to tie in with the last article too, where I always said years ago the great eating machine – meaning the wars across there that you’re all involved in – will come back home and be eating you all up too.  Because it’s massive business, massive control, and the control freaks want that to happen.  That’s what always happens in warfare.  And it says, this article is about...


Drone Industry Invokes Boston Bombings in PR Pitch

cnsnews.com / April 22, 2013 / Joe Schoffstall


In the wake of the Boston bombings, the president of the largest Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) organization wasted no time in pushing for drones - as some predicted those in the industry would.


Michael Toscano, president of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, said UASs could have provided critical situational awareness for first responders and law enforcement in Boston.


In other words, they’re cashing in on it, to get it ran through, because it’s big, big bucks they’re going to get of course as you all get surveyed all the time. That’s obvious.  Your old system is gone, your freedom is gone.


Bloomberg Says Interpretation of Constitution

Will ‘Have to Change’ After Boston Bombing

Bloomberg.com /  Jill Colvin


(A:  You know, King Bloomberg up there...)

In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Monday the country’s interpretation of the Constitution will “have to change”. . .


“The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry,” Mr. Bloomberg said during a press conference in Midtown. “But we live in a complex world (A:  That’s right out of Bernays too, they’d teach the public you live in too complex a world now, we have to change everything, less rights and so on. Here you are.  A complex world...) where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.”  (A:  Now, when you’re into a totalitarian time with totalitarian regimes, as new normals, you have to understand, they eradicate the past from the schooling, because they don’t want you knowing the past, how good it was.  You see, the time that they’re telling you, now, is the safest and the best there ever was, so you’re not supposed to know how good it was before.)


Mr. Bloomberg, who has come under fire for the N.Y.P.D.’s monitoring of Muslim communities and other aggressive tactics, said the rest of the country needs to learn from the attacks.


“Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms. (A:  Again, that’s right from Bush’s speech, remember, they hate us and all that stuff…) New Yorkers probably know that as much if not more than anybody else after the terrible tragedy of 9/11,” he said.


“We have to understand that in the world going forward, we’re going to have more cameras and that kind of stuff. That’s good in some sense, but it’s different from what we are used to,” he said.


The mayor pointed to the gun debate and noted the courts have allowed for increasingly stringent regulations in response to ever-more powerful weapons.  (A:  So again, the war abroad, where they disarmed the people abroad, comes home to you. Just like the same thing happens there, so they disarm you at home as well, as they bring you into a global society of utter control.)


“Clearly the Supreme Court has recognized that you have to have different interpretations of the Second Amendment and what it applies to and reasonable gun laws … Here we’re going to have to live with reasonable levels of security,” he said, pointing to the use of magnetometers to catch weapons in city schools.


“It really says something bad about us that we have to do it. But our obligation first and foremost is to keep [the people] safe (A:  ...the oldest story that even the Caesars used, got to keep the citizens safe…   He uses [the words] the children safe ...) in the schools; first and foremost, to keep you safe if you go to a sporting event; first and foremost is to keep you safe if you walk down the streets or go into our parks,” he said. “We cannot let the terrorists (A:  ...it’s just again that vague thing, the terrorists.  The war on terror again, here you have that vague thing.) put us in a situation where we can’t do those things. And the ways to do that is to provide what we think is an appropriate level of protection.” 


So he goes in about losing more and more freedoms. So they’re getting everything that they want. It’s all planned that way, folks. There’s another country across the world there too, celebrating what’s happening in America, because they claim they’ve been under this for years and it’s only right that America, which they have a lot of control over, go through the same.


From Hamish and myself from Ontario, Canada, it’s good night and may your God or your Gods GO with you. 



Topics of show covered in following links:


Victim of Family Court, Katerina Jeleva, Seeks to Uncover Utah Gov't Child Kidnapping

Why Western democracy is mind control and invisible government

The Orwellian Paradigm

Drone Industry Invokes Boston Bombings in PR Pitch

Bloomberg Says Interpretation of Constitution will Have to Change after Boston Bombing