August 22nd, 2008 (#157)
Alan Watt "Cutting Through The Matrix" LIVE on RBN:
Poem Copyright Alan Watt August 22nd, 2008:
"Profiling of Suspects Adds to
Now Anyone is Potentially a Terrorist,
Be He White Caucasian, Willing to Please,
Slightly Religious, Down on His Knees,
Married, Single, Gay or Straight,
He's Added to His Government's List of Hate"
© Alan Watt August 22nd, 2008
Poem & Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt - August 22nd, 2008 (Exempting Music, Literary Quotes, and Callers' Comments)
Hi folks, I'm Alan Watt, and this is Cutting Through the Matrix on the 22nd on August 2008. Newcomers look into cuttingthroughthematrix.com website and download as many of the previous talks as you want. It will help fill in a lot of the blank pieces that they give you in history and show you the big foundations and movements that are behind the things that shape the world that you grow up in and live in. A world vastly different then the one you're taught about from media or from the school that you attend. Because nothing happens in this world, on a grand scale, on its own. Nothing is a big surprise to those at the top since intelligence and intelligence services are part of the institutions that plan the big moves for society. Also look into alanwattsentientsentinel.eu for transcripts which you can download, in the various languages of Europe. This last couple of days has been kind of sunny, except for today, because once again in comes the big mush. You know the sprayed mush from the planes in the sky. This thing has been going on for years as they paint the sky with all these odd clouds and leave you with this white film above your head. And they're trying to create another thunderstorm today by the looks of it. And you can taste the metallic particles in your mouth when you walk outside. This is the sort of thing that's done on a grand scale by the big builders. Something the ordinary people would never, ever consider, or imagine, or can they even believe it's being done because they wouldn't do it. That's why the psychopaths at the top can get away with it. And that's why they do do it; they can get away with it. And there are no complaints departments, so much so that even the Department of Defence in Canada told a member of Parliament that they didn't have to tell her what they were doing, spraying the sky. Which in itself was a sort of admission that they were doing it. And who pays for this massive Air Force anyway? Who's paying for this spraying in the sky, that blurs out the sun? and they're calling it now global dimming. Well of course if you paint the sky full of polymer mush and chemicals so that H.A.A.R.P. can work on it for weather modification, you can also dim the light that's coming through. Yet no one wants to talk about it. And to be honest with you, until we do get this out in the open in a big way, I think it's game over, because this stuff is having its effect, not only on the public where bronchial complaints, and chronic bronchitis, persistent recurring infections are happening, but it's also killing off the small birds as well. Even a couple of years ago, if you walked through the forest here, it was so bad, that I was lucky to hear one bird my whole walk. That's what's happening. And that goes into everything. It goes into your vegetables that you grow. The plants suck it up. You eat it. You're breathing it in. And we're carrying all these heavy metallic particles about in us; we're walking antennas, literally. But no media, no mainstream media is going to touch this stuff, this story. Because it's a must be, it's so important to them, obviously. Isn't it odd that all the old sci-fi movies they showed you, like Blade Runner, had it raining all the time? You never saw the sky. Was that part of the predictive programming? And have we adapted so well to these movies that no one really seems to notice, or even care? What's happened to the people? Remember what Skinner said about the environment, to change the people you just simply change something in the environment and they adapt to it. That's happening. Back with more after these messages.
Hi folks, I am Alan Watt, and this is Cutting Through the Matrix. A couple of months ago, I read a story about a young blond-haired boy in England that they were saying was a terrorist to try to get it home to us that anyone can be a terrorist you see. Then that was followed by articles from MI5 and different intelligence agencies, saying that the Islamic extremists had changed the way they look. They were becoming more Westernized. And this is all to get us used to the fact, you see, that we're all potential terrorists. That's what the whole information age is about, is observing all of us, as we go through the big changes, the big planned changes to the Brave New World. And most folk will adapt. In fact most folk in about five years will forget what, you know, who we're fighting anyway. It doesn't really matter to them, and they'll adapt to the changes and being monitored and watched, and fingerprinted and so on. They already are, a lot of them. And those folk are gone. They're the casualties, they're gone. They were never really conscious to begin with. Now here's a report from the Guardian, and it's from Thursday, August 21st. It says:
MI5 report challenges views on terrorism in Britain
(Alan: And then it goes on to say, and it shows you a little bit of the document, a photograph of this restricted document, and at the top of it, it says Behavioral Science Unit, operational briefing. This is for MI5, they have their own behavioral science unit, remember the Skinnerian type of psychology, and beneath it, it says:)
MI5 has concluded that there is no easy way to identify those who become involved in terrorism in Britain, according to a classified internal research document on radicalization seen by the Guardian.
The sophisticated analysis, based on hundreds of case studies by the security service, says there is no single pathway to violent extremism.
It concludes that it is not possible to draw up a typical profile of the "British terrorist" as most are "demographically unremarkable" and simply reflect the communities in which they live.
The "restricted" MI5 report takes apart many of the common stereotypes about those involved in British terrorism.
They are mostly British nationals, not
illegal immigrants and, far from being Islamist fundamentalists, most are
religious novices. Nor, the analysis says, are they "mad and bad".
Those over 30 are just as likely to have a wife and children as to be loners with no ties, the research shows.
The security service also plays down the importance of radical extremist clerics, saying their influence in radicalizing British terrorists has moved into the background in recent years.
The research, carried out by MI5's behavioural science unit, is based on in-depth case studies on "several hundred individuals known to be involved in, or closely associated with, violent extremist activity" ranging from fundraising to planning suicide bombings in Britain.
The main findings include:
• The majority are British nationals and the remainder, with a few exceptions, are here legally. Around half were born in the UK, with others migrating here later in life. Some of these fled traumatic experiences and oppressive regimes and claimed UK asylum,
(A: And now they've got it there in the U.K. now, eh?)
but more came to Britain to study or for family or economic reasons and became radicalized many years after arriving.
• Far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practice their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes. MI5 says there is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalization.
(A: I wonder what religion they're talking about.)
• The "mad and bad" theory to explain why people turn to terrorism does not stand up, with no more evidence of mental illness or pathological personality traits found among British terrorists than is found in the general population.
(A: So in other words, you see, the general population are all suspect. This is what this whole article is getting at here.)
• British-based terrorists are as ethnically diverse as the UK Muslim population, with individuals from Pakistani, Middle Eastern and Caucasian backgrounds. MI5 says assumptions cannot be made about suspects based on skin color, ethnic heritage or nationality.
• Most UK terrorists are male, but women also play an important role. Sometimes they are aware of their husbands', brothers' or sons' activities, but do not object or try to stop them.
• While the majority are in their early to mid-20s when they become radicalized, a small but not insignificant minority first become involved in violent extremism at over the age of 30.
• Far from being lone individuals with no ties, the majority of those over 30 have steady relationships, and most have children. MI5 says this challenges the idea that terrorists are young men driven by sexual frustration and lured to "martyrdom" by the promise of beautiful virgins waiting for them in paradise. It is wrong to assume that someone with a wife and children is less likely to commit acts of terrorism.
• Those involved in British terrorism are not unintelligent or gullible, and nor are they more likely to be well-educated; their educational achievement ranges from total lack of qualifications to degree-level education. However, they are almost all employed in low-grade jobs.
The researchers conclude that the results of their work "challenge many of the stereotypes that are held about who becomes a terrorist and why".
Crucially, the research has revealed that those who become terrorists "are a diverse collection of individuals, fitting no single demographic profile, nor do they all follow a typical pathway to violent extremism".
The security service believes the terrorist groups operating in Britain today are different in many important respects both from Islamist extremist activity in other parts of the world and from historical terrorist movements such as the IRA or the Red Army Faction.
The "UK restricted" MI5 "operational briefing note", circulated within the security services in June, warns that, unless they understand the varied backgrounds of those drawn to terrorism in Britain, the security services will fail to counter their activities in the short term and fail to prevent violent radicalization continuing in the long term.
It also concludes that the research results have important lessons for the government's programme to tackle the spread of violent extremism....
And it goes on, and on, and on. Basically what they're saying through this whole article is that everyone is obviously a potential suspect. You might just suddenly become a terrorist tomorrow morning when you wake up, and you find that you have no sausage and eggs left or something like that, and go nuts and bananas, so you'll have to be watched critically. And no doubt, this report here, this report will be followed up by another demand for more and more money for cameras or for more radical intrusion into people's homes. That's what will come out of this. I have no doubt about that at all. Because they always put up these sort of articles in a series, building on the last one, and the last one, and the last one. That's how it works. So, here they are, on a roll.
Last week I also mentioned about the face profiling that's going on. Supposedly it's funded by the Department of Defense in the United States, supposedly to look for people with autism. Now why would the Defense Department care about autistic children? When I have no doubt some of their particular viruses happened to get into the injections that caused it in the first place. Here's an article here about wide faces, and this is from the Star, the Toronto Star, I guess. Thestar.com from August the 20th, by the health reporter.
Next time you're getting your face scraped along the boards by the other team's enforcer, try and take a peek at his sneering mug.
Chances are it's wider than yours, according to a new Brock University study that equates the width of a hockey player's face with his or her aggressive tendencies.
(A: See, here's eugenics. I told you they're all out in force now.)
Playing hockey ... you can almost tell just by looking at them that this person might be more aggressive than another person," says Justin Carré, a graduate student and the lead study author. The study appears today in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biology.
(A: Now the Royal Society is a masonic society, set up in about the 1500s, and its purpose was to really go into sciences in a deep way, but keep them fairly secret from the public. I think Francis Bacon even joined. But the condition was, you had to put away your wife. You were not allowed to be married. So he put a sum of money aside, and put his wife to the side, and his children, to join. That was mandatory in those days. And this thing is still going today, this same Royal Society.)
Study co-author Cheryl McCormick, a psychology professor, says recent studies show men's faces are broader, relative to the height of their heads, than those of women.
(A: No kidding. That's what you go to university for, right? To see that there's differences.)
Specifically, the measurement compared the width of a face from cheekbone to cheekbone with the height of the face from the upper lip to the eyebrows. McCormick says the width ratio appeared to be independent of any other bodily feature like musculature or bone size.
(A: This is right out of the old Nazi WW2 stuff. And here they are going at it here.)
This width-to-height sex difference, however, only emerged at puberty, leading researchers to suspect that it came as a result of the testosterone increase boys experience in their teenaged years.
The Brock team theorized that the more aggression-inducing testosterone a youth possessed, the broader his face would grow.
(A: These guys get paid grants for doing this stuff. They really do. Jay Leno would be in trouble, wouldn't he?)
"We wanted to see the extent to which these individual differences in the face would actually be correlated with aggressive behaviour," McCormick says.
At first, the Brock team looked at the behaviour of students playing a computer game designed to measure hostility.
"We found that in men, the facial metric that we used was correlated with how aggressive men were on this (computer) test," McCormick says. "There was no such relationship in women; it was only in men."
(A: So men are the bad guys, you see. And it says:)
Carré, who won a hockey scholarship to a U.S. college and is an assistant coach of the varsity team, next looked at shinny players.
I'll be back with more of these shinny players after this break.
Hi, I am Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through the Matrix. Going through some of the nonsense that is put out there today, that will no doubt will eventually lead into security one way or another, because the eugenicists, who now call themselves bioethicists and bioethics committees, they're all into this facial recognition stuff, that they've rehashed from their old WW2 days. And it's back out in full force as they try to predict what we're all going to do, by the shape of our faces and the length of our hands, and all the rest of it. And they get paid for this. These professors and so on, get paid to do all these Mickey Mouse tests. And no doubt if you gave another bunch, on the other side of the world the same test to do they'd come out with a whole bunch of different stories. This is how they give you your ideas, and your opinions. So now everyone's going to be looking at people with broad faces wondering just how violent they are. And the same with the children. Should I get my children on tranquilizers because Johnny's getting a wide face? This will all tie into this, because they want a drugged population. They even want to go further and go into the genes themselves at conception, and remove those that they claim will be inferior, or give you criminal tendencies. This is all part of this stuff. It's amazing to see the whole old pre-Nazi era come right back in full force, in our lifetime, under different names. And to continue with a part of this article here, because it's too lengthy, and nonsensical. It says:
"We think that testosterone levels around puberty might be partly responsible for shaping the facial width to height ratio," he says. "Not only would it shape the facial width-to-height ratio but it might shape their brains to be more aggressive."
So it shapes their brain, that's very technical for a professor, it might shape their brain to be more aggressive. And they're getting paid for this stuff, to do these surveys, and no doubt stigmatize an awful lot of young men, who happen to have wider faces then others. Quite something, isn't it. And most folk lap this stuff up, because they're taught that the experts must be right, and they wouldn't lie to you.
Now we'll go to the phones now, and we've got Anthony in Ireland. Are you there Anthony?
Anthony: Hello Alan.
Alan: How you doing?
Anthony: Great. I stayed up till 25 past 1 over here to talk to you. And I always listen to your shows on your website, and I've got your 3 books which are great. I'd like to ask you a few questions if possible. First is about satirical comedy, not necessarily sitcoms, you know, but like the Life of Brian, and what effect does it have on people psychologically. Does it have any positive effects for the New World Order because, they put on satirical shows like the Daily Show and the Colbert Report on the air, which is covered by the administration.
Alan: Yes. There's no doubt. I think Terry Gilliam did most of the writing for The Life of Brian, and he's also done the movie Brazil, and a few other ones, and all his topics are on theme with this whole New World Order idea. And he takes stuff from the past, and he'll satirize it, but he also will bring it up to the present stage of today, showing you that the same techniques are used down through the ages in totalitarian type regimes. And he also shows you the public; it's so interesting, even in the Life of Brian, he showed you that the masses want someone to do everything for them. I think that was one of the points he put in there. They didn't want to hear the message that they had to do something for themselves. And so there was some poignant little points that they made. But definitely with the ridiculing of a Jesus type deity under the guise of Brian, it didn't do them any favors otherwise, either. So, it goes both ways. In comedy, they can put an awful lot more out then they can put out anywhere else. The other movie was The Meaning of Life, and in there, they wrote at the very beginning of the movie, that people would come to your homes to take your liver, like a donor, and again it's a comedy. They come for this man's liver, they cut it out because he was down as a donor, and then they work on the wife, trying to get her to agree, and she said no. And then they give her a big song, about how insignificant she is in the shape of things, in the massive universe. At the end of it all he says, do you feel so big now? And she says, no, I feel pretty small. He says, yeah, can we have your liver? She says, okay. They're showing you the techniques that are used in satire, but they're actually used through indoctrination purposes step by step in reality because the public will unfortunately eventually agree to have anything done to them if the right process is used on them, and the right type of indoctrination is put upon them, and especially when they've been taught that they're insignificant. That each of you is insignificant, what can I do about these big organizations, or this big New World Order. They were trying to get that point across as well. You cannot look for heroes, you've got to do it yourself. Everyone is a hero for this war to be honest with you.
Anthony: So you know people who are awake, and they're thinking of making a satire, a sort of satire video on global warming to expose it in a new way for people who are asleep. Do you think it could actually backfire on them? Or could it have a positive effect on them?
Alan: It could have a positive effect, in fact, Spiked magazine, it's called Spiked magazine from I think Thursday the 21st of August, they do a satire on Water, Neutrality and Breathing, how to breath properly so you can use less carbon dioxide. So that does work. That does work, if it's done the right way.
Anthony: Maybe they'll put a meter around our necks, and you'll have to put money in to continue breathing.
Alan: Yes. Hold on, and we'll come back after this break.
Hi, I am Alan Watt. This is Cutting Through the Matrix. Are you still there Anthony?
Anthony: Yeah, I'm still here. My second question was about a solution I've come across from Edward G Griffin, the author of The Creature from Jekyll Island, about the Federal Reserve. And he was saying that become government, he wants the people who are awake to flood the elections and actually become government and if you take it in Europe, and there's only a couple thousand people if you add up all the parliament together, so it's probably impossible to wake up 6 billion, but if you woke up the millions who are awake, if they all run for Parliament at the same time, they could control the government. Do you see any pitfalls in that solution?
Alan: See, we're not dealing with fools at the top. The great thing about European governments, and Britain especially who are masters at this, is that they put on a facade of being clumsy and comical to the public, through movies and sitcoms and so on, but the opposite is true. These characters hire the best, and they go through all kinds of scenarios like war games, and how the public would react to different scenarios, and how they would handle it and so on, right down to its most infinite detail. So, I'm sure they've got all that figured out. The thing is too, they know that they've got the public so socialized today, out of the loop of being involved in what's happening in their life that they know they can ram this whole order upon us, and they've almost trained most of the people that government is separate from the people, and that the purpose of government and experts is just to rule you autonomously. That's what they've trained the public to think, and most folk really believe it. They don't believe that they have any say. They don't really care about it, in fact, most people. And we've been put right out of the loop. Before they gave the publics democracy, and talking about the possibility of having to give them democracy, the elite had meetings, and they published their findings in it. They realized that democracy would be good if it stopped revolutions every four or five years, because people would live in hope. They could vote the last bunch out, and get a new bunch in. But by the same token, democracy was too slow and cumbersome for them to rule the public, because they've got big plans at the top. And they definitely have business plans, long-term business plans with dates and times of completion. And Margaret Thatcher said that. She says, you know democracy is too cumbersome. I belong to a parallel government she said, which is the Royal Institute of International Affairs. And she says, we all are ex-Presidents and Prime Ministers, and top bureaucratic officials. We can get things done behind the scene. That's backed up by Carroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope. Where he says, the men who go behind the scenes, working for the big foundations and organizations, wield the true power, but they get no acclaim from the public, who are unaware of their existence. The politicians are just front men. So this is such an old technique they've been at for a long time. It would be a hard thing to take government by any means possible. Even if you did, you'd have chaos within it, from all the competing factions involved. But I know what you're saying. See, the root of this thing isn't just the government itself, it's the whole system of money and commerce and economics. And it's tied up completely with that. Until we find another way of living, we can't go back, that won't happen. We can't go the way the elite are taking us because it's towards our extinction, so we have to find a different way to go off at a tangent somehow and find a way of living where we don't have this dog-eat-dog society, where the rich psychopath gets to the top and rules, and the rest of us are left, feeding on the morsels at the bottom. There's an awful lot that has to be thought through here. And the public themselves, who have been trained for so long to admire these people at the top, to get up there by any means possible, it would be hard for them to envisage any other system but the one that they're born into, you see. How many people are really willing to take a chance into the unknown and go off in a different direction, I wonder.
Anthony: Yeah, I couldn't imagine many doing that for them. Most people are probably going to be ruled, because they feel like that's for them. It would be better to be ruled by people who are aware of the agenda and they have a conscience you know, and actually care about giving them freedom, rather then the psychopaths.
Alan: Yes, and the psychopaths truly are out in force across the world now. They've been setting this up for such a long, long time, this system they're bringing in and they're not even pretending to be nice anymore. They used to pretend that they had to respond to public complaints. Now we don't even have that sham anymore.
Anthony: Yeah, I hear people talking all the time, who are awake, and they don't want to do anything except go on the internet and the reason they gave us that, they're going to wait until it gets really bad, you know, until they come to take their family or something, and then they'll do something to stop it. The way I think is that we're under attack from every single direction. The food is poisoned, we're being poisoned in the air, we're already under major attack.
Alan: We are.
Anthony: I'm trying to find something that will work.
Alan: It truly would take enough people to start with their children. That's a common denominator, that gets to everyone, and stop getting them injected. Demanding the right to know what kind of food you're eating and have a say in how it's grown, what type it is, and all the rest of it. We have to start taking our rights back, one by one. And it is for the children, because most of us are going to die off pretty early. We've all been contaminated with so many shots, and all the rest of it. So, it's to keep our own species going. These guys at the top plan to eliminate us over a course of twenty years, while they bring in a new, specifically genetic made type of human, post-human. We have to fight to retain ourselves. We're the only ones left now with sentience of any kind. The next type of human they create will be a perfect slave with no ability to appreciate love, hate, or do anything else.
Anthony: Yeah, I would go along with that.
Alan: So we have the potential to do everything.
Anthony: Yeah, like there are people who would probably love to have their child modified, you know, so they could get their blue eyes, and all the other things they're going to do.
Alan: That's right.
Anthony: They'd love to get the microchips so they'd know where they are and everything.
Alan: They think it's wonderful, most of them. And they don't realize it's all leading...
Alan: Well thanks for calling. People don't realize we're fighting for our very souls here. Our sentience, our ability to think, and with thinking comes responsibility and worry too. Sometimes, and happiness and pleasure, and pain. That's the way it goes. And that's being a complete human. If that's worth fighting for, then so be it. But to just lie and go quietly with a whimper not with a bang, that's the coward's way out. Those people have already said in other words that life is worth nothing and neither is their own, if they want to go out with a whimper. They have to regain their own sovereignty and be proud of it for the first time. Just before going to the other two callers there. This is from that Spiked magazine, this little spoof they've done on breathing here. It says:
"A new campaign has been launched to encourage people to ‘Think B4 you breathe’. Activists want us to breathe less because it sucks in oxygen and expels carbon dioxide. A report titled Hold Your Breath! How Breathing Less Can Boost Biodiversity implores ‘healthy men and women over the age of 18’ to try to limit themselves to six breaths per minute instead of the normal 12 to 20. You can even work out your ‘Breath Footprint’ on a new online Eco-Breathalyser, where you input personal info – age, profession, level of physical exercise and sexual exertion – and it tells you how many cubic metres of carbon dioxide you’re spouting each year."
And that's their way of satirizing this farce of bio-diversity, and save the world, and carbon dioxide and all the rest of it. That's what we should be doing, more and more of that. They show them how crazy and stupid it all is, and that we know it's crazy and stupid. And we know there's another agenda at work behind it. Now we'll go to Tom in Massachusetts. Are you there Tom? Hello, Tom?
Tom: Alan, a question for you, so far as the progression of things goes. Was there a particular point you feel or from your research that you've found over the probably last, maybe hundred to two hundred, five hundred years where they realized there was the potential for changing people to the point of total dominance or control by the elite where they could engage in genetic engineering? In other words, was this something that just dropped in everybody's lap? Oh, we've suddenly discovered that we can make people more docile and subservient to us if we work with them with medicine and drugs, or is it something that has actually been known about or planned, and yet is going according to a certain time table according to the age. What do you think?
Alan: Well, we know that in ancient times, the pharaohs for instance or those that ruled Egypt, understood diet perfectly. They knew what to feed slaves to keep them docile but healthy enough to work. This was followed down through the ages. In fact the Egyptians at one point even tried getting the mothers of slaves to strap a sort of board on their heads, the foreheads of their children to make them kind of flat headed, which altered their personality, and made them very, very docile, but it made them too docile and stupid, and so they threw that out the window. We find in India, they had the same techniques to do with diet. If they could restrict even the vegetarian diet to a certain few vegetables and so on, they could get the predictable outcome of the person. Not too bright, but bright enough to take orders and do their work. Then that was followed up with Malthus, Thomas Malthus with his essay on the population, to do with the same thing. He had advised the British colonies how to, what to feed their slaves. What kind of food to feed the slaves, to keep them lethargic enough so they couldn't walk off to another plantation, even for the ones who were so-called freed slaves, they had no energy to walk off, and they'd stay around the plantation and work there and be docile. These are old sciences that have always been known, and that's why they went for food again this time. But of course with the use of alchemies as they used to call it, from the 1500s onwards. They were right into using pharmaceuticals, what we now call pharmaceuticals, to alter the brain chemistry of the slave race. That's why Huxley and others promoted worldwide use on the general public of drugs. Drugging the public to make them docile, but they also knew that through science, and through the understanding nature, they'd get to the point where they could literally find the very, very genes which makes you "you," the individual you, and alter them. That's why they went full-steam ahead from the beginning of the 1900s into genetic research.
They new about this stuff, long before Watson came along with his double helix. It was taught in medicine up until the seventies that they'd find the genes one day, and then you read the report by Rutherford, the greatest mathematician that Britain ever had, and in his own biography, in about 1915 he tells you that he was employed full-time working on genetic research. Now what would you need a mathematician for, if you could not see or find the genes? They obviously had them mapped out then. And that's how things are really done in the real world. We are given a bottom level of science and knowledge, and even what they're up to, and they have stuff at the top that they've probably held onto for a hundred or more, maybe even two hundred years. That's how it's present to us. So we're always kept thinking in the past, oh, they can't do that yet. They're not that advanced. That's why it works. And that's why they can do it, and they do do it. There's no inoculation they gave you from the very beginning that they did not know what the effects would be on the physical body. Whether it's autism or auto-immune problems or whatever else. You cannot inject into the human body foreign DNA from animals right into the bloodstream without it having an effect. And we know even from the video that the CBC showed in Canada of Dr Salk talking, he said, oh yes, we knew there was over a hundred viruses in every polio vaccine, and these viruses were alive, and some of them cause cancer like the simian 40 virus, its only purpose was to create cancer. So they knew what they were up to from the beginning.
Tom: It's funny, I just get the distinct feeling it's almost like the, you know like 'you can't put your finger on it' type thing, feeling where everything is timed. In other words everything is moving ahead according to the agenda that they have prepared so that nothing will deter it, and nothing will stop it. This is like some kind of a steamroller it seems where when they want things to come into play, it comes into play at that particular time.
Alan: That's right, that's exactly right.
Tom: That's why, like you said, a while ago, we'd better find a big hole. I mean, because if they're successful, the sentient ones are going to have to dig pretty deep to get away from this.
Alan: If it came into the public what's even a fraction of what's been done deliberately to them, with thousands of people involved, scientists, bureaucrats, military personal. And politicians and so on. Big foundation owners. You'd have no option but to go after them.
Tom: Well, hey, I'll let somebody else have a turn, but it was nice talking to you again, Alan.
Alan: Thanks for calling. Now we've got Dale from New Delhi. Are you there Dale?
Dale: Yes, yes. Hello Alan. I would ordinarily be Dale from Denmark, but I'm going to be here in Delhi for a few weeks, and I could not resist calling in any more. I'm going to ask two very quick questions Alan, and then I'd like to hang up and hear your answer. The first question has to do with Carroll Quigley, and Tragedy and Hope. And I'm asking you why it is this man can write this tomb of a book, some 1090 pages, and the last two words of the book are capitalized, and they are the words INCLUSIVE DIVERSITY, and the context of the sentence, just to refresh you is he starts out saying that some things we clearly do not know yet, including the most important of all, is how to bring up children to form them into mature responsible adults, but on the whole we do know now, as we have already shown, that we can avoid continuing the horrors of 1914-1915, and on that basis alone we may be optimistic of our ability to go back to the tradition of our Western society and to resume its development along its old patterns of INCLUSIVE DIVERSITY. And the words inclusive diversity are capitalized. And I've been pondering this, and I just can't, I just can't wrestle it into some coherence. I'd like you to, if you have some insight into what he might have been speaking to, I'd really appreciate it. That's the first question. And the second question is, do you have any thought points about how we can conceptualize the family in sort of the context of this Brave New World that I've been following for quite some time. So if you have any ideas of how we can conceptualize family in the context as I say, for one like myself who's the patriarch of the family and is struggling to...
Alan: I'll answer that when I come back from this break.
Hi folks, I'm Alan Watt, and this is Cutting Through the Matrix. And to try to answer the last caller, which is not so easy, when it comes to Quigley, because Quigley wasn't just a mentor of Bill Clinton, he wasn't just a professor at Georgetown University, he was also an advisor to the State Department and the top diplomatic core of the United States. He was the historian for the Council on Foreign Relations which is just the American Branch of the Royal Institute of International Affairs. So what he was talking about there was the old idea that they had, when they sold the bill of goods through the United Nations to the world, that everyone could come into this global structure, and be inclusive, and retain their sovereignty at the same time, their diversity, if you like, at the same time. That's what he was referring to, when he said that. Now as I say, he was the historian for the Council on Foreign Relations, at the, I think it was the Harold Pratt building in New York City, and had access to their files. He knew the global agenda. He was all for that global agenda. But he was going by what they used to call the inclusiveness of all countries, who would be part of a system, but still retain their sovereignty, which is a misnomer. He knew himself that it could not happen. You're either a global structure, or you're sovereign. It's one or the other. And that's the problem. And he claimed that WW1 was brought about by the countries all competing with each other. Competition has to stop in this new inclusive system they were setting up then. That's where free trade comes in. It's not free at all; it's selective trade only. So they stopped the feuding and the fighting by selecting which big moguls they're going to allow to use free trade. That's really what it is.
Where it comes with the family, the family now has been so much under attack, steadily since really the end of WW2 onwards that it doesn't stand much of a chance. The indoctrination to male and female, and perhaps more in the feminist agenda, has done so much damage that it's almost irreparable. It would take literally a global catastrophe to make us all work together for survival once again. As long as the artificial system exists, the radicalization of the genders will go on, and they'll be at each other's throats until it's all over. That's the unfortunate part about it. Women, the wealthy women, say quite openly that men are just sperm donors. That's all they are to them. They don't need them. And they are being used to push for all the genetic modification to create the perfect offspring, etc. They go shopping, literally shopping for sperm. So, they said sixty years ago in their books, they would aim most of the propaganda at the female. It has worked and unfortunately the wealthier ones are bringing about what will be their own demise. They won't need them in the future. They won't need men either, or women with artificial wombs, because we are going into the Huxley, Brave New World where silicon wombs will be used. So, I hope that tries to answer it. Plus I.D., when you take the two letters ID is a big word up in the big ranks at the top, it's Ideal Design, or Intelligent Design, because he knew what they were working towards, and he had no objections about creating a new type of human. And that the old type were basically obsolete too.
Now we'll go to Kyle in Connecticut. Are you there Kyle?
Kyle: You know, it seems like they're in the last ten yards of scoring a touchdown, and they're all excited they're going to get to see this ideal design. And how much further can they dehumanize us?
Alan: As much as we let them. That's basically it. Thanks for calling. It's the end of the show now, and 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:
"MI5 report challenges views on terrorism in Britain" by Alan Travis (guardian.co.uk) - Aug. 21, 2008.
"Study links aggression to wide faces" by Joseph Hall (thestar.com) - Aug. 20, 2008.
"There's another word for 'water neutrality': death" by Brendan O'Neill (spiked-online.com) - Aug. 21, 2008.
Alan's Materials Available for Purchase and Ordering Information:
Religions and History MP3 CDs:
Blurbs and 'Cutting Through the Matrix' Shows on MP3 CDs (Up to 50 Hours per Disc)
"Reality Check Part 1" & "Reality Check Part 2 - Wisdom, Esoterica and ...TIME"