Nov. 28, 2008 (#204)
Alan Watt "Cutting Through The Matrix" LIVE on RBN:
Poem Copyright Alan Watt Nov. 28, 2008:
Democracy Defined and Redesigned, or the Masonic Plan of Their Green Man:
"Democracy Redefined by Council on Foreign
Death-Rattle of Sovereignty, End of Nations,
Governance by Foundations and NGOs,
Paid Lackey Scientists Who'll Bring Us Woes,
With Predictions of Calamities, CO2 and Terror,
While Military-Industrialists Control the Weather,
With Fart Tax, Energy Tax, We're Taxed to Death,
The Next One will be to Tax Those with Bad Breath,
We're So Beaten Down, Ought to be Screaming,
Make Inmates of Those Who Sprout About Greening,
It's Said 'Energy Equals MC Squared,'
If We Believe in This BS, We Must Be Impaired,
Yet Experts and Politicos, Psycho-Straightfaces,
Well-Paid, Tell Rationalists They're All Nutcases"
© Alan Watt Nov. 28, 2008
Poem & Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt - Nov. 28, 2008 (Exempting Music, Literary Quotes, and Callers' Comments)
of Silence" by Bruce Springsteen
There's a code of silence that we don't dare speak
There's a wall between us and a river so deep
And we keep pretending that there's nothing wrong
But there's a code of silence and it can't go on
Is the truth so elusive, so elusive as you can see
that it ain't enough baby
To bridge the distance between you and me
There's a list of grievance 100 miles long
There's a code of silence and it can't go on
I am Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix on Friday, the 28th of November, 2008. Now for those who are just tuning in for the first time, I advise them to go to www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com and on the web site there, you’ll find lots of previous talks I’ve given which will take you through this vast journey of history. Showing the powerful people and actors, as they’re called - by themselves - on the world stage and how they form foundations and so on and how they all interconnect. They basically gave us the culture of the West. They’re creating the NEW culture for the future as we speak, as we live. Always planning ahead. Always to profit themselves too, mind you, under tremendous guises of charity and doing good for others. Also look into www.alanwattsentientsentinel.eu for transcripts which you can download and print up. They’re written in the various languages of Europe.
Most people don’t realize that in about the 1800s, very powerful men just seemed to come out of nowhere. They were called the robber barons. A very good book to read is called The Robber Barons and they go through the big names that are household names today, international names like the Rockefellers, and the Goulds, the Carnegies and so on. They tell you basically, often tongue and cheek, how they made their money, which was by really theft and plunder and very good con games. In fact, quite a few of them collapsed the banking system of the U.S. about 3 times in the 1800s. They got together and collapsed it and robbed thousands of people of their pensions and everything. They became very great for that. See, they’re called great people. That’s what we have in history books.
Out of it also came their big foundations, their foundations through which they would alter their persona of reality. Such as the Rockefeller family who were into eugenics. They were the most racist family probably in the U.S. You should read their history. Read the book called The Rockefellers, and how they gunned down lots of miners who were living on pittances, living in these factory towns owned by the Rockefeller family. The Rockefeller family actually brought in their own preacher to make sure they were taught, you know, the RIGHT kind of Christianity… OBEY your master. They had to buy all their foodstuffs and so on from the company store owned by Rockefeller as well. They were paid in TOKENS, Rockefeller tokens, so they couldn’t spend it anywhere else. This is the real history of the U.S., the one that they don’t tell you in Hollywood when they give you the cowboys and Indian stuff.
These factory towns were all across the United States. These powerful people after, especially after the incident when they gunned down so many miners and their wives, using the U.S. forces and militia and getting away with it too, brought in big IMAGE makers. One of them was a man called Gates. You can imagine who he’s related to. The other one was Mackenzie King from Canada, a sort of hack politician who knew how to kiss everyone’s rear end but he was rewarded later on, mind you, and they made him Prime Minister of Canada. But the connection here was the Anglo-American Establishment that you’ll find that Professor Carroll Quigley and others talking about. It’s rather fascinating to realize that it was already on the go then and they had PLANNED a brave new world at the beginning of the 1900s. Back with more of this after this break.
Hi folks, I am Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix, talking about the powerful men who were already there in the 1800s, emerged in the early 1900s as multi-millionaires and how they had a cartel, basically, of all essential goods but they also cast an eye on the future. They eventually blended with the English establishment, the London Establishment really. In fact, they formed an association with them. This eventually became the Council on Foreign Relations, something that the Rockefeller family basically funded into existence. They could not call it the Royal Institute of International Affairs because ROYAL wouldn’t go too well with U.S. citizens at that time. They have many, many branches belonging to the same group. They’re into everything. You would not believe what they’re into.
In fact, during World War II the Rockefellers often wrote out checks for projects for the CIA and after World War II and through the Cold War, from their own personal check books. That’s how closely integrated they ARE with the government and really, the secret societies such as the CIA - which it is a secret society - form. They also cast an eye, as I say, to the future and the kind of world they wanted to plan and bring into existence. Now remember, from the beginning they wanted population CONTROL. They also had a list of superior and inferior races… which they have never changed, even today.
They also realized that they could never have democracy AS SUCH for the people because the people might not WANT to let them have their way at the top and plunder them, rule over them and steal from them and imprison them and have wars. They love wars. Wars are very profitable and you can always gain more territory through wars. Therefore, they came up with this Anglo-American idea, a combination, a merging. It’s called “The Special Relationship” in political circles between London and Washington D.C. Margaret Thatcher referred to it all the time, in her talks.
It really is a fascist system with rich, very rich, old families - who are often intermarried - running big, massive foundations who sponsor the non-governmental organizations which APPEAR to be part of democracy but in reality, they LEAD policy in this thing called democracy. Here’s an article form the Council on Foreign Relations. It’s called,
Sovereignty and Globalisation
Author: Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations
February 17, 2006
The world’s 190-plus states (Alan: They call them STATES, not NATIONS.) now co-exist with a larger number of powerful non-sovereign and at least partly (and often largely) independent actors, ranging from corporations to non-government organisations (NGOs) (A: Well they know this because they FUND the non-governmental organizations.), from terrorist groups (A: Which they also have been know to fund.) to drug cartels (A: We‘ll say no more about that.), from regional and global institutions to banks and private equity funds. The sovereign state is influenced by them (for better and for worse) as much as it is able to influence them. The near monopoly of power once enjoyed by sovereign entities is being eroded. (A: Well that’s their agenda, you see, because they’re for global government but not for the people.)
As a result, new mechanisms are needed for regional and global governance that include actors other than states. (A: Meaning nations.) This is not to argue that Microsoft, Amnesty International, or Goldman Sachs be given seats in the United Nations General Assembly (A: But listen to this…), but it does mean including representatives of such organisations in regional and global deliberations when they have the capacity to affect whether and how regional and global challenges are met. (A: So there you have the Soviet system without mentioning the word Soviet because that’s where they took it from. Where the NGOs pretended to represent factions of the public and the politicians pretended that they were genuine and they’d listen to them. That’s what it is. Now the big foundations, especially this one here that’s published this, are responsible for many of these particular NGO groups and their bosses, the big foundations that FRONT for the old families of Europe, make sure that they’re all funded very, very well.)
Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies (A: See, WORLD BODIES) if the international system is to function.
This is already taking place in the trade realm. Governments agree to accept the rulings of the World Trade Organisation because on balance they benefit from an international trading order, even if a particular decision requires that they alter a practice that is their sovereign right to carry out. (A: Most people don’t even know who put forth the idea of the World Trade Organization that led to the GATT Treaty. They could tell you all about the stars in Hollywood and the affairs they’ve had and who divorced from who and so on, but the things that affect their lives and will be coming more apparent in the very near future, are DIRECTLY affecting their lives, they’re completely ignorant of.)
Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change. Under one such arrangement, the Kyoto Protocol, which runs through 2012, signatories agree to cap specific emissions. What is needed now is a successor arrangement in which a larger number of governments, including the United States, China and India, accept emission limits or adopt common standards because they recognise that they would be worse off if no country did. (A: Now remember, this whole ball of wax, this whole ball of gas really, of global warming is a CON GAME dreamed up by one of their KEY foundations. That was the Club of Rome who dreamed the idea up in the 1970s and boasted about it in their own published book called The First Global Revolution. A con game to dominate the world, totally. Last Wednesday, I read an article from China claiming it was doing the world a favor and helping to cut global warming and emissions by aborting people. You see where it’s going to, all this stuff? It’s going to be the biggest stick you’ve ever seen.)
All of this suggests that sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalisation.
At its core, globalisation entails the increasing volume, velocity and importance of flows within and across borders of people (A: Now, that‘s only ones who are authorized remember, if you look at their charters.), ideas, greenhouse gases (A: I guess they‘re going to carry them across back and forth too.), goods, dollars, drugs, viruses, emails, weapons, and a good deal else, challenging one of sovereignty’s fundamental principles: the ability to control what crosses borders in either direction. Sovereign states increasingly measure their vulnerability not to one another, but to forces beyond their control.
Globalisation thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs (A: Now listen, IT NEEDS.) to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves (A: Here‘s the big con.), because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary.
They go on to talk about how the world’s all come together to fight terrorism, another big con this particular organization and many of its associates have been part of dreaming up, the war on terror. It’s astonishing, astonishing to realize the cons that rule us.
As I say, we had religion for thousands of years which was USED by powerful institutions, political institutions, governing institutions that had people at one time TERRIFIED OF THE DARK, terrified of the very forest in which they lived because of unseen forces all around them. They were fine before all that. They got on fine, just fine and happy and healthy but in came these high priests you see and scared the bejesus out of them… until you couldn’t go anywhere that was safe except the big church’s sanctuary. It was all lit up with candles and they had even more demonic figures called gargoyles outside to scare off the badder ones. That’s how it worked. That was the psychology of it.
We’ve been run by ghosts, you see. Ghosts have ruled us for thousands of years and believe you me, this term is not just cast up out of the darkness in this context because that’s what they’re using now, this global warming, the whole scam of it.
Here’s an article here and it’s from The Telegraph, Friday the 28th of November, 2008.
The world has never seen such freezing heat
By Christopher Booker
Last Updated: 5:35AM GMT 18 Dec 2008
A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.
This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years. (A: Back with more of this CHILLING story after this break.)
Hi, I am Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix and we’re going through the nonsense to do with global warming from an article from The Telegraph. As I say, it was exposed that their particular official claim that October was the warmest month and so on has been completely disputed and repudiated. It says here
So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running. (A: Now, do you really believe that somebody at that level makes these kind of mistakes? Of course they don’t because they must create this big boogey man. A boogey man, a ghost, if you like, of global warming and greenhouse gases that neither you, the average person can prove or disprove just like the medieval man couldn’t disprove or prove the existence of these gargoyle demons who he was told prowled all across the place. And that’s what they’re using. They fudge records because, you see, it was settled. You got to understand when these big foundations come together, and they settle and AGREE upon a course of action for the future, they MEAN IT. They will not vary their plan even though it’s completely ridiculed and exposed, they will stick to it because global warming is to be the big stick to rule your lives, INDIVIDUALLY, believe you me.)
The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. (A: I bet they did.) This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year. (A: In other words, they’re utter LIARS. You see, I’ll say it for what it is. They’re utter liars.)
A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. (A: They deal with NASA, for goodness sake, and NOAA, these big organizations with all these satellites.) This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others. [Alan laughs]
If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr Hansen, who set the whole scare in train back in 1988 with his testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore. Again and again, Dr Hansen has been to the fore in making extreme claims over the dangers of climate change. (He was recently in the news here for supporting the Greenpeace activists acquitted of criminally damaging a coal-fired power station in Kent (A: Well, isn‘t that terrorism now, isn‘t it? So he‘s what? He‘s allied with terrorists… hmm.), on the grounds that the harm done to the planet by a new power station would far outweigh any damage they had done themselves.)
Yet last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s. (A: How’s that for it? How’s that for a good con job, eh? And this is the head guy, who has been told by the Club of Rome to lead the charge and all the other players or actors that work for the real government of the world make sure that they hold him up as the prophet.)
Another of his close allies is Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC (A: Who make their living on this global warming scam.), who recently startled a university audience in Australia by claiming that global temperatures have recently been rising "very much faster" than ever, in front of a graph showing them rising sharply in the past decade. In fact, as many of his audience were aware, they have not been rising in recent years and since 2007 have actually dropped. (A: So here he is with a graph telling you not to believe your lying eyes.)
Dr Pachauri, a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science (A: Well he‘s the ideal candidate to be one of these characters, you see. I mean, he doesn’t want to go back to being an engineer on a railway, does he? Not with the salary he’s getting from the United Nations.), may believe what Dr Hansen tells him. But whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is wise for the world's governments to embark on some of the most costly economic measures ever proposed, to remedy a problem which may actually not exist, is a question which should give us all pause for thought. (A: And that’s for those who can still do some thinking. This is a BIG agenda and you ain’t seen nothing yet. I’ll be back with more after this break.
Hi folks, I am Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix. I’m going to show you how this whole climate change nonsense and global warming and greenhouse gases will affect you. It’s already happening and this is going to happen trough all the British Commonwealth countries. It will also eventually catch on in America because the last report, the previous report, the very first report talked about how we’re all interdependent and there are no nations anymore basically. The big, powerful bodies rule our lives and they claim, so they should. Who needs democracy, eh? They have redefined democracy as government with the big foundations and the NGOs which the foundations lead and pay. That’s what democracy is.
This is from the BBC.
Think tank calls for 'home MOTs'
By Pallab Ghosh
Science correspondent, BBC News
Page last updated at 03:55 GMT, Wednesday, 26 November 2008
The government's science think tank (A: It has its own think tank.) has proposed that homes in the UK should have regular MOT-type energy check ups. (A: Now, in Britain, an MOT is the Ministry of Transportation. So they’re using this analogy here… and you have to get your car checked up and certified every year or you can’t drive it, you can’t get it insured and you won’t get your little sticker. You get the PRIVILEGE of driving. You have privileges, you see, in the British Commonwealth countries. You don’t have any rights. They want to do this to homes now. They want access to your homes. This is the start of it.)
The think tank, Foresight, is to release a report suggesting a number of radical ways to meet the UK's green goals (A: You see, it’s global warming, you know.) over the next 50 years. (A: They will, they will. They’re using this as a war, remember, for the global system said at the Club of Rome. They’d create a global society that must be under the threat of war. MAN would be the enemy of the planet and the planet to an extent would be at war with him and global warming would ‘FIT THE BILL’. So it doesn’t matter how farcical it seems or how much you expose it, they are going to RAM it along because they never change their policy. When all these foundations come together, they never change. So here you go.)
The report calls for less centralised, more small-scale energy production.
It also suggests using "intelligent metering" in homes and businesses, to show the real-time costs of different types of energy.
Energy efficiency assessments of buildings (A: Now this is very important.)- which account for half of all energy use - would also help meet the targets for CO2 emissions.
The report says that the UK is "locked-in" to using certain forms of energy, and leading energy experts say that radical solutions (A: Radical should scare you.) are needed if the UK is to diversify its energy use, to meet its target of reducing CO2 emissions by 2020. (A: You know if you had no CO2 emissions, it means we’d all be dead… because that’s what we breathe out.)
Buildings account for about half the country's energy use - and so should be the government's main focus in trying to reduce CO2 emissions. But it has had limited success in persuading businesses and home owners to become more energy efficient.
The Foresight report says this is down to inertia. Customers and suppliers they say are locked in to centralised energy production and inefficient consumption.
The report calls for incentives to encourage greener local energy production and more effective measures to get consumers to use less energy.
Options put forward include intelligent metering which show the true cost of gas and electricity and more regular energy efficiency assessments of homes (A: regular energy efficiency assessments of homes… that’s the key word, the key term here. Because they’re going to FAIL your home and you’re going to be on the street you see, if it doesn’t come up to their par, as they say. And believe you me, they keep UPPING the building’s safety standards codes every year. You could never keep up with it. So regular energy efficiency assessments of homes) and businesses, which the report describes as "an MOT for buildings". (A: Now that’s a test and for Britain if your car fails because you have a pinhole rust spot on the bottom floor somewhere - and I’m not kidding - a pinhole will do it, they fail you and you can’t drive the car.) You need meters connected to the electricity supply network getting real-time information about energy costs
Jim Watson, Sussex University
"Rather than making roads safer, these would make our future climate safer," says Professor Yvonne Rydin from University College London and one of the report's authors.
"One of the problems is that people are not fully aware of the energy they are using and the cost of that energy to themselves and to the planet." (A: They certainly are aware of the cost to themselves because the cost is through the roof. They’re getting gouged mightily, especially since they privatized all the systems that deliver energy to their homes by Maggie Thatcher’s government.)
The Foresight team is led by Professor John Beddington, the government's chief scientist. (A: So here we have a scientific dictatorship. Exactly what Bertrand Russell said they’d bring in and what Aldous Huxley said too.) He says that an MOT-type energy assessment could be tied to penalties (A: Here’s the key. Penalties.) and incentives to encourage homeowners and businesses to adopt energy-saving technologies. (A: Now, when they say penalties, it means they’re going to FINE you mightily until you comply. Generally the first fine ensures you can’t comply because it bankrupts you. This has already been tried. In some of the agencies which they already have out there FROM the United Nations, by the way, in every Western country, they’ve set them up now and they’re going around homes and they fine you $5000 if your down pipe from your roof to drain off the roof has a dent in it. I’m not kidding. Now they want to do the same thing if there’s a leak from your home. You’re living in some old banged-up house and it’s all you can afford, you’re going to suffer for it. COERCION. It’s interesting how they define LAW, you know. At first they use coercion, which is really the threat of force, and then they use force. That’s what law is.)
"There's potential for a stick-and-carrot approach perhaps regulation that links rateable values [of homes and commercial premises] to energy emissions," he says.
Now it’s interesting too, you know, one of the technocrats who was sent to Canada to get the privatization of the Ontario Hydro, which is the electric corporation, privatized in the late 80s was brought from the World Bank. This man has had a finger in every pie. That was Maurice Strong and he was put on in charge as the chairman of Ontario Hydro Company. In the newspapers at the time, he talked but the coming brownouts and shortages that would be created and how the taxpayer should now help FUND the installation of massive generators to keep big businesses and big factories, etc going.
They started this amazing project back then. Everyone was saying well, what’s happening, what’s going on here? We were never given an excuse for it. You see, that’s 20 years ago pretty well. That’s how far ahead they were planning all this rubbish that we’re hearing about today with global warming and so on. The whole idea was in the British style system, which every country, including the U.S. has adopted completely, the public build up infrastructure and essential services such as electricity and power, roads and so on. In Britain, they bring in the other party who say it’s too expensive, we have to privatize it. They privatize it for 10 years until they ran it into the ground and just basically ran off with the proceeds, then again, they bring in the public sector to pay for the upkeep and the repairs and so on and then they privatize it again. This is how the con game goes.
The citizens of Ontario had built up this massive power, electric power system. Then Maurice Strong was sent in, FROM THE UN to take over that position. While he was in, it was found out that he was taking his full paycheck from the United Nations while he was still chairman of the hydro company for Ontario. After his little scandal, he says, okay, I’ll accept a dollar a month for pay from Ontario Hydro.
The public have no idea, as I say, no idea whatsoever what is really, really ever going on and they’re not helped by the media, which isn’t there to bring them to any reality. Technocrats, as Carroll Quigley said, run behind the scenes. They’re moved all over the place. They’re never, ever elected, but they have more POWER than any politician. That’s what he said in his own book. They wield more power. That’s their consolation for not being in the public eye. In fact, that’s the only way they can get so much done, by being kept OUT of the public eye.
It’s just on and on. If you really understand that the hugeness of this and the corruption of it all… because even those who’re in the conspiracy here, to take over a whole planet - and that’s what it is, generally under charitable works and foundations and organizations ALL working in this INTEGRATED NET which they own are filling their pockets and all their pals’ pockets with INCREDIBLE money from the looted public. We should write a new book on the barons, the robber barons of the 21st century.
A few months ago there was a big scandal broke out when people’s pets in the West, dogs and cats, were just suddenly dying. After much kafuffle and the pleading of ignorance, the scientific community came out and admitted that it was mainly coming from wheat, etc, from China that was used for mixing in these awful dog foods that they feed the animals and the cat foods. The Federal Drug Administration had known for YEARS this stuff was being introduced and they kept quiet about it. Then they said at the time, a few months ago, it would never be allowed into the publics’ food supply, the human food chain. The symptoms of this were renal failure primarily, kidney damage and very strong smell of ammonia as the animal lost control of its bladder and would gradually die. There’d be blood in the urine. It’s an awful death. But here’s an article here from NaturalNews.com. It says,
FDA Hid Names of Melamine Contaminated Infant Formula Products from the Public
By Mike Adams, November 27, 2008
When the FDA discovered melamine in U.S. infant formula products (A: Okay, now they told us what? It was NOT in the food chain for humans. So it was discovered in US infant formula. They love children if you‘ve noticed. After all the series of talks I‘ve given to do with Bisphenol-A and so on, they really do love children.), it made a conscious decision (A: The FDA made a conscious decision…) to withhold that information from the public. Instead, it called a teleconference with the infant formula manufacturers to warn them about its findings! (A: Now, WHO does the FDA supposedly - we know it’s all a con and democracy is a con and so on - who are they supposed to really WORK FOR? Why are they going to the manufacturers instead of the public? I’ll let you figure that one out. And by the way, if you do your homework on the FDA, look at the representatives who sit on these government bodies. They’ve ALL worked generally just recently for the big corporations involved, including Monsanto, including the companies that make the pesticides and so on for all these crops. These people are often CEOs of these organizations. That’s who’s protecting you, right, you can TRUST THEM.)
The truth about the melamine only became public after the Associated Press filed a Freedom of Information Act request, demanding the test results from the FDA. Absent that request, this whole issue would have continued to remain an FDA secret. (A: This POISON they’re putting in the food would have been kept a secret.)
In the aftermath of that decision, the FDA is now under intense fire for once again betraying the public trust and acting to protect the interests of corporations rather than the people. Congress, public health groups and consumer advocates (like me) are blasting the FDA for utterly disregarding public safety and catering (once again) to the financial interests of the companies it regulates. (A: As I say, these guys have all been on the boards of these companies, these inspectors.)
The FDA, of course, claims that low levels of melamine are perfectly safe for babies to consume in unlimited quantity. Sure they are! And Bisphenol-A is safe, too. So is aspartame, sodium nitrite, sucralose, MSG and every other food ingredient poison you can think of. According to the FDA, they're all safe for babies to eat or drink in virtually unlimited quantities.
Needless to say, the FDA has become the laughing stock of all intelligent observers. It's not hard to figure out that the FDA has sold out to Big Business (A: It was CREATED by big business.) and betrayed the people, thrusting defenseless babies directly into the line of fire of dangerous chemicals and toxic additives.
Yet the FDA still conspires to hide the truth about these dangers from the public.
Truth be told, it is the FDA that has become the real danger to the public. This agency is a complete failure.
And it goes on and on and on about that. You have to go into the melamine thing. There’s a lot of information there on melamine. It was killing thousands of people in China about a month ago, children mainly. Now it’s over the main stream media and apparently these sellers of milk… of course, it’s all the government who runs China, it’s a good ally, communist China - and it had diluted the milk to such an extent they’d add this melamine to WHITEN it to make it look more like milk. It went into all milk products and so on. It says here,
Former pet food contaminate melamine now surfacing in baby formula. Melamine is raising its ugly head again, this Times reporters are saying that traces of Melamine were found in a Chinese brand of baby formula. The Canadian broadcasting company is reporting, September 11th, 2008 that 14 babies developed kidney stones (A: Kidney STONES. A lot more DIED when the big, real news got out to the public. Quite astonishing, really. Melamine, melamine. They also make plastics out of it, you know, for your table tops and stuff, but it’s good for babies to eat. I’ll be back with more after this break.)
Hi folks, I am Alan Watt. We’re Cutting Through The Matrix and just before I go on to a caller, read the Health and Science magazine. Health and Science, September the 17th, 2008. It has an article on melamine there and what it did in China. 1200 babies across the country were sickened (I’m not going into the full report on that) and KILLED at least 2 so far, he says, so far. It’s rather an in depth article. By the way, the big companies that we know so well, like Nestle, etc, were ALL INVOLVED in this. They use it to bulk up the baby food, they say. No doubt it’s to bulk up things like Chocolato and things that we love so much.
Now, I’ll go to the callers and we’ve got Jarrod in New York there. Are you there Jarrod? Hello, Jarrod?
Jarrod: Hello Alan.
Alan: Hello. Go ahead.
Jarrod: You know… my God. I just wanted to tell you, I work in a bottle room, a recycled bottle room, and I see it, what Bertrand Russell said. “There’s no nonsense so arrant that can not be made the creed of the people” and I see people come in who tell me they’re so proud of recycling. I remember that article you went over a few months ago. I think it was a Japanese scientist said that the whole recycling is such a scam, that you actually pollute more when you recycle. It’s just like… wow.
Alan: It is such a scam. You’ve got to understand, even in Canada, a lot of our stuff was shipped to the States and it was well understood by every party including politicians that the mafia were involved with shipping the stuff down for disposal.
Jarrod: The mafia’s involved over here too.
Alan: And so what they did was create a legitimate business out of recycling where they started up new companies, with public money, of course, made them private, for recycling, and they got all this plastic FOR FREE and the public deliver it to them. That’s not a bad deal, eh? [laughs]
Jarrod: The mafia over here, they’re the ones who handle all the garbage when they collect.
Alan: Yes. That’s how it is.
Jarrod: That’s the world we live in. Families. Criminal families. But I watched a lot of the movies that you recommended. God, can it be more obvious?
Alan: It’s in your face. I just got a word there that of the top 8 movies coming out shortly that the top 8, the first 8, top 8, that ALL are very similar to Children of Men. All scenarios of masses of poor people in the world and this private army that’s storming all over them, EVERY ONE IS THE SAME.
Jarrod: Wow. I just watched, it’s on your web site, it’s called Shenandoah. It was good. It showed you, like you said, the hardships of war.
Alan: It even shows you how it really is. It’s all politics to do with big businesses involved and who gets money and contracts from the government, even for taking the horses, etc.
Jarrod: But it didn’t show the part when, I read this even in school, they would just commandeer your house for soldiers and do whatever they wanted.
Alan: That’s right.
Jarrod: A funny thing too with Hollywood, I watched another documentary that you recommended, Hollywoodism. It’s how this whole dream of what America’s supposed to be was made in the studio.
Alan: That’s correct. They did. The made it in a studio. They actually say in the movie, the big producers at Warner, ‘We gave the Americans their culture.’
Jarrod: Oh man.
Alan: Thanks for calling though.
Jarrod: Alright. Thanks Alan.
Alan: For those who listen to me, it’s good if you help donate. You’ll find out how to on my web site, CuttingThroughTheMatrix.com. That keeps me going. From Hamish and myself, from a very snowy Ontario, Canada, it’s good night and may your God or your Gods GO with you.
Topics of show covered in following links:
"Sovereignty and globalisation" by Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations (cfr.org) - Feb. 17, 2006.
"The world has never seen such freezing heat" by Christopher Booker (telegraph.co.uk) - Nov. 16, 2008.
"Think tank calls for 'home MOTs' " by Pallab Ghosh (news.bbc.co.uk) - Nov. 26, 2008.
"FDA Hid Names of Melamine Contaminated Infant Formula Products from the Public" by Mike Adams (naturalnews.com) - Nov. 27, 2008.
"Brief History of Melamine" by Kate Pickert (time.com) - Sep. 17, 2008.
"FDA Draws Fire Over Chemicals In Baby Formula" by Lyndsey Layton (washingtonpost.com) - Nov. 27, 2008.
Transcribed by Diana