"Cutting Through The Matrix" Live On RBN (#228)
Poem Copyright Alan Watt Jan. 6, 2009:
A Superstition Led by Repetition:
"To Sentient People,
Evidence of Wolves' Teeth Showing,
No Surprises, This Agenda, Its Attainability,
All Roads Merge with Sustainability,
Fabian Technique, Propaganda Increasing,
Opposition Overcome, Voices Ceasing,
Media Change Agents Hype the Sham,
Pushing Terrified Sheeple Along the Plan,
Which Leaders Tell Us is Peace, Utopia,
For Them, Perhaps, For the Rest, Dystopia"
© Alan Watt Jan. 6, 2009
Tuesday 6th January 2009
Poem & Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt - Jan. 6, 2009 (Exempting Music, Literary Quotes, and Callers' Comments)
cuttingthroughthematrix.net , .us , .ca
|European site includes all audios & downloadable
TRANSCRIPTS in European languages for print up:|
Information for purchasing Alan’s books, CDs, DVDs and DONATIONS:
Canada and America: PayPal, Cash, personal checks &
Outside the Americas: PayPal, Cash, Western Union and Money Gram
PayPal Orders: USE THE DONATE BUTTON ON THE WEBSITE – AND –
Hi folks, I am Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix on the 6th of January 2009.
For the newcomers, and there will be newcomers coming in to the show, look into www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com website and you can download as many of the talks I've given in the past, as you wish and they're all free, you can also look into www.alanwattsentientsentinel.eu and find written transcripts of these talks, in the various languages of Europe and you can download those and pass them around to your friends or read them at your leisure.
You know, we are in a stage of change, or transition, as they keep calling it at the top, transition. This is the century for transition where, supposedly, at the end of a hundred years, which ties in with the hundred years war that Mr. Rumsfeld kept talking about and kept wondering what does he mean? It wouldn't take a hundred years to finish off the Middle East, well, he wasn't talking about the Middle East, he was talking about the big agenda, the agenda that's been planned for an awful long time and it's been brought about, surreptitiously and through stealth, by big Foundations, big Non-Governmental Organisations, coupled with the United Nations and funded by all the big eugenicists that ever-ever existed, the big Foundations themselves; and, we're so used to it, we're so used to their programmes on television and their expert panels and so on, that now that it's all out in the open that they want to change society itself and the very types of humans that we are in fact. They've declared that there's too many of the base types left, that's the majority, according to them, and they want to rebuild the whole planet and vastly reduce the population and that's what all the hype is about, about sustainable development, it's just another cover for massive depopulation which was always the agenda of the Eugenics Societies.
As I say, they're out in the open now and they could only come out in the open, in an age where the public have been so dumbed down and so used to their propaganda, never realising that it was propaganda. We've watched all the nature shows and gradually, bit by bit, we've been shown that this is how it is in nature: every animal feeds on some other animal and the fittest survive, the strongest survive. The weak and the elderly die off and all this kind of stuff. They started to show things even going further in nature, a few years ago, where they'd actually show you the animals killing each other, which was a first. I remember seeing one of the first ones. That again was to get it through our thick heads that we're just another animal and there's too many of us; and, then of course, the other programmes that would augment those kind of programmes were the expert talk shows talking about baby boomers coming to age and we just can't cope with it economically and all this kind of stuff.
That's why it's all out in the open now, because we've all been brainwashed, by osmosis, as they call it. I think it was Huxley and others said that the general public don't really think or reason things out; they simply absorb information and opinions that are given to them, by osmosis. When you think about how much bombardment we've had of data, our whole lives long, from your regular music shows on radio and the ads in between and the comments in between and the little talks they give in between. We've all been brainwashed in a thousand different ways, to accept the fact that everything now is in our face; and, most people, unfortunately, do accept it. I've had relatives of mine, over the years, who have watched all these programmes and they say "yeah, I guess there's too many of us" and I always say to them "well are you going to be the first to go? Will you volunteer?". I'll be back with more after this break.
=== BREAK ===
Hi folks, I'm Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix and I have been discussing how we've all been brainwashed. The beautiful technique of brainwashing generally means that those who are the victims never know it, that's why it's very successful.
We live in a scientifically-indoctrinated age, an age where, literally, the sciences were developed to do with groups and I've been talking about Neuroscience and all the different branches of Neuroscience, which goes right into genetics by the way, and eugenics and how we've all been studied; the studies are ongoing. Most of the studies today, on people and the groups they will join, are done on chat rooms. Many people in the chat rooms don't know they're part of big experiments and they break them down into dyads, sub-types, personality types and so on. That's why it's so easy for someone who's put in as an agitator, to get the mob going against someone else. These are experiments and I've had a few of these experiments pulled on me, over the years, always from the same group, from one particular forum. I know every single one of them and so do the police; because, lately, I've had threats from the same group again. This group even had the gall to put up a fake website, with my name on it, at one point; and, you turn to the first page and the first link took you off to someone, I know his real name, called Andrew and it was an anti-Semitic rant. That was tried on me before; and, now, the same character has got the mob all geared up to try and harass me. So, I have to warn you, every single one of you, on the website, is being monitored by the cops; because, you see, malicious intent and threats are taken seriously and I take threats against myself and my life and my dog very seriously. Let that be a warning to all of you, in your own states of locked-up paranoia.
Now, I hate to even go off in that direction, but that's what you get when you start to get known. If you're not saying the kind of things that they want you to say, or you're not agreeing with their a particular spin on something, they'll come after you, that's the mob; and, most of them, as I say, are just that, they're the mob. They don't think and they're easily riled up by someone who knows the techniques, so they're the fronts. They're disposable, at the end of the day.
Getting back to my topic, on how everything is in our face today. You can't win in this system if you try to fight it by using the system. I said that years ago, years ago when I was on Jackie Patru's show. You’ll find that the help that's out there, government help and so on, the agencies, that are supposed to help you for complaints and so on, don't really exist, at least not the way you thought they did, not the way it's portrayed on television, when you have a big complaint about something that's affecting you personally, your house, your property, whatever it happens to be. Nothing has changed and we're in a big mess now, because the public are not organised. I was reading an article, in fact, from one of these Neuroscientists who said that very thing, he said:
"The public have no direction; they have no vision as to where they're going".
It's true, only organised, massive organised educated groups know where they're going; and, that's why you can't fight them, from a thousand million different fronts, and you can't fight them head on, because they always come to compromise and when you compromise you have to step backward one pace and that will followed by another one down the road. That's how it works.
Every country, right now, is being fleeced to give up its sovereignty and the big purse that's being used at the end, that's what's happening now. Why oh why, would they be pushing ahead with all the Kyoto Treaties and all of the massive amount of money they're going to rip from the public's pockets, to pay for it all, at a time when we're going into and we are really in a depression, we're going into a depression pretty fast? There's already talk that, once Obama gets in, there's a second bail-out package to be pushed out there and that all comes from the taxpayers as well. Taxes are going to skyrocket in the US very quickly.
Don't believe in their bringing things back to what we thought was normal; normal never returns again; normal is always back in the past somewhere, amongst all the other normals that preceded it. When you understand how these people work, the game plan and how they work, these characters always make a step forward, getting us to accept their particular treaties and then they change it a bit, as they go along and we go along with them. This is from the Chicago Tribune; it's to do with Canada's forests. Now, Canada had all the big forest land down as a carbon sink, what they call a carbon sink where they give off oxygen etc and give rid of the CO2 with all the trees, 1/7th of the world's trees they claimed, at the time. They would pay for all the other carbon taxes for all our energy resources and so on. And here's from, as I say, the Chicago Tribune:
Canada's forests, once huge help on greenhouse gases, now contribute to climate change.
Canada's vast forest, once huge absorbers of the gases, now act as a problem. By Howard Witt Tribune correspondent January the 2nd 2009
Forestry officials in British Columbia used a controlled fire to check the spread of a devastating infestation by the mountain pine beetle.
That's from Reuters which they were showing was 2005, so they're pulling an old photograph. Now, the pine beetle goes up and down like a yo-yo, depending on the seasons that you're in. It depends too if you're going through a few years of a hot spell, or a few years of a cold spell, they die off in a cold spell. We're going through the cold spell now, because weather is never ever static. It says:
VANCOUVER ? As relentlessly bad as the news about global warming seems to be, with ice at the poles
Again, they're using the old data.
with ice at the poles melting faster than scientists had predicted and world temperatures rising higher than expected, there was at least a reservoir of hope stored here in Canada's vast forests. The country's 1.2 million square miles of trees have been dubbed the "lungs of the planet"
Once again, they get a picture in your mind so you can identify with something
"lungs of the planet" by ecologists because they account for more than 7 percent of Earth's total forest lands. They could always be depended upon to suck in vast quantities of carbon dioxide, naturally cleansing the world of much of the harmful heat-trapping gas.
Which, again, is all BS, because carbon dioxide is a natural component of our atmosphere. It says here:
But not anymore. In an alarming yet little-noticed series of recent studies,
Recent studies mind you.
scientists have concluded that Canada's precious forests, stressed from damage caused by global warming, insect infestations and persistent fires, have crossed an ominous line and are now pumping out more climate-changing carbon dioxide than they are sequestering.
It says here:
Worse yet, the experts predict that Canada's forests will remain net carbon sources, as opposed to carbon storage "sinks," until at least 2022, and possibly much longer.
Now, it means that Canada's going to have pay more money out, for having all these trees, which they claim now are a danger. There's no pleasing these guys, you can't, can you? I mean, they can churn out as much bogus science as they want, forever.
"We are seeing a significant distortion of the natural trend," said Werner Kurz, senior research scientist at the Canadian Forest Service and the leading expert on carbon cycles in the nation's forests. "Since 1999, and especially in the last five years, the forests have shifted from being a carbon sink to a carbon source."
This is, again, the use of a picture you can sort of identify with.
Earth's lungs have come down with emphysema. Canada's forests are no longer our friends.
The trees now are bad guys.
So serious is the problem that Canada's federal government effectively wrote off the nation's forests in 2007 as officials submitted their plans to abide by the international Kyoto Protocol, which obligates participating governments to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
We've written that off, it means we're to pay for it now.
Under the Kyoto agreement, governments are permitted to count forest lands as credits, or offsets, when calculating their national carbon emissions. But Canadian officials, aware of the scientific studies showing that their forests actually are emitting excess carbon, quietly omitted the forest lands from their Kyoto compliance calculations. "The forecast analysis prepared for the government ... indicates there is a probability that forests would constitute a net source of greenhouse gas emissions," a Canadian Environment Ministry spokesman told the Montreal Gazette. Canadian officials say global warming is causing the crisis in their forests. Inexorably rising temperatures are slowly drying out forest lands, leaving trees more susceptible to fires, which release huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.
Well, guess who's been setting most of the fires? It's the Forestry Commission; and that's been in all the papers. We had them in British Columbia a few years ago, and they wiped out whole towns, lumbering towns and everything. Then it turned out, about two years later, they admitted that they started the fires and they'd got out of control; but that's holy smoke. When they put all that smoke in the atmosphere, it's holy smoke when government does it; when you do it, it's bad. I'll be back with more, after this break.
=== BREAK ===
Hi folks, I am Alan Watt we're Cutting Through The Matrix, going over an article from the Chicago Tribune, on how Canada's forests are giving off more - supposedly - carbon dioxide than they're taking in. This is what they're telling us now; and, of course they’re still using the old data that we're going through our global warming cycle, when we're actually going through a cooling cycle, and have been for a few years, but what's the facts got to with an agenda? It says:
Bitter cold Canadian winters used to kill off much of the pine beetle population each year, naturally keeping it in check. But the milder winters of recent years
I don't know where they're getting this from.
have allowed the insect to proliferate. "That's what's causing some of our forests to switch from a carbon sink position to a source position," said Jim Snetsinger, British Columbia's chief forester. "Once those infested trees are killed by the pine beetle, they are no longer sequestering carbon - they are giving it off." Snetsinger noted that eventually, over the course of a generation, some of the dying forests will begin to regenerate and once again begin storing more carbon than they release. But for the foreseeable future, experts say, their models
Now, they're using computer models again, which always give them the answers they want
show that Canada's forests will stay stuck in a vicious global-warming cycle,
Even though we're in global cooling, again, but what does the facts matter here.
both succumbing to the effects of climate change and, as they decay and release more carbon, helping to accelerate it.
That's starting a whole new debate over commercial logging, which is one of Canada's biggest industries; and then the environmentalists are jumping in top of it too and everyone's getting in on the act of this shenanigan, as I call it, because that's what it is, it’s a shenanigan.
Now, years ago, and since then, I've been talking about the United Nations and how it was set up to be a big front organisation for all of this agenda, to bring in the world system. H.G. Wells wrote about it in The Open Conspiracy. He wrote about it too, once they started off the League of Nations, he said now we can bypass elected politicians and, literally, bureaucrats and agencies within bureaucrats can, basically, talk to other bureaucrats, at the United Nations, and by-pass the political process altogether. Well, that's happened and that became, of course, the United Nations; and, remember who funded the United Nations into existence: the Rockefellers put up the land that it was built on, in New York, and they were the heads of the American Eugenics Society and had laws set out at that time, which they pushed and got into effect, where they were sterilising what they called "The feeble minded" and just the wrong types, by law.
I also mentioned that the United Nations, with its Department of Food & Agriculture, have eventually the mandate to handle all of the world's food supply and they will dish it out, proportion it out to the different nations, or 'states' as they like to call them, or ‘regions’ and the whole idea is that you don't get an increase if your population increases, in fact, it will decrease. It will decrease because they'll tell you this is the limit and in a few years later, they'll say we'll have to drop the limit, we don't have enough food and it's up to each country then to find a way to, basically, eliminate so much of the population. That's in their programme, read it up for yourselves, read the history of it up for yourselves too, it's a lot of work.
This is from the Mail Online and it's January the 5th 2009:
Britain 'must set population limit to safeguard national security' say experts.
The experts again.
By Daily Mail Reporter.
It says here:
Britain must set a maximum population level if it is to avoid destroying the environment
Here's the environment coming into it.
and putting national security at risk, say experts.
The Optimum Population Trust
Very important organisation that's not based just in Britain, they now have them all over, in every country, so the Optimum Population Trust
has written to ministers calling for a policy of 'zero net migration' - matching numbers allowed into Britain each year to numbers leaving.
It goes beyond that, because, when Margaret Thatcher was in, as the Prime Minister, she said she had to open the doors to immigration, wide-open, because the people had obeyed their government's instructions and been very good and had their 1.2 children etc and she said there weren't enough children getting born to pay off the national debt, that was the reason for opening the doors to massive immigration. It says here:
The UK's population is projected to increase
Again, this is the UN with its scare tactics, it's always fear-mongering with its statistics and so on
To increase from 60 to 70million over the next 20 years, and to 85million by 2081.
Now, that would only happen with massive immigration, because the population's there are drastically declining, according to the other set of figures you get from the United Nations and from Britain itself.
Experts are demanding a Royal Commission to establish 'an environmentally sustainable level
Here again: sustainability!
of population. The trust
It's a Foundation.
The trust, a panel of academics and environmentalists, says achieving zero net migration would cut Britain's population in 2081 to 57million. Mass immigration 'feeds through into rising greenhouse gas emissions' and more congestion, the experts say.
These unnamed experts.
I'll be back with more of this, after this break, to tie it in with the previous article.
=== BREAK ===
Hi folks, I'm Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix and I'm tying different articles together, to show you the pattern how it all works together, to shape our minds. Because, before, I mentioned an article about sustainable development; and, I mentioned too how the United Nations would eventually dish out the food to the countries, that was always its mandate when it was set up; and this article here, which is from the Mail Online, talking about, it's actually from the Optimum Population Trust, they call themselves. It says here:
The trust, a panel of academics and environmentalists, says achieving zero net migration would cut Britain's population in 2081 to 57million. Mass immigration 'feeds through into rising greenhouse gas emissions' and more congestion, the experts say.
Then he goes on to the other kicker, it ties in you see:
The trust warns that because Britain can produce only 30 per cent of the food, energy and other goods that it needs, it will become increasingly vulnerable to 'resource nationalism' as foreign powers hoard their own scarce resources.
This is all leading to who's going to dish out the food and Britain's been whacked just as much as every other Western country, by the government putting the farmers out of business, in collusion with the bankers, in order that the big Agri-food businesses can, basically, run the world's food supply.
'This imperils future national security
It's national security that's coming into it. Remember what Kissinger said? In that document that he signed in, in collusion with Britain, in 1974, that over-population was the number one enemy of the State and then a whole bunch of programmes went into effect, right away. They even had a list of countries they want to bring the populations down on, by all means possible; and you can find it, I have it here in fact. It says:
'This imperils future national security as well as destroying the environment,' it says. The trust is demanding a Royal Commission
That's a government Commission.
to establish 'an environmentally sustainable level of population'.
Now, there you go, it's right there: a Royal Commission to establish 'an environmentally sustainable level of population'. And, you know, if the public accept this, which they will, they'll sort of dream through this and there'll be another report in a year's time that that didn't go far enough, they'll bring it down even lower, the numbers down lower.
The Home Office said its new points-based immigration system would help manage immigration, 'which will contribute to future population projections and control'.
That's from the Mail Online. Now, who is the Optimum Population Trust? What is it? It says here, on their own website:
The Optimum Population Trust is the leading think tank in the UK concerned with the impact of population growth on the environment. OPT
As it calls itself,
research covers population in relation to climate change, energy, resources, biodiversity,
There's your Maurice Strong's one again.
development impacts, ageing and employment and other environmental and economic issues.
Ageing’s in there remember, ageing! They don't like children and they don't like the very old, that's obvious.
It campaigns for stabilisation and gradual population decrease globally and in the UK. OPT is a registered charity
It's a registered charity.
and is financed by its members. It receives funding neither from the government
nor from any political or business interests
And these big Foundations are always classed as ‘non-political’; in fact, if you look into any of the books put out by the Council on Foreign Relations, or the Royal Institute of International Affairs, they'll always tell you on the front page, this is a non-political organisation. They're telling the truth, they don't play politics: they make agendas and they tell governments what to do. They don't play politics. It says they're:
not affiliated with any other organisation.(Except as a partner in the Global Footprint Network.)
Look that one up for a radical. It says:
To advance the education of the public in issues relating to human population worldwide and its impact on environmental sustainability;
To advance, promote and encourage research to determine optimum and ecologically sustainable human population levels
There you go, right there, that's exactly from the United Nations.
in all or any part or parts of the world and to publicise the results of such research;
To advance environmental protection by promoting policies in the United Kingdom or any other part or parts of the world which will lead or contribute to the achievement of stable human population levels which allow environmental sustainability.
Well, we've all seen Georgia Guidestones, we know what they're figures eventually could be reduced down to, over a long period of time; and, who are the patrons of this? Who are the patrons?
Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta,
Frank Ramsey Professor of Economics, University of Cambridge.
We've heard of this one.
Professor Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies, Stanford University.
Did you know that Jane Goodall was in it?
Jane Goodall PhD DBE, Founder, Jane Goodall Institute, and UN Messenger of Peace.
United Nations messenger of peace. And it has other ones:
Susan Hampshire OBE, Actress and population campaigner; Professor John Guillebaud Former Co-chair of OPT, Emeritus Professor of Family Planning and Reproductive Health,
University College, London. Former Medical Director, Margaret Pyke Centre for Family Planning.
Professor Aubrey Manning OBE, Emeritus Professor of Natural History, University of Edinburgh
Professor Norman Myers CMG, Visiting Fellow, Green College, Oxford University, and at Universities of Harvard, Cornell, Stanford, California, Michigan and Texas
They get around these guys, don't they?
Sara Parkin OBE, Founder Director and Trustee of Forum for the Future
Here's another one, see how they all tie in together, there's hundreds of them, all working together.
and Director of the Natural Environment Research Council and the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education and Head Teachers into Industry.
Jonathon Porritt CBE, Founder Director of Forum for the Future and Chairman of the UK Sustainable Development Commission.
These all sound awful-awful like they work for government, but these are all private organisations, that tell governments what to do. See, this is the real democracy: they tell governments what to do. They're big segments of society, well-funded, massive lobby groups and here's the kicker, this is a winner, a sweetheart, this guy:
Sir Crispin Tickell GCMG KCVO, Chancellor of Kent University, Director of the Policy Foresight Programme at the James Martin Institute, and former UK Permanent Representative on the United Nations Security Council
That was by the Government; so, the government is completely immersed with the stuff; and, Tickell, if you read his different speeches, he's no laughing matter. Tickell Tickell Tickell, lets have a look at Tickell here, if I can find him, this is another one that adds right into this too, I'll do Tickell in a minute, if I can find him. It says:
Poll of international experts by The Independent, January the 2nd 2009.
Poll of international experts by The Independent reveals consensus that CO2 cuts have failed.
Listen to this:
and their growing support for technological intervention
You see, the global warming's fallen flat on its face, so they're falling back on CO2
By Steve Connor, Science Editor and Chris Green
An emergency "Plan B" using the latest technology is needed to save the world from dangerous climate change, according to a poll of leading scientists
You know that polls were first carried out by the Tavistock Institute, during World War One, because, what they found was they couldn't get enough guys to join and go off and get killed in the war, which they didn't understand anyway, and so they brought massive campaigns on, to do polling and they gave all these fake statistics out, knowing that the mass of people will go along with what they think is the majority opinion. That's a fact, unfortunately, people do. That's what they used for their polls; so, any poll is very suspicious. It says:
The collective international failure to curb the growing emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has meant that an alternative to merely curbing emissions may become necessary. The plan would involve highly controversial proposals to lower global temperatures artificially through daringly ambitious schemes that either reduce sunlight levels by man-made means or take CO2 out of the air.
This "geoengineering" approach – including schemes such as fertilising the oceans with iron to stimulate algal blooms – would have been dismissed as a distraction a few years ago but is now being seen by the majority of scientists we surveyed as a viable emergency backup plan that could save the planet from the worst effects of climate change,
From the weather you know.
at least until deep cuts are made in CO2 emissions.
Now, they also talk about seeding the planet with, again, the metallic particles in the air and even sulphur. Isn't it amazing that they're bringing this out now when they've already been doing that for over ten years, world-wide, in some parts, daily? Such as here where I live? It says here:
What has worried many of the experts, who include recognised authorities from the world's leading universities and research institutes, as well as a Nobel Laureate, is the failure to curb global greenhouse gas emissions through international agreements, namely the Kyoto Treaty, and recent studies indicating that the Earth's natural carbon "sinks" are becoming less efficient at absorbing man-made CO2
Man-made CO2, from the atmosphere.
Levels of CO2 have continued to increase during the past decade since the treaty was agreed and they are now rising faster than even the worst-case scenarios from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body.
That's all these hired whore scientists that are getting their pay cheques on this, life-long if they can keep it going, and churn out all these false studies, from their specially-made computers that gives them all the things they want to hear.
In the meantime, the natural absorption of CO2 by the world's forests and oceans has decreased significantly.
Here they are, talking about doing all these weird things to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, massive things. Now, you know yourself, as I say, they've been spraying the skies for donkey's years now and it's had its toll on the effects, the physical effects on humans. There's never been a time when there's so much bronchial problems ever. In a time when all our industry's gone, they're not pushing smoke out of big chimneys. The industry's all off in China and they're still harping on about too much pollution but they've changed it now to CO2, something's that's an invisible gas that's always there naturally. However, they won't stop, as I say, until they've got what they want; and, unfortunately, they, being the biggest organisations, with a ready-willing media to take them up on it, we'll never ever get to a complete truth on anything.
Going back to Mr. Crispin, this beautiful sweetheart, as I say, is no laughing matter, or Tickell, his name is Sir Crispin Tickell. He says, this is from an old document, but it gives you an idea who he is, from the 7th of September 1991:
Talking Point: What we must do to save the planet.
He's been on the go for a long time with this you see, getting well-paid for it.
The world faces a growing list of problems: overpopulation, dwindling resources, environmental degradation, industrial pollution,
That's before all the industry went totally.
ozone depletion, global warming and the rest. It is already too late to avert them. But we can still mitigate some of their effects and prepare ourselves for a different sort of world.
Again, change is good right?
Over the last 20 years, there has been some progress towards this goal. A remarkable change in public awareness
That's all we've had is propaganda
has led individuals, groups, governments and international bodies in their different ways to take the first steps towards wisdom. These are to recognise that these problems exist,
I should say BELIEVE, I should insert BELIEVE in there, because it's a belief system.
and to begin - albeit in piecemeal fashion - to do something about them.
But in relation to the size and scope of the issues, we have hardly started. We are still at the beginning of the beginning, and must learn not only to behave differently but to think differently. This is most difficult of all, is to acquire ...
assumptions to change habits create new models of thought, accept different values and see the world through other eyes.
What they're talking about, we’ve all got to see it through their eyes and think the way they do, that's what they mean by 'changing consciousness' / public awareness.
To change our way of thinking we first need to recast our vocabulary.
That's what they do; they use Psycho-linguistics and use slogans.
Words are the building bricks of thought, instruments of economic analysis are blunt and rusty; terms such as growth development, cost-benefit analysis and even gross national product have come to be misleading. They are more then ripe for redefinition. Secondly, we need to realise that conventional wisdom is sometimes a contradiction in terms. Some trends, for example the consumption of non renewable resources point in the wrong direction. But, as the French writer Rene Dubois said: where ever human beings are concerned, the trend is not destiny, nothing is inevitable unless we make it so.
They want to, how they worded it, make it so, that's what they say at the end of some of the Occult ceremonies.
At the end, there's a need to change our culture, the division between the cultures of science and the arts so rightly decried, but neither culture is now in charge.
You see: they want the scientists to be in charge.
Our real bosses are the business managers, even two centuries ago, Edmund Burke feared of the age Sophisters, economists and calculators had come. Our problem is that our calculations are usually short-term. Finally, we need a value system which enshrines the principle of sustainable development.
This is not a recent term, this is 1991.
The concept can mean different things to different people but the idea behind it is simple: you must devise models for relatively steady state society.
There you are, from '91 to 2009, from that Optimum Trust I've just read, here's the same character, running the whole thing, never changing one iota. He says:
In which population size in broad balance with the availability of resources.
Now, who is this character, this Crispin Tickell? At that time Sir Crispin Tickell is warden of Green College Oxford and was, until recently, British Ambassador to the United Nations.
This article was based on an address delivered to last week's meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science.
That's from Issue 1785 of New Scientist Magazine 7th of September 1991, page 16.
You can see how they've been at this for a long-long time and we've all read so many articles, or at least headliners and little bits on television, bits and bites because that's how we learn today, bits and bites and we're all prepared for them coming out in the open, to direct and order our lives for us. I'll be back with more, after this break.
=== BREAK ===
Hi folks, I am Alan Watt, Cutting Through The Matrix and there's one last article I want to touch on here, it goes into the same topic, because we've been in a war and most of us never ever knew it, you simply grow up within it, thinking everything is quite natural. If your parents don't know to warn you, it won't dawn on you there's anything wrong. This is from truthdig.com, it's a book review by Tony Platt on American Eugenics. Posted June the 20th 2008. He says:
The 1942 U.S. Supreme Court case of Skinner v. Oklahoma is remembered for protecting “the right to have offspring,”
We forget that that this has all been done before, the right, people had to fight to have the right to have offspring
and by implication the right not to have offspring. Skinner, according to Victoria Nourse, the author of an important new book on American eugenics, typically “sits in the shadow of the abortion and gay marriage debates.”
“In Reckless Hands: Skinner v. Oklahoma and the Near-Triumph of American Eugenics” demonstrates that Skinner also opens a window into a little-known chapter of American eugenics: how prisoners at a hardscrabble prison in Oklahoma in the aftermath of the Depression led a sophisticated struggle to limit the practice of compulsory sterilization in the United States.
Now, most people in the prisons in the 1920s were in there for stealing food, believe it or not, because there was no work anywhere. Everybody literally lost the farm. It says:
Much has been written about the history of eugenics, but until publication of this book we knew little about how eugenic sterilization was used in prisons and against men, and even less about the views of its targeted victims. It’s a lively tale, well told, until the author, a law professor at Emory University, tries her hand at historical generalizations.
At the core of eugenics was a belief in a central role of heredity in both determining and explaining social inequality.
I’ve told you about the Poverty Gene, also called the Criminal Gene.
Influenced by 19th-century developments in genetics, medicine and public health, eugenics was not a crank science. At the height of its influence, support came from some unlikely ideological bedfellows. It was endorsed by Fabian socialists in England and racial scientists in Germany; linked to birth control and progressive economic reforms in Denmark, and to racial policies against itinerant gypsies in Sweden; an expression of Fascist ideology in Germany and Argentina, and of cultural hybridity in Mexico; and closely associated with the sterilization of those defined as “feebleminded” in Germany, the United States, Sweden and Denmark.
By the way, it was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, primarily in the United States. The same Rockefeller Foundation that's leading the charge for the global society, the specific depopulated global society.
In the 1930s, Nazi Germany made eugenics an official state policy, first openly sterilizing hundreds of thousands of women, then secretly murdering many of its disabled and mentally ill patients judged leading “lives unworthy of life.” Until the onset of World War II, when selective murder turned into organized butchery, Nazi racial scientists were appreciated around the world
That's true; Adolf Hitler was Time-Life Man of the Year twice in the 1930s. It says he was:
appreciated around the world, especially in the United States, where eugenics was dominated by right-wing hard-liners.
I can hear the music coming in, so I'm afraid that's a very fast show, it just zoomed in there. It's a very good article to read and I'll put the link on my site, after the show.
From Hamish and myself in Ontario Canada, it's goodnight and may your god, or your gods go with you.
Transcribed by Bill Scott.
Topics from the show covered in following links:
forests, once huge help on greenhouse gases, now contribute to climate
change" by Howard Witt (chicagotribune.com) - Jan. 2, 2009.
"Britain 'must set population limit to safeguard national security' say experts" (dailymail.co.uk) - Jan. 5, 2009.
"What is the Optimum Population Trust?" (optimumpopulation.org).
"Climate scientists: it's time for 'Plan B' " by Steve Connor, Science Editor and Chris Green (independent.co.uk) - Jan. 2, 2009.
"Talking Point: What we must do to save the planet" by Crispin Tickell (newscientist.com) - 7 September 1991, New Scientist Magazine issue 1785.
"Tony Platt on American Eugenics" by Tony Platt (truthdig.com) - June 20, 2008.
Alan's Materials Available for Purchase and Ordering Information:
Ancient 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"