Alan Watt
"Cutting Through The Matrix" Live On RBN (#233)

Poem Copyright Alan Watt Jan. 13, 2009:

Political Agenda and Alliance of Science:

"To Understand Who's Ruling Your Mind,
Look into Psychiatry, You will Find
The Home of the Mental Raiders,
With Help from The Hidden Persuaders,
Who've Changed the Very Societal Structure
From Individualism to Global Culture,
A Cold Calculating Science, Steals the Soul,
While Guiding Society Toward a Goal,
To Sameness and Secular Humanism,
'The Good Life' and New Catechism,
With Man and Nature All as One,
Ending's in Sight, Almost Done,
War on Man and Woman, the Prey,
Who, Never Aware, Have Nothing to Say,
Precise Mental Weapons Used with Stealth,
Destroyed Most Individuals' Mental Health,
Sciences Used by an Age-Old Plan,
Has Created Interdependent-Dependent Man"
© Alan Watt Jan. 13, 2009

Tuesday 13th January 2009

Poem & Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt - Jan. 13, 2009 (Exempting Music, Literary Quotes, and Callers' Comments)                  

"Code 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

Hi folks, I am Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix, on the 13th of January 2009. 

For newcomers: look into the website and you'll find hundreds of hours of talks I've given, trying to piece this big system in which we live together for you and give you some short cuts to the understanding of how it all came about and where it's supposed to all go; because, power never allows society to run away from it, it must always direct the direction of society; and the future is always planned. It's not a conspiracy, because the data's all out there, the books are all out there; and if you've lived long enough, you can put it all together. It's for the newcomers that I put the website up, to save them a lot of headaches and a waste of money and time buying irrelevant books and so on, or following false leads, because we're under incredible scientific indoctrination all the time, from every source of media we have, including the written word as well. 

Also look into for transcripts of these talks, which you can download and print up; they're written in the various languages of Europe. 

Last night, I talked about a series called The Century of the Self, an excellent in-depth investigation, basically, into the techniques that were used on the general public by whom? By the big associations, mainly of psychiatry, and eventually psychology, and then a world body of psychiatry (there's a world body of psychiatry) and how they, basically, came to the conclusions, very early on in the 20th Century; but actually, I think it's much older, before even the term psychiatry, they already had this agenda in mind. There's no doubt about that, again the evidence and the books are all there.

They used World War I, in fact they needed World War I, to bring themselves to prominence, as the masters of the mind, and they proclaimed, after World War I, that people were simply mentally-unstable, the vast majority of people, they claimed, simply had no reasonable, or ability to reason properly for themselves and, therefore, had to be managed by those who proclaimed themselves to be able and fit to lead and decide where society should go. In other words, they declared pretty well the whole human race, outside of the elite, the scientific communities, and the ruling classes; they ruled them all as insane. This has been echoed by many leaders in the fields of education; John Dewey and others talked about that. You’ll find it in the communist writings as well, which said that everyone who wouldn't follow the obviously correct way of Marxism was technically insane; anyone who believed in the family unit was insane; anyone who took the old ideas of their parents and their morals and their values, were insane.

That's what also what Lord Bertrand Russell was talking about, when he said: we used to think, he said in his own book, that we would have to remove the children from the parents at birth, so as they would not be contaminated by the ideas of their parents; but, then he found through scientific indoctrination of the children, at kindergarten, they could bypass any input that the parents had tried to pass on the child; and, that's been very successful, incredibly successful, these are real sciences which really work.  I'm going to go into this in a bit more depth after the following break. 

=== BREAK ===

Hi folks, I am Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix, going through some of the techniques that have been used to guide society for over a hundred years, and longer in fact, because there were techniques being tried by certain groups before even the scientists came out in the open; and, it was decided even in the 1800s there were big-big massive movements and world meetings, in fact, at least European meetings, to decide on a future society, a future world. They had the Concert of Europe and other big meetings; and, leaders got together and discussed their own societies. They even discussed, at the time, partial amalgamations, the idea of free trade was tossed around and so on; but, they could never come to actual agreements, they all liked their own particular taxation systems, because it goes to those at the top and those in businesses. Nothing much has changed, except free trade has rampaged ahead, outside of the control of any input by the people themselves. 

We find that guys like Bernays came out of nowhere, a nephew of Freud, supposedly, the story goes - and these are the typical stories they give you, which is nonsense - he wrote away for one of his uncle's books on the great unconscious, the Unconscious Mind, and got all of his learning from there, which is nonsense. The man was obviously brought up and trained in a particular science that was unknown to most people, because he went to work right away, in his 20s, working for the League of Nations, putting out the propaganda, for the reasons for a united Europe. He went around with President Wilson and he didn't stop there: he was always working back and forth for presidents and the biggest corporations in the USA; and, his techniques were copied and he taught them to other ones that came into his profession.  

Part of it, if you go back further, as I say, you have to look at the old movements and what they had devised: perfect societies, the ideas that Marx and Engels, mainly Engels actually, he developed Marx's theories, along with Lenin, and they developed them in a slightly different way.  The idea was to bring in this new utopia, a world utopia, where everyone could, literally, be taught, like an animal (rebuilt as you might say, like an animal) and reconditioned into being the perfect, eventually called it Soviet Man, the perfect world citizen. That hasn't changed, at all, for the goals; and, we know that the Soviet system was really the big test bed, which was to eventually to amalgamate with the West, which it has done, quite some time ago. So much so, they brought over top Soviet leaders to work in the US government. 

We find another book that came out in the 1950s and it was really one of the first to be given out to the public, given access to the public, about this particular science and it doesn't go into it in tremendous depth but it does show you the techniques that were used and those who have lived through the last 20-30 years will know that these have been used, because it's all through society. When you read it, you'll understand why certain things, fads and everything came and went; and, it's called

The Hidden Persuaders by Vance Packard.

On Chapter 18, it talks about: 

Molding "Team Players" for Free Enterprise.          

Molding Team players, and that's true, mainly starting in the US and Canada, this great phenomenon of being on board, being a team player became all the rage. Now remember: Dewey and others had talked about this long before, for education and creating a 'good' society. This is all interrelated by a few specialists who understood this science long ago and even, as I say, before Bernays came along with it. It says: 

"People: Make Them Work, Like It" 

That's a headline from the Iron Age, I guess that was a magazine. 

The trend in American society to the other-directed man. 

Now, they use terms in this particular profession that manipulates the minds of people. There's the inward man, I'm just going off the book for a minute, the inward man is the man who grows up taking his values from his father primarily, and grandfather. That's what they mean by that. Now, relate that back to what people like Lord Bertrand Russell said: where they were going to have to take the children from the parents. He said that before he found out you could indoctrinate them perfectly through scientific techniques. They meant mainly the man because, to change a world society, that which stood in their way was the old values, which were held, mainly, by the men; and, how do you get round the men? Well, you alter the men, you alter society, the society of man, you alter them and you create a new type of man, the systems man, who's a team player and the term they use for the one who's been encouraged to be part of the group is the "other-directed man". "Other" means directed by the scientists basically. Getting back to the book: 

The trend in American society to the other-directed man—the man who more and more belonged to groups and played on teams—was welcomed and abetted by a large segment of United States industry. 

It wasn’t just industry, it was governments too. 

People who coalesce into groups, as any general knows,

Any general of an army

are easier to guide, control, cope with, and herd.  

Easier to guide, control, cope with, and herd; and, I've said this before, that, at one time, the communists welcomed groups, they encouraged groups, because once they'd been up and running for two or three years, you could gradually infiltrate your own person into the top and now you have control of ready-made groups, all listening and waiting for your direction. They encourage it on the internet, they're doing vast studies on all the groups and chat rooms on the Internet - they have been since they gave it to them. I've read articles where they're doing the same thing with cell phones, to see who you call and they're sub-typing you into groups, with you and your friends and so on. These are from mainstream newspapers; and, also too: when any group that's on the 'right' path with something, if they can't sway it off the path, they simply put in an agitator, to agitate the group. It says here: 

People who coalesce into groups, as any general knows, are easier to guide, control, cope with, and herd. The "team" concept was an aid, if not an outright necessity, to the big business, big labor, and big government that came increasingly to dominate the American scene at mid-century.

The 1950s.

Charles Wilson, a graduate of big business who went to work for big government as Secretary of Defense, summed up the new thinking when, in 1956, some of his leading subordinates were airing their feelings. He was reported growling: "Anyone who doesn't play on the team and sticks his head up may find himself in a dangerous spot."  

Early in the fifties Fortune magazine, which has frequently articulated the conscience of big business, viewed the trend uneasily and used the Orwellian word "Groupthink" to describe much that was going on. It suggested that businessmen while deploring creeping socialism in Washington might well look at some of the "subtle but pervasive changes" going on right in their own backyard. Its writer, William H. Whyte, Jr., stated: "A very curious thing has been taking place in this country almost without our knowing it.  

Well, it was actually without most folk’s knowledge. 

In a country where individualism—independence and self-reliance—was the watchword for three centuries the view is now coming to be accepted that the individual himself has no meaning except as a member of a group." He said that a "rationalized conformity" was coming more and more to be the national ideal and cited the appearance in growing numbers of "social engineers" willing and eager to help business managements with their personnel problems. 

These social engineers, he pointed out, bore some resemblance to the students of human relations of the Elton Mayo School who did pioneering work in diagnosing factors that cause us to work most enthusiastically. "But where the latter shy at the thought of manipulating men," he added, "the social engineers suffer no such qualms." (In early 1957 Mr. Whyte spelled out his apprehensions in his book The Organization Man.)  

It's an excellent book, I have it. 

This trend to the other-directed person was a fact of deep interest to every persuader interested in more effective manipulation of human behavior. It showed up in many areas of American life, even in our novels, TV shows, and children's books. 

Then they give you a list of books and so on and stories that captivated people and they were actually indoctrinating you into the groups think mentality, through novels. It says here: 

In its study of the "space" shows on television, 

They were going for the youth, remember the technique was for social engineering, it wasn't just for consumerism, it wasn't just to make massive profit, they always do make massive profit, absolutely, but it's also to change society, just like science. Look at the definitions of what science and technology are there to do, it's to change and alter society. Skinner said, remember, if you want to alter the behaviour of peoples, you alter their environment, you put something else there that wasn't there before, like a TV set. Getting back to the book: 

In its study of the "space" shows on television, Social Research noted that this same other-directedness is glorified. 

The children love these shows. 

The team is all important 

Think of the Star Trek series. 

The team is all important and the shows' appeal is based, it concluded, on the child's "lack of confidence in his own ability to cope with situations that can be overcome by his 'gang' or 'team.'"  

Back with more, after the following break. 

=== BREAK ===

Hi folks, I am Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix; and, I'm going through some of the techniques that were, and are used, to create this 'team' this group think that 'we're all one' type system we're really in today; and, reading from the Hidden Persuaders by Vance Packard. I'm going to go over this little bit again, to do with television, because it was aimed at the youth, remember the youth grow up to be the next adults. They'll be adults in 20-30 years and the world is to be changed accordingly, to their indoctrination that they were given when they were young, so they'll accept it, thinking it's all quite normal, that's how it works. It says here: 

In its study of the "space" shows on television, Social Research noted that this same other-directedness is glorified. The team is all important and the shows' appeal is based, it concluded, on the child's "lack of confidence in his own ability to cope with situations that can be overcome by his 'gang' or 'team.'" The crisis or basic dilemma arises when the individual becomes isolated from his team and has to fight evil alone. 

Think of all the Star Trek series that followed in the '60s, that's exactly what happened there. When anyone got killed, they were stranded or cut off from the rest and they were killed; but, the team, together, always won.  

A professional persuader who devotes much of his effort to persuading people to support worthy causes observed that mid-century man is more easily persuaded to "follow as one of a crowd under a leader than to work alone for the same end." 

Then it goes into how even the comedy shows work: 

A picturesque manifestation of this trend to other-directedness can be seen, I suspect, in the small matter of 

This is a small matter of that but it shows you how it works. 

of laughter on television. It has been discovered, or purportedly discovered, that people are more apt to laugh and enjoy themselves if they hear other people laughing. Since live audiences are often bothersome or difficult to manage (because of all the cameras, etc.) 

Or even bad jokes, put it that way. 

the trend in TV has been to the canned laugh, a laugh reproduced by recording from some previous happy crowd, or synthetically manufactured. The president of one network defended the canned laugh by stating: "No one likes to laugh alone."  

Again, they're counting on this group think, everyone wants to conform and be the same as the guy next. No one wants to say "I didn't get the joke". He goes on then to give you a whole series of different names where they purchased canned laughter and how they all use them. They don't even have to tell a real joke today, it's called 'like a joke' in comedy, the scriptwriters say. It's like a joke, it follows the same routine as a joke but there's no real punch line but the canned laughter comes in and people start laughing. Just watch the comedies. He says here: 

In industry, which is our main concern here, the stress on team playing coincided with the appearance of psychologists and other "social engineers" at the plants and offices. They brought to bear on sticky personnel problems the insights of group dynamics, sociodrama 

Whenever you see them doing sociodrama, they'll put a band around your eyes so you can't see and they'll say well now know what a blind person feels like, stumble around for a while, all of this kind of stuff. Fall back, fall back and your friends will catch you, that's so you will stop depending on yourself and depend on other people. All of this stuff is very simple stuff, it's done everywhere. It's a form of drama, you see.  

sociodrama, group psychotherapy, 

This is for staff. 

social physics. As Fortune put it: "A bewildering array of techniques and 'disciplines' are being borrowed from the social sciences for one great cumulative assault on the perversity of man." The magazine protested that group conference techniques had taken such a hold that in some companies executives "literally do not have a moment to themselves." 

They have to attend these meetings all the time and go through all this drama stuff and spill out their feelings and emotions and have it all recorded.  

If an employee becomes disaffected by company policy or environment, the social engineers feel it their duty to help him get rid of his mental unhealth. Fortune quoted one social engineer as stating: "Clinical psychologists have had great success in manipulating the maladjusted individual. It seems to me that there is no reason we shouldn't have as much success applying the same techniques to executives." 

Now it's applied to all of society, because they want to test your mental health and have you participate in commutarianism as they call it now, community events.  

The growing insistence that management people be "team players" started producing business officials with quite definite personality configurations. This was revealingly indicated by Lyle Spencer, president of Science Research Associates in Chicago, when he made a study of the Young Presidents' Organization. These are men who became presidents of their companies before they were forty. Necessarily, or at least consequently, most of the young presidents are heads of relatively small companies rather than the big ones. In commenting on the personalities of these young presidents Mr. Spencer said, "They are less team players. One thing prevents them from being president of General Motors. They haven't learned to be patient conformists. 

Patient conformists

They have lived too long free wheeling." 

In other words: individualistically, doing their own thing, individualistically. You have to become a 'patient conformist' to get up to GM position.

I hear the music coming in and I will continue with this, because all of these techniques are used through all of society and all schools and have been for a long time and we're not who we think we are as individuals anymore. I'll be back with more, after this break. 

=== BREAK ===

Hi folks, I am Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix and reading from Vance Packard's book The Hidden Persuaders, to show you some of the techniques that have been used for a long time on the general public and are now used on whole nations, through every strata of society. It's throughout local government, it's on all board management levels of everything around you, school boards and so on; and, it's all through the federal governments as well, they go through all of this kind of training. It says here, page 178: 

A personnel executive of Sears, Roebuck in writing a booklet for the guidance of hundreds of thousands of American school youngsters stressed the thought that, "When you take a job you become a member of a working team. . . . Don't expect the rest of the group to adjust to you. They got along fine before you came. It's up to you to become one of them. . . ." As David Riesman observed in another connection, "Some companies, such as Sears, Roebuck, seem to be run by glad handers. . . ." 

An indication of the ways the depth approach to employee relations was put to use is seen in these developments. Science Research Associates, Chicago, which has a dozen Ph.D's on its staff, began offering businesses the services of "trained, experienced psychologists and sociologists" for these functions, among others: evaluating candidates for executive positions; finding out what employees think about their jobs and company, evaluating the performances of employees more effectively. 

Several companies were reported employing a psychiatrist on a full-time basis. And increasingly employees began being psychoanalyzed in various ways while on the job. At a Boston department store girl clerks had to wait on customers with the knowledge that a psychologist was somewhere in the background watching them and recording their every action on an instrument called an "interaction chronograph," which recorded data on a tape recorder. The notations made of each girl's talk, smile, nods, gestures while coping with a customer provided a picture of her sociability and resourcefulness. 

Well look how far they've gone today with this, with cameras everywhere, as they watch and study your interactions with people. It doesn't stop there either, because, I've mentioned before, about how important the wives were in some of these big corporations and it's the same too through some of the 'respectable' charitable organisations, put it that way. It says: 

Even a man's home life at many companies began being scrutinized to see if it conformed to the best interests of the "team" or company. A business writer for The New York Herald-Tribune reported in the early fifties on the great man hunt for qualified executives that was being carried on by professional recruiting firms which had come into existence for this specialized purpose. He related some of the qualities they were looking for in the modern executive and said, "Another point of equal importance is the wife. That is being emphasized more and more.

Professional man hunters place family adjustment high in job qualifications. The same story is being told by all firms in this field, including Ward Howell, Handy Associates, Inc., Ashton Dunn Associates, Inc., Boyden Associates, Inc., or Sorzano, Antell and Wright. Important men may not be recommended for higher priced jobs because the wives may be too flirtatious or she may not drink her cocktails too well, or she may be an incorrigible gossip. Investigations in this respect are quite thorough." 

They are thorough because, today, you're given constant questionnaires, when you go for these jobs and even when you're going through the jobs, you get these little questionnaires and there's questions in there which seem very-very innocent and they're to trick you and throw you off. It's other data they're after, not what you think would be the actual answer, they're after other answers. And, they can pretty-well tell where your loyalties will lie, ultimately, with your family or with the company.  Getting back to this book, it says here: 

Psychological consultant James Bender advises me that a major producer of cellucotton products asked him to help set up a manpower program built around wives. He said that before the company hires an executive or salesman the man's wife is interviewed, as the last step before the hiring decision is made. It is a mutual sizing up, he explained. The wife is appraised of what the job may mean in terms of demands on the family life and inconveniences such as moving, husbands being away a good deal, etc. He said that in a few cases wives after the interview have persuaded the husband not to take the job. "And in a few other cases we have decided—after sizing up the wife—not to hire the husband." 

Some of the companies tend to look at the wife as a possible rival to them for the man's devotion. Fortune, in a remarkable article in October, 1951, detailed the growing role of the wife in company thinking. It surveyed executives across the nation and quoted one executive as saying mournfully: "We control a man's environment in business and we lose it entirely when he crosses the threshold of his home. Management therefore has a challenge and an obligation deliberately to plan and create a favorable, constructive attitude on the part of the wife that will liberate her husband's total energies for the job." 

What were the main traits corporations should look for in the wife? Fortune continued: "Management knows exactly what kind of wife it wants. With a remarkable uniformity of phrasing, corporation officials all over the country sketch the ideal. In her simplest terms she is a wife who is (1) highly adaptable, (2) highly gregarious, 

Very good in company, because they have a lot of cocktails at the top, without saying something you shouldn't.  

(3) realizes her husband belongs to the corporation." 

Belongs to the corporation. 

The Harvard Business Review put the demands of the corporation even more vividly, in carrying a report on a study of 8,300 executives made by Lloyd Warner and James Abegglen. It stated that the mid-century American wife of an executive "must not demand too much of her husband's time or interest. Because of his single-minded concentration on his job, even his sexual activity is relegated to a secondary place." 

Becoming a successful team player clearly can have its joyless aspects. In July, 1954, a magazine published primarily for businessmen, Changing Times, took a look at the "World of Tomorrow." By tomorrow it meant a decade hence, 1964. It explained that big business, big government, and big unions would tend to level people down to a common denominator where it will be harder for a man "to be independent, individualistic, his own boss."

That's exactly what they've done, because governments themselves, with their own laws and taxations and standards have put most small private business out of the running across a good part of Europe and they're doing the same in the States and Canada. 

An upper level of scientists, engineers, and businessmen will pretty much run business and industry.  

That ties in with Professor Carroll Quigley, when he said the new system that's coming in is a form of Feudal system, where the C.E.Os of corporations will be the new feudal overlords. Getting back to the book, it says:  

"They themselves will be more highly trained technically and less individualistic, screened for qualities that will make them better players on the team. . . . Almost everybody will have to go through extensive psychological and aptitude screening.

Almost everybody will have to go through extensive psychological and aptitude screening.

No longer may the bearded scientist fiddle with retorts in his cubbyhole. . . ." Perhaps that day when there would be no place for an individualist to hide was not as far off in the future as Changing Times seemed to assume.  

At graduation time in 1956 Newsweek ran the results of a survey on what kind of college graduates (especially traits) industrial recruiters were looking for. It reported that the words "dynamic conformity" kept cropping up as the recruiters outlined their specifications, and explained: "Industry's flesh merchants shy off the bookwormy . . . and the oddball. 'We'd rather have a Deke than a Phi Beta Kappa,' they report. 'Let the freaks go into research.' " Even there, in research, apparently, they shouldn't assume they can go off in some retreat by themselves. "Team research" is the coming thing. 

Well, it's done; it's a done deal today, the whole team research bit. Now, I'll try and keep reminding you that even with this data here, where the man is showing you the techniques were coming through from the 1950s onwards, that psychiatry had a mandate in itself, to basically, be a form of 'guardians of the world', as they called themselves, where they wanted - and demanded at one point - to be put on the boards of corporations and also in government, to watch over governmental officials and prime ministers and presidents.

They blamed all wars on the individual in fact, which I always wondered about that, because it takes the masses to follow. See, there's a symbiosis between the masses and the individual but there's also a symbiosis between the masses and those that lead them. The individual is stuck in the middle really. He's squeezed out by the masses, because the masses themselves want conformity. Racism at its very roots is about differences; you don't need a different colour or a different language to be involved in racism, you see it in any school you go to, where those who are not in the in crowd, or they seem weak, in some way or other, are picked on by the others, because they're different.

In wars it's the masses that do what they're told. The masses won't dare kill anybody individually; but, when they're told to kill someone by their government, and wear this uniform, they will do it and get rewarded for it. There's double-think for you, there's double-think, in its most common basic sense. Therefore, the symbiosis between those that lead and the masses that follow, wrongly, perhaps, at times, is essential for their system. It's those stuck in the middle that want to be individuals and who can live and let live that have the problem in this system, because they're not taken into account at all by either group. 

Getting back to this book and summing it in or at least putting it in with remember the necessity to destroy the family that was all through Marxism and all through the philosophies running the ruling elite of some countries like the UK, such as Lord Bertrand Russell, who helped test a lot of these schools for children, to make them do things that weren't as prohibited in the schools that existed and it was interesting how they got away or got around these particular problems.

What they had to do, as I say, is get the man out the picture, the females they found were so easily manipulated. Women are more apt to try anything new, no matter how crazy it seems at the time, they will try it. They go for motivational behaviour modification; they actually go for it in droves, 'to be the new you', anything that promises them to be the new you they go for. Ninety-odd percent of all advertising in magazines are aimed at women, because through them you change the family unit. That's what Hitler said himself, Hitler said we shall promise them safety and food, basically shouting over the head of the man, you see. He says the female will come to us, so he aimed the propaganda at the female. Bush has done the same thing: we will keep you safe; you only give up your freedom for security, same technique.  Hitler said the women will come to us, the child will follow the mother and then must follow the man. These techniques are known and used over and over again. How do you get the man out of the picture? And, we've all grown up with this, it says here to do with children, it's called: 

The psycho-seduction of children (page 139)

A show can "appeal" to a child, it found, without necessarily offering the child amusement or pleasure. It appeals if it helps him express his inner tensions and fantasies in a manageable way. It appeals if it gets him a little scared or mad or befuddled and then offers him a way to get rid of his fear, anger, or befuddlement.  

Then it says: 

Social Research diagnosed the appeal of the highly successful Howdy Doody and found some elements present that offered the children listening far more than childish amusement.  

Because they were already doing it then. 

Clarabelle, the naughty clown, was found consistently to exhibit traits of rebellious children. 

The child identifies with the clown. 

Clarabelle, it noted, "represents children's resistance to adult authority and goes generally unpunished. 

So, if Clarabelle doesn't get punished then the child thinks it's wrong if it gets punished as well. 

"The report stated: "In general the show utilizes repressed hostilities to make fun of adults or depict adults in an unattractive light. The 'bad' characters (Chief Thunder-thud, Mr. Bluster, Mr. X) are all adults. They are depicted either as frighteningly powerful or silly." When the adult characters are shown in ridiculous situations, such as being all tangled up in their coats or outwitted by the puppets, the child characters in the show are shown as definitely superior. "In other words," it explained, "there is a reversal process with the adults acting 'childish' and incompetent, and children being 'adult' and clever." It added that the master of ceremonies, Buffalo Bob, was more of a friendly safe uncle than a parent. 

That would represent the teacher that takes over from the parent in schools. This is psychology; this is planned manipulation of altering society. It's through all the comedy shows that's been on the go for about 30, 40, 50 years. The same situation as for adults - not just in the cartoons - although it's still in the cartoons. It says: 

All this sly sniping at parent symbols takes place while Mother, unaware of the evident symbology, chats on the telephone content in the knowledge that her children are being pleasantly amused by the childish antics being shown electronically on the family's wondrous pacifier. In turning next to the space shows the Social Research psychologists found here that the over-all format, whether the show was set in the twenty-first century or the twenty-fourth, was: "Basic pattern of 'good guys' versus 'bad men' 

'Good guys' versus 'bad men', that's the words they used  

with up-to-date scientific and mechanical trapping." Note that it said bad men, not bad guys. 

The good guys interestingly were found to be all young men in their twenties organized as a group with very strong team loyalty. 

Remember what they said in communism: don't trust anybody over 30, then they dropped it, because they had to separate the generations, because the older generations would contaminate the younger, with old-think of morality.

The good guys interestingly were found to be all young men in their twenties organized as a group 

Not individual but as a group.

with very strong team loyalty. The leader was pictured as a sort of older brother (not a father symbol). And the villains or cowards were all older men who might be "symbolic or father figures." They were either bad or weak.  

Much of this fare might be construed as being anti parent sniping, offering children an exhilarating, and safe, way to work off their grudges against their parents. "To children," the report explained, "adults are a 'ruling class' against which they cannot successfully revolt." 

The UN has used terms like that as well in The Rights of the Child.  I'll be back with more, after the following messages. 

=== BREAK ===

Hi folks, I am Alan Watt and Cutting Through The Matrix, showing you some of the techniques that are used and have been used and they're actually more advanced and all-pervasive today. Talking about how they decide to do the psycho seduction of children: 

The report confided some pointers to TV producers for keeping parents pacified. 

In other words: when the parents are watching the television, the ads etc that were geared at the children. They had to find a way to pacify the parents so they wouldn't get upset. It says: 

One way suggested was to take the parent's side in such easy, thoughtful ways as having a character admonish junior to clean his plate.  

At the same time, of course, what they're doing is trying to get junior to want what he sees in the ad; but as long as the father sees the character on the ad, the father figure admonishing the child on TV, he feels that he's still in control. So, when junior then asks him for the toy, he'll say, in an authorative way: 'Well I guess so, you know, but clean your plate'. Simple stuff like that gets round you; it's a tool, it's a weapon actually. Television is an incredible weapon. They actually called the children that they were studying, by the way, or the groups they were targeting, back in the '50s, "Moppets", not Muppets but "Moppets", so this is where the term came from. It says: 

Some of the United States product makers evidently solicit the favor of moppets by building aggressive outlets right into their products. Public-relations counsel and motivational enthusiast E. L. Bernays was reported asserting in 1954 that the most successful breakfast cereals were building crunch into their appeal to appease hostility by giving outlet to aggressive and other feelings. 

How many parents got driven nuts with the sound, when little Johnny was being a bit aggressive in showing his hostility? This is all understood by the guys who made it more crunchy. It says:  

One aspect of juvenile merchandising that intrigued the depth manipulators was the craze or fad. 

It also talks about fashions; and, actually there's a good section here called the effeminisation of the male. See the inward-type man, the old type that took his values from his previous generations and was individualistic, didn't really care much about dressing, in the early 1950s, so they went to work to try to change him, to create a sort of peer group image so he'd have to keep up and join the big group. That's how psychology works in all directions at the same time, make you belong. They trained the females, they advertised at the females to do the shopping for their husband, to bypass his objections to all of the new clothes and new fads, strange colours and all the rest of it they were going to bring into vogue. That's the power of advertising.  Here's the man being devalued, in cartoons, on television serials, in puppet shows, in comedies and these advertisers know exactly what they're doing, because the child also says: 'well, my mummy shops and picks things for my dad, he's got no say in anything, he's irrelevant'. I remember the movie that was called American Beauty, which portrayed a lot of this in the actual movie; at least the outcome of this in the movie, where the daughter watches the mother who has no respect whatsoever for the husband and becomes the same herself and actually asks her boyfriend to kill the father. That's how much it's gone; it's gone further than that even, into other areas.  

Well, that's it for tonight, so from Hamish and myself, in a very cold Ontario, Canada, it's good night and may your god - or your gods - go with you.


Transcribed by Bill Scott.


Book: "The Hidden Persuaders" by Vance Packard.