"Cutting Through The Matrix" Live On RBN (#242)
Poem Copyright Alan Watt Jan. 26, 2009:
Innovate, Don't Immolate:
Birth, Coming New Dawn,
Same Term from Obama to Those Who Fawn,
Said by Others, Politicos Sent to Lead Us,
Using the Language of Old Prometheus,
Profane are Promised All They Desire,
Their Hopes Then Burned by Those with Fire,
The Majority through Life Stumble, Events Incidental,
While Events are Shaped by Science Intellectual,
Who Standardize All, Eliminating Variety,
Individualism Unwelcome in Planned Society"
© Alan Watt Jan. 26, 2009
Monday 26th January 2009
Poem & Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt - Jan. 26, 2009 (Exempting Music, Literary Quotes, and Callers' Comments)
Hi folks, I am Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix on the 26th of January 2009.
For newcomers: look into www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com and you can download as many of the previous talks I've given as you wish.
I try to give you shortcuts through this incredibly complex system in which we live, so you can see the big picture and understand that the world doesn't just stumble along down through time and pick itself up after accidents and decide what to do; but, rather, the future is always planned, by those in power. That should be no news at all, to those who have studied the projects, because they announce what they do at the top. If you go into their books at the top, they tell you how they plan things way ahead, just like big business and doing investments for 50 years or 100 years in the future, it's the same idea; and, we find, in the United Nations, for instance, they have 50 year projects for one, 100 years for another, maybe a 150 for another project. That's what foundations and institutes can do; they can make a mandate and hire people, retire them, hire more people and stick to the mandate and pull it off. The Communist system was run exactly the same way, they're now using that system across the world, with 5 year plans for one thing, 10 for another, 50, etc. That's how it's run.
We're going into the big planned society, where every minute detail of your life will be, not only monitored but planned for you, that's the 'utopia' they're bringing in.
Also: look into www.alanwattsentientsentinel.eu and you can download transcripts of these talks, written in the various languages of Europe; you can print them up and pass them round to your friends.
It's funny how synchronicities work, because, at the weekend, for the first time in ages, I turned on the rabbit ear TV, where I get two stations and watched the public broadcasting giving one of its propaganda spiels, as they're famous to do, about global warming and how the crops are failing across the world and the whole programme was about one man in a small team, supposedly with limited funds, who went across all the way into Syria, looking for original seed, supposedly to help the farmers in countries like Australia, who find their crops are failing. They're failing because they've standardised the seed. Standardised seed, every seed is the same as the next seed and, if something hits them, pestilence or anything else, or they can't stand a dry season, they all go under, it all perishes.
During the programme, it was interesting to watch how they went to get original seeds in little valleys and canyons and so on, across not only the Middle East, but, as I say, right into Syria itself and they hit pay dirt, where people had not accepted, and here's what came out: they had not accepted standardised seeds for anything from all the Aid Agencies that had come in there for the last 30 years, dumping their modified seeds on them. That's really the problem: the modified seeds might be ok / fine for Pennsylvania but they do no good in Australia or anywhere else, if they've 10-15 years of dry season. What they also said was that the average crop in Syria, of even lentils, had maybe 15 different kinds of local lentils in it. That way, if pests hit them, one strain might go down but the rest would be resistant to it; each one has its own properties. So, that's really the problem that's been happening today, it's do with the fact that standardised seed for uniform crops are so vulnerable to so many different things, that, when a crop goes under, the whole crop goes under and then you've got problems. I'll be back with more, after this break.
=== BREAK ===
Hi folks, I am Alan Watt, we're Cutting Through The Matrix. The documentary I was talking about also showed, at the end of the programme, who this particular man, who was struggling through the heats of the desert and so on, really was, as he rushed back to store all of this natural seed that he'd found up in that island just off Norway, where they're storing it all for, you know, the survivors, that are going to come through all the present crises.
This ties in with what I was talking about last week, because I talked about a group who pretty well managed the history of a hundred years, for the whole last century and they're managing this century as well. The Council on Foreign Relations, as it's better known and the Royal Institute of International Affairs, as it's called in Britain; private organisations that, literally, have always been on both sides of everything, including all the conflicts. In fact, it's through conflict that their grand design seems to play out to their own ideals.
Here's an article that ties in with this, now, I told you a while ago, that the CFR and the Royal Institute of International Affairs was involved, and had done studies for years, on this coming food problem that's been created across the planet, as I say, because they've standardised the seeds everywhere and encouraged people to just throw away the old stuff and now they're helpless when their whole crop goes under to a pest or it can't handle a bit of drought and much of their own stuff did handle the droughts, they could survive on very little moisture. This is planned this way, because, in all wars, you go for the food and the water, shelter, clothing and all the rest of it follows after. This is from the ft.com which is a group from the Financial Times, on the global economy, January 26th 2009:
World warned of ‘food crunch’ threat
By Javier Blas in London, first published 25th of January.
The world faces ‘the real risk of a food crunch’ if governments do not take immediate action to address the agricultural impact of climate change
With the weather change.
and water scarcity, according to an authoritative report out on Monday.
There's your key words: authoritative report; so, it must be true.
That's the headquarters for the Royal Institute of International Affairs, right.
the London-based think-tank,
They've managed to escape the name of it and just call it by the house name, Chatham House.
the London-based think-tank
The ones who have been running the world for the last 100 years,
suggests that the recent fall in food prices is only a temporary reprieve and that prices are set to resume their upward trend once the world emerges from the current downturn.
Like a Depression? -- Downturn?
“There is therefore a real risk of a ‘food crunch’ at some point in the future,
You'd better believe it, because they're going to bring it on, because that's the way to get us all to our knees, into a new system.
which would fall particularly hard on import-dependent countries and on poor people everywhere”, the report states. “Food prices are poised to rise again”, it adds. The warning is made as agriculture ministers and United Nations officials gather from Monday in Madrid for a UN meeting on food security likely to conclude that last year’s food crisis, with almost 1bn people hungry, is far from over.
These are the same agencies that dumped all standardised seeds across the planet. Remember that.
The UN will warn ministers in Madrid that “as the global financial crisis deepens, hunger is likely to increase” under the impact of rising unemployment and lower remittances, according to three officials briefed ahead of the meeting.
The prices of agricultural commodities such as rice and wheat jumped to a record high last year, triggering food riots from Haiti and Egypt to Bangladesh and Cameroon and prompting appeals for food aid for more than 30 countries in sub-Saharan Africa.
Where's their answer to all of this? You'll see how it all ties in together. And it says here, near the bottom, it's always near the bottom, after they've scared the bejesus out you, and that's the whole intent of it / the article, it says:
The report recommends governments to invest more in agricultural production and an increase in international aid in this sphere, too.
Containing global warming will require an additional €175bn in annual investment by 2020, according to a European Union draft paper, writes Joshua Chaffin in Brussels.
The paper, which says much of the €175bn ($227bn, £167bn) investment will have to be borne by the developed world,
The Developed world, and see this is right along with the GATT and the NAFTA treaties and all the other treaties, that the first world countries must, basically, bail out all the poor ones to bring them up to a certain standard and that also is written in that the first world countries will start coming down. There'll be some happy medium, as the water levels settle together. That's the whole thesis on this. It says:
also forecasts that tens of billions of euros in spending will be needed to help poorer countries prepare for even moderate warming.
Some of the ways that the EU proposes to raise those funds include requiring developed nations to pay for their annual carbon emissions,
They're all hammering on this and Obama, of course, is pushing this in the States
and levying taxes on aviation and maritime transportation.
That's everything that comes into your country, all the food and everything.
The EU should also expand its emissions trading system into a global carbon market
That's what the big boys are going to love, dealing with this one.
and explore the establishment of a multilateral insurance pool to help deal with natural disasters that result from global warming.
I hate using the term ‘global warming’; I'd just rather say ‘a change in the weather’.
The final paper, to be released by the European Commission, the EU executive body, on Wednesday, sets out the bloc’s position ahead of negotiations in Copenhagen this December aimed at creating a global agreement to fight climate change.
The whole outcome of it is: all the so-called first world countries are going to be taxed into the dirt, for this, this big con; and, last week, I was going through many of the cons, the same group that's run the history of the last 100 years have done in the past. Here we're into the next part of it, as they bring us all to our knees, to bring in a new economic system, where we will, ultimately serve the State. That's what it's about. It's astonishing.
Last week, I talked about the revolution and how revolution has really been fairly continuous, since the 1500s, when the Rosicrucian Societies broke out, at that time in the Court of Queen Elizabeth 1st, and then pamphlets were plastered all over Paris, the following century; and then Germany too and other places, talking about a New World Order.
That was taken up by other people that are well-known in history, including Adam Weishaupt who coined the term that's used on the seal of the United States Novus ordo seclorum, a new world order. It wasn't a grass roots thing, it didn't come from the bottom. No rebellion ever came from the public at the bottom. You might see a rebellion comes, but not a revolution; revolutions are planned, because they want to succeed. It takes sometimes a generation or two to plan a revolution, all successful ones do it that way.
I read from Bakunin, who was one of the professional revolutionary and this is an article that he wrote in the Journal El Progress Geneva in 1869, to give you a clue about the associations that were involved and actually promoted revolution. It says:
In this epoch the bourgeoisie
The bourgeoisie are, I'll just say, the middle-classes; they meant upper middle-classes in those days.
too had created an international association, a universal and formidable one, Freemasonry. It would be a substantial error to judge the Freemasonry of the last century, or even that of the first part of the present century,
That's the 1800s.
by what it is today. The bourgeois institution par excellence, Freemasonry, in its development, in its growing power at first and later in its decadence, represented in a way the development, power and moral and intellectual decadence of the bourgeoisie. Today, fallen to the sad position of a senile old intriguer, it is a useless, sometimes malevolent and always ridiculous nullity, whereas, before 1830 and especially before 1793, having gathered together at its core, with very few exceptions, all the minds of the elite,
See: it was an elite movement. Revolution was from the elite.
the most ardent hearts, the proudest spirits, the most audacious personalities, it had constituted an active, powerful, and truly beneficial institution.
Now, there are many books of the period written, and before that too, that were quite open about the fact that Freemasonry, it was through Freemasonry and their associations in the coffee houses in France and so on that they gradually worked the people up, getting them ready for revolution. It's no secret the United States was founded by professional, I call them professional Freemasons, active Freemasons and you can see their symbols everywhere. Bakunin goes on:
It is known that all the principal actors of the first revolution were Freemasons and that when this revolution broke out it was able to find, thanks to Freemasonry, friends and devoted and powerful collaborators in all other countries,
That's true, Thomas Paine was a professional revolutionary, he came over from England, to take part in the American Revolution; once it was over, he went to France, to help them set up and run their revolution.
a fact that was assuredly of great help in its victories. But it is equally clear that the triumph of the revolution killed Freemasonry, for once the revolution had largely fulfilled the aspirations of the bourgeoisie, and had enabled it to displace the old nobility, the bourgeoisie went on quite naturally, after having been an exploited and oppressed class for such a long time, to become in its turn a privileged class, a class of exploiters, oppressive, conservative and reactionary in nature, the most reliable friend and supporter of the State.
I'm going to go into this deeper, after the following break.
=== BREAK ===
Hi folks, I am Alan Watt and Cutting Through The Matrix. History is always presented as little factions unrelated to the next faction, but nothing is further from the truth. We've had really perpetual revolution, sometimes bloody, but mainly through cultural alterations, for centuries; and, even though Bakunin decries Masonry as becoming kind of fat and obsolete, he's not telling quite the truth, because there are factions of it that kept going and Freemasonry was always subservient to the upper classes; the aristocracy you might say. You can go into the history through Mackey's Encyclopaedia of Freemasonry, you'll see just that, you'll find out who is supposedly the heads of the Grand Lodge of England for instance.
Yet, at all times, through history, you'll find that it doesn't matter what side that you think you're on, there’s another hand controlling both of them, and guiding it, because it's the outcome that's necessary for the thesis, antitheses and synthesis. The synthesis is the goal; the conflict between the first two brings you to that goal, that's the whole point of it in conflicts. It was the Intelligentsia that have been behind all the major revolutions, the successful revolutions. When the people at the bottom riot, that's what it is, it's an unorganised riot; it’s a last desperate stand to keep something that's being taken from them, generally. If we don't understand that this is truly an on-going intellectual war, which is very obvious today, then we'll never get the point at we’ll never understand it; because if you watch how the big foundations operate today, they use all the graduates of the universities, they fund the universities; the universities, in turn, become authorities and they advise governments and they're all on board across the whole planet with the same agenda.
Go into the writings of Sir Thomas Huxley, the grandfather of Aldous Huxley. Sir Thomas Huxley took up the banner of Darwinism and Darwinism is worth a good look at, because it was a religion, a religion created to destroy, once again, all that was, to bring in something new; and, they're still running on Darwinism today. Sir Thomas Huxley recruited lots of well-known writers of the period, including H.G. Wells, and trained them at the red tie school, red for revolution; and, their whole goal was bring to bring more intellectuals into the system for the revolution, to bring in a new world order.
What is a new world order? What does it really mean? What they mean is that, as Jefferson called them, the natural aristocracy, had the right to rule the world; the intelligentsia is what they're talking about.
During the Cold War, that finished around 1989, supposedly when the Berlin Wall came down, you'll find that pretty well all spies, all of them in fact, that were double spies, double agents that worked for the Soviets, and before that, go into Adolf Hitler's Germany, the ones who worked for Adolf Hitler, all came from Oxford and Cambridge, they'd all been to Eton. They all came from the privileged class. Not from the bottom ranks, the lower classes, never happened. Constant revolution by the intelligentsia; and, it's the young minds that are recruited at universities, it's still on-going, for revolution and they don't understand that very old people are conditioning their minds and giving them, what they think, is their generation's revolution. This is the constant technique that's always used.
It's a planned future we're going into and Sir Thomas Huxley, in his own writings, laid out the agenda in his book Man Stands Alone, he said that the problems of the future will be over-population. There's always been a mandate for this; eugenics is another thing. He talked about the creation of imbeciles and how many generations of imbeciles do you want. He said man is just an animal, basically, and would have to be treated as such.
He also talked about something called spirit, even though he was an atheist or a humanist, he talked about spirit. Well, he was talking about the Masonic revolutionary spirit of fire, that's what they mean by that, when they refer to spirit; and, where does the whole origin of fire come from? Ancient symbology, for the illumined ones, fire destroys that which is substance and releases a heat and a light at the same time. It alters everything, destroys all that was, but at the same time it is giving something off that is new; it stands for pure brilliant intellect as well.
There's a book that goes into this by James H. Billington called Fire in the Minds of Men and he was the official librarian for Congress, so he was no conspiracy nut and I'll read a bit of this, when I come back from this break.
=== BREAK ===
Hi folks, I am Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix.
I'm going to read the introduction of Fire In The Minds of Men: Origins Of The Revolutionary Faith, by James H. Billington. At the time of writing it, he was the official librarian for Congress; and, just before I read this actually, I'd like to talk about, or just mention: I'm going to leave a link, at the end of the show where you can see how the London School of Economics gave us the 'trickle down' theory and how they ran, supposedly, the economy, this great intellectual group, that's attached to Oxford, of course, I think Oxford even set it up. Everything comes from Oxford and Cambridge. It's quite interesting and worth a little look at, it explains the Trickle Down Theory, of economics. Back to this book, he says:
This book seeks to trace the origins of a faith - perhaps the faith of our time. Modern revolutionaries are believers, no less committed and intense than were the Christians or Muslims of an earlier era. What is new is the belief that a perfect secular
order will emerge from the forcible overthrow of traditional authority. This inherently implausible idea gave dynamism to Europe in the nineteenth century, and has become the most successful ideological export of the West to the world in the twentieth.
This is a story not of revolutions, but of revolutionaries: the innovative creators of a new tradition. The historical frame is the century and a quarter that extends from the waning of the French Revolution in the late eighteenth century to the beginnings of the Russian Revolution in the early twentieth. The theatre was Europe of the industrial era; the main stage, journalistic offices within great European cities.
Because you see, the intelligentsia and journalism always worked hand in hand, as they still do today; and, their main method was propaganda. Propaganda was not invented by Bernays, by any means, it was well-understood as a science long before.
At centre stage stood the characteristic, nineteenth-century European revolutionary: a thinker lifted up by ideas, not a worker or peasant bent down by toil. He was part of a small elite whose story must be told "from above", much as it may displease those who believe that history in general (and revolutionary history in particular) is basically made by socio-economic pressures "from below".
The people below are always used for revolutions, but they don't design them; there's always an elite who does it for you.
This "elite" focus does not imply indifference to the mass human suffering which underlay the era of this narrative. It reflects only the special need to concentrate here on the spiritual thirst of those who think rather than on the material hunger of those who work. For it was passionate intellectuals who created and developed the revolutionary faith. This work seeks to explore concretely the tradition of revolutionaries, not to explain abstractly the process of revolution. My approach has been inductive rather than deductive, explorative rather than definitive: an attempt to open up rather than "cover" the subject.
My general conclusions can be stated simply at the outset - and, for the sake of argument, more bluntly than they may appear in the text that follows.
The revolutionary faith was shaped not so much by the critical rationalism of the French Enlightenment (as is generally believed) as by the occultism and proto-romanticism of Germany.
Occultism = that what’s hidden.
This faith was incubated in France during the revolutionary era within a small subculture of literary intellectuals, who were immersed in journalism,
fascinated by secret societies and subsequently infatuated with 'ideologies' as a secular surrogate for religious belief.
The professional revolutionaries who first appeared during the French Revolution sought, above all, radical simplicity. Their deepest conflicts revolved around the simple worlds of their key slogan: liberty, equality, fraternity.
It's funny, because if you go into Albert Pike's Morals and Dogma, of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, you'll find that he goes through those three words and then he tells you that no thing could possibly exist, even though they used it to get the masses to go through revolutions for them. It says here:
Liberty has been the battle cry of earlier revolutions (in sixteenth-century Holland, seventeenth-century England, eighteenth-century America) which produced complex political structures to limit tyranny (separating powers, constituting rights, legitimising federation).
Well, that's getting lost and tossed out the window now.
The French Revolution also initially invoked similar ideas, but the new and more collectivist ideals of fraternity and equality soon arose to rival the older concept of liberty. The words nationalism and communism were first invented in the 1790s to define the simpler, more sublime, seemingly less selfish ideals of fraternity and equality, respectively. The basic struggle that subsequently emerged among committed revolutionaries was between advocates of national revolution for a new type of fraternity and those of social revolution for a new type of equality.
They always split you into two, even though you think you're on the same side, they will always do that, they get you into factions.
The French national example and republican ideal dominated the revolutionary imagination throughout the first half of the nineteenth century. Exiled Francophile intellectuals from Poland and Italy largely fashioned the dominant concept of revolutionary nationalism - inventing most modern ideas of guerrilla violence and wars of national liberation, expressing their essentially emotional ideal best in mythic histories, vernacular poetry and operatic melodrama.
They used all of the arts, as they still do today, as a main method of propaganda, because, since people don't really think through things, they don't reason, through fiction, you'll find they're very-very influenced through fiction, emotion, so emotion fixed with a topic will stay in the mind and you will go along with the emotion that you saw in the play etc.
Rival social revolutionaries began to challenge the romantic nationalists after the revolutions of 1830; and this socialist tradition increasingly predominated after the forming of the First International in 1864 and the movement of the revolutionary cause from French to German and Russian leadership. Social revolutionaries expressed their essentially rationalistic ideal best in prose pamphlets and prosaic organisations. Their hidden model was the impersonal and dynamic machine of factory industry rather than the personalised but static lodge of the Masonic aristocracy.
The Masonic aristocracy.
No less fateful than the schism between national and social revolutionaries was the conflict among social revolutionaries that began in the 1840s between Marx and Proudhon. The former's focus was on destroying the capitalist economic system clashed with the latter's war on the centralised bureaucratic state.
If you notice the system that's coming in now, it’s a new economic system and it's been shouted from the highest hilltops, in the last few weeks; and, it will be a new economic system, a planned society is what they're taking us to, where those at the top will live in incredible luxury, even though, technically, a lot of them will still serve the state; but, they won't have to pay for anything, they'll still live in palaces and have servants etc.
The word intelligentsia and the thirst for ideology migrated east from Poland to Russia (and from a national to a social revolutionary cause) through the Russian student radicals of the 1860s, who developed a now ascetic type of terrorism. Lenin drew both on this Russian tradition of violence and on German concepts of organisation to create the Bolshevism that eventually brought the revolutionary tradition out of the wilderness and into power.
The revolutionary faith developed in nineteenth-century Europe only within those societies that had not previously (1) legitimised ideological dissent by breaking with medieval forms of religious authority and (2) modified monarchical power by accepting some form of organised political opposition. In northern Europe and North America, where these conditions were met by Protestant and parliamentary traditions, the revolutionary faith attracted almost no indigenous adherents. Thus, the revolutionary tradition can be seen as a form of political-ideological opposition that arose first against authoritarian Catholicism (in France, Italy and Poland) and then against other religiously-based autocracies (in Lutheran Prussia, Orthodox Russia).
What they did you see, first, to change everything, they looked at the system as it was and the main opponent at one time, in fact the only real opponent was the Roman Catholic system; and, therefore, they went to war with that first. Very intense wars, you have to look at the histories of the wars, the religious wars, to see how horrific and for how long they went on.
Once that was done, the same groups that had courted any opposition and eventually the Protestant sects, they used them too. They had to destroy them as well, in turn. So, you're used and then you're destroyed, because the goal is a completely different new world order than the one you think. That's why you don't follow leaders; do your homework and know what on earth is going on.
It's interesting too that Lenin himself, who took over from Mazzini, now Mazzini was a revolutionary professional, again trained, and he also took over as the head of Masonry for one point, from Albert Pike and who took over from him was Lenin, who then set up the Bolshevik, ultimately called the Soviet system, in Russia. I've also gone through the fact that the Royal Institute of International Affairs was heavily involved all during that era. The Milner Group and those boys were heavily involved in it. Russia was called the second great experiment; the United States was the first. They studied what they'd done, the kind of outcomes that they had and would they suit the purposes or would they have to go further. How would they get to their next objective? That's why they're called experiments; who does experiments? Scientists do experiments. Think of the words that you read.
Before attempting to chronicle the drama, the dogmas and the disputes of this new, secular religion-in-the-making,
And it is a religion
it is important to linger on the mystery and the majesty of faith itself. The heart of revolutionary faith, like any faith, is fire
Back to fire again.
ordinary material transformed into extraordinary form, quantities of warmth suddenly changing the quality of substance. If we do not know what fire is, we know what it does. It burns. It destroys life; but it also supports it as source of heat, light and - above all - fascination.
Man, who works with fire as homo faber, also seems foredoomed in his freedom to play with it as homo ludens.
Now, if you remember - those that have not been so jaded by all the recent slaughter that's gone on across the planet - if you can remember the slaughter at Waco, when, the government sent people and the BATF just to wipe out a whole bunch of families and children. That was literally a symbolic act as well, to tell everybody that religion is over. You do not longer have any special privileges, it's over; and, not only that, they hate you, they utterly hate you; those who rule hate you. At the end, when they set fire to it all and burned the whole place down, with the people in it (there are videos out there where you'll see) the BATF bowing to the flames. Ask what kind of brotherhood they belong to; bowing to the flames, they love fire.
Our particular chapter in history unfolds at a time of physical transformation in Europe that was almost as momentous as the first discovery of fire must have been in the mists of antiquity. The industrial revolution was permitting men to leash fire to machines - and to unleash fire power on each other - with a force undreamed of in earlier ages. In the midst of those fires appeared the more elusive flame that Dostoevsky described in the most searching work of fiction ever written about the revolutionary movement: The Possessed.
He wrote about it in a fictional work, but there’s more written about often in fiction than they'll tell you in reality. The story, basically, was about a small provincial town that was suddenly inspired by new ideas and then afterwards, a fire broke out and a local official shouted in the middle of night:
"The fire is in the minds of men, not in the roofs of building"
Hence the title of this book.
Dostoevsky was writing under the impact of two great fires that disturbed him deeply and heralded the transfer of revolutionary leadership from France to Russia. These fires had broken out in imperial St. Petersburg in the spring of 1861 (where the emancipation of the serfs seemed to have inflamed rather than calmed passions) and in imperial Paris ten years later (where the flaming defeat of the Paris Commune ended forever the era of romantic illusions).
The flame of faith had begun its migrations a century earlier, when some European aristocrats transferred their lighted candles from Christian alters to Masonic lodges. The flame of occult alchemists, which had promised to turn dross into gold, reappeared at the centre of new 'circles'
Now, what did I call those groups within the Royal Institute of International Affairs? They call them circles.
seeking to recreate a golden age:
To recreate a golden age, we hear that over and over, with the idealists of the day and past-times as well, to recreate a golden age.
Bavarian Illuminists conspiring against the Jesuits, French Philadelphians against Napoleon, Italian charcoal burners against the Hapsburgs. When the most important anti-Napoleonic conspiracy was ridiculed for attempting "to use as a lever something which is only a match" its leader replied that: With a match one has no need of a lever; one does not lift up the world, one burns it.
You burn the world.
The leader in spreading the conspiracy to Italy soon noted that "the Italian flame" had spread "the fire of freedom
That's what they called it: the fire of freedom.
to the most frozen land of Petersburg". There the first Russian revolution occurred in December 1825. Its slogan "From the spark comes the flame!" was originated by the first man to predict an egalitarian social revolution in the eighteenth-century (Sylvain Marechal) and revived by the first man to realise such a revolution in the twentieth (Lenin, who used it as the epigram for his journal, The Spark).
Always fire; always fire.
A recurrent mythic model for revolutionaries - early romantics, the young Marx, the Russians of Lenin's time - was Prometheus,
Prometheus, remember it was he -
who stole the fire from the god for the use of mankind. The Promethean faith of revolutionaries resembled in many respects the general modern belief that science would lead men out of darkness into light.
A world run by a scientific elite.
Back in a moment, after these messages.
=== BREAK ===
Hi folks, I am Alan Watt and we're Cutting Through The Matrix, continuing with the some of the book Fire in the Minds of Men by James H. Billington. He says:
But there was also the more pointed millennial assumption that, on the new day that was dawning,
The new day that was dawning and they've got lots of paintings with the sun rising. You'll see that in the portrait of Benjamin Franklin toasting the new president, the first president of the United States and he says, in his own works mind you, that's Benjamin Franklin that is, in his own letters, he says we toast this grandmaster of these United States. Getting back to the book, it says:
the sun would never set.
Meaning light, intellect would always rule from then on.
Early, during the French upheaval was born a "solar myth of the revolution" suggesting that the sun was rising on a new era in which darkness would vanish forever.
This image became implanted "at a level of consciousness that simultaneously interpreted something real and produced a new reality." The new reality they sought was radically secular and stridently simple. The ideal was not the balance complexity of the new American federation, but the occult simplicity of its great seal: an all-seeing eye atop a pyramid over the words Novus Ordo Seclorum. In search of primal, natural truths, revolutionaries looked back to pre-Christian antiquity - adopting pagan names like "Anaxagorus" Chaumette and "Anacharsis" Cloots, idealising above all the semimythic Pythagoras as the model intellect-turned-revolutionary and the Pythagorean belief in prime numbers,
That's how they communicate.
geometric forms and the higher harmonies of music.
That's the tones, in fact, from Pythagoras, you get ton, the weight measurement; the tone, the sound etc.
Many of the same Strasbourg musicians who first played La Marseillasie in 1792 had introduced Mozart's
Mozart was a Freemason; and, if you've ever seen the Magic Flute, you'll see an awful lot in that particular show.
Magic Flute to French audiences in the same city only a few months earlier and Mozart's illuminist message seemed to explain the fuller meaning of the jour de gloire
Day of glory.
that Rouget de Lisle's anthem had proclaimed: The rays of the sun have vanquished the night, The powers of darkness have yielded to the light. The rising sun brought heat as well as light, for the fire was generally lit not at high noon on a tabula rasa by some philosopher-king, but rather by some unknown guest arriving at midnight amidst the excesses of Don Giovanni's banquet, "Communism" the label Lenin finally adopted, was invented not by the great Rousseau but by a Rousseau du ruisseau (Rousseau of the gutter): the indulgent fetishist and nocturnal street-walker in pre-revolutionary Paris, Restif de la Bretonne. Thus the revolutionary label that now controls the destiny of more than one billion people in the contemporary world sprang from the erotic imagination of an eccentric writer.
And, by the way, you'll find an awful lot of their main writers were highly neurotic, some had been kicked out of different countries for, literally exposing themselves, although they couldn’t help it, it seems, and they were the greatest propagandists of all that were used, look into Voltaire, very interesting history.
I hear the music coming in for tonight; and, so, from Hamish and myself, in Ontario Canada, it's goodnight and may your god, or your gods, go with you.
Transcribed by Bill Scott.
Article: "World warned of 'food crunch' threat" by Javier Blas, Financial Times - Jan. 25, 2009.
Video: "London School of Economics 'Trickle-Down Theory' " (youtube.com).)
Letter in "Journal El Progress of Geneva" (1869) by Mikhail Bakunin.
Book: "Fire in the Minds of Men" by James H. Billington.