"Cutting Through The Matrix" Live On RBN (#250)
Poem Copyright Alan Watt Feb. 5, 2009:
NSA, Trilaterals, CFR has Brzezinski as its Stage Star:
"This Group Financed
Communism, Fascism, the Nazi,
Installed Their Leaders, Some were Left 'Patsy,'
On an Anvil the Fabians Smashed World into Shape
To Create New Society, Millions Died for the Sake,
First Revolution, Amalgamation, Government Central,
Collectivist System, the Individual, Detrimental,
They Published the Future in Books Specific,
World Society to be Run by Elite, Scientific,
Each Phase Financed by Great Moneyed Vulture
To Guide All Peoples into Single World Culture
China Set Up to be the New Model State,
Which All Other Nations Must Imitate,
Then Men with Statistics and Slide Computations
Will Drastically Reduce the World's Populations"
© Alan Watt Feb. 5, 2009
Thursday February 5th 2009
Poem & Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt - Feb. 5, 2009 (Exempting Music, Literary Quotes, and Callers' Comments)
"Code of Silence" by
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 Cutting Through The Matrix on the 5th of February 2009.
For the newcomers: I advise you to go into www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com and, on the website, you can download as many audios as you wish to do, of previous talks I've given over the years, on history, basically, the history that's not published in the school books that you get. It's not mentioned much by the media either, at least it's never connected by the media, that's more accurate; you get little bits of information but not the in-depth story on any of them.
I try to give you shortcuts through the talks; and, use sources, the authorised sources in a sense, because that's what you have to go by, to prove that what's happening to other people, if they care to listen. You'll find that the big boys themselves are very good at publishing books, by themselves; they like to boast how they've pulled off so many coups and revolutions - and even set up different types of structure governments across the planet - over the last hundred-odd years; and, how they're doing it now, in fact, as we live. Most people don't care, because we float through lives and we're fed trivia, but it's happening nonetheless and it is a controlled movement. It's not hard at all to track it down through time, as I say, they publish lots of books and you'll find that the main players are always the same family lines and some of them have been on the go for 50-60-70-80 years even and still pushing strong, like the Rockefellers, for the same agenda. It's not money they're after. So, I try to give you the shortcuts.
Also look into www.alanwattsentientsentinel.eu for transcripts of these talks, written in the various languages of Europe, you can download them and print them up and pass them around, because we do need shortcuts in this day and age.
Now, for those who listen, I always ask people to help keep me going, you can donate by looking into www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com there's buttons on the website there for donations and you can also order my books and discs and so on, from there as well. That keeps me going and - believe you me - there's not a lot comes in here. The ads you hear, on this show and other shows I'm on, are to keep the companies going. They pay for the airtime, they pay the engineers and they pay for equipment and maintenance and so on; and, even though those with you own personal computer, you'll know that maintenance is always on-going, never mind to keep a radio station - it's a lot more expensive.
I've been going through over a hundred years of history really, I could go much-much further into the past and I did go and touch on it briefly, to do with secret societies and the Enlightenment, as they call it; and how they sprung up, and as, basically, a middle-class revolution. They weren't getting enough pieces of the pie and they wanted to get up there and overthrow kings and nations and religion, which they felt was stifling them; and they formed secret societies, because they could not speak out about their open policies of a world society - where the elites themselves, the intelligent ones, would rule over the lessers. That's always been mentioned in the secret societies, that very concept of what we now call eugenics, actually they've called it bioethics now, since they are in control of the world and us, through healthcare etc, the eugenicists call themselves bio-ethicists professionals and they deal with how we should live and die, basically, or even if we should live at all. Because the world has been turned into a secular humanist society, which was planned and spoken and written about a hundred years ago; and I'm going to go into that today, back with more, after this break.
== BREAK ===
Hi folks, I am Alan Watt and we're Cutting Through The Matrix, just mentioning the fact that history's planned, in fact the future is planned, it's been planned for an awful long time in fact and we find that articles and books were published a long time ago, outlining the plan that's kind of on-going, but it's always the same plan and the same strategies to be used. Yet, when certain events eventually happen within your own lifetime, and you notice them, and you remember where you first read it, that this was going to happen maybe 20-30 years ago, it's never presented that way in the newspapers at the time. It's always presented as though this is the only option that we have and we have to go there.
I've talked about the Council on Foreign Relations and its beginnings, as a branch of the Royal Institute of International Affairs in Britain. It was also run, at that time, a long time ago, by Lord Milner and, before that, Cecil Rhodes, basically set the whole organisation up. I've read from Professor Carroll Quigley, who was a member of the group, in fact he was the historian for a while, for the society. The have to keep their own historical records, for one day they'll publish it, when we're all brain-dead and we won't care, you see. In Tragedy & Hope, and I've read this part before, it's very-very important, Professor Carroll Quigley says this, from their own records, after studying them and updating them for them. This is the book Tragedy & Hope, page 950, he was talking about the fact that most people will get confused, they think that this collection of bankers and of very wealthy families, old established families, all working together, people think they're communists, and he says here on page 950:
This myth, like all fables, does in fact have a modicum of truth. There does exist, and has existed for a generation,
He means 60 years; this was printed in the '60s
an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the Radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups,
That's one term they use, they do have Round Table Groups
has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups,
They did that in the past too; they set up and helped, to work with the fascists.
and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records.
Now, remember: Professor Quigley was advisor to State departments, in different departments in the US government and to the military as well; because you must understand your enemy in the military, and he was an historian and understood the histories of different peoples, their weak points and so on, their social society, and their belief systems. He says:
I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments.
Because they have many front organisations.
I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies (notably to its belief that England was an Atlantic rather than a European Power and must be allied, or even federated, with the United States and must remain isolated from Europe),
Well, that's all altered now.
but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.
It's said so simplistically there and underrated, in a sense, because other books, and other historians, have gone into these groups without even putting the groups together and they've shown, these characters - and the bankers too who are all part of it - have funded all sides of every war and it's not because they just want to profit from them, it's to bring out a certain kind of global structural society, it's quite fascinating. He says:
The Round Table Groups have already been mentioned in this book several times, notably in connection with the formation of the British Commonwealth
That was to be the nucleus of it, still is, in a sense.
in chapter 4 and in the discussion of appeasement in chapter 12 ("the Cliveden Set").
They had different Sets and Circles, one of them was called the Cliveden Set.
At the risk of some repetition, the story will be summarized here, because the American branch of this organization (sometimes called the "Eastern Establishment' )
It's actually the CFR now.
has played a very significant role in the history of the United States in the last generation. The Round Table Groups were semi-secret discussion and lobbying groups organized by Lionel Curtis, Philip H. Kerr (Lord Lothian), and (Sir) William S. Marris in 1908-1911. This was done on behalf of Lord Milner, the dominant Trustee of the Rhodes Trust in the two decades 1905-1925.
What he mentions here, is what he wants you to know, being a member, because he doesn't mention that Lord Milner was also one of the biggest bankers in England; and he was also, by the way, he took over the trustee of the Rhodes scholarship and worked it with Lord Rothschild, because Rothschild was actually left the Will for Cecil Rhodes, for world government and training Rhodes scholars for, and how to bring in, world government and it's still going on today. It's quite fascinating, because when you go into other books on this, you'll find, like Professor Antony Sutton. Antony Sutton wrote Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, he also wrote Who Financed Hitler and he came away with a different idea that was it just bankers doing it, because they hate having different empires at war with each other, it's bad for business; and yet, he doesn't really realise what he's got his hands on in all his investigations, because he mentions all the same names that belong to the CFR and the Royal Institute of International Affairs and all the same bankers and foundations that fund the wars, in his own books. It's all the same people and these are the same people as I've mentioned before, the same families you'll find in the CIA; and before that, they were in the OSS and, on the British side, they were in MI5 and MI6.
In Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, he goes into how the Wall Street companies, which again, were mainly funded and pushed by the front organisations (like the Rockefeller Group), were financing the setting up of the Bolsheviks; they financed them. From the beginning, Russia was financed from the West, from its birth, as the Soviet empire, or Bolshevik turned Soviet, right through to its supposed collapse; it could not even feed itself. He mentions on page 162, this is Professor Sutton, or Antony Sutton, he says:
United Americans formed to fight Communism
Now, I've warned people before about big groups that you think are going to oppose that which you oppose, and so you join them; they set them up in advance and here's an ideal tactic right here, this is important to today, because they're using the same tactics today. You always use the same tactics, as Plato said, because they'll always work again, if they worked before and if you introduce them in the same formula. He says:
In 1920 the organization United Americans was founded. It was limited to citizens of the United States and planned for five million members, "whose sole purpose would be to combat the teachings of the socialists, communists, I.W.W., Russian organizations and radical farmers societies." In other words, United Americans was to fight all those institutions and groups believed to be anticapitalist. The officers of the preliminary organization established to build up United Americans
This great patriotic group.
were Allen Walker of the Guaranty Trust Company
If you listen, you'll see here the same companies and foundations that Professor Quigley was talking about.
Daniel Willard, president of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad; H. H. Westinghouse, of Westinghouse Air Brake Company; and Otto H. Kahn, of Kuhn, Loeb & Company
That was set up really as a Rothschild front.
and American International Corporation. These Wall Streeters were backed up by assorted university presidents and Newton W. Gilbert (former governor of the Philippines). Obviously, United Americans was, at first glance, exactly the kind of organization that establishment capitalists would be expected to finance and join. Its formation should have brought no great surprise. On the other hand, as we have already seen, these financiers were also deeply involved in supporting the new Soviet regime in Russia — although this support was behind the scenes,
Now listen to this:
recorded only in government files, and not to be made public for 50 years.
In a free society? Do you think you've ever been free?
As part of United Americans, Walker, Willard, Westinghouse, and Kahn were playing a double game. Otto H. Kahn, a founder of the anti-Communist organization, was reported by the British socialist J. H. Thomas as having his "face towards the light." Kahn wrote the preface to Thomas's book. In 1924 Otto Kahn addressed the League for Industrial Democracy
That's a communist organisation.
and professed common objectives with this activist socialist group (see page 49). The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad (Willard's employer) was active in the development of Russia during the 1920s. Westinghouse in 1920, the year United Americans was founded, was operating a plant in Russia that had been exempted from nationalization. And the role of Guaranty Trust has already been minutely described.
Here's the same guys forming a patriotic group for the public to believe in and funding the revolution / on-going revolution in Russia, at the same time, and making a profit from it at the same time. What's interesting too is that, he says here, and he goes into this in detail, too, in a lot of detail, he says (page 178):
But why allow Russia to become a competitor and a challenge to U.S. supremacy? In the late nineteenth century, Morgan/Rockefeller, and Guggenheim had demonstrated their monopolistic proclivities.
That's the key to all of these guys, they are monopolists and you think E pluribus Unum means Out of Many, One for people; no, it means for corporations and the world; and I'm going into that when I come back from this break.
=== BREAK ===
Hi folks, I am Alan Watt, this is Cutting Through The Matrix, just putting a few books together, to show you how it's all interconnected and how knowledge is truly scattered and even people who are bookworms and real detectives, like Antony Sutton, kind of miss the mark at times. They get all the facts right but they come to, sometimes, the wrong conclusions, because they don't know about the other books as well, they miss some books and they come to the wrong conclusions, thinking it's all about money and simply power.
Remember, going back to Carroll Quigley, he talked about the group that started off as the Cecil Rhodes Foundation, that was already chartered by the British Crown and they had the backing of the British Empire, in a sense. It would work outside of politics, they could bypass politics. Margaret Thatcher said she belonged to the group that came out of it, the Royal Institute of International Affairs. She said we constitute a parallel government, world-wide, that's not answerable to the public; democracy is too slow, you can't get things done, because people are arguing all the time. Therefore, they have plans made, they want to have them carried out, so they bypass democracy altogether. When we look at the Council on Foreign Relations, the American cousin of it, it's just a branch, they work on the same agenda, the exact same agenda with front organisations, many front organisations - working across the world - and they use geo-politics, as it's called.
Geo-politics is long-term strategy, where you study your prey, your victim. You have the culture, the ancient culture, the phases a culture has gone through and you work out your strategy, according to their history and their culture, for long-term goals; and that's how it's all put together. Because, in his book here, Sutton talks about the fact that, as I say, they financed the Russian Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, just a few bankers, big bankers, with foundations as well, all into philanthropy of course, all philanthropists and they did it of course to bring "World Peace" they called it, world peace, but they also wanted World Socialism; actually, they wanted Collectivism. However, they also profit massively from it, because whatever they give into a country in money, the take out a 100-fold, or more. He says here, this is Sutton on 173:
The gigantic Russian market was to be converted into a captive market and a technical colony to be exploited by a few high-powered American financiers and the corporations under their control. What the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Federal Trade Commission under the thumb of American industry could achieve for that industry at home, a planned socialist government could achieve for it abroad — given suitable support and inducements from Wall Street and Washington, D.C.
He has all the records here by the way, he doesn't just guess at this stuff, he's got it all from the government; as I say, they kept it all secret for 50 years. What do you think they're keeping secret from you now, about the Vietnam War and the Korean War and all the rest of it, that's still under wraps? See, we never know the real reasons why anything happens while we live, that's how the system is run. On page 176, and this is Wall Street and the Russian Revolution by Sutton, he goes into some of the early players who were working with the Council on Foreign Relations and the British establishment, on this world agenda, he says:
As Jennings C. Wise has written, "Historians must never forget that Woodrow Wilson
President Woodrow Wilson, the guy who set up the League of Nations, precursor of the United Nations
... made it possible for Leon Trotsky to enter Russia with an American passport."
Trotsky, literally, was going over to Russia, to help start the revolution, with suitcases full of money, from the US banks, the bankers, Baruch and all these guys. He was stopped at Halifax in Canada and put in a little prison near the docks and President Wilson literally sent up an express guy with a passport, to allow him to get out of the country and get the revolution going; quite something, eh? And that's in the Canadian records here.
But Leon Trotsky also declared himself an internationalist.
Here, Sutton is drawing the similarities between the revolutionaries and the big bankers, they were both internationalist. He says:
We have remarked with some interest his high-level internationalist connections, or at least friends, in Canada. Trotsky then was not pro-Russian, or pro-Allied, or pro-German, as many have tried to make him out to be. Trotsky was for world revolution, for world dictatorship; he was, in one word, an internationalist. Bolshevists and bankers have then this significant common ground — internationalism. Revolution and international finance are not at all inconsistent if the result of revolution is to establish more centralized authority.
It's essential for them - that centralised authority - that's what we have across the whole Western world now.
International finance prefers to deal with central governments. The last thing the banking community wants is laissez-faire economy and decentralized power because these would disperse power. This, therefore, is an explanation that fits the evidence. This handful of bankers and promoters was not Bolshevik, or Communist, or socialist, or Democrat, or even American.
Let's just pop back to Tragedy & Hope, where he tells you on page 950 that they're often accused of being Communist, the Radical Right thinks that's how they are, that they're far left wingers. Here is Sutton telling you no, it's a different thing altogether.
Back with more - after these messages.
=== BREAK ===
Hi folks, I am Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix, just tying some ends together, to show you how the group has operated in the past and how they're operating today. In fact, I've got a stack of books around here, at the present time, dealing with them and their operations right now, what they're doing today and where they're going, same people, same groups. However, Professor Sutton thinks it's merely to do with money and power and a world without any restrictions for themselves, which is completely wrong, as Professor Quigley said, they appear to do this, they appear to be all left-wing but they've a different agenda altogether. This is what Sutton says on page 176, he says basically that they're trying to create a world of collectivism. He says:
This, therefore, is an explanation that fits the evidence. This handful of bankers and promoters was not Bolshevik, or Communist, or socialist, or Democrat, or even American. Above all else these men wanted markets, preferably captive international markets — and a monopoly of the captive world market as the ultimate goal. They wanted markets that could be exploited monopolistically without fear of competition from Russians, Germans, or anyone else — including American businessmen outside the charmed circle.
This closed group was apolitical and amoral. In 1917, it had a single-minded objective — a captive market in Russia, all presented under, and intellectually protected by, the shelter of a league to enforce the peace.
They set up the League of Nations, you see.
Wall Street did indeed achieve its goal. American firms controlled by this syndicate were later to go on and build the Soviet Union, and today are well on their way to bringing the Soviet military-industrial complex into the age of the computer.
This was written in the ‘70s I think.
Today the objective is still alive and well. John D. Rockefeller expounds it in his book The Second American Revolution — which sports a five-pointed star on the title page. The book contains a naked plea for humanism,
Remember: I mentioned that the other day, secular humanism, is to be pushed on the public of the planet; and I was reading from Charles Galton Darwin's book. That's what he said, there'd be a single universal culture and, here, they call it humanism, secular humanism from Rockefeller. He says:
Sutton quoting from Rockefeller’s book.
a plea that our first priority is to work for others.
Cecil Rhodes said that too, a world where the people will serve the world state, they'll serve the world state. He says here:
In other words, a plea for collectivism.
Now, let's tie that in with the other front organisations that came up with the scam of global warming, the Club of Rome, that's one of the many front groups. In the 1970s, the founders came up with the idea of how they would get a world tax and unite the planet under a threat from 'out there' or anywhere and they came up with the idea of global warming, they said 'that will fit the bill'. They also said they wanted to bring in a world of Collectivism, a collectivist society, after studying the Soviet system and every other system, they thought collectivism was the way to go. What's happening now? The banks in Britain and elsewhere are buying up the houses and renting them out to people. Only people who have lived in the Soviet system can recognise what's happening here and everywhere else. It says here (Sutton again referencing Rockefeller’s little book):
Humanism is collectivism.
That's what he said, humanism is collectivism and he's still trotting across the planet; he's the guy that's at every South American meeting to do with the Amalgamation of the Americas. He funds every group down there. The Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission; again, going back through time, when it was Lord Milner's Group and the Round Table Society, it's got many different names, it's the same organisation, the Royal Institute of International Affairs. Going back to Professor Antony Sutton, he's talking about the Rockefellers:
It is notable that the Rockefellers, who have promoted this humanistic idea for a century, have not turned their OWN property over to others. Presumably it is implicit in their recommendation that we all work for the Rockefellers. Rockefeller's book promotes collectivism under the guises of "cautious conservatism" and "the public good." It is in effect a plea for the continuation of the earlier Morgan-Rockefeller support of collectivist enterprises and mass subversion of individual rights.
What is it they said the other day? From Galton Darwin's book, he says: they must end individualism. What does the United Nations say? They've got to end individualism. "... subversion of individual rights", from Sutton's book.
In brief, the public good has been, and is today, used as a device and an excuse for self-aggrandizement by an elitist circle that pleads for world peace and human decency. But so long as the reader looks at world history in terms of an inexorable Marxian conflict between capitalism and communism, the objectives of such an alliance between international finance and international revolution remain elusive.
You got to stop using the terms and just look above it all, or look down at it, just to see what's really happening; don't be confused by terms. He says:
So will the ludicrousness of promotion of the public good by plunderers.
These guys all got their starts by plundering, all of them; and I mean real wars of plunder.
If these alliances still elude the reader, then he should ponder the obvious fact that these same international interests and promoters are always willing to determine what other people should do, but are signally unwilling to be first in line to give up their own wealth and power. Their mouths are open, their pockets are closed.
Now, at the same time that these boys, the CFR and so on, the same whole group of them, with bankers in it, the same family bankers, with their foundations and philanthropy, they were already setting up, in the 1920s – at the same time as they were still doing it in the Soviet Union – Mussolini. All of the data and the money they sent to him, from whom, etc, the same boys, is all documented in this book, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution. It's incredible knowledge, incredible knowledge. Here's a guy who was big, he was a mover and shaker that was called Frederick C. Howe, I think he was even used in Canada, later on, in World War II. He was a mover and shaker; he knew how to get whole nations working for him; and he says:
This technique, used by the monopolists to gouge society, was set forth in the early twentieth century by Frederick C. Howe in The Confessions of a Monopolist.
First, says Howe, politics is a necessary part of business. To control industries it is necessary to control Congress and the regulators and thus make society go to work for you, the monopolist. So, according to Howe, the two principles of a successful monopolist are, "First, let Society work for you; and second, make a business of politics." These, wrote Howe, are the basic "rules of big business."
That's exactly what they do, they get the nation working for them; and, of course, going back up the page, Rockefeller wants a world where people will serve others. He doesn't say all people; he just says people will serve others, because he won't be serving anybody, that's how it works. People should try and get hold of the book and remember you'll probably get used ones as well: Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution by Antony C. Sutton; excellent one to read.
It takes me right down to the present day, because, I was thinking earlier, about the video I mentioned last week and I put the link on my site to Brzezinski 30 years ago, in the '70s, who was promoting jihad in Afghanistan and telling them it was a holy war and God was on their side, because, at that time, in geo-politics you see, he and the boys and the Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission wanted to get a completely united Europe, including all of those regions too; and there were certain people standing in the way. So, how do you get it all changed? You get a war going with Russia and he knew, by arming the Afghanistanis, that Russia would have to come in, which they did. Afghanistan, for years, was bombed incredibly from the air and had terrible things done on them. I remember seeing in the papers when Britain, MI6 and so on were putting all the propaganda out, they were declaring the heroes of Afghanistan. They showed you these tribesmen emerging from the shelters in the mountains and there were all these unexploded bombs all over the place, stuck in the ground, from a raid. Then these guys would dismantle the bombs and take all the explosives out of them and use them; so, they were the heroes then you see.
Brzezinski and others, the guy who is still behind Obama, and playing the world, playing with China and so on, long-term strategy, knew what he was doing. Of course, when Russia goes out, what happens? When they go down, supposedly, just fall apart and the Wall comes down, we're all in there, the West's all in there, doing the same thing to the Afghanis as Russia was doing; and, suddenly, the Afghanis are bad guys again. Remember what Orwell said: Who are we fighting today, East Asia or West Asia? Are they the good guys or bad guys? You don't know, they keep changing, because it's long-term strategy. After all, if the Afghanis were praised for fearlessly fighting for their independence back in the '70s, against the bad Russian Bear, how come they're bad guys today, for trying to do the same thing and hold on to their independence? Geo-politics.
I'll guarantee you Mr. Brzezinski would know exactly how long Russia would be in there and he'd also know that down the road, the US and Canada would be in there too afterwards, this is how they play it, this is how they play. You know, a delegation went to the Soviet Union 15 years before the Wall came down and told the President of the Soviet Union (and Rockefeller, by the way, was one of them who went over there) that there'd be a complete European Union in 15 years, with a parliament and therefore there was no point in carrying on with the Soviet Union and I've got the documentation here as well.
Why is Mr. Rockefeller all over the planet when he's not elected to anything by the public? – With his massive Council on Foreign Relations group, the group that you have to be asked into and almost every major reporter is a member it, every TV station and newspaper owner is a member of it, every magazine editor is a member of it; I don't know how many politicians are members of it; and we think we've got democracy?
Here's a book you should look at, it's called Zbigniew Brzezinski, America and the World, moderated by David Ignatius and it's by Brent Scowcroft. Now, you can tell by the back page, it's for the public to believe in. It's like one of these question and answer things they've worked out amongst themselves, because it gives you: Brzezinski, formerly President Carter's National Security Advisor is a counselor and trustee at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and professor at John Hopkins University. Then it has: Brent Scowcroft serves as National Security Advisor to Presidents George H. W. Bush and Gerald Ford, and as Military Assistant to President Nixon. He is President of The Scowcroft Group, an international business and financial advisory firm. He is also the co-author, with former President George H. W. Bush. Then: David Ignatius writes a twice-weekly column for The Washington Post. He was previously executive editor of the International Herald Tribune.
They're all CFR you see, and Trilateral. Remember: they're writing stuff for the public consumption but they do give you some parts of the strategy. Because here's the same Brzezinski that was setting up jihad, so that Russia would come into Afghanistan and he's talking about China and so on, in this book and it says here, they're talking about China and how to go with democracy,
Brzezinski: Yeah, potential rival
This is page 116, America and the World, he says:
ruthless in the pursuit of their interest. When you say the Chinese are ruthless in pursuit of their interest, aren't you also describing the United States? Our business operations internationally are very energetic, to put it euphemistically. And we are not disinclined to promote our interests to the maximum. But inherently the notion of a rival, business rival, includes the notion of restraint. It's not the same thing as ruthless imperial military competition, which ends up in a collision. And I think that thought, that realisation, guides both us and the Chinese.
Now, remember the group that he works for, set up modern China, they set up Communist China, because the Royal Institute of International Affairs and the CFR had their Institute of Pacific Relations, another front group that was explained here in Tragedy & Hope again. The whole idea was to get that whole region, including Australia and New Zealand all united under one big trading bloc; and they were at that for 70 years, 70 years and it's still on-going. Here's Brzezinski, who knows all this stuff, who knows he's talking to a dumbed-down public that mainly don't know this stuff and he's giving you the childish version, the very-very childish version. He says:
We know more or less how our leadership operates. We know much less about their leadership. But my own experience of dealing with their leadership is that it is remarkably sophisticated, eager to learn and quite deliberate in its effort to understand realities. That was my first impression when I met Deng Xiaoping. At the time we were able to develop a quasi-secret alliance
Now, listen to this, now, remember, China was then the bad guy, you've always got to have a bad guy, and he's talking about thirty years ago, when it was the bad guy.
At the time we were able to develop a quasi-secret alliance against the Soviet Union
Now, I thought they were both communist. Didn't we all think that at the time? It wasn't long after the Korean War; the Vietnam War was still going on, the '70s. Here's Brzezinski over there, with a quasi-secret alliance, with the Chinese, against the Soviet Union. Why? Because they'd already set up China to be the manufacturer of the world, that was still to come. This is from Brzezinski's own words, right.
which involved joint intelligence operations and joint assistance to the resistance in Afghanistan.
They were helping the Afghanis at that time fight the Russians, they brought on, they brought on the war with Russia, by arming the Afghanis - and telling them to have jihad. After he's telling these guys over in Afghanistan it's a holy war, God's on your side, he runs off to China and there he is with the top intelligence experts of China, working covertly against Russia. This is incredible Geo-politics. He says here:
And while generally I'm impressed by the very deliberate nature of the Chinese leadership's efforts to educate themselves, let me cite you one specific example that has been intriguing me. For about 5 years now, the Chinese Leadership has held at the highest level
Listen to this:
a seminar for the top leaders. Just for the top leaders like our National Security Council.
They've got an idea, they've got a cloned set-up in China of how it works here; because they get the real dope on what's happening, not the rubbish we get in newspapers. He says:
It's a full-day session led by some specialists. All the top leaders have to attend and here are some of the topics they have addressed
I'll be back with more of this, after this break.
=== BREAK ===
Hi folks, I am Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix, just tying a few books together, which only reinforces that which I've already been saying: that a long time ago, a particular group arose, comprising of very-very important, incredibly-rich people, bankers with all the top aristocratic families of Britain and the US, initially. That's where it started but now it's a club across the planet of all elites you see, going into a world society of a collectivist nature, with all of the trends set out that would happen by Charles Galton Darwin, including depopulation and so on. Long-term strategy, Geo-politics.
To continue with Brzezinski, here in the book America and the World, talking about this session that’s just for the top leaders of China, very secretive, just the same as they have in the US. Stuff that they don't put in the papers doesn't get mentioned to Congress, and what they were talking about was the importance of Constitution and understanding the rule of law, something very alien to their communist dictatorship.
By the way, he praises, exactly what I've been saying, he praises the Communist system to bringing them up to speed and modernising them quickly. That's exactly what they did with the Soviet Union, that was part of it; and also amalgamating all the small provinces into one big one, with a centralised government. Karl Marx talked about that very strategy that was necessary too and here they are, doing it, they've done it all. A slightly-different technique, for different parts of the world but they always get it in the same way in the end, it becomes the same. What they were also discussing was the rise and fall of imperial powers, something all strategists must study.
Then, on page 119, which ties into yesterday's talk, Brzezinski was talking to Jiang Zemin in China and it says:
Just a footnote to what Brent said, and then an answer to your question. When I was last in China a couple of months ago, a dinner was given for me by Jiang Zemin, the former President. I asked him, "What is the biggest problem you face in China?" And he said, "Too many Chinese." In a way, that's a good answer. The floating unemployed population now is about 200 million,
See, they're moving them all off the land, sometimes 200-odd million at a time, off the land, into the cities. That's what's in the newspapers. They're clearing, just like they're doing everywhere else across the world, getting them all into the cities, so we can go down gradually together, world-wide. He says:
except that it floats from place to place because there's all this going on. New cities growing, huge interstate highway system, fantastic, like ours.
Ignatius: But no cars on it yet.
Brzezinski: No cars on it, that's right. But a system already of about 40,000 miles. Ours, built in the 1950s and '60s, is 65,000 miles. The Russians are building their first superhighway from Moscow to St. Petersburg right now, their very first. And you still drive on gravel when you try to drive from Moscow to Vladivostok. But on this larger issue of how we deal with the Chinese. First of all, with respect. This is not a civilisation that's going to accommodate easily to hectoring or lecturing from us. The Chinese are profoundly conscious of their history and culture, and with justification.
I should really continue with this maybe tomorrow because China isn't ruling China, China was set up by the West and it's still being managed by guys like Brzezinski and others of his kind, who deal with them. We set up the modern China and we didn't know it.
That's it from Hamish and myself tonight. From Ontario Canada, it's goodnight and may your God - or your gods - go with you.
Transcribed by Bill Scott.
"Tragedy and Hope" by Carroll Quigley.
"Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution" by Anthony Sutton.
"America and the World" by Zbigniew Brzezinski.