"Cutting Through The Matrix" Live On RBN (#265)
Poem Copyright Alan Watt Feb. 26, 2009:
Propaganda and Lies Now Privatized:
"Daily News Scrolls
Past Your Eyes,
Stating Institutions Now Privatized,
While Same News, in All Hypocrisy,
Proclaims the Benefits of Democracy,
Where We are Free, Yet Every Letter
Is Recorded for Any Sign of Terror,
Tax-Funded R&D into Private High-Tech
With its Monitoring Makes Us All Suspect,
Learn from Children, They Want to Know
What the World's About, What Makes It So,
Don't Get Beat Down, Don't Bow So Low,
If Something Stinks, Just Say No!"
© Alan Watt Feb. 26, 2009
Thursday February 26th 2009
Poem & Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt - Feb. 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 February 2009.
I always advise newcomers to go into www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com and, on my website, you can download hundreds of hours of talks which I've given over the years, where I try to give you all the little blanks bits that are missing from the history books, to show you how the world is really run; and you can download them at your heart's content. There's a lot of data to assimilate; and sometimes, when you get on a quest for information, you have to discipline yourself to stick on the target, because there's so much extra data being thrown at us every single day, especially on the Internet and on regular media too. You have to discipline yourself in order to follow something, to understand it properly.
Also look into www.alanwattsentientsentinel.eu for transcripts of these talks, which you can download, print up and they're written in the various languages of Europe.
You can also buy my books and my CDS and DVDs on www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com website; and for those that want to donate, and that really keeps me going, you can find the donate buttons there as well.
It's an amazing thing, when you ask different people about reality and what reality is, because reality is defined by the time in which you live, it can actually be defined by the week in which you live, because sciences, great sciences define it all the time, and redefine it to us, very subtly, in various ways. The mainstream media does a big job of that, and coordinated programmes towards the public, such as the History Channel and so on, can give you completely distorted versions of the past. However, it doesn't happen by chance, because every distortion is meant to alter the way that you think or perceive about a certain topic, because, at the moment, in your real time, the 'big boys' are using similar tactics again, to change society along predetermined path.
Now, most of us live our lives never thinking beyond the next few years of what we want to do. It's hard for people to imagine that there are agencies; even governments themselves have departments which plan to go on for centuries, they plan ahead in centuries. The British office, the Home Office for Diplomacy, for diplomats, used to train them to go out across the world, as diplomats, and, literally, they'd work for centuries towards particular targets and goals, mainly to do with trade - and trade that would benefit a few corporations in London.
Foundations do the same thing, foundations can be set up with a mandate to cause a change in the future, two hundred years ago or so, even longer, and hire and work their workers, retire them, recruit, always with the same mandate. With unlimited funding, by the way, incredible funding; and, in that way, they shape the direction of society, because they have lobbyists, full-time lobbyists, that are to do with social changes within society; and they have the ears of politicians, and they also wine and dine in the same clubs too. They're not little tin can penny-gathering NGOs at the bottom, these are big Non-Governmental Organisations; some of them with their own tower blocks in cities.
This is how all forms of democracy were bypassed completely and there's a reason for this, which I'll go into tonight, we'll take the long view of history, to do with the states in which we live and to where it's supposed to go.
Back with more - after this break.
=== BREAK ===
Hi folks, this is Alan Watt, we're Cutting Through The Matrix; and before the break, I mentioned that society has different realities, depending also on the group level into which you have put yourself, or you were born into. It's of interest to look at the books put out by historians, the big historians, the ones who are members of think-tanks, even for the military, because they use them to a full extent to go over history and they also use philosophers as well, to try and get an idea of different times in history and, of course, you'll find in their books, even the ones they're churning out today, for people like Attali and others, they're all like clones of each other, because they all have the same exact agenda within them. What they're portraying is the evolution, from democracy to the new corporate world state, that's throughout all of them. They go through their histories, trying to rationalise this, saying: one time we were all tribal and nomadic and then we settled down to agriculture. Then you had city-states and then you had the wars in cities and then you got centralised national states; and then you had nations against nations - all under a feudalistic system, of course - and then you had this brief idea of democracy. However, like the Club of Rome has said, democracy was too cumbersome, there were too many competing parties, with their own particular special interests and they could never be satisfied, therefore they favoured Collectivism, which, again, is a form of Communism, under a feudalistic system, that’s really what they meant.
This ties in with Professor Carroll Quigley (in his book Tragedy & Hope) where he talked about the new system that they are bringing in, and that was written in the '60s. Remember too that he was talking on behalf of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, he said they're bringing in a new feudal system, world-wide; new feudalism, where the C.E.Os of corporations would be the new feudal overlords.
These big think-tanks, that had been on the go for years, working with governments, have everyone convinced that we must give up democracy, or the idea of it, even the idea has to be erased, and we have to bring in this new world system. The big military think-tanks are all on board with this agenda, they have said that there will be some very advanced cities, new cities in the world, very high tech / high civilisation. The cutting edge of everything, very powerful, with high-tech weaponry; therefore they couldn't be attacked, surviving in a world of wretchedness and poverty. That's the new feudal system they're talking about world-wide; and what we're experiencing now, is the end of any idea of democracy, as we go into this new feudal system.
Now, the United Nations was set up by these same foundations, as a stepping stone towards the next system. The United Nations is not a democratic institution; no one and no member of the general public votes anybody in. In fact, we didn't get a vote to see if we even wanted it in the first place; we've never been asked for the tax money that goes towards it, or any of its organisations. It runs on Collectivist thought, world-wide, which is really the standardisation of man and woman and child across the whole planet, regardless of culture ultimately; sameness, utter sameness. However, it's not supposed to just stop there, because, eventually, it'll be an arbiter of schisms and factions and friction between the big feudal world corporations that are coming into view.
I mentioned, last night, the old movie Rollerball, which wasn't dreamed up by some great Sci-Fi writer, as always, he belonged to the Futurist Society and they put into the movie everything that's coming up now; and just beyond now, in fact, because they even have a period in it where they called it the Corporate Wars, the real physical battles that went on, as these corporations battled it out to gain mastery over the world. We haven't got there yet; not far from it. Unless, you literally stand back and look what's happening today, because, what you see are private armies, where private armies are created because those at the top want to bypass any of the international agreements they've made. That's the reason they have private armies, they're not responsible to any Geneva Convention, they don't have to have any human side to them at all, they can be efficient killers; and they can go on massacres if they wish to. Who's going to take them to court? To what court do you take them? How can you take a corporation to court anyway? You can't get the individual people who run that company to stand in court. It's a fiction in itself. So, mercenary armies are the way of the future; at the moment they're using the tax-payers' money to fund what we think are national armies to help set up the groundwork for all these other boys to take over.
As I say, it doesn't matter whose book you look at today that's been churned out and literally from the big boys’ names, from Brzezinski to Attali etc., etc., you'd swear they were all written by the same ghost writer (and maybe they are): same terms; same buzzwords; same future scenario, all through them.
Because, as I say, the whole idea was taught, even up in academia, that democracy is something that now must be bypassed completely; this ties in with Thatcher's statement, and Quigley's statement, about a parallel government. A parallel government that was set up with ex-prime ministers and presidents across the world, who all know each other, that's what Thatcher said, who never retire and who are like Technocrats, they get the work done, behind the scenes. They public don't even know what's going on, so they don't get any praise for it, but they have the real power, they wield the true power, because they're not responsible or answerable to any public privatisation into the feudal system. Now, you think about it and take it one step further: in Attali's last book, he talks about a situation where everything is to be monitored, even the fluid that you drink will have nanotechnology in it, everything. You will have a chip and you will be monitored everywhere you go; that's the same in all of these books. Now, Attali has been the head of different world banks and departments of reconstruction, or banks of reconstruction, of Europe. The top advisor to the presidents of France; he's been a member of the United Nations, in different capacities, so he doesn't come out of these things lightly, he's in all the big think-tanks that are discussing and planning the future. When you take it that we're all being privatised and everything within countries is being privatised, there will be no countries as such, there will be Regions; and that's what the United Nations calls them now: Regions. It'll be like the old feudal days, when a king would bring in a bride from another country and her dowry was often one or two countries and everybody in them. That's how it will be, in the future. And if there's prosperity within a certain Region, you will go into the deal, as they make deals, and absorb corporations into themselves, you're part of the deal and everyone, and your children too, are part of that deal. That literally is what was being discussed a long time ago; and it's been discussed continuously to the present time and it's now out in their books.
So, all the way from cavemen to nomadic tribes to city-states, to national states to international war and all through feudalism, up to democracy, and now it's beyond democracy, into the private corporate world states. That, truly is what it's all about; and the other night, I read an article from an ex security chief, he's not ex security chief, he is security chief, because now they've privatised all the security services that are in bed with the big international corporations, especially the military-industrial complex. And they have the future all written for us, this is the guy - Omand - that said that you can't have any more privacy. Since 2001, we've had more and more taken away from us, to get us used to the idea, that was all to get us used to the idea, bit by bit, until he can come out now, it's time now, they've done all the poll studies and so on, they can now say: ‘yeah, you have no privacy and it's too cumbersome for us to get a job done with you having rights and privacy, so, there are no rights anymore’, simple as that. That's a monumental declaration that was given out because nothing will be the same from now on, even worse than it's been for the last seven years.
Here is from a newspaper, The Evening Standard, and a follow-up to that speech given by Omand. It says here:
Here comes Big Brother Britain – now stand up and fight for liberty
by Andrew Gilligan 26th of February 2009
YOU probably remember the famous lines of the anti-Nazi priest Martin Niemöller. First they came for the communists, he said, and he didn't speak out because he wasn't a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and he didn't speak out because he wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and he didn't speak out because he wasn't a Jew. Finally, they came for him, and there was no one left to speak out for him.
Britain will never be Nazi Germany. But in our steady march towards a police state, this could be something of a Niemöller moment. Until recently, perhaps even until now, New Labour ministers' mocking claim that civil liberties were a concern only for the "dinner party crowd" had some truth.
I'll read the rest of this story, after the following break.
=== BREAK ===
Hi folks, this is Alan Watt, we're Cutting Through The Matrix, reading an article from the Evening Standard, which is a reply to Omand's speech, the other day there, to do with taking away all the rights and freedoms and privacy of people, because they're just in the way of the security services, who just can't get their job done with having to deal with people's rights and trivia like that. It says here:
Ordinary people - the white ones, anyway - tended to approve of "crackdowns", ID cards and the rest. They believed nobody would ever come for them. These were measures against troublemakers, minorities, guys with beards and funny names. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear. But now they aren't just coming for other people. They're coming for everyone. They're coming for the innocent. They are coming for you.
In a report published yesterday by the Institute for Public Policy Research,
This, again, a private think-tank, you see, that deals with the big corporations and private armies and private intelligence services.
Sir David Omand, Whitehall's intelligence and security co-ordinator in the run-up to the Iraq war, discusses the active government proposals for "data-mining", where the private and personal data of everyone in the country - telephone records, emails, shop transactions, our very movements as tracked by number-plate recognition cameras and CCTV - is fed into giant computer banks to be analysed for "suspicious" activity.
"Such sources have always been accessible to traditional law enforcement seeking evidence against a named suspect already justified by reasonable suspicion," says Omand. However, "application of modern data mining and processing techniques does involve examination of the innocent as well as the suspect to identify patterns of interest for further investigation ... Finding out other people's secrets is going to involve breaking everyday moral rules."
Which tells you, you see: these guys at the top have no morality, because they're going to break all everyday moral rules. He says:
Privacy, in short, if Sir David and his colleagues like the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith have anything to do with it, is over.
Privacy is over.
He even says so ("modern intelligence access ... may have to be at the expense of some aspects of privacy"). Omand's paper is a model of the confusion that governs our new security state.
That's what they're calling it; it's a security state, isn't it?
He talks of safeguards but proposes only "a set of guidelines". He believes that the sacrifice of privacy is "greatly preferable to ... derogating from fundamental human rights". But under the European Convention, privacy is a fundamental human right and though there is a national security exception, this has been narrowly interpreted by the courts.
He speaks of the importance of maintaining "public trust in the essential reasonableness of UK police, security and intelligence activity".
How reasonable it is, isn't it? Very reasonable.
In the very week that British agents are revealed as apparently complicit in torture, talking about their "essential reasonableness" must surely be some sort of deep mandarin irony.
Omand speaks of the new electronic trawling-net as a means of countering terrorism but as he admits earlier in the paper, the Government has quietly redefined "national security" to include large numbers of threats (such as organised crime) which are not terrorist and which do not threaten our national security at all. We all know how anti-terror powers have already been used to spy on families suspected of cheating in their applications for a school place; Sir David's "guidelines" seem unlikely to protect us against that sort of abuse.
Indeed, it is hard to argue that even terrorism seriously threatens our security as a nation. In the past decade, terrorists have killed 146 people in the UK (87 of them in Northern Ireland and almost all the rest on 7/7), a decline of 88 per cent since the 1980s. Attacks may be deadlier but they are far, far less frequent; in the more than seven years since 9/11, a time of unprecedented Western-Muslim tension, there have been just two "al Qaeda" attacks causing loss of innocent life in the entire Western world. In Britain, hospital super bugs kill more of us every four days than al Qaeda has managed in its entire existence.
And there's many more die on the roads.
It is doubtful indeed whether the new powers will reduce the frequency of such attacks. They will simply swamp the agencies with unmanageably large amounts of data. The Government is adding an enormous haystack to its collection of needles. Besides, any terrorist worth the name will be careful not to leave an electronic trail or will leave a false one: it is only the innocent who have anything to fear.
Well, of course the reason for that is because it's nothing to do with terrorism at all, that's the reason. There is a reason for it. He says:
That this is a measure specifically targeted at the innocent, and at our privacy, may finally be enough to stir the British public.
Well, I wish something would stir them.
As a people we have traditionally never been that bothered about "civil liberties" but a million leylandii hedges testify how strongly we feel about privacy. To attack it is to assault the G-spot of Middle England.
Things are stirring already: this Saturday, in London and across the country, an event called the Convention on Modern Liberty will represent perhaps the most concerted coming-together yet by people concerned about the destruction of our democratic way of life. (I am speaking at it, on press freedom - seriously threatened by the new database. If no communication is private, no confidential source will ever speak to a journalist again.)
Which is true, as well, I mean, they'll be monitoring everything, including your sources of information. It's astonishing, as I say, that people even accept how far we've gone already without this new legislation; and what happens in Britain, happens in the US a week or two later, always.
Back with more - after this break.
=== BREAK ===
Hi folks, this is Alan Watt and we're Cutting Through The Matrix, getting sense out of what really is happening today, because it doesn't make sense to most people, it's not meant to really; and if it doesn't make sense to people, they tend to switch off mentally and go along with the flow, that's how it works. It's intentional, it's psychological warfare. People are becoming stirred at last, at least in some areas of the world, as to what's happening; and asking the right questions for the first time, such as ‘Why do you need to know every darn thing that I do? What is that to you?’ Just to finish this article off, this journalist says:
The simple fact is that some things are worse than terrorism, and the Big Brother database is one of them. Even in the highly unlikely event that it could work, even if it could help reduce attacks, I would rather keep my privacy and take my chances. I would rather run the absolutely minute risk of being blown up than have my privacy blown away.
Throughout our history, we have always believed that liberty is worth some risk. In the Second World War, millions risked their lives for liberty; hundreds of thousands gave their lives. Now, when the risk is by comparison so much smaller, the death toll so comparatively tiny, we are shamed and surprised by our rulers' surrender to repression.
Well, as I say: there's a reason for it, it's nothing to do with terrorism at all. It's to do with the chaos that will ensue as they bring us into this new world order, this privatised world system and the chaos that will ensue from many different areas, from food shortages etc and the fact they don't need us all to work in their factories anymore. That's why they have to know what we're all doing all of the time. In a totalitarian system, they must have everyone down as being predictable, they must know every single one of you, what your habits and traits are, your daily routines are, your circle of friends, who you talk to on the phone, to make sure that you're always predictable; and if you're not one day, they'll be coming to pick you up. I'm not kidding about that, that's what it's coming down to.
It was interesting too, a couple of days ago, or two or three days ago, I read an article from Carroll, in I think it was Iowa, how they were going to do these exercises with the guards going house to house, pretending that they were on an exercise, supposedly in the Middle East, which is utter nonsense. There were so many emails into the people into the guardsmen, they've had to cancel it, not too happily it seems. At least there are still people out there who are willing to complain and say "no". It's something we should all learn, in fact, we should all teach our children, instead of telling them or spanking them if they say "no", encourage them to say "no", it's a good word to learn to use, "no". And that way, especially to dress up like a politician or a bureaucrat or someone who's official and get them to say "no", so that it's ingrained in them whenever they meet authority in the future, they'll say "no". That's what we should be doing, "no", simple like that. That might change the world.
This is from Reuters from February the 12th 2009:
U.S. may need a larger Afghan troop increase: experts say
You know those wonderful experts. Bertrand Russell said that we shall make the expert a holy word, until the people can't do anything without the advice of experts. All you have to do now is say "experts" and we don't question who, what expert? Who? What makes them an expert? You see, we're so conditioned already.
By David Morgan:
The United States may need a military build-up in Afghanistan larger than the one President Barack Obama is considering, experts said on Thursday. The analysts, in testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives, said a larger U.S. force could be necessary to turn the tide against the Taliban so long as reluctant NATO allies and a nascent Afghan army are unable to field major reinforcements.
"We must provide most of the additional troops, advisers and resources to reverse the situation," Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies
Another private think-tank.
told the House Armed Services Committee in written testimony.
Here you are, again, here's another private think-tank, telling the military what to do.
"It may well be that the current proposals for 30,000 more U.S. troops are the bare minimum necessary," he said.
There you go, they're going at it again. You know, Britain was there in the 1700 and 1800s, in Afghanistan. Everybody's gone into Afghanistan to try and change, to subdue them and their way of life; and you see, democracy doesn't work there. It has never worked there; they don't want this thing called ‘democracy’. I call democracy the 'plastic theory' because they keep redefining democracy. They're still calling Britain a democracy and the US a democracy and Canada a democracy, as we're under totalitarianism; they still call it democracy, because we can vote for somebody. So could the Russians in the Soviet Union, you could vote for Politburo 1, 2, 3 or 4.
That was from Reuters. Here's a good little article here, from a website that's called Not by Fire but by Ice, www.iceagenow.com. It says:
Oops. We overlooked 193,000 square miles of ice
To do with the ice melting at the North Pole.
19 Feb 09 – The ice is melting! The ice is melting! . . . Or is it?
In May, 2008, the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) predicted that the North Pole would be ice-free during the 2008 melt season because of ‘global warming.’ Today, they admitted that they’ve underreported Arctic ice extent by 193,000 square miles (500,000 square kilometers). They blamed the error on satellite problems and sensor drift.
Can you believe that they missed 193,000 square miles? Just didn't notice it, because it didn't fit in with the theory you see; and everything's got to fit in with the theory of global warming, hasn't it? It says here:
And we’re supposed to trust these people?
193,000 square miles!
That’s the size of Maine, Vermont, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and West Virginia combined! And toss in Washington, D.C. for good measure.
Let’s watch the newspapers. If a pimple of ice smaller than a city should break off an ice sheet, they'd holler to the high heavens. But do you think they’ll report this discovery of 'lost' ice the size of 10 states?
As opposed to the NSIDC information, AMSR-E data - compiled in cooperation with the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency and the Advanced Earth Science and Technology Organization of Japan - shows that sea ice extent in 2009 is running ahead of 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. Perhaps the NSIDC’s prediction of an ice-free north pole is premature.
There you go with that nonsense again, you see, they actually miss out all that to make their theory fit. Truth doesn't matter, you see the theory is of prime importance. Do you know the whole global warming theory and the CO2 problem supposedly causing it was written by one man, one paper was written and every other paper has been taken from that paper, as though it was some new holy bible, because it's a must-be, to control us for the future. And here's an interesting follow-up to that, because it's from the Register, it's about Japan who are thinking for themselves. This is 25th February 2009, it says:
Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made
They even claim, in a ridicule they say Climate science is just like 'ancient astrology', that's them mocking it you see, that's really something for the Japanese to be that hard, they're very polite.
Exclusive Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the UN and Western-backed hypothesis of climate change in a new report from its Energy Commission. Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN's IPCC
The IPCC, remember, is made of all these guys, not all scientists either, who are all on board for climate change because they're getting well-paid for it.
They disagree with the IPCC view:
that recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Remarkably, the subtle and nuanced language typical in such reports has been set aside. One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to ancient astrology. Others castigate the paucity of the US ground temperature data set used to support the hypothesis, and declare that the unambiguous warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century has ceased.
The report by Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) is astonishing rebuke to international pressure, and a vote of confidence in Japan's native marine and astronomical research. Publicly-funded science in the West uniformly backs the hypothesis that industrial influence is primarily responsible for climate change, although fissures have appeared recently. Only one of the five top Japanese scientists commissioned here concurs with the man-made global warming hypothesis.
JSER is the academic society representing scientists from the energy and resource fields, and acts as a government advisory panel. The report appeared last month but has received curiously little attention.
Well, the media’s just not wanting to touch this one at all.
So The Register commissioned a translation of the document - the first to appear in the West in any form. Below you'll find some of the key findings - but first, a summary.
I think there's four pages in all, which you can look up, it's quite fascinating, because they're using their own observations and their own facts, to denounce this farce of global warming. How could you miss a 193,000 square miles? You know something too, I was reading another article where they were mentioning that during the whole Cold War era, Russia had thousands of weather stations across the whole of Siberia, now they're down to about four; and so all of those other ones are simply ignored, they're not producing any data; but if they were, we'd still be up there freezing again. Every trick in the book has been pulled, to con the public into this new religion of global warming and panic etc and how we've all got to change our ways and pay big bucks. This new penance that we have to pay for carbon taxes, all this rubbish; and that's what it is, it's a new religion that's been dreamed up. Interestingly, again, in Attali's book, he talks about the creation of a new religion, the same as Gorbachev. We're all part of the big eco-system and we're going to have to pay for it, we have to pay for it, you see; and we will pay and pay into the grave, we'll pay. And the money won't go anywhere near what they tell you it's supposed to go towards. Everything is a scam, to benefit the elites, every darn thing that's out there today. Quite something.
Now, Tony Blair - and I mentioned before - had given a talk and I put the link up there, you can hear him talking about it, where he's talking about the coming yahoos of the future, you know, all the troublemakers; and how they'd have to go into the womb to rectify them, to rectify all these problem-makers, in the British Society and elsewhere. He's not the only one, every country's got their 'Blair' pushing this particular agenda; and Julian Huxley was talking about this, back in the 1930s. You see how long the agenda's been in the works? All of these agendas started a long time ago. This is from the year 2000, Thursday 6th of July:
Blair's son 'drunk and incapable'
Euan, third from left, with the Blairs on a family holiday.
Prime Minister Tony Blair's 16-year-old son Euan has been arrested for being drunk and incapable. The teenager, who was celebrating the end of his GCSE exams, was found by police officers in Leicester Square, in London's West End, at about 2300 BST on Wednesday. The incident comes just days after Tony Blair suggested on the spot fines for drunken and disorderly behaviour. In a speech on Thursday, Mr Blair said being a father was tougher than being prime minister and "sometimes you don't always succeed". An ambulance had to be called after Euan was discovered vomiting on the pavement, but paramedics decided there was no need for the teenager to go to hospital. Instead, he was taken to Charing Cross police station where he initially gave a false name. Then, when they found out who he was, they let him go home.
You see, in such utopias, some people are more equal than others. He didn't get fined on the spot. He didn't get a little chitty saying they might have to go into his gene code to rectify him; or, perhaps alter his sperm, so he doesn't produce another yobbo, like himself. It's astonishing isn't it? Absolutely astonishing what truly is happening, in this day and age, in this world.
This is from Sky News, now we've all been on about the fluoride and how it's one of the oldest tricks to dumb people down, it goes to their brain, it drops the IQ level. Lots of physical problems come out of it, brittle bones and so on; but they're determined to keep us all poisoned drunk and stupid. They've given us so many inoculations our IQ has dropped; we officially have new levels of IQ, same tests but a new normal, which is quite a few points lower than the old normal. We get sprayed from the skies on a daily basis, they have been constantly now, for ten years. Lots of trials before that, but for ten years onwards, we've had nothing but trails in the skies, generally in the mornings where I am and then you'll have a cough that you just can't clear up. They've modified the food, we're taking in ten times the pesticide that they can dump it on this particular food that's modified; and of course we see cancers become the normal. It makes perfect sense, for a long-term war strategy, when you want to depopulate, and these boys keep on screaming about too many people.
This is from Sky News:
Fluoride Will Be Added To City Tap Water
Health chiefs have agreed the controversial move of adding fluoride to the water supply of 195,000 people in Southampton and South Hampshire. Southampton Primary Care Trust argues it is the only way to reduce tooth decay in children across the city.
Even though that's never been proven.
But campaigners fear fluoride could have health risks, saying adding it to tap water amounts to mass medication.
Well, of course that is, remember what Huxley said, they want to medicate the people.
Five million people in England and Wales have been drinking water with added fluoride for several decades. But other water companies refused to add the chemical until its safety had been resolved.
It hasn't been done.
Now the Department of Health is putting pressure on the NHS [National Health Service] to use powers under the Water Act 2003 to demand water companies add the chemical.
I wonder who is getting paid off there. You know everything in government contracts is all pay-offs. I can remember the old Air Canada scandals when big government contracts went out for aircraft and top politicians and different people had to come out and say yeah this is the way it's done, there’s under the table deals done and back-handers, you know, cash in hand. That's the real world at the top, nothing like the propaganda we're given in the fictional movies and so on, that they constantly stream out to us. Nothing like that whatsoever. They're trying to kill us off and we sit there and watch our trivia and eat our altered burgers.
Back with more - after this break.
=== BREAK ===
Hi folks, this is Alan Watt and we're Cutting Through The Matrix, just mentioning before the break, how corrupt everything really has always been, it's just that we've been kept as children and fed lots of fantasy, through movies and dramas on television, to give us a fake idea of what things at the top are really all about.
You alter perception and the perception becomes the reality, not the truth, not the facts behind it. And it's always been like this, and the same corrupt boys, you see, the big monied boys and very old families that are simply moving on to their next world, the privatisation of everything, and running their world, a vastly-reduced world eventually, after 30 to 50 years, where they will have their little perfect high-tech city states, combined with their big corporations; they're even talking about having corporate wars literally, with their private armies fighting each other with high-tech robots and so on. And they mean all this and they can bring it off, because whenever we hear about something, they've been planning it for 50 years, or longer. They've always known where they were going; and that's why they have the parallel government, to get things done. Meanwhile, they use the tax-payers' money to bring their world into being for them, as they bump us off, on the way.
It says here, this is from Sky News:
Sir Fred Will Not Give Up £16.6m Pension Pot
That's a lot of money. This is the Royal Bank of Scotland, one of the big banks bailed out with the tax-payers' money. This guy who was the head of the company, during that time, is getting £16.6 million pension pot.
Former RBS boss Sir Fred Goodwin
Has to be a 'sir'.
says he will not forego his £693,000-a-year pension despite ministerial pressure to give it up.
Sir Fred has written to the Government to say he will not be handing back his £16.6m pension pot. The Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the Chancellor Alistair Darling have both called on the former bank chief executive to forego some of the money. And Mr Brown also said that legal action would be taken if necessary to claw some of the money back.
That won't happen.
In his letter to City Minister Lord Myners, Sir Fred wrote: "I am told the topic of my pension was specifically raised with you by both the Chairman of the Group remuneration committee, and the Group Chairman, and you indicated that you were aware of my entitlement and that no further 'gestures' were required."
‘No further gestures were required’. Well, that's happening over the US and Canada as well, in fact, I read an article about a week ago, or longer in fact, where the first big bailout was given and there's no enquiry into where it's going. Not only that, the banks are telling the commissions that gave them the money they don't have to tell them where it's going. What a deal eh? What a deal; and they're giving golden parachutes to these top pirates. It's almost like rewarding, well, it is rewarding them, isn't it, for being so incredibly successful in their piracy. Then, they literally smile all the way to the bank, they're the only ones who can. Incredible, incredible how we just live with this total corruption; and we allow these same people, mind you, these same people to set up a world-wide structure so they can watch everything about us, even what's in your fridge, eventually. Incredible, but, mind you, we're just livestock to them.
Well, that's the music; 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.
Topics of show covered in following links:
comes Big Brother Britain - now stand up and fight for liberty" by Andrew
Gilligan (thisislondon.co.uk) - Feb. 26, 2009.
"U.S. may need a larger Afghan troop increase: experts" by David Morgan (reuters.com) - Feb. 13, 2009.
"Oops. We overlooked 193,000 square miles of ice" (iceagenow.com) - Feb. 19, 2009.
"Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made" by Andrew Orlowski (theregister.co.uk) - Feb. 25, 2009.
"Blair's son 'drunk and incapable' " (news.bbc.co.uk) - July 6, 2000.
"Fluoride Will Be Added To City Tap Water" by Thomas Moore (news.sky.com) - Feb. 26, 2009.
"Sir Fred Will Not Forego £16.6m Pension Pot" (news.sky.com) - Feb. 26, 2009.