July 13th, 2009 (#362)
Alan Watt "Cutting Through The Matrix" LIVE on RBN:
Poem Copyright Alan Watt July 13th, 2009:
World Fabians -- Wolves in Sheep's
"Experts at Top Using Mass Psychology
To Depopulate Planet, Guise--Ecology,
They'll Save Us from Our Blunders,
Using Science Techniques to Reduce Our Numbers,
World Socialism has Changed its Guise,
Yet Still Detected by the Wise,
Follow Signs and Symptoms of Disease,
Diagnosis Comes with Ease,
They Rise to Power with Scary Predictions,
We Need Antibiotics, Pass Round the Prescriptions"
© Alan Watt July 13th, 2009
Poem & Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt - July 13th, 2009 (Exempting Music, Literary Quotes, and Callers' Comments)
Hi folks, I'm Alan Watt, and this is Cutting Through the Matrix on July the 13th, 2009. For newcomers look into cuttingthroughthematrix.com, and on the website, you'll see all the other sites I have up there, which you should bookmark for future use, because I have had trouble with the major sites in the past, just pulling me for reasons they can never explain. However it puts me back, sometimes weeks to try and catch up, and upload stuff that I've missed out on. And therefore, I'm sure there will be more problems in the future, as they start tightening the noose, with all their different laws, and so on. And harassment when they can't get you legally, harassment is just the way that the Big Boys lean on you. So, bookmark those ones. You'll find cuttingthrough.jenkness.com, cuttingthroughthematrix.net, .us, .ca, alanwattcuttingthroughthematrix.ca, and also alanwattsentientsentinel.eu. The last one you can find there's some written transcripts in different languages of Europe, also along with the audios of my talks, and you can download these for free. And I try to give you the shortcuts to the big picture, and it's a huge massive picture. I can't give all the shortcuts because it would take I don't know how many lifetimes to do so. We always catch on to some of the cons and the scams, and we can get a pretty good idea of how it all works, and how it networks together, but we'll never know everything that goes on. We're the last ones to really, truly get a hold of the real ultimate truth on anything.
It's like the advisor to President Wilson, Colonel Mandell House, he said, for everything that happens in politics, he says, there's a very good reason. They give you a good or a plausible reason, and then he said, and then there's the real reason. And that's for those in the know at the top. So we at the bottom try to wade our way through all the data, masses of data, and occasionally here and there, through an old dusty book, you'll find a paragraph or two that suddenly hits you when it fills in a big blank in your histories, and shows you how things really, really operate. So go into cuttingthroughthematrix.com and help yourselves to all the info that's there. And you also must remember, that you the listeners bring me to you, I don't ask for money from the advertisers. The advertisers on this show pay RBN direct for the time, for the equipment, for their bills, and technicians and so on, and it's up to you to keep me going by donating to me. You'll find out how to do it at cuttingthroughthematrix.com or any of those sites. You can also buy the books and so on I have for sale. That's what keeps me ticking, just about ticking over. The discs of course are burned, and many people play them on their CDs because they've either packed up with their computers or they haven't got any in the first place, which is maybe a wise thing, since it's a temporary set for most of us. You can always get in touch with me [listed above]. And also on the Sentient Sentinel site you'll find that I have various translators who do an incredible job. It's a lot of work translating, especially at the start, when they're not really too used to it. Then they get in the hang of things, and then it speeds up, so anyone who wants to try their hand at translating, into various languages, and they can always take it off the initial English one if they want to and transpose it. You can get in touch with me as well, by emailing [listed above]. Anyway, back with more after this break.
Hi folks, I am Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through the Matrix. For some time I've gone on about the big plan for depopulation, and how it's run. And how it's always put out under deceptive guise, by very powerful, very, very powerful rich groups that network together. The big foundations, that often have members in governments and when they're not in government they're back working with the foundations. So they have their own agendas of which they push, when they're in politics, and then they're advisors to politicians once they're actually in. And this goes back a long time, under the guise of Socialism. Socialism is one term for all of this, but a long time ago they realized that it didn't really matter what term it was. The whole idea of Socialism or Communism is really where government is in charge of all the means of production. It's in charge of the wealth of the people. Everything is really held by the state, on behalf, of course, of the people, who have to go up cap in hand to use anything. That's the idea of Socialism. It's a dominant minority that will have total control over not just countries but the world. The Fabian Society was only one of a whole bunch of very important groups that really were all branches of the one organization. An organization that started up, at least we can see this part of it starting up with Cecil Rhodes, and then blending with the Rhodes foundation with the Lord Milner Society, the big Lord Milner Group, that was comprised of big bankers, including Milner himself, who was a banker. And how they became the Royal Institute for International Affairs, also called the Council on Foreign Relations. The same guys who drafted up the charts for amalgamation of the Americas, who came out openly on television in Canada, on National Television, CBC, and basically said they were the ones who were behind this amalgamation, so that we could compete with Europe, and they were also of course behind the whole amalgamation of Europe as well. They plan the centuries.
Well, under the guise of saving the world from global warming, climate change, and all the other scary things that are out there today, these are the guys, they're bringing in Socialism. That's really what it is. Where big foundations work with governments, taking over land, taking over under guises of ecology, saving the spotted owl, or whatever it happens to be. And there's a very good video up there, I'll put the link up at the end of my show to the video, and it's been out for a few years, but it shows you the techniques that they use. And you'll even realize that some of these big (what you think are) Wildlife Conservation Societies are actually massive real estate companies with multi-million, maybe billion dollar investments. And they also have grass roots movements, the ones that are conned at the bottom, the naive little teenagers that walk around with tin cans to save things and so on. Well at the top they can send out 400 people into an area and ask to buy their houses or their land, and if you don't comply they report you to the EPA, because you can pull strings, and the EPA comes along and says, oh, gee, you know, this is wrong with your house, that's wrong with your house, we can fine you etc. So your house is either taken from you, or it's devalued, and guess who buys it? These big conservation societies. And then they double or triple the price and sell it to the government, that then turns the whole area into a park. That's how it works. You'll even hear in that, Behind the Green Curtain, this particular one, how it's done. And the big foundations including, you'll hear Rockefeller's name mentioned too, how the con works. And you'll see some of the victims, and you'll hear some of the victims tell their stories of what's happened to them. Nothing is ever as it seems. And I keep telling people, if you follow some organization you're being used, definitely at the bottom level. Definitely at the bottom. Because all you are is a cheering team, or a demanding team that goes out and pickets and parades. And you have no idea of the big con at the top, with the multi-millionaires' play. None at all. Zilch.
Part of the whole movement in Socialism of course is a planned society and eugenics, getting the right type of people to be born, and eliminating the possibilities of the wrong type getting born. Very old agenda, well discussed, all down through the last 150 years or more, and well published. Under different guises they always come back, now it's called bioethics; they're into bioethics, which is a nice name for eugenics. They're the ones who supposedly have the right to advise how far science can go in human cloning, etc. Which means to them all the way, obviously. But to the public you think, no these guys are there to safeguard our rights and interests, so they don't go too far and create monsters, and eliminate us in the process. That's how another con works you see.
You'll find with every new regime in government that's put in, it takes a while for people to catch on, especially the ones who vote, and are true believers in whoever they think they put in there. I say who they think they put in there because it's always appointed and decided beforehand by the big power brokers. It isn't until they start making appointees, and you see who they are, that you start to catch on to the same Socialist agenda. Remember, as I say, Norman Dodd's report on the Reece Commission back in the 50s, when he was told by the big foundations, like the Ford, and so on, Carnegie, and Rockefeller, their job was to blend the Soviet system with the West. And there would be a new system that would come out, the Third Way, where the two come together. Well that's happened really, and many of the people that you talk about, it was actually the same then too. The reason for the investigation was they wanted to know why all these big multi-billionaires with their charitable trusts and foundations seemed to be funding what seemed to be all Communistic, Soviet type causes. Really as I say, the real name is Socialism. There's a lot of control freaks out there and they love power. They gravitate to power, because they're psychopathic in nature. It's a natural thing for them. And then we find this too. People think they're always, it's an amazing thing when you think you're the underdog, or you are the underdog, and you think you're being given rights. Everybody's got a chip on their shoulder, and here's someone speaking for you. Everybody gets up in arms and cheers a verdict in court or something, because it's going to (you think) give you more rights or freedoms. Just like I say, the big environmental movements. Same thing, they're going to help the animals. There's always another reason behind things, a real reason.
Everyone's heard of the Roe vs Wade case. Everyone's heard of it. And this is from CNSNews.com, and it was an interview they gave with Judge Ginsburg. This is what she said:
She Originally Thought Roe v. Wade Was Designed to Limit 'Populations That We Don’t Want to Have Too Many Of
July 10, 2009
By Christopher Neefus
U.S. Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Bryer chat before President Barack Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress on Capitol Hill in Washington.
(Alan: Blah, blah, blah.)
In an interview to be published in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she thought the landmark Roe v. Wade decision on abortion was predicated on the Supreme Court majority's desire to diminish “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.
(A: And everybody else thought, well it's down to a personal choice for women. It's a political policy. That's what it was. Here's what she said:)
she thought the landmark decision on abortion was predicated
(A: Predicated, right)
on the Supreme Court majority's desire to diminish “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
90-minute interview. She also gave some talk about this in the Times. Back in a minute with more on this particular area, or in this area.
Hi folks, I'm Alan Watt, and we're Cutting Through the Matrix. Just mentioning this article from CNSNews.com, concerning Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and her commenting on what she thought and what the Supreme Court thought the Roe vs Wade decision was based on. Well, everyone at the bottom level is taught that it's about this actual action, court action between this and that, and of course it would bring in rights to do with it, particular individual rights and so on. That's what the public think. But here's a Supreme Court Justice telling you that she thought the landmark Roe vs Wade decision on abortion was predicated, predicated remember, on the Supreme Court's majority desire to diminish populations that we don't want to have too many of. Now the Supreme Court is supposed to be, according to all that we're told, and what's written about them and so on, that they're really non-political, supposedly. Their job is to judge cases and bills, and so on, against the Constitution. See if this can be done, or not done. If they desire, the Supreme Court majority's desire to diminish populations they don't want to many of, there's a different kettle of fish. This is a social policy here. You see. That's the telling part there. As I say, there's always a real reason, a real reason, and it wasn't about personal rights, at all. That's how the people are used and abused. They have no idea that it's even happening.
Here's an article here, from Spiked magazine, and it says:
Who’s afraid of billions of people?
In the run-up to the UN’s World Population Day, spiked argues against all attempts to cajole, coerce or convince people into having fewer kids.
(A: I always say children, because a kid is a young goat, and I don't want to dehumanize young people. And this is:)
9 July 2009
It is UN World Population Day on Saturday 11 July, when various United Nations bodies will try to convince us that population growth is the cause of much of the planet’s economic and environmental crises. Here, we publish an edited version of a speech given by spiked editor Brendan O’Neill in London on 3 July, in which he argued against all attempts to curb human numbers.
(A: And then he tells you, this actual journalist tells you.)
Today, I want to argue that there should be absolutely no limits on population growth and no attempt whatsoever to cajole, coerce or convince people into having fewer children. I hope that in my lifetime the human population on Earth will reach the tens of billions, and it will not be a problem if, in the future, it rises to hundreds of billions.
The reason I say this is because our attitudes to the population level fundamentally reflect our attitudes to human ingenuity. The population debate is frequently dressed up in demographic and scientific clothing, but really it is a political issue, reflecting different political attitudes. Where you stand on population today tells us a lot about where you stand on the idea of progress, of civilization, and of humanity itself.
It’s worth asking what drives the population-control and population-reduction lobby. These people have been around for a few centuries and their arguments have changed over time. For one of the first population scaremongers, Thomas Malthus in the eighteenth century, the main problem was that if too many people were born then there wouldn’t be enough food to feed them.
(A: That's the excuse he gave)
He vastly underestimated the ability of industrialized society to create more and more food.
(A: Malthus, also, remember, worked for the top Crown corporations that ran the East India Company and all the other companies that they had at the top. Which were actually owned by Royalty and all the elite in Britain. They had already in their plantations, they were already using eugenics for breeding slaves, you now, particular sizes, fit healthy slaves, but they didn't want too bright, that was all part of it too, so they fed them special diets and so on. So there's more to it then just numbers you see. It's about too many of them getting up there, and then getting out of hand, losing control of them. Malthus himself was the first one to use all these graphs that are very impressive, but mean nothing at all. They're supposed to scare you, and all his projections turned out wrong. All of them. We were supposed to be piled about 6 deep by about 1900 according to him. It never happened. So they always use fake figures, graphs and statistics to cajole and fear you into what they want you to feel. It says:)
In the early twentieth century there was a racial and eugenic streak to population-reduction arguments: some claimed that there were too many Africans and Asians, who might weaken the power of white European nations.
More recently, the population-control lobby has adopted environmentalist arguments.
(A: Very important, because as I say, that ties in with Socialism and the government will take control of everything, including all the land, which is happening.)
It now says that too many people are demanding too much of Mother Earth, using up all of her resources and destroying her biodiversity. Some greens even refer to humans as a ‘plague on the planet’ and a ‘pathogenic organism’. In other words, humanity is a disease making the planet Earth sick.
You see. So he goes through this argument, and then he has an answer, and I'll put these links up so you can read them for yourself. And he's got it on his magazine too, Spiked.
There's an answer by the Optimum Population Trust, you know that bunch that are behind Prince Charles and the speech he gave last week, on the same topic, on how we must reduce the population. What they really mean again, is they don't want the wrong type overpopulating. The wrong type. So the Optimum Population Trust, another big charitable, charitable philanthropic organization that's in league with all the abortion clinics across the planet, because they help fund them, they gave a reply, and I'll read this reply when I come back from this break.
This is Alan Watt, we're Cutting Through the Matrix. I'm going to read an article on Spiked magazine, and it was a reply from the Optimum Population Trust to this particular Spiked reporter, and this is what it says. Now again, the Optimum Population Trust have centers across the planet. Again, massive funding, big foundations and all that. And they have the ear of politicians, in fact they might even have boards on politics I think in Britain, members of the board on the actual politicians boards for government. And here they are, a private organization, with an agenda, a Socialist agenda, another agenda altogether from the one they talk about. And this is what they said.
On 1 April 2009, Brendan O’Neill reported from the Optimum Population Trust’s conference in London. Below, Adrian Stott, a trustee of the OPT, responds.
Spiked editor Brendan O’Neill attended the recent ‘Environmentally Sustainable Populations’ conference, put on by the Optimum Population Trust (OPT). According to his report on spiked on 1 April, he didn’t enjoy it. Not because of the scary picture the event painted, because the one he described was quite different. No, it was the characteristics of the speakers and the audience that really upset him.
(A: What he means by that, I suppose, and I've seen this before with these characters, everyone's so fanatical about bringing down the population, it's like being in the middle of a Nazi rally or something. And remember the business suits are really the Nazi uniforms of today. There's more slaughter being done because of orders given by guys in suits and ties at the heads of countries than uniforms ever caused. It says here:)
Of course, putting one’s own words into a messenger’s mouth, and then shooting him, can be much easier than dealing with his real message.
(A: That's Prince Charles' backers)
actually welcomes being taken to task, especially on matters of principle. If it can’t justify its positions, then it accepts that it should change them. However, it does get frustrated when it is accused of espousing views that it actually opposes,
(A: There's your hypocrisy again.)
or is condemned based on information that is irrelevant or simply wrong.
(A: When it comes to population and bringing the population down, nothing is irrelevant in the conversation. Nothing.)
Yet from conversations I have had with O’Neill, I have found that he and I actually share many principles; I don’t understand why he doesn’t see that, too.
(A: Now that's standard with groups, when they do these, getting on board with consensus idea. They say, never mind the differences, let's see what we have in common. And then they build from there. Before you know it, you've just been taken over, that's how they do it. It's a technique. It's taught. So he starts, he says with:)
Earth’s human population is already at a level well in excess of that which the eco-system can sustain. In other words, in each period we are now using up more natural resources than the environment produces. We are spending all our biological income, and then running down the capital to cover the rest of our consumption. Do that for too long, and the capital runs out.
(A: So they're using all this stuff you're hearing in the media about the incessant mantras of sustainability, and it goes on to do with the fishing industry.)
Perhaps the clearest example of this is fish. We are now catching a significantly greater weight of many species each year than the living stock grows.
(A: Now if that was true, how could you catch a greater weight of the fish, than is being produced by the fish? Anyway, never mind the facts.)
The result is that the average age of many such fish has dropped substantially, and we are now catching only youngsters because they never get the chance to grow big.
(A: So this is like fact he's giving you, but he doesn't give you any data to show it. This is standard with them.)
For years, deceptively bumper catches were presented by the fishing industry, driven by the ever-rising price of landed fish, as evidence that no reductions in take are needed. Then, suddenly, there are no longer enough fish alive to make up a year’s take, and the fishery abruptly collapses.
(A: No. The fishing industries were closed down, even in Canada, by orders of government. And after many years, where they're allowing foreign fish in trawlers, deep fishing trawlers where they scour the bottoms to scour the lands or the seas of Nova Scotia, etc., but they weren't allowing the Canadians to do it. That's what really did it. And most fish now that we're getting have been raised in these farms anyway, for years. Farms. So then he goes on to this:)
Climate change is occurring because we are putting pollutants into the atmosphere faster than it can clean itself.
(A: Even though we have no factories left in the Western hemisphere almost. Hardly a thing left. We've got cleaner air than we've ever had before, and rivers, etc. But facts don't matter when there's an agenda here you see. So he gives us the fear language.)
Our over-consumption has already badly damaged many of the very systems that keep us alive. And our numbers are still growing fast.
Now, the U.N.'s other part of its own mouth, will give you the stats every year on the declining male in the Western world and with sterility. They'll also give you from all the census directors of the different countries, they'll give you the falling populations of the people, the native peoples of those countries. And they'll also tell you that increased immigration is the only way that the population is getting up and appears to be growing. It's immigration, has been for years and years and years and years. And Maggie Thatcher, remember, when she was in office said the reason she was opening the floodgates from India, or to India, in immigration was because there weren't enough people being born in Britain to pay off the National Debt. So it's all nonsense what this guy's saying but nonsense doesn't matter, when it's a familiar mantra. And all these things he's talking about are familiar mantras. Because they all have an agenda. Why do they exist? Why does it exist? He also mentions the fact that there'd been a lot of criticisms of the Optimum Population Trust because there's so many, sort of older white men on the board. What he's really meaning is the upper crust in Sirs and so on. And there are. They've always been, it's always upper elite there. They've been worried about the peasantry. Too much peasantry, just like Malthus. You see. That's what it's really about.
And this goes on to the next one too. You see the same groups, the same massive movement, really Socialism under many guises. Socialism, again, is a dominant minority running, not just countries, but the World. And the Fabian Society was to take it over from within governments, slow, slow, intergenerationally across the world, and bring in a world governmental system of legislation. A World Government, basically. Wells talked about it. He also was a eugenicist, and wanted to cull down the useless eaters. Read his book, his book, a sort of novelistic idea of how the utopia would be in the future, once they'd sterilized all the bad quality ones. He says that in his book, A Modern Utopia. Read it, because he was just parroting his predecessors, and many that came after him, working for the same organizations, parrot him. It never changes. So they tried, the same groups you see, tried before they came up with Animal Rights, and the Spotted Owl, and some odd frog that might or might not exist at all in many places, and took farms away and so on. And I'll say it once again, go and see that video, Behind the Green Curtain, excellent, excellent video to see.
Here's what they were using back in the 1970s. The same guys who are now writing books on Global Warming, etc, here's what they were saying in the 1970s. This is from Time magazine. It's from their archives.
June 24th 1974.
Another Ice Age?
(A: See how they set up the imagery for you by the wording they use)
drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries.
(A: In centuries, there you go.)
In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone's recollection.
As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades.
(A: I guess they've forgotten all this stuff, when they give us all the modern stuff, eh?)
The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.
Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest. Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since.
Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.
Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa's drought. By blocking moisture-bearing equatorial winds and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, as well as other drought-ridden areas stretching all the way from Central America to the Middle East and India, the polar winds have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the south. Paradoxically, the same vortex has created quite different weather quirks in the U.S. and other temperate zones. As the winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast. The collision of air masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent storms—the Midwest's recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example.
Wow. Wow. That's what they had back then. And all the Big Boys at the United Nations went into churning out books on the coming Ice Age, the coming Ice Age, Oh My God, the polar caps are just thickening at such a rate. We're all going to freeze to death, you see. And they were also shouting that the government wasn't doing enough about it. Just like they're doing today. They get the public at the bottom to shout, Help Us, Save Us.
This is from a website called Sweetness and Light. And it's got an article here from 1975, from Newsweek magazine. This is from 28 April 1975 issue of Newsweek Magazine :
The Cooling World
(A: See how they're all getting in on it at the same time.)
By Peter Gwynne
28 April 1975
There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production — with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas — parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia — where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually.
During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree — a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.
(A: And then they go into the National Academy of Science and Food and so on, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and once again, they're indicating that we're going to be covered in snow form now on. This is back in the 1970s.)
According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
(A: Then they go on to sort of placate the layman)
To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading.
(A: Then he goes on to tell you how but to the scientists they're now going into the temperatures of the great Ice Ages)
...the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras — and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average.
Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 — years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
So then they go on to the experts, and scientists, and all the catastrophes that the coming Ice Age was going to bring, you see. I'll put these links up for you to have a little peak at. It's just astonishing. And I've also got a link to a whole bunch of older articles to do with coming Ice Ages, etc. that was mainstream, and it shows you the same technique that the mainstream was using at that time, that they're using right now with the scientists all on board, only they've changed it to Global Warming, now it's just Climate Change, you see, etc. Which is very safe as Climate Change, it means the weather is always changing. You can't go to far wrong with that. Not too far.
Another one to do with the topic, because these are all tied together you see, total control of government over the world, depopulation, etc, and this also ties in with someone that Obama has on his staff, John Holdren. John H-O-L-D-R-E-N. Holdren. Obama's science czar. Something he wrote in the 70s,
Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet
From a book he authored in 1977
(A: It's called a "Planetary Regime". You see he wants a Planetary Regime to be brought in, it should say.)
with the power of life and death over American citizens.
The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the person now in control of science policy in the United States? Or both?
Madman or Tyrant. Which is it? Or both. Back with more on this dualistic character, after this break.
This is Alan Watt, and we're Cutting Through the Matrix. Everyone should be terrified when you see who's being appointed because it's no coincidence that they start off with one, Sotomayor, and her comments, and go through the other techniques of, yeah, we must all sacrifice to save the world and so on. And then finish off with John Holdren, who wrote a book in 1977 where he advocated extreme totalitarian measures to control the population by abortion, etc. and sterilization. It says:
These ideas (among many other equally horrifying recommendations)
(A: this is from Zombie Blog, it's quite good)
were put forth by John Holdren, Barack Obama has recently appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy,
(A: Policy, remember.)
Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology -- informally known as the United States' Science Czar.
(A: They're using all these Post-Democratic terms now.)
In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of
science policy in this country wrote that:
• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
(A: He's missed the injections there, because they've already been doing that.)
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
(A: To Other Couples to Raise)
• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables)
(A: That's the undesirables, I've read the Cold Springs Harbor from the Eugenics Association that the Rockefellers and Carnegies were into. That's what they called it too.)
"can be required by law to exercise reproductive
responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be
• A transnational
(A: You see, international)
"Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy
(A: How will they do that? Through saving the environment, of course he doesn't say that, but that's what it is.)
and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using
an armed international police force.
Impossible, you say? That must be an exaggeration or a hoax. No one in their right mind would say such things.
(A: That's why they get away with it. We can't understand the psychopath, who's a real fanatic. The fanatical psychopath.)
Well, I hate to break the news to you, but it is no hoax, no exaggeration. John Holdren really did say those things, and this report contains the proof. Below you will find photographs, scans, and transcriptions of pages in the book Ecoscience.
(A: That's what he called it. The book is called Ecoscience by John Holdren)
co-authored in 1977 by John Holdren and his close colleagues Paul Ehrlich
(A: You remember Paul Ehrlich, that wonder guy, who also talked about the Coming Ice Age)
and Anne Ehrlich. The scans and photos are provided to supply conclusive
evidence that the words attributed to Holdren are unaltered and accurately
This report was originally inspired by this article in FrontPage magazine, which covers some of the same information given here.
(A: And it goes on, and on, and on about what it contains. But you'll see the pages, you'll see the direct quotes from John Holdren's Ecoscience. It's amazing, it's amazing. For instance it's got:)
Compulsory abortions would be legal
(A: Compulsory. It says:)
Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.
Who decides that? Guess who. Probably the same types that the one I started with, the Supreme Court Judge Ginsburg was talking about, The Supreme Court, if it's their policy, I suppose. That's how it's really done, isn't it. Boy, are we in trouble, and Hitler is a Boy Scout compared to the ones who are dominating the countries, and they're all working together on the same agenda in these days of change. That's it for tonight. So from Hamish and myself, from Ontario, Canada, where the sun never shines, except for a couple of days in the year, it's Good Night, and may your god or your gods go with you.
Topics of show covered in following links:
Video: "Behind the Green Curtain (Environmentalism used for Land Grabbing) - 39:32" - April 5, 2006.
"Justice Ginsburg Says She Originally Thought Roe v. Wade Was Designed to Limit 'Populations That We Don't Want to Have Too Many Of' " by Christopher Neefus (cnsnews.com) - July 10, 2009.
"Who's afraid of billions of people?" by Brendan O'Neill (spiked-online.com) - July 9, 2009.
"Why we need population reduction - A trustee of the Optimum Population Trust responds to Brendan O'Neill's report on their recent conference." by Adrian Stott (spiked-online.com) - April 20, 2009.
Spiked Online - Population Reduction, various Articles.
"Another Ice Age?" Time Magazine (time.com) - June 24, 1974.
"1975 Newsweek On The Coming Ice Age - The Cooling World" (at sweetness-light.com) - April 28, 1975.
"Today It's Global Warming; In the '70s It was the Coming Ice Age" by John Barnes (washingtonpolicy.org) - April 22, 2009.
"John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet" (zombietime.com).