Nov. 15, 2010 (#707)
Alan Watt "Cutting Through The Matrix" LIVE on RBN:
Poem Copyright Alan Watt Nov. 15, 2010:
Governance -- Sovereign Subversion by Soft-Power Coercion:
"The Dominant Minority, Human Debaucher,
Used to Put on Displays of Ruthless Torture,
A King's Dread Symbol was His Tower,
Where He Exercised His "Hard Power",
Being "Force Unto Death" So His Seed
Would Inherit the Land, Satisfy Greed,
But in This Age, There's Much Reliance
On "Soft-Power" Agreements for Compliance,
With Professionals in Processes of the Mind
Aiding Dominant Minority in Ruling Mankind,
It's Been Growing for Over a Hundred Years,
Playing with Drives, Love-Hate, Fears,
Creating a Hybrid Out of Vast Variety,
A Compliant World-Citizen for "Great Society",
These Re-Engineered, Chemicalized Hybrids
Hear of Draconian Laws, Yet Flutter No Eyelids,
Plundered by Bankers, Never Complaining,
X-Rayed, Body-Searched, Need No Restraining,
Nor Need for Torture, Firebrand and Mace,
We've Soft-Power Professionals with Smiley Face"
© Alan Watt Nov. 15, 2010
Poem & Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt - Nov. 15, 2010 (Exempting Music, Literary Quotes, and Callers' Comments)
cuttingthroughthematrix.net , .us , .ca
|European site includes all audios & downloadable
TRANSCRIPTS in European languages for print up:|
Information for purchasing Alanís books, CDs, DVDs and DONATIONS:
Canada and America: PayPal, Cash, personal checks &
Outside the Americas: PayPal, Cash, Western Union and Money Gram
PayPal Orders: USE THE DONATE BUTTON ON THE WEBSITE Ė AND Ė
Hi folks. I am Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix on November 15, 2010. I always start off the show Ė to get it out of the way at the beginning Ė to tell folk, especially the newcomers, to look into cuttingthroughthematrix.com web site. When you are there scroll down and bookmark all the other sites listed because sometimes youíll find sticking when so many folk go into the .com site at the same time. So try these alternate sites that Iíve got listed; these are the official sites I have Ė the ONLY official sites I have. All of those sites have audios for download, of the talks Iíve given. They all have transcripts in English of a lot of the talks too, for print up. If you want transcripts in other languages go into alanwattsentientsentinel.eu and you can take your pick from a whole bunch of languages. You can print them up and pass them around to your friends, hopefully.
Remember that you are the audience that brings me to you. I donít take on the advertisers and live well off of it. Thatís how hosts make their living. Thatís okay too. Itís alright, but to an extent you can be kind of compromised as well. This gives me a freer hand to do what I want to do and say what I want to say, and I donít have to fool you at times by bringing on guests who are really selling something Ė so you are listening to a 15 minute, half hour or one hour ads. The ads you hear on this show are paid by the advertisers directly to RBN for the broadcast of the show; it pays for their equipment, their staff and their bills as well, which Iím sure are pretty hefty. So itís up to you to help me with mine and you can do so by donating or purchasing the books, CDs and DVDs that I have on my web sites. These are different books. They go through ancient history to the present Ė sometimes itís a bit comical in a sense Ė but itís written in such a way as to wake you up out of your lethargy. Because we have had sciences worked upon us since birth to keep us in the dark and to make us into very linear thinking people. So much so that they can put out latent symbols, right in front of you and you donít recognize them, but your unconscious mind does, as Carl Jung would say. They can program you even through those techniques as well. We ARE the walking dead in a sense, which is the ideal population to be controlled of course. The world is all about control and it always has been it seems. So buy the books and so on that I have for sale. [Order and donation options listed above.] Remember that you can also donate as well. Some people donateÖ itís always the same people over and over that donate. Thousands use the site, thousands take the material and run with it Ė which is good Ė but the ones that run with it never pay you anything or even think about it. They expect everything to be free, although they will definitely have subscriptions on their own sites, youíll find eventually, with information that theyíve gleaned from mine. But thatís the way of the world and thatís what you expect in this day and age where everyone is out for themselves. Thatís the unfortunate part about the system that we are living in today. Those who give us this system, and the psychopathic culture, count on us basically adopting the patterns of those at the top. Back with more after this break.
Hi folks. Iím back and weíre Cutting Through The Matrix. Iíve talked over the years about the techniques of going around national sovereignty, and where the sources came from, and why it is that way, whoís behind it, the big organizations, the foundations, with the top one really which is definitely the Royal Institute of International Affairs and its American branch, the Council on Foreign Relations. They also have a branch for all of the politicians now in the European Union and itís the European International Affairs group but itís still basically beholding to London and Chatham House; that is the headquarters.† They are the ones that came up with the idea of a global society. They backed the early communists in fact. They thought it was a fast way of bringing in the socialist system for controlling the public. Not to help the public but to control them, in a scientific fashion, the way they thought it should be proper. Remember that they were set up initially by international bankers. These are bankers who lend to governments. I donít know what they lend themÖ itís probably a check or something and you just print up the money for them, and you give them real goods back in return. I think thatís how it works.
They wanted a socialist system to control the public, an authoritarian type system. They hired lots of guys on, of course, all the bigÖ in fact they made a lot of peopleís names for them, through their other organizations which they also controlled, the other specialized areas. They set up the United Nations of course. They also set up UNESCO and all these, to bring in a global culture for the children to be brainwashed in and to teach them early sex, prepubertal sex in fact, so they wouldnít get married. Whatís the point in getting married when you can have sex with anybody you want? All of that stuff came from the ONE institution. Remember too, communism was the fastest way to bring a standard system across every part of the world. Look at what the Soviets did. They standardized every country, very quickly, and when the left they left basically the same system in place, as that of Britain. What a coincidenceÖ
Thatís the same way as America is to go, through the Council on Foreign Relations. I used to be astonished, years ago, when I traveled across Europe and different countries, beyond Europe, to find the same laws being passed in countries at the same time. And none of the countries that mentioned the laws coming in ever referred to the fact that they were signing international agreements; not necessarily treaties, but agreements Ė sometimes they would say treaties but generally it was agreements. They would always leave you to think it was your own government that had come up with the idea and it was just your country that was affected. Thatís what I noticed. Everyone was putting in the same laws at the same timeÖ which obviously meant there was an organization behind all of this, where people went to meet, and met, and came back to their own countries with the agenda AND put it into being.
That put me on, eventually, to the United Nations and the kind of terminology they use, such as Ďsoft power,í Ďhard power,í and that kind of thing, these little terms that they use. They also call them Ďactorsí too; they have Ďactorsí as well. So power, really itís all about power. World government has to use power. And itís not just to retain power or alter it; itís to really take ALL power under its wing. Thatís the objective. And to do that they use the actors. The actors are basically most of the NGO groups; thatís what they refer to as actors. Or even TV personalities or movie actors are Ďactors upon the world stageí. They also use them in the Ďtheater of warí because thatís where actors generally play, in a theater.
Of course the theater of war is set up in advance and thatís why they use their geopolitics. They set up the countries in row like dominoes. They can literally go through a century, taking down countries, building up other countries, and standardizing them as they go along until they have their global plan. Thatís what it was all set up to do. A standardized global system where an elite, a global elite would feel nice and safe at last, where they have a massive controlled society, a world society, all standardized. Youíre very predictable when you are standardized. If youíre all different cultures behaving in different ways itís a lot more work, but when you standardize them they are far more predictable Ė the same security systems can be used worldwide, the same indoctrination in the schools can be used worldwide Ė and they feel very safe at the top then.
So for all of the communists out there, I hate to disappoint you but that was always the goal for those who set up Lenin and Stalin, really were the ones who created the world revolutionary movements in the 1800s, these same big boys at the top, these big bankers. It takes MONEY and ORGANIZATION and a lot of TIME to prepare for revolutions. A rebellion is not a revolution. A rebellion is basically retaliation to get something back, a way that was before, or to get some kind of rights back. Thatís what a rebellion is. A revolution takes many years to plan, and the big word is ORGANIZE, organization.
Today we are well on the way now. We ARE global. The Council on Foreign Relations, through its own magazine, Foreign Affairs, has always told you where they are going next. You can go into their web sites and look at all the different things they are working on. Including the coming food crisis because they are going to manufacture a food crisis to speed up the process of integration of the world into the new system where you will get rations if you are good and you behave yourself, and you donít cause any ruffles in their system.
Soft power is also interesting because thatís mainly the technique that went around national sovereignty. They also are into using various so-called health rated policies as well. Under the guise ofÖ itís like terrorism. Terrorism can be used to literally take every right away from you until youíve got literally iPods and little cameras staring at your toilet bowl. Thatís how far they can go with it. They can chip you if they want to, which eventually they will of courseÖ all under the guise, to keep you safe. To keep you safeÖ and to keep everybody else safe. They use the same technique when they are trying to get you to take the flu injections. You could endanger others if you donít take that shot, you see. Which is a lie because if all the others have taken the shot, they should be technically resistant even if you were infected, right? So lies are always covered up by their terminology and the way Ė a very interesting way to do it Ė is to do a doublethink and have you in the reverse position, on the defensive, rather than using logic and say, wait a minute, your guys have all had the shot, you are protected, what are you worrying about me for? Right. Itís my fault Iíve got the flu, right, because I chose to. And probably you wonít get the flu anyway; although they will get other symptoms of the flu, the ones that took it.
These are the techniques that they use on you. Massive psychology, as Bertrand Russell said they would use. In fact, they would use Madison Avenue, he said, the experts who would motivate your unconscious mind and all of the unconscious drives that motivate you to do things. They were using the Bernays techniques as well. Bernays worked on a lot of this stuff, for the coming world order by the way, in collusion with Presidents and people higher than Presidents. Presidents are not the highest, believe you me. A lot of Pavlovian techniques are used too, which is social approval and social disapproval. The United Nations uses its soft power to alter behavior. Soft power is where you make people turn against other people. Like the flu shotÖ OH, they didnít have their flu shots, they are endangering everyone else. Thatís soft power. They used that in China to ensure that people would not have second children. At one time they would drag off a woman with a second pregnancy to the abortion clinic, by the militia. Now they donít need it. The neighbors will turn on them, will actually grab them, and get angry, and turn them in. OH, youíre robbing food from our mouths. You see. Thatís how the technique is used. Soft power.
They do the same thing with cigarettes of course. This is the 5th agreement every country has signed through the United Nations World Health Organization, Dr. WHO, W-H-O. They have turned people against smoking, by Pavlovian techniques. If someone lights up a cigarette 20 yards from a child, that has had their brainwashing at school, they will start coughing as though they were blowing it in their face. A Pavlovian response. It could be done the same way by wearing a certain color of clothing, if they want to. Iím not kidding you. This is basic psychology.
They are also using it in food next. Because food, under the guise of obesity, is going to be rationed and they are getting you used to getting rationed one way or another, the same way as they stop people smoking cigarettes, along with jacking up the prices. This article will go along with this. This is a PURE propaganda piece from Panorama. Panorama is an interesting organization because they used to do radio shows in Britain Ė thatís how they started off Ė and then television. I think the first one they did was actually about EUGENICS, way back in the 50s. But you will never find that one; you will find everything else theyíve done but not that one. You canít get it. They were way ahead in those days of the kind of world they were going to bring in. So they have always been liars and spinners so here is a good spin here.
Should the UK tax junk food?
By Shelley Jofre / Panorama/ bbc.co.uk / November 15, 2010
In the same way as taxing cigarettes helped to reduce smoking and related illnesses, (Alan: Strange how more folk have cancers today and have never smoked in their lives. But anyway, that doesnít matter; facts donít count.) could putting up the price of junk food - as Denmark has done - cut obesity rates in the UK?
(A: Then they go into the usual spiel of storytelling.) The first thing that struck me on the taxi journey into Copenhagen was how slim everyone looked.
I really had trouble spotting anyone fat.
And the second thing that became obvious the moment I stepped out of the cab and was almost run over by a cyclist, was that the Danes are clearly no strangers to exercise. (A: See what it does is it makes you awfully skinny but you are awfully weak too, and your eyesight gets poor and you almost crash into folk on your bike. I guess thatís what he is saying hereÖ maybe thatís what heís saying, I donít know.)
So why on earth has their government become the first in the world to introduce a tax on junk food? (A: So there are your taxes on food starting, you see.)
The answer is depressingly simple. They may be among the slimmest in Europe but the Danes do not want to end up as fat as the British. (A: So they are using this, well, look at them and look at Britain, itís bad. Britainís bad because theyíve had more psychological and chemical and food war on them than anyone else. Thatís why theyíre in the mess theyíre in. Iíll go into this in more detail, a lot more detail, when I come back from this break.)
Hi folks. Weíre back and weíre Cutting Through The Matrix and just showing you some of the techniques that are used. If you listen carefully as I read this article here on creating social approval and social disapproval, and they always back it with what they said they would use eventually, at the end, bringing in this world system, and thatís the power of the purse. The power of the purseÖ through taxation, fines, and levies and all the rest of it. It says hereÖ
At this rate, by 2050 obesity will be costing the state £32bn a year. (A: Thatís in Britain that heís talking about there. Then they go on to blame various things like sugar and so on and that thatís the cause of it. Well, thatís NOT the cause of it you see, and it isnít just the junk food either. Itís all the crap that they put in it, including all of the healthy stuff that they said was good for you like all the oils and that. You see, your body canít really store this stuff properlyÖ it can store it but it canít take it out. It doesnít know how to disassemble it; thatís basically the problem. Once the fat is stuck on you, you just canít get it off. And they have always known this too, but they wonít tell you about it. They wonít tell you about it because eventually they donít want you eating protein at all.
If you want to understand how you can control a whole population, for thousands of years, study India. Study India and how the system of the Brahmins was imposed upon the people, and how obedient the public, the people over there have been for thousands of years. Very obedient and they donít question things too deeply, as to their station in life, their different caste systems, and thatís what they want to bring in, the same kind of system as that. Again, youíve got to go into the writings of Malthus where he had it all worked out, how many calories to give and what kind of foodstuffs to give the slaves, on the plantations that Britain ruled, and other countries too because it was international. It was just enough to keep them going but not too bright, so they wouldnít be mentally bright and they wouldnít be fit enough at the end of the dayís work to run off and run away. This is how it was worked out. This is an old, old technique. The Egyptians used it too; they tried all kinds of diets with them. Nothing new under the sun, they say.
To get back to this public relations propaganda article here, it saysÖ)
"We've been relying on and emphasising self-responsibility for the last 50 years and it doesn't work," Charlotte Kira Kimby, of the Danish Heart Foundation told me. (A: Now, the Danish Heart Foundation, like all of these foundations, is a front folks, for the big, big foundations that run the world, that bypass governments. Thatís, again, soft powerÖ back to soft power again, at the United Nations, who get treaties signed and charters signed, that has the power of a strange kind of a law thatís not written in the books, but they all accept it as legal. Iíll be going into that in a minute too.)
"We know that sugar and fat are really what causes obesity (A: Itís not really just that. Itís more than just that.) to increase. So to target taxes makes sense and should have an impact on health." (A: Punish the folk, just make it unaffordable. And that wonít stop there of course, because then you are going to find all kinds of meats and proteins are going to get extra taxes levied on them regardless down the road. I donít care what they start with, that will be their goal. Eventually you will be left to eat nuts and seeds and GMO stuff, and you will all be happy little skinny people, but not too bright. Really happy though, regardless of your conditions of your work place, if you have any work at all.)
Think of all your favourite indulgences - chocolate, ice cream, crisps, sweets, colaÖ and imagine they all cost you significantly more than at present.
That is what is happening in Denmark. If it hit you in the pocket, would it make you change your behaviour? (A: Well you see, you understand, you can make that work with anything in that case, canít you? Anything at all. Anything at all, because you are all getting taught to come into this world of austerity. Nothing to do with the so-called bank collapses; they had it planned a long time ago. Because one day you are going to get rations, or tokens, instead of money and you will use those tokens for your food. And Iím not kidding either. Iíve read all of their stuff, from years ago to the present. These guys are liars every step of the way as to their actual agenda.) Or would you simply be furious about the food police telling you what to eat?
(A: Then he goes on about more rubbish and how healthy, ya-da, ya, they are and the most highly taxed nation in Europe, which is Denmark. I was in Denmark years ago and I was surprised they were openly teaching Marxism in the school. And they were way ahead with the destruction of the family unit too and really very young promiscuity. That was all part of the agenda; they were way ahead in that. Every country in Europe was used as a social experiment, unbeknownst to the public themselves, who all took part in it without knowing that they were getting guided. Every country was getting used in different ways. In Holland they had reversed the roles of the male and female; they paid the guys to stay home and look after the children and paid the women to go out to work and stuff like that; and then brought them dope that the government dispensed in bars. I watched all this stuff and I thought, my goodness, every little place is a socialist experiment and eventually they will glean what they want from each place and bring it together into one. It says...)
But they do not resent the government adding further to their grocery bills; far from it. (A: Öthey are all happy to be taxed silly. Then they give you these crazy, I donít know if they are real people or not, and how wonderful it is to be taxed silly so that you donít eat too much. Abreaction was maybe better. They should try that, you could give yourself a little electric shock each time you open your mouth to eat something. That will probably teach you even faster, and at least youíll have some cash at the end of it for something else. This way youíll have no money at all. Anyway, itís a complete PR piece, public relations/propaganda piece. You donít get news anymore, you get public relations. Itís interesting here too, it says hereÖ)
Obesity expert Professor Peter Kopelman of the Royal College of Physicians argues that the UK could learn a lesson from the lean Danes.
He believes that there is a clear parallel with the taxation of cigarettes.
ď Nudges are very important... (A: Letís touch on Ďnudgesí when I come back from this break.)
Hi folks. Weíre back and weíre Cutting Through The Matrix, talking about nudges and so on. Of course nudges are what behaviorists use. Your computer does it too. They use guys to put nudges in the computer telling you what to do next and so on. They also do it, give you little nudges, in the little articles you read without you even knowing it. These nudges are very important to program people, and thatís what itís about, programming people into different behaviors, that you donít know you are even getting programmed. You are living in a world of propaganda and behaviorism and psychology, all being used against you from the minute you are born in fact. It goes all through school too, to make sure they turn out the proper kind of citizen for the global society. They also differentiate it too. Itís adjusted for male and female so that they get the kind of male they want and the kind of female they want too. And even at the age groups they want, how you will be at a certain age group and what you will like and what you wonít like, and what you will believe and what you wonít believe. Itís that perfected and that precise.
It says here thatÖ
The Health Secretary Andrew Lansley is due to publish a white paper on public health for England shortly. In it, he will lay out his strategy for tackling obesity.
But it seems any idea of a junk food tax is already off the table.
"Nudges are very important. (A: They know that because the government uses them in all of their ads as well.) Tax is not a nudge, tax is a shove," he said.
"If you start down the route of taxation, quite often you get quite a lot of push back against that. The public don't think it's our job to be trying to tell people what to do." (A: Really? [chuckles] They have been doing it for hundreds of years, right. Itís also how all of your behavior is too, itís all authorized by government, whichever behavior and culture they give you for your particular era.)
Thatís a complete propaganda piece from Panorama as they kick off this session. They have already kicked off euthanasia and stuff. Iíve talked about them in the past, openly with the professors and all of the rest of it, getting you used to that idea. Itís to acclimatize you to whatís coming. Thatís really what these articles are really for. They are kind of predictive programming. Most folk wonít look any further into it, until they see the next thing announced and a few more talk shows will bring it out and so on and so on, until itís quite natural to them. Theyíll say, well, what can you doÖ and you go back and you chew your GMO lettuce.
Itís interesting too, how the Council on Foreign Relations uses all this soft power. They use hard power as well because many of the members of the Council on Foreign Relations/Royal Institute of International Affairs have their members in your high bureaucracies and in government positions as well, that you think you elect them to. Carol Quigley said that, every President and Prime Minister since about 1890 were members of this particular group, even when they were called a different name, of course; they keep changing their name down through the centuries. Here is an article; itís quite good. Iíll put up a link for this article. Itís called Transatlantic Policy Network, another group that goes around using soft power, getting agreements written up and charters written up, and agreed, that the countries all sign and eventually it becomes some kind of law. They are unelected groups, but, interesting this one here shows you all the congressional members, of the Republicans and the Democrats, who are members of this international/globalist group. They are actually working towards globalism; thatís their policy. So why are you even bothering to elect people you think are standing up for your country when these guys have no concept of having a country anymore? They are all for utter integrated globalism. Iíll put this link up. It gives you all of their names.
Members of the TPN Congressional Group are drawn from a broad basis of representation in the United States
Robert Bennett (R-Utah) (A: Is a member of it.)
Thad Cochran (R-Mississippi) (A: Is all for globalism and internationalism. Thatís the end of sovereignty folks, for anybody who doesnít understand this.
Gary Ackerman (D-New York) (A: They work with the European teams as well, for global integration.)
Shelley Berkley (D-Nevada)
Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee)
John Boehner (R-Ohio)
Rick Boucher (D-Virginia)
Kevin Brady (R-Texas)
Henry Brown (R-South Carolina)
Eric Cantor (R-Virginia)
Itís everybody. Itís like everybody is on here actually. Pull up the list and you can look it up for yourself. And you can look for the European ones as well. Youíll see the national government members, who are politicians in government at this present time, are also members of this international group for internationalism and the eradication of countries by the way. Quite interesting eh? These groups have been on the go for a long time and they do an end-run around national sovereignty. Thatís what the Council on Foreign Relations said long ago, many years ago, many, many years ago. And they form all of these groups and they would have a form of legitimacy and a form of legality which they would use to bring all of this into being. Interesting, eh?
And just to read this other article here, on soft law that I was talking about. Soft law, remember we get these public/private partnership deals. Well thatís how things have been working. They used to call it Fascism at one time, and remember that all systems, including communist, are essentially fascist in structure, because there is no such thing as equality in any of them, whatsoever. There is always an elite at the top living like kings and all the peasants down below. Here is an article and it saysÖ
Is soft law taking over?
The perils and benefits of non-traditional legislation
A Paper for the Progress Foundation, Switzerland
By Graham Mather, President, European Policy Forum / 20 October 2010 /
(A: This is not a warning by the way. This is for the Progress Foundation, which is part of this soft law organization, that they push and coordinate other organizations towards this globalist, integrated, nonÖ in fact end of sovereignty, end of nations system... which is the agenda. Thereís no other agenda on the books by the way.)
What was government has become governance. (A: Thatís what they call governance now. Youíll see it through ALL of the papers that you look at from the United Nations.) Where once elected politicians passed legislation and signed treaties to determine our futures, today un-elected experts make rules through soft law. (A: ďRules,Ē you see. Interesting isnít it?)
To prove this proposition, let me turn to the financial crisis and the way in which it hit Europe. (A: Now, heís going to justify that all these nongovernmental organizations, and the private banks and that, BAILED the people out. They got us out of the trouble. The ones who robbed us, got us out of the trouble, just to preface this.)
First into action to provide liquidity was the European Central Bank headed by its President, Jean-Claude Trichet. Although he has been named Policy Maker of the Year on more than one occasion he has never been a minister, never a politician, never elected. But this gifted enarque and his Central Bank colleagues, in their provision of liquidity, quantitative easing (A: Thatís inflation.), bank guaranteeing and money printing determined, governed the response to the crisis. (A: So they are trying to say that governments responded, by these guys who are the experts, who caused the problem, and these experts that caused the problem got us out of the problem by telling the government to tax us all and borrow money from them, I guess so that they could pay themselves off from the money they stole.)
Once the authorities had their breath back they looked for solutions in the longer term. They turned to Jacques de LarosiŤre, another supertalented French banker and public servant. A former head of the IMF (A: Which is a private organization attached to the United Nations, right. Soft power.) and EBRD, again he has never sought election to a parliament and was appointed (A: They are always appointedÖ) by decision of the European Commission. (A: Öwhich is nondemocratic as we well know.) Yet his report was and is the foundation of Europe's response to the crisis.
As Europe and de LarosiŤre turned to align their measures with those of the United States, the spotlight moves to the G20. (A: Now the G20, as you know, is made up of what you think are your elected representatives, right, for globalism and integration and the end of national sovereigntyÖ and the end of nations, in fact, all together, as they bring in regions.) Another soft law creation, (A: The G20, remember you donít vote it in. Itís a club of Prime Ministers and Presidents. Itís a CLUB folks. Because he says it right here, ďanother soft law creationÖĒ) it did not exist 10 years ago when the G7 and G8 were the main focus of global financial discussion. It is self-appointed, (A: Is that democratic?) has no charter, (A: Oh yes they do. They take their orders from above.) and no treaty determines its rules or its membership. (A: Utter lies because they are all members of the CFR/RIIA and they set its rules, for its memberships. You canít join it unless you are ASKED to join.) Yet it is the lead body for the raft of measures which are being taken around the world to emerge from the financial crisis. The European Commission will show you a table against which it checks off its compliance with the G20 norms. (A: So, the G20, which is unelected and a private organization, is telling the European Commission and the Union, this Parliament, what to do. Hmm? Interesting, eh?)
Swing back again to the proximate causes of the financial crisis. How do we decide whether banks are or are not properly capitalised? Again, by soft law. The Basel Accords must assume their responsibility. Whether Basel I, II or III the capital adequacy rules are decided informally (A: Gentlemanís agreementsÖ) and their status is as recommendations. The Basel Committee, which now includes the G20 countries, therefore recommends capital adequacy measures without a treaty or constitutional framework; only later are the recommendations turned into national or European laws. (A: So, private organizations, run by the bankers, determine what laws in your nation are put into effect.)
When the crisis moved from banks in the market to the risk of sovereign default, the foundation instrument turned out to be another piece of, this time European soft law Ė the Stability and Growth Pact of the European Union. It has never been fully constitutionalised and comprises a Council Resolution, Two Council Regulations and a Code of Conduct. This uneasy mixture makes it in academic terms a hybrid between soft law and hard law, or more bluntly ďa stability pact ridden with holesĒ. (Habermas 2010). (A: Thatís from Habermas, 2010, that obviously works for them.)
When Europe acted to bail out Greece it did not do so under Treaty or legislative powers Ė rather it created a special Intercreditor Agreement between 15 eurozone member states at short notice on 8 May of that fateful weekend. The soft nature of the transaction is demonstrated by the fact that Slovakia's Parliament on 18 August refused by 69 votes to 2 to ratify the agreement.
These were crisis measures. But in the daily running of the European Union also, much policy in labour markets, the environment and elsewhere takes place through the Open Method of Co-ordination. The OMC is a series of soft law techniques of discussion, co-operation, benchmarking and peer-review. The procedures are unmentioned even in the Lisbon Treaty. (A: Well, who needs the legal stuff, eh?)
My purpose in this lecture is not to suggest that hard law is good and soft law bad. It is rather to sketch the extent of soft law, to look at its causes and rationale, to assess its merits and problems and then to draw some conclusions for future public policy arising from it. (A: So they are making public policy.)
How can we define soft law for our purposes? (A: Remember this is part of this organization that creates this kind of soft law, a coordinating think tank obviously.) Once upon a time it might have been thought of as a series of 'gentlemen's agreements' but both the term and language has a rather dated feel. (A: So they donít like the dated feel of it. See.) (Williamson, 2003).
Linda Senden has provided the definition which I found most persuasive (A: Persuasion is more important than fact.); that soft law is formed by ďrules of conduct that are laid down in instruments which have not been attributed a legally-binding force as such, but nevertheless may have certain indirect legal effects that are carried out and may produce practical effectsĒ. (Senden, 2005). (A: So soft law, nongovernmental organizations, foundations and so on, and think tanks, are making policies for your supposed elected leaders. The bankers are making your lawsÖ but they have been for an awful long time, eh.)
Or as Ulrika MŲrth has noted ďin systems of government the law is hard whereas it is soft in systems of governance. (A: Thatís the term they are using at the United Nations.) The crucial difference between these two types of legal norms is that soft law lacks the possibility of legal sanctionsĒ.
The fact that soft law lacks legal sanctions does not mean that it does not attempt to impose sanctions by a range of techniques. They are enforceable or sanctionable at various different levels by means, not of law, but of some form of perceived international responsibility. (A: That is what are called agreements, folks. They write up agreements and your Prime Ministers and your Presidents sign them. Thatís what they signed at the World Health Organization to jack up the price of smokes to stop folk smoking. An agreement. And they up the ante every year by making it harder and harder and harder. AgreementsÖ you see. Because your Presidents and Prime Ministers donít ask the public what they want. No. Private organizations tell them what to sign. Iíve told you this for years.) These systems lack legal rights or obligations, they also lack procedural safeguards and they often lack transparency: and these are serious weaknesses.
In the context of the OECDís initiative on so called harmful tax practices (A: Thatís another strange quasi-governmental United Nations organization. It takes your tax money supposedly to help the poor in other countries, through big corporations.) Allison Christians has said that the category of soft law ďseems to offer a third way between the potentially uncomfortable position of describing the OECD guidance as ďlawĒ and therefore implying states must comply with it, and the potentially unrealistic position of describing it as not law at all, despite evidence that countries do in fact comply with it, often against their self interest or will (or both)Ē. (Christians, 2007). (A: Because they tax the blazes out of you to give to these foreign corporations, which are international anyway; they have no basis in a country. They take your tax money. Thatís how they set up China, by taking your tax money, through these agreements by the way, through The World Trade Organization. You donít vote in The World Trade Organization. Do your homework and find out who set it up.)
The Stability and Growth Pact provides a good example. We immediately see its soft law origins: a deficit above 3% is not excessive if the excess over 3% is only ďexceptional and temporaryĒ and the (government deficit) ratio remains ďclose to the reference valueĒ. As has been noted, there has been considerable manoeuvrability within those limits.
They basically go through their usual bureaucratese speech of course, to try and rationalize how they can get more effective agreements made with more appearance of legality and legitimacy. And this is what this paper is all about. It goes on and on and on and it would take forever to read this thing. It would be really interesting to go right through it, for you, and you should do so. Go through all the links that come from it as well. Youíll find outÖ you see for an awfulÖ in fact for the whole of your life you havenít been run by your governments at all. You really, really havenít.
This public/private partnership idea, this new kind of strange fascist organization, without the name being used of fascism, which of course meant it was corporations and politicians in bed together running the rest of the public. Thatís exactly what it is, but so was communism. You had the big GM, Ford, and all these big boys over in the Soviet system from the beginningÖ lots of plants like that. And again, through nongovernmental organizations and soft power the US and Britain and other countries financed the Soviet Union from the very beginning, right through its entire existence, even fed them tooÖ after they killed off most of the farmers. Itís the same with China. And you thinkÖ. Why do you bother voting? Iíve asked people that my whole life. Why do you bother voting? When these guys come out with the usual nonsense, they drape themselves in your countryís flag, they play the tunes that you are used to responding to like Pavlovís dog, and then they tell you, oh by the way, we are working internationally to destroy your country and make you a region. Back with more after this.
Hi folks. Weíre back and weíre Cutting Through The Matrix with a few minutes to go. Remember Iíll put these links up for you at the end of the show on my web sites and you can look them up for yourselves, and do your homework. Iím sure lots of folk will run with it too and it will be all over the place, hopefully, in a little while. Of course they will never mention where they heard it.
There is Tom from Wisconsin on the phone. Are you there Tom?
Tom: Hi. Iíd like to thank you for the work that you do. I just want to express my dismay. Seemingly there is this sort of, I guess blast of energy coming from the people who are upset about being groped by the TSA agents and being irradiated and the body scanners. But what we are not seeing is across the board refusal to comply with agents who arenít even, you know, certifiable peace officers, to even have the authority to command people around and askÖ tell them we are going to grope you and feel you up, you know, for safety. Until that happens nothing is going to change and they are just going toÖ you know, although they will just do it, they will just go, okay audience, you will do it andÖ you know? I donít know. We have to change if we are going to see change in the world. And I see a lot of people talking change, but not actuallyÖ
Alan: Well, talking isnít going to do a darn thing. You know that too. I think we all know that, that talking isnít going to do a darn thing.
Tom: I just wanted to throw it out on the table because I just donít think that we say it enough, that just talking about this isnít going to accomplish anything.
Alan: It doesnít work. No. It takes people to collectively say, no, thatís it, and get the message across and then you take what comes from there. Thatís the bottom line. These guys at the top have made it quite clear that there is only one agenda and they are going to take no opposition concerning it. If there is opposition they will put out a fake opposition. However, theyíve also said from their main think tank, the Club of Rome, that this New World Order is an authoritarian system, democracy is out the window. Itís gone. So thatís what they are telling us. So what do we tell them in response to that?
Tom: Yeah. Have you seen the cover of the most recent USA Today paper, which was today actually?
Tom: In there, there was a propaganda piece where Janet Napolitano asked for us to have patience during the holiday season as they grope and radiate, body scan everybody that flies. I just was like, you know, they show the opposition in the article but they put the headlines and they have Janet Napolitano featured prominently in a picture. Itís all awash of just, itís okay, everything will be okay, and just trying to soothe those that are already under mind control to, donít worry about it, it will be okay.
Alan: Again, itís just to pacify you and, again, further condition you into the new norm, and have you accept it as a new norm. Of course they are not stopping there; they are bringing iris scans in now too, in everything. You get checked twice at the airport with this thing, that youíll probably end up blind if youíre a frequent flyer and thatís your tough luck. There is no end to this. As you well know, there is no end. And eventually they are going to darn well chip folkÖ and most folk will go along with that too. There no opposition to this totalitarian system thatís in place right now. You canít talk with them because they mean business. They have shown the public they mean business. Itís their way or no way and when this has happened in history, down through history, the public have had to respond in the usual two ways, the two options theyíve got left.† Thanks for calling; I know exactly what you are saying.
From Hamish and myself in Ontario, Canada, itís good night and may your God your Gods GO with you.
Topics of show covered in following links:
Alan's Materials Available for Purchase and Ordering Information:
Ancient Religions and History MP3 CDs:
Blurbs and 'Cutting Through the Matrix' Shows on MP3 CDs (Up to 50 Hours per Disc)
"Reality Check Part 1" & "Reality Check Part 2 - Wisdom, Esoterica and ...TIME"