November 18th, 2010 (#710)
Alan Watt "Cutting Through The Matrix" LIVE on RBN:
Poem Copyright Alan Watt November 18th, 2010:
To Rule the World -- Make it Sleazy, It's Too Easy:
"So Very Few Will Ever Realize
The Longest of Wars has Won its Prize,
Their Thoughts, Behaviours, Whole Worldview
Given Them by Experts They Never Knew,
Emulating Characters Portrayed in Fiction,
Adopting Attitudes, Conduct and Diction,
Never Comparing to Think it Strange,
For Peer-Group Went Through Same Change,
The Survival Instinct, Pairing and Bonding,
Pushed Aside for Multi-Partner Fondling,
Destroy Norms to Conquer, Create the Fool,
Narcissistic Hedonists are Easy to Rule,
Too Busy with Pleasure, Predatory Behaviour,
They've No One to Trust or Be a Saviour
When it's All Gone Wrong in Life's Calamity,
It's Terribly Lonely When There's No Family,
The State Grows from Carnage, Eyes Agleam,
Brings Order Out of Chaos, Merciless Machine"
© Alan Watt November 18th, 2010
Poem & Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt - November 18th, 2010 (Exempting Music, Literary Quotes, and Callers' Comments)
Hi folks, this is Alan Watt, and we're Cutting Through the Matrix on the 18th of November, 2010. As always, I tell the newcomers and there's people coming in every night who are new, who have never heard me before, and lots of them are young, too, which is a good thing, because they've got to carry on with the future and take this information forward, hopefully. So, I advise them to go into cuttingthroughthematrix.com website, help yourself to the audios you'll see listed there. Bookmark all the other sites I've got listed, in case the big sites go down, and remember too, apart from the audios, all those sites you'll see listed have transcripts in English of many of the talks I've given. And if you want transcripts in other languages, go into alanwattsentientsentinel.eu. That's listed on the .com site as well. And you can help yourself to transcripts for download and print up, and hopefully you'll pass them around to your friends, or maybe even sit and have groups and discuss the topics and so on, and even add to it, if you can.
Now, remember too, you're the audience who bring me to you. I don't ask for money from the advertisers, I get the offers, but I don't take them on. And that gives me more scope to say what I want to say, and I've got more time to actually give a talk, during a show, rather than bring on guests and so on. The ads you hear on this show are paid by advertisers to RBN directly to pay for RBN's airtime, to broadcast this show, and to pay for their bills and equipment, their staff, board ops and so on. So, it's up to you to help me with mine. You can do so by buying the books that I have for sale at cuttingthroughthematrix.com. You can buy discs and so on, as well. That's all I've got up there to sell. And these are really jammed packed with information, even the discs too. It's well worth while getting. And you can pay for them from the U.S. to Canada, by a personal check, or by an international postal money order from the post office. Or you can use PayPal to order or donate. And believe you me, donations are really appreciated. There's not enough donations coming in at all. If you want to purchase, you can use PayPal too, just send the appropriate PayPal donation, followed by an email with your name, address, and order. I'll get it out to you as fast as I can. Some people just send cash. And across the world, some still use Western Union. It's kind of expensive. Money Gram is cheaper, and it's cheaper still to use Money Gram, and get a check, rather than wire it across the water, you can post it off yourself to Canada, and that will save you a bit of money as well. Or, as I say, use PayPal to order, by using the donation as well. Believe you me, donations are appreciated, because it costs a lot to keep all this going here. And this is not a job. It's not a job I walk into with staff and everything is set up for me, and I just read off the screen the stories of the day. I don't do that. I do this all myself. So, believe you me, it's more than a vocation too, it's a necessity at this time of life, because once this information is gone, and people are gone too, who've literally known what's been happening their entire lives, living through it, that's history, that's living history gone. All you're left with is authorized history, which is always bogus, and its always gets changed for the times. So, we're going through, into this new way of living. I've watched the changes. I've watched it. I've understood it, even as I was going through it myself, and I knew the big powers that are at work on society, causing revolutions.
Most revolutions, as I say, are social in context, and most are fairly bloodless. And they're meant to destroy the old to bring in the new. Not because they like people to be free and so on. They always use freedom to bring it in, but actually to bring in more control over people who are now dysfunctional. That's the key to it. That's why you bring in new societies, make dysfunctionality the key, and then you create massive social services, which come in and take over all the chaos, the children, social workers, adoption homes, all that kind of stuff. That's what you're living in today. This was a war, a planned war, and people lived through it and didn't know it was happening. Back with more after these messages.
Hi folks, we're back, Cutting Through the Matrix, and talking about this long-term war plan that's gone on for an awful long time. And much of it was to do with Karl Marx a long time ago, as well, because really groups of people, even before Marx came along were figuring out ways how to create a new kind of world, which could be dominated by a small, intellectual elite basically. And they came up with the idea that they'd con the public with something called Marxist Communism. And it's still going today, by the way. And it's done an awful lot of damage, and it certainly has pretty well succeeded. The beauty of it is too, is that they make most folk who go through these revolutions actually like it, because they always aim at the young. Now, it's easy enough to get the young and say to them, do what you want to do, and they take off with that notion, thinking there's no responsibility and just have fun and so on. And away they go. And that's what happened really, when they introduced various kinds of liberation as they called it, back in the '60s. And it was promoted from the top down. I've mentioned this many times, from television and from government-sponsored television, like the BBC. And I used to wonder, why would this big enclave of the Etonians, who ran the BBC, be pushing sexual promiscuity and drug taking and so on, and 'aren't we naughty' type of little shows that they kept putting on with guys who were pop stars falling off the chairs as they were getting interviewed, who couldn't even say a word or a sentence. They couldn't get it out of their mouths. And then the host would just kind of laugh and snicker, like it was all kind of naughty and fun, wasn't it. So, that's how they introduced it into places like Britain.
In the States, of course, they put more cash into it. They got the Hollywood crowd into it, the ones who really run the culture, and they got the music industry into it big time as well. They did it too in Britain too, but to a lesser extent. They really used it in the US with open, massive pushing of drugs and so on. Which helps too to befuddle the wits, especially when you're into engaging in things which could have severe consequences down the road, when it comes to sexual relations. That's how they brought all of this in. It was all a big time for fun. We're into a new era, there's no responsibilities. And remember too, they were also pushing these communes. Communes are a big, big part of it. And you have to go into the history of the communes in the USA, and it's amazing the tie-ins you get between the leaders of the communes to New York and certain organizations. Just fantastically amazing when you tie them together. Absolutely amazing, it really is.
This ties in with an article, it's in the paper today. They're always looking at statistics, and I used to wonder about even statistics. Why certain studies did they do every five or ten years? Well, they do these studies on the same topics to see if the agenda is working. That's why it's done. You see? And this article here is from the Associated Press. And it says:
Is Marriage Becoming Obsolete?
(A: I've seen these articles my whole life long, as they did their checks to see if their agenda was working. It says:)
As families gather for Thanksgiving this year, nearly one in three American children is living with a parent who is divorced, separated or never-married. More people are accepting the view that wedding bells aren't needed to have a family.
A study by the Pew Research Center, in association with Time magazine, highlights rapidly changing notions of the American family. And the Census Bureau, too, is planning to incorporate broader definitions of family when measuring poverty, a shift caused partly by recent jumps in unmarried couples living together.
About 29 percent of children under 18 now live with a parent or parents who are unwed or no longer married, a fivefold increase from 1960, according to the Pew report being released Thursday. Broken down further, about 15 percent have parents who are divorced or separated and 14 percent who were never married. Within those two groups, a sizable chunk — 6 percent — have parents who are live-in couples who opted to raise kids together without getting married.
Indeed, about 39 percent of Americans said marriage was becoming obsolete. And that sentiment follows U.S. census data released in September that showed marriages hit an all-time low of 52 percent for adults 18 and over.
(A: Then they go into:)
When asked what constitutes a family, (A: You see, they're redefining it all the time, as you well know if you watch the comedy shows. That's how they always introduce the new things, through comedy, which otherwise you wouldn't get a laugh at. It would be too serious if they didn't. It says:) When asked what constitutes a family, the vast majority of Americans agree that a married couple, with or without children, fits that description. But four of five surveyed pointed also to an unmarried, opposite-sex couple with children or a single parent. Three of 5 people said a same-sex couple with children was a family. (A: Because they watch TV a lot.)
"Marriage is still very important in this country, but it doesn't dominate family life like it used to," said Andrew Cherlin, a professor of sociology and public policy at Johns Hopkins University.
(A: Very interesting that, you see, because sociologists and ethnologists and anthropologists all worked with the big boys to bring in the modern culture. And they working heavily on this from, I'd say about the 1940s onwards, to bring in this kind of society. Interesting how it's worked. And it says:)
The broadening views of family are expected to have an impact at Thanksgiving. About nine in 10 Americans say they will share a Thanksgiving meal next week with family, sitting at a table with 12 people on average. About one-fourth of respondents said there will be 20 or more family members.
And you know, it's worse for other countries in Europe, like Britain. It's just devastated, destroyed, because the massive welfare state has allowed, actually encouraged women just to have children on their own without having men at all. You don't even need a man to get impregnated today; they've got all these clinics that'll do it all for you. And then the rest of the society just picks up the tab, keeps them living in their homes. This was all arranged. Then you go back to the Communist Manifesto, and on this page here, it's page 100, and it says here, one of the planks is:
Abolition of the family. Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists. On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based?
(A: The middle class, they're talking about.)
On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
(A: And technically, it's all happened.)
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
But, you will say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social. (A: Education.)
And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention, direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.
The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.
(A: Technically that was true. I mean, you had a massive underclass working in factories, going through the Industrial Revolution, and they were living in squalor and utter poverty, and all the children had to go to work as well. But of course, they always use what is evident at the time to bring in their utopia, so that a small clique, an elite who are mainly related to each other, can rule over the rest. It says:)
But you Communists would introduce community of women, (A: You see, that's what they want. Plato, remember, community of women. All women held in common. All available. That's what you have when you have promiscuity. We don't think of it that way, but that's what you actually have when you stand outside and see it.) would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.
The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.
He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.
(A: That's what I used to wonder about when you'd see the women in Russia with the picks as they were digging up the roads, you know, helping the system.)
For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.
It might have been in the lands that this guy actually came from with his predecessors. Who knows. Anyway, that was, as I say, part of their plank of their Communist Manifesto, destruction of the family unit. And then they would have their planned society. Again, they also wanted to decide who would breed and who would not breed too, if they could bring it into full production that way, their whole plan and agenda. In the West they had to use a different tactic and they tailor-made them, slightly different from each other, from Britain to the US and so on, according to the present cultures that they had.
Now, remember, Carroll Quigley was the historian and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. And Carroll Quigley was all for whatever they did. Now, remember, the Council on Foreign Relations works with its daddy in Britain, which is the Royal Institute of International Affairs. Remember, it's the Royal Institute of International Affairs, if you're all thinking it's just another Communist organization. It's got a Royal Charter to exist. It's above government, you might say. And it says here in Tragedy and Hope on pg. 1263. It says:
Behind this protective barrier a new teen-age culture has grown up. (A: This is in the '60s he's talking about.) Its chief characteristic is rejection of parental values and of middle-class culture. (A: What a coincidence, eh? It's all coincidences we're reading here.) In many ways this new culture is like that of African tribes; its tastes in music and the dance, its emphasis on sex play, its increasingly scanty clothing, its emphasis on group solidarity, the high value it puts on interpersonal relations (especially talking and social drinking), (A: And drug taking, I should add to it.) its almost total rejection of future preference and its constant efforts to free itself...
Back with more after this break. Hi folks, we're back, Cutting Through the Matrix. Just tying a few things together to show people that nothing happens by itself. Nothing in any major scale happens by itself. It takes coordination of various sciences. It takes cooperation definitely of big academia. It takes cooperation between the entertainment industry and popular television and so on, all worked together to cause cultural changes in society. And we're influenced more by fiction than we are by anything else, believe it or not. Fiction, really, it's like monkey see, monkey do. Plato said the same thing about drama on the stage in ancient Greece. Here's Carroll Quigley talking, and remember, he was for this agenda. He worked for this agenda. And he was a professor himself, and he thought it was just swell that it seemed to be going to plan. And he's talking about how the children suddenly, and it was a sudden thing, how they rejected the old values, suddenly, because it was the trendy thing to do obviously, and they were copying the culture like that of the African tribes. Now, I can remember reading about ways that the Communists could possibly do this, and they were going into things like dance, and if they could break all the old traditional dances, which actually required that you hold the partner, no kidding, that's how it used to be. Amazing, eh? You used to hold the person, since that was the whole point of it. And then suddenly they're dancing apart, staring at each other's knees. But they brought that in very successfully. They copied it from African dancing, basically. And they also used the beat as well to try and bring on the sexual stimulation of the African tribal dances as well. So they used anthropologists, big time, in the culture industry at this particular period. Getting back to the book though it says here. They started dressing in scanty clothing, the heavy emphasis on sex play, emphasis on group solidarity, we're all together, we're a different species from the old species, basically. That's what they thought, you know. And they were told by the Communists in America, don't trust anybody over 30. So, don't listen to them, in fact, over 30. And then it says here:
the high value it puts on interpersonal relations (especially talking and social drinking), its almost total rejection of future preference and its constant efforts to free itself from the tyranny of time. (A: They were always stoned, so they could never turn up for anything.) Teen-age solidarity and sociality and especially the solidarity of their groups and subgroups are amazingly African in attitudes, as they gather nightly, or at least on weekends, to drink "cokes," talk interminably in the midst of throbbing music, preferably in semidarkness, with couples drifting off for sex play in the corners as a kind of social diversion, and a complete emancipation from time. Usually they have their own language, (A: That was all given to them too. They didn't know that, of course.) with vocabulary and constructions so strange that parents find them almost incomprehensible. This Africanization of American society is gradually spreading with the passing years to higher age levels in our culture and is having profound and damaging effects on the transfer of middle-class values to the rising generation. A myriad of symbolic acts, over the last twenty years, have served to demonstrate the solidarity of teen culture and its rejection of middle-class values. Many of these involve dress and "dating customs," both major issues in the Adolescent-Parental Cold War.
(A: Interesting term, eh? Adolescent-Parental Cold War. And then he says:)
"Dating," as part of adolescent rebellion, became less and less formalized. The formal middle-class dance of a generation ago, arranged weeks ahead and with a dance program, became almost obsolete. Everything has to be totally "casual" or today's youth rejects it. By 1947 a dance program (listing the dances in numbered order with the girl's partner for each written down) was obsolete. "Going steady," which meant dancing only with the boy who invited her, became established, a complete rejection of the middle-class dance whose purpose was to provide the girl with a maximum number of different partners in order to widen her acquaintance with matrimonial possibilities.
"Going steady," like much of adolescent culture of the "jive" era, was derived from the gangster circles of south Chicago (A: It was in all the movies.) and was first introduced to middle-class knowledge through George Raft movies (A: That was gangster movies)of the 1930's. It was satirized in a now forgotten popular song of the 1920's called "I Want to Dance with the Guy What Brung Me." But by 1947 it was the way of life of much of adolescent America. As a consequence, teen-age couples at high school dances "sat out" most of the evening in bored silence or chatted in a desultory fashion with friends of the same sex. The "jive" language of the period also had a south-Chicago origin and has been traced back, to a large extent, to a saloon run by a certain local oracle called "Hep" early in the twentieth century.
Fortunately, "going steady" was only a brief, if drastic, challenge to parental attitudes, and was soon replaced by tribal gregariousness and tolerant sexual broad-mindedness, which might be called "clique going," since it involved social solidarity (sometimes sexual promiscuity) within a small group, usually of ten or less. This became, to their adults, the "teen-age gang," which still thrives, but never in a very formal way in middle-class circles as it does in lower-class ones. Two casualties of this process are sexual jealousy and sexual privacy, both of which have largely disappeared among many upper-middle-class young people.
Now, that's what the Communists said too, they'd do away with jealousy and so on, and you would have no steady partner. Back with more, after this.
Hi folks, we're back, and we're Cutting Through the Matrix. Just tying a few things together, for folk who think that society just progresses, progresses by itself. Strange word that, too, progress, isn't it. If you want to see progress, you've got to see the series called the Legendary Sin Cities. It was a CBC 3-part series that came out, showing you Berlin, Paris, and Shanghai. They were the sin capitals of the world, run by the same people, I might add, and it was through the 1920s, into the 30s that they really were going like crazy. They had all that I'm reading here tried out back there in those days. And of course, a war put an end to that. But a lot of them actually came over and got into the culture industry in the US and immediately got to work there too, with the same dances on stage and everything, only they put flimsy clothing on instead of none at all, on all their very poverty stricken dancers, these lovely Communists. Anyway, back to this article here, and it said here, about the sexual promiscuity, and it's from Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley, it says here:
This became, to their adults, the "teen-age gang," which still thrives, but never in a very formal way in middle-class circles as it does in lower-class ones. Two casualties of this process are sexual jealousy and sexual privacy, (A: Both of them went out the window. Remember, they were trying to separate in Communism the act of sex and the act of bonding. So there would be no bonding. That's worked very well to the present time now. It's gone now. Most folk, if you listen to youngsters talking, it's literally like, if you're thirsty you go and drink, if you're horny, you go and you know what. Anyway, it says here:)
Two casualties of this process are sexual jealousy and sexual privacy, (A: They didn't care about privacy.) both of which have largely disappeared among many upper-middle-class young people.
In some groups sex has become a purely physiological act, somewhat like eating or sleeping. In others, sexual experience is restricted to loved ones, but since these youths love many persons (or even love everyone) (A: That's what they were told to do.) there is much less of a restriction than it might seem to a middle-class mind. Generally a sharp distinction is made between "loving someone" (which justifies sex) and being "in love" with someone (which justifies monogamous behavior).
But there is widespread tolerance and endless discussion of all these issues. This discussion, like most of the adolescents' endless talk, never reaches any decisions but leaves the question open or decides that "it all depends on how you look at it." As part of such discussions, there is complete casual frankness as to who has had or is having sexual experiences with whom. Widely permeated with an existentialist outlook, (A: And it all came from the universities by the way.) the adolescent society regards each sexual experience as an isolated, contextless act, with no necessary cause or consequence, except the momentary merging of two lonelinesses in an act of togetherness.
So that's how it was viewed and that's how it was pushed. And here's a professor pushing it too, in the same kind of terminology. He thought it was just working well, because he was all for this Brave New World that they were bringing in. And the Council on Foreign Relations, for which he was the historian, was behind a lot of this too. And so was the big foundations. The big foundations helped finance a lot of it too, and they also, you'll find that from most of your big pop stars that came out at the time, who they made them very famous, were all from military-industrial complex parents, strangely enough. Look into the Laurel Canyon, and so on, and find out who they are.
And here's an article here too. It's from A Brief History of the Future by Jacques Attali. He was praised by Henry Kissinger, of course, who was also on the same agenda to change the world. And on pg. 196, A Brief History of the Future, it says.
The couple will no longer be their principal base for life and sexuality. They will prefer to choose, in full transparency, polygamous or polyandrous loves. Men and women, all collectors, more interested in the hunt than the prey, (A: You see, they've turned the society into predators now. I've said that for years. The women and men. They're all preying on each other.) accumulating and exhibiting their trophies, constantly on the move in search of distraction, many of them will be the offspring of mobile families without a geographic or cultural base. They will be loyal only to themselves, and will interest themselves more in their conquests, their wine cellars, their self-monitors, their art collections, and the planning of their erotic lives than in the future of their progeny — to whom they will no longer bequeath either money or power.
(A: Because why? The state will be bringing them up, that's why, obviously. And you can really see why that's, this is all back to Karl Marx, and before Karl Marx, this was planned, believe you me. There were people who decided, hundreds and hundreds of years ago, how to take down society into utter paganism. And if you can do that, because it had been done in ancient times, you see, then you can rule them, very, very easily. Because you've destroyed everything that held them together, which made them fight you. And Attali also goes on, on pg. 280, he says.)
From the very beginning the human species has sought to distance itself from its own method of reproduction. To differentiate itself from the animal kingdom it strove first to deny the productive function of sexuality, then to give it another meaning. In the ritual old order, most cosmogonies insist that not being born of a sexual relation is peculiar to the gods. The monotheistic religions in particular consider sexuality a constraint imposed on men by the forces of evil. The mercantile order, on the contrary, chooses to admit it, while recognizing it as a function different from reproduction, pleasure. Reproduction thus remains in the mercantile order as in previous orders, an animal constraint, that psychiatry, starting at the close of the 19th Century, aims to make tolerable. In the 20th Century, the mercantile order sought to evacuate the reproductive role of sexuality, by making motherhood artificial, by using increasingly sophisticated methods, such as pills, premature labor, in vitro fertilization, surrogate mothers. In super empire for the near future (A: It's actually here now) the mercantile order will even go so far as to disassociate reproduction and sexuality. Sexuality will be kingdom of pleasure. Reproduction that of machines.
Machines, just like Brave New World will basically bring you up.
What I'm getting at tonight is nothing happens by chance. You see, an awful long war has been waged for centuries on nations. Sometimes the same agenda had to be slightly changed to adapt to different cultures to bring them all down. But bringing them all down they have certainly done, all across the Western World. And it's like Yuri Bezmenov talked about in his talks. And he was a KGB defector to the West, and I might put his links up again tonight. It's well worth looking at the series he put up there, where he talked about this cultural war, the takedown of the culture. And that's what he said. He said most of our money in Russia does not go on war as you think of as conventional warfare; rather it goes into undermining the cultures of other countries. And he talked about America, and Britain and other countries. And he says when he came over, many of them came over, they were so surprised to see how effective their plans had been, when they saw the dysfunction around them, and the incredible sexuality of everyone. And the fact that the family was in an absolute mess and being destroyed. And how as planned, selected professors in academia had been promoting whole armies out into the streets, generation by generation to further this particular cause of the destruction of everything that held you together as a people. Never mind the nation, you see, as a people. Just like a tribe. And all your values were smashed, basically. And he said it had been so successful, even more successful than beyond their dreams back in Russia. And it's still going on today folks. It hasn't stopped. And of course, Hollywood is one of your biggest players in all this. All of it.
What he also said, interesting enough too, Yuri Bezmenov, that once this has happened to the people, you can't change them. They've had it. Even if you try to wake them up for their own good, you cannot help them, they're now, and here's the term they use, which is a very apt description, he said, they're now contaminated. Their minds are contaminated. He said, even if you showed them a prison camp, and a real gulag, they wouldn't believe you until an army boot hit them on the ass. That's how bad the indoctrination is, about how free they are, and how in charge of themselves they are, and how they're all doing the right thing. They're contaminated.
To show you how the contamination was taken so seriously by those who understood it and created this ideology, when a lot of prisoners were brought back and freed from the German camps and prison camps during WWII, and freed to go back to Russia, Stalin had them all executed, because he said they will have had their minds while in the camps contaminated with Western ideologies, and he had them all killed. Because they knew, you see, they knew, that it really worked. It embeds in your mind, and you become the ideology.
So, a long, long war was waged, first against the church of course, primarily the Catholic Church, initially. A five hundred year war against it, that tried to keep some values going, even as they were getting perverted from within. And the Protestant Churches, many of them were even used by Communist organizations to further the Communist agenda, without even knowing it. They were willing fronts. Willing fools, as they call them. It was quite amazing, 500 year war. And once you really went into the 20th Century, the big boys took off those who knew the sciences, and they brought in as I say, the Macy Group, and the Vienna Circle, they brought that group in too, the Vienna group, and the Frankfurt group, and worked together, and Bertrand Russell, the CFR, Royal Institute of International Affairs, all these people worked to bring in a New Culture, where they would destroy all the old. Not to bring in what you thought of as a wonderful Soviet paradise, but using that technique to certainly achieve it. They were going to bring in a society which would be defunct, useless. They couldn't stand up together and fight any kind of tyranny, because you see, a big tyranny is planned. A scientific Socialism, but with a fascist face at the top. A tiered society with international corporations above the bureaucracy, the massive bureaucracy that will be running the lives of all those down below, who are now dysfunctional, and on welfare, or on minimum-paying jobs. That's why it was done this way. Perfect.
And even the Soviet system was only to last 70 years or so, according to Lenin himself. And then, of course, it was to merge into a new system, not quite capitalist, not quite communist they said. And then we have the Reece Commission, that also went into the same area, with the big foundations in America, Britain, France, elsewhere, fronting all the NGOs, pushing all what seemed to be left wing doctrines, wanting more and more social work departments, child care departments, all that kind of stuff. Single parent homes for moms, rather than have normal homes built for two people. They wanted single parent homes. That was a mandate of Britain from the late '60s onward, single family homes. Because they knew they were bringing in a welfare state. They were planning it that way. And it's all been accomplished. Now that people are completely defunct, they don't know a previous culture to go back to. They don't know how it was before. They don't have the ability to stay together to help each other in times of trouble. That's been destroyed. That's what got people through in previous ages. But it's quite fascinating to live through it, watch it being done, and watch the big players, as they were doing it. And even the part with Tony Blair, when he was in Britain, too, and it came out in the paper, and I read it from the guy who was his next in command for the prime ministership, who worked with them, who was told by Blair to open the floodgates of immigration to destroy the last vestiges of British culture by bringing in the most diverse peoples. That was mainstream news. I read it on the air here.
You think there isn't a war been going on? Do you benefit? You better start asking questions, who's benefiting. Because we've seen an absolute horror effect across the Western World, just as devastating as any physical war, any machine-made, bullet-ridden, bomb-laden war. Just as devastating. And we don't value life anymore, too. There's more abortions than live births now. We think that's okay. We see fetuses being sold on the internet for body parts, stem cells, this, that and the other. They have art galleries up as they've dehumanized us and dehumanized us and dehumanized us, where they have bodies hanging on wires, covered in plastic, and they call it art. And we don't throw up. Dehumanization is an essential part of dominating and controlling, and being the tyrant over any public.
Here's an article here, and it goes back to 2006. I remember, I think I even read it at the time, as they bring it step by step by step to further degradation.
Women perform pole tricks during a Polepeople pole dancing class
(A: And this one here is from Canada, in British Columbia, it says:)
The class is being offered by B.C.'s Tantra (A: You know, Tantra Yoga. It all starts with yoga, right, eh? Very innocent.) B.C.'s Tantra Fitness, one of a small but growing number of pole-dancing studios quietly extending their services to underage girls. The Canadian company, which operates in Vancouver and Langley, has taught students age nine and up in regular classes, and has gone as young as five years old in private lessons.
There's even talk of introducing a mommy-and-me pole class.
(A: Oh, how quaint, for the new family. Is that what they call the new-clear family? Hmm?)
"I just had a baby six months ago and I'm hoping she'll start to learn pole-dancing as soon as she can," says Tammy Morris, owner of Tantra Fitness. "Kids love the pole. If anything, it's hard to get them off it because they're such naturals."
(A: Do you understand the terminology and the visualization? Hard to get them off the pole.)
Morris, a former exotic dance champion, (A: I wonder how you can be a former dance champion at exotic dance.) says she's worked hard to separate the art of stripping from the art of pole-dancing, with the focus of the latter being fitness and technique. (A: It's all about fitness, you understand.) She acknowledges that the activity is steeped in sexual history, but nonetheless, thinks any moral panic around its instruction to young people is misplaced.
Of course she is. She's making a killing off it. But I'll read more of this claptrap when I come back from this break.
Hi folks, we're back, Cutting Through the Matrix. Just finishing off with an article from Canada, of course. Canada loves to say it's so progressive. We've always had prime ministers who've said we're so progressive in things, and we're on the cutting edge you might say of progress. I've never had anyone define progress to me. It sounds like a plan. You must know where you're going if you're progressing towards it, right? You must know where you're going. Anyway, there's a caller here, and it's Tom from Wisconsin. Are you there, Tom? Hello, Tom?
Tom: I appreciate you taking my call, as always. And I wanted to say tonight that as I find my primal instincts again, my instincts to have a tribe and maintain a tribe and to protect my tribe, I'm discovering more and more as I move along in my days on this planet that that tribal instinct is completely devoid and is completely absent literally from most people, like 99% of the people I talk to, have no real understanding of the tribe and what its function is. And ultimately what they don't understand and I even say this, well, you know, do you want to in your old age be strapped in a gurney and left to die? Because that is what the state will do. The state doesn't care. The state is psychopathic. It's a corporation and it's just like…
Alan: See, if you don't have relatives round about you, and people who love you round about you, when you're dying and it's up to the state, the state is going to euthanize you and just get you out the way as cheaply as possible. That's on the books. And that's what I'm saying. When the tribal instinct, the family instinct, it starts with the family instinct, and then the real community instinct, where you all know the laws and the rules. You don't need cops in fact. You used to have very little cops in most countries. And you all helped each other in times of stress and trouble, because you all knew the rules. You all knew that one day you'd need help too. That's all been destroyed, and now the state is the god. Exactly as they planned in the Fabian Society. They wrote about this agenda, and we're right there today, where literally, they're discussing openly on BBC in Britain, lecture after lecture and discussion after discussion, on euthanasia, cost of keeping a person alive, should we just euthanize them, and of course, if there's no family to stand up to defend you, you have had it. That's you.
Tom: Yep, yep. I completely agree. And, like I was saying. It's just as I was discovering this in myself, after spending the last three years heavily involved in the alternative version of the three dimensional reality on the planet, I'm just flabbergasted, and it takes, what I want to tell the listeners too, is that it takes time to get people to even start to ask questions, because at first they're not even interested, because they're so busy with the false reality they're given. But after some time, after you've been explaining it in different ways, and bringing up different issues, and always feeding them the alternative to the false reality, but unfortunately, also too, I think that in many of the cases, you're right when you say there is absolutely no chance of this thing turning around, because so many people have been as you said earlier in the show, been contaminated by the controllers.
Alan: And memory too. What you need too, is a memory of how a working system did work. They don't even have the memory of that now.
Tom: Nope, not anybody under 30 years old basically doesn't have a memory of as to how it really worked when their grandparents were alive.
Alan: Yes. And now, today one of the biggest problems is older people, it's mainly women, who've done it all, seen it all, they went for it all, and now their best friends are their therapists and so on, and the guys who give them the pills, and they're depressed and all the rest of it, because they didn't have the life, they haven't passed on to children, and they're very, very lonely. In other words, the agenda has been incredibly successful. From Hamish and myself, from Ontario, Canada, it's Good Night and may your god or your gods go with you.
show covered in following links:
Marriage--the Agenda Seems to be Going Well
Yuri Bezmenov, ex-KGB explaining take down from within-Video
Yuri Bezmenov, The Subversion Process-Video
Pole Dancing for Children in B.C. Canada