Dec. 20, 2010 (#730)
Alan Watt "Cutting Through The Matrix" LIVE on RBN:
Poem Copyright Alan Watt Dec. 20, 2010:
Utopian Bentham Creating Bedlam:
Evolution's Goal -- the Goldfish Bowl:
"Remaining Conscious in the World is Paining
To Your Psyche as We're All in Training,
Old Bentham Thought We Should Live in a Bowl
Like Goldfish, Transparent, Each Little Soul
Observed by Other Goldfish, Blowing the Bubble
On Anything Fishy or Sign of Trouble,
Here We are Spied Upon by Control Freaks,
Monitored by Systems Run by NSA Geeks,
The General Mass Doesn't Seem to Mind
As They Spend Lives Watching Their Own Kind,
Fascinated by Others Toileting, Screwing, Pooping,
Comparing Themselves by Obsessive Snooping,
Whod've Thought, Like Fish All in a School,
Voyeurism Would be Pushed as Something Cool,
"Peace Through Transparency," Utopians Lied,
Personally I Like Fish Battered, Deep-Fried"
© Alan Watt Dec. 20, 2010
Poem & Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt - Dec. 20, 2010 (Exempting Music, Literary Quotes, and Callers' Comments)
Hi folks. I am Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix on December 20, 2010. Newcomers, as always, look into cuttingthroughthematrix.com web site. Help yourself to the hundreds of audios for download where I try to give you shortcuts to the big picture of the system you are born into. I try and show you how it works and how it all works together of course, and the various agencies, organizations, etc, often through the United Nations and all their foundations that work with them, the parallel government as it was called by Carroll Quigley, who was the historian for the Council on Foreign Relations. He tells you that the world is run vastly differently from the way that youíre taught in school, and thatís intentional that you are taught a different story. You must think we are just bumbling along down through time and we just sort out the problems, day by day, as we go along. Thatís what government you think does. But nothing is further from the truth. You are living an agenda.
So help yourself to the audios there. Remember, all the sites listed on the front page of cuttingthroughthematrix.com are the official sites. Nothing else out there is mine; thatís what Iím responsible for. They all carry a lot of transcripts of the talks in English for print up; if you wish that to be your way to go Ė lots of people prefer reading in fact Ė you can print them up and pass them around to your friends. Remember to go into alanwattsentientsentinel.eu Ė you will see that listed on the .com site as well Ė if you want transcripts in other languages; take your pick. Remember too, you are the audience that brings me to you. I am a pretty independent guy here. Iím not beholding to advertisers to promote various products, etc. The ads you hear on the show are paid by advertisers to RBN directly; Iíve got nothing to do with it at all, or whoís on, or whatever. That pays for the air time and their staff, equipment and the broadcast too, and their bills. It costs a lot of cash to broadcast all of this stuff, day after day after day. So help me out with my bills and you can do so by buying the books, CDs and DVDs that I have for sale at cuttingthroughthematrix.com. Some of the disks have 40 shows or more on them and itís a good thing to have for reference down the road when who knows what happens with the internet because big things are planned obviously. Iíll be talking about that tonight in fact. So purchase the items I have. [Order and donation options listed above.]
Remember the mail is slow at this time of year with the Christmas rush, and everyone is passing their parcels through the post, full of stuff made in China, because itís tradition apparently. Apart from that, itís really commerce that simply benefits from it and the guys who take all the interest off your credits cards. But thatís the way youíve all been trained to go. Be very careful with your cash and what you use it for. Itís time to often get rid of these commercialized traditions because thatís all they are, commercial now, nothing to do with the time of year, religion or whatever. Itís to do with massive commerce.
Eventually we will be wiring money only and that will be the way of the world because the big world order wants to monitor every darn thing that you do. Thatís what total information network means. I often ask people what they think Ďtotalí means, describe total. That means everything that you say, do and put on that screen there and send it off to whomever, itís all monitored, and kept, and put in a database along with your personality profile, so they can update you, to make sure that nothing radical has happened in your behavior, in the last few days or so. They even have virtual yous in the Pentagon. I read the articles about that too, where all the big servers provide all your data to them, daily, and they update the virtual you, which they use in testing different scenarios to see what you would do in particular situations. It tends apparently to be DEAD ON with what you would actually do in reality. Quite something, eh? But of course they keep telling you youíre free. Like Bertrand Russell says, the people can be living in misery but they will believe they are happy because the government will tell them so. And thatís what weíre told all the time, weíve never had it so good, apparently, even as weíre going into what they call austerity measures Ė which is poverty measures Ė to redistribute what they call Ďour wealthí across the rest of the world. Itís all nice and communistically fair isnít it, and thatís what weíre all working for.
You know, governments were taken over an awful long time ago, an awful, awful long time ago. The big departments in the US that were taken over immediately was the State Department. You had to take the State Department down first and staff if with your own people; then it simply went from there to there to there. You see, anyone who runs for Congress or any position politically, in any country in fact, needs the support of the big guys with the cash. They rule the world. They put in their own people, who pretend then to serve you. And they must all belong to the Council on Foreign Relations if they want to be President and those around, immediately around the President, or Prime Minister. Itís been like that since the late 1800s, according to the guy who was the historian for the Council on Foreign Relations, Carroll Quigley. Thatís the real world you are living in. Most people donít know it. Most people donít want to know it. It kind of scares them to think there is another agenda on the go and they have no possibility of getting in touch with a Congressman who will listen, which is of course the fact of it all. You are very lucky ever to get through to someone who is supposed to represent you, but then they donít represent you at all, do they? They have all their assistants to deal with you and they have the greatest assistant of all, itís called the garbage bin, everything you send in ends up in the garbage bin. You see, they canít change their agendas because of little old you. Not at all.
Big, big things are happening now, now that they have got everyone hooked on the internet. I said this years ago, theyíll get you all hooked on it and eventually they will start to police it and take it down until itís uniform, mainstream, etc. And you will keep putting your data up there. Thatís the only reason itís there for, is to make sure the data, you are putting your data up there and sharing with everybody. That means itís public property and the government snatches it. Cops watch all your Tweets and your Twitters and all the things that little birdies do, when they make a chatter. Birds are pretty ineffectual, you know, when they make a chatter. Thatís why they give you names like Tweet and Twitter and all the rest of it, if you havenít figured that out by now.
Thatís the world we are living in and itís changing very, very quickly, rapidly as they go into the next step. Iím going to read tonight some articles. Iíll give you the links at the end of the show at cuttingthroughthematrix.com. You have to give me some time to get the first page up before you search for them because I have to upload slowly, by satellite. Even though itís supposed to be high speed itís pretty slow. Thatís what we have in the world, again too. There are a lot of fibs; they say fibs in Britain. A lie sounds worse but a fib is more acceptable. There are a lot of fibs in commerce when they want to sign you on to different things, and get lots of cash out of you Ė like giving you high speed. But I have no option, as I say, because I live in whatís called the country. Eventually I will be one of the few left in the country before they tax me out of here too, or send some guy in, under the environment, to say, you canít stay here because of this, this and this and this and my God, you are polluting the landÖ with whatever, you know, excess CO2 from your breath, or whatever, and Iíll be bunged off into the cities with the rest of them. That IS the agenda, in Agenda 21.
The United Nations has already said that by the year 2030, 2040, there will be very few people living in the country Ė less than 3% - and they will be extremely rich people. Who they will be actually are your overlords who manage everything, and a lot of the helpers; there will be high bureaucrats, who manage the world State. By then there will be no deception whatsoever, they will simply call it The World State, you are under The World Government. We are actually under it now but we are going through the farce of pretending we have sovereign nations, even though Van Rompuy, the head of the EU, who was never elected of course, because they do it all in secrecy, and they admit that too, said itís the end of the nation-state, itís over, finished. So letís not kid ourselves about things.
When you bail money outÖ and what is money anyway Ė thatís a whole different topic. When you bail other countries out with your hard-earned cash, to help people, supposedly pay off a debt thatís going to take another thousand, two thousand years to pay off, then itís all farcical isnít it? Donít you understand itís not meant to be paid off? Itís meant to keep you in a system, for the future, in the future, in slavery under the same people. Thatís what itís all about. Thatís why theyíve never changed it, even though itís never worked on behalf of the people. Why should they change it when it keeps you in perpetual debt and slavery? Thatís the reason for this debt system, central banking and all the rest of it, where we borrow money.
Here is an article.
UN considers panel of governments to set policies for policing the Internet
By Stephen C. Webster / Friday, December 17th, 2010 / rawstory.com
(Alan: So here is the policing thing going up a step further.)
A United Nations task force formed last week said it was considering the creation of a new inter-governmental (A: Panel of governments, a panel of governments, to set policies for policing the internet.) working group to help further international cooperation on policies to police the Internet.
The discussion was undertaken to "enhance" and extend the work of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), (A: They love these little terms because we canít remember them all, can we?) a UN-sponsored organization (A: Again, a private one.) that makes recommendations on how governments should deal with the Internet. (A: No doubt, itís all put under a charitable organization, you see; that gives them free scope to do what they want and pay no taxes.) The IGF's mandate is due to expire soon, so members of the UN's Commission on Science and Technology for Development Bureau took up the issue and formed a task force to determine what the new IGF should look like.
The bureau's members, however, decided their task force would be limited to governments only, with no representation by civil or industry groups. (A: So thereís no public input; thatís you or I.)
The decision drew a sharp warning from search giant Google, (A: This is a formality, as they go through this Ė Oh, you canít do that Ė and they go along with it quite happily.) which insisted that the next IGF, if comprised only of governments, could result in them obtaining a "monopoly" on how the Internet is run, as opposed to the current model where innovation flows from the bottom up. Google's blog said the firm had joined a petition of other industry groups in opposing the composition of the UN's task force. (A: But itís a done deal, you see.)
Delegates stressed that the new working group would not pose an effort to micromanage industry, but to better facilitate government control over networks in a broader sense, (A: Thatís very vague isnít itÖ Ďin a broader senseíÖ) and to harmonize (A: Thatís when we all sing together, saying weíre screwed.) enforcement policies between nations. (A: Itís all to do with bringing in the new laws as to who can say what on the net and what you canít say; instant fines; then even banishment into the great black ether when they take you off the net for a while to punish you. And Iím not kidding about that. Itís a tool for reward and punishment; thatís really what it is. Because we are treated as animals, you see; it works with animals, it will work with us. Unfortunately thatís very true; they are right on with all of this stuff.)
At the task force's meeting on Tuesday, delegates for China, Brazil, India, South Africa, Serbia and Saudi Arabia said they supported the government-only plan, with some saying they hoped it would further proliferation of broadband services in poorer nations. (A: Well, weíll all pay for that anyway.) Brazil specifically insisted it should not be seen as a "takeover" of the Internet.
A delegate for Portugal added that proliferation of the Internet had already made "such an impact" on helping impoverished African nations, where banking by cell phone has become popularized thanks to support by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (A: Thatís where you get all the junk mail saying, you know, some guy died in a car crash in Zimbabwe or something and left a billion dollars to you. I get that every day; Iím worth a fortune if I collect all this cash, from all these people I donít know, whoíve left me money. Itís fantastic. Thatís what we are paying for actually.)
And while she credited the spread of technology with "opening countries," she also said that the free and open Internet has the tendency to "create crime" (A: Create crime, reallyÖ oh!) out in the real world, giving reason for enhanced international cooperation on network management and law enforcement. (A: So there you go with the law enforcement.)
The comment seemed to be one of several less-than-subtle nudges (A: Again, they love Ďnudges.í) toward policies (A: Itís interesting that Ďpolicyí has got Ďpoliceí in it, isnít it?) that could be construed as a response to secrets outlet WikiLeaks, which has in recent weeks caused an international furor over its role in aiding media reports on a cache of leaked US State Department cables. (A: Which I am not really into at all; Iím not really sure of this. This stuff seems too suspicious to me.) The US Department of Justice said it was investigating charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who was recently released on bail in London pending an extradition fight over sexual assault charges from Sweden.
(A: The whole thing doesnít smell right does it? Here they are wanting to go further, policing the internet and bingo, out comes Julian Assange, who also has said the he believes that the government, when they say who brought down the Towers, were quite right, and stuff like that. You know, I mean it just doesnít smell right. Itís amazing too, that amongst all the garbage, which is just gossip, which everyone will forget, in the leaked emails, the things that stand out which the government is grabbing, isÖ Iran is really bad, these countries are really, really terrible, etc. It doesnít sound right. By the way, he is in the same prison as John is in, the guy who put out the video 7/7 Ripple Effect, about the bombings in London, asking all the questions that should have been asked in the courts. He lost his extradition charge from Ireland and now he is over in England, in the same prison as Assange. Assange has been released by the way, which I knew would happen. John is in there apparently for what could be for life because they tried him under the Terrorism Act, for putting out a videoÖ and sending it to the judge. Amazing, eh? Thatís what they really do to you, if they want you inside. They put you inside and throw away the key.)
In the weeks since stories about the cables began appearing in newspapers all over the world, the US government and private entities such as PayPal, Visa, MasterCard, online retailer Amazon and even a Swiss bank have acted in tandem in a campaign to censor the website, halt its funding and knock it offline. Even after "mass attacks" succeeding in getting WikiLeaks.org delisted from the centralized Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) (A: Öwhich is another private, charitable organization, that takes track of all your internet names.)
We are being policed by so many of these PRIVATE, CHARITABLE organizations; itís just astonishing isnít it? There are so many people wanting to do good in the world, and mind you, theyíve got all this money to back them too; they donít go around with tin cans. We are policed by private companiesÖ is the bottom line. When youíve got private companies dealing with you, you canít complain to government. They just say, well itís a private company, what can we do? Thatís the way of the world. Thatís the reality of the world. Thatís where we are in this world today. So Iíll put this link up at the end of the evening on cuttingthroughthematrix.com.
Another article is to do with the UK; part of the strategy of bringing them down was to flood them, absolutely flood them over many years with massive immigration from the most diverse cultures in order to destroy, as Tony Blairís aide said, the British culture forever, so it could never come back. Well they have been awfully successful with it. It says hereÖ
The migrant cap is illegal and must be ditched, say judges
(A: They are putting a cap on migration now; they were talking about it. )
By Steve Doughty, Social Affairs Correspondent / dailymail.co.uk / 18th December 2010
The immigration cap brought in by Home Secretary Theresa May was unlawful, judges have said.
They ruled that the first attempt at an immigration cap brought in by Home Secretary Theresa May during the summer was unlawful and must be dropped. (A: So basically, itís a free-for-all for getting in now and they were trying to cut down on the unskilled workers, just basic laborers, when Britain is full of unemployed laborers. Quite something, eh? So theyíve said they canít do that; theyíve got to let them all in. I'll be back with more after this break.
Hi folks. Weíre back and weíre Cutting Through The Matrix, just talking about an article here concerning trying to cap immigration for unskilled labor, but most of itís coming in not from the EU, itís coming in from outside the EU. The EU now is just a new soviet bloc so they are allowed to travel within there looking for work from country to country. But most of the immigration for the 30-40 years is coming from outside that bloc. The politicians do their usual posturing, get us in and weíll do this, this and this, and then they go in, pass something, which they know wonít get through, and then they say, well, we triedÖ we tried to fulfill our promises. Thatís what they are really doing in Britain. Everything in government is a pantomime for the public. Thatís all it is. Itís posturing and pantomime for the public, with a bit of sophistry put out there by very good script writers. Some of these script writers, by the way, are international script writers. They go from country to country, or they sit in their own homes somewhere else in some other country, and write them up for these guys. Weíve had instances in fact, where the Prime Minister of Canada was giving the exact same speech, the exact same speech as the Prime Minister from Australia. They were in a hurry, they said, and they had to borrow the guyís speech. Up on Google somewhere there is actually a split screen where you will see them both giving the same speech, backing up the US to invade Iraq and all the rest of it. Itís quite funny to watch. So, these are actors and itís a pantomime stage and we are supposed to believe in them. Of course their job is also to take the rotten tomatoes when we get upset and stuff like that. The big boys put them in charge, as Carroll Quigley said, the top guys and especially all the advisors, who know the agenda; they are the guys who really are important and they are all part of the CFR. They have the Royal Institute of International Affairs in Britain, which is CFR, and they have one now for the whole of the European Union and for their parliament as well. So why bother voting when you are voting for the Royal Institute of International Affairs and its European branch? Why bother? Thatís what you are living through. Itís utter nonsense as I say.
Google, also, youíve all heard of ChromeOS to do with The Cloud. This Cloud is where we are all to get pushed eventually, into the cloud. Maybe itís above the CO2, I donít know. But anyway, we are going to get pushed into this Cloud where we wonít need hard drives and so on, on your computers because, my God, The Cloud will take care of everything for you. It will update all the spyware; you donít worry about any of that stuff anymore. Thatís why weíve been getting so annoyed, everyone is getting so annoyed about their new programs for spyware and Trojans and ya-da, ya-da, ya. Most of itís nonsense, but we all go through the motions of downloading updates for spyware and so on. Itís to get you trained into saying, thank God, something has taken over for us, we donít have to keep doing this all the time. You see. This saysÖ
Google's ChromeOS means losing control of data,
warns GNU founder Richard Stallman
New cloud computing OS released by Google is plan to push people into 'careless computing', warns free software advocate
Charles Arthur / 14 December 2010 / guardian.co.uk Ė Technology
(A: The Guardian, generally theyíre very left wing on everything else.)
Google's new cloud computing ChromeOS looks like a plan "to push people into careless computing" by forcing them to store their data in the cloud rather than on machines directly under their control, warns Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation and creator of the operating system GNU.
Two years ago Stallman, a computing veteran who is a strong advocate of free software via his Free Software Foundation (A: Öanother foundationÖ), warned that making extensive use of cloud computing was "worse than stupidity" because it meant a loss of control of data. (A: Öby the user.)
Now he says he is increasingly concerned about the release by Google of its ChromeOS operating system, which is based on GNU/Linux and designed to store the minimum possible data locally (A: Öthatís on your computer.). Instead it relies on a data connection to link to Google's "cloud" of servers, which are at unknown locations, to store documents and other information. (A: Folk will love it actually. You know the herd will just go right into this. Itís so easy and so convenientÖ I can always get access, as long as Iím awfully good. Otherwise you are locked out, right.)
The risks include loss of legal rights to data if it is stored on a company's machine's rather than your own, (A: And thatís a fact too. Itís like a bank, when you put money in a bank, itís not yours anymore. If you look into the laws of it, itís not yours anymore. Itís the same with putting your data on someone elseís machine; itís not yours anymore.) Stallman points out: "In the US, you even lose legal rights if you store your data in a company's machines instead of your own. The police need to present you with a search warrant to get your data from you (A: Öat the moment.); but if they are stored in a company's server, the police can get it without showing you anything. They may not even have to give the company a search warrant."
Google gave ChromeOS a "soft" launch last week, showing off aspects of the software and providing developers and some journalists with Cr-48 laptops set up to run it, (A: Theyíll write glowing reports as theyíre getting these free laptops, eh?) while saying that it won't be widely available until mid-2011. (A: In reality though, itís all set to go, as you well know.)
(A: As far as Google goes, I mean, I just say itís a branch of the NSA. Itís just a branch of the NSA, thereís no doubt about it. I watched a documentary quite some time back where the head of Google was quite casually saying, oh yeah, we share all the data with MI6 and so on; anybody who asks for it we give it. Well, they are part of it; they are part of the intelligence network. You HAVE to have something like that. You canít have real private organizations out there, for the public, protecting the public. Youíve got to make sure you put out the biggest one first, which is run by the NSA. For the whole point of it is data collection isnít it, for total information network.)
Eric Schmidt, Google's chief executive, praised it in a blogpost: "For me, these announcements were among the most important of my working life (A: Thatís from Eric Schmidt, Googleís chief executive, who is all for it of course. I'll be back with more after this break.)
Hi folks. Iím back and weíre Cutting Through The Matrix, just talking about an article about The Cloud computing. Most will go into this, thereís no doubt about it. I have no doubt that people wonít flood into this. Itís easier and better... and all the rest of it. Theyíve got so much time on their hands, you see, they canít spend seconds taking care of their own computer here and there. They want to be surfing all the time and playing with their virtual this and virtual that, etc, everything except reality. You canít stop lemmings; thatís a fact. You canít stop them; itís never worked so far. This Stallman goes on, Stallman who was the inventor of the first part of this thing.
He sees a creeping problem: "I suppose many people will continue moving towards careless computing (A: Thatís the term they are using, where you give all your data away for free.), because there's a sucker born every minute. (A: And thatís true; Barnum came up with that statement a long time ago.) The US government may try to encourage people to place their data where the US government can seize it without showing them a search warrant, rather than in their own property. However, as long as enough of us continue keeping our data under our own control, we can still do so. And we had better do so, or the option may disappear."
Stallman only sees one aspect of ChromeOS to applaud: its GNU/Linux heritage. "In essence, Chrome OS is the GNU/Linux operating system. However, it is delivered without the usual applications, and rigged up to impede and discourage installing applications," he told the Guardian. "I'd say the problem is in the nature of the job ChromeOS is designed to do. Namely, encourage you to keep your data elsewhere, and do your computing elsewhere, instead of doing it in your own computer." (A: Of course it will be a hackerís dream and all the rest of it.)
Itís all coming together. Everything that happens in the news comes together at the right time, even the people who supposedly get put up there as champions of speech by leaking stuff. It kind of works together and you really canít take much that you are being told as fact anymore. We are living in a fantasy here of massive intelligence networking and operations to make you believe certain things: left, right, up, down, whatever. And that is true. Thatís very, very true. Very true.
We are treated like animals, as I say. At the top level they have no problem talking about us as animals. We are trained the exact same way. They have behaviorists working with them and various others, neuroscientists now, and neuroeconomists they call them as well, using incentives to make people do things or punishing them, financially, if they donít do things. We are treated exactly the same way as animals, Pavlovian dogs. Actually they keep calling us mice, rats and sheep and cattle; regardless, thatís how we are really, really treated at the bottom. Unfortunately it does really work. It does work.
In some of the US cities, for instance Ė and people keep tabs with me all the time on whatís happening, in the subways, etc. For the last few years the cops are bringing down tables into the subways and they stand around these tables. It was for inspections but they didnít do any inspecting. They are getting you trained to see them, so you donít get spooked and scared and nervous. Once you get used to something you kind of ignore them and then eventually they start asking the random person, can we inspect your purse there, maíam? and all that kind of stuff. We are trained, incrementally, as you would do with any animal. So here is WashingtonÖ
Washington subway police to begin random bag checks
WASHINGTON | Thu Dec 16, 2010 / reuters.com
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Officers will start random bag inspections on the sprawling Washington subway system, (A: I guess they will do it all over the place now.) the Washington Metro Transit Police said on Thursday, a week after a man was arrested for making bomb threats to the rail system. (A: You know, for as long as I have lived, people whoíve got a beef have made bomb threats forever, with shopping malls and you name it. Whatever it is they make bomb threats, anonymous bomb threats. And who says that the guy did it or not, eh? Who knows? Did they do it themselves to get this through?)
Metrorail police officers plan to randomly select bags before passengers enter subway stations and they will swab them (A: They are going to swab themÖ) or have an explosives-sniffing dog check the bags, according to the Metro police. (A: Itís amazing being a suspect in everything, eh? Weíre all suspects now, you see. Every person across the planet is a suspect. Thatís what they used to call in the Soviet system Ďcollective punishmentí. That guy at the far east coast did something there, so the whole lot of you are forbidden now to do this, this, this and this... collective punishment.)
There is "no specific or credible threat to the system at this time," Metro said in a statement. Passengers who refuse to have their bags inspected will be denied entry into the subway system. (A: So there you go. Itís blackmail isnít it? BlackmailÖ Itís like Fido, you see, in Pavlovís hands, if it doesnít roll over or jump into the corner as itís supposed to it wonít get fed. Itís the same thing.)
"The program will increase visible methods of protecting our passengers and employees, while minimizing inconvenience to riders," Metro Transit Police Chief Michael Taborn said in a statement announcing the new checks. (A: Well, how is that going to do when they are making youÖ And I tell you whatís going to come eventually; you will get strip-searched in public. And Iím not kidding about that either. That IS coming. That is coming.)
You have to be utterly dehumanizedÖ with no self-respectÖ and trained into that for a generation. To be utterÖ you know, like serfs or slaves in ancient Egypt or something. You will do whatever you are told. Thatís what they want. We are under authoritarianism now and we are getting trained through the scientific techniques as opposed to the old-fashioned persuasion by reason, as they say.
Now, sometimes too, there is trivia that comes out there and youíve got to look at the trivia and know how to read it. Newspapers love the term Ďoutrage,í stuff like that; you know, stuff that causes Ďoutrage.í This is how far people really read articles, without thinking whatís behind it. The newspapers are FULL of this kind of thing. It saysÖ
Death crash driver wins asylum bid
December 16, 2010 / uk.news.yahoo.com (A: This is in Britain.)
Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, 33, (A: 33 of course. Heís probably a 33 degreeÖ) an Iraqi Kurd, was already banned from driving when he ran off, leaving Amy Houston trapped under his Rover car.
Her father, Paul Houston, 41, from Darwen, Lancashire, begged judges at a recent deportation hearing to bring "my seven years of hell to an end" by sending Ibrahim back to Iraq. (A: This happened 7 years ago and the guy is still in Britain. Then they go through the terrible things that happened and so on and how this guy is still in Britain and so on. Now heís being allowed to stay in Britain. They just ruled, finally; heís allowed to stay in Britain. Itís meant to get everybody frustrated and angry, you see, as Mr Houston saidÖ)
Mr Houston said he was "frustrated and angry" at the decision.
He said: "How can he say he's deprived of his right to a family life? The only person deprived of a family life is me. Amy was my only family."
Well, whatís behind that? The guy is an asset, you see. The guy, heís Islamic; he is an asset to MI5. Thatís the reason they let him stay in the country. Thatís why he was there in the first place. Thatís why he was there in the first place. He mixes amongst the community. Theyíve got organizations in every town and village across the whole of Britain now, where everyone is spied upon by organizations within the community and thatís why. So Iím sorry, even if he killed 10 people, theyíd still say, well, heís worth it; heís a good asset. Thatís whatís missing from this paper, if you havenít figured it out. What a world we live in, eh? See, weíre all disposable. For the greater good, you understand. Yep. Öthe greater good.
Now, there are a lot of do-gooders in the world. Folk who are do-gooders are very often brainwashed by the political correctness of their time. Real do-gooders often get koshed in the head with batons and stuff for doing the wrong thing, but other ones kind of fall into the nature loving and all the rest of it. Here is an article to show you how crazy it is, in the most control freak country on the planet right now.
Men who risked their lives to save pregnant deer (A: Öa pregnant deer, right.) from icy river are fined for not wearing lifejackets (A: Öby the police.)
By Daniel Bates / dailymail.co.uk / 19th December 2010
It was an act of selfless charity that should have earned them a medal. But instead of being praised, a pair of Good Samaritans have been hit with a $90 fine each for saving a pregnant deer from an icy death.
Jim Hart and Khalil Abusakran sprang into action when the stricken animal got itself stuck on semi-frozen river.
The pair had reportedly grown exasperated watching a fire crew and a policeman stand next to the icy water and discuss among themselves what to do. (A: Do you remember the article too, it happened a few years back when a plane came down in New York into the water and they were all standing to the side, watching folk drowning, and a guy eventually just off with his clothes and dived in and saved a woman. Heís a hero. Well, if you do anything like that in Britain they are going to fine you because they werenít wearing a life jacket. Iím not kidding you; this is it.)
While the emergency services looked on they jumped into their own boat and rowed to the middle of the river where they hacked away at the 10ft thick ice with their oars and freed the deer.
But, instead of thanking the men, when they got back to shore the policeman ticked them off and issued them with a $90 fine - for not wearing lifejackets.
The men now face a court hearing in February where they plan to argue their case and refuse to pay the ticket.
I guess they think that reason will win out in the end. This is the country where a pensioner, remember, dropped money out his pocket, that was about a £5 note or a £10 note, and he was fined quite a large amount of money for dropping litter. He didnít know he dropped the cash; who would drop cash and walk away? But thatís the control freak society you are now living in folks. These police are robots now. They just want to give people fines and tickets and so on. There is no coming and going with these robots anymore. There is no common sense involved; they just want to get somebody on the books. Thatís all. Itís good for their rťsumť and getting up the ladder. Anybody is fair game. ANYBODY at all.
From the Globe and Mail, for a change they actually put an article in which makes some sense. And itís important regarding the system. It doesnít fill it all in for you, but if you understand the agenda it helps you with more data.
Just watch us: The utopian dream of total openness
Doug Saunders / theglobeandmail.com / Londonó Dec. 18, 2010
Two hundred and twenty-seven years ago, English reformer Jeremy Bentham (A: For those who know the name...) proposed an idea that seemed to foretell everything in 2010: What if, instead of private individuals judged only by God, we had a society based on total and universal transparency, in which anyone could be observed at any moment and government activities and citizens' lives could instantly be assessed by anyone who cared to look? (A: It sounds kind of nice, utopian eh. That was the age of utopian thinkers.)
A world without privacy, he declared, would be a world of universal morality (A: Well look around you folks, do you seeÖ well, thatís the new morality. The new morality is anything they tell you it is.): ďA new mode of obtaining power of mind over mind, in a quantity hitherto without example: and that, to a degree equally without example, secured by whoever chooses to have it so, against abuse.Ē
The most concrete legacy of Bentham's utopianism was his idea, then considered dangerously intrusive, of having Parliament conduct its debates in public and on the record. Up to then, Parliament had taken place in secret, and governments had argued that public access to debates would damage national security.
The Benthamites wanted it open, and their agenda was pushed by free-information radicals such as London mayor Brass Crosby (A: Thereís a name for youÖ Brass CrosbyÖ), who helped publishers use illegal mass document leaks Ė in the form of then-illegal transcripts later known as Hansard (A: Hansard is very good for looking up today, because you have the House of Lords stuff on it too. Well, some of it, because there is stuff thatís kept in secret yet.) Ė to force parliamentary debates into the public. (A: It doesnít matter what parliament debates; itís an acting show, because things are really done in secret, through shadow governments and different departments and so on.)
But Bentham's most radical ideas were embodied in the Panopticon. It was a design for a large, circular public building (A: Which they are using for prisons now, by the way.) whose occupants, arrayed around its backlit perimeter, can be seen at once from a central tower. This turned open information into a way of life. It didn't matter if there were 50 guards in the darkened tower, or one, or even none: Everyone in any room knew that there was a good chance he was being watched, so he would change his behaviour. (A: Behavior modification, you see, which is what we are all getting taught to do now, as the cameras are all over the place. You walk around just like they did in the Soviet Union. Your face is blank, if youíve got any sense at all, and you kind of look at the sidewalk and everybodyís feet as you are walking by and donít look at anybody in the eyes. This is how old this agenda is.)
This was most popular as a design for prisons, and there are still hundreds of Panopticon penitentiaries around the world, but it was also meant to be applied to hospitals, schools, factories, madhouses (A: Öthatís the worldÖ) and facilities for the maintenance of virginity (don't ask). (A: I donít know what that is. Maintenance of virginity, thatís maybe some special clones theyíve made or something.)
Bentham didn't just want privacy to break down between government and its citizens (or prisoners). He believed that ending privacy would actually make guards, police and many government agencies unnecessary, because citizens would do the observing. (A: So turning the world into spies is what he is talking about.)
ďThe doors of all public establishments ought to be thrown wide open to the body of the curious at large Ė the great open committee of the tribunal of the world,Ē he wrote, noting that the breakdown of privacy would create not only moral behaviour among those observed, but entertainment for those doing the watching (A: Iím sure they have a good laugh in all these places where they have all the TV cameras, the monitors, eh?): ďThe scene [in a prison],Ē he wrote, ďthough a confined, would be a very various, and therefore, perhaps, not altogether an unamusing one.Ē (A: So I guess he didnít see himself as getting observed, just the peasants.)
We are now living in the world Jeremy Bentham dreamed about. It's not just that our technologies, from GPS-equipped cellphones to social-media accounts to ubiquitous CCTV cameras to full-body scanners, give us the ability to see almost anything about anyone. A great many of us, maybe a majority, have come to believe that privacy is not so much a right or a luxury but a bad idea, a social evil. (A: You understand, this has got a slant on it, this whole article? Thatís why itís in the paper, folks. They guy who came up with Facebook said the same thing: The day of privacy is over, itís a bad thing. Well, itís bad for whom, eh? Whom? They are training the generations, and you all out there, not to even bother with privacy. Who needs it anyway? Weíve evolved, you see, you donít have tyrannical governments anymore. You donít get psychopaths born in every generation anymore. No, no, no, everybody is so nice and sweet.)
In January, Mark Zuckerberg, the founder and chief executive of Facebook (just declared Time Magazine's person of the year) (A: But donít worry folks because Hitler was too in the 1930s, TWICE.), took to a stage and denounced privacy as an obsolete value.
ďWhen I got started in my dorm room at Harvard,Ē he said, ďthe question a lot of people asked was ĎWhy would I want to put any information on the Internet at all? Why would I want to have a website?' Ē
That changed in less than five years. Now, to reveal your private world, and to peer into the intimacies of others, willingly or not, is often considered normal, (A: Itís interesting too, talking about a sucker born every minute and there is Mr Zucker, which is Ďsucker,í you know. [Alan chuckles.]) and Mr. Zuckerberg realized that he could end the world's privacy fixation. (A: Oh, he could do it all himself, eh?)
Do you understand they are ALL connected, the stars they give you? The guys that play their role, like Bill Gates and all the rest of itÖ PULLED UP, you know, pulled up through the door of light, just like in The Matrix movie and told what to do, and live very well off it mind you. You must believe itís a different guise, willy-nilly, all unconnected thatís bringing this world into existence. There is nothing FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. There is an incredible organization above all this, with all the money in the world, since they are the lenders. I'll be back with more after this break.
Hi folks. Iím back and weíre Cutting Through The Matrix and weíve got Kelly from Edmonton on the line. Are you there Kelly?
Kelly: Hi Alan. Thank you for everything that you are doing. I have a quick question. Itís a little bit off topic and Iím sure that in the past you have perhaps covered this already. My question is, what are the connections between the Salvation Army Church and the Freemasons?
Alan: Well, the guys who set up the Salvation Army, the ones who set it up, were all high Freemasons to begin with. When they set them up it was to advance the British Empire, at the time.† The Oxford Group they called them, that was run and set up by money from the Milner Group that became the Royal Institute of International Affairs, decided that theyíd have to bring in a form of religion across their empire that they were conquering. They decided that religion, in fact, especially an obedient kind of religion, would be awfully good to go into Africa with and different countries like that. But they are Masonic in nature. Itís the same time as they set up the Boy Scouts as well, uniforms. Whenever you see uniformity it means Ďone,í you see, uni-form, one form. Itís just like the military and the militarization of them. Even youíll notice too, during the tsunami, I think it was first with the tsunami that the Presidents and Prime Ministers all said that you must give your money to the Red Cross and the Salvation Army. So for the first time they are telling you where to put your aid to, all the cash to and so on. Then eventually they put George Bush Sr with Bill Clinton over the distribution of this cash that apparently just all went missing, as far as I can tell; it did NOT go to the countries it was supposed to go to. So itís all part of this big global structure. The Salvation Army now have caved in to all the other demands; they will not talk about certain topics and so on, in order to have their official status for tax-free exemption, etc. They actually caved in and agreed not to mention certain topics like homosexuality and stuff like that or anything that offended anybody at all. They are very politically correct now.
Kelly: Are they the only church that has tax-exempt donations?
Alan: No. Oh, no. Most churches are registered under tax-exempt donations and so on. But they also get handed a list of things they must not say to the congregation, and that goes across the whole of Canada; almost every church is signed on to it, a long time ago in fact. Thatís why they must be politically correct and whenever they get a new item or term or topic added to the list, they must not; they can be fined and lose their license if they actually mention any of these things to the general public. You understand that organizations are never demolished; you always use existing organizations because itís already set up for you to use. The World Council of Churches is run by the Rockefeller Foundation; they set it up. Of course, they eventually get all their indoctrination into the seminaries so they get a standard indoctrination and everybody comes out prattling the same stuff, thatís different from the stuff that was prattled before with the previous generation. You never destroy an organization. The Catholic Church is the same. I knew theyíd never destroy it. They took it over from within over a long period of time. You donít waste that kind of power over millions of people, you USE it over them and thatís what theyíve always done. Itís much easier to get an existing one thatís already established and use it.
Kelly: Thank you. Thank you, Alan. I know they are having a meeting in London to vote in a General. I think thatís happening in mid January of 2011 and itís called The High Council. So I thank you so much for your work and for your insights Alan. This helps me a great deal with my research.
Alan: Thanks for calling. And good luck too. Whenever you hear Ďgeneralí or Ďdirector generalí, itís the same as the United Nations, itís the one global system.
From Hamish and myself from Ontario, Canada, itís good night and may your God or your Gods GO with you.
Topics of show covered in following links:
UN creating Panel of Governments to Set Internet
Migrant Cap Ruled Illegal
Google's ChromeOS means Losing Control of Data
Washington Subways--Bag Searches or No Ride
Killer Allowed to Stay in Britain
Britain--The Most Control-Freaked Nation in the World (so far)
The Utopian Dream of No Privacy