Dec. 28, 2010 (#735)
Alan Watt "Cutting Through The Matrix" LIVE on RBN:
Poem Copyright Alan Watt Dec. 28, 2010:
Freedom is Slavery in Promoted Depravity:
"Will You Drift Along with Rest of Mankind,
Directed by Those in Control of Your Mind,
You May Be Content with Moves You Take,
Motivated by Promoters of Decisions "You" Make,
Most People are Happy to Be Guided Along
By the Pleasure Principle and Carefree Song,
Takes Time and Effort to Discover Reality,
No Effort in Following the Commonality,
Have Fun Today with No Thought of Tomorrow,
'til Pills and Psychiatry Deal with All Sorrow,
The Perfect Prison is All Self-Contained,
For Sensuously Ignorant, Obedient, Restrained"
© Alan Watt Dec. 28, 2010
Poem & Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt - Dec. 28, 2010 (Exempting Music, Literary Quotes, and Callers' Comments)
Hi folks. I am Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix on December 28, 2010. I always get the little plug out of the way first thing to let you get some peace as you listen to the rest of the stories Iíve got and so on. So I go into the newcomers; the newcomers should look into cuttingthroughthematrix.com; thatís the main web site. Bookmark all the other sites youíll see listed on the front page. All those sites carry audios of the talks Iíve given. They all carry a lot of transcripts in English for print up. If you want transcripts in other languages go into alanwattsentientsentinel.eu which you will see listed on the .com site as well and help yourself to those for print up.
You are the audience who bring me to you because I donít bring on advertising guests. That would be very lucrative if I did; I can if I want to. So far I have been given a free hand to do what I want; I thought Iíd go the other way and depend on the audience to support me. And itís getting difficult these days because folk are so used to getting everything for free, at least they think itís for free but nothing in this world is truly free. So if you want me to stay on the air please donate and purchase the books, CDs and DVDs that I have for sale. You can find them on all of the web sites and the buttons to purchase or donate. [Order and donation options listed above.]
On this particular show I donít pull any punches, in a sense, and itís taken time to put across to an audience who really started with nothing. They start with the reality they are IN or at least the one they have adopted or accepted simply because everyone else has accepted it too and they all think they are quite normal. I have taken them through the steps of the various sciences involved to show them that you are being heavily manipulated on a daily basis and you have been since you were a child, by people who really run the world. They run it outside of politics; in fact they run politics as well. These are the mind managers of course, and they are scientists. Very old sciences are used to control millions of people and the trick is to get the big human herds, as they like to call the public of different countries, the human herds to go along with their plan. They donít fumble along just saying what will we do now. They know what they want to do after this stage, the next stage, and the next stage, and the next stage. Thatís how the world really is run and itís been like that for an awful, awful long time.
Tonight Iíll be talking about some of this because itís important to get a good foundation in at least the techniques that are used. As I say, the big boys, who have written books about it themselves, knowing that the general public have no patience to read anything, and knowing too that the culture industry, the whole industry of what you believe is your reality, is so overwhelming now that very few people can really break out of it. Most folk think they have woken up when they realize that 9/11 just collapsed like a deck of cards, but they donít know that they were already under the illusion before that happened as well. I'll be back with more after this break.
Hi folks. Iím Alan Watt, weíre Cutting Through The Matrix and talking about how we understand the big world around us. We understand it the way we are taught to understand it, by those who already control it. We think we are sane when we bounce our ideas off Ė our downloads really Ė off those around us, our peer group, and they come back with the same replies and they are all in agreement, so therefore you must be sane. Thatís the simple technique of creating, really, an artificial insanity. Or sanity, it depends how you want to look upon it.
The sciences behind the mind are really old although they keep ongoing with them and repeating experiments over and over, ad nauseam, in universities to make sure that they havenít missed anything, because itís very important for the controllers not to miss anything. Thatís why you are all being monitored on the internet and your cell phones and everything else that you do. You think you are not so important but there are people above, way above you, that think you are important because you might have some wild idea that no one has ever thought about before and set up some kind of ripple effect that upsets the apple cart. Thatís what they are terrified of. They are going to incredible lengths, as you well know, to try and stop that from happening.
Here is a typical article that comes out. Itís interesting too, Iíve talked about the Club of Rome and all the big foundations now who are pushing the idea of being post-democratic. Weíre in authoritarian societies now, now that everyone is getting crammed into the big cities and so on. We just simply are being taught to do what weíre told, and have a lot of fun at the same time, lots of distractions, lots of entertainment, lots of sex in the clubs and stuff, and thatís what keeps everyone occupied as we go through transitions, which are planned transitions. Here is an article about democracy. Again, what theyíre really saying here, behind the story, is also: is there any point in having it? They donít say that of course but thatís whatís implanted in your mind eventually. This comes from the Boston Globe; itís also in the Alternet.com so Iíll read the Alternet version. It saysÖ
Are We Too Dumb for Democracy? The Logic Behind Self-Delusion
By Stephen Dufrechou, News Junkie Post / Posted on December 19, 2010
When faced with facts that do not fit seamlessly into our individual belief systems, our minds automatically reject (or backfire) the presented facts.
A recent cognitive study, as reported by the Boston Globe, concluded that:
Facts donít necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. (Alan: So the corrected facts still didnít change their minds.) In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger. (A: And itís true. Thatís how people dig in their heels, isnít it, when theyíre stubborn. They donít want to hear the facts that burst their bubbles.)
In light of these findings, researchers concluded that a defense mechanism, which they labeled ďbackfireĒ, was preventing individuals from producing pure rational thought. The result is a self-delusion that appears so regularly in normal thinking that we fail to detect it in ourselves, and often in others: When faced with facts that do not fit seamlessly into our individual belief systems, our minds automatically reject (or backfire) the presented facts. The result of backfire is that we become even more entrenched in our beliefs, even if those beliefs are totally or partially false.
ďThe general idea is that itís absolutely threatening to admit youíre wrong,Ē said Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher of the Michigan study. The occurrence of backfire, he noted, is ďa natural defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance.Ē (A: Itís interesting too, you understand that when 9/11 happened and suddenly there is a war on terror, across the world, we saw Condoleezza Rice and all the different people coming out of the Bush administration who were all meeting together to make sure they had the right phrases to parrot to the public, independently of each other: Weapons of mass destruction was on all their lips, and Osama Bin Laden. Thatís how they do it too. So apart from all this stuff, you are being lied to as well Ė donít forget that part of it Ė by those who want you to believe what you are told.)
The conclusion made here is this: facts often do not determine our beliefs, but rather our beliefs (usually non-rational beliefs) determine the facts that we accept. As the Boston Globe article notes:
In reality, we often base our opinions on our beliefs, which can have an uneasy relationship with facts. And rather than facts driving beliefs, our beliefs can dictate the facts we chose to accept. They can cause us to twist facts so they fit better with our preconceived notions. Worst of all, they can lead us to uncritically accept bad information just because it reinforces our beliefs. This reinforcement makes us more confident weíre right, and even less likely to listen to any new information. And then we vote.
Despite this finding, Nyhan claims that the underlying cause of backfire is unclear. ďItís very much up in the air,Ē he says. And on how our society is going to counter this phenomena, Nyhan is even less certain.
These latter unanswered questions are expected in any field of research, since every field has its own limitations. Yet here the field of psychoanalysis can offer a completion of the picture.
Disavowal and Backfire: One and the Same
In an article by psychoanalyst Rex Butler, Butler independently comes to the same conclusion as the Michigan Study researchers. In regards to facts and their relationship to belief systems (or ideologies), Butler says that:
there is no necessary relationship between reality and its symbolization Ö Our descriptions do not naturally and immutably refer to things, but Ö things in retrospect begin to resemble their description. (A: And thatís true, and in more ways than that if you think about it too.) Thus, in the analysis of ideology, it is not simply a matter of seeing which account of reality best matches the Ďfactsí, with the one that is closest being the least biased and therefore the best. As soon as the facts are determined, we have already Ė whether we know it or not Ė made our choice; we are already within one ideological system or another. The real dispute has already taken place over what is to count as the facts, which facts are relevant, and so on.
This places the field of psychoanalysis on the same footing as that of cognitive science, in regards to this matter. But where cognitive studies end, with Nyhanís question about the cause of backfire, psychoanalysis picks up and provides a possible answer. In fact, psychoanalysts have been publishing work on backfire for decades; only psychoanalysis refers to backfire by another name: ďdisavowalĒ. Indeed, these two terms refer to one and the same phenomena.
Now, itís little bits and pieces like that that omit so much, thatís deliberately meant to mislead you, I think, personally, because the authors and even the reporters who are just simply parroting the findings, or little bits of the handouts from the findings, they themselves donít bother to go into the rest of it. Really, this is old, old stuff, and they certainly do know what causes all of these things. If you go into Bernays who was in the 1920s, this was the guy who helped set up the League of Nations at the age of about 23. He was the nephew of Freud. Heís talking about organizing chaos and how we donít go with rationale. Bertrand Russell said the same thing. Bertrand Russell says you get more done with political followers with a brass band than any amount of critical argument. And thatís true too. In the chapter Organizing Chaos, from Edward Bernays in his book Propaganda:
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.
We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.
Our invisible governors are, in many cases, unaware of the identity of their fellow members in the inner cabinet.
They govern us by their qualities of natural leadership, their ability to supply needed ideas and by their key position in the social structure. Whatever attitude one chooses to take toward this condition, it remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of personsó a trifling fraction of our hundred and twenty million (A: That was the population of the US when he was writing this.) ówho understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world. (A: Remember, this guy was the advisor to goodness knows how many Presidents, all the way from Wilson onwards.)
It is not usually realized how necessary these invisible governors are to the orderly functioning of our group life. In theory, every citizen may vote for whom he pleases. Our Constitution does not envisage political parties as part of the mechanism of government, and its framers seem not to have pictured to themselves the existence in our national politics of anything like the modern political machine. But the American voters soon found that without organization and direction their individual votes, cast, perhaps, for dozens or hundreds of candidates, would produce nothing but confusion. Invisible government, in the shape of rudimentary political parties, arose almost overnight. (A: And it did too, because it was planned that way.) Ever since then we have agreed, for the sake of simplicity and practicality, that party machines should narrow down the field of choice to two candidates, or at most three or four.
Now, that ties right in, again, with Carroll Quigley because he said the same thing: it doesnít matter which president, or potential president, you want to vote for, they are picked already by the Council on Foreign Relations. And he said, under different names, before they stuck on the name Council on Foreign Relations, they had been doing it since the 1880s.
In theory, every citizen makes up his mind on public questions and matters of private conduct. In practice, if all men had to study for themselves the abstruse economic, political, and ethical data involved in every question, they would find it impossible to come to a conclusion about anything.
I'll be back with more of this after this break.
Hi folks. Weíre back and weíre Cutting Through The Matrix, just going through how opinions are formed and how they are given to the public, and marketed to the public, and how the public really think they are sane because everyone else around them gets the same propaganda. And everyone does want to conform. They want to conform with their peer group. They donít want to be the outcast because they donít agree on certain topics or whatever, whatever is the in-thing. And even behavior-wise, they must go along with it all at the same time. They want to be politically correct. And thatís the problem in the matrix system, before they wake up. Bernays was a member, a high member of the group that Milner put in, in the United States, from London. He saysÖ
In theory, every citizen makes up his mind on public questions and matters of private conduct. In practice, if all men had to study for themselves the abstruse economic, political, and ethical data involved in every question, they would find it impossible to come to a conclusion about anything. We have voluntarily agreed to let an invisible government (A: And he was part of it.) sift the data and high-spot the outstanding issues so that our field of choice shall be narrowed to practical proportions. From our leaders and the media they use to reach the public, we accept the evidence and the demarcation of issues bearing upon public questions; from some ethical teacher, be it a minister, a favorite essayist, or merely prevailing opinion, we accept a standardized code of social conduct to which we conform most of the time. (A: Today itís music television and so on, entertainment.)
In theory, everybody buys the best and cheapest commodities offered him on the market. In practice, if every one went around pricing, and chemically testing before purchasing, the dozens of soaps or fabrics or brands of bread which are for sale, economic life would become hopelessly jammed. To avoid such confusion, society consents to have its choice narrowed to ideas and objects brought to its attention through propaganda of all kinds. (A: This is a master propagandist talking.) There is consequently a vast and continuous effort going on to capture our minds in the interest of some policy or commodity or idea. It might be better to have, instead of propaganda and special pleading, committees of wise men (A: Öhe calls themÖ he was one of them.) who would choose our rulers, dictate our conduct, private and public, (A: So heís talking about private and public life as well; thatís all your morality.) and decide upon the best types of clothes for us to wear and the best kinds of food for us to eat. But we have chosen the opposite method, that of open competition. We must find a way to make free competition function with reasonable smoothness. To achieve this society has consented to permit free competition to be organized by leadership and propaganda.
Some of the phenomena of this process are criticizedóthe manipulation of news, the inflation of personality (A: They use celebrities.), and the general ballyhoo by which politicians and commercial products and social ideas are brought to the consciousness of the masses. The instruments by which public opinion is organized and focused may be misused. (A: Well he was darn sure of that because he did it himself, many times.) But such organization and focusing are necessary to orderly life. (A: Thatís what they claim, these wise men. They want orderly life and they decide what orderly life is going to be. Even if they have to bring you through a wrecking period Ė and I mean that, itís a wrecking period Ė to destroy the old society, the old morality to bring in the new, which makes it easier for them to control you.)
If we jump from there and we go into Mr Brzezinski, he talks about similar things too in Between Two Ages, on the Technotronic Revolution, which was planned a long time ago as well. This book was written in the 70s. This guy was really a continuation, you see, of Bernays. He saysÖ
Eventually these changes and many others, including some that more directly affect the personality and quality of the human being himself, will make the technetronic society as different from the industrial as the industrial was from the agrarian. (A: You think youíre just evolving, because theyíve got breakthroughs in sciences. These sciences they present to you are very old, and they are always kept top secret and used by military long before you hear of them. They plan what they are going to do with society, which is always to get more control.) And just as the shift from an agrarian economy and feudal politics toward an industrial society and political systems based on the individual's emotional identification with the nation state gave rise to contemporary international politics, so the appearance of the technetronic society reflects the onset of a new relationship between man and his expanded global reality. (A: They were going to make you global long before he wrote the book, and do away with the nation state.)
This new relationship is a tense one: man has still to define it conceptually and thereby render it comprehensible to himself. Our expanded global reality is simultaneously fragmenting and thrusting itself in upon us. The result of the coincident explosion and implosion is not only insecurity and tension but also an entirely novel perception of what many still call international affairs.
In other words, when they destroy the nation stateÖ the same as they did when they destroyed the areas that were agrarian, farmers, to bring in the industrial revolution, which was also planned; they dumped corn through the free market from other countries very, very cheap and forced the farmers out of business to fill in these new brick cities, where they would be housed to work in the factories for 16 hours a day. But this global consciousness, as Iím saying, itís vague; you canít relate to it. Itís too huge to relate to and thatís why folk will have wars and everything else. They canít imagine. Itís just too remote from them, to comprehend in their minds, what really is going on in the world. They feel that they are floating without an anchor. I'll be back with more after this break.
Hi folks. Weíre back and weíre Cutting Through The Matrix, reading Brzezinski who was talking about this phase we are going through right now, but he was writing about it 30-odd years ago. Itís all planned, you see, by the wise men as they like to call themselves. Right now, this is really what they were bringing in the late 70s and they knew it would speed up, this present phase. It says hereÖ
Life seems to lack cohesion as environment rapidly alters and human beings become increasingly manipulable and malleable. (A: Because we are, through mass entertainment and advertising and conformity; everyone wants to conform to their peer group.) Everything seems more transitory and temporary (A: And thatís a fact too. There is a lot more to that and he just skips over it. But they were deliberately, literally, altering the environment you lived in. Buildings would sometimes get knocked down after 10 years because it put everything in flux. You couldnít go to grandma or grandpa and say, can you remember that road that was there and those buildings? They could relate to you and there was continuity that you had. That was all destroyed. It was purposefully done too.): external reality more fluid than solid, the human being more synthetic than authentic. (A: Iíve always said that Most folk are really composites of their indoctrinations.) Even our senses perceive an entirely novel "reality"óone of our own making but nevertheless, in terms of our sensations, quite "real." More important, there is already widespread concern about the possibility of biological and chemical tampering with what has until now been considered the immutable essence of man. (A: They are talking about the scientists with your food and your injections and so on. Mind you, Russell said it long before him; he said they would use the needleÖ for a compliant society.) Human conduct, some argue, can be predetermined and subjected to deliberate control. Man is increasingly acquiring the capacity to determine the sex of his children, to affect through drugs the extent of their intelligence, and to modify and control their personalities. Speaking of a future at most only decades away, an experimenter in intelligence control asserted, "I foresee the time when we shall have the means and therefore, inevitably, the temptation to manipulate the behavior and intellectual functioning of all the people through environmental and biochemical manipulation of the brain. (A: Because they were already doing it all and testing back then. Iíve gone through a lot of those documents as well. Even the UN was sponsoring big experimental projects on ways to ELIMINATE Ďthe ghost in the machineí Ė which means the essence of YOU; thatís what it means Ė so you would all conform together.)
Thus it is an open question whether technology and science will in fact increase the options open to the individual. Under the headline "Study Terms Technology a Boon to Individualism,Ē The New York Times reported the preliminary conclusions of a Harvard project on the social significance of science. Its participants were quoted as concluding that "most Americans have a greater range of personal choice, wider experience and a more highly developed sense of self-worth than ever before." This may be so, but a judgment of this sort rests essentially on an intuitive and comparativeóinsight into the present and past states of mind of Americans. (A: And itís true. Until you go through your own life and the changes in society, culture and everything else that you have experienced, you wonít get a grasp of whatís really going on. You have to have recall.) In this connection a word of warning from an acute observer is highly relevant: "It behooves us to examine carefully the degree of validity, as measured by actual behavior, of the statement that a benefit of technology will be to increase the number of options and alternatives the individual can choose from. In principle, it could; in fact, the individual may use any number of psychological devices to avoid the discomfort of information overload, and thereby keep the range of alternatives to which he responds much narrower than that which technology in principle makes available to him." (A: And that ties in with that first study I talked about tonight on the show.) In other words, the real questions are how the individual will exploit the options, to what extent he will be intellectually and psychologically prepared to exploit them, and in what way society as a whole will create a favorable setting for taking advantage of these options. Their availability is not of itself proof of a greater sense of freedom or self-worth. (A: He is hinting also at the internet. He hints a lot about the coming internet in this particular book.)
Instead of accepting himself as a spontaneous given, man in the most advanced societies may become more concerned with conscious self-analysis according to external, explicit criteria: (A: Now think about the internet too. As soon as you got it, there are IQ tests up there for you to test yourself and your personality traits, are you inhibited in some way. This is what he is saying here. This is what he says before you even heard of the internet.) What is my IQ? What are my aptitudes, personality traits, capabilities, attractions, and negative features? The "internal man"ó spontaneously accepting his own spontaneityówill more and more be challenged by the "external man"ó consciously seeking his self-conscious image; and the transition from one to the other may not be easy. It will also give rise to difficult problems in determining the legitimate scope of social control. (A: Thatís what you are going through right now, is authoritarian society and social control.) The possibility of extensive chemical mind control, the danger of loss of individuality inherent in extensive transplantation, the feasibility of manipulating the genetic structure will call for the social definition of common criteria of use and restraint. As the previously cited, writer put it, ". . . while the chemical affects the individual, the person is significant to himself and to society in his social context óat work, at home, at play. The consequences are social consequences. In deciding how to deal with such alterers of the ego and of experience (and consequently alterers of the personality after the experience), and in deciding how to deal with the 'changed' human beings, we will have to face new questions such as 'Who am I?' 'When am I who?" 'Who are they in relation to me?'" (A: This has all been discussed in top think tanks. He wasnít the guy that came up with this; he just sat in on them.)
Moreover, man will increasingly be living in manmade and rapidly altered environments. By the end of this century approximately two-thirds of the people in the advanced countries ill live in cities. (A: Because thatís the agenda under Agenda 21, which he doesnít mention here.) "Urban growth has so far been primarily the byproduct of accidental economic convenience, of the magnetic attraction of population centers, and of the flight of many from rural poverty and exploitation. (A: Well you see, you create the poverty like the Great Depression and then you flood them into your manufacturing areas. Thatís what they did, in the US as well.) It has not been deliberately designed to improve the quality of life. The impact of "accidental" cities is already contributing to the depersonalization of individual life as the kinship structure contracts and enduring relations of friendship become more difficult to maintain. (A: That was all part of the planned structure. Youíd have temporary relationships, which would be basically physical, of male and female, even male to male and female to female and so on, to take up the slack you might say, as everyone is losing their personality and their anchorage.) Julian Huxley (A: The brother of Aldous Huxley.) was perhaps guilty of only slight exaggeration when he warned that "overcrowding in animals leads to distorted neurotic and downright pathological behavior. (A: Thatís what you get in cities and thatís why youíve got so many cops and everything, and SWAT teams, and so many cameras. This was all planned for this phase we are going through now.) We can be sure that the same is true in principle of people. City life today is definitely leading to mass mental disease, to growing vandalism and possible eruptions of mass violence. (A: If you wonder why they brought on the war of terror, this is the real reason about it, worldwide. Theyíve had world meetings on all this for the last 50-60-70 years.)
The problem of identity is likely to be complicated by a generation gap, intensified by the dissolution of traditional ties (A: Because they were going to destroy the family unit and thatís the only thing that held anybody together.) and values derived from extended family and enduring community relationships. The dialogue between the generations is becoming a dialogue of the deaf. (A: Interesting eh? They were making sure, of course, that young ones would never listen to the older ones, people who could pass some wisdom on to them.) It no longer operates within the conservative-liberal or nationalist-internationalist framework. The breakdown in communication between the generationsóso vividly evident during the student revolts of 1968ówas rooted in the irrelevance of the old symbols' to many younger people. (A: But it was also foisted on them by, of course, people who were well planted as professors in universities. There have been defectors from the old Soviet Union that talked about that. Thatís why they had the demonstrations and all the rest of it; they were taught to. They were taught to.)
So thatís a little bit on this changing society which is planned. Just to show you that it truly, truly is planned Ė there is nothing that you are going through that isnít planned Ė recently there was an article in Macleanís Magazine and it was about mothers, who were the feminists you see, whoÖ I guess most of them didnít even have husbands; they didnít want permanent mates. They were taught they Ďcould have it allí and now they are all worried and annoyed because they say their daughters have turned out to be sluts.
Outraged moms, trashy daughters
How did those steeped in the womenís lib movement produce girls who think being a sex object is powerful?
www2.macleans.ca / Anne Kingston August 10, 2010
They donít understand the war on the family that was all part of this control system. Because you see, if you donít have a family there is nobody to stand up for you. Itís been the backbone of survivalÖ SURVIVALÖ basic survival for thousands of years. And that had to be destroyed as well to bring in this great society, this global society that he talks about where you are in flux, you have no anchor basically, because you canít relate to a global world society. No different than people in, say, Britain or Ireland can relate to some far away parliament in some other country ruling over them. When it goes global, totally global, then you have no roots at all. You have no national identity to fall back on. And youíve got this hodgepodge of a new emerging identity, which belittles you even further because itís designed to. Itís not going to be a mix of cultures. Eventually itís going to be a monoculture. The crŤme-de-la-crŤme, as Jacques Ellul and Jacques Attali said too, will be creamed off the top to go travel across the world as the new global, high bureaucratic elite, that are nomadic as they go from country to country, really city-state to city-state.
So we are living through transitions that are planned long before you were born. This stuff that Brzezinski was talking about was planned long before he was born and he just sat in on the meetings, as they updated the things and made sure that their plans were all working well. But as I say, the family unit had to be totally destroyed all together. Remember what Julian Huxley, the first CEO of UNESCO Ė that was mentioned by Brzezinski there Ė said, they had to destroy the family unit. And theyíd do it through education, primarily through education starting at school; they would separate the bonding aspect, of the sexual aspect, completely until it was a purely physical thing. Now youíve got this Macleanís Magazine where the feminists Ė that were all guided by lesbians initially too; I remember it all Ė are all disappointed that their daughters have turned out to be sluts. Why? Because music television, just turn it on and watch it for a few minutes and see what youíve got there. Thatís all that they are taught to be. Thatís all. Thatís it. Of course, if you fail to bond then literally you lose part of your affective ability to relate to others all together, because you truly are losing any identity of who you are yourself. Thatís whatís happening.
People emulate and they mimic the type of culture thatís thrown at them by those who have the money and the power and comprise the secret government to make it so. People have a hard time with this; they canít believe that there is such an organization in the world. It has to be aliens; it has to be something else thatís doing it, because humans arenít bright enough. This is nonsense, utter nonsense. Thatís the backfire I was talking about earlier; you retreat into an area thatís more comfortable because, surely humans couldnít do this. If you have all the money in the world, and you belong to a society thatís had all the money in the world, for an awful, awful long time, you can hire as many think tanks as you wish. You can hire and you can create as many marketing divisions as you wish to, to market the ideas to the public, to make sure what you want taught in the school will be taught in the school, to make sure that youngsters will be entertained in the way that you want them entertained. Not for their benefit, but to fit into your plansÖ which is total control. When there is no family unit everyone is helpless, and thatís where they want everyone to be.
HG Wells said this same thing a long time ago in one of his books. He said, the time must come when government can talk directly Ė to each individual, on a one-to-one basis, with no one stepping in in front of them or around them for support Ė only then will it be absolute. And thatís pretty well where you are today. I'll be back with more after this break.
Hi folks. Iím back and this is Cutting Through The Matrix. Just to finish on the same topic as Iíve been going on with here, Iíd like to go into this little article here. Itís in Before Itís News; they go into some of the topics weíve been talking about here. Remember what Brzezinski said about the temptation to use chemicals and so on, to alter human behavior and that kind of thing. So there is a good article in Before Itís News. It mentions the fact thatÖ
Monsanto Now "Owns" Blackwater (Xe)?
October 14, 2010 / beforeitsnews.com
Monsanto has basically bought over Blackwater; itís now called Xe or something. They are using these guys, with their agents Ė they have agents just like a government has their spies and agents and so on Ė to go after all the folk who are against the GMO food. Also, Monsanto itself, remember, is part of the Military-Industrial Complex. It made its money through various chemicals for defoliating the Viet Nam jungle and other places too, but also other chemicals to simply kill people off. Now here they are making your food. And we thinkÖ we think, we are taught that itís okay for these guys to make your food, your GMO food and all the rest of it.
Then you get Bill Gates again, who was brought up to the philanthropist level Ė and suddenly when you become a philanthropist you just want to decimate the population of the planet. It seems to be a natural thing for you, like being born again or something, and theyíre all on board with this. Well, heís bought a massive share too, into Monsanto, and pushing their GMO foods. Heís also pushing the vaccines. He said himself at meetings that the vaccines could drastically reduce the populations. You know, people will phone in here and ask me things which are obvious, but you donít need my confirmation on anything. Do your own study on it. Itís all out there.
Again, getting back to what I said, where people backfire, they go back into their comfort zone, nobody would be doing that to us, nobody would be poisoning us, no one is manipulating my brain, I know who I am. Really? Who are you? What are you? As Brzezinski said, what are you? Youíre in flux. Youíre in flux between ages, and that was the name of his book of course, because itís planned that way as we go into the next phase of domination, total domination, with a planned society. They will reduce it over a 50 year period or so, maybe even quicker. Weíre already being decimated. Folk donít realize that the media is not telling you about the incredible death rate as cancers have been skyrocketing for about 30 years now. Thatís part of depopulation too. And these people are deadly serious, and I mean deadly serious when they have world meetings about depopulation. They have a Department of Population at the United Nations; before it was called the United Nations it was called the League of Nations and they had a department of it then too. That was a prime mandate for them, was to bring down the populations of the world.
Do you think they have world meetings and then make up wish lists and send it off to Santa Claus and just hope? Of course not. Do you think we are being sterilized across the world, mainly in the Western world and they have been for years; since the í50s the sperm count has dropped, plummeted, in the males. It didnít happen by itself. Things donít happen by themselves on a mass scale in society. It does not happen. There are causes of it; some of the causes Iíve gone over before on this particular program. It really is happening. And people are doing it. After all, they see themselves as the managers of the world. This is the Age of World Managers, as they have said at the Council on Foreign Relations. And we are the sheep and you have the shepherd kings. But everyone is having funÖ fun, fun, funÖ and they donít notice until itís always too late. And then the psychiatrist takes over; thatís what they are for. And thatís for the feminists who produce the daughters that are now sluts. And the guys are no better; theyíre in a candy shop and comparing all the candy. Thatís all they see on music television as well, and the movies.
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: