Alan Watt on

"Sweet Liberty" with Jackie Patru

May 10, 2005




Jackie:  Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Thanks for joining us tonight on Sweet Liberty. It is Tuesday I just found out and it is the 10th of May in the year 2005. I was thinking it was Wednesday night.


Let me begin here with our spiritual message and then we'll get started. Well, we are getting started, aren't we? This is from John 4 beginning with verse 4:


            "Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world."


"Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God and everyone that loves is born of God and knows God. He that loves not, knows not God for God is love."



I guess they should be substituting that word God for Creator because that word is becoming trivial when you think about it, folks, with so many thousands of gods that have gone before.


Our guest this evening is Alan Watt and Alan once again joined us late notice, just because he's gracious enough to do that. I called Gary at 20 minutes to nine and said I wanted to make we're on for the night and so therefore I was not prepared with material. Alan and I have been discussing and have discussed the merging of the Americas – of Canada and America and South America. It isn't just Mexico, folks. Of course, they'll start with Mexico but the total plan here is to have another European Union. Alan, thank you once again and thank you once again for coming on at such short notice, dear.


Alan:  Yes, it's no problem.


Jackie:  Yes, thank you. You're just a nice guy. Well, the national ID and you know I haven’t mentioned this to our listeners and for our listeners who are not on the internet I don't know if this has even been on the news, Alan, but the House had passed an appropriations bill and it had a national ID stuck in this appropriations bill. The Senate – I did do some searching this evening because I didn't get any emails on it and I figured I would if the Senate had passed it and what they said is that the Senate had removed, just before they passed it, they did remove that section that would have created the national ID, but it has to go to a conference committee now because the House Bill and the Senate Bill are different; different in the thing can be stuck right back in during the conference committee. I don’t know if this is true or not, but one of the emails I got it was going around the internet quite a bit for people who get this kind of mail and they gave you a direct link for people to contact their U.S. Senators.


Even though we do know that the U.S. Congress – I don't talk about what's going on very much in Washington, D.C. because it seems so futile, but they do get hoodwinked, even the bought-and-paid-for ones et cetera, and evidentially there was enough outcry against this thing that they pulled it out of that bill. One of the emails said that they're receiving about five messages every – or a message every five seconds, I think. I don't remember, but a lot of them and a lot of well-known groups and organizations were spreading the word on it, so it does pay, even though it seems futile, it does pay to let your voice be heard. At least it holds them back for a minute or two, Alan.


Alan:  Whatever they give you in public they always have two other plans, one on either side of it, which immediately go into effect and generally with a word change or a different name it gets snuck in and the public is looking at the one they're trying to defeat.


Jackie:  I know that yes absolutely.


Alan:  This is standard and they've been talking about it since about 1990, gradually hyping up the need for this card and the biometric companies of course are funding it and they're lobbying the government all the time. Of course, a lot of the guys in the government either worked at one time for the biotech companies before they went into government or they will work when they leave government, and that's how the whole system works.


Jackie:  Yes. They go right into the big corporations, don't they?


Alan:  I was looking at the board on Monsanto and every one is an ex-member of the House of Congress and some have already gone into politics again, so they just revolve from government to multinational corporations.


Jackie:  Like revolving doors?


Alan:  Yes and that's the definition of fascism and that's what it is. That's why the two fasciae [fasces] are there on either side of the Congress Hall. That's their symbol. It will go through because it's a "must be" as they say in freemasonry. It's a done deal.


Jackie:  A must do?


Alan:  It must be done and nothing will stop it basically. The companies that are to make it are already basically got them made and we know that the governments themselves, since they're all good Masons, know not to ask questions from their higher-ups. That's how Masonry works. You get ahead by not asking questions. That way, you can't be held responsible. You say "I don't know, I didn't know," and you'll still obeying your master. That's how the whole system works because none of these congressmen want to know all of the details who's really behind it and what the final outcome is going to be.


Jackie:  Alan, you didn't move away from your phone, did you?


Alan:  No.


Jackie:  Oh, your voice just went real faint there and you've been really nice and loud here I hope it's just in my headset. I pulled up an article tonight that was written by Ron Paul and I thought about this. Ron Paul's name, oh boy, everybody's – in fact they want him to run for president and all that and I would just like to say this to our listeners. Folks, you have to think for yourself. You have to use your logic and your reasoning along with what you already know and anybody like this guy Ron Paul and somebody might get angry at me for saying this but you will discover eventually that what I am saying is so. Ron Paul is a shill. He's a phony and the evidence is that he can talk about anything he wants to and he's still a U.S. Congressman; and you take a look at Jim Traficant who's sitting in prison and Congressman George Hansen, I mean they railroaded this guy because he was opposing the Federal Reserve System, the IRS et cetera. They picked him up off the steps where he was giving a speech, I understand. This happened before I became involved but the man was in prison for years and really his health was just totally shot by the time he got out and if they don't put them in prison they kill them. So if you for one minute think that Ron Paul is some kind of a hero, you need to stop and think.


Look what they did to Senator Wellstone. Wasn't it Wellstone, Alan? He said something real bad about the Iraqi war and something I believe connected with Israel and he died in a small plane crash after that.


Alan:  Well, accidents happen.


Jackie:  Yes, right. Accidents happen. Well, I want to remind any of our listeners who think that Ron Paul is a hero, because see, folks, he can introduce all kinds of good legislation and it makes him look good but just know that he wouldn't be able to mouth off like this – you know he exposes all this stuff and there he is walking around and he's still in the U.S. Congress. They call this the "real." This is "REAL." I don’t know what it stands for but in the article that he wrote about this ID thing, he said, "establishes a massive centrally coordinated database of highly personal information about American citizens," as though they don't have it already, right?  "At a minimum their name, date of birth, place of residence, social security number, physical characteristics. The legislation also grants open-ended authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security to require biometric information on IDs in the future. This means you're harmless looking driver's license could contain a retina scan, fingerprints, DNA information or radio frequency technology."  And then he goes on about it. Anyway, I think it would be a good idea, folks, even if it holds them back for another 10 days or whatever, but get a hold of your U.S. Senator and tell them to – even though this thing is going into conference committee and they might not take part in it, but they should be lobbying their colleagues to not add the national ID back in it; and who really should be told about this are the state legislators so that they can be on their toes. Not that they are either; but dog gone it, if we just sat back and say everything is futile, nothing is going to happen, you can bet your boots nothing will happen and maybe it gives us a little bit more breathing room. For example, if you don't have a passport, folks, you might want to get one before this thing goes through because I believe what Alan is saying. I don't disagree one minute. This is a done deal. It just hasn't been finalized, but by taking it out of that it has given us a little bit of breathing room.  I don't know how long a passport if good for, but at least in the past if you let's say have a driver's license and they make a change on it, they don't make you get a new driver's license, but when it comes to getting it renewed, then you have to go along with all the changes. There's a possibility that maybe getting a passport now in case you want to do some traveling. I don't know, Alan?  And that bothers me that your voice level got so low. It sounds like you're real far away.


Alan:  What I was going to say about this biometric is it also has your voice print on it. That's another thing that's in the newspaper. They'll have your voice print so that wherever you phone from, anywhere in the continent, they'll know it's you. The computer will kick in.


Jackie:  I don't know why I laugh at that stuff; it isn't funny.


Alan:  This is how far they're going with it all and they have most of the public trained already through using these preferential shopping cards, where all your purchases are known and sold. The data is sold to companies. The public don't mind and so they're used to swiping cards through the machines and so on and they're already for the next one, and of course there will be a blitz to tell the people how wonderful it will be. Probably Oprah will have somebody on to tell you that, "They'll find your children." This is a step away from the chip. That's what it is, which won't be in a card. It will be in the old turnip head, you know.


Jackie:  Well, because people can lose their cards.


Alan:  That's right. Or it will be stolen and there will be a whole rash of people getting mugged for them and out will come the next idea, which they've been really waiting to get at, how safe it would be to have this put in you and "look, here's a few people who've had it and they're perfectly normal."  It's a done deal that way too, because they've copious amounts of material on that where they're going to take it.


Jackie:  Yes they have. We've got a call. Hello. You're on the air.


Russ:  It's Russ. How you're doing?


Jackie:  Well Russ, it's nice to hear from you.


Russ:  I guess there is a delay coming over the internet--


Jackie:  Yes there is.  


Russ:  …so I didn't hear the last thing you were saying. You know Wellstone and Traficant were not martyred until they were martyred, and you said we have to use our minds and think and discern for ourselves; rather than being a respecter or a denigrator of persons, I listen to what they say. It is very possible that Ron Paul will be martyred tomorrow morning.


Jackie:  Okay Russ. Thank you. Good point. Although, let me say this to you about that. Ron Paul already showed himself up a long time ago every time he voted for most favorite nation status for Communist China and he also showed himself when he voted to legalize the seven, or eight or 12 or however many "illegal aliens" that were in this country. Now if that doesn't bother you, then that's fine. It shows me who that man is and he will--


Russ:  It's all a part of being discriminating, you find the things that bother you and which we should not expect anybody to be messianically perfect. Everybody's a mixed bag. That's part of being discerning is that we don't look for someone to be perfect so that we don't have to defend what they do or what they say. We can just say, "oh, Ron Paul says it, therefore it's good," rather than it's good. We don't want to say it's good because he said it. We want to say I'm glad he says something that I believe is good.


Jackie:  Yes, it's like Phyllis Schlafly. She's done some exquisite work and she's probably one of the most dangerous people in this country. So that's fine. Russ, thank you for your call. It was good to hear from you. Bye-bye. Well, Russ and I will agree to disagree on this. I know that Ron Paul is a shill and I know he's allowed to say the things he is because it keeps people thinking that there's a hero in the U.S. Congress.


Alan:  Albert Pike said it. He said, "whenever the public need a hero we supply him," so they've got one for every type out there you see.


Jackie:  You bet, I know that, and your voice is nice and loud again.


Alan:  That's the trick to it. They well understand through all of their polls over the many, many years, they know the types out there who vote for whatever and they put them into categories and they make sure there's one for each category who speaks for you. Of course, you don’t notice when he takes a left turn somewhere that you're actually following him and then when you've turned a complete circle, you say well how did we get here?  That's the trick to it. It's very simple, but it's been used for years.


Jackie:  Even in the States it's the same thing.


Alan:  It's the same the world over.


Jackie:  Yes I know but it occurred to me at the state level with a state legislator in California and he just did all kinds of wonderful – he introduced wonderful bills and they never went anywhere.  I found out that it was his doing that almost – not that it made any difference but it was a good resolution; the 10th Amendment Resolution calling the attention of the state, the power that the state has, if they would just use it and he just was out there like the good guy and he introduced it.  Brenda Abbott, a wonderful lady in California had a fax network all across the state and she kept calling and saying do you need us to do anything, this thing is just sitting in committees. No, no. It's okay. I’ll call if I need you; and then the next thing you know she heard it on the radio that it was sitting in committee and if it didn't get voted on that day it was dead and he never talked to her, so she got her fax going. Then there was one senator that hadn't come down to vote on the committee and that's where they zeroed in on the call and this guy called Don Rogers and said, "please Don, I'm coming to vote for your resolution. Please can you get these calls stopped? We can't get any work done," and Don acted like he thought that was just so cool and he was a hero to those people because he was the one that introduced it and he was the one who was going to let it sit and die in committee, but it made him look good.


Alan:  I never forget that tape of Sir James Goldsmith who came over from Britain and addressed the Senate on the dangers of signing the NAFTA and the GATT treaty and he laid it out in the most eloquent language.


Jackie:  Do you have that on tape?


Alan:  I do, yes.


Jackie:  I do too, Alan.


Alan:  He told them, he says, look, Britain is now a province of Europe and the Parliament is reduced to the status of a province (a little fiefdom) and they could make no move without the European Parliament's consent and they must jump to it whenever the European Parliament gives Britain an order. He says it's destroying the countries; and of course the big con – you see who's putting this all together, it's actually The Council on Foreign Relations. They've been at this since their inception. That was their job.


Jackie:  Just for a second here. You do know that Sir James Goldsmith died suddenly, don't you?


Alan:  Yes. He had a cancer hit him and he was dead in a month.


Jackie:  Yes and you know what he said to these senators? This is so clear in my mind. He said I beg of you, think long and hard before you cast your vote. He was talking about the GATT (WTO); he said it will take America from a slow trot under the NAFTA to a headlong gallop into total economic and social destruction. Those are almost word for word what he said, Alan.


Alan:  He gave all the evidence as to what happened to Britain and the senators all agreed with him, but you noticed I think the next day or whatever they all voted for it.


Jackie:  Except for North Carolina. What was his name? 33rd Degree Mason but he voted against it. He was the head of that committee. Do you remember his name?


Alan:  I can't remember it.


Jackie:  I can't remember it either. This guy, actually watching him, I taped it off C-Span the guy I'm talking about, the Senator Earnest Hollings. Oh boy, he was doing some good. I got information from a congresswoman in Maryland and I quote Sir James Goldsmith and Earnest Hollings and if you want to really understand the GATT there's an article in the NAFTA/GATT section titled "The World According to GATT."  Hollings was sitting up there actually bouncing in his seat. I mean he actually acted like he was so against it and he did vote against it. I guess maybe they gave him permission to do that, huh?


Alan:  Maybe, yes.


Jackie:  Because that's usually what they do. If they know they've got enough votes, they'll let certain of them vote the way that you wouldn't expect them to vote at all.


Alan:  That's right. James Goldsmith put out a book just before he died called "The Trap." 


Jackie:  Yes. I have it.


Alan:  He goes through the whole process how you sell out your sovereignty. You now have a Star Chamber directing any international trials to do with commerce and so five people basically, whom you never see, decide if your country is penalized, which means the taxpayer actually pays all the fines. This is how it works. If a Far Eastern country wants to put a factory in your country and you put up rules and regulations as to whatever and you tell them you must employ people at the basic wage or whatever and it's much higher than their country, they can actually fine the country that says no. Britain paid millions of pounds just for the oak trees. I kid you not. They standardized the grain of oak of trees.


Jackie:  The what.


Alan:  The actual grain. They said that Britain's oak trees were too wavy.


Jackie:  Oh, Alan.


Alan:  I kid you not. They wanted them straight like the German ones and they fined the British who had been exporting this stuff about a million and a half pounds. The taxpayer coughed that up. See, this is a racket you see. It's actually like a mafia racket.


Jackie:  You know what it reminds me of? Harmonizing the ingredients in frozen pizza.


Alan:  Exactly, same deal.


Jackie:  That is so insidious and when you think about it, and folks, if you get it, I mean this is how finite they intend to control our lives, isn't it, Alan?


Alan:  It is. I mean the butchers in Britain, the small ones that are still left, were forbidden to carry a carcass of an animal. In Britain you have little sort of open, they call it a close, like a little tunnel between houses, so they couldn't take it through a tunnel into the other part of their shop because the European commission said even though it was covered over, the top was arched, it was actually really exposed to air at both ends. They fined the whole industry again thousands of pounds and these millions of pounds come out of the taxpayer's pockets. It's a great robbers' scheme as far as I'm concerned.


Jackie:  Yes it is. The congresswoman that I referred to in that article was Congresswoman Helen Bentley. She was really opposing the GATT and I got a hold of her office and they faxed me the information right from her office and you know what was really astounding to me at that time is that there were former congress people who are now lawyers for the foreign countries that were suing the U.S. under these trade agreements, Alan.


Alan:  That's right.


Jackie:   And the U.S. which pays – the U.S.  Listen to me, like it's a – yeah, the people in America pay about probably 40 percent or better of the cost of this whole thing, the UN and all that stuff, and the U.S. gets one vote. One vote, that's it.


Alan:  People don't realize where NAFTA and the Free Trade of the Americas is going to take us and for that you have to go back to the first set of talks, which was the Free Trade negotiations, because that's where they do the preamble. The preamble is the most important part of any document because that defines the meaning of meanings of the words to be used subsequently.  In it, they had just like the European Union, what they do is the countries involved retain their government, which become like a little provincial government like Ottawa in Canada and Washington, D.C.


Jackie:  Okay, we have about 50 seconds till our break.


Alan:  Then what they do is they choose another one. They were toying with the idea setting up the new capital of the Americas in Montreal, which will be the super government for the Americas, and that was done many years ago at the Free Trade Negotiations.


Jackie:  When you say many, about like when?


Alan:  You're into just before the late '80s.


Jackie:  We're going to take a break here right now and we'll be right back. While we’re on that break a thousands thoughts go through my mind, Alan. Where were we? Okay. This is something I want to say. I remember as I was listening, Hollings was talking about how the quality – what am I trying to say here? The past 20 years is that everything costs more but the wages were going down et cetera and at the same time I was going to say I don't know how but I shouldn't say that because stuff does drop into our laps when we're looking for it or reading it, but this happened in I believe '90 – the GATT was '94, wasn't it? NAFTA was '93. Okay, in 1974 the United Nations passed their declaration on the new international economic order and I quote heavily from that. I mean it's the UN's report itself. It's the whole thing and the preamble and the whole thing and I quoted heavily from it and interestingly Hollings kept saying the last 20 years, the last 20 years and it was exactly 20 years prior to that that the UN passed that declaration on their new – there was something else in there, but their new international economic order. What they said is that no matter what the economic standard of any country is at the present time, it's all going to be equalized and you knew immediately they're not bringing the third world countries up to the standards that were once at least in the U.S., living standards, but to bring us down to theirs.


Alan:  They talk about a happy medium that we'll arrive at at the same time.


Jackie:  Yes. And I love that, constantly you heard it over and over again, "evening the playing field." Evening the playing field. I've got three UN files here and I have a whole dog gone thing and it occurred to me that it needed to be on our website in the UN section. I cannot find it. I emailed the UN to ask them how I could – because I even did a search. I just cannot find it anywhere, their declaration on the new International Economic Order.


Alan:  The New Deal.


Jackie:  The New Deal. It is just – reading that thing, if you read every word knowing that they say what they mean and mean what they say, it's terrifying and we're living it today.


Alan:  The most favored nation trading status was given to China actually when they made the deal with China that Britain could have Hong Kong for 100 years. That's how far back this whole plan goes.


Jackie:  Say that again.


Alan:  When Britain made the deal and signed this agreement with China that they would have Hong Kong for 100 years and then hand it back. They already had it in the plans that China would be the most favored nation trading status and out of the old books written at the time that say that right in it. Our whole lives and everything that happens is scripted by other people and what happens is China and third-world countries, or anyone who is designated as such, don't have to start paying any of their loans back until the year 2005; and if they still claim that they can't make it, it will postponed for another 25 years. However, all of these loans come from the Canadian government and the U.S. government who borrows the money from the World Bank, so in 25 years the children will have paid off those loans, you see, and that's what they're getting. We're the workhorses for the world.


Jackie:  Yes, exactly. Paul Wolfowitz has been made head of the World Bank today. It was reported.


Alan:  The wolf is in charge of the bank.


Jackie:  The wolf is in charge. In China, Charlie Peter's is our man in California whose whole main focus is on the emissions control, et cetera, et cetera and he said and sent me information on it that automobiles sent to China do not have to have all of the emission controls. In other words, they get to pollute because they're a third-world country and there was one other thing that in China besides that – okay, never mind. If I don't write it down while it's in my mind it doesn't stay. So in other words all of the pollution control et cetera and what they're doing to what they call the developed nations all of those developing nations are just allowed to pollute like crazy.


Alan:  That's what George said recently. He said we have to make a sacrifice with our petroleum industries and use less here because the developing countries need it more right now. This is your sharing of the wealth and all that stuff that we thought was a communist deal, but of course we all know it was all run by the bankers who set the whole thing up. We are all supposed to stop driving, I guess, in the future, because we are no longer needed. We're not an industrial national anymore.


Jackie:  Yes. We have a call here. Hello. You're on the air.


Allen:  Yes, this is Allen.


Jackie:  Hello Allen.You'll have to speak up. I can't hear you.


Allen:  Alan Watt was talking about Hong Kong and Britain 100 years ago has run things in the Orient. Can he say anything about the opening of Japan around 1854 and an infusion of Western technology into that area, building it all up to where it became to almost a world power and then right after World War I most of the Pacific Islands were given to Japan so they could fortify that. It's like they were setting them up about 100 years ago in advance for World War II. This was 1854. By 1904, 1905 they were able to destroy the [inaudible-audio] – in 50 years they went like 800 years.


Jackie:  So you'd like Alan to comment on that?


Allen:  Yes.


Jackie:  You look like you're doing your homework, Allen.


Allen:  I've been studying it for a long time. It's like they decided around 1854 in advance and had everything set up just perfect; the islands were given to Japan after World War I; they had an infusion of technologies and everything was given to them. Another big question is why would America in 1854 be concerned with a tilly-willy little backward country like Japan?  I would say they wouldn't have nothing to do with it; it had nothing to offer to America.


Jackie:  Right. We'll have Alan comment on that. Before you do that, Alan, I know the other thing I wanted to say about China, I know I've said this before but it's a reminder to our listeners, when you were mentioning Hong Kong that Britain would have it for 100 years and then give it back. I did not know that but you know I have this newspaper article, either New York Times or one of them, when they were giving it back to China and it literally said in there that the people in Hong Kong are preparing to meet their new masters. It was right in the newspaper, that exact language, Alan.


Alan:  Sure, and Britain had an official military handover to the communists.


Jackie:  Their new masters, the people.


Alan:  If you want to get back to the setting up of Japan, the bankers with the Kuhn Lobe & Co. had been financing the setup of Japan in the late 1800's. Then if you read an excellent book, I think it was put out there to cover up the truth, although it had to use a lot of the truth simply because of declassified information from the U.S. government that's available now about this. Bernard Baruch and a few other big bankers were approached by Japanese military at the beginning of the 1900's and these Japanese were told to come over and see these particular men, because they were told, and it tells you in the book, they were told that these guys run and own America.


Jackie:  What guys run and own America?


Alan:  Bernard Baruch and the company of Kuhn Lobe & Company and a few other ones, well-known names, and the deal was Baruch said he would finance them. He would help them with technical data and training and so on, and shipbuilders, on the condition that they would attack Russia and that caused the final Russian war and that helped to bring on the chaos that started the heavy taxation and the war that helped to bring down the Czar. That was the intent of it and of course right through World War II these bankers were still funding the Japanese from New York, and it's explained in "The Fugu Plan" by Marvin Tokeyer. He's a Japanese rabbi actually and he goes through it and tells you what went on. It's a fascinating story. It was all set up way in advance by the big bankers, none of whom were prosecuted for it. Another thing too is I also have old books from that period the early 1900's and you'll find that the emperor Hirohito of Japan, I've got the photographs of him being inducted into the Knights of the Garter of England by British Lords. I've got the actual photographs, so Hirohito was an Honored Knight of the Queen's inside company.


Jackie:  Knighted?


Alan:  The Knight of the Garter is very close. In other words, his nobility was then joined with theirs. He was a very high Mason. That's why he was never prosecuted either. Everything is rigged in advance, always, and the information generally is out there if you wanted to get it. As I say, the "The Fugu Plan" was put out there because – and it tells you in the book the declassified documents and the numbers that you can get from the American government that proves that these big bankers in the U.S. funded the Japanese military navy and so on, and sent them all the aid and training they needed to operate all their aircraft et cetera, and no one got punished for it.


Jackie:  This was during or before World War II?


Alan:  It started in the early 1900's. The banks had already been funding them from the late 1880's but the official delegation from Japan came over at the beginning of about 1900 to meet with Baruch and a few other ones and Mandell House et cetera.


Jackie:  Mandell House. Alan, do you know what's confusing about this? That there must be people along the way who witnessed this because you're saying that this is about early 1900's, and in the Voices of History – now, this isn't well known. It isn't publicized. It isn't part of the history that we're given in school, so I have to believe that there was – no, I don't have to believe. Let me back that off. It seems for example when you look at how they goaded Japan into bombing Pearl Harbor and the statement that FDR made and what's his name's diaries, Stimson or whatever his name was, the Secretary of War for state, and he said that what they said or FDR said is that our dilemma or our problem is how do we get them to attack first. It's almost – there are people involved and then when you see the final ultimatum Cordell Hall gave to Japan, well it was all about trade and commerce, the whole thing. Therefore, even though they planned this so far back, they know what they're going to accomplish, what they intended to accomplish, but they work out the real details as they go along, don't they?


Alan:  Even the details, they try to figure out all the reactions and from whom and what sectors, and they already have the fronts ready to meet those organizations to sway them or defeat them or whatever.


Jackie:  So during that period of time and they had seized all of the Japanese assets or whatever from the bank and they had put an embargo on oil or whatever they needed and really pushed them into a corner, but somebody there in the government, or somebodies maybe, were aware of the plan; but the other people that are involved actually believed that, oh, this is the last straw, we have no choice, we have to do this. It's just mind-boggling.


Alan:  Yes, but we always do the same thing.


Jackie:  Your voice is getting lower again. That ticks me off.


Alan:  We set up the enemy. We fund them. We train them. We equip them even. I think it was Rolls-Royce that gave the engines for the Japanese aircraft to Japan, you know the zero. There's even people I know here, old guys, who remember trainloads of scrap in the 1930's all heading to the coast where they were shipped off to Japan, that was common knowledge.


Jackie:  Yes, and meantime Lend-Lease Act sending hundreds of millions of dollars and airplanes and ships and all that over to the communist Soviet Union, while on the other hand they're funding Japan. I didn't know this. This is news to me about – and I'm really glad Allen called in tonight and brought this up because it's just another leg of it, and here I go again, but the stuff I'm talking about I'm aware of because it's in our website, the Lend-Lease Act, and how the American people and all of it was going over to the Soviet Union.  Major Jordan's Diaries, that's the little book that tells it all. When people look at the stuff that's in there, if they take the time, there can be no question in anybody's mind; except with all of the hours of conversation we've had, you'll still get your mind blown away. I do.


Alan:  There's nothing that happens major in your lifetime with your country that isn't planned that way. Now that they've joined Britain to Europe they admit that they worked on it secretly, since 1948 they had offices set up to begin the process and they lied to the public right through until the bitter end. It's the same deal that's happening here when on the 23rd of March, George Bush and Prime Minister Martin of Canada and Vicente Fox of Mexico met together and signed the same agreements. It's the same agreement and they talked about a Fortress America and how to reorganize the entire continent and this is the type of terminology they're using.


Jackie:  Then the news reports that you played for us, they literally said that they had restructured the continent in an afternoon. These three guys, Alan.


Alan:  You see that's the trick to it because the real guys who know what they're doing are the bureaucrats and these are hereditary bureaucrats as well, mind you, in the federal government. You'll never see a job open for a bureaucrat advertised anywhere. These are hereditary jobs and these people look down their noses at the average Joe in their little ivory towers.


Jackie:  And probably look down their noses at the elected officials who are nothing but pawns and puppets.


Alan:  Because those guys are lawyers who come in and suddenly they're ministry of the environment or health or something. No, the bureaucrats know what they're doing and the bureaucrats also liaise directly, every level of bureaucracy liaises directly with the United Nations because the UN has duplicate agencies of bureaucrats that deal with those things.


Jackie:  Yes and last night when Steve Jacobsen was on with us talking about the fictitious monetary system, I mentioned Jacques Attali and his book but the one thing I forgot to tell our listeners and remind our long time listeners that he was an adviser to Francois Mitterrand for 10 years. I don't think I said that. He was trained at – what was it called in France? How do you pronounce it, the school?


Alan:  The Grand School.


Jackie:  Yes. The Grand School. He was trained there. He was a bureaucrat, wasn't he?


Alan:  Oh yes. I mean this man was a top adviser. Advisers are more important than presidents because they get their orders from – they call the advisers The Grey Men. That's what they call them.


Jackie:  The Grey Men. Not the Men in Black, The Grey Men.


Alan:  The Grey Men because they come to the ones that you see, the presidents, and they tell them what the schedule is and what's to be done.


Jackie:  Yes, and what to think.


Alan:  And they liaise as well with the real bosses that are not elected and that's what they do and of course they write the scripts for these guys, the presidents and so on, and they're called The Grey Men, on the chessboard, basically.


Jackie:  Well, that makes sense and you know I think in pictures and when you talked about it and I was able to get the book, because, boy, it went out of print in a hurry, his book. Folks, if any of you are interested, you might still be able to get a copy if you do a search in there, Jacques Attali, and it's called the new millennium?


Alan:  Just "Millennium."


Jackie:  Winners and Losers--


Alan:  "Millennium," subtitle: "Winners and Losers in the Coming World Order" - 1990.


Jackie:  1990 and it's been out of print for a long time or at least not available, but I got this picture in my mind of them sitting in this meeting of all these national leaders and him leaning over and whispering in Jacques Attali's ear. It's like I can see it.


Alan:  Sure. It tells you in the beginning that no one saw the president without Attali's permission, so Attali decided who the president would see and who he wouldn't see and then he went straight from there to the United Nation. However, he said America will be the next land of boat people. He says once the borders are dismantled and America has basically run its course with the military might and it's spent, he says there'll be boats leaving America with people looking for work in the Far East. This is well known, well understood to the guys at the top, the whole plan.


Jackie:  And the danger if you would of the bureaucrats, but there's really no danger because the elected officials are – it's all put up anyway, but they're behind the scenes and they're not answerable to anybody and who's going to write to a bureaucrat and say, "you quit telling Jacques Attali that!" Call your bureaucrat, Alan.


Alan:  The top advisers are not elected either and these are the guys--


Jackie:  That's what I'm saying. They're not elected.


Alan:  The guy that's advising President Bush is David Frum. He's one of the main advisers and David Frum is a Canadian.


Jackie:  He's a Jew from Canada.


Alan:  His mother made a career as a spokeswoman for the CBC. She's down there running for president.


Jackie:  Unfortunately we're out of – he's writing the president's speeches too?


Alan:  And books for the right man.


Jackie:  And unfortunately our hour always go so fast. It's gone and folks, we will be back with you tomorrow night. Thank you, Alan.



(Transcribed by Linda)