March 2, 2011 (#780)
Alan Watt "Cutting Through The Matrix" LIVE on RBN:
Poem Copyright Alan Watt March 2, 2011:
He Who Regulates Consumption
Is Heady with Corruption:
"Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, and all
Tend to Turn the Nations into Paupers' Prisons,
Politicians and Promises, Each Unconvincing Actor,
Bring in Personal Ambition, the True Corrupting Factor,
Caring Not What the Party is Called as Long as it has Power,
For Psychopathic Types Obsess to Live Atop the Tower,
In Charge of Nations' Wealth, Distribution, Consumption,
An Elite Class Always Emerges, Bloated with Corruption"
© Alan Watt March 2, 2011
Poem & Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt - March 2, 2011 (Exempting Music, Literary Quotes, and Callers' Comments)
cuttingthroughthematrix.net , .us , .ca
|European site includes all audios & downloadable
TRANSCRIPTS in European languages for print up:|
Information for purchasing Alan’s books, CDs, DVDs and DONATIONS:
Canada and America: PayPal, Cash, personal checks &
Outside the Americas: PayPal, Cash, Western Union and Money Gram
PayPal Orders: USE THE DONATE BUTTON ON THE WEBSITE – AND –
Hi folks. I am Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix on the 2nd of March 2011. For newcomers, you should look into cuttingthroughthematrix.com web site and help yourself to the massive audios that are up there for download. I think there’s over a thousand of them now. Hopefully you’ll find that the big system in which you’re born into, this bewildering system of authority and layers and layers and layers of authorities of all kinds really is one big gigantic system that knows exactly where it’s going and where it’s taking us, and how we’re basically kept in the dark at the bottom level. We’re mushrooms; you’re kept in the dark and you’re fed lots of bovine fecal matter. And that’s good enough for the general public not to cause any troubles for those who rule the world. And people do, certainly do rule the world and have for long time in fact.
So while you are in the web site, remember that you are the audience that bring me to you. I don’t bring on advertisers as guests and when they do come on most shows they pay to get on and they also pay the host as well. That’s how most folk make their cash on Patriot Radio stations – but I don’t do it that way – and it’s okay for those who do, who have families and all the rest of it. But this is not a business. It’s more educational too. It’s not show business either, I should say. Hopefully you’ll get a lot out of it. So please support me. It’s up to you if you want to hear this stuff or not and you can do so by buying the books and the disks that I have for sale at cuttingthroughthematrix.com. Remember, the ads you hear on the show are paid by advertisers directly to RBN to broadcast the station. That pays for their staff and their equipment and their bills so help me out with mine. [Order and donation options listed above.] Remember, straight donations too are certainly welcome because they trickle in once in a while and there’s never anywhere near enough.
That’s the age we live in. People have been taught through the internet that everything is for free. It’s so free that they give all their data out to everyone who then sells it. So it’s certainly very profitable, all this free information, for those who own the net systems. It helps the NSA of course and basically the world government to monitor every single person to see who’s going to be a problem down the road. Most folk are not a problem, never will be; they’re very predictable. They’re already predictable in fact. I’ve gone through the Pentagon articles where they have a virtual you updated daily with all the information that you willingly, happily give out to all your supposed friends, most of whom are probably robots or at least computers or software. However, you cannot help those who are classified as ‘the dead.’ And really, in all ages you’ll find that even in old religious books, there’s a classification of people called ‘the dead’ and you cannot help the dead. You find it in Masonry too; they talk about ‘the dead.’ Pike said, they’re nothing but steak on the table and beasts of burden by choice and consent. They will not use their own initiative, their own mentality, their own brain power; they prefer to be led and guided quite happily as sheep. And they’re always used by those who are more aggressive, and there’s lots of them, believe you me, at the top. Unfortunately in a monetary system, it’s the ideal system for the psychopaths to get up and achieve power. They’re addicted to power and they get up through the collar and tie route. They get up on top and then of course they lord it over you like all tyrants always do. Back with more after this break.
Hi folks, I’m back and this is Cutting Through The Matrix. I’ve talked many times about basically eugenics and the so-called characters behind the eugenics societies that really took off after Darwin came out and talked about evolution. Evolution itself was a necessity for the Royal Society to get out too. They backed Darwin. In fact they really, even though they knew he stole most of Wallace’s material, they pushed Darwin to the fore because he was a higher Freemason than the rest of them. So he got the credit for pushing out this new religion, that everything simply evolved by itself and therefore if things evolved then they would keep evolving. They talked about The Great Leap Forward and things would just jump and all the rest of it. And different schools of thought came out and opposed each other and combined sometimes and split up again into different factions. However, it’s never died away. And for those in power who are obsessed with evolution... See, evolution to them is a way of trying to create a perfect kind of human beings for a species of plantation workers. That’s really what it is. They’ll give them less trouble.
Every so often these scientists that live on massive grants of your tax money and foundation money and so on, put out their papers. They must publish or perish – that’s what they call it in these scientific research facilities because if they don’t publish something every year the funding stops coming in. So they’ve got to keep churning out material and often it’s rehashed material with a new spin or a possibility in a new theory, and a theory is really somebody’s guess. That’s what a theory is, it’s a guess. So really, anybody’s guess is as good as anybody else’s unless someone in higher authority okays it, in science; then it’s a better guess, or it’s the authorized guess. But they’re determined through what they’re now calling neuroscience – and they’ve got neuroethics and bioethicists and all the rest of it – all these people combined to do with psychology and the physiology of the brain coming together – to try to predict people’s behavior, very important to run a society, because every tyrant under the sun has had to employ henchmen basically, armies and henchmen and torturers to keep everybody living in a fearful state. So this article here is one of the latest ones and it’s about neuroscience. It says...
(Alan: Not noble as in nobility, but Nobel Peace Prize and all that kind of stuff, because they cut brains into pieces I guess.)
Thoughtcrime? The ethics of neuroscience and criminality
(A: And this is a fan obviously, who probably gives handouts to all the papers on this kind of stuff.)
By Jonathan M. Gitlin | February 28, 2011 / arstechnica.com
One of the most thought-provoking sessions I attended at AAAS (A: I guess that’s alcoholics of science or something.) was "Nature, Nurture, and Antisocial Behavior: Biological and Biosocial Research on Crime." The three talks encompassed neurocognition, psychobiology, and a range of ethical issues that would make your brain spin if you thought about them hard enough. The topic has great potential for controversy, and it would be easy to interpret some of the data presented as an argument against free will. (A: Because you see, what they’re trying to do is, and one of the big theories out there, it’s been out there for quite a while, is that whatever comes out of your mouth or your head is really simply the end product of all these millions of cells comprising of your body battling each other for supremacy. No kidding. Yeah. So you’re really a whole universe within yourself all battling with each other, all these little planets, these little cells, and so whatever comes out really is just an end product of all this battling going on.) In some ways, however, I think it illustrates the mistake of thinking of nature and nurture as separate, when in reality the interplay between genetics and environment are inseparable, especially when it comes to criminal activity. (A: So he’s all gung-ho for the belief that it’s an hereditary type thing and can be explained by chopping up brains and stuff like that.)
Antisocial behavior on the brain
The University of Pennsylvania's Adrian Raine gave an excellent overview of neurocriminology, which I'll attempt to do justice. Several areas of the brain have been shown to be implicated with antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), commonly known as psychopathy or sociopathy. The frontal cortex is the large part of your brain that is responsible for higher reasoning and behavioral traits, and is one of the areas that has been looked at. It's smaller than normal in individuals with ASPD. Although there is a difference in crime rates between men and women, 77 percent of that difference goes away once you control for frontal cortex volume. (A: They love percentages, again, statistics and stuff like that because they help to rationalize nonsense.)
Dysfunction or abnormalities in other brain regions have also been associated with higher rates of crime and ASPD. The septum pellucidum is a region of brain tissue that separates the brain's fluid-filled spaces, called ventricles. (A: Are you impressed already; it sounds very scientific, eh. That’s supposed to impress you.) During fetal development, there is an opening inside this tissue that usually closes up within the first few months after birth. Individuals for whom this doesn't happen have higher rates of arrest and conviction, and score higher for ASPD. (A: See they’ve got to get a physical cause, you understand, in this scientific dictatorship we’re living under for everything that happens, that’s got to be reasoned in through SCIENCE, again, very Darwinistic and that’s all there is to it. A person really is a compilation of your genetic, hereditary condition and your environment that you’re brought up in and so on and so on. And everything must be explained to them, explainable I should say.)
A key center of emotion activity in the brain, the amygdala, is another important region, and a study comparing ASPD and normal brains found deformations and a significant reduction in volume in the ASPD cohort. These were centered on the basolateral nucleus, which is responsible for fear conditioning. (A: Right...) This suggests that one possible source of differences (or one of several interweaving mechanisms) is that ASPD-affected individuals don't form the same sort of response to fear as normal people.
(A: Now, you can really go over this and really cut it apart into a thousand pieces, even more than they’ll chop up brains. But really, when you look at that last part there, what are they looking for? That means that good people are living in fear. Do you understand that? Good people who don’t cause trouble, who don’t cause any crime, who are no problems to governments or authorities or whatever, are living in a state of fear, right? Obviously. So the ones who are not living in a state of fear, they’re saying, cause the crime. Which makes no sense again because you see, if, again, you get a whole bunch of guys, young guys, put them into the military, taught them to kill people, sent them abroad for a paycheck to slaughter folk, they will do it, they’ll get medals and all the rest of it, but they’ll still say they have normal brains. Do you see what I’m saying? Utter rubbish. Anyway...)
One study that showed this assessed autonomic fear conditioning in 3-year-olds (this is done with a skin conductance test, (A: So you test the skin conductance and they tested it on children and then 20 years later they tested it on a bunch of children – they couldn’t find all the study group.) as you can't put 3-year-olds in MRI machines and expect good results), and then followed up with the subjects 20 years later. Out of 1795 children assessed at age 3, the study was able to follow up with 411. One hundred thirty-seven of these 23-year-olds had criminal records; the remaining 274 had not been in trouble with the law. Looking at their data from 20 years ago, the criminal offenders all showed much poorer fear conditioning.
So they were not living in a state of fear like the rest of society, I guess. Again too, it’ll all depend where you did that study from, like the east end of London, a very poor area, or parts of Glasgow say, and you’d find, again, you’d find more because when you’re living in a survival situation, believe you me, you don’t really care much about the basic laws. And apart from that there’s so many laws on youngsters today too it’s just astonishing because the policing has all completely changed. Completely changed. So I’ll leave this rotten article up on my site at the end of the show for you to have a good laugh at, for those who are not too swayed by the wonderful scientific terms that’s meant to say ooohhh and aaaahhhh and it’s so scientific. And in reality it’s a rehash and rehashes of stuff they’ve been doing for the last 100 years. That’s what they’re doing. They want a good society that’s well behaved and terrified... and then you’ll have a normal brain.
They also mention too, that white-collar crime has a thicker cortex that gives them an edge on seeing opportunities. So you see, if you’re wealthy and the whole bit and you rip off millions of people through banking, whatever, it’s a naughty thing. But it’s not a bad thing, it’s because you’ve got a thicker cortex, so they claim. And again, that’s a maybe of course as well. It’s quite something else to watch their theories. And all these people are getting so much money. The live high on the hog, you know, on all this pabulum. It’s just astonishing.
Now, the US is still pushing this National Health Service system which is bare bones because you see, every country that signed the United Nations’ charter and the World Health Organization which is part of the United Nations, they all agreed that everyone across the world should have access to the most basic health care. They say ‘basic’... which means primitive by the way, if you didn’t know that. That’s what they want to bring into the States. Meanwhile, Britain’s been through the whole scenario of having a system which did work until they changed it all and made too many chiefs and not enough Indians to run the hospitals and the wards, and of course very greedy ones too. Then they went a step higher and tried to get incentives to CEOs to run the hospitals who cut corners everywhere to get a higher paycheck. So corruption ruled and corruption brought down the hospital system and that’s what happens when you put too much of the scientific socialists in power. Anyway, in Britain they’re actually combining hospitals now and they’ve got so many different ways to finance the hospitals including private insurance companies. This report here is about...
Nicholson expects companies will run more NHS hospitals
guardian.co.uk / Gill Hitchcock Guardian Professional, 25 February 2011
...until you’ll have chains, of these guys running chains of them just like chain stores; they’ll be corporations running all of it. It’s interesting when you go into the writings of Jacques Attali, for instance, who talks about the future, in his last book. He’s up at the United Nations of course. He mentioned the fact that in the future insurance companies will have a MAJOR role in dealing with not just medicine but a whole range of societal topics. They’ll be the kind of bosses on how much will get spent on things. And I think that’s the way they’re going to go. So I’ll put this link up tonight as well and you can go through it. They’re talking about how hospitals can survive and merging a whole bunch of them and all the rest of it. Really, ultimately, it’s insurance companies which are going to take over and run chains of them just like Wal-Mart chains. Back with more after this break.
Hi folks, we're back and we’re Cutting Through The Matrix, contrasting the first article I mentioned about Thoughtcrime? The ethics of neuroscience and criminality, where basically they’re saying that those who have less fear recognition end up being criminals. I mentioned too, the fact that, well, we can do the same with soldiers. We can train thousands of them, of normal folk apparently, to go off and slaughter folk for a paycheck in the most brutal horrible way. If that was done in civil society back home they would be criminals, so it all depends on authority authorizing them to go out and slaughter. So it makes absolute nonsense out of it. Here is an article here about police and it says...
DAVID GILBERTSON: Why are police so rude?
Because they are trained to be
dailymail.co.uk / 27th February 2011
(A: Does that mean they’re psychopaths too? Have they opened up their brain skulls recently and done all these tests on them? I wonder. See, you can make anybody into anything if you want to. It says...)
Last week the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) published complaint statistics for 2009/10. And for senior officers – indeed for the public at large – they make uncomfortable reading.
For the second successive year the number of complaints increased by eight per cent, to record levels of almost 58,400, but within that headline figure there are trends that should give us all pause for thought. (A: Now these are folk who put complaints in and chanced it, took chances – this is in Britain – they took chances because there’s an awful lot of retribution if you go against the cops, believe you me.)
Almost 50 per cent of all allegations related to rudeness, incivility and neglect of duty. (A: And the cops too, they have shows out now, just like the cops in the US with the cop shows. And they curse and they swear at the civilians. They call them ‘civilians’ too.)
Even the interim Chair of the IPCC, Len Jackson, felt compelled to comment that ‘the number of rude and late complaints ... will require forces to develop an open dialogue with the public’. That is Whitehall code for: ‘This has got to change!’ (A: Well it won’t change you see, because this generation’s been brought up on video games and in a system of moral relativity where they can do what they want basically, nothing’s wrong, and once they get that black uniform they become part of the game and they go hunting the public. That’s what they do, they hunt the public.)
No one who cares about the maintenance of law and order in this country could view these figures with anything but concern – they expose worrying issues that we ignore at our peril. It is not a trivial point of manners but a reflection of the extent to which policing has changed for the worse in this country over the past 25 years.
I witnessed these changes as they began in the late Eighties and as they accelerated over the Nineties and the past decade.
For 35 years, until I retired in 2001, I served in two forces and at the Home Office, at every rank from beat PC to Deputy Assistant Commissioner and HM (A: Her Majesty’s...) Assistant Inspector of Constabulary.
I believe that we are now feeling the delayed impact of more than two decades of poor decision-making in policing.
Once upon a time the general public could confidently expect courtesy from their local constabulary. Particularly in the years following the Second World War, an easy accommodation emerged which had its roots in the continuing respect for authority figures (A: That’s fearful of authority of course that makes you a good citizenry.) that was the prevailing attitude of the time, and in recognition of the fact that civil society needed effective policing as crime rates soared. (A: I don’t know why it would ‘soar’ after the war. They don’t tell you of course. I know why, of course, because they were destroying the culture even back then.)
This contract with the public lasted until the early Nineties when, under the dual pressure of economic and social change, a new generation of chief constables and commissioners, who saw policing as a ‘business’ rather than a vocation based upon service, decided that things had to change.
The new policing, enthusiastically supported by successive Home Secretaries, was about targets, response times and ‘measurable performance’, lifted straight from the MBA syllabuses of the best universities. (A: That’s true. They tried to use a business mode into policing, same as the hospitals.)
Beat patrols on foot in uniform were not part of this brave new world; unless effectiveness could be measured and converted into a ‘bottom line’ cost it was of no use, and had to be scrapped. Police discretion was submerged under a tsunami of directions, guidelines and data-gathering. (A: I’d also mention quotas as well because every police force in the world now uses quotas, so many tickets and so on. And I’ve read some on the air where mayors in the US, New York especially, have given the data out there. All the money that’s gathered from the tickets, he says, is mine. He says, what you do at the weekends is up to you. It’s tickets or nothing.)
Then 9/11 happened and it was decided that the police service was on the frontline in the ‘war on terror’. Almost overnight, we all changed from citizens to suspects. Terrorism legislation and spurious ‘officer safety’ policies led to the militarisation of policing (A: And that’s what it is, it’s militarization of policing. Look at the uniforms for God sake.) and the greatest change in attitude that had taken place for a century.
Police officers, the majority quite young – the average age of an operational PC (A: Police Constable...) is under 24 – have been trained to believe that they are continually under physical threat and must therefore be continually on their guard. It is clear that a significant minority of officers see the public as their enemy and as a potential hazard to be dealt with aggressively.
There is no doubt that standards of behaviour and civility, across the whole of Britain, have changed for the worse over the past quarter century. Courtesy and good behaviour have been abandoned by many in our modern, ‘me’ society. (A: Which of course is what Bertrand Russell said they’d bring in, the ‘me’ generation, narcissists and hedonists.)
It is clear that a significant minority of officers see the public as their enemy (A: So remember that part.) and as a potential hazard to be dealt with aggressively
The police are products of that society; they attend the same schools, live in the same communities and have the same attitudes and prejudices as the best and the worst of us. But police officers should be held to a different standard of behaviour.
This change in attitude has to be set alongside the simultaneous withdrawal from day-to-day street patrolling that has taken place. (A: Then he goes on about the way that they’re trained, to be suspicious and always on guard and have to be very authoritarian with the people, who must be kept fearful of course, not like the psychopaths out there. Back with more after this break.)
Hi folks, I’m Alan Watt and we're still back here Cutting Through The Matrix and here’s another article too, to show you what happens in the 21st century, how trendy we are. I’ve read this before but it’s the...
Minimum Wage (Amendment) Bill 2010-11
(A: It’s Bill 29 going through Britain right now and other countries in Europe are going through the same thing, now that they’re all amalgamated. They’re destroying the minimum wage anybody can be paid.)
Summary of the Bill
A Bill to enable the national minimum wage to be varied to reflect local labour market conditions; and for connected purposes. (A: Very explicit, right?)
Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty (A: ...this is the 21st century.), by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—
1 Low Pay Commission inquiry. (A: That’s for the commoners, you see, the peasants.) The Low Pay Commission must consider and take evidence on the availability of employment opportunities and the impact of the national minimum wage on job creation and access to employment in all travel to work areas where the average level of unemployment in the preceding year has been above the national average, and must consider in the light of that assessment whether to recommend that the minimum wage in any such area should be set at a level below the national minimum wage. (A: Then it goes on and on and on with its usual bureaucratese that they put out for the Queen, the Queen who’s a figurehead they say but no law can get passed or revoked without her signature and her authority to do so. But there you are, you know, spiritual and temporal lords and all the rest of it are running Britain. That’s why it’s in such a great state, great condition.)
Then you have the Ford company. I mentioned years ago, they had no intention of bringing out new cars for the people and that’s why the roads were going down the tubes. Because they only gave you the car for a certain amount of time, during an industrial era, the latter part of it, especially in the US because in the US you had long distances to travel to work and so on. Now that you’re all getting crowded into the cities you don’t have to use that, under Agenda 21 and the Millennium Project for sustainable development. So here’s from Ford.
Ford warns electric cars may be only for the rich
Ford's chief financial officer has warned predictions of a surge in electric car sales are "very ambitious", as next generation vehicles dominate the Geneva Motor Show.
telegraph.co.uk / By Graham Ruddick, Geneva / 02 Mar 2011
Lewis Booth, a Briton, raised concerns about their viability without state subsidies. Most leading car makers have unveiled new electric or hybrid models in Geneva, while BMW and Peugeot have confirmed a €100m (A: Euro) (£85m) joint venture to develop electric technologies. (A: They’ve been developing electric technology since about the 50s or 60s. They have no intention. If you notice, everything else has leapt ahead in leaps and bounds but you’re still using gasoline, petrol? Like they couldn’t... No, it was never intended they have anything else for the public because they didn’t intend to have you driving forever.)
However, Mr Booth said: "Electric vehicles at the moment are still very expensive and have limitations. There is a question mark about how long governments can subsidise vehicles when they are under so much pressure from other funding issues.
"Some of the sales projections... for electric vehicles are very ambitious because I am not sure how customers are going to be able to afford to pay.
"Our philosophy is that we have a suite of technologies, from continuing to improve conventional vehicles, right through to plug-ins, hybrids and electric vehicles. The customer is going to decide and we want to satisfy all customers, not just rich customers."
Well, it’ll depend on your electric bill and they keep jacking all that up all the time. It all works together in concert doesn’t it, at the same time, because energy and carbon taxes and energy taxes are all coming into it at the same time, but that’s just coincidence isn’t it? You won’t need it, you see, in your lovely little community area and you won’t have to walk very far to the local transportation. And you won’t travel far because you won’t be allowed outside your perimeter with your little ID card, just like the old Soviet Union.
Alan: Now, there’s Carlton on the telephone from New York. We’ll see if he’s there. Are you there Carlton? Oh, okay. Okay. Put Andrea on.
Andrea: Hello, Alan?
Andrea: Hi. I was just wondering, I looked at the video that you had the link to on Human Resources and Social Engineering. At one point Noam Chomsky was on and he was saying that the Bolsheviks had really perverted socialism, they had subverted it. And that is was really quite different from what it had been originally. I was wondering what you think of that and what you think of Noam Chomsky.
Alan: He’s a bit of an enigma to be honest with you. I think he’s one of the authorized ones to be out there, doing what he does at that level and with that kind of following. Socialism, it can always only be perverted because it’s a perverted system to begin with. The book Ponerology, for instance, Political Ponerology talks about psychopathic personalities who always go into power, IN ANY SYSTEM. It was actually written within the Soviet Union by psychologists and different people who had to be very secretive about their findings and their conversations with each other. They were comparing their own leaders and their system with that of the West and they found no difference at all in the personality types who were running bureaucracies on one side and bureaucracies on the other and so on and so on. So it seems to be more advantageous in a sense for socialism to allow psychopaths to the top. I think it’s more of an open door policy for them to come up to the top. Socialism is about control. It’s an atheistic system too which really has elevated science up to the top. And science, like Bertrand Russell said, he was all for it, scientific dictatorships. He said it would be a terrifically authoritarian system that socialism would bring in.
Andrea: While pretending to be benevolent, is that it?
Alan: No. You see, this lie of the... In the big elite circles that have always been around, and even in their Masonic circles, they talk about themselves being benevolent dictators. And there’s no such thing as a benevolent dictator; there never has been in history, except in fairy tales. Power is power to these characters. Although they try to get the public to be as fearful as possible to comply with everything – that’s what they call a peaceful society – they’re not benevolent by any standards whatsoever in the history books when you go into the history books. There’s never been a case of the benevolent dictatorship; it belongs truly in Disneyland. So I don’t think you can get it that way. Remember too, psychopaths will smell the wind, to see which way the political wind, or the social wind is moving for the public. And they will join any side that they think is going to win. In Britain it’s even better. You have politicians who ‘cross the floor,’ it’s called, in Parliament when they see that the opposition or whatever is going to be more popular than the party they are in. They simply walk across and join the other party, right on the spot. So psychopaths have no qualms about ethical standards or moral standards or whatever else. They’ll go to where the winners are.
Andrea: I have a question about Gandhi. Somebody told me that when, in the Indian movement for independence, that all the while there was this, you know, the group, the invisible group behind everything, sort of determining of the outcome. Would you say that’s true? You know, so that it only appears to be, appeared to be independence.
Alan: Yes. In fact, if you go into the writings of Professor Carroll Quigley who was the historian for the Council on Foreign Relations and the Royal Institute of International Affairs, and he even does the histories back to the Milner Group that coined the term the ‘Commonwealth of Nations’ for the British Empire, it sounded better. They said in their own writings that they would create a system wherever they went, into other countries. They’d create a system and then they would institutionalize that system to try and copy what appeared to be the British system; they’d train a whole generation of bureaucrats and so on, and give them extra perks and all the rest of it, so that when they withdrew from that country they would leave really the same kind of system in place, and it would still be part of the Commonwealth of Nations, which India is.
Andrea: Gandhi knew that?
Alan: Gandhi knew that. Gandhi went to Oxford, remember, and he mixed with these guys.
Andrea: I was reading a book by Will Durant that said that he was very influenced by the Fabian Socialists and by Russell.
Alan: Yes. He was definitely into Fabian Socialism. Gandhi himself wasn’t such a peaceful man as they make out. I mean, Gandhi did, he had two techniques for taking on an enemy and he said, for those who take it on in a peaceful manner, they must be ready to lay down their lives and be killed for what they believe in, on the road to it, but he says, a lot of folk can’t do that. He says, those who can’t do that must then fight physically and fight with all the worth that they have. And so he wasn’t all just for peace in that way. The only coward was a person who ran away the other way and didn’t go one way or the other. So you either fought physically or you gave up your life as a sacrifice, that’s what he admired. He was sent in I think, he belonged to the society, this higher society from the Milner Group and so on. Britain had been trying, remember too, to hold onto India for a long time, ‘the Jewel in the Crown’ as they called it. They first stripped the power from the local leaders in the different parts; India was a lot of small little countries and princedoms. Britain united it all, put 40,000 miles of railroads in there, and then set up a bureaucracy based on the British system and the bureaucrats then, from then on, right to the present time, send their children over, their intergenerational bureaucrats; they send them over to Oxford and Cambridge for their training and then they go back and rule their country on behalf of this Commonwealth of Nations. So Britain really got what it wanted. We find that happened in other colonies too, that Britain pretends to leave. They never leave it without setting up the same infrastructure that will still cling to Britain and the Commonwealth.
Andrea: Right. And I noticed he was also, I don’t know how seriously he was involved in theosophy but he was, he got into that also.
Alan: Oh, absolutely. He was right into theosophy and remember too, with the Fabian Society, one of the founding members too, was Annie Besant. She was a good friend of Gandhi as well. Her job was to bring out the feminist movements, the early feminist movements and she was heavily funded by the Astor family to do so.
Andrea: Right. Well, thank you very much.
Alan: Thanks for calling.
Andrea: Okay, bye.
Alan: And also remember too, another interesting part of that is, Will Durant who wrote a series of very good history books, with a massive team obviously, was also paid to do so by the Rockefeller Foundation. He was meant to slant history in such a way as to make you think that people in society are simply in too much conflict and you need a strong authoritarian central power to control everyone. That was the slant he had to write on everything to do with history. In other words, a tyrant would arise once in a while and cause tremendous trouble and then he’d have to be suppressed, then another one would arise. So he’s always working towards this utopic future. But Will Durant and his wife both were found in a hotel room at the end of it all, after they’d written to Stalin, Churchill, and a whole bunch of world leaders, and they said that they felt they’d betrayed the public, they couldn’t leave the public with this feeling of nihilation basically, nihilistic feeling that there was no hope because that was the intent of their history being written with that kind of slant, that without scientific guidance and scientific leadership we would continue in the same way as the past and it was just mayhem, order out of chaos basically. They were found dead in their hotel room after they sent all those letters out, and that’s actually been put into some of the later editions of their books; they show you the letters that they wrote to all the top leaders of the world. They were used by the Rockefeller Foundation, as I say.
It’s amazing, you can never take anything at face value, even books which you might like and have some good information in them; there’s always a spin put in there. And again, that was verified by Churchill who talked about this, again, the Milner/Rhodes/Royal Institute of International Affairs Society, CFR, same group, all one group that had been writing the British school children’s books and the university level books, and for the histories for the world, and meanwhile these guys had been the main powers and movers and shakers between causing the wars for the world. It’s quite amazing. So they always kept themselves out of the books but they made sure that everyone got the right kind of education and belief system on how the world operated, to their advantage of course. Everything’s like that. It’s astonishing, astonishing what goes on.
And Gandhi too, was such a great guy, that when he was locked up by the British in a cell he developed pneumonia and eventually he succumbed to the temptation to accept antibiotics, but his wife who was in another cell got pneumonia and he told her not to take them. So I guess she was disposable. So they give us our heroes. And again, people like power, you know, people do like power. You can have power and money, or power alone and adulation, so some go for that as well. It’s just amazing how the world is managed. It’s all for the public show so that we believe in what’s being said to us, and we go along with it.
I always think of the American founding fathers and one of them said – getting back to those articles on ‘a good citizen is a fearful citizen’; otherwise you’re a psychopath apparently – that the government should live in fear of the people, because when people live in fear of their government there’s something terribly, terribly wrong, you see. And that’s true enough. That’s how it’s been because since Darwin, as I say, everything has been brought into the scientific socialistic way of running the world, all by bureaucrats, paperwork, etc. The whole bureaucratese language that all governments use was invented by Sidney and Beatrice Webb, also founders of the Fabian Society, and everything would end up in quotas and rations and so on and functions for people. And then the other founder of the Fabian Society, George Bernard Shaw – I’ve put the videos up there for you to see – where he said, you’ll have to come to us to justify why we should keep you alive. You’d have to work in the socialist system; they had no time for the infirm, the weak, or crippled people, and they would simply eliminate them. He even called for the scientists creating a gas, a humane gas he called it, to kill off all of those people who would be of no financial value, economic value to society.
Socialism is Marxism and you can’t separate the two. It’s all to do with material resources. It’s the same thing that’s on the go today when you hear about sustainability and the climate nonsense. It’s really all about sustainability. It’s eugenics, it’s socialism, how many should live, how many should die, etc, etc. That’s what it’s all about, the planned society. Back with more after this break.
Hi folks, we're back, Cutting Through The Matrix and I think Carlton from New York is back again. Are you there Carlton?
Carlton: Hey, Mr Watt, how you doin’? How you doin’?
Alan: Not too bad.
Carlton: You were talking about the police and militarization and basically the police state is going on, it’s developing. And I mean, you can see it. I can just remember 10 years ago, the cops wouldn’t run red lights and throw their horn on like something’s going on, knowing that they’re just getting through the light. But to me it’s just looks like they’re showing an authoritarian position, like yeah, we’re the cops, we can do what we want, you chill, sit at the light and let us go past. But my real question, and I’m going to try to make it quick and take my answer off the air because my phone is dying. Speaking on the eugenics part of it, because it seems as though they just basically take our natural instincts and basically over-exaggerate and pervert them. So I look at, and I don’t know if this is the total truth too, but like the conception, the one sperm, the strongest one to survive to get to the egg, impregnates the egg and boom, you know, you’re conceived. And it seems as though it’s like that’s what they look at, they use that and perverted it to the extreme, basically through socialism and all that good stuff. But my basic question is, how true is it, and is it true that we just adapted to their form of it or, you know, how true is it? And like I say, I’ll take my answer off the phone. Take it easy Mr Watt.
Alan: The key is, in fact, that every living species has the drive to survive. Whether it’s the sperm or whatever, it’s a drive to survive. It’s all about survival. The problem with the elite of course, is how to control all of those and live very well off the top of all those who have survived. What they’re getting at with socialism is how they can design the kinds of happy obedient people that’ll serve them well for generations to come. That’s really what all of this bioethics and neuroscience is all about. It’s ALL about complete control. Bioethics and neuroscience, bioethics is just a new term for eugenicists. It got a bad rap after Hitler so they altered their name and only recently did the British Eugenical Society change their name; they still got their sites up there. It’s about total control over the public and the biggest enemy they have is that little part of your brain which gives you your so-called, what they call, primitive instincts; these are the instincts that make you survive and do things in survival situations you wouldn’t normally do. You know, even during the so-called famine in Ireland, which was simply a famine brought on by the British government because they looted Ireland of all its cattle and so on and all the food, to serve the British Empire troops all abroad over the empire and they left the folk to starve. The Catholic Church even had to say it wasn’t a sin to steal anymore, to allow the folk to steal to survive. That’s reality of survival. We’re all capable of doing amazing things and breaking the social indoctrinated norms in a survival situation. As I say, you can’t take these studies they put out there on the general public and say, well so many of these guys ended up in crime later on. I can take you to any main city, especially the poorer areas, and you’ll find that will happen because part of it is learned, often – this is how somebody before them survived – and when you have to survive you will break laws to survive; now there are so many laws out there. But to those at the top they don’t want that. They want obedient people who’ll pay, and actually eventually work for nothing for the world state. That’s the key. They want you to work for nothing for the world state without having to police you or have a military there or hangman there or anybody else to terrify you. They want a peaceful, happy, maybe fearful society to an extent. That’s the goal of neuroscience and neuroethics, etc. Thanks for calling.
From Hamish and myself from Ontario, Canada, it’s good night and may your God or your Gods GO with you.
Topics of show covered in following links:
Eugenics--Neuroscience and Criminal Prediction
UK Private Sector Takeover of NHS Hospitals
The New Police-Trained to see Public as their Enemy
UK--Bill to Abolish Minimum Wage
--More on Above
Ford Warns Electric Cars are Only for the Rich
Alan's Materials Available for Purchase and Ordering Information:
Religions and History MP3 CDs:
Blurbs and 'Cutting Through the Matrix' Shows on MP3 CDs (Up to 50 Hours per Disc)
"Reality Check Part 1" & "Reality Check Part 2 - Wisdom, Esoterica and ...TIME"