June 12, 2014 (#1442)
ALAN WATT
"CUTTING THROUGH THE MATRIX"
(GUEST ON REALITY BYTES RADIO WITH NEIL FOSTER)

Originally Broadcast Jun. 12, 2014 on awakeradio.co.uk

 

Neil:  Welcome to Reality Bytes on the 12th of June 2014.  And our monthly chat with Alan Watt of cuttingthroughthematrix.com.  Are you there Alan?

Alan:  Yes.  Iím here.

Neil:  Load and clear, great.  Well I like to stick to one topic on these shows these days and the topic this week is Royalty.  In the UK the last couple of weeks weíve had D-Day and weíve had the State Opening of Parliament.  And anybody who watched the State Opening of Parliament and thought we lived in a time of austerity, you know, dream on.  I think there was an article appeared in one of the papers about one of the bolts on the wheel of her carriage was worth about three grand.  One bolt, because it was gold plated of course.  But it makes such a mockery of the people standing in the gutter where they belong waving their little flags and they just keep doing it.  They just keep doing it.

But anyway letís start right at the beginning.  In your depth of reading as it were is there any point in history we can actually go back to and say oh this was the first king, this was the first queen, the first emperor or you know where did this idea ever originate?

Alan:  Really we go back to, you can find it in Sumer and Babylon of course where they had the Kingu.  They called him a Kingu, he was the top honcho, and he was a kind of God king.  And later on of course, well he was also, this is the thing you always get with the idea of wealth or money combined with rulership and the rulership always centralizes itself.  And in those days it was a king it was centralized around and his advisors and the money men.  In ancient times they used to weigh out the gold and the silver, and etcetera, in powder form but eventually they coined money around about the 9th century B.C. or so.  And you find that from then on it was a long-standing process to always have kings.  Democracy, the idea of democracy, didnít arise till centuries and centuries later.  And even in the Middle Ages no one ever thought about democracy, it was an alien concept except in Ancient Greece where they tried different systems of rulership.  And of course Greece had its kings too at one time.  And then they went into a kind of a noble rule of senators, etcetera Ė Rome copied that Ė but they also occasionally had a tyrant king.  And a tyrant king even though it sounds like a tyrant, he simply took over when things werenít working and functioning.  And heíd become the king. 

So this is an ancient idea of rulership but it starts really with one family, a big family that becomes a kind of clan, and they slaughter those around them and take over their lands and they rule by fear and terror and eventually they protect the people from the next big bunch, the next big family of clans.  That was the ancient idea.  So that carried all down through the ages and the same thing happened in England of course. 

It mainly really took off big time when say William the Conqueror came in, the House of Orange, and so on, to spread this new idea, this new type of kingdom.  Eventually they brought in a form of democracy, but it was more like a senate because nobility made up the parliament.  It wasnít till much later that they brought in more, again merchant classes to become the congress or the parliamentarians.  And it was only about the 20th century that they really brought in other folk to represent different parties from the lower classes.  So even at that though Britain was the only country that really hung on big time, Denmark too I think and a couple of other ones, hung on to the idea of a monarchy and over the democracy.  So itís a good con of democracy, but itís still a monarchy in a sense.  And the monarchy represents the plutocracy that rules the nations.  So itís a very ancient idea and as I say the idea of democracy has never come into fruition.† Ancient China apparently tired all these different techniques.  They had plutocracies, they had socialism, they even had communism about two and a half thousand years ago.  They tried all of these ones out but they always reverted back to a form of local kingdoms and so on for a long time.

So itís a traditional thing that goes along with the money boys because the money boys are generally an alien people who come in to the different countries and lend out and keep the king happy with lending to the king and they get the right to tax the people.  They were called tax farmers.  So they, the men who lent to the kings and nobility, got the right to tax the peasantry.  And because they were a different race often from the peasantry they had as much in common with the peasantry as the king had with the peasantry.  They hated them in other words.  That happened all down through the Middle Ages across Europe.  Tax farming was big up until the early 20th century in fact.  And it wasnít till the governments formed their own taxation revenue, then they could actually recoup the money to pay back these moneylenders by using a kind of income tax system run by the government. 

Neil:  Well that was a going to be my next question because I was wondering did the king employ the moneylenders or did the moneylender employ the king?

Alan:  It often, it was an odd situation; sometimes it was one or the other.  It could reverse itself.  And sometimes the king too would kick them out because he would owe so much to them, he couldnít pay it back.  But also the moneylenders were taking over lands because they were lending also to peasantry at compound interest.  Germany was a big, big symbol of that whole technique, Poland and so on, and the peasants couldnít pay it back.  The moneylenders knew it so they were taking over the lands.  And the nobilities realized these moneylenders would become more powerful and wealthier than they were so they kicked them out often.  And they went back and forth to different countries doing it.†

Neil:  Yes, I mean, in terms of the money, it makes you wonder if the kingís perceived as the highest lord in the land as it were, why he bothered with the moneylenders, why didnít he take over that system himself?

Alan:  Well hereís the odd thing, you can go back to Christianity, early Christianity that really was against usury.  In fact early Christianity was very communistic, pre-Marxian communistic, a natural communism because everybody lived in communities in those days, so they were in communes, communistic.  But the whole idea was to lend, give people what you had extra Ė two coats, give them one, etcetera.  Donít collect stuff here on Earth, etcetera.  And that was all changed eventually because the Catholic Church formed out of a power, a political ruling power, an empire.  And so they were married to politics from the beginning.  And even though they were against usury they still needed money and the ones who brought the money into the country of course they allowed them to use, and they were not Christian, they allowed them to use usury because they wanted the money.  They wanted the money to circulate amongst the people and they themselves would collect it back in their boxes, collection boxes and so on.  And then that would end up going, a certain portion would go back to Rome.†

So money has been the key to all of this system all along.  We live in nature; nature is not a pleasant Walt Disney thing; nature is cruel.  Everything has to survive.  And of course in this system everyone is terrified of being at the bottom, dirt poor, because when youíre dirt poor youíre the first to go under if thereís a collapse of any kind or a war or whatever, you canít get out, you have no money to bribe your way out.  Those with money always survive.  So the money system itself literally creates a mentality of, if you like, survival of the richest or fittest.  And therefore those who get the greatest rewards will often survive and go on while the rest die off through poverty, starvation, or whatever it happens to be.  This has been like this for thousands of years and no oneís come up with a better system supposedly.

Neil:  So in a way they, the king or queen or emperor or whoever it is thatís at the top is actually shielding and disguising the whole function of the moneylender.

Alan:  They are the ultimate symbol of the whole system of money lending and taxation to pay back to the moneylenders.  Today we call them international bankers but itís the same thing thatís going on.  And again the difference is so as the moneylenders donít take the heat, which they used to do, because they had to go out and collect the taxes off the peasantry; they were given permission to recoup their loans but theyíd take it from the peasantry, not from the king.  Now youíve got, they have the income tax bureaus to do it for them.†

Neil:  Thatís what I was going to say there.  They use the government now to do the dirty work and collect the taxes.

Alan:  Thatís right, so the government takes the heat then you see. 

Neil:  Yeah and we pay the government to do it.  {Laughs}

Alan:  Thatís right, so itís saving all around for them you know. 

Neil:  So you say that this kind of whole system as far as we can determine started back in Sumeria or Babylon.  And how did the system like immigrate to America, South America, and those kind of places?  Or was it a separate kind of organic thing that developed there?

Alan:  No.  It was the same thing there they had.  In Latin America, itís nonsense that nothing happened until Columbus came along.  There is no doubt about it there was trade even from the Middle East to South America thousands of years ago.  Theyíve found the coins, the ancient coins, Proto-Iranian ones too in Canada, parts of Canada, and in Latin America and the States.  Theyíve found graves with inscriptions on it in Latin and so on.† So there was definitely occasional trade coming in and out of these different countries.  But it wasnít really until Cortez and the bunch came in of course from Spain that they really introduced this new system of domination by empire expansion for Spain.  That and then again too Spain kicked out a lot of its moneyed class who moved to Latin America and many of their descendants still rule parts of it today in fact.  But they brought the money system with them and it has never really changed to the present time.  Very powerful families run the Latin American countries, very, very powerful families, often intermarried in fact.

In the U.S. of course the Puritans brought the whole idea over with them of working hard supposedly and being very thrifty, meaning a good schemer with money and investments and all the rest of it.  And the U.S. took off with that because they had less impediments for taxation.  They didnít have the size of governmental bureaucracies to demand taxes off them and thatís why they took off.  When you take off the restrictions on income taxes and various kind of taxes, and you donít have the bureaucracies to put all the impediments to working any kind of business, all the laws and regulations, and etcetera, then they can really steamroll ahead very fast and become very powerful quickly.  The U.S. did that in its early days.  And actually in the late 1880ís I think they said that the U.S. for the first time overtook Britain for raw goods and exports and things like that.  So they took over and expanded well up until about the 1960ís. 

Neil:  So are you saying that, well I spoke to two American Indian chiefs last week, Native Americans, and they talked about the cultures that had been there well before Columbus as well.  And the artifacts that have been found and proven to, you know, the Chinese...

Alan:  There are good books by professor Barry Fell, who uncovered a lot of this stuff, he was from Harvard, and he and his students would go on these digs and they dug up so much.  They even found three, the tops of three pyramids in Algonquin Park by the way and the CBC did a documentary special, a series of tapes you can get on it.  And they found these priestly quarters of people who again wrote in what they call Proto-Iranian language but it was the tops of three pyramids they uncovered, and then those digs were closed down.  They didnít want to go any further with them Ė they did, the professor did, but the governments didnít. 

Neil:  Iíve been to Mexico and there was one, weíre getting slightly off topic, but there was one pyramid that had just recently been discovered.  And you were allowed to actually climb on this one so up to the top I went and you could see across the jungle and there were mountains everywhere, as far as you could see.  And I spoke to the young lad that was doing some of the archeology there and he said oh yeah this, the whole place all around here, itís all, itís like a city, a city the size of London, itís just, itís everywhere, but they wonít let us dig it up.

But yeah I mean in terms of the, you said that the Spanish brought the money system.  Presumably before that it was genuine trade between these nations that obviously traveled across the Atlantic and the Pacific.

Alan:  There was trade but trade you know from the days of the Phoenicians, and they were a big player in all of this, the Phoenicians were quite an amazing people because they traded but they also put countries into debt, in areas, small tribes and all that, but really the precursor of big countries.  They put them all into debt by lending to them.  And what they would do, they would take over countries as well because of the debt and then the king would owe them big time.  And they would make it a deal that if you go to war with this other group who donít use money, our money, which weíre introducing, because the Phoenicians were also standardizing their currency, a silver coin, a particular weight and so on.  And the countries that didnít use their coin, didnít want to trade with them, theyíd get a country they had already taken over through debt to use their armies as part of the deal for repayment, and they would go and conquer those countries.  And then the Phoenicians would get a deal where they could enslave the people and have them working like factory towns with free labor for a long time.  So it wasnít just happy free trade with them at all, no.  Thereís much more to it than that.†

Neil:  Itís the same system today, isnít it?

Alan:  Itís the same system, free trade.  They called it free trade back then by the way you know.  And of course thatís why you had the wars against the Spartans and so on, hundred year wars, because they wouldnít adopt this particular moneyed system run by these people.  Because it always ended up with the complete debt of the nation to these people who would then move their own advisors in to rule the countries. 

Neil:  So from, the systemís spread out, and you mentioned that it started from one family or two families, or one tribe.

Alan:  Well we can trace it back as I say to the days of Sumer, early Sumer, you know 5,000 years ago or so, or longer actually. 

Neil:  So basically did they kind of lay out a map of the world at that time and say right, similar to how the Rockefellers built up their empire by sending one son into this, one son into that.  Is that the kind of system they used do you think?

Alan:  Thatís the kind of system they would use.  And again tribal leaders, that might have started off as chiefs of a tribe, saw the wealth of the next tribe of course because the guy was getting money lent to him and all these riches brought into him and fine robes for himself and his wife, and all that, and heíd want it too.  So generally they say that power corrupts and when you get power with money it always corrupts.  It canít help but be the same thing.  So envy would be part of it too on the part of leaders and chiefs, etcetera.  They would want the same thing and theyíd bring in these guys to do the same thing to them.†

Neil:  So, okay.  So they set up their system across the world more or less, apart from countries that they havenít conquered.So they must, you know, get together somewhere or have ambassadors or something of the day and get together and say, right, how do we secure this kind of system.And then is that where they started, how can you put it, tying all the people together through marriage?  And is that how they?†

Alan:  Yes, exactly.  Even in Ancient Egypt, they had the myth of the royal blood and all this.  And in Egypt we know that they even sometimes married their sisters to keep it as close as could be.  And other places were the same way.  They would marry their immediate relatives basically, like the Rothschilds still do today.  They marry their nieces by tradition in the five big families; there are different branches of them now.  But you find the same thing with all the big families.  They keep the money inside the family by intermarrying the family.  Royalty was the same and the old blueblood concept. 

And we find of course the Habsburgs and all the ones, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, a lot of these kings and queens that are across Europe today, including Britain, came from the Germanic areas before Germany was a true big country.  Small kingdoms, etcetera, the Saxe and Coburg and Gotha were separate princedoms and Germany was the first country through debt to actually start electing kings and princes.  So the ones that you have today, through King George that came in, really were not traditional lineage ones.  Although they later marry ones, earlier ones, preexisting royalty, even if the royalty was poor, just to get that blood into them to say we are the true heirs of say the British throne for instance.

Before that the Normans brought in the system big time.  Normans, the Norman Invasion wasnít just a bunch of wild guys running across Europe taking it over.  It was the most organized, almost the ancient world, it was a world war in a sense in its day.  And when they came into Britain for instance they brought prefabricated forts.  They built them on the French side, and theyíd pull them across the ocean in ships.  Theyíd erect them in the Isle of Wight and Man, as halfway stops for all their supplies they brought in.  It was done with incredible military precision and then from there they would bring them across to Britain and erect these prefabricated forts, massive things.  This wasnít just a bunch of wild guys out on a killing spree for looting and booty, they literally were run like World War II or something like that you know.  So they brought in that system with them, which was the church behind them to cow the people.  I always call the churches the softening-up crew.  Youíll know in warfare the barrage they used to give them from the naval gunships were called youíd soften up your enemy fortifications by blasting them for about an hour before you sent in the troops, and technically the religious aspect of it.  Thatís why theyíve always backed this later brand of Christianity, not the early one.  And they would tell the people not to fight, not to kill, etcetera.  That was the softening-up crew.  They might spend years in that before theyíd send in the hard troops.  But once they send in the hard troops, they take it over with absolute merciless precision to obtain their objectives, put fear into the people. 

William the Conqueror, when he came in of course, people donít realize that William the Conqueror had copied, itís never been explained why, but he copied the same techniques as the ancient Middle East had of the Hamites.  Where heíd get prisoners, heíd put them in front of the city towns, heíd gouge their eyes out so as the ones watching down from the battlements could see what he was doing to them, and do terrible things to them, even impale them through the rectum up through the mouth with staves and have them hanging there.  And this was to terrify the people inside to give up and put up no resistance or else this is what was going to happen to you.  And when he looted cities that would not surrender he also did what the Hamites did, heíd cut the hamstrings on their legs so that you couldnít, for the older folks, the ones they were not going to sell as slaves because they were selling the rest as slaves by the way.  And theyíd have to die, they couldnít crawl anywhere, they couldnít move.  So utter cruelty was always a technique to take over and install your king through what became up to the present the modern methods. 

Neil:  Well itís through conquest I suppose.  In terms of Columbus and Cortez, I mean would you call them kind of, not ambassadors, but they were sent out there to explore, to find these countries for the royalty to conquer and...

Alan:  Well what theyíve given us in the basic history is nonsense. We know that Columbus or Colůni, Cristůbal, he married the top honcho of Spainís daughter.  And this guy was a high, very high, early Freemason we call them, of his day, a big Kabbalist too and extremely rich, the father in law.  And he had maps of this stuff.  They werenít going off to find some alternate route to India; they knew exactly where they were going.  And where they headed for was where they knew from previous excursions where gold was stored, massive amounts of gold.  And they went right to their destinations.  And the second ship came in too and they knew what they were after and they went in and got it.  So, no, they knew where they were going.  They didnít land on say British Columbia and get eaten alive with mosquitoes or anything, or go off to Nova Scotia on the east coast, no, they went straight to where the gold was all stored by the various Aztec nations and so on.†

Neil:  Well of course because other civilizations had been there before.

Alan:  Well the Indians even have records of it, and the Catholic Church that went in too with them.  They also had, they took a lot of the records of the Aztecs and the different tribes there back to Rome, or to the Vatican.  And they still exist today.  And they said that they had visits from white men in the past.

Neil:  Well you mentioned earlier as well that the people married their sisters, brothers, whatever, to keep the good bloodline going and I read something the other day there and Iíll probably read it out later when you have gone but you know Queen Victoria was the great, great-grandmother of both Philip and Elizabeth so I mean itís there in black and white if people want to look at it, the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family tree.  People can see it you know. 

Alan:  Well thatís why they changed it, their name, in World War I because if you take the posters of World War I, for the German recruiting and the British recruiting posters, youíll see the Kaiser on one and youíll see the King of England on the other.  And they were first cousins and they looked identical, identical, except the different hats on, thatís about the only difference.  But the thing is the British ones had a German name and it didnít go over too well with the propaganda they were using back then so they changed their name to the House of Windsor.  Thatís when that was formed, the House of Windsor, to make them sound more English you see.

Neil:  Iíve got 1917 they did that I think.I wondered if they did that because they realized that Germany was going to lose the war.  And they thought uh-oh weíd better change our name now because if we donít weíll be out of here.

Alan:  Well I think what it was, is that the public had basic education by that time and I mean very minimalistic, but the general public had a basic education for the first time at that time and they knew a bit of the history and realized that the kings were always sending off troops to fight their cousins across in France or wherever it happened to be across Europe.  And they thought well if itís another German king sending off the British troops to fight Germans itís the same old thing all over again, so they had to do a whammy on their minds and try to make out that he was actually English.  I mean the actual present royalty had no blood relations to the House of Windsor; thatís even more comical. 

Neil:  Iíve just got a question here about financiers.  Frescobaldi (or boldi), have you heard of him?  He helped finance and support European royal families. 

Alan:  Yes.  There was quite a few actually, not all of them either were the same people.  But the royal family have their own private bankers as well and their private investors because theyíre part of whatís called the establishment.  Thatís what they all call it, the establishment.  And we found one of the scandals happened a few years back when one of the investors had kind of looted their private bank, remember that broke into the papers in fact.  But they also are intermarried with the Rothschilds as well by the way, the royal family of England, over the centuries they intermarried with some of their cousins and so on too, and across Europe itís pretty well much the same.

Neil:  Well I think, is it Prince Williamís wife or concubine or whatever you want to call her, Katy, sheís Rothschild related anyway.Okay weíll go to a short piece of music and then weíll come back.  I wanted to talk about how it is that weíve all been conned into believing that these people are somehow better than us, after this piece of music.

{Break ♫}

Neil:  Welcome to Reality Bytes Radio with our guest Alan Watt for our monthly chat and talking about royalty.  And we just had a little chat off air and Alan mentioned Price Philip coming over from [Greece] and the money that came out with that.  Do you want to just tell our listeners about that little scam? 

Alan:  Yeah I mean what happened was at one time they had so many excess cousins and all the rest of it and royalty in Europe, they tried to drop, the term is, itís just like politicians, you parachute them in, in other words, to a country to make them the king over the country.  Well Greece didnít have one at one time and so they popped them in there and for a while theyíd ruled it but they were hated for gouging the public who were living in poverty and he was kicked out.  And it wasnít till the 80ís, the 1980ís, that it leaked out that the British taxpayer was paying for eighty of his relatives that came with him from Greece.  They were all of Austrian, Hungarian and Germanic background.  And none of them were Greek of course but thatís the way it is, just like in England too, theyíre not really English.  But they brought them into Britain and they were given each a salary of something like a million pounds a year each to keep them living in a decent lifestyle.  So we didnít know that and thatís when they brought it out for the first time that the queen was going to take a salary from the tax, from the purse, to cope with all her demands and ribbon cuttings and all her boy scout things she signs and things like that.  So that was to try to calm the public thinking that she was just an employee, which is such a joke of course because she is the biggest landowner on the planet.  {Laughs}

Neil:  Yeah of course.  A little question about Prince Philip, I think it might be Prince Charles this guy is talking about, but he admitted that he was of Transylvanian blood, not Germanic.  But I think that was Charles that said that, was it?

Alan:  Charles said it but yeah theyíre all mixed with the... again too, some of itís a con because as I say later when King George was brought in from Germany before the American Revolution, he couldnít speak English for most of his life you know.  Modern English, this is another little sideline, but modern English, BBC English and Oxford English, came from the courtiers copying because they always emulate the king.  Donít forget too in the British parliament for a long time they spoke French.  That was the dominant language during the Norman period for centuries.  And then when George came in, his type of English, the way he pronounced the English, they would all copy that at the top and that got put out at universities and then they would all emulate it and copy it and mimic it until you end up with what you call Oxford or BBC English today.  But he was Germanic and he really wasnít so related to the old, old royalty of Britain as they tried to make out today.  What they would do once they get in is intermarry present royalty Ė William did the same thing, with the House of Orange Ė to try to validate it.

Now you will find if you go down through history, Winston Churchillís mother was sent over.  Itís an interesting story, the mother came from a New York family, a very wealthy family, and often these wealthy families would send them over to Europe to marry failing aristocracy who had no idea about business or anything and their incomes were failing.  They were land owners and they had tenant farmers and thatís where their money came from, but they couldnít really run, their lifestyle was just so high, exorbitant, extravagant.  And so they married them off.  Well Winston Churchillís dad married one of them because he was a big heavy gambler.  He liked the high life, he was a bit of an alcoholic.  He died of syphilis eventually but he married one of the daughters of this New York family and that was the Spencer line.  So you had Winston Churchill, really technically his mother wasnít British at all.  But that same mother became the mistress of the king for many, many years as well, at the same time.  She really worked hard to make sure this dynasty was going to take off big time.  And it certainly did, right down to Lady Diana Spencer you know. 

So these people really are foreigners.  Diana Spencer, that line of the family had married into the Stuarts to try to validate their kind of royal lineage.  And thatís what they would often do, they would come into a country and intermarry but try to get into eventually marry someone who was descended from old royalty.  That was the idea behind it, to validate them. 

You find the same thing in ancient Egypt because when the Greeks and Macedonians came in with Alexander, he appointed a couple of his generals to rule different parts and one of them was Ptolemy, and he was given, he became the head or the Pharaoh of Egypt.  And how they did it with him was also a nice little con, he had a dream one night, his priests advised him you know have a little dream and youíll have the previous pharaoh whoís deceased, his spirit talking to you and his spirit coming into you to rule so that if you didnít have the bloodline but as long as the spirit of the pharaoh was in you, you were a bona fide pharaoh.  {Laughs}

So history is quite funny when it comes to kings and queens and all of this stuff.  Youíll find too that itís been validated as well that even in the Tudor Dynasty sometimes it got broken and illegitimate children were put in, in their stead when they didnít have the proper lineage to fill it.  That did happen on a couple of occasions.†

Neil:  Okay I think in the old days I think itís fair to say that, you mentioned tyrants earlier on, that the king ruled by fear more or less.I mean how did we ever get to a situation where the peasantry were living in kind of abject fear of their lives basically, where the lord could come up and you know take the wife on the first night and basically cut their heads off in Japan or wherever if they didnít bow low enough, to actually the people getting on their knees and you know adoring them.  I mean how did we get to that? 

Alan:  Well the Normans brought that in with Prima Nocta, that was the first night.  And they brought that custom in with them but they also, right through the Middle Ages from the time of the Normans right onwards, they ruled across the whole of Europe the same way, up until really the early 20th century.  But what they did was if you go through the castles in Britain, and go through the dungeons, you will find these dungeons, theyíre tiny little awful things.  Honestly it would terrify you to look at them.  They would just round up certain people every so often in a village or a town and theyíd lock them up for years and then let them go when they were emaciated and white and almost like albinos.  And they let them live so that they could wander amongst the people terrifying the people that this might happen to you. 

Now, what they would do as well is when they were losing what they thought was power, or people were getting resentful towards them, they would start executing people publicly, public exhibitions.  And it would be a kind of fair day in a sense, they would have a fair on the go at the same time, the peasantry would come.  They would hang the people, they would draw them, that was between the two horses, and they would quarter them as they called it.  Theyíd cut your stomach open when you were still alive, theyíd pull out your intestines while you were looking at them, to terrify the onlookers that this can happen to you.  That was happening right up until the early 20th century for folk who donít know that.

And what they did in the 19th century around the coastline when you had smugglers coming in, theyíd the tar the people literally until you were dead and theyíd hang you and tar you, and hang you on gallows along the coastlines.  And some of these tarred humans, thatís where the old story of the tar-babies come from, but these tarred people, they would re-tar them and some of them were hanging up there for sixty years, you know, to warn the public this can happen to you if you disobey the kingís law.  Thatís how it happened.  It was pure terror.  And the problem is too you can always hire mercenaries to enforce this and every generation from the working classes too, there is always a 10% psychopathic group who will join the winning team and they themselves get extra privileges and power.  They always have brothels around castles, etcetera, massive amounts of brothels, beer and all the rest of it to keep them happy but theyíre basically the lowest scum you will have.  And theyíre the same across the whole planet, this group.  But this is the problem.  They always recruit these characters who will go out and slaughter the people when theyíre told to do so.  Thatís how they rule; they keep their power.And when they do go into a village or a town to collect taxes and take the pigs or the sheep or whatever, if you didnít have the right quota they would slaughter so many of you as a warning to make sure you had the right quota of pigs and cattle the next time.†

Neil:  Well I suppose if they slaughtered a few of the villagers then they wouldnít eat as much.  So they should have enough for the next time. 

Alan:  You will find too whatís an interesting little piece in history, Queen Elizabeth I of England, there was no Queen Elizabeth II of Scotland, remember.  I donít know if people know that or not, the present Queen is not the Queen the Second of Scotland because at that time Queen Elizabeth I was of England.  Scotland was an independent country.  But the fact is when the Spanish Armada came in youíll find that the Queen had to get men to man the ships.  You know they were really low on crew and they would just grab them out of the ale houses and stuff and stick them onboard the ships.  Once theyíd fought the battles against the Spanish, the Queenís advisor, the money man, her best advisor, who was also in charge of the treasury and the taxation system that they had then, he advised the queen that if she brought those ships in they didnít have enough money to pay the crew, so she ordered the commander of the fleet to leave them out at sea, to anchor off.  And every month they would send ships out to see how many were still alive.  And once enough of them had died off they brought the ships in.  Thatís a true part of history, that.  Thatís how they see the ordinary folk.  Weíre just peasants to them you know. 

Neil:  Yeah, of course.  So how did the peasants get around, well just forget all about that and decide to at every opportunity get out in the streets, stand in the gutter and you know.

Alan:  Well eventually the peasantry is taught Ė this is the great trick of psychology, if you understand basic psychology and tribalism etcetera, it works awfully well regardless of how youíve been treated by those that youíll eventually come to worship.  They will always, people will always gravitate towards a strong, what they see as a strong ruler with an external threat and that ruler is defending you against an external threat.  Thatís why they used these occasional prearranged wars with France and different, for kings against his cousins, so in both countries the people would draw towards their kings and their power structure for safety.  And during those periods the propaganda would come out and people would say itís our king versus that king.  Itís like watching some ridiculous football match or whatever and you take a side.  And thatís human nature unfortunately.  And then the more wars that you have, the more the people will start to almost worship what you see as the symbol of the protection of you and your country, regardless of the conditions youíre living in. 

It doesnít work quite so well with the lower classes, but with the rising middle classes it always did.  And once they came up to World War I for instance it was pretty well perfected by them, they had a long time of the so-called British Empire.  Even at the bottom level where guys will worship football teams and soccer teams and so on itís the same thing.  Even at the bottom level during long empire building days where Britainís for India and united India, and now itís theirs.  And Britainís for that country and now itís theirs.  You will tend to side with that power structure even though youíre living in misery at the bottom level.  Itís as though you had won something.  Itís like watching a game, you get nothing out of the game, youíre still the same peasant as you were before, but thatís the psychology of human nature.  We worship power unfortunately. 

Neil:  So this was, well I suppose, I donít know, a couple of hundred years we go back and they started turning this around when they had the troops going off to Africa to fight the Zulus and all that kind of thing?

Alan:  Thatís right.  It was only in nineteen, I think it was nineteen Ė Lord Kitchener was the great, so-called the great, commander they sent over with the British troops for India and Africa and different places, the Great Lord Kitchener.  Theyíve got statues all across London for him.  But it wasnít until I think it was the 1990ís, the early 90ís, they first disclosed under the official secrets act.  They had it sealed for a hundred years how Lord Kitchener managed to quell different peoples across different countries.  It was quite simple, he would go into the countries, into the nations, and he would go around, send his troops around the villages and towns, he would select a good portion of the young men who were of fighting age, line them up and have them shot as a lesson to the rest, this will happen to you unless you buckle under.  So from the days of William the Conqueror up till then nothing had changed really.†

Neil:  So well in terms of strong leaders for the life of me I canít imagine anybody looking at todayís royal family and thinking theyíre strong leaders.  I think theyíre trying to possibly build up this William character to be a strong leader because his father certainly isnít. 

Alan:  Well the thing is again propaganda, World War I is when propaganda took over and it could really use tremendous propaganda with all its slogans that they dish out for you and our king, our country, etcetera.  And thatís been perfected a long time ago that whole technique of propaganda.  And with William, I mean itís like any movie star or even a pop musician, whatever you read about them, even what you think is a real interview, is made-up nonsense.  Itís made up.  I mean Iíve been with groups where you make them up, the story up. The Rolling Stone magazine sometimes will phone you up, can we do a piece on you, oh sure, and then you have no time to see them, youíre on tour or whatever, and so you tell them just go ahead and make something up.  And they do.  And itís the same with royal families, the propaganda teams do all this, the marketing teams do that.  The Royal Family since I think 1980 has had their own private propaganda company living and working in the palace there, professionals.

Neil:  I remember seeing a couple of interviews with the so-called Prince Harry when he was out in Afghanistan apparently or Iraq or wherever he was supposed to be.And the helicopterís in the background and heís sitting on this chair and heís got his foot up and you can see the sole of his boot and the boot had never been walked in, never mind being in the desert.

Alan:  They have him way behind the lines; itís a propaganda piece.  Some stuff snuck out of there too, photographs with him doing things that apparently he shouldnít have been doing actually and it would have caused an awful embarrassment if it had got out.  I know this for a fact from some of the reporters that were there.  But I know the same thing happened with the war that they had against the Falklands and they sent one of them over there.  He went up in a helicopter, he went up a bit, Andrew, he went up about thirty feet and then they brought him back down again and that was his PR stunt of him taking part in the war and they had him surrounded by ships, in fact two of them got sunk protecting them.  They were really shields for the exiset missiles that were getting sent in against them.  And two of the British ships got sunk because they were shields so as his ship wouldnít get hit.  Once he had done his little helicopter thing they got back out of there very fast and that was it.  There is nothing you can see today thatís real on television.†

Neil:  Not at all.  It was so obviously a green screen.  I mean thatís how bad this piece was.  And the helicopter in the back was kind of a bit fuzzy looking.  And then he jumps out of the deck chair and runs off into the distance.  It just reminded me of "Wag the Dog" where the lady is running out of the bomb site kind of thing with a kitten in her arm or a dog or whatever it was.  It was pathetic.And people fall for it. 

Alan:  They do fall for it and again itís our king doing what we do best which is going and killing folk and slaughtering people.  I mean thatís really what it symbolizes.  Itís very primitive but it works awfully well in psychology.†

Neil:  Well I think he was actually doing that interview at the time when he said he was out there killing the Taliban.The next minute heís at a party with a Nazi uniform and heís over in Los Angeles with women getting them put on videos and stuff and snorting cocaine, but people forget all that.  People forget all that.†

Alan:  They forget.  They do forget it all.  All they remember is when the official authorized history books come out with the authorized photographs and it works awfully well.  Just like World War II was the same and World War I.

Neil:  I mean do you see any point in history where there was a real threat to any of these people or the whole system in fact?

Alan:  No.  I donít. 

Neil:  So presumably you donít see any threat to them in the future either?

Alan:  I donít see why, no, a dominant minority that isnít just the royalty, theyíre a symbol at the top of the system.  A dominant minority never gives up power; it never will give up power peaceably.  It just simply wonít happen.  In fact they use all of your tax money, a lot of your tax money, to work up systems to make sure that youíre so monitored that no one could possibly ever overthrow anything.

Neil:  I mean we mentioned austerity earlier and the gold gilded carriages and all this stuff.  I mean most people in Britain are just totally ignorant of the fact that every law that comes into the country she has to sign it, to validate it.And weíre living in a time of austerity and she signed all the bills to bring that about and yet here she is in her carriage with all these limousines, all these hangers-on as you say getting paid millions a year just to sit in a parade basically and all the horsemen, all the police, all the barriers. 

Alan:  Oh Iíd love to see the bill for that, just for that one parade, I mean Iíd love to see the bill for it.

Neil:  Well I think Iím going to put in an FOI for that because we talked about that last week. 

Alan:  And folk donít know too that Britain was the first country to use CCTV cameras during the queenís actual inauguration way back.  And those cameras became a fixture.  The public never knew about that at the time.  They had CCTV cameras all around there and they put them up for the first time for the first inauguration and theyíve kept them and added to them ever since very quietly, to monitor the people.

And most of the folk remember in London are not English and they werenít born in England either.  This is the joke about it as well, thatís the ones that are waving all the flags and that, you know they donít even know what theyíre waving flags for, half of them, itís just a big show, but they turn up for the show. 

Neil:  Itís funny you should say that.  I thought it was quite interesting because when you saw the pictures on the BBC or wherever it was, SKY, I commented to my colleague, I said, there are not as many people there as youíd imagine there would be. 

Alan:  Thatís right.

Neil:  There are very few English folk and I said most of them are tourists you know.

Alan:  Most of them are tourists or theyíre working there temporarily or something like that.  But there was a Russian guy that came over, he was an author and a newsman and his whole thing was to meet the Londoner.  He wanted to desperately meet Londoners and he was so disappointed he said the only few faces he saw that he thought might be English were actually foreigners as well.  So thatís what Londonís comprised of today.

Neil:  Yeah, well unfortunately.  Well itís not just London of course, itís everywhere.  I donít know how we ever turn a system like this around but you know you just mentioned it that most of the people that are waving flags are not even English.  There is even an apathy amongst British people for the British Royal Family and yet you know they will carry on paying their taxes, youíve got her majestyís prison service, youíve got her majestyís revenue commissioners.†

Alan:  You are detained at her majestyís pleasure it says in the courts. 

Neil:  And her majestyís armed services.  I donít know who people think theyíre fighting for. 

Alan:  I know and even why you even bother with the farce called democracy. 

Neil:  Yeah well I remember being seventeen and going into the RAF recruitment office and doing the psychometric testing as it was in those days.  And they said you can go in as a warrant officer.And apparently that was quite unusual at the time, so, I donít know, I must have filled in the questions right or something.  And I got to the bottom of the page and it had the oath to the queen.And something in me, I just, I couldnít sign it.  I said no and I left, that was it, that was the end of it.  But I could never understand why you would sign up to defend a country and yet at the bottom of this piece of paper it says youíre fighting for the queen.

Alan:  Well the reason is, when you join the military youíre no longer a member of the public.  You start as a private, youíre owned privately.  Thatís what it means, thatís why they call it private soldier.  Youíre owned.

Neil:  And then corporal.

Alan:  Thatís right but youíre owned by a private organization thatís got a charter to exist.†

Neil:  Yeah well itís not going away anytime soon, is it, this system?

Alan:  It wonít go away; thatís why all this anti-terrorism is the latest con to monitor everybody to make sure that no one could ever come up with an idea or create a system to get any alternative or even true democracy in.  It simply wonít happen.  The total information network system is monitoring everything you say, everything you do, everything you write, and itís constantly analyzed, masses of, mounds of data. 

And that goes for everybody.  People will say well I donít care; Iíve got nothing to hide.  Well the fact is youíve lost something that people did fight for in the past, theyíd rebel, because privacy was something that folk fought for, for an awful long time, centuries, trying to get privacy.  It was so important.  If you have no privacy, you have no security.  Youíre a nothing, youíre a pawn, youíre owned.  And this is where itís gone back to, to the same thing again where they must know even the personís thoughts.  Itís the one that says well Iíve got nothing to hide, they must know how you tick, your personality profile, you must be predictable.  In a predictable society they have no fear of anything upsetting the apple cart.  Thatís the idea behind it all.

Neil:  Yeah, well itís got to the stage here where social workers are taking peopleís children, just in case they are emotionally abused in the future.

Alan:  Thatís correct.

Neil:  Thatís where we are now.  I suppose we have reached the end of our hour and weíll have Alan back again I think it was the 17th of July Iíve got down here.  And I think somebody in the chat box was keen on talking about Freemasonry and something to do with students.  Iíd have to go way back in the chat box to see that but there is some program that the Freemasons are running regarding students and universities and infiltrating that, so we might talk about that next time.†

Alan:  There is a long history on that in fact. 

Neil:  Right, okay.  Well, there you are, whoever you are in the chat box, thatís next monthís topic then sorted out.  Okay Alan, thanks again for your time. 

Alan:  Itís been a pleasure.  Itís a lot, there is too much to cram into an hour in any detail, but at least you can skim over it.

Neil:  Yeah, okay, great and weíll talk again in July.

Alan:  Okay.  Good stuff.

Neil:  Okay, thanks a lot.

{End}