Oct. 19, 2014 (#1467)

"Cutting Through the Matrix" with Alan Watt

(Blurb, i.e. Educational Talk)

 

"The Double Bind Will Freeze Your Mind"

© Alan Watt Oct. 19, 2014

 

Title & Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt - Oct. 19, 2014 (Exempting Music and Literary Quotes)

 

Hi folks, Iím Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix on October 19th, 2014.  Now, I hope youíre all hanging onto your sanity as we go through all these massive cultural and social changes, legal changes and all the rest of the things that are coming down the pike, on everyone. Because remember, this is the century of change.  You keep forgetting that. This is the century of change, thatís what it was called in the 20th century through academia.  Because the big boys at the top knew what was coming down the pike, where experts and scientists of all kinds would be in charge, of running the world, on behalf of their Masters who keep them awfully well padded on their big grants that they get.  And they manage all of the general population, you know, the failures, the ones who didnít get up to that class and system. Because thatís really what youíre in, itís a new kind of scientific class system that youíre living in today. And youíre in a postconsumer society, as youíve been taught to go into austerity.  And many other changes too coming down the pike, as I say.

 

But I hope youíre all surviving it and holding onto that sanity as we are rushed through it of course. Because you see, thereís so much to change. Remember, theyíve got a hundred years to finish the whole agenda and theyíve got a massive list of things theyíve got to do to really condition the whole of society into a completely new way of thinking. Even some of those ways of thinking about different things have to be altered maybe five or six times according to the period in this century to suit the agenda, and then upgrade them again to the next step and the next step and so on, until youíll have many opinions over the span of your life, and many generations will constantly change their opinions because weíre given our opinions by our betters, you see.  Itís quite simple.

 

Thereís nothing really fantastic about it because thereís been so much documentation and books churned out about it for well over a hundred years, when the big boys in eugenics, etc., and the nouveau rich that joined what they thought was an elite Ė theyíre never really part of the elite, the nouveau rich, because they donít have the proper breeding, as they say; it takes a while to inbreed with them, if they allow you that is, into them, before you can come up the ladder. Thatís how the world really is run and most folk never think about it that way because youíve been trained not to. In fact, youíve been trained not to think at all, just adopt the opinions given to you, and your station in life.  And that whole class of people in that station of life, accept the opinions given to you by the media, very simplistic ones. And they donít have to make much sense to you, just adopt them and then you donít have any stress. Your mind is made up and you have no stress left, you see. Youíre good, in other words, youíve been awfully good.

 

Perfect indoctrination, remember, perfect indoctrination starts immediately; youíre born.  It comes from your parents because theyíve been generally perfectly indoctrinated; theyíve never figured things out.  Theyíre generally unhappy with their lot in life, in many classes, but they never really figure out why. The little things why, yeah, theyíve never got enough cash, taxes always go up, money is always devalued because we live in a fake money system, but they donít even know that much and donít even think about looking into it. Theyíve been trained to look for the paycheck getting higher once a year, you get the pay increase, and your cost of living goes up about 10 or 12 times more each year, until youíre running backwards in actual fact, and into austerity. They donít even know that, or even why. In fact, people are bombarded with so many new terms all the time, of all these agendas, they switch off rather than try and keep up and remember anything at all. And because of that theyíre easily conned the next time and the next time and the next time.

 

Now, if you go back far enough, with the recorded history youíre allowed to peek at, youíll find, Iíve mentioned before so many times, Edward Bernays. His name is more popular now because itís been prattled on so many times since by other people, that more folk know about him now than they did at the time, during his lifetime. But anyway, Edward Bernays of course is often given the title of the Master of Manipulation and Marketing, manipulating you, because being the nephew of Freud he claims that he understood the mind and the subconscious desires and how to play on those desires in order to sell things, etc. But he also was used by many presidents throughout his lifetime, he lived to a very ripe old age.  He actually advised them on policies, how to put policies over to the public to be acceptable, on behalf of big corporate interests of course. Because government has more increasingly, well over 150 years, especially in the States, become more corporate and monopoly designed, and run and ruled basically. Because every politician depends on millions now to run and they get it all from big corporations; itís a payoff. We get you in and this is what youíll do for us while youíre in. Itís quite simple, folks. All this hogwash about maintaining your integrity as you go into politics is just rubbish. Itís a Hollywood Disneyland kind of thing that youíre brainwashed into believing. Nothing is further from the truth.

 

Everything has got a price in this world and unfortunately everything that touches money is corrupt. It really is true, because the whole scam of money and the system as it is today is utterly corrupt. There have been systems of more honest money where governments did print their own money and they would actually sell it off to the banks and then they could lend it out, etc. For instance, in Canada, for many, many years it paid the cost of the money itself so there was no debt money as such. It held a steady value in circulation, that dollar.  Even during the Great Depression countries came to Canada to find out how it was managed so well.  Because every other country had masses of debts piling up with compound interest and borrowing from private banks, whereas the Government of Canada at that time actually had a printing system, printed their own money and sold it to the banks, debt free. Whereas money today, 40 or maybe even 50 cents today is to do with paying off interest on the debt to the banks that itís borrowed from basically, that print it all up and give checks to the system that prints it. Itís a racket in other words.  And wherever you get something that runs a whole nation, and the whole world, something called money, youíll always have corruption anyway. Even if you went back to the old system and governments did print their own cash up, debt-free, and put it into circulation, and also put it into big building projects, etc. to get it circulated, the big corrupt psychopath types would work their way in until they were in charge of it, once more, even if it was government run.

 

You canít win because thereís something thatís always persistent in society, in history and so on, and thatís corruption. Itís persistent. The top psychologists for a long, long time have said that itís part of human nature, to an extent.  The philosophers have known this too, since ancient times, that power can corrupt, and it certainly does, very quickly. Especially when powerful psychopaths, or psychopaths who become powerful, get into the system, because they crave power, they seek out the positions. I think itís almost a symbiosis where psychopaths lead and rule the world and the rest unfortunately, the decent people, have to follow, and suffer. Thatís how it seems to be.

 

But anyway, Bernays in World War I was given the job of getting America into World War I, to create public opinion to get them all on board for 1917, thatís when the US entered World War I. He was so successful that afterwards he and some of his cronies wrote books on how they conned the whole nation, and they were pretty blatant about it, how they had created the system that got the US into World War I.  There was a massive amount of flak about it and therefore, because of the flak and the backlash from the public, who donít like being conned even though they go along with the cons, they had various bills put out there to stop propaganda being used internally on the general public. It was never fully followed, obviously, but there were certain guidelines that kept it kind of restricted to a certain level you might say.  Since 9/11 the big boys have been chomping at the bit to have total propaganda put out on all news across their countries, all the Western nations and so on, and some of them just went straight ahead because they had no restrictions. In other words, it was business as usual with propaganda of all kinds.  Also, in the US they had to look at the bill again to try and repeal a very old bill that restricted them to an extent, only to an extent because theyíve always used it.

 

But if we look, for instance, and people have no memory today because theyíre hit with so many terrifying things at once, you see, every other day.  And some people who supposedly oppose this stuff donít seem to help it much, as they terrorize you as well. But if you look into this for instance, and people have forgotten all about it, itís from about 2013 I think maybe or maybe even earlier. But it was from Fox Nation and they said back thenÖ

 

U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban,

Spreads Government-Made News to Americans

nation.foxnews.com / John Hudson / July 15, 2013

 

For decades, a so-called anti-propaganda law prevented the U.S. government's mammoth broadcasting arm from delivering programming to American audiences. (Alan:  What they meant was propaganda.) But on July 2, that came silently to an end with the implementation of a new reform passed in January. The result: an unleashing of thousands of hours per week of government-funded radio and TV programs for domestic U.S. consumption in a reform initially criticized as a green light for U.S. domestic propaganda efforts. So what just happened?

 

Until this month, a vast ocean of U.S. programming produced by the Broadcasting Board of Governors such as Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks could only be viewed or listened to at broadcast quality in foreign countries. The programming varies in tone and quality, but its breadth is vast: It's viewed in more than 100 countries in 61 languages. The topics covered include human rights abuses in Iran, self-immolation in Tibet, human trafficking across Asia, and on-the-ground reporting in Egypt and Iraq. 

 

(A:  As it goes on, later on too, that they had repealed that, as I say, they repealed the ban basically.  Then another article came out, the one who started this lifting of the propaganda ban, that came out and it saysÖ)

 

Congressmen Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban

buzzfeed.com / May 18, 2012

 

(A:  He is the guy who brought it forward, on behalf of his big Masters.  It says it was posted on May 18th, 2012, thatís before that last article.)

 

An amendment that would legalize the use of propaganda on American audiences is being inserted into the latest defense authorization bill, BuzzFeed has learned.

 

The amendment would ďstrike the current ban on domestic disseminationĒ of propaganda material produced by the State Department and the independent Broadcasting Board of Governors, according to the summary of the law at the House Rules Committeeís official website.

 

The tweak to the bill would essentially neutralize two previous actsóthe Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and Foreign Relations Authorization Act in 1987óthat had been passed to protect U.S. audiences from our own governmentís misinformation campaigns.

 

The bi-partisan amendment is sponsored by Rep. Mac Thornberry from Texas and Rep. Adam Smith from Washington State.

 

In a little noticed press release earlier in the week ó buried beneath the other high-profile issues in the $642 billion defense bill (A:  Öthatís quite something eh.), including indefinite detention and a prohibition on gay marriage at military installations ó Thornberry warned that in the Internet age, the current law ďties the hands of Americaís diplomatic officials, military, and others by inhibiting our ability to effectively communicate in a credible way.Ē

 

The billís supporters say the informational material used overseas to influence foreign audiences is too good to not use at home, and that new techniques are needed to help fight Al-Qaeda, a borderless enemy whose own propaganda reaches Americans online.

 

Critics of the bill say there are ways to keep America safe without turning the massive information operations apparatus within the federal government against American citizens.

 

ďClearly there are ways to modernize for the information age without wiping out the distinction between domestic and foreign audiences,Ē says Michael Shank, Vice President at the Institute for Economics and Peace in Washington D.C. ďThat Reps Adam Smith and Mac Thornberry want to roll back protections put in place by previously-serving Senators Ė who, in their wisdom, ensured limits to taxpayerĖfunded propaganda promulgated by the US government Ė is disconcerting and dangerous.Ē

 

ďI just donít want to see something this significant Ė whatever the pros and cons Ė go through without anyone noticing,Ē says one source on the Hill, who is disturbed by the law. According to this source, the law would allow ďU.S. propaganda intended to influence foreign audiences to be used on the domestic population

 

The new law would give sweeping powers to the government to push television, radio, newspaper, and social media onto the U.S. public. ďIt removes the protection for Americans,Ē says a Pentagon official who is concerned about the law. ďIt removes oversight from the people who want to put out this information. There are no checks and balances. No one knows if the information is accurate, partially accurate, or entirely false.Ē

 

According to this official, ďsenior public affairsĒ officers within the Department of Defense want to ďget ridĒ of Smith-Mundt and other restrictions because it prevents information activities designed to prop up unpopular policiesólike the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

Critics of the bill point out that there was rigorous debate when Smith Mundt passed, and the fact that this is so ďunder the radar,Ē as the Pentagon official puts it, is troubling.

 

The Pentagon spends some $4 billion a year to sway public opinion already, and it was recently revealed by USA Today the DoD spent $202 million on information operations in Iraq and Afghanistan last year.

 

In an apparent retaliation to the USA Today investigation, the two reporters working on the story appear to have been targeted by Pentagon contractors, who created fake Facebook pages and Twitter accounts in an attempt to discredit them.

 

The evaporation of Smith-Mundt and other provisions to safeguard U.S. citizens against government propaganda campaigns is part of a larger trend within the diplomatic and military establishment.  (A:  And thatís true, theyíre targeting the regular people too, within the US, including the reporters too. This article goes on to talk about, it says, in December, remember this was back in 2012Ö)

 

In December, the Pentagon used software to monitor the Twitter debate over Bradley Manningís pre-trial hearing; another program being developed by the Pentagon would design software to create ďsock puppetsĒ on social media outlets; and, last year, General William Caldwell, deployed an information operations team under his command that had been trained in psychological operations to influence visiting American politicians to Kabul.

 

A U.S. Army whistleblower, Lieutenant Col. Daniel Davis, noted recently in his scathing 84-page unclassified report on Afghanistan that there remains a strong desire within the defense establishment ďto enable Public Affairs officers to influence American public opinion when they deem it necessary to ďprotect a key friendly center of gravity, to wit US national will,Ē he wrote, quoting a well-regarded general.

 

The defense bill passed the House Friday afternoon.

 

So there you go. I mean, thereís nothing you can get on the news today, and for quite a while now, that actually has any credibility, either whatsoever or a little bit or you name it, itís justÖ itís all confusion. But most folk in the general population donít remember these bills and so on that were put out a while back because, again, theyíre bombarded with terrifying articles every day and when youíre under terror you donít remember too much at all, youíre in fear of your life half the time and so on and so on. So thatís how the world really is run.

 

Now, other countries like Britain donít bother about that because theyíve never had, really, any real bans on propagandizing the public for any particular, in any era actually. They donít have the variousÖ In fact, even their so-called Charter of Rights is kind of vague, and oral apparently, which means you can constantly stretch it anyway you want depending on the time that you live in; itís stretched by those in charge. But in the US they have this thing thatís been ignored for my whole lifetime, their Bill of Rights and all the rest of it. But here you go, the whole way is propaganda.

 

But donít forget, and it doesnít mention it here, that propaganda starts in school, big time. When you get through a system thatís always been there to serve the nation and not yourself basically, and whatever they want you to believe or however they want you to behave is drummed into you at a very early age with psychological techniques being used to the maximum.  Even the videos that you watch, etc., influencing your behavior, youíll cry at certain things, if youíre a child when you see little furry animals getting killed or whatever, and then youíre told whoís doing it, and then youíll hate those people, who they tell you is doing it, even though it might not be them at all. Itís things like that, itís so easy to influence children. And with the groupthink that they have now in school class systems where you all have to comply to the established order of the group, in other words the group is ledÖ See, the majority of the public are led by powerful, what they see as powerful authority figures.  The teacher generally takes that position and therefore to please the teacher most folk will comply and go along with it saying, yeah I like this person, and Iíll comply and go along with their point of view, and they put their hands up.  And if you keep your hand down youíre ostracized by the group. This is not freedom at all, and itís not letting your own mind work for itself whatsoever. This is all wrong.  But every country has copied this technique of course because itís so important in every generation you must indoctrinate heavily the children to serve the system as best as the Masters of the system want it to be served. Quite simple.  Nothing new in this at all.  But now itís all through the age groups.

 

Again, going back to books I have here from the 1920s even, they talk about perpetual education. Now, this didnít mean you kept taking night courses after school for the rest of your life. It was talking about education through your entire life and updating you to the new system of belief on different topics and so on and so on. Well documented by the psychologists of the day, and the social engineers of the day, and today you have everybody in on the act including the neuroscientists that are getting massive amounts of money thrown at them, and the behaviorists of course, as always, anthropologists too, social anthropologists.  All this kind of stuff works together. 

 

Now another thing too, Iíve mentioned for so long that, really, things havenít changed in the system that youíre living in to an extent, itís been more hidden in the past, that big corporations ruled your nations and monopoly power rules the nations.  The greatest example is always the US because at one time they had far more media inside the US, down to the small media that wasnít part of the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations), long ago, and they would write things as they were. Whereas in other countries like Britain where the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the big media moguls have always belonged to this same one group, theyíve always been in charge of whatever youíre going to be told is happening, since its inception basically, in fact, going back to before they gave it that name and they called it the Milner Group.

 

So, corporations really rule your nations, and theyíve always tried to hide behind a smokescreen to make you think you have rights and so on and so on. But in the US it leaks out of course, over many, many years, down through the ages, that, for instance, hereís an example.  One of the US presidents said a long time ago that whatever is good for GM is good for America and vice versa. Thatís how it filters into the consciousness of the population. And is that really true? Is that really true?  You know with all their bail-ins they got not long ago, now they moved offshore and set up factories elsewhere with your cash. You paid for it all. So thatís the loyalty they show you for buying all their cars and trucks. And the rest of them are all the same too. So, in international corporations they have no affinity for any particular country. They will generally have one main one they will use more often because they want that country to go off and fight their wars for them and protect them when need be, and thatís about it. Thatís what it comes down to.

 

But youíve always had this, what we used to call, corruptionÖ running nations.  The powerful psychopaths who get in, and the elite who already are in, the interbred elites for instance with the monied families, theyíve always run the world for their own benefitÖ and for their countries, definitely for their own benefit. They decide what kind of education, indoctrination and belief system youíll have at any particular time, and their wars were always for foreign conquest, was exactly that. They didnít pretend to go off to force democracy on countries, like George Bush Junior did, revolutionary democracy he called it.  They went out there, and it was a pretense with Bush too because he knew it was for plunder, for their oilfields and everything else that they had.  And it goes on, itís been like that.

 

The history of the world is just this, itís just greed, greed, greed by those at the top, who want to maintain power by having more material goods and financial backup for their own families, etc. Thatís really how it works. Now you have all the shareholders in on the act too, big shareholders, who will also want to make sure that the governments do what the big corporations that they own want, to safeguard themselves, not you. You pay for all the work.  You pay for replacing bombed refineries across the Middle East for instance, you pay for all of that, you make brand-new ones for them. You put in new roads for the transportation of the oil for export and so on. You pay for all that stuff and the big boys get all the profits. And they call that good government, you see, they run the government.

 

But theyíre better in some countries at hiding corruption than other countries. Part of it again is the incessant propaganda you get. In Canada here you get very laid-back propaganda, itís almost infantile, where they give you only a few well-known faces that youíve been brought up with, and daddy would never lie to you on the news, so you believe in them, like Mansbridge and people like that. And he would never lie to you, he looks you in the eye every night there at 6 oíclock, how can he be lying? And of course it never dawns on most folk who have grown up with it, that he doesnít even write the news, obviously, he just reads it, and heís paid big bucks for reading it, and being so trustworthy, you see. 

 

But in other countries like the US occasionally it comes out of the corruption thatís going on. They donít get the little folksy tales of different parts of Canada or Ontario or things like that that the CBC for Canada puts out, the government-paid news media propaganda station. And they donít go into the deep, deep, deep corruption things that go on within governments, of course. Theyíre all on board with it, in their little clique. They all play the game, you might say, with those in control.  But in the States sometimes it leaks out. Now hereís one here. And in the States too you also have politicians who let things out of the bag, if they have jealousy where they havenít got contracts but some other politician or their families have got a contract that the government is putting out, you see. But one of the ongoing ones in the US, it always crops up and fades away, is the Feinstein family and so on. This one here was October 16th, 2014; it saysÖ

 

 

High court clears bullet train (A:  Öfor California.) but problems remain (A:  Öyou see.)

sfgate.com / JULIET WILLIAMS, Associated Press / October 16, 2014

 

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) ó California will forge ahead with plans to build the nation's first bullet train by buying land in the Central Valley and demolishing buildings in the path of the $68 billion rail line after the state Supreme Court decided not to hear an appeal from opponents of the project.  (A:  Thereís democracy in action, we donít want to hear your appeal.)

 

The California Supreme Court's decision Wednesday to reject an appeal of a lower court ruling allowing Gov. Jerry Brown's signature transportation project to proceed was another win for the beleaguered project that has suffered repeated legal setbacks.

 

Demolition and engineering work has already begun around Fresno, one of the hubs on the first 28-mile stretch of high-speed rail planned for the Central Valley, but the agency is far behind schedule in acquiring all the land needed to actually begin construction, and the state has only found a fraction of the money needed before tracks will be installed.

 

One of the arguments made by the plaintiffs, Kings County and landowners in the Central Valley, was that the state failed to identify the funding for the first useable segment of the rail line, having only $6 billion of the estimated $26 billion needed for the first 130 miles.

 

At Brown's request, the Legislature this year approved the first permanent funding source for the project, setting aside a portion of the annual fees the state collects through carbon taxes (A:  Öinteresting. In Britain, I knew old folk in Britain who always said, they had learned their whole life that all the things that affect the world, like taxes, certain kinds that come in, special taxes, start in California. And thatís what they would say, that all major social cancers start in California and spread everywhere else. And itís still true, you know.† Anyway, carbon taxes...), a symbolic move that will deliver more money for rail but not billions a year.  (A:  And this is how you can tie in why carbon taxes are important, because all these big multibillionaires and trillionaires want all that cash to pay for their big projects, their big building projects.)

 

Dan Richard, chairman of the board of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, said in a written statement Wednesday that the agency will build a modern system that connects the state, creates jobs  (A:  Öthey always say creates jobsÖ)  and complies with the law.

 

"We will continue to move forward aggressively to deliver the nation's first high-speed rail system," Richard said.

 

Wednesday's decision also concerns only one portion of the plaintiffs' lawsuit. In a second phase still before a Sacramento County judge, attorneys will argue that compromises made to cut the price mean the bullet train won't be able to travel from San Francisco to Los Angeles in 2 hours and 40 minutes as promised in the ballot measure.

 

The 3rd District Court of Appeal agreed with the plaintiffs' complaint that there are legitimate legal concerns. . .† . (A:  Öetc, etc...)

 

Proposition 1A, approved in 2008, promised voters that the state would identify funding for the first useable segment of the rail line and that it would have necessary environmental clearances done before starting construction. Opponents argue that it has neither.

 

The court's decision not to hear the appeal "bodes poorly for all kinds of tax measures that go on the ballot because voters are going to say 'How do I know they're going to do this, how can I trust what they say?'" plaintiffs' attorney Stuart Flashman said Wednesday.  (A:  Öetc, etc.)

 

And I love the way they spin that even. In other words, how can you trust them for pushing this through, because the voters are going to say, how do I know theyíre going to do this? In other words, they donít mind the carbon taxes to pay for this big project. This project isnít theirs, folks, it belongs to the corporations, for Godís sake, you know. See how they spin things a little bit there, to obfuscate who is really behind it all. No, the voters are not for this. They donít want to pay more taxes for anything, etc. etc. And then going back here again to 2013, go back again, how did it all start?Ö

 

Sen. Diane Feinsteinís husband wins CA rail contract

calwatchdog.com / April 26, 2013 / Katy Grimes

 

U.S. Sen. Diane Feinsteinís husband Richard Blum, won the first phase construction contract for Californiaís high-speed rail.

 

(A:  And this author saysÖ)

Iím shocked, shocked I tell you.

 

If I didnít witness the insanity and corruption in politics every day, I wouldnít have believed this.  (A:  Öheís being facetious of course.)

 

ďThe Perini-Zachary-Parsons bid was the lowest received from the five consortia participating in the bidding process, but ďlowĒ is a relative term,Ē the Laer Pearce, author of Crazifornia wrote. ďThe firms bid $985,142,530 to build the wildly anticipated first section of high speed rail track that will tie the megopolis of Madera to the global finance center of Fresno. Do the division, and you find that the low bid came in at a mere $35 million per mile.Ē  (A:  [Alan chuckles.] $35 million a mile, eh.  Ah, where does the rest of it go, eh, all that, $35 million, where does it go? And of course, thatís the usual scam.)

 

ďAs this fiasco progress, remember that this $35 million per mile represents the best California can do on the section of track the High on Crack Speed Rail Authority selected to go first because it will be the cheapest,Ē Pearce said.

 

So, itís always in the families of the politicians that run the state and parts of the federal government and so on and so on. As I say, that was all done, that last article said, the High Court clears the bullet train but problems remain. So you know... Now, hereís another one too and it saysÖ

 

California readies pay-as-you-drive tax test,

 coming soon to a road near you

autos.yahoo.com / Justin Hyde / October 17, 2014

 

(A:  This fits in again with the Feinstein getting the contract, and the money to pay for it too because they always used the taxpayers money to build the big projects for their own private enterprises. And thereís nothing new in that. Britain was this the frontÖ The whole idea of Britain Inc. was a front for the British Empire which simply worked and paid for all the big private corporations to grab all the stuff across the planet for themselves. And the taxpayers put in the armies and funded that, and paid for it all. And they supplied the soldiers too, got slaughtered and all that, and did the slaughtering. And they supplied the railroads that they laid down, etc. etc. so as that the big wealthy families could include the countries, etc. But itís the same everywhere else.)

 

It won't happen immediately, or even within the next year, but not too far into the future you might pay a tax for every mile you drive ó thanks to California. (A:  Öall cancers start in California, right.)

 

Three weeks ago, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law the first test of mileage-based road taxes in the Golden State. The bill, which passed the state legislature with the backing of transit agencies, environmental groups (A:  Öof course the environmental groups are all NGOs, paid by the big corporations.) and most major automakers (A:  Öbecause theyíre in on the game too, with all their chips in their cars and tracking the miles.), creates a 15-person panel to oversee a pilot of pay-by-the-mile taxation by 2018.  (A:  So there you go, itís signed into law.)

 

The move makes California the largest state to explore how modern technology might replace the dwindling money from gasoline taxes used to build and maintain roads, thanks to ever-more efficient vehicles and less driving overall. Congress has been forced to fill the gap at the federal level with billions of dollars in temporary funding; in California, where residents pay 48.5 cents on the gallon in state gasoline taxes worth more than $3 billion a year, the state has borrowed from those revenues in recent years to cover shortfalls elsewhere.  (A:  They never use it for whatever they claim itís for. Itís used for other things, including on their pensions and so on, and Iím talking about the bureaucrats and so on and the politicians.)

 

Of the other states which have explored such systems, Oregon stands as the most advanced, with its plan to offer a voluntary pay-as-you-drive tax setup next year offering 5,000 drivers the chance to pay 1.5 cents for every mile they travel in the state.

 

Now remember, this is the racket they used to get the drivers licenses through. For those who donít know, it was voluntary initially to get a driving license. Because it was thought nondemocratic, you see, this whole farce of democracy, if they forced it on you, they were restricting travel. So they made it voluntary.  And the goody-two-shoes used it as snob appeal, oh Iíve got mine.  Yes, Iíve got mine. And then they put in the voluntary insurance for the thing, travel. That was voluntary for a long time before the government always steps in, well so many folk are now using that so weíre making it mandatory. Once they get the majority in, then itís Democratic, then they know itís mob rule and the rest of the public will go along with it. So thatís how it works. So itís voluntary, you see, because youíre all dying to pay carbon taxes, you know, because Al Gore wants to make more billions of dollars through his carbon credit companies, and other ones too, and the Rothschild Bank in Switzerland, the private one for the family, formerly got the contracts for all that, all carbon taxes for the planet is to go through their private bank.  Because theyíre so altruistic, you understand. Theyíre really philanthropists, they want to help you all. Thatís how they get stinking rich, by helping folk... get slaughtered across the planet as they plundered it. Anyway, getting back to the article it saysÖ

 

. . . voluntary pay-as-you-drive tax setup next year offering 5,000 drivers the chance to pay 1.5 cents for every mile they travel in the state. (A:  Öand people say, well thatís cheap. They always start things off as cheap till eventually they make it mandatory and then they just jack it up, and boot it up and boot it up like everything else they boot up.) The Oregon system uses a pair of devices ó one in vehicles, and one in special fuel pumps ó that used GPS to track miles driven, then gave the appropriate credit or surcharge at the pump itself. (Oregon also found that drivers in a test program paid 28 percent more than they would have using fuel taxes alone.)  (A:  So there you go.  They love the wee cons they put in there, that you canít figure out that youíre paying more, voluntarily.)

 

But the backers of Oregon's mileage tax system say the technology could be far less complicated, and adoption far quicker, thanks to services like Apple's iPay and in-car Internet setups, such as General Motors OnStar. State Farm already has a pay-as-you-drive discount for its customers with newer Ford vehicles that use Ford's Sync to automatically keep track of how far they've traveled. As the Oregon officials imagine it:  (A:  See, thatís why they put all that stuff in there, so as that you can keep track of how far youíve traveled. I mean, yeah, thatís stupid, you know how far youíre traveling, the miles are already getting up there and reading off for you. Come on, of course itís not. It was all put in for the purpose that theyíre using it for now. Thatís why it was dreamed up in the first place.)

 

One envisions a time when all new cars will come equipped with mileage reporting capability. New car buyers will decide during the registration process whether to activate the mileage reporting capability already installed into the car or add an external reporting device. (A:  And theyíre all getting cuts off of it, including the car manufacturers, you know.) They will also choose a provider for account management or default to government managed account. Motorists will then drive and periodically receive a bill by mail or emailótheir choice (A:  See, theyíre giving you the appearance of choices here, initially, you see.) óthat may be bundled with other value added services... (A:  Iím surprised they donít do a scratch-and-win as well because thatís how they usually get the publicÖ you know, you might win somethingÖ) Motorists may check the bill details and pay online or by mail or authorize automatic payment from their smartphone, tablet device or the connected vehicle console in the dashboard of their car. (A:  Isnít that wonderful, what they say?  Now youíre finding out why all of these things were given for you to buy. Not given to you mandatorily because there was going to be a law. No, to BUY. See, you pay for everything, and you think itís your choice of course.) Giving motorists the ability to choose their mileage reporting and bill payment preferences will make mileage reporting and per-mile charge payment simple and comfortableó as each motorist defines it.  (A:  Isnít that a wonderful PR piece there.)

 

If you think this sounds like another way for government to invade personal privacy, you're not alone: the American Civil Liberties Union has expressed concerns about unapproved tracking, and privacy was the top concern of those who took part in Oregon's trial. The California law requires the test panel to address privacy worries, but also says the system must take into account "public and private agency access, including law enforcement," of any data it collects.  (A:  Thatís not voluntary, eh.)

 

Movements may be a more personal form of data than even name and address; where you live is a public record, but tracking someone's daily routine can reveal far more private information. Yet there are already many ways businesses can do so; every iPhone running the latest iOS 8 update has the ability to send location data to advertisers or remember a user's frequent locations, and license-plate scanning firms already have a billion plates on record.

 

Chances are, given the technology on hand and the money at stake, California will devise a system similar to Oregon's that can satisfy some privacy complaints (perhaps by tracking odometers only) but is also easily adoptable by motorists. With 17 percent of all U.S. new-car sales in the Golden State, and a need for road repair mimicked in most other states (A:  See, theyíve already told you that the money that you pay for road repair doesnít go there from license plate taxes and everything else. Itís used for OTHER purposes.  But they always give you the same rubbishy propaganda, each time they want more dough, isnít it.), it's entirely likely that when it comes to taxing by the mile the old saw is true: As goes California, so goes the nation(A:  Öactually, itís the world, as I say, especially with their politically correct updates too for how youíre supposed to view certain things and topics and all the rest of it, or else youíre rather hateful and nasty.)

 

Itís amazing, isnít it, the propaganda that weíre just deluged with all the time. But these articles, during all the war blitzes, and to be scared, of terrorism blitzes, and all the terrorism movies and dramas that theyíre churning out all the time with the same repetitive stories, and getting used to the same repetitive names of groups, etc., yada-yada-ya. Itís just incessant. And weíre rushing, too, remember, through all the different free trade bills.  Weíre going into CETA in Canada too as they update all the Pacific Rim free trade negotiations, etc. etc. etc. Itís justÖ And that all takes a backseat during this be scared of Ebola, and be terrified of Al Qaeda, or ISIS, or ISIL.  Wait until Osiris comes, then youíre in trouble, and so on and so on. Or even worse, eh, ISIS, it could trulyÖ ISIS could be the mummy, if the mummy really appears, mum is really nasty, you know. Oh yeah. Probably a little Horus too, eh. 

 

But weíre conned and conned and conned and the public, they forget all the important things like Iím reading tonight.  Because whatís happening, what Iím reading tonight is to happen across ALL of America, including Canada, and eventually Latin America, all across Europe you see, under the energy taxes and carbon tax bills that are being put through everywhere, you see. Yep. Everything today is on a world scale. Remember, what Von Rompuy said, the head of the EU Parliament even though nobody elected him because itís not democratic.  He said, it was the end of the nation-state.   He said, the nation states were obsolete. And they are obsolete, for those who donít quite get it yet. The few countries that are standing out and against this world monopoly are being bombed under, into, you know, antiquity right now, into the Stone Age. Have been for a while. Have been for a long time.

 

But the idea, too, isnít just that. Theyíre also going to put chipsÖ Theyíve already got chips in some fuel pumps for your cars and the chips will also monitor how much youíre using.  And if they want to switch it off, by the way, if youíre not paying all these taxes and so on, bingo, youíre not going to go anywhere. Thereís choice for you, isnít it, choice. See, whatever the big boys want they get. But they do tell you in advance what theyíre after, through all the different organizations that they run through their front organization called the United Nations. And the big foundations owned by the big corporate owners and so on, that fund all the nongovernmental organizations, that are always protesting to get all these things through, and are paid well at the top for it, again, by the foundationís money and often backed up by government money too, by the way, your tax money, they get what they want. They do publish so many articles. It would be a full-time job just to try to keep up with two or three foundations in a year, never mind all the thousands of NGOs that are all connected together to make you think that there are a lot of different choices amongst NGOs. No, theyíre not. Many of them all get funding from the same few foundations, these NGOs.  And many of the foundations they have, these hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of foundations, are simply fronts to distribute the cash to the NGOs from the main foundations, like the Rockefeller Foundation.

 

Thatís the real world. Not, Ebola, be terrifiedÖ and not, terrorism everywhere, oh be terribly terrifiedÖ and so on. We live in a foolís paradise. Itís a fool for those who watch TV and nothing but fiction all the time because they canít handle the stress in life and they donít want to look into why theyíre feeling all the stress and so on. So they go into fiction and then theyíre getting completely downloaded with propaganda thatís embedded in all the fiction. Oh dear, sad life, isnít it, for an awful lot of peopleÖ an awful lot of people.

 

But all these techniques have been used for an awful long time on the general populations and they donít even know it. And weíve been funding all their behaviorists, neuroscientists, and so on for so long now, to alter our way of behaving, our way of thinking or reasoning and so on, that most folk literally canít reclaim themselves and find out who they should have been. Remember what Aldous Huxley said, and Iíve said this so many times on the air that many other hosts have parroted it and keep parroting it, in fact they use my archives all the time. But the thing is, Huxley said on a Mike Wallace interview a long time ago, the scientific elites, with the powered elite, the dominant minority, you see, and the moneyed minority, he said, together can convince whole peoples, whole nations, to do things and accept things that possibly they should NOT accept.

 

Today with the propaganda being so perfect you donít have much choice but to go along with that, you see, or youíre a bad person. Or they will give you these nasty terms like Ďhaterí, itís like being called a Nazi or something. Thatís the intention of it. Nothing is lost in history and anything that has been used successfully after events can be slipped upon you.  Because how can youÖ It gets off the topic, you see, itís a smear, itís a slur, and you wouldnít listen to a Nazi, they wouldnít listen to whatever. Itís okay to listen to a communist because they have never, ever bashed the Bolsheviks and the communists for their slaughtering of millions of people, which should tell you an awful lot by the way. But they will use other terms to just knock you down if you donít go along with certain social things, that are getting rammed down your throats today, you see.  And hater, and all that, how can you have a proper debate about anything when youíre constantly smeared with something from the very beginning of your talk? Itís impossible. And thatís why they use these terms, you see.

 

As Lenin said too, he says, we shall win by slogans. They put out the slogans that are for something, you see. But they also put out the smears for anybody who can see through the cons of the slogans. Everythingís like this. And youíre living through this on a daily basis. How many of you have forgotten already the topics I started with, about the bills to allow propaganda to be used internally from all areas of government and agencies and pentagons and so on?  You see, youíre bombarded with so much information today you canít keep track. And youíve got to keep track of the main things, not all of it obviously, but the main things, which are affecting you personally, and designed to hit you personally. Donít forget them.   The mind has no firewall, they say, be careful what you watch on fiction, unless youíre watching it to analyze it, donít get caught up in the emotive story. 

 

Now, everyone forgets what theyíve learned before about Agenda 21, the millennium project, all these different terms for the same thing, sustainability project, etc. And youíre meant to forget all of that stuff. Thatís how you also get someone off the right track is by terrifying them afterwards with many other things, until they forget it literally. And they do, theyíll forget it, until you bring it up in their presence. But donít forget Agenda 21, how they want the essential vehicles only that are eventually to be on the road. Agenda 21 too, into austerity, teaching you to go into austerity in a post-consumerist, post-producing society because everything is made in China, and your Masters made that all happen too. All your national heroes made that happen, because youíre taught to worship them, all the top politicians. Anyway, thatís part of it, get you off the roads, essential vehicles only, gradually, gradually, gradually until only the extremely wealthy can afford them.  There will be an exception for certain classes of people, you see, and essentialÖ theyíll get their little license to be an essential vehicle onlyÖ Well, itís for my corporation, you see, and so on. You might even get one for the cleaner once in a while, I clean the corporate officesÖ and things like that.

 

But anyway, youíre conned by so many different techniques, as I say, you canít keep up, unless you keep your mind focused and switch off when youíre being terrified by stuff thatís deliberately designed to literally psychologically terrify you.  And lots of it is, now that theyíve repealed all the internal propaganda bills that they have had in the past, especially in the US. For Canadians we get most of our propaganda via the US through the Canadian CBC. Because theyíre all working together and it saves Canadians money; the Americans pay for the propaganda thatís put out to Canadians, so itís more money for the big boys in politics here to use for themselves.

 

Now, one of the many techniques, and Iíve gone through psycholinguistics into neurolinguistics, it used to be called psycholinguistics and so on, now itís neurolinguistics. Itís such a vast field, itís a whole field of study in itself.  Itís really a profession in itself. But Iíve given you different clues and tips on to how it works and so on in the past. The people should go into CuttingThroughTheMatrix.com archive section and really go through so many of the talks Iíve given in the past. Because many other hosts have been using them all the time and people who work with these hosts tell me theyíre always using these archives of mine. Also go into AlanWattSentientSentinel.eu and youíll find lots of stuff there too.

 

But one technique thatís used, and hereís the key, you see, they can scatter information out there but they donít connect it for you.  Every study thatís done on humanity comes from big grants from your government and government agencies, even the Pentagon, and also the foundations often match by taxpayersí money. Because after all, if people have their own minds governments couldnít really rule us as they do today. It couldnít happen. It simply couldnít happen, folks. They get you to think youíre ruling yourself.  One woman actually said that, Iím free, I can go out shopping and buy whatever I want. That was her definition of freedom. But that also works with lots of the public. Well, I can buy my iPhone, I can buy this and I can buy that, I can communicate to all theseÖ and itís probably sockpuppets that theyíre communicating to most of the time, and they donít know it.  But they still think theyíre free, you see. If they forced the computer on you and they forced the iPhone to track you, and they forced all this upon you, not voluntary, initially voluntary carbon taxes per mileÖ If they forced it down your throats your backs would be up and a movement would start up. So they always say, it will be voluntary to start with, you see, to start with

 

The same con was used with Obamacare. Oh youíve got to pay it or you go to prison, pay it or go to prison. Then they softened it to, oh well, you get to pay to go on it or you pay a fine the first year, knowing darn well it gives the appearance of choice to the people. Oh well, Iíll pay the smaller fine this year rather than pay the big high cost of the insurance. It gives you the appearance of choice. Appearance, but thereís no choice at all. This is called double bind in psychology and in neuroscience. And itís part of neurolinguistics which work on psycholinguistics, you see. It saysÖ

 

en.wikipedia.org

Double bind

 

A double bind is an emotionally distressing dilemma in communication in which an individual (or group) receives two or more conflicting messages, and one message negates the other. (A:  You see, gives the appearance of you get the choice to respond to one or the other, but both of them are important, thatís how itís put across to you, both of them are important, but they conflict with each other.) This creates a situation in which a successful response to one message results in a failed response to the other (and vice versa), so that the person will automatically be wrong regardless of response. The double bind occurs when the person cannot confront the inherent dilemma, and therefore can neither resolve it nor opt out of the situation.  (A:  Öitís the lawÖ. itís the law, choose.)

 

Double bind theory was first described by Gregory Bateson and his colleagues in the 1950s.  (A:  Now, these guys all got the grants because they were going into neurolinguistics and how to control population and con you and all the rest of it. Thatís why these studies are DONE, folks.  Thatís why theyíre done. Theyíre very OLD techniques that are used all the time on you.)

 

Double binds are often utilized as a form of control without open coercion (A:  Övoluntary, it could be voluntary, right.)óthe use of confusion makes them both difficult to respond to as well as to resist(A:  And thatís why they never spell it out exactly. Folk were terrified of ObamaCare coming in, thinking, Iíve got prison maybe, thatís what Iíve heard through the rumor mill, you know, or even worse. Thatís why they deliberately put this stuff out and obfuscate it.  They donít give you all that you need to know to make a choice, you see.) óthe use of confusion makes them both difficult to respond to as well as to resist(A:  Ö itís a law.)

 

A double bind generally includes different levels of abstraction in the order of messages and these messages can either be stated explicitly or implicitly within the context of the situation, or they can be conveyed by tone of voice or body language. Further complications arise when frequent double binds are part of an ongoing relationship to which the person or group is committed.

 

(A:  You found that too in those who followed communism in the Soviet countries. Because in the Stalin era especially, Stalin was supposed to be the ultimate person who could decipher Marxís writings. And itís supposed to be a science, remember, this whole thing was meant to be a science. And too, empirical science has to be tested over and over with the same experiment done many times over always coming up with the same result, to be a science. But really, what was really a con movement to begin with, getting the masses to rise up and out an elite group, to put in another elite group, thatís really what it was, with the population who then would be conned that they were all working, almost free in fact, for future utopia. Meaning massive profits for the elite who then ruled. Thatís how it was put across there. It was a great con because weíre always looking for utopias and people always follow something that gives them hope of utopia, or even hope itself.  Thatís what all the conology in Pharma is about, pills for everything. And you get the same with the so-called opposing force, which really isnít opposing it all, it uses all the same marketing strategies to terrify you, of dying by diseases and hereís the cure, eat this grass thatís been used for 1000 other things in the past. So it says hereÖ)

 

Double bind theory is more clearly understood in the context of complex systems and cybernetics because human communication and the mind itself function in an interactive manner similar to ecosystems. Complex systems theory helps us to understand the interdependence of the different parts of a message and provides an ordering in what looks like chaos.

 

(A:  This is so well understood, folks, by all the big marketing companies, especially the ones that are employed by government agencies to put things across to you. Itís also taught to public relations officers from all departments from even your local police, etc. You get the PR person who is taught this kind of stuff to deliberately make things weakly diffuse so as you canít get an actual definite answer on anything, where you should or should not do something, you see.)

 

The double bind is often misunderstood to be a simple contradictory situation, where the subject is trapped by two conflicting demands. (A:  And Iíve gone through the whole thing about the experiments theyíve done in Yale and other places, Stanford and so on, the prison experiments and so on. And the one they did as well, the shocking of people. People thought they were being told to put massive shocks through subjects by an authority, they were given the orders by an authority figure, to find out if they would comply or not. This is also, also the double bind thing comes into that. The person who thinks heís applying real shocks to someone, who is really an actor, has the conflict in their own heads of what they know they should not do, and this thing of obeying authority, the need to obey authority, an authority figure would then take the blame for things, thatís how the simplicity of the mind works.  Thatís how armies function. Thatís why armies will always slaughter whoever theyíre told to slaughter, regardless of Geneva Conventions or anything else. It doesnít matter whose army it is, by the way, as long as the officers in charge give the order, and even make it explicit, Iíll take it, it will be on my head, etc., and yada-yada, even though it was never on the officersí heads, itís on yours.)  While it's true that the core of the double bind is two conflicting demands, the difference lies in how they are imposed upon the subject, what the subject's understanding of the situation is, and who (or what) imposes these demands upon the subject. Unlike the usual no-win situation, the subject has difficulty in defining the exact nature of the paradoxical situation in which he or she is caught. The contradiction may be unexpressed in its immediate context and therefore invisible to external observers, only becoming evident when a prior communication is considered. Typically, a demand is imposed upon the subject by someone who they respect (such as a parent, teacher or doctor) (A:  It could be a professor or anything, in an experiment, you see.) but the demand itself is inherently impossible to fulfill because some broader context forbids it. (A:  Öyour cultural indoctrination, you see.) For example, this situation arises when a person in a position of authority imposes two contradictory conditions but there exists an unspoken rule that one must never question authority.  (A:  Öwhich is what your government uses on you all the time. Well, itís voluntary, but it might not be. What?.... What?  [Alan chuckles.])

 

Gregory Bateson and his colleagues defined the double bind as follows (paraphrased):

 

(A:  And it goes through different examples of the double binds. Although theyíre giving a very simplistic ones here such as parents who tell the child to be silent, and then they understand if the child replies he has just spoken back to the parent. Heís speaking back to them, you see. Things like that, very simple ones. But they donít mention what the realÖ  The REAL purpose here is to find ways to put things over on the public. Thatís what all these studies are about, folks. When I was small I realized that all these testing on mice that would come out on science programs was nothing about seeing about how if you can train mice to go work in the mine or something. This is all to do with, if it works in one species of mammal or whatever it could work on others. It was all to do with us ultimately, you see. ALL these experiments and all these animals are about us, how to control us, manipulate us, retrain us, and constantly update us in fact, into new trainings, without us knowing.

 

So the technique here, again, of double-bind, one of the simplest examples they give you here is to do withÖ it saysÖ)

 

1.  The punishment may include the withdrawing of love (A:  That can be the same thing with the groupís withdrawal of acceptance of you if you donít go along with the group. When the teacher says, what do you think, folks, and knowing darn well that most of them will go along with the teacher, one person says no, they get ostracized. Itís called shunning, even in some religions the group will shun you.), the expression of hate and anger, or abandonment resulting from the authority figure's expression of helplessness.

 

2.  A "secondary injunction" is imposed on the subject, conflicting with the first at a higher and more abstract level. For example: "You must do X, but only do it because you want to". It is unnecessary for this injunction to be expressed verbally.

 

3.  If necessary, a "tertiary injunction" is imposed on the subject to prevent them from escaping the dilemma. (A:  So they donít want you to even escape the dilemma. This is to see how, ultimately, to make you do what the elites want you to do, including the scientific elites, or any propaganda elites, like global warming, climate change, carbon taxes, yada-yada-ya. Understand? They actuallyÖ They corral you in, they lock the door that you get in, they tell you youíre free at the same time, and then they put a third dilemma to stop you escaping the primary dilemma. Well, you can go in there voluntarily but if you donít go in there you might get shot. Huh? What? What?  Do you see what Iím saying?)

 

These are the cons that go on all the time throughout society, every day actually, especially from government institutions. And you canít fathom it out. So what you do, is you seek out advice from other parties that are already established for you to get the advice from, and thatís what you will take because otherwise you will break down trying to figure it out, through fear, if I donít comply, etc. etc. Thatís only one little technique of thousands and thousands that are used upon you from your birth. Sad, isnít it. Very, very sad.

 

Thatís how easy it is to manipulate billions of people across the world. Every country uses them. Thatís why all science departments across the world all meet annually and so on and exchange their information, and throughout the year they exchange all these informations and have the trips of scientists from China and elsewhere visiting you and vice versa. Quite something isnít it.

 

Getting back to what Aldous Huxley said, they could actually manipulate the people into accepting something that perhaps they should not accept, or for their own interests they should not accept it, or their better interests. Itís happened throughout your whole life longÖ. your whole life long.

 

And of course all these changes that they put you through, even socially, are done to make life more tolerable, etc. for everyone, even though what they force upon you might be intolerable for you.  If you find some sort of thing disgusting or whatever it happens to be youíre not allowed to be disgusted anymore. Only certain people are allowed to be offended. In fact, youíre not allowed to be offended. If youíre offended youíre hateful. Itís all psychology, folks, and behaviorism techniques used upon you and you donít even know theyíre using them upon you, even in the arguments.

 

Think for yourself to reclaim your mind. Because believe it or not, thereís no point in joining any group unless you have a mind of your own. If you join a group you generally lose your mind of your own.  If their tenets of belief and their rules, unless you stick up for the rules and keep up with the rules, out you go, youíre ostracized.  And youíve lost, you have to put your mind at the door, leave your brain at the door when you go into the meeting, you see. Thatís what the system of communism was about, as I say, when only Stalin said he, only he understood it.  So everyone around Stalin had to say, well I canít really figure it out, you see, but he knows where heís taking us so I have to accept it all on faith that he knows where heís going, and I believe him.  Thatís how it works, you see. Very simple. Simple trick.

 

A long time ago Bertrand Russell said the same thing many, many moons ago, theyíd train the public to believe in nothing but experts, not even their own deductions, they would only believe experts. And youíve been there your whole life now. Yep. Canít have an opinion of your own by your own deductions. No, no, no, no, no. Your own reasoning, canít trust your own reasoning.  If youíre a sentient being, and everything is working properly, youíre darn right you have a right to think for yourself, decide for yourself and say what you want about things around you. Nothing should be taboo. NOTHING should be taboo. Zilch. No matter how much mud or feces or whatever else is thrown upon you, you should be able to say whatever you want as a sentient being. It doesnít mean youíre a nasty little sod that goes out looking to create trouble for troubleís sake just to get noticed. But to be a real sentient sane person you should be allowed to have your views and opinions on anything. Of course you must. After all, all those who want you to change, and update you all the time into new systems of belief and behavior and all the rest of it, demand that you accept and go along with these changes, and change yourself to suit it. They demand it.  So what gives them this a special God-given right to do that to you but you canít give your own opinions back? No, true equality would mean that you could say whatever you wanted to say. And if something is nonsensical or totally manipulative, then you should be able to say so.

 

And donít believe for a minute the professions are free of this.  All those who are of the global warming, all the top scientists, are all on a heavy big payroll.  And human nature is not like some old black and white Abraham Lincoln movie made by Disney, because thatís where all fantasy belongs, is in Disneyland, not in reality. Human nature is corrupt basically. And folk do know where their bread is buttered and who butters it for them, and when itís getting heavy slabs of bread and heavy slabs of butter they arenít going to contradict it when it comes to their big paycheck. No way. No way. Thatís the simplicity of human nature.

 

Well anyway, I hope youíre surviving, as I say. Hold onto your sanity. Think for yourselves. Because unless you reclaim your mind youíve got nothing, youíre parroting somebody elseís philosophy.

 

From Hamish and myself in Ontario, Canada, where of course itís freezing actually, and after a whole year of rain, constantly day and night, day and night, day and night pretty well with the odd exception, itís going into flurries now and snow, early snowÖ itís going to be a bad, bad winter. Because this rain will turn into the heaviest winter weíve had yet, it was bad enough last year.  And this is the heavy manipulation of aerial spraying, with the chemtrails, and weather modification and all the rest that goes along with it. Thatís another story, as I say. Iíve talked about it so many times before I wonít talk about it again.

 

But this is how the sciences run the world today. It isnít just your mind, itís the whole physical reality around you thatís being run with very high, advanced sciences.  Most folk wonít accept it. They wonít believe it. And thatís fine, their indoctrination is too perfect.  They expect the media, thatís on board with the conology, itís part of the system, to do their reasoning for them, like Brzezinski said. Theyíve been trained.  He said, theyíd be trained, back in the 70s, to think that the media would do their reasoning for them and warn them about things. And it has been done effectively. They really do. Or, as Adolf Hitler said, if youíre going to lie to the public, tell a BIG lie.  Because the average person will tell a small lie but they go into disbelief for someone to actually purposely lie on a massive scale. Because you wouldnít do it, you see, you would tell a small lie.  We are so well understood itís scary, folks. And itís terribly sad. And itís even sadder to me to watch millions of people walk around thinking that theyíre making all their own decisions when theyíre not at all. Thatís even sadder.

 

From Hamish and myself in Ontario, Canada, itís good night and may your God or your gods go with you.

 

 

Topics of show covered in following links:

 

Oregon's Pay-Per-Mile Road-Funding Program Continues to Evolve

California readies pay-as-you-drive tax test, coming soon to a road near you

Sen. Diane Feinstein's husband wins CA rail contract

High court clears bullet train but problems remain

 

 

For more information please visit the web sites:

cuttingthroughthematrix.com and alanwattsentientsentinel.eu