Feb 10th, 2012 (#1020)
Alan Watt "Cutting Through the Matrix" LIVE on RBN:
Poem Copyright Alan Watt Feb 10th, 2012:
First the Sick then Depressed,
Then the Poor and All the Rest:
"Euthanasia Coming via Van Near You
In Holland, For Sickness, Or Just Feeling Blue,
For Terminally Ill it will Speed the Process,
Government is Happy, It will Cost Them Less,
For the Mentally "Unfit" a "Panel" will Try
To Qualify Who Lives and Who Should Die,
Terrible Crimes Presented by Concerned Faces,
"Professionals" Concerned About the Races,
Huxley's "Brave New World" says Celebrate Death,
And Here We are Forcing the Dying Breath,
People Adapt to Propaganda's Call,
Believing in Experts will Be Death of Us All"
© Alan Watt Feb 10th, 2012
Poem & Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt – Feb 10th, 2012 (Exempting Music, Literary Quotes, and Callers' Comments)
Hi folks, I’m Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through the Matrix, on February the 10th, 2012. For newcomers, look into the website, cuttingthroughthematrix.com, and it should help you to put the pieces together, that comprise this big picture of the New World Order as we think it’s called. It’s always, it’s always a New World Order, because it’s always a New World, and different parts of them too, different stages of the New World Order coming into view all the time. Some have passed. Others have still to come, and once that’s done, then there’s another New World Order. And of course, they’ll declare that when they have everything signed together through the World Trade Organization and the United Nations, when eventually, you’ll actually see an actual building that is the New World Order, the New Global Government, obviously. So, we’re living through a planned society, the planned stages of this big society too, going back a hundred years or more, where they first had to publish their goals.
And these were begun by big international banking boys, who formed their clubs, and who eventually took the name of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, and Council on Foreign Relations. They also have the Trilateral Commission as well. And many, many others. But, the fact is, they plan to take over the world’s resources and amalgamate countries together into a unified Europe, exactly the same as Karl Marx talked about in the 1800s, a unified Americas, and then a Far Eastern Rim eventually. The European Union would extend way beyond Europe ultimately to encompass, they hope eventually, even China. So, it’s quite interesting to see how they’re going at it. They’ve already got Russia into a good part of it. And they’re just going along at quite the speed. So, it’s all done above our heads. It’s done supranationally, so we’ve got no say in the matter at all. The politicians never mention any of these things when they run for election, and of course, the public are quite content, it seems, to have the politicians just do these things. And we’re trained of course, that it’s none of our business really, leave it to the experts.
And all the trouble we’re going through today is to do with the fallout, the necessary fallout they call it of the catastrophes. You know, homelessness, losing your homes, all this kind of thing, sharing your wealth across the world. Obviously it means deprivation back home. Things like that. That just has to be that way they say to bring in this world order. So, it’s a much different society and system than the one you’re taught and trained about at school when you get dates and battles and famous generals, and all that nonsense. And that’s all it is. It truly is nonsense. That’s not history. The boys who got the history went to special universities, the Ivy League Universities, and they had access to incredible libraries, the likes of which the red brick universities never ever had access to at all.
Anyway, all of this stuff is explained at cuttingthroughthematrix.com. Hundreds and hundreds of audios, for free download. And remember too, you are the audience that bring me to you. You can help me keep just ticking along here by buying the books and discs at cuttingthroughthematrix.com. Remember, all those sites listed there too are the official sites. They have transcripts for print-up as well of a lot of the talks. And go into alanwattsentientsentinel.eu, for transcripts in other languages. To order, from the US to Canada, you can use a personal check or an international postal money order. Or you can send cash, and some people use PayPal as well. Across the world, Western Union, Money Gram, and PayPal.
What I do, as I say, is chronicle the events. I give you basically what’s coming, because I’ve read the reports, way in advance for years, of what’s coming. They’ve actually published this whole agenda for over a hundred years in various books. And it’s not hard to figure out when you’ve read them all, and all the different parts they have to come into place, fall into place, to make it all happen. And then they announce it suddenly in the media, as though it’s just a whim of the moment sort of thing. You realize, this is a long-term agenda, and you are living through it. The future is planned. So was the past for your parents, and your grandparents as well. Back with more, after this break.
Hi folks, I’m back, and Cutting Through the Matrix. You know, as I say, we grow up in this system given the most basic education, if you want to call it education at all. And it’s not left up to individual schools what to teach, and not even up to the nation for that matter too. Everything really, all curriculums come down ultimately from the United Nations. Everything is standardized in this system. Sometimes they’ll tweak it a bit here and tweak it a bit there for different countries, cultures, but basically it’s all the same stuff we’re being taught, because we’re all prepared, generation by generation, to get ready for a global governance system. And everyone gets taught the same propaganda. Of course, that’s what education really is, propaganda, indoctrination, and as Jacques Ellul says, it’s most important to get this basic education, to allow subsequent propaganda to take effectively on you.
Now, this article came out the other day too, or a few days ago. It says:
The internet has become the most significant vehicle in promoting extremism, according to a report released by the Home Affairs Committee.
(Alan: That’s like the government of Britain, basically, the Home Affairs Committee.)
The report says the internet has become a "fertile breeding ground" for terror and is more involved in radicalisation than prisons, universities or places of worship.
(A: This is all to do with censorship, of course.)
MPs spoke to radical cleric Abu Hamza who said British foreign policy was a key factor in pushing young Muslims to radicalisation.
(A: And it’s true, you know. The whole Middle East and all these countries over there, they’ve never had peace for over a hundred years. Well over a hundred years, almost 200 years by Britain, especially, having wars with them, taking them over, running them for a while, putting front men in, their own guys in charge, to get all the oil out. And then overthrows come. And then the British aren’t too happy about it, and then you have wars that go on again until they’re down on their knees once more. And that’s what we’re seeing back and forth all the time with that whole area. And of course you radicalize Muslims, because here’s people from way across the sea coming over to bomb you all the time. That kind of radicalizes those who are left, who see their own folks getting blown up. Even the MI6 admitted that at the beginning of 9/11. They said, if we put out all these fake extremist sites to attract Muslims into them in Britain, to find out who might be attracted into it, and they were actually setting up these sites, just like the CIA does, and Canada has done it too, and admitted that they did it, then of course you’re going to radicalize certain folk who are not too happy about it. So, anyway, it says here:)
The committee's report said internet service providers should be more active in monitoring sites they host and that the Government should work with them to develop a code of practice.
(A: Now, here’s your code, all your laws. They can’t say this. They can’t say that, etc, etc, etc. That’s what it’s all about, censorship.)
A nine-month inquiry found the internet "was now one of the few unregulated spaces where radicalisation is able to take place".
But it added that a "sense of grievance" is key and direct personal contact with radicals a "significant factor".
The Government's counter-terrorism strategy should show that "the British state is not antithetical to Islam", the committee said.
(A: Even though they’ve often said that Islam is the problem. It says:)
Keith Vaz, its chairman, said: "The conviction last week of four men from London and Cardiff radicalised over the internet, for a plot to bomb the London Stock Exchange and launch a Mumbai-style atrocity on the streets of London, shows that we cannot let our vigilance slip.
"More resources need to be directed to these threats and to preventing radicalisation through the internet and in private spaces. These are the fertile breeding grounds for terrorism."
(A: I think really the fertile breeding grounds are governments. If they stop going and blowing up other countries, nobody would be getting radicalized. You know, it’s obvious, isn’t it?)
A Home Office spokesman said: "Prevent [the counter-radicalisation strategy]
(A: That’s what they call it. It’s Prevent.)
is an integral part of our counter-terrorism strategy and aims to stop people from becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism.
"Our new Prevent strategy challenges extremist ideology, helps protect institutions from extremists, and tackles the radicalisation of vulnerable people. Above all, it tackles the threat from home-grown terrorism on and off line.
(A: So, they’re:)
"We are working closely with the police and internet service providers to take internet hate off the web."
Now, what’s hate? You can expand hate into anything you want, and they will, of course. They will. They’re already talking about anti-government groups, anti-government. And of course, that would mean that if you criticize anything about government, you’re anti-government. That’s how they did it in the Soviet Union. That’s where the term came from, anti-government. They used that. And that would mean that the opposition party is really anti-government, obviously, since they’re always criticizing their policies. So, things are going ahead the way it’s supposed to go, because, eventually, they’ve always wanted to do this and censor the internet, and that’s what they’re doing.
Now, again, getting back to the big foundations, that really run the world, along with the big corporations, and the massive banking systems that they have. They all work together, of course, and actually they all belong to the same one group, ultimately. And it says:
(A: Trust. They call it a trust instead of a foundation; it’s the same thing.)
calls for a new code of conduct for journalists
A new report published today by the Carnegie UK Trust
(A: They’ve got it in the US as well, of course.)
says tougher regulation is needed, but it won’t be enough on its own to restore trust and strengthen the supply of good journalism.
The report – Better Journalism in the Digital Age – also says a new regulatory framework
(A: That’s new rules, regulations, and all the rest.)
for the press is needed, one that is independent of both government and the newspaper industry. The system should be voluntary, but with very strong incentives for joining.
(A: You can interpret that whichever way you want.)
Only participating news outlets would obtain the benefits of press accreditation and recognition,
(A: So, in other words, if they don’t think you’re playing the game, playing ball, you know, playing ball with the boys, you see, if you’re not playing ball with them, you won’t get your cards and all the rest of it. And you won’t get accreditation and recognition.)
the arrangements which give journalists privileged access and facilities at important places and events.
(A: Well, they never tell us the truth at these events, because they’ve all sworn not to. Ha, ha, ha. Like the CFR and the Rockefeller meetings, and the Bilderberger meetings.)
But the report stresses that stronger or smarter regulation is only one of a number of levers needed to secure better journalism: “The work of regulation is largely that of eliminating various forms of bad behaviour, whereas the public interest also requires positive actions in support of good journalism. Tougher regulation on its own is not enough.”
Other recommendations include:
• The maintenance or strengthening of public service broadcasting to ensure that not all news ventures are commercially driven
(A: Well, it’s never been that way. You’ve always had a lot of propaganda on behalf of the government.)
• Civil society organisations
(A: So here’s your non-governmental organizations.)
offering help to fund new initiatives to ensure greater quality and diversity of news sources
(A: So, if you’re an accredited NGO group funded by Rockefeller or whoever, whatever foundation, then you’re okay. But if you’re not funded by them, and accredited by them, then you’re a no-no.)
• A renewed emphasis in journalism education and training on professional ethics, including a clear commitment to understanding and upholding the public interest.
(A: Meaning, you can reinterpret all of this to say upholding the public’s dope, basically, or Soma, because we really are kept in the dark at the bottom. We’re supposed to be in the dark.)
• Extending the availability and take-up of high-speed broadband to enable universal access to a wide range of digital news
(A: This is the stuff they want you to get, the mainstream.)
• Industry regulators, universities, civil society organisations and the news media should encourage more public debate around media ethics and behaviour.
The report author Blair Jenkins – a former Head of News and Current Affairs at both BBC Scotland and STV, Chair of the Scottish Broadcasting Commission, and now a Carnegie Fellow –
(A: That means he’s a higher initiate now.)
says the public should have higher expectations of journalists, and journalists should have higher expectations of themselves:
“Journalism is based on trust and integrity and that needs to be reflected in a new industry-wide code of conduct. It should be inspiring and authentic for all journalists, but also sufficiently clear and reassuring for the public who depend upon those journalists for reliable news and information.
(A: Do you remember when they sent all the embedded journalists over with the army? They couldn’t, they would never dare say anything negative whatsoever, and they didn’t. It says:)
“The independent regulatory system proposed for the press would strike a new balance. You only get the many benefits of being a serious news operation if you also live up to the obligations. If you want the accreditation that gets you special access to the big stories, you have to sign up to decent and reasonable standards.”
(A: What’s the big stories? Madonna or something?)
The report will be forwarded as a formal submission to The Leveson Inquiry.
(A: They always have inquiries in Britain, before they pass all their laws. They know what they’re going to do before they have the inquiry, but it’s old judges that have retired they pull out there for a few months and give them a few million pounds, you know.)
Carnegie UK Trust Chief Executive, Martyn Evans, says the future role of the media is a central part of the work of the Trust:
So, it goes on and on and on about how they have to, you know, regulate it and all, etc, etc, etc. And yadda yah. And, play ball and you get your ticket. If you don’t play ball and say the truth, then you’ll be in trouble, obviously.
Now, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who is a geo-strategist in geo-politics and who helped set off the whole Muslim Al Qaeda idea, when the Russians invaded Afghanistan. And I’ve put the link up a few times. You see a younger Brzezinski radicalizing them, standing in front of the guys in Afghanistan telling them that theirs is a holy war, a holy war, it’s a cause and they should fight the Russians. So, he plays all sides of course, because he plays geo-politics. It’s like a chess game. You use one pawn and then you flatten it, you know, or get rid of it all together, and get another one in. They have no friends whatsoever, believe you me. It says, anyway, his just published book is:
Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power." He spoke on Friday with Global Viewpoint Network editor Nathan Gardels.
Nathan Gardels: The core of your strategic vision for the future is of a “larger West” comprised of democratic powers that accommodates China. Yet the West, starting with the U.S., is in a period of political decay.
It says here. You wouldn’t think it with the money we’re spending, eh? Back with more on this after this break.
Hi folks, I’m Alan Watt. We’re back Cutting Through the Matrix. And talking about Brzezinski’s latest book, and he’s interviewed by Nathan Gardels. And this is a PR piece, of course, to sell the book. Anyway, it says:
As you have noted, while China focuses on the long term and plots out its future, the U.S. in particular is beset with a short-term mentality. In effect, we are no longer an “industrial democracy”
(A: Well, he knew that because he was one of the guys who helped give all the industry to China. That was part of the things back then.)
in the strict sense, but a “consumer democracy”
(A: How can you be a consumer democracy?)
where all the feedback signals — the market, the media and politics — are short term and geared to immediate gratification.
Doesn’t that give China the competitive advantage of political capacity in the times ahead?
(A: And Brzezinski says:)
(A: And then Gardels says:)
How can America’s short-term mentality be changed? Are the West’s political institutions up to the challenge?
(A: He says:)
Yes, if we develop a more effective and longer-range response to the current crisis instead of simply wallowing in the present difficulties — which is likely to further produce the same negative effects that got us into this mess. We are so preoccupied with the current crisis and so lacking in a longer-term perspective that we have no strategic vision which would give us some sense of historical momentum.
Democracy is capable of responding provided we focus on the right aims. The question today is whether democracies can thrive with financial systems that are out of control, that are capable of generating selfishly beneficial consequences only for the few, without any effective framework that gives us a larger, more ambitious sense of purpose. That is the real problem.
There is today a very dangerous imbalance between the lack of budgetary discipline, the commitment to austerity,
(A: See, he’s part of this whole big thing. He helps cause the problems and then writes books about how to get out of them, you know, which is all the way that geopoliticians always work.)
the determination to keep inflation under control and to maintain a costly social policy on the one hand — all, on the other hand, without any larger conception about which direction our societies as a whole should be heading.
(A: Gardels says:)
The rest of the West is also mired in paralysis. Europe has turned even further inward with the euro crisis as it decides whether to go all the way back to the nation-state or forward to full political union.
What is the solution for Europe?
(A: Brzezinski says:)
I believe that, in the end, the resolution to today’s crisis in Europe won’t work out that badly.
(A: See, it’s mainly fluff we’re hearing about, oh, we’ll pull out, we’ll pull out, and all that stuff.)
The essential political leadership in Europe — the Germans and the French mainly, along with some others — are demonstrating a sense of responsibility for the future of Europe. They are increasingly determined to shape a political framework which will supplant what Europe has been lately, namely a financial union for some and a politically loose community for all. Inevitably, a genuine political union will take shape in stages and steps,
(A: That’s through signing more agreements and further bringing you in.)
probably beginning through a de facto treaty
(A: There you go.)
reached by inter-governmental agreement in the near future.
Gardels: A two-speed Europe?
(A: So, they’re so clever. Some folk think you’re already pulling out of it, but you’re not at all. You’re just going at a slower, you’re in a lower gear basically. And it says, a two-speed Europe. America is doing the same thing, by the way, with Canada. It says:)
Brzezinski: Why not? There is nothing wrong with a Europe that is in part and simultaneously a political and monetary union at the core, which accepts the leading role of Brussels, surrounded by a larger Europe that doesn’t share the single currency but does share all the other benefits, for example the free movement of people and goods.
(A: That’s all part of this world-wide free trade agreement.)
That is consistent with the post-Cold War vision of an expanding Europe whole and free.
(A: Now, part of the reason, what he’s talking about there isn’t just the WTO. That was part of it getting set up, of course. But, at the end of World War II, because all the other countries were so much in debt, they’d borrowed heavily from the big US banks for their wars in WWII, they brought out the Lend-Lease Bill, basically. And what this did was, they’d lend and lease things to other countries on certain conditions, but they all had the same one condition for all European countries, is that they would set up departments in all governments with the idea of uniting Europe together, initially through a free trade, but ultimately for total amalgamation, for those who don’t know the history of this. And it was Eisenhower who pushed that forward. It says:)
Gardels: Japan changes prime ministers every few months. It is coasting into a retirement trap based on the accumulated wealth of the past and not looking forward. Is it possible to keep such a Japan within the West, or will it drift toward the Chinese center of gravity?
Brzezinski: I feel confident about the authenticity of Japan’s commitment to democracy. Its political culture is now more Western than its traditional political culture.
(A: Because they watch all American stuff, eh?)
But, of course, Japan is in the East. A good relationship between it and China would contribute immensely to stability in the Far East, and to a better U.S.-China relationship.
(A: What they want is for Japan and China, Australia and New Zealand and a bunch of other countries, to unite into one bloc. In fact, they’re pretty well there for those who don’t know that. Australia is definitely in, and so is New Zealand. It says:)
America can play an active role
(A: Exactly what Karl Marx talked about, the big three trading blocs.)
can play an active role as conciliator between Japan and China just as it did in Europe between France and Germany and between Germany and Poland — but without the direct kind of military involvement on the Asian mainland that the U.S. has had in Europe. Perhaps the better analogy with respect to the U.S. and China is the role Britain played in the 19th century as a stabilizer and balancer on the European continent.
Well, you see, in the 19th century, they called it the balance of power. And what Britain would do, if one country was rising up and getting a bit too big for its britches, as they say, or contesting Britain, then Britain would finance and arm a little country round about it, who would then go to war. Britain would back them, and then they’d defeat the bigger country. Once they’d done that, the guys they had just helped to fight, you see, they would then destabilize them, and bring them down too. That’s how you kept the balance of power. The balance means that you’re always on top. And I’ll be back with some more of this, after this break.
Hi folks, I’m back, Cutting Through the Matrix. And I’ll put this link up and other links too, at cuttingthroughthematrix.com at the end of the broadcast, because you’ve got to read through this stuff. It’s kind of boring but the fact is the guy is telling you how it’s going to be. And he’s up there, Trilateral, CFR, geo-politician, who helps, literally, like the CIA do, they have wars planned years ahead. And not just one war. We’ll take this one first, and then five years later we’ll go for that one and so on. That’s how they work it on the chessboard. So, he’s definitely a master for that.
And this article here is on:
Death on wheels:
(A: The Dutch now, I mentioned this a while back, but now they’re actually doing it.)
Dutch to send mobile clinics to euthanise people in their own homes
(A: There’s socialism for you, eh?)
The Dutch government is considering plans to use mobile medical teams which would administer euthanasia to people in their homes.
The units, dubbed 'grim reapers on wheels' by critics, will be called in to kill patients when their own GPs refuse to administer lethal drugs.
(A: So, they come in to kill you. And you can’t get out. You’re too bed-ridden, eh?)
The mobile teams of doctors and nurses would be sent out from a clinic following a referral from the patient’s doctor.
(A: That’s a hell of a power to give to quacks, you know. A hell of a power. What was the Hippocratic Oath? Do no harm, it says.)
The proposals were revealed by Dutch Health Minister Edith Schippers during a debate on euthanasia in the Dutch parliament.
In answer to questions from Christian Union MPs she said that mobile units 'for patients who meet the criteria for euthanasia but whose doctors are unwilling to carry it out' was worthy of consideration.
'If the patient thinks it desirable, the doctor can refer him or her to a mobile team or clinic,' the minister wrote.
The mobile units are being aggressively promoted by Dutch euthanasia campaign groups
(A: Who will all be funded by the big foundations.)
who want to expand the eligibility criteria for euthanasia
(A: You’re a bit depressed today? Oh, here, here’s a pill for you. You won’t have to be depressed ever again.)
and also to open facilities specifically for euthanasia along the pattern of the Dignitas centre in Switzerland.
(A: So, if you’ve ever seen the movie Soylent Green, or you haven’t seen it, go and see it, because they put all this stuff out in their movies years ago, to prepare us for all this stuff. It’s predictive programming. So, it says:)
They claim that 80 per cent of people with dementia or mental illnesses
(A: Or mental illnesses, right?)
were being 'missed' by the country’s euthanasia laws.
(A: You see where it’s all going? I hope you do. Oh, so-and-so’s got a bit of autism. This is all the stuff that Adolph Hitler did, you know, when they wiped out pretty well everybody who was ‘unfit’ in hospitals, etc.)
They are supported by the Dutch Medical Association which this summer issued guidance effectively saying even people who complained of being lonely...
(A: Being lonely in this day and age, right, when everybody is sitting in a, you know, you really need a house that’s only about 6 foot by 6 foot wide, that’s it, because all you need really is a computer there and a chair. Everybody lives their life in a chair on the computer. That’s it. So:)
...being lonely could qualify for euthanasia if it constitutes 'unbearable and lasting suffering'.
Well, who’s going to determine what unbearable and lasting suffering is? Well, you know, the authorities. So, anyway, that’s rampaging ahead.
And at the next Rio Summit, they’re already having their pre-meetings they call them, all the stuff that’s going to be discussed or just signed into law, actually. It’s more like the latter, that’s what they always do. They’re going to, remember I mentioned, they’re going to go for your energy units and what it costs for this and costs for that. You have to pay it all yourself.
Britain will urge businesses and governments to start accounting for natural capital
(A: Natural capital, right?)
as an additional way of measuring economic activity at a U.N. sustainability summit in June, its environment minister said on Thursday.
This could mean moving towards a concept of GDP+, or measuring the use or loss of natural resources like water, agriculture and forests to gauge economic activity, in addition to relying solely on economic output.
"A snapshot of the state of economies based on GDP (gross domestic product) is too narrow," Caroline Spelman told reporters after a speech to businesses and non-governmental organizations
(A: That’s all these private organizations that speak for you, that you never, ever hear of, or don’t know they exist, but they’ve got a bigger say than the whole voting population, as far as government is concerned. But it’s all prepared for the UK, Rio+20 summit.)
"Green accounting would work for all countries. We believe you can really drive significant 'greening' if you take proper account of the value of natural capital in your government accounts," she added.
Currently, governments compile national accounts to track the activity of their economies and the data is used to calculate economic indicators like GDP.
(A: There’s also another guy, actually coming out, another politician who’s putting a bill through for personal energy units. I told you years ago this would come down to personal energy units, and that’s where it’s supposed to go. It doesn’t mention it in this article of course. That’s a different one. Anyway, it says:)
If there were no pollinators - creatures such as bees that enable flower fertilization - it would cost the UK economy 400 million pounds ($633 million) a year to substitute them, she added.
(A: So, if you start losing bees, you’re all going to pay for new ones getting brought in, even though they’re all dying off with the GMO crops they’re planting, if we need them.)
The UK government is setting up a committee that will report on the state of England's natural capital and the UK's Office of National Statistics is trying to embed natural capital in the country's environmental accounts by 2020, Spelman said.
So now you’ve got an environmental account you’ve got to pay to the United Nations, of course, where else.
I mentioned too, that:
Shyness, grieving soon to be classified as mental illness
(A: I read part of it before. This is an update. It says:)
Millions of healthy people - including shy or defiant children, grieving relatives and people with fetishes - may be wrongly labeled mentally ill by a new international diagnostic manual, specialists said on Thursday.
In a damning analysis of an upcoming revision of the influential Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), psychologists, psychiatrists and mental health experts said its new categories and "tick-box" diagnosis systems were at best "silly" and at worst "worrying and dangerous."
Some diagnoses - for conditions like "oppositional defiant disorder" and "apathy syndrome" - risk devaluing the seriousness of mental illness and medicalising behaviors most people would consider normal or just mildly eccentric, the experts said.
At the other end of the spectrum, the new DSM, due out next year, could give medical diagnoses for serial rapists and sex abusers - under labels like "paraphilic coercive disorder" -
(A: That’s what they want to call it now, paraphilic coercive disorder. See, the neuroscientists are getting in on the job now, you see, and they want all this stuff to get added and added and added to it.)
and may allow offenders to escape prison by providing what could be seen as an excuse for their behavior, they added.
(A: And that’s true, they’ve already got murderers off. Well, he couldn’t help it, you see, this part of his frontal lobe, see, it’s like a psychopath, he couldn’t help killing folk.)
The DSM is published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and has descriptions, symptoms and other criteria for diagnosing mental disorders. It is used internationally and is seen as the diagnostic "bible" for mental health....
(A: ...Quacks. It says:)
More than 11,000 health professionals have already signed a petition (at dsm5-reform.com) calling for the development of the fifth edition of the manual to be halted and re-thought.
(A: Because it’s literally going to make pretty well anything a mental illness. Disagreeing with government on anything. Oh, you’ve got a mental illness. The Soviets used this. Don’t laugh. Don’t laugh. The Soviets used all of this stuff. And you end up in a Gulag somewhere:)
...He said the new edition - known as DSM-5 - "will pathologise a wide range of problems which should never be thought of as mental illnesses."
"Many people who are shy, bereaved, eccentric, or have unconventional romantic lives
(A: Like all the politicians.)
will suddenly find themselves labeled as mentally ill," he said. "It's not humane, it's not scientific, and it won't help decide what help a person needs."
Simon Wessely of the Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London said a look back at history should make health experts ask themselves: "Do we need all these labels?"
He said the 1840 Census of the United States included just one category for mental disorder, but by 1917 the APA was already recognizing 59. That rose to 128 in 1959, to 227 in 1980, and again to around 350 disorders in the fastest revisions of DSM in 1994 and 2000.
(A: So, it says here:)
..."radically and recklessly expand the boundaries of psychiatry" and result in the "medicalisation of normality, individual difference, and criminality."
(A; Well, you see, you got to fit in. There can be no individual difference in this society. They want us all to be mass minded, remember. The UN has said that the individual is the biggest enemy to the peaceful world state. This is all Soviet stuff. They tried all this in the Soviet Union. Thousands and millions even just disappeared, never to be seen again, with crazy diagnoses.)
As an unintended consequence, he said an emailed comment, many millions of people will get inappropriate diagnoses and treatments, and already scarce funds would be wasted on giving drugs to people who don't need them and may be harmed by them.
Remember, big Pharma, I’m talking about psychiatric drugs, they have to be a big, big part of this New World Order. Every top writer that gave us a hint of what was coming, always said that Pharma would be involved to drug the public. The whole public, all of us. So, I’ll put that link up tonight as well.
And here’s, talking about Loneliness too. It might get you killed. This is Britain’s version of it.
Loneliness 'Worse Than Smoking' Says Number 10 Adviser David Halpern
(A: Now this is about behavior modification. They have these big teams now in government for behavior modification. Here’s how they’re trying to con pensioners not to retire, so as that the government can snatch your pension, and then you die, hopefully when you’re working. This is the whole idea, getting your cash off you, without you claiming any.)
Being lonely in old age will propel you to the grave more quickly than smoking, a senior Downing Street adviser said as part of an effort to encourage people to retire later.
David Halpern, the director of Number 10's Behavioural Insight Team,
(A: It’s Behavior Modification.)
said not having someone with whom to share problems was one of the most significant lifestyle factors affecting mortality.
Dubbed the "nudge unit",
(A: That’s like Sunstein again, the nudge unit. They nudge you along into the way you’re supposed to think and behave, right.)
Halpern's team was set up to develop ways to push people gently
(A: Just like you’re getting pushed on the net with your nudges there.)
into changing behaviour
(A: Behavior modification.)
rather than more draconian government interventions.
(A: Like “you will slave till you drop.”)
Halpern was picked by prime minister David Cameron as one of six experts joining him at a summit of Nordic and Baltic states, where one topic was how to ensure more workers delayed their retirement.
He told other leaders and experts that a majority of the UK's over-75s considered themselves lonely "all or most of the time".
Well, they can always give you a pill now, you know. You’ll have vans that come across your streets soon, if you say you’re lonely. Are you lonely, sir? You’re number so-and-so? Your name is so-and-so? Oh that’s right. And you know, they just whisk you into the van and euthanize you on the spot, grab your organs and sell them. And you think I’m kidding. You think I’m kidding, don’t you?
Now, there’s some callers on the line. I’m going to try to fit them in here, so, I’m going to just pull this up very quickly, and at satellite speed that is, and see who’s there. Now, there’s Jim from New York, who I think phoned the other day, perhaps. Are you there, Jim?
Jim: Hi there, Alan. Thanks for taking my call. I live here in Upstate New York, and there’s some National Guard Centers and Military Centers, where they’ve had like 50 armored Humvees since they just built this center, and like other military vehicles. Now, I know there’s the militarization and everything. When do you think there’s going to be really hardcore rioting or real martial law police state type things going on here in the States?
Alan: Partly, I think they’re doing it incrementally, and getting everyone used to it. They have been for quite a few years. They can either keep doing it this way, until you’re used to seeing them in the streets even. Or it will come when they cause another crash, financial crash. Or when Obamacare comes in. Now, Obamacare probably won’t come out until he’s reelected, you know. They have him slated for a second term here. But the stuff you read about Obamacare, it’s going to be slashing to the core, the bone, the complete Health Care system. And he’s wanting to slash too welfare, big time. And so, whenever the folk can’t keep up as their welfare is cut back, as prices go up, everything is going up in the food stores. It has been for years now, very fast, because the Federal Reserve says they’re using a ten-year plan for inflation, gradually inflating the dollar, which means that your purchasing power is less and less. It buys less.
So, it will depend, if they do that in one big burst, or just spread it over a few years. I think that’s when it will happen. Those at the bottom will riot first, just like Britain, because your basics, just your basics to live are getting out of your reach now. I mean, there’s people freezing in Britain, as we speak, who are on pensions and so on, because they can’t afford fuel. They have houses, but they can’t afford fuel. And we accept this every year now, 25,000, 30,000, 40,000, it doesn’t matter. We’re getting taught to accept this as normal. America still has to go through this phase. And it’s going to get pushed through it now, yeah.
And from Hamish and myself, from Ontario, Canada, it’s good night, and may your god or your gods go with you.
show covered in following links:
Net is Fertile Ground for Terrorism
Carnegie Trust Calls for New Rules for Journalists
Brzezinski--"West Needs a Long-Term Sense of Purpose"
First Mobile Euthanasia Unit will Kill You at Home
--More on Above
Britain to Urge "Green Accounting" for Nations at Rio+20 Summit
Shyness and Grieving to be Classed as Mental Disorders
Britain Uses Behaviour Modification Team to Con People into Working Beyond Retirement Age so Government can Use Their Pensions