March 21st, 2012 (#1048)
Alan Watt "Cutting Through The Matrix" LIVE on RBN:
Poem Copyright Alan Watt March 21st, 2012:
Bertie Russell, an Aristocratic
Elite in Favour,
Tasked as a Co-Ordinating Culture Navigator:
"Culture Management Verified from Tales from the
Otherwise Known as Archives, We're Living Through a Script,
Wage-Earners are Taught Developments are All Willy-Nilly,
Wars, Depressions are Spontaneous, That of Course is Silly,
If it Were So the Power Class Would Gradually Disappear,
So They Hire Machiavellian Think-Tanks to Allay that Fear,
Fear Also of the Working Class Which All Elites Do Hate,
Countless SWAT-style Movies Teach Obedience to the State,
The Vienna Circle, Frankfurt School Combined into the Macy,
They Brain-Stormed Out a New Culture, Precise Never Hazy,
Working Closely with Music, Movies and the Arts,
They Destroyed the Old Culture, These Fanatical Old Farts,
Replaced by Moral Relativity, Funding NGOs that Fitted,
Fringe Groups Nihilistic, Atheistic & Committed,
A World would Come Together via War, Treaties, Finance,
BIS, IMF and World Bank, Nothing Left to Chance,
Here We are at the Climax, Nations Weak, Shattered,
Children Taught to Despise the Past, 'Nothing Really Mattered' "
© Alan Watt March 21st, 2012
Poem & Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt Ė March 21st, 2012 (Exempting Music, Literary Quotes, and Callers' Comments)
Hi folks, Iím Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through the Matrix on March the 21st, 2012. For newcomers, as always, I recommend that you go into cuttingthroughthematrix.com, and help yourself to all the free audios available there. Remember youíll see a whole bunch of sites listed. These are the official sites, and they carry audios, but they also carry transcripts of a lot of the talks Iíve given in English. And you can go into alanwattsentientsentinel.eu for transcripts in other languages.
And remember, you are the audience that bring me to you. I donít bring on advertisers as guests. I donít have shares in any products sold, or own them, the companies, outright either. So, itís up to you if you want to keep getting different kinds of information to complete your understanding of the system that youíre born into, to keep me going, by buying the books and discs at cuttingthroughthematrix.com. From the US to Canada, you can use a personal check, or an international postal money order from the post office. Some people send cash. And you can also use PayPal. And across the world, youíve got Western Union, Money Gram, and PayPal. Remember, straight donations are really, really, really welcome.
And what I do, as Iíve often said, is I tend to chronicle the events, as we go through them, and nothing is surprising, really, when you understand and read the proper books, because the Big Boys, down through the last well over a hundred years have written books themselves, mainly for universities or for their own ďinĒ crowd, basically, outlaying where theyíre going, and where theyíre taking the world, and why theyíre taking the world this way. And the big, big changes that the world will experience, thatís all of us, of course, as we go through these particular agendas. And theyíre very forthright about it, if you understand what theyíre saying. And they even have time tables of implementations. Youíll find most of these, even at the United Nations departments. They have ongoing plans, just like the Soviet Union did, for 50 years for one plan, 5 years for another, 100 years for another. And thatís how they keep control of the world. Thatís how the world is really run, like a big corporation. They do the same thing, international corporations, to do with how many companies or which companies will take over in the next ten, fifteen years, if thatís their goal. And investments up to even fifty or more years ahead.
So, at the bottom level the ordinary people really donít have much plans, you see. You canít imagine that kind of thing going on, and so you tend to think that everything, the whole world, is just sort of bumbling through time by itself, happenstance, and nothing is further from the truth. That goes too for governments, because theyíre all part of one single agenda and have been for quite some time. Iíve gone into the history of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal Institute of International Affairs. Even the Milner Group was a major part of starting it all off, and how they would eventually bring through UNESCO and other world organizations a common curriculum for all school children, and how everyone across the world would be taught the same basic disinformation. And it is disinformation, because they eradicate most of history. They certainly alter all the rest. And that becomes your reality.
And in politics, they simply are meant to catch the flack, the tomatoes that you throw at them, because you donít like their policies, as they keep upping your prices and so on, but itís all part of a grand design, a grand policy of bringing you into austerity. And also getting you used to ongoing wars. Ongoing wars. A bigger plan than that, in fact, because you see, austerity is not a new thing from the eliteís point of view. Itís not new at all. And in fact, theyíve talked about it before. Malthus talked about it. And others even before him talked about keeping the peasantry in austerity or poverty, basically. So, through warfare, ongoing war and taxes increasing and all the rest of it, and inflation, and again, oh, God, we canít get enough energy Ė suddenly itís energy Ė well, weíve got to bring the people into austerity. Well, weíll talk about that tonight. Back after this break.
Hi folks, Iím back, Cutting Through the Matrix. And Iíve talked about, as I say, the beginnings of, at least the beginnings that were put into history by the boys themselves, their own history. At least they did give us an idea of how this big organization came to be for modern times. And they talked about the creation of the Royal Institute of International Affairs for instance. And it was already a massive organization. Sometimes their books are cloaked by titles like the Future of the British Empire. But when you look inside the books, itís the Council on Foreign Relations and the books are funded and even the big world meetings are funded by the Rockefeller boys in the foundation. And they do have lots and lots of members. And the strangest thing, when you get a hold of these books, the books that have all the minutes of their meetings and all the attendees, the attendees, mind you, are all indexed at the back. They donít let you know exactly who said what, but you can figure it out, when it says ďthe representative of Australia said blah, blah, blah. We want World Government,Ē you know, thatís from the 1930s, things like that. So, they do give a lot away. But remember, the whole idea of the Royal Institute of International Affairs was to create a sort of, use the British Empire as the foundation for a World Government. And thatís very important to remember. And people in America too forget that their own intelligentsia were doing so well in business, etc, with Britain and cashing in on it, that they almost became British themselves. Very much so. Right down to even getting themselves coats of arms made. And bringing over suits of armor and things like that to decorate their big mansions they were building. That was the big in-thing.
And you have to go into other peopleís writings too, to see that itís still going on today, this sort of British embryo that blossomed into whatís called the New World Order. Tonight Iíll put up a link to show you how well itís still working, because even though itís done by the LaRouche organization. Now LaRouche, as far as I can see is still an ardent Communist. Heís completely international. And he wants our expenses, our extra money basically to go into space research. So, itís just another alternative to war. War is also about the destruction of disposable goods and money. So, their idea too is to use it, once theyíve got this perfect world system and send up rockets that will just blow up and all the rest of it, to the moon and elsewhere, and thatís how they can still keep you in a state of poverty, because itís essential a good amount of the populace, it doesnít matter if itís middle class or lower class, are kept always living on the last penny, to the next paycheck. Itís essential to keep order.
So, Iíll put up that link tonight, and youíll hear Obama giving a speech to the Queen and toasting her, and saying that he is her humble and obedient servant. Now, in the British system, youíve got to understand, that was an official announcement to the Queen in front of all the higher witnesses and you see, in Britain thereís only two kinds. Well, thereís three kinds, really. Thereís the ruling oligarchy, and then there are the servants to the oligarchy, and then there are subjects. The rest of the population are all called subjects. You know, youíre not worthy of anything else. Youíre not even a human being, youíre a subject, basically. So, he is a willing servant, an obedient servant to the Queen. And itís on this LaRouche documentary video. As I say, LaRouche himself is definitely coming at it from the Communistic point of view, because he is an ardent Communist, and he has a massive organization, well funded, and they also, well, they also put out some good stuff as well, because they have a different mission by exposing the same stuff. So, Iíll put that up tonight to show you how Obama is a member of the same oligarchy that Lord Bertrand Russell talks about, many others talk about. They were all part of it. And even the founders of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, that started the whole thing off, Lord Milner, the big international bankers, they said theyíd have to bring America back on board. And itís also referred to offhandedly as ďour special relationship.Ē Thatís how youíll often see it in the newspaper when the Prime Minister of Britain is talking to the President of America, our special relationship. This is the combination for world government of course.
And as I say, Carroll Quigley gave the book out too, the Anglo-American Establishment. You have to read it, because he was the historian for the CFR and got access to their files and their archives. You find many other players in this too, because scientific players are very, very important, especially those who deal with sciences of society and the mind. And Iíve gone through The Scientific Outlook before with Bertrand Russell, Lord Bertrand Russell. And you have to really go through it, and go through it over and over again too, because you see new things all the time. And he goes into the technique in society. The technique as they call it is more than just a technique of form. Itís the whole structure of the form and how you control all of societies. And he goes on about Malthus on page 186. He says, ďMalthusís theory of population, whether true or false, is certainly scientific.Ē That was about population reduction, keeping a balance amongst those at the bottom by putting them into areas where theyíll get diseases, keeping them at a very poor style of food, limiting the food supply, the types of food they were given, and that kind of thing. He says:
The arguments by which he supports it are not appeals to prejudice, but to population statistics and the expenses of agriculture. Adam Smith and Ricardo are also scientific in their economics. Again, I do not mean to say that the theories they advance are invariably true, but that their outlook and their type of reasoning has the characteristics which distinguish scientific method.
(Alan: Now, you understand that they always try and use science to convince the general public, and they always have done this, to go into austerity and things like that. Or, ďweíve got to abort more children.Ē And itís always to do with science and statistics and so on. And, ďoh, thereís too many people, we canít feed them all,Ē as they close down thousands of farms every year across the world. It says:)
The phrase "survival of the fittest" proved too much for the intellects of those who speculate on social questions. The word "fittest" seems to have ethical implications, from which it follows that the nation, race, and class to which a writer belongs must necessarily be the fittest.
(A: So, if youíre in that class, so you accept Darwinism, you accept Malthus and population reduction. Itís because youíre in that class, you think, well, they wonít touch us. Youíre doing pretty well. Those in academia, for instance. So he says the:)
...class to which a writer belongs must necessarily be the fittest.
(A: Obviously, if youíre pushing that stuff.)
Hence we arrive, under the aegis of a pseudo-Darwinian philosophy, at doctrines such as the Yellow Peril, Australia for the Australians, and the superiority of the Nordic race. On account of the ethical bias, one must view all Darwinian arguments on social questions with the greatest suspicion. This applies not only as between different races, but also as between different classes in the same nation. All Darwinian writers belong to the professional classes, and it is therefore an accepted maxim of Darwinian politics that the professional classes are biologically the most desirable. It follows that their sons ought to get a better education at the public expense than that which is given to the sons of wage-earners.
(A: And thatís what they call the people often, when they write about wage-earners. Amongst themselves theyíve got more derogatory terms.)
In all such arguments it is impossible to see an application of science to practical affairs. There is merely a borrowing of some of the language of science for the purpose of making prejudice seem respectable.
There is, however, a large amount of genuine experimental science in social affairs. Perhaps the most important set of experiments in this realm is that which we owe to advertisers.
(A: Advertisers. And also the general media. And you understand the advertisers have more understanding, and a lot of them branched off and became professors at universities, because theyíre marketers. They know how to bend the mind, in other words, and get you to go along with anything at all. Itís on the delivery that they give that makes you go along with it. He says:)
This material, valuable as it is, has not been utilized by experimental psychologists,
(A: Well, today it is, you see, after this book was written.)
because it belongs to a region remote from the Universities,
(A: Not today, as I say. Itís all part of it.)
and they would feel themselves vulgarized by contact with anything so gross. But anybody who is in earnest in studying the psychology of belief cannot do better than consult the great advertising firms. No test of belief is so searching as the financial one. When a man is willing to back his belief by spending money in accordance with it, his belief must be regarded as genuine. Now this is precisely the test which the advertiser is perpetually applying. Various people's soaps are recommended in various ways; some of these ways produce the desired result, others do not, or at any rate not to the same degree. Clearly the advertisement which causes a man's soap to be bought is more effective in creating belief than the one which does not.
(A: Now you can apply that to politics too, who are you going to vote for, this guy is better than that one, and all the rest of it, because massive marketing is employed. Itís all psychology. Anyway, he goes on to say, down on page 188:)
From the technique of advertising it seems to follow that in the great majority of mankind any proposition will win acceptance if it is reiterated in such a way as to remain in the memory.
Most of the things that we believe we believe because we have heard them affirmed; we do not remember where or why they were affirmed, and we are therefore unable to be critical even when the affirmation was made by a man whose income would be increased by its acceptance and was not backed by any evidence whatever. Advertisements tend, therefore, as the technique becomes perfected, to be less and less argumentative, and more and more merely striking. So long as an impression is made, the desired result is achieved.
Considered scientifically, advertisements have another great merit, which is that their effect, so far as is known through the receipts of the advertisers, are mass effects,
(A: Itís a mass effect on everyone.)
not effects upon individuals, so that the data acquired are data as to mass psychology. For the purposes of studying society rather than individuals, advertisements are therefore invaluable. Unfortunately their purpose is practical rather than scientific. For scientific purposes I suggest the following experiment. Let two soaps, A and B, be manufactured, of which A is excellent and B abominable; let A be advertised by stating its chemical composition and by testimonials from eminent chemists; let B be advertised....
And then they bring in famous people from Hollywood to use it, the beauties, etc, to help push it. Itís all parts of experiments which theyíd already done. Back with more, after this break.
Hi folks, Iím back, Cutting Through the Matrix. Reading a book, itís The Scientific Outlook from Bertrand Russell. And it was in the 1930s he wrote this too, so a lot has changed. They have brought advertising in big time, in mainstream, aimed at the public to change their behavior, ďGo GreenĒ etc. And be austere. And then they get you collecting all the plastic garbage that youíre forced to buy along with products and then you package them for the companies which are given all the plastic for free. Youíve already sorted it out for them, and itís all a big ha-ha at the top levels, where you know the general public are giving them all the raw materials, and then their tax money pays for it to be transported to the factories which again were funded by the taxpayer so as that these individual private companies can get all their stuff for free. Not a bad deal, eh? But itís all Pavlovian training, you see. And Russell goes into this kind of thing, and heís all for it of course, because he doesnít like the wage-earner type. He doesnít mix with them. And he says that:
The advantages of advertisement have come to be realized pretty fully by politicians, but are only beginning to be realized by the Churches;
(A: That was back in the 30s.)
when the Churches become more fully alive to its advantages as compared with the traditional religious technique (which dates from before the invention of printing), we may hope for a great revival of faith. On the whole, the Soviet Government and the Communist religion are those which hitherto have best understood the use of advertisement. They are, it is true, somewhat hampered by the fact that most Russians cannot read;
(A: That was back then.)
this obstacle, however, they are doing their best to remove.
This consideration brings us naturally to the subject of education, which is the second great method of public propaganda.
(A: You see, itís public propaganda, your education.)
Education has two very different purposes: on the one hand it aims at developing the individual and giving him knowledge which will be useful to him; on the other hand it aims at producing citizens who will be convenient for the State or the Church which is educating them. Up to a point these two purposes coincide in practice: it is convenient to the State that citizens should be able to read, and that they should possess some technical skill in virtue of which they are able to do productive work;
(A: Because theyíre the ones that are going to be taxed to death.)
it is convenient that they should possess sufficient moral character to abstain from...
(A: Now listen to this term.)
...abstain from unsuccessful crime,
(A: Why does he say unsuccessful crime? Because the whole monetary system, he knew darn well, since he worked amongst them, is criminal, basically. Itís successful crime. Because they never end up in prison when they rip off a country. Anyway, he says:)
and sufficient intelligence to be able to direct their own lives. But when we pass beyond these elementary requirements, the interests of the individual may often conflict with those of the State or the Church. This is especially the case in regard to credulity. To those who control publicity, credulity is an advantage, while to the individual a power of critical judgment is likely to be beneficial; consequently the State does not aim at producing a scientific habit of mind, except in a small minority of experts, who are well paid, and therefore, as a rule, supporters of the status quo.
Among those who are not well paid credulity is more advantageous to the State; consequently children in school are taught to believe what they are told and are punished if they express disbelief.
(A: Itís still going on today. You either be part of the group or youíre anti-social, you see. Donít be an individual.)
In this way a conditioned reflex is established, leading to a belief in anything said authoritatively by elderly persons of importance.
(A: You see. Thatís how itís done. Thatís why you have obedience to authority or uniforms or whatever. He says:)
You and I, reader, owe our immunity from spoliation to this beneficent precaution on the part of our respective Governments.
One of the purposes of the State in education is certainly, on the whole, beneficent. The purpose in question is that of producing social coherence. In mediaeval Europe, as in modern China, the lack of social coherence proved disastrous.
(A: And then he goes on to explain what happened. He says at the bottom of the page.)
Modern inventions and modern technique have had a powerful influence in promoting uniformity of opinion
(A: You see. Uniformity of opinion.)
and making men less individual than they used to be. Read, for example, The Stammering Century by Gilbert Seldes, and compare it with America at the present day. In the nineteenth century new sects were perpetually springing up, new prophets were founding communities in the wilderness; celibacy, polygamy, free love, all had their devotees, consisting not of single cranks, but of whole cities. A somewhat similar mental condition existed in Germany in the sixteenth century, in England in the seventeenth, and in Russia until the establishment of the Soviet Government. But in the modern world there are three great sources of uniformity in addition to education: these are the Press, the cinema,
(A: For your movies)
and the radio.
(A: Of course, theyíve got television now, as well.)
The Press has become an agent of uniformity as a result of technical and financial causes: the larger the circulation of a newspaper, the higher the rate it can charge for its advertisements and the lower the cost of printing per copy. A foreign correspondent costs just as much whether his newspaper has a large or a small circulation; therefore his relative cost is diminished by every increase in circulation.
(A: So he goes through the techniques of the media, and how they must always advertise themselves. You hear all the mainstream advertise themselves all the time. Thatís so as to try and get them to increase their coverage, because the advertising can go up then, ďoh, you reach millions of people,Ē and so on. And so, the advertising costs go up. So, if you want to put an ad in their paper itís going to cost you a fortune. And then some of them are so good, they can even get the ones who read it to advertise for them for free. And they donít even know theyíre getting used. Itís all techniques, isnít it? He says:)
But perhaps the most important of all the modern agents of propaganda is the cinema.
(A: Movies, basically.)
Where the cinema is concerned....
And weíll talk about that when we come back from this break.
HI folks, Iím Alan Watt. Weíre back Cutting Through the Matrix. Reading from The Scientific Outlook by Bertrand Russell, Lord Bertrand Russell, a man who was in many, he was a member of many international organizations. He was given presidential authority in the US as part of the Macy Group, along with the Vienna School that was brought over, and the Frankfurt School, to radically change the Post-World War II culture of America, for more obedience to authority. And actually, they said that America had too much in common with their ex-enemy the Nazi regime. And thatís supposedly the reason that Truman gave them the right to do this. And they did, every part of culture change that weíve lived through from really the 40s to the present time. The ongoing trends, the fashions, the morality or immorality, were all discussed and helped to be put into effect by Bernays and Russell and many others of the Macy Group, for those who donít understand it, including abortion, that would become common and be treated like a normal cold or something, you know. Thatís no kidding. Thatís how far back they planned it, in the 1930s. Anyway, he says:
But perhaps the most important of all the modern agents of propaganda is the cinema.
(A: Movies, etc. He talks about the cost of production, which is just colossal:)
The costs of a good production are colossal, but are no less if it is exhibited seldom than if it is exhibited often and everywhere. The Germans and the Russians have their own productions....
(A: Well, they had then, because the Germans were way ahead of America in the 30s, and most of them came over right to Hollywood when they were kicked out, and started doing the same stuff there. Thatís when you had those scantily-clad women on stage in the 1930s, it was very risquť, and that came right from Germany. Same dances, same everything, same costumery, only in Germany theyíd gone further at the time and they put them naked, because there was a depression on and they did what they were told. Anyway:)
In the rest of the civilized world the products of Hollywood preponderate. The great majority of young people in almost all civilized countries derive their ideas of love, of honour, of the way to make money, and of the importance of good clothes, from the evenings spent in seeing what Hollywood thinks good for them. I doubt whether all the schools and churches combined have as much influence as the cinema upon the opinions of the young in regard to such intimate matters as love and marriage and money-making.
(A: Well, thatís absolutely true. Monkey see, monkey do.)
The producers of Hollywood are the high-priests of a new religion. Let us be thankful for the lofty purity of their sentiments. We learn from them that sin is always punished,
(A: Thatís how you watch the average movie, the bad guy always gets it.)
and virtue is always rewarded.
(A: Itís a complete fairy tale.)
True, the reward is rather gross, and such as a more old-fashioned virtue might not wholly appreciate. But what of that? We know from the cinema that wealth comes to the virtuous,
(A: Just because youíre good.† Youíre good so you become wealthy. Itís a complete fantasy.)
and from real life that old So-and-so has wealth. It follows that old So-and-so is virtuous, and that the people who say he exploits his employees are slanderers and troublemakers. The cinema therefore plays a useful part in safeguarding the rich from the envy of the poor.
(A: And then Iím going to go back into, thereís many other parts here too. And he goes on to the other techniques of holding on to power. He says:)
The latest stage in the education of the most intellectual....
(A: Intelligent, right. Heís talking about how they classify all of the wage earners.)
The latest stage in the education of the most intellectual of the governing class will consist of training for research.
(A: So the governing class will consist of training for research. Ongoing, never-ending research.)
Research will be highly organized, and young people will not be allowed to choose what particular piece of research they shall do.
(A: As Iíve said this before. You think in science that you can go anywhere you want. No, you canít. The Big Boys like Rockefeller and the ones that fund you, and the CIA, tell you which area to go into.)
They will, of course, be directed to research in those subjects for which they have shown special ability. A great deal of scientific knowledge will be concealed from all but a few. There will be arcana reserved for a priestly class of researchers,
(A: And Iíve been told that from some professors who have been lucky enough to get into real archives, as opposed to the university libraries. They have real archives with very old stuff, which is all proven and true. And he says, there will be a class of researchers:)
who will be carefully selected for their combination of brains with loyalty. One may, I think, expect that research will be much more technical than fundamental. The men at the head of any department of research will be elderly,
(A: Now, this is true, how it is today.)
and content to think that the fundamentals of their subject are sufficiently known. Discoveries which upset the official view of fundamentals,
if they are made by young men,
(A: Young students.)
will incur disfavour....
(A: In other words, you see, when you go into university, and you go into experimentation in various sciences, and you come up with some new thing that hasnít been discussed, well, believe you me, theyíve found it long, long ago, but youíre not supposed to know it. And if you do find it out, this is what he says:)
Discoveries which upset the official view of fundamentals, if they are made by young men, will incur disfavour, and if rashly published will lead to degradation. Young men to whom any fundamental innovation occurs will make cautious attempts to persuade their professors to view the new ideas with favour, but if these attempts fail they will conceal their new ideas until they themselves have acquired positions of authority, by which time they will probably have forgotten them.
(A: You see, weíre supposed to only know what weíre meant to know. And once you get up there, and you have discovered stuff, and youíve played ball with the professor who says ďno, donít talk about that. Take the official stuff thatís already been found and just repeat it.Ē By the time you get older, youíre getting so well rewarded, youíve got an easy life as a Professor, and you keep quiet about it.)
The atmosphere of authority and organization will be extremely favourable to technical research, but somewhat inimical to such subversive innovations as have been seen, for example, in physics during the present century. There will be, of course, an official metaphysic, which will be regarded as intellectually unimportant but politically sacrosanct.
(A: Itís like global warming, you see, and the need for austerity.)
In the long run, the rate of scientific progress will diminish, and discovery will be killed by respect for authority.
As for the manual workers, they will be discouraged from serious thought: they will be made as comfortable as possible, and their hours of work will be much shorter than they are at present; they will have no fear of destitution
(A: Well, itís here now.)
or of misfortune to their children. As soon as working hours are over, amusements will be provided, of a sort calculated to cause wholesome mirth,
(A: All the comedies that you laugh away at, and so on. Very base, generally, most of them.)
and to prevent any thoughts of discontent which otherwise might cloud their happiness.
(A: So, everything youíre living through has been well discussed, the techniques and so on. And when you go into page 252, he says:)
Scientific breeding, in any truly scientific form, would at present encounter insuperable obstacles both from religion and from sentiment.
(A: From basically the natural order.)
To carry it out scientifically it would be necessary, as among domestic animals, to employ only a small percentage of males for purposes of breeding.
(A: Have you looked into who supplies the sperm and so on for all that artificial insemination thatís going on? Who gives them the licenses to do it? Specific doctors and so on, who gives them the license? The state does. But the state also comes with other lists of instructions as well.)
It may be thought that religion and sentiment will always succeed in opposing an immovable veto to such a system. I wish I could think so. But I believe that sentiment is quite extraordinarily plastic,
(A: Thatís the emotions and so on and morality.)
and that the individualistic religion to which we have been accustomed is likely to be increasingly replaced by a religion of devotion to the State.
(A: Devotion to the State, folks.)
Among Russian Communists this has already happened. In any case, what is demanded is scarcely as difficult a control of natural impulses as is involved in the celibacy of the Catholic priesthood.
[...]† I think, therefore, that there is hardly any limit to the departures from traditional sentiment which science may introduce into the question of reproduction. If the simultaneous regulation of quantity and quality is taken seriously in the future, we may expect that in each generation some 25 per cent. of women and some 5 per cent. of men will be selected to be the parents of the next generation...
(A: And theyíve already done the studies for IQ and certain traits, and they go through their whole family histories, remember too, when they talk about using a small group of men to impregnate all the women, basically. And he says:)
...5 per cent. of men will be selected to be the parents of the next generation, while the remainder of the population will be sterilized,
(A: Iíve given so many talks on The Disappearing Male. Iíve given all the articles and videos to look at to do with the sperm count in the average male today. The UN gleefully publishes it every year, as itís dropping and dropping. Theyíre very happy with it dropping down to about 85% sterile in young men. Itís not classed as a crisis, because itís planned, obviously, or it would be a crisis.)
which will in no way interfere with their sexual pleasures,
(A: Even though theyíre sterile.)
but will merely render these pleasures destitute of social importance. The women who are selected for breeding will have to have eight or nine children each,
but will not be expected to perform any other work except the suckling of the children for a suitable number of months. No obstacles will be placed upon their relations with sterile men, or upon the relations of sterile men and women with each other, but reproduction will be regarded as a matter which concerns the State, and will not be left to the free choice of the persons concerned. Perhaps it will be found that artificial impregnation is more certain and less embarrassing, since it will obviate the need of any personal contact between the father and mother of the prospective child.
(A: Remember this was written in the í30s. And in the last two or three years, weíve heard about these, the women who carry for other people, and even homosexuals have got together and theyíve taken the sperm, impregnated the ovum and then placed it in the female carriers. Lesbians are doing it. Iíve got a lot of articles on lesbians doing the same thing. They donít want to carry the child themselves, but they want a child, and they even order, they order like a magazine who the donor will be. You know, should we have a six foot tall Irishman? Iím not kidding about that. I know someone thatís did that. And things like that.
You understand, weíre not going through day by day stumbling down through time. Weíre going through a format, a planned format, that was planned a long time ago, because what heís saying here, by the way, youíll find that HG Wells was writing it in the í20s; he belonged to the same organization. And he [Russell] says here:)
Sentiments of personal affection may still be connected with intercourse not intended to be fruitful....
(A: So, promiscuity would be encouraged, you see. Not bonding. In fact, Bertrand Russell, this is his book, in the 1920s he was given a Royal Charter for Experimental Schools where he promoted pre-pubertal sex with children, to see if they would bond later in life, if they were very promiscuous. And of course they could have lots of sex, later in life, they found, but they couldnít bond for any length of time with any person. So it was successful. Theyíre always experimenting on the public and you donít even know it. If anybody else had tried that theyíd be probably hung in that day and age for pedophilia and that kind of stuff. But no, if youíre given authority by the Crown, you go ahead and do it. Much, much worse things have happened, actually.)
The qualities for which parents will be chosen will differ greatly according to the status which it is hoped the child will occupy. In the governing class a considerable degree of intelligence will be demanded of parents; perfect health will, of course, be indispensable. So long as gestation is allowed to persist to its natural period, mothers will also have to be selected by their capacity for easy delivery, and will therefore have to be free from an unduly narrow pelvis.
(A: Odd, that, too, because in the 1950s and 60s, the women started to be bioengineered like the males. The males started to lose the breadth of their shoulders. Women started to become, got narrower pelvises, until in the 60s, because of the food they were eating and injections and so on, theyíd never heard of Caesarean sections before, not since the days of Caesar, basically.)
It is probable, however, that as time goes on the period of gestation will be shortened, and the later months of foetal development will take place in an incubator.
(A: Thatís what Iíve been talking about too. I read the article a few weeks ago about exogenesis, where these women said it was unfair for women to carry children. It was an unfair burden that nature put on them so nature was all wrong, and therefore theyíre getting massive funding to find ways to have basically external, scientifically-designed wombs, which they can then bring up children in.)
This would also free mothers from the need of suckling their children, and would thus make maternity a not very onerous matter. The care of infants intended to belong to the governing class would seldom be left to the mothers. Mothers would be selected by their eugenic qualities, and these would not necessarily be the qualities required in a nurse. On the other hand, the early months of pregnancy might be more burdensome than at present, since the foetus would be subjected to various kinds of scientific treatment intended to affect beneficially not only its own characteristics but those of its possible descendants.
(A: So, heís talking about genetic manipulation to make them superior.)
Fathers would, of course, have nothing to do with their own children. There would be in general only one father to every five mothers, and it is quite likely that he would never have even seen the mothers of his children. The sentiment of paternity would thus disappear completely. Probably in time the same thing would happen, though to a slightly less degree, in regard to mothers. If birth were prematurely induced, and the child separated from its mother at birth, maternal sentiment would have little chance to develop.
(A: Because they donít want bonding with parents, you see. Other experiments have been done in other countries. Even the kibbutzes in Israel tried that at the beginning too, separating the children at birth, and it didnít win out in the end. The mothers actually eventually demanded to government that they had to raise their own children, not communally.)
Among the workers it is probable that less elaborate care would be taken, since it is easier to breed for muscle than to breed for brains, and it is not unlikely that women would be allowed to bring up their own children in the old-fashioned natural manner. There would not be, among the workers, the same need as among the governors for fanatical devotion to the State, and there would not be, therefore, on the part of the government the same jealousy of the private affections. Among the governors,
(A: He says:)
one must suppose, all private sentiments would be viewed with suspicion.
(A: Now, heís going right along the lines that eventually Brave New World from Aldous Huxley went into. In Huxleyís Brave New World, this super-bred class could mate with each other, but you couldnít mate with the same person I think twice in a month or something. So, it was anti-social not to have partner after partner.)
A man and woman who showed any ardent devotion to each other would be regarded as they are at present regarded by moralists when they are not married. There would be professional nurses in creches, and professional teachers in nursery schools, but they would be considered to be failing in their duty if they felt any special affection for special children. Children who showed any special affection for a particular adult would be separated from that adult. Ideas of this kind are already widespread; they will be found suggested, for example, in Dr. John B. Watson's book on education. The tendency of the scientific manipulator is to regard all private affections as unfortunate. Freudians have shown us that they are the sources of complexes.
And Freud had a big part in this too. You understand that Darwin was put forward at the right time to change ideas of religion and cause and purpose. Freud was put out there at the right time too, to try and promote what would beóitís a pseudo-scienceópsychiatry and psychology. But to try again, through massive media and movies from the Hollywood crowd, that they could fix anything that was wrong with your mind by using Freudian techniques. Back with more, after this break.
Hi folks, Iím Alan Watt, Cutting Through the Matrix. Reading one of the many books put out by Bertrand Russell, a big player in many big global think tanks that helped set up the system that weíve been living through for the last fifty years, basically, because he attended them all. He was a member of them all. A big player and his advice was always sought out by the various professors from all different academies. Anyway, he said here, ďIn such a world,Ē this is where you got lots of promiscuity but no bonding, and so on:
In such a world, though there may be pleasure, there will be no joy. The result will be a type displaying the usual characteristics of vigorous ascetics. They will be harsh and unbending, tending towards cruelty in their ideals
(A: Thatís what weíre hearing about today, nothing but cruelty, they come out blatantly talking about culling folk off and so on.)
and their readiness to consider that the infliction of pain is necessary for the public good.
(A: Now, since 9/11 youíve all seen the movies theyíve been churning out, from again, Hollywood, that gives you all your opinions and feelings and emotions, and behavior. And theyíve shown you. ďOh, weíve got to torture this guy to get the truth or this building is going to get blown up, or this school bus is going to get blown up,Ē and theyíve churned lots of them out, even for television. Even Canada put one out. It says here:)
...towards cruelty in their ideals and their readiness to consider that the infliction of pain is necessary for the public good.
(A: So, lots of torture. And the threat of torture keeps everybody in place as well, by the way. And the cops now just taser you to death, all across the whole world, and suffer no consequence to it. This is all part of what was designed to happen a long time ago.)
I do not imagine that pain will be much inflicted as punishment for sin, since no sin will be recognized except insubordination
(A: To the State.)
and failure to carry out the purposes of the State. It is more probable that the sadistic impulses which the asceticism will generate will find their outlet in scientific experiment.
(A: Itís all genetics today, isnít it?)
The advancement of knowledge will be held to justify much torture of individuals by surgeons, biochemists, and experimental psychologists. As time goes on the amount of added knowledge required to justify a given amount of pain will diminish, and the number of governors attracted to the kinds of research necessitating cruel experiments will increase.
(A: Thereís lots and lots of them going into this stuff. Look at that thing I read yesterday with all the fetal parts getting sold from the States to New Zealand, and the class there was full of people, because itís a big money-making thing.)
Just as the sun worship of the Aztecs demanded the painful death of thousands of human beings annually, so the new scientific religion will demand its holocausts of sacred victims. Gradually the world will grow more dark and more terrible. Strange perversions of instinct will first lurk in the dark corners and then gradually overwhelm the men in high places.
(A: Well, thatís where it starts, is in high places. All perversions do.)
Sadistic pleasures will not suffer the moral condemnation that will be meted out to the softer joys, since, like the persecutions of the Inquisition, they will be found in harmony with the prevailing asceticism. In the end such a system must break down either in an orgy of bloodshed or in the rediscovery of joy.
And then he goes on and on and on. You understand, thereís nothing that weíre going through that wasnít planned, by the planners. There are world planners, specialized divisions of them, that meet every year, and get treaties put in that effect academia. They effect everything in society, right down to instructions, to Hollywood, on where youíre supposed to go for the next ten years. Because it takes about five to ten years to prepare a society for a new leap forward in any cultural direction whatsoever. Youíre living through a script.
Anyway, I hope I havenít bored you. And from Hamish and myself, from Ontario, Canada, itís good night, and may your god or your gods go with you.