Oct. 5, 2012 (#1187)
Alan Watt "Cutting Through The Matrix" LIVE on RBN:
Poem Copyright Alan Watt Oct. 5, 2012:
Save the Planet:
Don't Fidget, become a Midget:
Their Dogma, Flames-a-Fanning,
Reaching New Heights Beyond Family Planning,
Promoting Vegetarianism, No Red Meat,
You can Trust Monsanto for All You Eat,
To Save the Planet Reality Morphs
As They Suggest Turning Us into Dwarfs,
If You're Morally Responsible, Go Along,
Join the Obedience to Authority Midget Throng,
Helped by Pharma, The Rest, Played Like a Piano,
Will Join Eventually, No Base, Just Soprano"
© Alan Watt Oct. 5, 2012
Poem & Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt - Oct. 5, 2012 (Exempting Music, Literary Quotes, and Callers' Comments)
Hi folks. I am Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix on October 5, 2012. For newcomers, make sure you make good use of the website cuttingthroughthematrix.com. There’s lots and lots of audios for free download there. You’ll see a bunch of sites listed on it too; these are all the official sites. They carry free audios for download and they all carry transcripts in English for print-up of a lot of the talks I’ve given over the years. If you go into alanwattsentientsentinel.eu you’ll find transcripts in other languages. Remember too, you are the audience that bring me to you because I don’t bring on advertisers as guests, who terrify you and then sell you things to save yourself. I depend upon you the listeners to just keep me ticking over, because I’m not building any big organization here at all. That’s the only way I can really keep clean from all the temptations that are out there to get much, much, much bigger. So if you want to buy the books and discs at cuttingthroughthematrix.com you can go into the website, you’ll find out how to do it. [Order and donation options listed above.] Straight donations are awfully welcome in these austere times, as we go through inflation and austerity; it’s all mixed together, you see. It’s planned that way.
What I do, as I say, I go through the stuff from the past and bring it up to the present to show you that nothing is happening today that wasn’t planned a long time ago. Nothing at all. Nothing. Not one single part of anything that’s happening on a major scale that wasn’t planned a long time ago, sometimes a hundred years ago, right down to the cultural changes. You must change culture to devalue life, you understand, and to get the public to accept the fact that life is cheap. And there are ways to do it, which have all been done already. Then you start convincing the public that there’s too many of them. Once you’ve done that you bring in sterilization policies, etc. and various other techniques to make sure they never bond for life or have children; that’s the big push. Because you see, we’re under world management and we have been for an awful long time.
It started off in London, England and then they gave half of their branch over to the US to fund and promote, through the different foundations that were set up there. These tax-free foundations are owned by the biggest bankers on the planet, the international money lenders in fact to nations. Under philanthropy they are the parallel government that runs the world. There’s not a facet of life to do with, whether it’s military or social sciences or anything else, that they’re not into. They’re into everything across the world, planning the future, always planning the future to ensure that the proper race – they used to call it ‘the race’, you see, the superior biological entities that they are – come through into a good future, and leaving all those of lesser breeds behind them. And I’m not kidding about that because they’ve written about it themselves, lots of stuff, starting off in the 1700s and escalating from then.
You’re living through a planned society, with planned demography to do with population distribution, consumption, sustainability, fertility, infertility, all of these things are all combined in it, in this big business plan. They really see the world, and all of the little businesses, collectively as one huge enterprise that they own, you understand. That’s why they’re so interested in making sure they control all of it across the planet. And where at one time the US used to send missionaries across the planet handing out Bibles, today they send out professors and NGOs from universities to convince the public to go for sterilization in Third World countries, and they’ll get little cards and coupons if they do that where they can withdraw cash etc. Maybe glass beads would be better. Back with more after this break.
Hi folks, I’m back Cutting Through The Matrix and talking about this idea of demography and populations scattered across the world. You would not believe how well studied all of it is from the Rockefeller foundation and all the other foundations that work in cahoots across the world to bring in their big plans. As I say, they can always use the cattle, those they intend to sterilize and who will die off, they can use them when they’re young to fight their wars, because they have a lot of wars to fight too, to standardize the world under this big world enterprise system. Then they die off, as I say, and most of them won’t have children. So they can kill two birds with one stone. And they do this all the time.
We are so micromanaged it’s just incredible when you go into the different university facilities and faculties dealing with all of these, they call them, ‘problems’, the human problem, the aging problem, the fertility problem, all of this. It’s all problems apparently to do with humans because it’s tied in with what they call unsustainability, a good con trick to make you think that there’s a good reason for trying to kill us all off, you see. And they brought the whole global warming idea up too, to bolster this whole idea. It’s always been eugenics, always will be eugenics, and they’ll use many different reasons to try and legitimize what they’re doing. And it’s plausible to some people who have low IQ. But it does work. And they are working at it and they have been doing it, sterilizing whole peoples across the world.
I’ve mentioned many of them over the years to do with, even in places like Peru and so on, where the UN goes in with their NGOs and mass sterilizes thousands and thousands of women and nothing is done about it. They didn’t tell them what they were actually doing. They lied to them and told them they were doing something else. This is quite common. And they feel that they have the right and the duty to go ahead and do this to them, to save the world from being overrun with the lower classes. And it’s always the lower classes that they’re on about.
Now, another part of it too, is Internet security and homeland security. This is from their own site. It’s the only growth industry I think left in the US, is homeland security. But it says…
EU considers far-reaching Internet security initiative
homelandsecuritynewswire.com / 5 October 2012
Cybersecurity is becoming an increasingly more daunting challenge as governments try to prevent attacks against critical infrastructure on which the well-being of countries depends, now, several European countries are trying to come together in an effort to defend themselves against a cyber attack, but critics say the project, called CleanIT, goes too far.
ITNews reports that documents leaked an initiative by the European Union, called CleanIT, shows proposal obligating Internet companies to include anti-terrorism features in their software and set up hotlines with law enforcement agencies to report such issues.
The proposal also includes Internet filtering and virtual policing which have some civil rights and privacy advocates worry about Internet freedom. These advocates argue that voluntary but binding agreements between Internet users Internet service providers (ISP) would compromise this freedom.
According to the leaked document, the goal of CleanIT is to develop a set of general rules and practices that the private sector can follow through non-legislative guidelines. The rules would take affect between six months and two years of an Internet organization committing to the recommendations and rules.
Other rules would include implementing a virtual reporting button in a Web browser or operating system, social media patrolling, increased sharing of information among ISPs, automated terrorist activities detection systems, and content blocking/filtering with subscribers using their real names online.
So, it’s a big, big push, again, into where it had to go from the very beginning, because it was planned that way. And most folk will stay on the Internet because they’re now addicted to it. I said this years ago, that’s what they’d do, they’d give you lots of porn and everything would be free and then they’d start putting in the rules, and once you were hooked, you see, you’ll still stay with it no matter what they do with the information they’re getting from you. It’s already here. It’s all happened, and in quite a fast span of time too.
Now, in the US, as I say, the only growth industry seems to be homeland security. But you see the US middle-class families without enough to eat, and it’s from the BBC News of all places. It’s surprising because they’re not doing enough interviews with people in their own countries in Britain to do with food banks, etc, and how bad it is there. Anyway it says…
The US middle class families without enough to eat
bbc.co.uk / 4 October 2012
Throughout the 2012 presidential campaign, the BBC has returned to Levittown, Pennsylvania to explore issues facing America's middle class.
At a basement food pantry in suburban Pennsylvania, 2,000lb (907kg) of food are given to roughly 160 families a week.
The majority of families come from the Levittown neighbourhoods - an iconic planned suburb that once ushered in the era of a post-World War II American dream. (Alan: See, they always give you dreams, mind you; that’s why you always wake up from them.)
But times have changed and even in quiet, leafy suburbs families now struggle with the basic needs of food and shelter. The number of residents using food pantries has risen dramatically over the past few years throughout the county.
Even those who have jobs can still find the cost of living is too high to make ends meet, as the BBC's David Botti reports. (A: I’ll put that one up and you can read the rest of it if you’re interested at all.)
And this article too is to do with…
Hand-made humans may hold the key to saving the world
brisbanetimes.com.au / September 30, 2012 / Matthew Liao
(A: Now, again, it’s a sensationalism piece. These guys who are trying to promote themselves as a big science, these guys who are eugenicists in bioethics, to do with again, population reduction, are using all techniques to get INTO the major media and to use conning techniques to get, again, to the lower IQ types to try to get them to agree with what they are trying to push. A lot of folk have fallen for this you know.)
Building earth-friendly people ... altering humans may be a safer option than trying to alter the planet. (A: And this guy too, I think he’s a professor who wrote this here. And he says…)
Human-induced climate change (A: ...so it starts off with that.) is one of the biggest problems that we face today. (A: So there’s your premise, which is false. And that’s how they always start their premises, with false premises.) Millions could suffer hunger, water shortages, diseases and coastal flooding because of climate change. The latest science suggests that we may be near or even beyond the point of no return.
Some scientists and policy makers are therefore proposing that we take seriously the idea of geoengineering - that is, large-scale manipulations of the earth, such as spraying sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere to alter the reflectivity of the planet (A: Well, they’ve already been doing that since 1998.). . .
One might be able to use preimplantation genetic diagnosis to select shorter children. (A: ...you see.)
I propose that we consider another solution to the problem of climate change that has not been considered before and that is potentially less risky than geoengineering. Elsewhere my colleagues and I have called this solution ''human engineering''. It involves the biomedical modification of humans to make us better at mitigating (A: I was going to say midget-ing there…), and adapting to the effects of, climate change.
(A: Then he goes into a proposal that he makes…) ...let me make clear that human engineering is intended to be a voluntary activity (A: ...just as voluntary as, mind you, the mass sterilization of people across the world without them even knowing.) - possibly supported by incentives such as tax breaks or sponsored healthcare (A: You know, little bribes, just like giving beads to Indians, the same stuff, you know.) - rather than a coerced, mandatory activity. My colleagues and I are positively against any form of coercion of the sort that the Nazis perpetrated in the past.... (A: No, they’re way beyond that level.)
Also, this proposal is intended for those who believe that climate change is a real problem, and who, as a result, are willing to take seriously geoengineering. Someone who doesn't believe that climate change is a real problem is likely to think that encouraging people to recycle more is an overreaction to climate change.
Finally, the main claim here is a modest one, namely, human engineering should be considered alongside other solutions such as geoengineering. The claim is not that human engineering ought to be adopted as a matter of public policy. This is an attempt to encourage ''outside the box'' thinking vis-a-vis a seemingly intractable problem.
(A: And he goes onto…)
Pharmacological meat intolerance
The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates that 18 per cent of the world's greenhouse emissions (in CO2 equivalents) come from livestock farming (A: Now, they’ve always said that, from a hundred years ago by the way, they want to eliminate all farming livestock for the ordinary folk to have access to, in their early papers. It never changed, they never change their agenda. Then they give you all these little figures that they dream up to try to blame it on animals and so on.). . .
Some experts estimate that each of the world's 1.5 billion cows alone emit 100 litres to 500 litres of methane a day. (A: That’s good stuff for firing your car up, I’ll tell you, because they used to run that in World War II in some countries; it’s really clean-burning stuff.)
Now, some people will simply refuse to give up eating red meat. However, there are others who may be willing to give up eating red meat, but they lack the motivation or willpower to do so. After all, many people find the taste of red meat simply irresistible. . .
Human engineering could help here. Just as some people have a natural intolerance to milk or crayfish, it is possible artificially to induce mild intolerance to red meat by stimulating the immune system against common bovine proteins. (A: See, you’ve got to understand, this is an old thing. They actually use your immune system against you when they’re sterilizing you. That was one of the first techniques they used when they gave out the so-called free tetanus shots from the World Health Organization. It altered the immune system to therefore attack any fertilized egg as a foreign body, but it also ended up causing massive inflammation in the ovaries – they don’t like to mention that part – and they actually sterilized permanently millions of women. These are biowarfare techniques...) . . . stimulating the immune system against common bovine proteins. (A: ...that’s what they can do.)
The immune system would then become primed to react to them, and henceforth eating ''eco-unfriendly'' food would induce unpleasant experiences. (A: Maybe like anaphylactic shock, you know.) Even if the effects would not last a lifetime, the learning effect is likely to persist for a long time. (A: ...training you like YOU are an animal, you see.) A potentially safe and practical way of inducing such intolerance may be to produce ''meat'' patches - akin to nicotine patches. People can then wear these patches before they eat to curb their enthusiasm for red meat. (A: I know what you’d like to patch this guy with, you know, tar and feather him. I think that’s what we should do. You understand, you’re dealing here with mad psychopaths who have got power. Do you understand what I’m saying here? This is not some little fellow just fantasizing here. This is a guy on a big, big wage attached to the World Health Organization and many other societies who are wanting to carry out all these policies, and have already done a lot of these policies and carried them out. I’ll come back with his next idea after these messages.)
Hi folks, I’m back Cutting Through The Matrix, reading an article about bioethics, or eugenics if you like, the guys who are actually at it, really at it, really practicing their work throughout society without the public knowing. And it’s a sensational piece too. It’s to get folk talking about it, you see, that’s why he’s got all this in it. Now he goes into the munchkins you see…
Making humans smaller
Human ecological footprints are partly correlated with our size. We require a certain amount of food and nutrients to maintain each kilogram of body mass. The larger one is, the more food and energy one requires. Larger people also consume more energy in less obvious ways. A car uses more fuel each kilometre to carry a heavier person than a lighter person; more fabric is needed to clothe larger than smaller people; heavier people wear out shoes, carpets and furniture more quickly than lighter people. (A: You can see he’s been to college, you know.)
A way to reduce this ecological footprint would be to reduce size. Since weight increases with the cube of length, even a small reduction in height might produce a significant effect in size. . . .
How could height reduction be achieved? Height is determined partly by genetic factors and partly through diet and stressors. One possibility is to use preimplantation genetic diagnosis, which is now employed in fertility clinics as a means of screening out embryos with inherited genetic diseases. One might be able to use preimplantation genetic diagnosis to select shorter children. (A: I guess they would just abort all the larger ones.) This would not involve modifying or altering the genetic material of embryos in any way. It would simply involve rethinking the criteria for selecting which embryos to implant.
Also, one might consider hormone treatment either to affect growth hormone levels or to trigger the closing of the growth plate earlier than normal. Hormone treatments are already used for growth reduction in excessively tall children. (A: ...that’s like acromegaly, which is really a pituitary gland problem in the anterior lobe. Anyway…)
Finally, there is a strong correlation between birth size and adult height. Gene imprinting - where only one parent's copy of the genes is turned on and the other parent's copy is turned off - has been found to affect birth size. So drugs or nutrients that either reduce the expression of paternally imprinted genes or increase the expression of maternally imprinted genes could potentially regulate birth size.
The last two methods are controversial as they involve making irreversible choices for one's children. But parents are permitted to give hormone treatments to their children, who are otherwise perfectly healthy, so that, for example, a daughter predicted to be 195 centimetres tall could instead be 183 centimetres tall. On what grounds then should we forbid other parents who want to give hormone treatments to their children so that their children could be 152 centimetres tall instead of 165 centimetres tall? It might be thought that in the case of the former, the daughters would later appreciate and consent to the parents' decision. But if climate change would seriously affect the well-being of millions of people including one's children, then these children may also later appreciate and consent to the parents' decision. It is also worth remembering how fluid human traits - such as height - are. A hundred years ago people were much shorter on average (A: ...that’s because they couldn’t get enough red meat to eat.), and there was nothing wrong with them medically. We should be wary of the idea that there is an optimal height, namely, the average height in our society today, since this may simply reflect a status-quo bias.
(A: Then he goes into…)
Lowering birth rates through cognitive enhancement
Another obvious way to reduce ecological footprints is to lower birth rates. There are, of course, many available methods of curbing birth rates, such as the use of contraception. But there is strong evidence that birth rates decline as more women receive adequate access to education.
While the primary reason for promoting education is to improve human rights and well-being (A: Is it really?), fertility reduction may be a positive side-effect in tackling climate change. In general, there seems to be a link between cognition and lower birth rates. In the US, for example, women with low cognitive ability are more likely to have children before age 18. Hence, another possible human engineering solution is to use cognition enhancements, such as Ritalin and Modafinil, to achieve lower birth rates.
As with education, there are many other, more compelling reasons to improve cognition, but the fertility effect may be desirable as a means of tackling climate change. Even if the direct cognitive effect on fertility is minor, cognition enhancements may help increase the ability of people to educate themselves, which would then affect fertility and, indirectly, climate change.
(A: Now here’s the part about altering you and making you ALTRUISTIC, which means obedient and stupid.)
Pharmacological induction of altruism and empathy
Many environmental problems are collective action problems, in which individuals do not co-operate for the common good. (A: ...you know, the greater good of all, all that stuff.) But if people were generally more willing to act as a group, we may be able to enjoy the sort of benefits that arise only when large numbers of people act together.
Pharmacological induction of altruism and empathy may help here. (A: So they’ve got drugs and that they’ll give us, to make us more altruistic and stupid.) There is evidence that altruism and empathy have biological underpinnings. For example, test subjects given the prosocial hormone (A: ...pro-social hormone...) oxytocin were more willing to share money with strangers and to behave in a more trustworthy way. (A: They want to give that to all the taxpayers by the way.) Also, a noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor increased social engagement and co-operation with a reduction in self-focus. (A: It’s like taking ecstasy.) Furthermore, oxytocin appears to improve the capacity to read other people's emotional state, which is a key capacity for empathy. This suggests that interventions affecting the sensitivity in these neural systems could increase the willingness to co-operate with social rules or goals. (A: ...in other words, dumb and stupid, you see.)
Again, I am not proposing that we coerce someone to take up these pharmacological measures. Instead, there might be someone who wants to do the right thing (A: ...the right thing is to obey your Masters, right.), but owing to a weakness of will, cannot get himself to do the right thing. (A: Do you want to be turned into munchkins? eh?) Having the option to use pharmacological means to increase altruism and empathy may allow this person voluntarily to overcome his weakness of will and enable him to do the right thing. (A: ...which is, obey the Masters.)
These examples are intended to illustrate some possible human engineering solutions. Others might include increasing our resistance to heat and tropical diseases, and reducing our need for food and water.
Hi folks, I’m Alan Watt, going through a crazy guy, who’s a eugenicist actually, a professor at a university, who’s getting well-paid and lots of grants from big foundations and so on to push all these policies, to get rid of the unfit basically; that’s what it’s all about. Remember, they didn’t come up with the idea of global warming until the Club of Rome seized on it. They were given the task of finding a reason to justify all their pushes for eugenics and so on, and they hit on that, global warming etc. would fit the bill, they said. So as I say, it’s nothing to do with global warming. Anyway he goes on to say here, this character, that…
Human engineering could also be liberty enhancing. In response to climate change, some people have proposed we adopt something akin to China's one-child policy. For example, a group of doctors in Britain has advocated a two-child maximum. But suppose that the relevant issue is some kind of fixed allocation of greenhouse gas emissions for each family. (A: So in other words, they will punish and reward, you know, if you have too many children.) If so, given fixed allocations of greenhouse gas emissions, human engineering could give families the choice between having one large child, two medium-sized children or three small children. Human engineering seems more liberty enhancing than a policy that says you can have only one or two children. (A: See how these clever bastards change reality [Alan chuckles.] ...in such a slick way, for people with not too high of an intellect, you understand.)
It may turn out that human engineering is not the best way of tackling climate change.
But to concede this now would be to ignore the widely acknowledged fact that we do not know which solutions to. . . (A: use, ...blah blah blah blah blah.)
Matthew Liao is the director of the bioethics (A: ...which is eugenics.) program and an associate professor in the Centre for Bioethics (A: ...Eugenics) in the Department of Philosophy at New York University.
You see, that’s his job, to sit and get big fat paychecks for dreaming up this kind of rubbish, to coerce the public, that they claim there are too many of the wrong kind around the world, because that’s how eugenics started up, remember, that they were too worried at the top that the lesser kind at the bottom would overtake the ones at the top. It’s never changed since then.
Then there’s one here, it’s called…
The Myth of Overpopulation:
Force Mass Sterilizations in Developing Nations
occupycorporatism.com / Susanne Posel / October 5, 2012
Economists claim that overpopulation is causing poverty in underdeveloped nations. In the Philippines, there is an initiative to control the burgeoning population by forcing family planning onto the citizens. Josefina Natividad, director of the University of the Philippines’ Population Institute (UPPI), explains: “If you increase access to contraceptives for women … you will have births averted.” (A: She’s had some training at school too.)
The UPPI began with a grant from the globalist think-tank the Ford Foundation in 1964. (A: They’ve been at this forever.) They influence the Philippine government with research and coercion to push population control agendas with a focus on its impact on local and international communities. The UPPI works with UN-sponsored non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to receive technical assistance in providing reproductive health products. (A: They do lots of abortions as well.)
A reproductive health bill is being pushed by Catholic priests in the Philippines that is expected to “slow population growth”. The church asserts that this will lead to the ideal that abortion is a viable way to keep more children from being born. Father Melvin Castro, executive secretary of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines’ Episcopal Commission on Family and Life, says that: “It’s our firm belief that contraceptives will never be the answer. They are poor not because they have no access to contraceptives but because they have no work. Give them work and it will be the most effective birth spacing means for them.”
The government wants to pour state funds into contraceptives. They disregard the lack of work as a contributing factor to the poverty levels in the Philippines. Using statistics from the World Bank (A: The World Bank, you understand, is heavily involved in FORCED sterilization across the world; there’s too many articles out on it, from their own sites by the way, and the Rockefeller foundation.), the government believes that reducing the amount of children will free up resources that would have otherwise been allocated to those people being born.
According to the RAND Corporation, the push for family planning services have had a tremendous effect on the human population globally. It is in a massive decline that will begin to show itself beginning in an estimated 50 years. (A: They know it’s going to plummet because there are too few folk having children, and a lot of folk have been sterilized already without knowing it.) Based on the agendas of the UN fertility rates worldwide have fallen in underdeveloped nations and these trends are expected to continue.
Because the global Elite claim that global population growth drains our economy and resources, as well as provide a costly burden to the citizens of a nation, the women of developing nations must be refocused to believe that family planning programs and contraception will improve their lives. (A: This is all the propaganda spiel they give them.)
The United Nations Population Fund (UNPFA) provides information to coerce women into believing that any child not planned is unwanted and should be terminated. The access to reproductive services are at the center of the UN’s contention that “reproductive choice is a basic human right.” (A: But there’s so much sterilizations going on without the folk even knowing about it, through free inoculations, like the so-called free phony tetanus vaccine.)
This globalist program endeavors to make reproductive rights a subversive after-thought to supporting family planning services throughout the developing world. These services, as well as the information needed to make good choices, are usually provided as part of a constellation of reproductive health services.
Through adherence to the Millennium Development Goals (A: That’s all part of it, again, the United Nations’ Agenda 21...), the UNFPA pushes to achieve their targets by 2015.
In July of this year, at the London Summit on Family Planning, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation announced a partnership with Merck (A: Merck pharmaceuticals...) to bring fertility control pharmaceuticals to developing nations. (A: Remember too, I’ve got another article here – if I can find it I’ll put it up tonight too – and it’s a science study from their own boys, that are querying this strange phenomena that infant mortality goes up according to the amount of inoculations they’ve been given. They’re killing them off, folks. They’re killing them off, and it’s their own study. And they know they’re doing it too.)
Pharmaceutical giant Merck announced in a formal statement that they will donate $25 million over an 8 year period as a “Merck for Mothers” campaign in line with the BMGF depopulation agenda. By claiming that this initiative is to “reduce maternal morality around the world” and will “advance efforts to help reach United Nations Millennium Development Goal 5, which calls for a 75 percent reduction in maternal mortality and universal access to reproductive health by 2015.”
So these are the ones that are more open about it, but as I say, the rest of them are actually sterilizing them through their inoculations and so on. And the one I’ll put up tonight, it’s called…
Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given:
Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?
It’s their own study into it, so we’ll see where you go with that one, if you want.
An interesting spin on the wheat phenomenon – it’s all modified stuff – and it was on mainstream television, but it’s a guy who is selling a book of course, a Dr. Davis. But he says…
Modern wheat a "perfect, chronic poison," doctor says
cbsnews.com/ September 3, 2012
Will Davis said that the wheat we eat these days isn't the wheat your grandma had: "It's an 18-inch tall plant created by genetic research in the '60s and '70s," he said on "CBS This Morning." "This thing has many new features nobody told you about, such as there's a new protein in this thing called gliadin. It's not gluten. I'm not addressing people with gluten sensitivities and celiac disease. I'm talking about everybody else because everybody else is susceptible to the gliadin protein that is an opiate. This thing binds into the opiate receptors in your brain and in most people stimulates appetite, such that we consume 440 more calories per day, 365 days per year."
Asked if the farming industry could change back to the grain it formerly produced, Davis said it could, but it would not be economically feasible because it yields less per acre. (A: Well it’s not. If he goes and looks at the studies that are out there, they’ve found that it’s actually a third less than they predicted that they actually would have, in all these Monsanto crops.) However, Davis said a movement has begun with people turning away from wheat - and dropping substantial weight. (A: So he’s really pushing it as a weight-loss thing.)
"If three people lost eight pounds, big deal," he said. "But we're seeing hundreds of thousands of people losing 30, 80, 150 pounds.
To avoid these wheat-oriented products, Davis suggests eating "real food," such as avocados, olives, olive oil, meats, and vegetables. "(It's) the stuff that is least likely to have been changed by agribusiness," he said. "Certainly not grains. . . .”
Well unfortunately they changed your potatoes and carrots and everything else, and tomatoes, and yada-ya. They’re changing everything, folks. Because it’s all part of making you die earlier and it’s also part of the sterilization process. But you’ll definitely get cancers out of it. And they know that from all the studies, that are all out, up right now in fact, even the ones from Russia. They’ve always known this though, but that ties in with the first article on basically bioethics, or eugenics, you see. It’s not by accident. Nothing is by accident.
Now, climate skeptics generally don’t get much of a chance to get airtime on public broadcasting, because they were banned for a while. But it’s back again; they’re getting a chance. It says here…
Climate skeptics to once again get airtime on PBS
wattsupwiththat.com / October 3, 2012 / Anthony Watts
Uh oh. I’m sure this will cause brain explosions over at Joe Romm’s place and also at his politically bought and paid for ex-buddy Brad Johnson’s “Forecast the Facts”. . .
Here’s the Press Release from PBS, followed by the preview video below.
Coming October 23, 2012. FRONTLINE explores the massive shift in public opinion on climate change.
Four years ago, climate change was hot. Politicians from both parties, pressed by an anxious public, seemed poised to act. But that was then.
Today, public opinion about the climate issue has cooled, and politicians either ignore the issue or loudly proclaim their skepticism of scientific evidence that human activity is imperiling the planet. What’s behind this reversal? FRONTLINE correspondent John Hockenberry of PRI’s The Takeaway goes inside the organizations that fought the scientific establishment, environmental groups, and lawmakers to shift the direction of debate on climate issues and redefined the politics of global warming.
Watch on air and online beginning October 23 at 10 pm ET on PBS.
So you’ll see that going up and I’ll put this link up tonight for those who actually want to watch it when it comes out. And I’ll put it up at cuttingthroughthematrix.com. Another article too, is about…
Empire building, NATO style:
Welcome to the billion-dollar Temple of Madness
endthelie.com / Richard Cottrell
A former air force base near Brussels, dedicated to the His Majesty the Belgian King, is gradually being converted at an estimated billion dollars (for now – but just watch those numbers fly) to house the nerve center of the biggest war machine the world has ever known.
For the best part of 50 years the legions of peace keepers have been roughing it in a so called temporary structure, having received the unceremonious order of the boot from the late French president Charles De Gaulle. . . (A: Well, De Gaulle got fed up with NATO and kicked them out, you see.) So he slung NATO out, lock, stock and barrel with a single contemptuous wave of the hand.
The chief command post of the Cold War lost its [reason for being] in the instant that the Berlin Wall collapsed, along with the entire Soviet Empire. Yet NATO, like Topsy, just went on growing. Thanks to membership multiplying among converts to capitalism in Eastern Europe, NATO’s borders now lap Russia’s, with 28 members all told and more in the queue. This is a rather strange state of affairs given that the former Public Enemy Number One, the old bogey of communism, gave up the ghost back in 1989.
In normal circumstances, this spanking new structure would need to mount a telescope the size of the one topping Mount Palomar to scour the world for potential enemies. What happened of course is that NATO went looking for enemies under the banner of its new self-appointed role as global humanitarian Protector in Chief.
In the past the summit office of Lord Protector (Secretary General, currently occupied by the Great Dane, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, NATO’s Very Own Viking) was a fairly low key job, reserved for some generally unknown figure plucked from the obscurity of backwater politics.
The best known was the Belgian, Willy Claes, but only because he got the sack in 1995 after just a year in office. He was caught with his hands in the till in a famous corruption scandal concerning a huge deal involving Italian helicopters. (His NATO biography airbrushes 1984-style the facts about this. Secretary Gens are above reproach, like biblical prophets). Rasmussen, on the other hand, certainly a smart, dedicated self-courting promoter, a long time ornament of Right-wing dry as dust Danish politics, has acquired something of the status of a rock star in the global military-industrial firmament.
He’s certainly the greatest Dane since, well, Hans Christian Anderson. His suite of offices in the current ‘run down’ structure intentionally reminds visitors of the Oval Office in the West Wing of the White House. . . . (A: Then it goes on about the plush seat of power and so on and so on.)
Rasmussen regards himself as one of the most important figures on earth, and in a sense he is perfectly correct. Certainly he belongs to the quintet completed by the President of the United States, the military commander of SHAPE (Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe), the Secretary General of the UN and increasingly, whoever happens to be President of the EU Council of Ministers. (A: So it goes on and on and on with some of the history of it, and talking about the big shots that they’ve employed, and the fact that they’re going looking for trouble across the planet. Because they have to, to keep their reason for being going, even though their old reason for being for going is long gone. It’s a pity they weren’t as well.)
And the EU, this big financial nondemocratic system they have, this big massive parliamentary system in Europe...
EU financial watchdog 'systemically sabotaged fraud investigations'
(A: ...which they do every year, and this article comes out every year too.)
telegraph.co.uk / Bruno Waterfield / Jan 2011
Slim Kallas is accused of putting 'heavy pressure' on investigators to tone down findings of abuse. (A: ...meaning fraud, you see.)
Maarten Engwirda, a former Dutch member of European Court of Auditors for 15 years, who retired 10 days ago, has alleged that abuse of EU funds was swept under the carpet by an auditing body that was supposed to expose wrongdoing.
"There was a practice of watering down if not completely removing criticism," he told the Dutch Volkskrant newspaper yesterday.
Slim Kallas, the European Commission's vice-president, who was responsible for anti-fraud measures from 2004 to 2010 and who is now the EU transport chief, is accused of putting "heavy pressure" on investigators to tone down findings of abuse.
Mr Kallas also clashed with the Court of Auditors over its use of strict accounting standards which meant that the EU’s annual accounts have embarrassingly never been given a clean bill of health. (A: It’s utterly corrupt, like every other… It’s not a nation, what can you call it? It’s like the UN, it’s not a nation either. But they’re all corrupt. But all nations are too.) Mr Engwirda, 67, also described an endemic “cover-up culture” within the court and wider EU institutions that had prevented the true extent of fraud from being disclosed.
"All these abuses never came out into the open because of the Kremlin-style information we provided. But it didn't enhance our reputation one bit," he said.
The former Dutch national auditor highlighted strong pressure from France to bury a notorious fraud case involving the Fléchard dairy and abuse of EU butter export subsidies worth tens of millions in the 1990s.
"I had to threaten to resign as head of the investigation and to inform the outside world," he said.
So anyway, corruption goes on and it’s a way of life if you’ve got money systems and you’ve got secretive societies running your countries, which you do, all countries do. In fact, the real governments that run you are secret, you understand. Read Francis Bacon’s The New Atlantis to do with America, for instance. It’s not the guys you elect that run it; they’re told what to do. Look at all the foundations’ reports; you’ll see who runs the governments. And look at all the statements given by people who belong to the Royal Institute of International Affairs; they tell you that they are the parallel government, which means the real one. [Alan chuckles.] Anyway, I’ll put that up tonight too. And...
Europe’s Media Goes Completely Deaf & Dumb When It Comes To Record High Antarctic Sea Ice
notrickszone.com / P Gosselin / 2. October 2012
Ice level. Back with more after this.
Hi folks, I’m back Cutting Through The Matrix. There’s a caller hanging on the line if he’s still there. It’s Carlton from New York, are you still there Carlton?
Carlton: Hello Mr. Watt, how are you doing?
Alan: Not bad at all.
Carlton: I was just thinking, because you touched on man-made global warming earlier, and it seems as though, like, the folks running the world, they do that... like they have a weird sense of humor, whereas they’ll say it’s one thing of course and blame it on the public. Like, okay, global warming for instance, they say it’s the population that’s causing the global warming, but, the things that we do, for one, we work under the system that they have built for us. For two, they are the ones who are geoengineering the earth and causing the warming. Well the little bit of warming that is happening, you know what I’m saying, basically they’re creating a blanket over the doggone earth, and keeping the warmth inside. So it’s like they have a weird sense of humor. I was even listening to one of your older talks and you said something about how you had believed that after 9/11, well, after the first time the World Trade Center got bombed in ’93 the bin Laden company came in and did the rebuilding. And you said maybe that’s when they put the charges in it. But if that’s what happened, technically, if that was what happened, technically bin Laden did do it. It’s like they have a weird way of saying it’s one thing and then back...
Alan: Well yeah, it was the bin Laden family that worked with the Bush corporation, the Bush family. And their job, they built underground bunkers across the world for ultra-elite, governments and so on, wealthy people. They did get the contract for fixing the towers after the first attempt, and they had years to implant stuff throughout all those towers. But I don’t think even bin Laden himself was involved in that, but the rest of the family were. In fact, the day the towers came down the group corporation, the Laden/Bush group, were meeting further down the street in New York City; they were having a business meeting that very day when it happened – how is that for irony? – and that actually happened, that was recorded too, even in the television clips they showed in Canada. So I mean you can’t make this stuff up. You can’t make this stuff up at all. You’re quite right.
But the same with the spraying, you’re right. Now, we’ve never had stable climate. We get bits of warm phases for a few years and then colder phases for a few years. In World War II they said it was one of the hottest summers they’d had, where the tar was melting on the roads in Britain and elsewhere in Europe; then of course it went back to being cool again. The problem with the spraying is, and I’ve noticed this here too, the more spraying they do, it doesn’t just reflect heat away, it traps the heat underneath it by reflecting it back and forth all the time, to the ground and back to the particles; lots of folk have noticed that as well. So understand, from the big boys involved in it and all their thousands of mouthpieces in bioethics, etc, and demographics, you can never expect any truth from them at all. They’re all on board with an agenda. They must fool all of us into the reasons why they must tamper and sterilize, and kill off a lot of us, and that’s really the bottom line of it. And remember, that CO2 itself is a tiny fraction of so-called greenhouse gases. The greatest amount of greenhouse gases is water vapor; they never touch on that at all. So the whole art, you see, is to con us, con us, con us with something. If you’re not well informed about it, it’s seemingly, maybe, a little bit plausible, and that’s how they try and get the public to accept their own demise. We must participate in our own destruction. That’s how it’s done. It’s great propaganda though and marketing. Thanks for calling.
And from Hamish and myself from Ontario, Canada, it’s good night and may your God or your Gods GO with you.
Topics of show covered in following links:
Homeland Security, the Only Growth Industry
Food Banks Cater to US Middle-Class
Hand-Made Humans---Propaganda Piece
Myth of Overpopulation
World Bank and Overpopulation
Infant Mortality Rates Increase with Vaccinations
Modern Wheat, A Perfect Modern Poison
Climate Skeptics to Get Airtime on PBS
NATO and Empire Building
Corruption in EU
Antarctic Sea Ice Hits Quiet Record High